(no subject)
May. 23rd, 2010 09:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
opusculusSo I'm still reading The Spiritual Brain, but slowly because it keeps pissing me off. I figured it would be basically neuroscience from a religious perspective, but actually it's basically a giant diatribe about atheism, so... yeah. Considering I'm an atheist, this book has, to say the least, not endeared itself to me. But I want to finish it anyway, so you get to deal with my ranting while I try.
...What? NO REALLY HOW DOES THIS FOLLOW. I seriously don't get the logic of "well if this wasn't the way things were supposed to go so anything coming from it must be BAD and WRONG."
(And not even getting into the whole "yes, when you're living in groups of 20-1000 people, selfishness is totally a great plan sure to provide you with lots of success. Shit man, have the people saying this ever gone to a small school or lived in a small town or anything? Selfishness doesn't work that well as a survival strategy if everyone knows each other and has to work together.)
...and yep, they then went straight for Christianity is an evolved and morally superior religion over animism, and the fact that it's popular somehow proves that altruism is alive and well. OH AND BUDDHISM TOO OF COURSE BECAUSE JUST MENTIONING CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE TOO OBVIOUS.
...Uh, yeah dude, that's why chimpanzees are generally studied a lot more closely than gorillas. Also, how much time do humans really spend in social activities, really? I know damn well I don't spend 25% of my time socializing. (Unless we count the internet. Best invention for introverts ever.) But a statement like that begs a question that just isn't answered.
...Yes. Yes it can. Now provide some, motherfucker, or shut the fuck up.
Personally, I am actually deeply reassured by the fact that my belief system can be disproved, because it means I have a chance in hell of finding out if I'm wrong. And considering one of my biggest problems with religion in general that any theory of the universe that, by its very premise, can't be disproven just never struck me as very useful...yeah I don't think there's any way I could disagree with this particular argument more. Saying that a materialistic/atheist philosophy leads to defensiveness and strict enforcement of idealogy for fear of being proved wrong is just...I'm not going to say there probably aren't atheists who feel that way, because I'm sure there are, but I've never read any who struck me that way. It's generally more a philosophy of "yeah, I could be wrong, but I just don't think a religious-based explanation of the world is the most plausible." I've seen a shitload more fundamentalist religious people than fundamentalist atheists.
Of course the Christian's the charismatic one. Which is probably petty to point out, but hey.
I don't know, there's something about this quote that caught my attention in a less negative way than this book usually manages, but I can't quite place it. It's true as far as it goes, but it's also completely missing the point, obviously. This is part of a critique of the "God Spot" in the brain idea, which is basically the idea that the temporal lobes are the center of religious experiences, as proven by a marked tendency among temporal lobe epileptics to experience religious experiences during their seizures and to have a lasting obsession with it. But then it's trying to say that everything that you do as a result of this strengthened belief in religion has to come in limited forms in order to for the religious belief to have derived from one spot in the brain...and that just doesn't follow.
But there's something else that's vaguely pinging me about this section and I can't quite figure out what.
I couldn't find a direct quote from his section on free will, but I just...even after reading his arguments, I still don't understand why the seat of the consciousness being in the brain would prevent that. Which really sums up my entire problem with this book, really. He keeps excerpting quotes from atheists, then saying basically "Free will is good! This is why the person who made these previous statements is horrible and wrong, because we all know humans aren't unfeeling automatons." and I'm just going "...wait where did they say that they thought humans were unfeeling automatons"? It's the kind of book where if you already agree with him to any degree, I'm sure you could follow his logic pretty easily because it depends very heavily on the prejudices of the audience to make sense. But coming from a completely different perspective, I'm left going "...What? How does that follow?"
...Which deeply leaves the question why I'm even bothering to read this book. I'M NOT SURE EITHER, REALLY.
And yep, of course this is presented as absolute proof of the skeptic's close-mindedness. I can tell you pretty much what I would need to take a near death experience as non-hallucinatory: Videos of the operating room as it was taking place, to see how accurate the patient's out of body vision was, and an interview taken immediately after the patient's recovery without them talking to the nurses or the doctor, also recorded to see how leading they were in asking the questions, in which the patient reported seeing exactly what took place, including something that couldn't be deduced by the mere fact that they knew generally what the surgery would entail. (Them making a cut: predictable. And yes, that was offered as proving something in an NDE. The surgeon waving a lucky dolphin keychain over the patient when they were unconscious: might be predictable if you knew them real well. Something deliberately hidden from the patient's knowledge while they were conscious that they couldn't possibly have known about unless they saw it while floating over their body: Proof.) And I'd want to see it replicated a few times to make sure there wasn't any knowledge leaking around. What the hell would my experiencing it prove over anyone else's? I can hallucinate just as well as anyone else.
....Aaaaaand now he's getting into psi powers being a legitimate area of study. THIS IS SUCH A REPUTABLE BOOK, WITH A DEEP GROUNDING IN SCIENCE.
...okay at this point I'm just flipping through pages without reading them. Blah blah blah mysticism blah blah blah people believing something for thousands of years is scientific proof it exists blah blah blah logic pogo sticks. I GIVE UP. YOUR LOGIC FAIL HAS DEFEATED ME.
In other words, we should be selfish because evolution has wired us this way. And if we are not, our brains are wired wrong. Fair enough. If that is true, we should expect to see that altruists mainly cause trouble for themselves and others by their actions.
...What? NO REALLY HOW DOES THIS FOLLOW. I seriously don't get the logic of "well if this wasn't the way things were supposed to go so anything coming from it must be BAD and WRONG."
(And not even getting into the whole "yes, when you're living in groups of 20-1000 people, selfishness is totally a great plan sure to provide you with lots of success. Shit man, have the people saying this ever gone to a small school or lived in a small town or anything? Selfishness doesn't work that well as a survival strategy if everyone knows each other and has to work together.)
...and yep, they then went straight for Christianity is an evolved and morally superior religion over animism, and the fact that it's popular somehow proves that altruism is alive and well. OH AND BUDDHISM TOO OF COURSE BECAUSE JUST MENTIONING CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE TOO OBVIOUS.
Most apes are not even very social, let alone prone to violence. Gorillas spend only 3 percent of their time in social activities, and chimpanzees only 25 percent.
...Uh, yeah dude, that's why chimpanzees are generally studied a lot more closely than gorillas. Also, how much time do humans really spend in social activities, really? I know damn well I don't spend 25% of my time socializing. (Unless we count the internet. Best invention for introverts ever.) But a statement like that begs a question that just isn't answered.
A monistic system like materialism can be destroyed by any evidence against it.
...Yes. Yes it can. Now provide some, motherfucker, or shut the fuck up.
Personally, I am actually deeply reassured by the fact that my belief system can be disproved, because it means I have a chance in hell of finding out if I'm wrong. And considering one of my biggest problems with religion in general that any theory of the universe that, by its very premise, can't be disproven just never struck me as very useful...yeah I don't think there's any way I could disagree with this particular argument more. Saying that a materialistic/atheist philosophy leads to defensiveness and strict enforcement of idealogy for fear of being proved wrong is just...I'm not going to say there probably aren't atheists who feel that way, because I'm sure there are, but I've never read any who struck me that way. It's generally more a philosophy of "yeah, I could be wrong, but I just don't think a religious-based explanation of the world is the most plausible." I've seen a shitload more fundamentalist religious people than fundamentalist atheists.
Buddha preaching the Fire Sermon, a widow lighting memorial candles, a charismatic Christian speaking in tongues, and a cargo cultist awaiting Prince Philip may show very different mental/brain states. Yet, all these activities can properly be classed as religion.
Of course the Christian's the charismatic one. Which is probably petty to point out, but hey.
I don't know, there's something about this quote that caught my attention in a less negative way than this book usually manages, but I can't quite place it. It's true as far as it goes, but it's also completely missing the point, obviously. This is part of a critique of the "God Spot" in the brain idea, which is basically the idea that the temporal lobes are the center of religious experiences, as proven by a marked tendency among temporal lobe epileptics to experience religious experiences during their seizures and to have a lasting obsession with it. But then it's trying to say that everything that you do as a result of this strengthened belief in religion has to come in limited forms in order to for the religious belief to have derived from one spot in the brain...and that just doesn't follow.
But there's something else that's vaguely pinging me about this section and I can't quite figure out what.
I couldn't find a direct quote from his section on free will, but I just...even after reading his arguments, I still don't understand why the seat of the consciousness being in the brain would prevent that. Which really sums up my entire problem with this book, really. He keeps excerpting quotes from atheists, then saying basically "Free will is good! This is why the person who made these previous statements is horrible and wrong, because we all know humans aren't unfeeling automatons." and I'm just going "...wait where did they say that they thought humans were unfeeling automatons"? It's the kind of book where if you already agree with him to any degree, I'm sure you could follow his logic pretty easily because it depends very heavily on the prejudices of the audience to make sense. But coming from a completely different perspective, I'm left going "...What? How does that follow?"
...Which deeply leaves the question why I'm even bothering to read this book. I'M NOT SURE EITHER, REALLY.
Exasperated, I asked, "What will it take, short of having a near-death experience yourself, to convince you that it's real?"
Very nonchalantly, without batting an eye, the response was: "Even if I were to have a near death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist separately from my brain.
And yep, of course this is presented as absolute proof of the skeptic's close-mindedness. I can tell you pretty much what I would need to take a near death experience as non-hallucinatory: Videos of the operating room as it was taking place, to see how accurate the patient's out of body vision was, and an interview taken immediately after the patient's recovery without them talking to the nurses or the doctor, also recorded to see how leading they were in asking the questions, in which the patient reported seeing exactly what took place, including something that couldn't be deduced by the mere fact that they knew generally what the surgery would entail. (Them making a cut: predictable. And yes, that was offered as proving something in an NDE. The surgeon waving a lucky dolphin keychain over the patient when they were unconscious: might be predictable if you knew them real well. Something deliberately hidden from the patient's knowledge while they were conscious that they couldn't possibly have known about unless they saw it while floating over their body: Proof.) And I'd want to see it replicated a few times to make sure there wasn't any knowledge leaking around. What the hell would my experiencing it prove over anyone else's? I can hallucinate just as well as anyone else.
....Aaaaaand now he's getting into psi powers being a legitimate area of study. THIS IS SUCH A REPUTABLE BOOK, WITH A DEEP GROUNDING IN SCIENCE.
...okay at this point I'm just flipping through pages without reading them. Blah blah blah mysticism blah blah blah people believing something for thousands of years is scientific proof it exists blah blah blah logic pogo sticks. I GIVE UP. YOUR LOGIC FAIL HAS DEFEATED ME.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 05:18 am (UTC)Saying that a materialistic/atheist philosophy leads to defensiveness and strict enforcement of idealogy for fear of being proved wrong is just..
I think he's projecting. I mean, seriously, the Church's reaction to any new facts that don't fit in with dogma (earth = spherical, earth = millions of years old, dinosaurs omg, etc etc) has been, ah, less than accepting.
And oh man, don't get me started on free will. Okay, first off, if you're Christian and you buy into that whole mythology, then your deity is omniscient, and also gave you free will. Except that if people have free will, then there has to be an unpredictable element of chaos in there that is unknowable. And thus your god is not omniscient. Except if he knows what you're going to do even though you have free will. In which case, all the deaths caused by your god was basically him being petty because he knew damn well what was going to happen before it did. (It's like putting meat in front of a starving dog and then hitting him when he tries to eat it.) *sigh* I think what mainly pisses me off about Christianity is that at its roots, it's a narrow-minded, fear-based religion, and that just sucks all around.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-11 06:15 am (UTC)Yeah, one of the big reasons I've never been into Christianity is that the combination of free will and an omnipotent, omniscient, good god just never made any sense to me at all. A lot of Christianity from my perspective is excluding god from anything resembling morality ("it was a tragic death, but it was God's will"), and it just doesn't work. You can't claim mutually contradictory things about god and then say that god works in mysterious ways to excuse it. I don't know if I'd say that it's inherently based on fear so much as it's so entrenched that it has limited ability to change and adapt to just how much the world has changed since it first existed. I mean, when it started, it was as good an explanation for the world as anything else, and had some things about it that made it appealing enough to spread. It's just that science offers a way of explaining the world through evidence rather than faith, and I think that that's the threat before a lot of the more fearful Christians that has them so defensive. All religions are to some degree internally contradictory in my experience, so it's a lot easier for the power structure to defend itself against that than a system of looking at the world that, by it's nature, has physical evidence. I think a lot of people forget that religions started off to explain the whole world, rather than just beyond this world, and losing that power did come as a huge blow to Christianity.
...I hope this isn't too tl;dr, I can't seem to scroll up in text boxes on the iPad to check.