Christopher Hitchens Caught Affirming Spiritual Experience as Valid

[USU78]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

At first glance I was positive that said "tomato sensors".

That's what happens when you read too fast.  I must have been hungry.

Nothing like a mutton, somatosensor and lettuce sandwich, when the mutton is nice and lean ...

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2019 at 10:36 PM, SteveO said:

I’m curious what you think about people’s experience with psychedelics?  I was listening to Joe Rogan a few days ago, and he was discussing his experiences.  He’s not religious and probably identifies as agnostic—but he claims he definitely has had “life altering” spiritual experiences, as a number of other users claim.  

I thought it interesting how Arthur Kane from the rock band “New York Dolls” converted to the church.  He said the spiritual witness he received was like a trip, just without the drugs.

What is any experience that is NOT your brain reacting to a chemical stimulus?

All experiences are your brain reacting to some kind of electrochemical reactions. 

Imagine you are hiking on some mountain trail and suddenly you hear a growl some distance behind you. You turn around and you see a bear running toward you.

In your brain your visual cortex is stimulated and causes a cascade of chemicals to react to the visual stimulus.

When you use psychedelics, just like when you are dreaming, the chemical stimulus and reactions all begin within your brain.

So just as neuropathy and phantom pain is real pain, experiences generated internally are still real experiences.

So do chemicals cause the experience or the experience cause chemicals?

The difference is that you are aware of the source. And your example Arthur new the source of each experience was different. He knew that one was generated by the chemical and the other was generated by something outside him

When I joined the church I also had an intense experience that I knew came from outside me, like a dream while being awake.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2019 at 11:09 PM, member10_1 said:

Not sure if you have read up on the studies by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins(?); if not you may be interested. It’s fascinating stuff (one study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5772431/)

He has also given a number of interviews and presentations on his findings: Spiritual practice (including proper set and setting) + psilocybin leads to some of the most meaningful and life altering experiences of the participants’ lives. 

 

It might be because it finally stops one way of thinking, that we are always experiencing outside "reality."

Suddenly we are forced to confront the idea that there could be an internal reality as well.

And once one sees how similar the two are it is bound to help one question what is and what is not real.

It helps one reflect on exactly these issues we are discussing.

[Analytics]

On 4/26/2019 at 3:41 PM, mfbukowski said:

YES- I agree with that entirely as well- no problem.

Again we get back to Rorty….

My question is how do you tie this back to the points you made in the original post?

When Christopher Hitchens says he is an atheist, he isn't denying that he has experiences that are similar (or even identical) to the experiences you have. Rather, he is saying he doesn't believe in God. Is there a pragmatic difference? Yes and no. The feeling is what it is, regardless of what we call it. But on the other hand, what the feeling implies about reality is something beyond our subjective, internal perceptions. 

Two people might have an identical vision of a bright light and a being that claims to be God. The experiences could be identical. However, one might start a religion while the other might see a psychiatrist. Regardless of whether the vision is God, the devil, an angel, an alien, a practical joke, or a symptom of frontal lobe epilepsy, there are competing explanations for what "really happened", and regardless of our own subjective experiences, some of those explanations are closer representations of the truth than others. We all see through a glass darkly. The question is, are we trying to clear off the glass so that the view is a little less dark?

 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Regardless of whether the vision is God, the devil, an angel, an alien, a practical joke, or a symptom of frontal lobe epilepsy, there are competing explanations for what "really happened", and regardless of our own subjective experiences, some of those explanations are closer representations of the truth than others. We all see through a glass darkly. The question is, are we trying to clear off the glass so that the view is a little less dark?

How does one prove what is a "closer representation" and what is not?

That is the key question of the ages.  That IS what creates epistemology.  The fact is, without a way of seeing "reality as it is" one cannot compare "As it is" to the "representation" to see if the representation is "true".

And there is the other problem- how can the word "red" represent the bright color that pops out at you?

The representation of "red" should at least be RED?  But what do you do with words like "Freedom" or even objects like chairs?   

These are made up of little squiggles on a page that are only SYMBOLS of grunts in a given language which supposedly "represent reality as it is??"

How can a grunt represent anything "real" even if we could SEE what is "real" outside of our perceptions?

They cannot.

Remember we cannot get outside of perceptions to "reality"

Again, this is why we have the deflationary theory of truth.  Truth essentially means agreement with others who have the same experience.

We both see something red and agree that that red experience is what we CALL "red".

But if you were blind and never saw the color.....

[Hamba Tuhan]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:02 AM, mfbukowski said:

And so not the Light of Christ?

My point is that your statements about murder and war are completely culturally bound. Historically, many societies revelled in war and slaughter. The subjects of my PhD research saw everyone not in or allied with their tribes as enemies to be destroyed, and they surrounded their housing compounds with the impaled skulls of the vanquished as evidence of their bravery and prowess. They also ate their enemies, sometimes in front of their fellows, and on at least one recorded occasion, in front of the still-conscious victim himself. Enemies' skulls also served as pillows for warriors, and sometimes as eating or drinking vessels.

Was it the 'light of Christ' that led some of these people to embrace Islam and/or Christianity when these faiths appeared with different sets of moral values? From my perspective, quite possibly. But it's a terrible mistake, in my opinion, to ignore the fact that, left to their own devices, societies have not all been 'inspired' to generate the same or even similar morals.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How does one prove what is a "closer representation" and what is not?

Sometimes it can't be proved. Sometimes it can. How depends upon the circumstances. As an example, a mission companion and I once got into a disagreement about the color of his tie. I thought it was purple. He thought it was gray. Our divergent internal perceptions notwithstanding, in principle we could have used a spectrometer to scientifically measure the color components of the tie and come to a objective conclusion about whether "gray" or "purple" better represented the spectrum of light that would emerge when white light is shined on the tie. But it turned out that one of us had in fact been diagnosed as being colorblind, so we agreed that the perception of the one who wasn't colorblind was most likely a "closer representation" of the truth than the other.

 

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is the key question of the ages.  That IS what creates epistemology.  The fact is, without a way of seeing "reality as it is" one cannot compare "As it is" to the "representation" to see if the representation is "true".

And there is the other problem- how can the word "red" represent the bright color that pops out at you?

The representation of "red" should at least be RED?  But what do you do with words like "Freedom" or even objects like chairs?   

These are made up of little squiggles on a page that are only SYMBOLS of grunts in a given language which supposedly "represent reality as it is??"

How can a grunt represent anything "real" even if we could SEE what is "real" outside of our perceptions?

They cannot....

What does any of this have to do with your assertion that Christopher Hitchens was "caught affirming spiritual experiences as valid?"

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Sometimes it can't be proved. Sometimes it can. How depends upon the circumstances. As an example, a mission companion and I once got into a disagreement about the color of his tie. I thought it was purple. He thought it was gray. Our divergent internal perceptions notwithstanding, in principle we could have used a spectrometer to scientifically measure the color components of the tie and come to a objective conclusion about whether "gray" or "purple" better represented the spectrum of light that would emerge when white light is shined on the tie. But it turned out that one of us had in fact been diagnosed as being colorblind, so we agreed that the perception of the one who wasn't colorblind was most likely a "closer representation" of the truth than the other.

 

What does any of this have to do with your assertion that Christopher Hitchens was "caught affirming spiritual experiences as valid?"

Well I guess we have gone full circle back to positivism.

I will answer your question and see how it goes after that.

Reading a spectrometer is still a man-made way of experiencing what we call "reality." All it does is give us a measurable perception, now of what the spectrometer "sees." It is an extension of one's eyes, like a microscope or telescope.

It still gives us only human perception and defines color in a way that we do not experience it.  

And by your own words you are looking for a "better representation." Representations are not the thing itself. That's the whole point of this discussion. And how does gray or purple "emerge"? in the final analysis YOU are still deciding if it is gray or purple, which are still just words.

We experience a bright color that stands out from the background, and draws our eye to it, not angstrom units or wavelength. 

Angstrom units and other measures of light waves and particles still don't tell us if light is really a wave or particle.

Remember all the Rorty stuff? Yes of course there are causes of our perceptions but all we can get out of them is our own perceptions even if that perception is of a screen measuring angstrom units, ( Or however they are measured) we are still no closer to seeing what the light really is.

Which brings us back to the Light of Christ I guess. Interesting how the word is used to both of these contexts isn't it?

You are certainly for you to go back and follow the thread and see how we got off on this tangent. Frankly I think it was your question is started it, but I could be wrong. I don't feel like going back and analyzing the discussion, but you're free to do so if you're really interested in the answering your own question.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I guess we have gone full circle back to positivism...

I guess so.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

What does any of this have to do with your assertion that Christopher Hitchens was "caught affirming spiritual experiences as valid?"

Just to directly hit this point- and not leave the impression that I am avoiding it-  the point that "everyone has" such experiences agrees with the LDS principle that everyone has the "Light of Christ" and that makes his proposition "valid" within an LDS context on the principle of "equal validity" - that truth is relative to a a group of peers who agree experiences they have had.  Essentially with that statement Hitchens puts himself into a peer-group with LDS if he is aware of it or not- the group of believers that everyone has a "daemon"/spirit/soul/conscience within them. 

We agree with H. on that one point, and he agrees with us.  And it seems he does not understand that that "daemon" can be identified with the experience of personal revelation- someone or something that speaks to our inner self.

And I think we have discussed the principle and the deflationary theory of truth ad nauseum here, with no substantial counter arguments being made- since none exist that I am aware of.

The main counter-argument to the deflationary truth argument is that it can't be "true" because it does not believe that truth is even definable

The deflationist counter to that argument is usually a yawn, or at most an actual reply that says "Of course it is not true- except for those who find it to be true", which is of course the entire point of it in the first place.

In the history of philosophy, no definition of truth has held up.   Yet as Rorty says, we all know what's true when we see it.

And yes, that means when a person gets up in sacrament meeting and says "I know the church is true" there is no counter-argument to that statement regardless of its ambiguity, according to the deflationary theory of truth.  (And in 2000 years no other theories have been able to define "truth" in a coherent fashion)

Edited April 30, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My point is that your statements about murder and war are completely culturally bound. Historically, many societies revelled in war and slaughter. The subjects of my PhD research saw everyone not in or allied with their tribes as enemies to be destroyed, and they surrounded their housing compounds with the impaled skulls of the vanquished as evidence of their bravery and prowess. They also ate their enemies, sometimes in front of their fellows, and on at least one recorded occasion, in front of the still-conscious victim himself. Enemies' skulls also served as pillows for warriors, and sometimes as eating or drinking vessels.

Was it the 'light of Christ' that led some of these people to embrace Islam and/or Christianity when these faiths appeared with different sets of moral values? From my perspective, quite possibly. But it's a terrible mistake, in my opinion, to ignore the fact that, left to their own devices, societies have not all been 'inspired' to generate the same or even similar morals.

Yes I am sorry I did not get back to you on your earlier post bringing up the same point.

Yes I admit that there are cultural differences on this point, but I don't think that is a substantial argument against it, because within a tribe the principle still holds up- I presume- but you are the expert.

I see your point that warriors - modern and ancient- make a distinction between "us" and "them" and that many tribes world wide identify themselves- and in their native languages actually call themselves "humans" as opposed to all others who are - I guess- "not human"- meaning everyone else who is not of their tribe.

But these people do not eat their children- do they?  Do they eat people in their tribe?

And of course we have the culture of Germany in WWII in which wholesale slaughter of human beings was a cultural goal- but the Jews and Poles were seen as something "other" they were not Aryan which to the Germans of the time, meant "not human".

But here we also see the consequences of such cultures- they are regarded by other cultures as "criminal"- hence war crimes trials- and do not prosper.  The large world culture cannot condone murder for either religious or other reasons.

Even from the point of evolution such cultures do not survive simply because they kill themselves off, or are killed off by others outside the culture.

I think this relates to Hitchens' statement when he discusses people he is "sorry for" who are psychopaths etc who have no sense of conscience.

Yet of course- I would maintain- that even headhunters and Nazis make exceptions for their own tribes and therefor families.  Defending the Aryan Race- as such it was called- is essentially defending one's extended family.

And with family things are different?  But again I yield to your expertise.

Then we have the question of your belief in the Light of Christ and how you square that belief- if you have it, with your view here.

So let me ask you- does everyone have the Light of Christ?  What is your stance on that one? 

 

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I am sorry I did not get back to you on your earlier post bringing up the same point.

Yes I admit that there are cultural differences on this point, but I don't think that is a substantial argument against it, because within a tribe the principle still holds up- I presume- but you are the expert.

I see your point that warriors - modern and ancient- make a distinction between "us" and "them" and that many tribes world wide identify themselves- and in their native languages actually call themselves "humans" as opposed to all others who are - I guess- "not human"- meaning everyone else who is not of their tribe.

But these people do not eat their children- do they?  Do they eat people in their tribe?

And of course we have the culture of Germany in WWII in which wholesale slaughter of human beings was a cultural goal- but the Jews and Poles were seen as something "other" they were not Aryan which to the Germans of the time, meant "not human".

But here we also see the consequences of such cultures- they are regarded by other cultures as "criminal"- hence war crimes trials- and do not prosper.  The large world culture cannot condone murder for either religious or other reasons.

Even from the point of evolution such cultures do not survive simply because they kill themselves off, or are killed off by others outside the culture.

I think this relates to Hitchens' statement when he discusses people he is "sorry for" who are psychopaths etc who have no sense of conscience.

Yet of course- I would maintain- that even headhunters and Nazis make exceptions for their own tribes and therefor families.  Defending the Aryan Race- as such it was called- is essentially defending one's extended family.

And with family things are different?  But again I yield to your expertise.

Then we have the question of your belief in the Light of Christ and how you square that belief- if you have it, with your view here.

So let me ask you- does everyone have the Light of Christ?  What is your stance on that one? 

 

I think Scott Card addresses this brilliantly:

Quote

Demosthenes' History of Wutan in Trondheim: The Nordic language recognizes four orders of foreignness. The first is the otherlander, or utlanning, the stranger that we recognize as being a human of our world, but of another city or country. The second is the framling... This is the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another world. The third is the raman, the stranger that we recognize as human, but of another species. The fourth is the true alien, the varelse, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I guess so.

Honestly sorry to hear that because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just to directly hit this point- and not leave the impression that I am avoiding it-  the point that "everyone has" such experiences agrees with the LDS principle that everyone has the "Light of Christ" and that makes his proposition "valid" within an LDS context on the principle of "equal validity" - that truth is relative to a a group of peers who agree experiences they have had.  Essentially with that statement Hitchens puts himself into a peer-group with LDS if he is aware of it or not- the group of believers that everyone has a "daemon"/spirit/soul/conscience within them. 

We agree with H. on that one point, and he agrees with us.  And it seems he does not understand that that "daemon" can be identified with the experience of personal revelation- someone or something that speaks to our inner self.

I think Hitchens understood perfectly well that "daemon" can be identified with the experience of personal revelation. Where he disagreed is whether or not it should be identified with personal revelation. In any case, basically all atheists agree with him on this point--the idea that humans have a conscience isn't a radical theistic proposition. 

 

Quote

And I think we have discussed the principle and the deflationary theory of truth ad nauseum here, with no substantial counter arguments being made- since none exist that I am aware of.

The main counter-argument to the deflationary truth argument is that it can't be "true" because it does not believe that truth is even definable

The deflationist counter to that argument is usually a yawn, or at most an actual reply that says "Of course it is not true- except for those who find it to be true", which is of course the entire point of it in the first place.

In the history of philosophy, no definition of truth has held up.   Yet as Rorty says, we all know what's true when we see it.

And yes, that means when a person gets up in sacrament meeting and says "I know the church is true" there is no counter-argument to that statement regardless of its ambiguity, according to the deflationary theory of truth.  (And in 2000 years no other theories have been able to define "truth" in a coherent fashion)

A couple of points. The whole question of a "theory of truth" seems like the wrong question to me. I'd rather create models that do the best job possible of corresponding with reality. Note that what I'm advocating here isn't a theory of truth that competes with the deflationary theory. Rather, it is a belief in ontological naturalism. The point isn't to make statements of "truth." The point is to understand reality as well as possible.

In any event, the deflationary theory of truth reminds me of the immortal words of John Lennon:

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

No one I think is in my tree
I mean it must be high or low
That is the catch you know, tune in but it's all right
That is I think it's not too bad

Always know, sometimes think it's me
But you know I know when it's a dream
I think I know, I mean, oh yes, but it's all wrong
That is I think I disagree

Let me take you down
'Cause I going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever

Edited April 30, 2019 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

I think Hitchens understood perfectly well that "daemon" can be identified with the experience of personal revelation. Where he disagreed is whether or not it should be identified with personal revelation. In any case, basically all atheists agree with him on this point--the idea that humans have a conscience isn't a radical theistic proposition. 

 

A couple of points. The whole question of a "theory of truth" seems like the wrong question to me. I'd rather create models that do the best job possible of corresponding with reality. Note that what I'm advocating here isn't a theory of truth that competes with the deflationary theory. Rather, it is a belief in ontological naturalism. The point isn't to make statements of "truth." The point is to understand reality as well as possible.

In any event, the deflationary theory of truth reminds me of the immortal words of John Lennon:

Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

No one I think is in my tree
I mean it must be high or low
That is the catch you know, tune in but it's all right
That is I think it's not too bad

Always know, sometimes think it's me
But you know I know when it's a dream
I think I know, I mean, oh yes, but it's all wrong
That is I think I disagree

Let me take you down
'Cause I going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever

Metaphysical naturalism (or Ontological Naturalism) is a fine paradigm and I have no serious problems with it, except for the fact that it is STILL metaphysics which creates an unprovable outside "reality" about which we can know nothing but how it appears.

In fact, it also goes well with the LDS position that everything is natural since God is immanent and uses naturally existing matter to organize the world.  We do not believe in the "supernatural" since everything- including spirit- is material "but more refined".  It's a perfect LDS metaphysics for those who believe in metaphysics- a world beyond observation.  It is also reductionism which I find also to be non-sustainable for the reasons we have already discussed- take the example of color which metaphysical naturalism would purport could be reduced to - as you argued- angstrom units.

Yet clearly statements about color are not logically equivalent to statements about angstrom units.  One does not see angstrom units- one sees colors.  That experience itself of the bright color and all its connotations and meaning- cannot be equivalent to statements of angstrom units. 

Imagine translating the implications and connotations of "The Scarlet Letter" into statements about angstrom units.  Imagine the connotations of blackness being expressed as the absence of measurable light. Someone "red with anger" suddenly becomes "His face reflected xyz angstrom units".    "The Black Death" suddenly becomes "Absence of measurable light waves Death."

Something is lost in the translation.

Just read this wikipedia summary.  I have taken the liberty of highlighting every position which is taken on faith and is unprovable through the methods advocated, and used red so they stand out.

 

Quote

 

Definition[edit]

According to Steven Schafersman, geologist and president of Texas Citizens for Science, metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that maintains that: 1. Nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time; 2. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance—mass–energy. Non-physical or quasi-physical substance, such as information, ideas, values, logic, mathematics, intellect, and other emergent phenomena, either supervene upon the physical or can be reduced to a physical account; 3. Nature operates by the laws of physics and in principle, can be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and 4. the supernaturaldoes not exist, i.e., only nature is real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical philosophy opposed primarily by Biblical creationism.^[1]

Carl Sagan put it succinctly: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."^[2]

 

I like that last comment best of all.  It really needs a big "AMEN" after it!!

Same as it ever was.  Same as it ever was.  Letting the days go by. Per Omnia Saecula Saeculorum, Amen.

It is essentially a religious position which relies on metaphysics- knowledge of something "outside" of "physics" meaning outside of human experience.

This is kind of the classic way of seeing the view- per wikipedia- which is the great "xyz for dummies".  If you see it differently I would love to hear about it.

On the other hand, I can show you real philosophy by real philosophers right here on this very forum!!

Let's just go first to the conclusion since the last shall be first. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.895.9074&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Quote

6. CONCLUSION Naturalism is a very popular philosophical position. We share its underlying conviction that modern sciences help us to see many things clearer, also in the field of ontology. But the problem is that there is no direct way from the subject matter of sciences to ontology.

This is of course what the whole thread- at least what I have said- is trying to show.  You can't get from science to "ultimate reality" since all we can know scientifically relies on human observation.  Honest I ain't making this stuff up!

And the article continues:

Quote

Contemporary naturalism, however, carries a heavy burden: If it wants to be successful, it either has to show how reductionism is possible, or it has to point out convincing ways for manoeuvring between reductionism and too liberal versions of naturalism.

And the point about reductionism is the point I am making about for example, describing color in terms of angstrom units.

That is reducing color to such a point that it no longer resembles anything we actually experience- when we try to describe "red" we are not describing angstrom units and wave lengths.

The word red and its connotations do not represent the experience in all its glorious redness and neither does describing all that glory in terms of measurements of wavelengths.  Chemical reactions do not describe visions and most important of all, discussions about sound frequencies and harmonics do not describe the Beatles music!

Can you IMAGINE the attempt to do that?  To reduce "Here Comes the Sun" to a discussion about sound frequencies?

I have been studying this way of seeing the world now for about 50 years - and about the time the Beatles song you quoted actually came out.   That's a lot of reading.

But I will tell a tale on myself- about how I mis-heard those Beatles lyrics after I was well acquainted with this view of anti-realism I am arguing in favor of.

The first time I heard the song- 1967- I heard those opening lines this way- as an anti-realist would hear them:

Living is easy with eyes closed
It's understanding all you see
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
It doesn't matter much to me

Let me take you down
'Cause I going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

 

Quote

 

Anti-realism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

In analytic philosophy, anti-realism is an epistemological position first articulated by British philosopher Michael Dummett. The term was coined as an argument against a form of realism Dummett saw as 'colorless reductionism'.^[1]

In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.^[2] In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed.^[3][4]

Because it encompasses statements containing abstract ideal objects (i.e. mathematical objects), anti-realism may apply to a wide range of philosophic topics, from material objectsto the theoretical entities of science, mathematical statement, mental states, events and processes, the past and the future.^[5]

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2019 by mfbukowski