Article: The Gospel According to Dixon #17: Make-Believe

by Dixon Wragg
WaccoBB.net

Column #17: Make-Believe

Some years ago, I was at a party celebrating a couple's engagement. The bride-to-be mentioned that, as her fiance was Jewish, she was converting to Judaism. Puzzled, I asked her something like: "What does it mean to say you're converting to Judaism because you're marrying a Jew? Does loving a person somehow magically change your worldview to theirs? Or do you mean by 'converting' that you're going to act as if you share their beliefs in order to fit in, or what?"

https://img543.imageshack.us/img543/72/pgin.jpg

You readers will not be surprised to hear that the woman's response was hostile. She seemed distressed by the prospect of scrutinizing what "belief" meant to her. I guess at the time I was a bit naive about the psychological/social realities of belief. My personal experience was that, although far from perfectly rational and honest, I was really trying to figure out what was most likely to be true. To me, beliefs were, and are, representations of what's true as best I can figure it out. I used to assume that's what "belief" means to everyone. Silly me.

As I have gradually realized, most people have at least some beliefs that are not their best logical guesses about what's true; they're stories they tell themselves in order to meet various needs. Feel insecure because of your lack of power? "Believe" in a powerful god who's on your side. Uncomfortable with a random universe? "Believe" in some master plan or a priori meaning of life. Bothered by unknowing and uncertainty? "Believe" in inerrant scriptures or various forms of divination such as astrology, palm-reading, or psychics. Scared to death of death? "Believe" in an afterlife or reincarnation. Struggling with illness? "Believe" in every silly healing fad that comes down the pike. Can't tolerate the nagging suspicion that your society may be unjust and even brutal? "Believe" in the patriotic myths of national righteousness. Too lazy to bother figuring out what's likely to be true? "Believe" whatever your parents believed. Want to fit in with those around you? "Believe" in whatever they seem to believe (much of which they are pretending to believe because they think you expect it of them). Make yourself believe that you believe, and pay no attention to the doubt behind the curtain.(1)

I once had a memorable conversation with a nice lady who was telling me about the comfort she derived from her personal relationship with God. I politely resisted the temptation to point out the numerous fallacies in her thinking, allowing myself just one provocative question at the end: "If this belief of yours were wrong, would you want to know that?" She pondered for a moment, then answered sheepishly "No, if it were untrue, I wouldn't want to know." I appreciated that she was able to muster enough honesty to say that. Most people never do.

For instance, when I put that question to another woman, she responded with "I'm not going to answer that question because you'll use it against me." Apparently "use it against me" meant illuminate the fact that she would rather maintain satisfying delusions than be corrected—a potentially growthful insight that she was manifestly desperate to avoid.

Note the double deception: first kid yourself that the desired belief is true, regardless of the (lack of) evidence, and then kid yourself that you're not kidding yourself. That second deception, the denial that we're deceiving ourselves, is necessary to shore up the desired beliefs. If we admit, even to ourselves, that our beliefs are based on self-deception, it's harder to maintain them. So the denial of deception is a secondary deception that supports the initial one. Self-deceivers must masquerade as truth-seekers to maintain the deception.

https://imageshack.us/a/img94/9580/95wv.jpg

How much more pleasant and less frustrating life would be if that weren't the case! Think of all the time and energy we'd save if people would just say "Don't waste your time trying to reason with me. I'll just believe whatever meets my needs regardless of whether it's true." Instead their self-lie that their chosen illusion is really an honest conclusion becomes a lie directed to everyone else through claiming the belief is true. Poor naive suckers like me get involved in discussions on the assumption that the person is really interested in whether their belief is true, only to be subjected to frustrating and sometimes nasty, insulting defense mechanisms until we get tired of painfully banging our heads against their armor and give up.

And make no mistake about it: maintaining wishful-thinking beliefs unfounded in reason requires thick armor and herculean feats of closed-mindedness, dishonesty, and irrationality. For instance, ironically, I've commonly been accused of being closed-minded simply for disagreeing with people who themselves have shown every sign of utter closed-mindedness around the belief I'm questioning.(2) And tellingly, I've been accused of being "in my head too much" when I use my intellect to challenge someone's pet belief, but never when I use it to support their belief! Other hurtful defense mechanisms include being seen as a patriarchal oppressor, as wanting to dominate others, insensitive, arrogant, "venomous" (someone actually called me that!)—all for the crime of pointing out the unbelievability of people's pet beliefs. Such obnoxious defensiveness is a predictable outcome of being addicted to beliefs which are logically indefensible; illogical defenses are the only recourse if opening oneself to change is too scary.

The irrational wishful-thinking believing process is sometimes called "faith". Just to be clear here: I'm not talking about the sort of "faith" that refers to a realistic level of optimism, nor the reasonable faith we have in a friend or in the expertise of our doctor or auto mechanic, nor the sort of empirically-derived faith that we can sit in a chair without it collapsing under us (usually). I'm referring to "faith" as it's used in religious or spiritual contexts—believing in something regardless of evidence or the lack of it, often even in cases wherein the belief has been thoroughly debunked.

A woman I know recounted to me her search for verification of a belief she desperately wanted, the belief in a universal consciousness. Finding it impossible to support this belief through reasoning, and being unwilling to reach the honest conclusion that the belief therefore probably isn't true, she simply made a "leap of faith", accepting it anyway! This is a closed-minded position, as believing something regardless of logic or (lack of) evidence renders us uncorrectable.

Compare that with this quote from a New Age magazine: “[P]ondering whether or not God had died, I longed for the answer to be ‘No’. As secular as my upbringing had been, I still wanted to believe in something. So, along with a large number of others my age, I set out to look for God.”(3) Here we have in a nutshell a crucial difference between truth-seeking and faith. Real truth-seekers follow their investigations wherever they may lead, with no solid presuppositions about what the truth may turn out to be. In contrast, faith involves envisioning the desired belief and then indulging in whatever irrationalities are necessary to arrive at and defend it.

People often say that they believe in something because of faith, as if faith has given them that belief. But that's not true. Faith cannot possibly be a source of information; it's just a decision to believe something. Faith did not lead you to your belief; your arbitrary choice to believe led you to faith, which is simply the decision to hold your desired belief closed-mindedly, uncorrectably—to "keep the faith". As Nietzsche said, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

People seem to feel that calling something "faith" rather than saying "I'm just believing something because I want to, regardless of whether it's likely to be true" somehow dignifies and validates the belief. They're wrong about that, of course. Relating to life through a veil of arbitrarily chosen beliefs is irresponsible. In fact, if we assume a moral responsibility to effectively address, for the sake of our progeny, the huge challenges facing our species, taking things on faith rather than evidence is downright immoral. If we waste our time and energy propitiating the gods rather than addressing our problems realistically, our chances of creating a better world are slim, and our children's children are in for a miserable existence.

https://imageshack.us/a/img14/9191/9kt0.jpg

Psychological defenses like those mentioned above are supplemented by social ones, such as the agreement not to question people's cherished beliefs—"It's not polite to discuss politics or religion." Really, the agreement is "I won't pop your illusion-bubble if you agree not to pop mine." This dysfunctional norm is especially noticeable in anti-rational subcultures such as "New Age" and religious communities. But some of us, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, refuse to play along. I feel no obligation to collude with you in maintaining your illusions, and in fact feel morally obliged to challenge illusion when I encounter it. Besides, real intimacy and authenticity require saying honestly that you think someone's wrong as well as agreeing with them when you can honestly do so. Anything less is phony and, actually, disrespectful. If your defense mechanisms include outrage or hurt at being disagreed with, that's a problem that accompanies your chosen way of believing, not something I've imposed upon you.

In some circles, lip service is given to "respecting everyone's beliefs". Even if this were possible, it'd be irresponsible—one only has to think of some of the crazy and destructive beliefs out there to realize that. I respect everyone's right to believe what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone, but I do not respect everyone's beliefs; I only respect beliefs that appear to be true. How could respecting fallacy and superstition be a good thing? Any behaviorist could tell you that rewarding people with respect for believing stupid stuff will tend to maintain and increase the behavior being rewarded (in this case, believing stupid stuff). I cannot respect people as reasonable thinkers to the extent that they allow themselves unreasonable beliefs any more than I could respect someone as a chef if their cooking were inedible, and I lose respect for anyone I see embracing superstition or fallacy. So, to those of you who defend your right to believe in things you can't support with good logic: go ahead, but don't expect to be esteemed as reasonable people when your worldview is based on unreason. Here's the trade-off: you can allow yourself the luxury of believing whatever you like and forfeit any claim to being honestly reasonable, or you can submit yourself to the standards and conclusions of reason, however unpleasant they may sometimes be, and wear the mantle of a truth-seeker. Choose one or the other; you can't have your cake and eat it too.

https://imageshack.us/a/img13/4091/nfdi.jpg

People have actually said to me things like "How can you face life not believing in [fill in the blank with their favorite belief]", as if life would be unlivable if their belief weren't true. This is the attitude of an addict. Most proselytizers apparently feel that we can appropriately have a belief by willing it even in the absence of good proof. Such people see belief as a matter of choosing, like a customer strolling down a store aisle selecting attractive products, rather than a process of discovering what's really true. Real truth-seeking gives us no choice about what to believe; we're stuck with whatever is true, regardless of whether we find it pleasant or horrifying. Reality does not owe it to us to meet our emotional needs. Acceptance of this is a hallmark of maturity and rationality, and maximizes our chances of successfully addressing the problems we face, and ultimately having a more fulfilled life, rooted in wondrous reality rather than the opiate of sweet illusion.

The path to truth is through discovery, not choice. Here are our real choices: Either we can honestly assess the evidence and discover what is most likely to be true, or we can choose beliefs that meet our emotional and social needs and defend them through evasive, fallacious, dishonest strategies. Dear reader, I challenge you to be really, really honest with yourself now—are your beliefs honest judgments, or are some of them just make-believe?

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...oppedSmall.jpg

About Dixon: I'm a hopeful monster, committed to laughter, love, and the Golden Rule. I see reason, applied with empathy, as the most important key to making a better world. I'm a lazy slob and a weirdo. I love cats, kids, quilts, fossils, tornadoes, comic books, unusual music, and too much else to mention. I’m a former conservative Christian, then New Ager, now a rationalist, skeptic and atheist. I've won awards for my short fiction, short humor, and poetry (both slam performances and "old school")--as well as this column! Lately I’m a Workshopping Editor at the Omnificent English Dictionary In Limerick Form (That’s right!). I’m job-hunting too, mostly in the Human Services realm. Passions: Too many -- Reading, writing, critical thinking, public speaking, human rights, sex and sensuality, arts and sciences, nature. Oh, and ladies, I’m single ;^D

NOTES

1. For a striking example of my kidding myself into a belief, see my previous column at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...o-the-Hellfire

2. For a deeper look at open- and closed-mindedness, see my previous column at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...u-Open-to-This

3. Elizabeth Lesser, "Wisdom and Folly", New Age Journal, January/February, 1997.

4. For more on truth seeking versus faith-keeping, see my previous column at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...-Faith-Keeping

Hi, Dixon.

The only thing 'weirdo' about you is that the majority of people are uncomfortable with rational thinking, and so they probably labeled you with that word to establish their normalcy, in their own minds. "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts."

The one thing that turns me off to rational thinking is not that my belief could be exposed as nonsense or someone's belief is better than mine. My ennui with rational thought is that usually there can only be one rational conclusion, and it is this very dualism which negates the truth about anything for me. If I can't allow room for the truth of someone's point of view, then there can be no room for mine.

I think this wonderful gospel writing of yours is fascinating and powerful. Beliefs are powerful. Anger is powerful. But I am telling you, Dixon, I think the most powerful thing you can say to someone about any issue is: I have no opinion on the matter.

When I was a small child, I had a question for the adults.. and the answers were always laden with strange looks, laugher, silence, derision or anger. The question was simply this: if someone wins a game, does it means someone has to lose? I had not yet even heard of Zen.

Later in life, I registered as a Democrat (so that I wouldn't be a Republican). When I then registered with the Green Party, I found out that I was no longer a Democrat, which dismayed me. I never gave up my Democtat membership, but it was assumed I relinquished it. I was considered insane when I asked why I couldn't belong to both parties. As if I had claimed a right to be both male and female. (that's another discussion; read The Left Hand of Darkness). The theory of Binary Opposition had spoken. Around that same time, having just moved from NYC to Silicon Valley, I attended a Yankees versus 'A's game and cheered for both teams. Ya wanna talk about angry looks?

I have come to a point in my life where I don't respond to labels such as atheist, feminist... or any other limiting -ist. After all, there may be one moment of a day when I suddenly, just for a second, embrace a powerful god. I have been judged for not taking a stand, not being loyal to a position, platform, BELIEF. A wishy washy copout. But in my way of seeing it, I simply stopped disbelieving things.... and allow for more and more stuff to be possible.

Are alien abductions real or are they products of our imaginations (and what IS the difference). Can prayer help or is it a silly superstition? Does the soul live on or are we worm food? MY answer to these and other similar questions: YES.

MY weirdo status trumps YOUR weirdo status... so there.

Stay sane, my insane friend.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Chris Dec:

Hi, Dixon.

---

Hi, Chris.

Quote:

---

...My ennui with rational thought is that usually there can only be one rational conclusion, and it is this very dualism which negates the truth about anything for me. If I can't allow room for the truth of someone's point of view, then there can be no room for mine.

---

Chris, get used to the fact that some beliefs are true and others false. Relax into it. Why fight it? It is not oppressive to assert that someone's claim is untrue, as long as we're open to being shown that we're wrong about that.
And dig that there's a big difference between, on the one hand, allowing for the possibility that someone else's position may be true, and on the other hand, accepting that it is true. It may be true or false or some combination thereof, as may yours or mine.

Quote:

---

...I think the most powerful thing you can say to someone about any issue is: I have no opinion on the matter.

---

Okay, but I'm only gonna say that when it's true. Often I do in fact have an opinion on the matter at hand, as do you.

Quote:

---

The question was simply this: if someone wins a game, does it means someone has to lose?

---

In zero-sum games like chess or Scrabble, the answer is yes, someone does have to lose. But of course, if all participants play fair and try their hardest to win, a good time is had by all so it's really a win-win situation. I love competitive games. They involve a special kind of cooperation wherein the participants agree to show respect to their opponents by trying their best to defeat them. There's no problem there unless your ego gets in the way.

Quote:

---

I had not yet even heard of Zen.

---

I don't see what Zen has to do with it.

Quote:

---

I have come to a point in my life where I don't respond to labels such as atheist, feminist... or any other limiting -ist.

---

But no matter what you believe or do, there will be labels that are accurate descriptions of you, even if you change from time to time. There's nothing at all wrong with labels, as long as they're accurate and we're not limited by them.

Quote:

---

After all, there may be one moment of a day when I suddenly, just for a second, embrace a powerful god.

---

Does that mean that you can articulate some good evidence for the existence of such an entity, or does it mean that you like to kid yourself?

Quote:

---

I simply stopped disbelieving things....

---

You stopped disbelieving that pigs fly? That the moon is made of green cheese? That Nazism is a wonderful thing? That you should jump off cliffs or run out into traffic? Be honest, Chris--you disbelieve lots of things and believe lots of other things. It's impossible to function and survive without both believing and disbelieving things. In your post, you express some beliefs and, at least by implication, some disbeliefs too.

Quote:

---

...and allow for more and more stuff to be possible.

---

It's one thing to allow for things to be possible. It's quite a different--and really ridiculous--thing to tell yourself that everything is equally true, or that we have no way of distinguishing the probably-true from the probably-false, or that it's somehow bad to assert that a claim is false.

Quote:

---

Are alien abductions real or are they products of our imaginations (and what IS the difference). Can prayer help or is it a silly superstition? Does the soul live on or are we worm food? MY answer to these and other similar questions: YES.

---

Chris, I'm kindly disposed toward you because of some nice things you've said to me, but you test my patience when you utter this sort of hogwash. To assert that mutually contradictory claims are both true violates the most basic logic that even a child understands. Either prayer is helpful or it isn't. Either there's a soul that survives the death of the body or there isn't. And if you're unclear on the distinction between objective reality and imagination, you may wish to 1. get a prescription for a good antipsychotic medication, and 2. read my column #4, "Reality Is Real--Really!".

It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with the fact that life is largely limitation. Some things are gonna be true and others false whether we like it or not. Accepting that basic fact is rational, mature, and honest. Denying it is not. If you're telling yourself that you don't disbelieve anything or that mutually contradictory claims can both be true or that it's somehow oppressive to assert that someone could be wrong about something--stop it.:stoptheinsane: Quit BSing yourself and get into the real world; it's not that bad. (I hope that didn't sound too harsh. Try to take it in the spirit intended.Big Smile )

Quote:

---

MY weirdo status trumps YOUR weirdo status... so there.

---

Uh...congratulations.

Wow, Dixon...

Your tolerance for, and patience with, brute foolishness is impressive, though not necessarily admirable.:hmmm:

A mind that is always open is like a wastebasket. People will throw trash in it.:wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ron Rozewski:

Pshaw! Your patience is admirable.

---

Not necessarily. At some point, we decide that our time and attention are more valuably applied elsewhere.
Beyond that point, the inability or unwillingness to cut our losses and divert ourselves into time better spent begins to look foolish and perhaps even harmful.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ron Rozewski:

And one man's trash is another's food for thought.

---

Absolutely! Of course, "food for thought" implies something for Mind to "chew on"...
-open-close-open-close-open-close... repeat as necessary.
Sort the food from the trash.
one man's noise is another man's data:wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

Wow, Dixon...
Your tolerance for, and patience with, brute foolishness is impressive, though not necessarily admirable.:hmmm:

---

Uh...thank you...I think. :hmmm:

Quote:

---

A mind that is always open is like a wastebasket. People will throw trash in it.:wink:

---

But a mind that is closed cannot receive the good stuff. The key is to have an open mind with a good filter made of critical thinking. That's the difference between rational open-mindedness and gullible "open-mindedness". :wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by handy:

...At some point, we decide that our time and attention are more valuably applied elsewhere.
Beyond that point, the inability or unwillingness to cut our losses and divert ourselves into time better spent begins to look foolish and perhaps even harmful.

---

That's a reasonable concern, and believe me, sometimes I wonder if I'm wasting my time trying to reason with people who are clearly committed to irrationality.

I have been known to give up on people when they're clearly trolling (which is different from just disagreeing with me, and even different from being consistently irrational), or when, after banging my head against their armor for awhile, I decide it's useless.

But I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt (that's a Golden Rule issue), and give them the opportunity to be reasonable rather than assuming they can't be. Anyway, people rarely make major changes in their worldview on the basis of one conversation. I may plant a seed in someone that slowly germinates and flowers beautifully years later, without my even knowing it. And even if I make no headway in convincing someone--and even if I get abuse from them for trying--at least I can model rational behavior. And my arguments as well as my behavior modeling could be influencing bystanders and lurkers without my ever knowing it. So call me naive, but I'm not about to give up on trying to communicate with people I disagree with. Besides, some of those people have important truths to impart to me.

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.


Smith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.

---

That depends on what you mean by the word "faith". If you're talking about what I called in the article "...a realistic level of optimism, [or] the reasonable faith we have in a friend or in the expertise of our doctor or auto mechanic, [or] the sort of empirically-derived faith that we can sit in a chair without it collapsing under us (usually)", I agree with you (except maybe the "without reservation" part).

If, on the other hand, you're referring to "faith" as it's typically used in religious or spiritual contexts, as in "I'm of the Christian faith", it is indeed belief without proof--or can you articulate compelling proof for, e.g., the existence of God?

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Smith.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

I believe every person has positive and negative elements within them.

---

I agree that this is true. There are interesting evolutionary reasons for this human duality. Maybe I'll have occasion to discuss them in an upcoming column...

Quote:

---

I believe these forces are larger than mankind, but only mankind can tip the scale in the favor of one or another.

---

I can't respond to this, as it's not clear to me what you mean.

Quote:

---

No I am not a Christian, However you seem to center them in your thesis.

---

I emphasize Christian examples because I'm embedded in a predominantly Christian society and came out of a Christian background myself. Were I writing in, e.g., Japan, I'd be emphasizing Shintoist or Buddhist examples. The principles I'm discussing re: truth, belief and illusion are the same regardless. I hope that's clear in my writing.

Quote:

---

Good people are getting better, bad people are getting worse.

---

I'm not sure about the accuracy or usefulness of labeling people good or bad as opposed to labeling our actions good or bad (or, for that matter, labeling our beliefs right or wrong). And I see no evidence that "good people are getting better, bad people are getting worse" in general.

Quote:

---

Positive vrs Negative. Think "car battrie" they are equals...

---

Positive/negative, left/right, up/down, good/evil--we live in a polaristic, yin/yang universe. I'll be discussing this in a future column.

Quote:

---

No, I can not prove this. But I believe it.
I bear no burden of proof...Why should I have to prove my faith to anyone?

---

It's not about the power trip of you having to prove your belief to me or anyone else, Smith. It's about this fundamental question: Do you want to believe things that are true, or believe what you like even if it's illusory? If the former, there is indeed a burden of proof. Any belief for which you can't articulate a compelling argument is very unlikely to be true (as I will explain in an upcoming column on Occam's Razor). So the burden of proof that seems so onerous to you is not to satisfy me--I'm not important; it's to maximize the chance that you're believing true stuff, not illusions. If pleasant illusion rather than truth is your goal, then you can dispense with any burden of proof and keep doing what you're doing, believing in stuff you can't prove. The choice is yours, and everybody's.

Do you have faith in anything outside of a test tube?

I will maintain my faith, I encourage you to explore.

Life is unexplained.
Would you like to explain it? with proof as you require?

Why is the link missing?

Good conversation, I appreciate it.
With respect

Smith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

Do you have faith in anything outside of a test tube?

---

This "test tube" comment seems like a rather snarky way of characterizing one who is simply trying to distinguish truth from illusion.

To answer your question: If by "faith" you mean believing in stuff without good evidence or at least a good argument backing it up, haven't I made it clear that I endeavor to avoid that pitfall? Are you encouraging me to go back to that? Been there, done that; it sucks. It's irresponsible, closed-minded, and, in a sense, dishonest. That was pretty much the point of my column we're discussing.

Quote:

---

I will maintain my faith...

---

Can you see that that's an expression of closed-mindedness?

Quote:

---

I encourage you to explore.

---

Uh...what in the world do you think I've been doing?
How about you? Are you prepared to explore the possibility that some belief(s) you've been attached to are illusory?

Quote:

---

Life is unexplained.

---

Partly.

Quote:

---

Would you like to explain it? with proof as you require?

---

Explain what exactly? Explain the existence of living things? The theory of evolution does a good job of that, within the limits of what we can know or reasonably surmise about things of which we have limited evidence available.

Quote:

---

Why is the link missing?

---

If you're talking about an evolutionary "missing link", there are thousands of them in the fossil record, plus many more that existed even though they left no fossil evidence, as most organisms don't die in circumstances conducive to fossil formation.
But, Smith, I don't have the time to give you a course in basic evolutionary theory. Read any good basic book on the subject.

Quote:

---

Good conversation, I appreciate it.

---

Me too. Thanks for your interest.

Quote:

---

With respect

---

Likewise.

Please don't dissect my writings for your response. That is to easy.
A new thought or a holistic response please.


Smith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

Please don,t dissect my writings for your response.

---

It's not clear what you mean by "dissect" here. Are you saying that, for some reason, you don't want specific responses to specific things you've said, or...?

Quote:

---

A new thought or a holistic response please.

---

Again, not too sure what you mean by "holistic" in this context--maybe general rather than specific? I'll try: Your apparent desire to avoid discussing specifics seems evasive. So far, my hypothesis is that you're rigidly defended around one or more beliefs and would like to keep the discussion general to avoid critique.

Was that satisfactory or am I misunderstanding what you're asking me for?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

It's not clear what you mean by "dissect" here. Are you saying that, for some reason, you don't want specific responses to specific things you've said, or...?


Again, not too sure what you mean by "holistic" in this context--maybe general rather than specific? I'll try: Your apparent desire to avoid discussing specifics seems evasive. So far, my hypothesis is that you're rigidly defended around one or more beliefs and would like to keep the discussion general to avoid critique.

Was that satisfactory or am I misunderstanding what you're asking me for?

---

I call people "hen peck"
others call them trolls
as in you.

Was that satisfactory?


have a good day

your mono log is over

Smith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

I call people "hen peck"
others call them trolls
Was that satisfactory?

---

Of course not. We started out with a mutually respectful dialogue and it seems to have degenerated to the point of your calling me names, without even specifying what I've done that you object to.

Quote:

---

your mono log is over

---

If this means that you're running away from the dialogue, well, that certainly supports my hypothesis about your apparent evasiveness, doesn't it? It's not too late for us to have a reasonable discussion. If some of what I say is just too scary to allow that, I can only hope you exit the encounter with some new understanding about your defensiveness and what underlies it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Of course not. We started out with a mutually respectful dialogue and it seems to have degenerated to the point of your calling me names, without even specifying what I've done that you object to.


If this means that you're running away from the dialogue, well, that certainly supports my hypothesis about your apparent evasiveness, doesn't it? It's not too late for us to have a reasonable discussion. If some of what I say is just too scary to allow that, I can only hope you exit the encounter with some new understanding about your defensiveness and what underlies it.

---

yes you are correct in all ways

note to self/ no spirituality on waccobb

Smith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

yes you are correct in all ways

---

Sarcasm now?

Quote:

---

note to self/ no spirituality on waccobb

---

If "spirituality" means believing in stuff with no evidence and defending the belief by evading critique and calling people names when they question the belief--well, is that really something worth embracing?

Hey, Dixon:

Love your reasoning and facility with the language! When you get to this:

"Positive/negative, left/right, up/down, good/evil--we live in a polaristic, yin/yang universe. I'll be discussing this in a future column"

I hope you will include the idea (from Tibetan Buddhism) of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, because I'd love to understand it better myself....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Love your reasoning and facility with the language!

---

:Thanks:

Quote:

---

I hope you will include the idea (from Tibetan Buddhism) of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana...

---

Well, surely we can't have enlightenment without endarkenment; that's a corollary of the yin/yang principle. But the issue of whether samsara and nirvana as defined by Tibetan Buddhism are actually real is another matter... :meditate:

Hi Dixon,
I am sorry for the sarcasm, my posts were snarky, I apologize.

Can I submit to you that a lack of evidence for one belief, does not imply proof for another?
Your request for proof / evidence for matters of spirituality got the best of me.

do you believe in karma?
do you believe in reincarnation?
do you believe that the universe will give back to you, what you give into it?

I am interested in your response.

peace

Smith

Smith, I apologize for having taken so long to get back to you. I've been prioritizing other stuff.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Smith:

...I am sorry for the sarcasm, my posts were snarky, I apologize.

---

Appreciated!

Quote:

---

Can I submit to you that a lack of evidence for one belief, does not imply proof for another?

---

That's true as far as it goes, but on the other hand, as I said earlier in this thread, "Any belief for which you can't articulate a compelling argument is very unlikely to be true (as I will explain in an upcoming column on Occam's Razor)".

Quote:

---

Your request for proof / evidence for matters of spirituality got the best of me.

---

To the extent that "spirituality" means claims about the objective universe, such as that some sort of god exists, or that reincarnation or karma is real, it is subject to the same burden of proof as any other claims. Many folks are confused about this because most societies have traditionally allowed spiritual beliefs a privileged position, exempt from proof. Of course, that's a way to maintain entrenched beliefs, not a path to truth.

Quote:

---

do you believe in reincarnation?

---

I'm very, very skeptical about any claim that involves some sort of soul that survives the death of the body, so no, I don't believe in reincarnation. We are reincarnated only in the sense that our constituent compounds and elements go into the grass, the animals that eat the grass, the people who eat the animals, etc.

Quote:

---

do you believe in karma?
do you believe that the universe will give back to you, what you give into it?

---

I grouped these two questions together because they're essentially the same question.
If by "karma" you mean the Hindu notion of working out our karma through successive lifetimes, well, I don't believe any of us has more than one lifetime, so that's out. BTW, do you realize that the Hindu doctrine of karma is a rationalization for the exploitation and mistreatment of lower-caste people? "It's okay for us to grossly mistreat and exploit these untouchables, because they were such horrible people in their previous lives; that's why they're untouchables in this lifetime. Hit him again, harder!"

I do believe in the very loose form of karma I call "hippie karma"--the idea that, in general, "what goes around comes around". Unfortunately, there are way too many exceptions--sweet harmless people who have horrible lives as well as vile scumbags who are rich, powerful and apparently quite happy. This sort of loose karma is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as the stricter kind that the Hindus (and apparently you) posit, but it has the advantage of being real.

Quote:

---

I am interested in your response.

---

Your interest is appreciated.
And I'm interested to see the questions you chose to ask me. It seems like nearly everybody has their favorite "essential" questions to ask others. Some would ask if we have Jesus as our personal savior, others whether we acknowledge Muhammad as the prophet of the one true god, others might ask about the U.S. Constitution, or whether we eat meat, or which day is supposed to be the Sabbath, or [fill in the blank]. Other people's Big Questions often seem silly to us. Once a conservative guy from the Bible Belt said to me "Can I ask you a question?" I invited him to do so, whereupon he asked "Do you agree that it's harmful to show homosexual pornography to children?" When I told him I'd have to see some evidence that it's harmful before I could endorse that notion, he sputtered "That's it, then--I can't talk to you!". That particular question was his litmus test.

FWIW, I guess my question, at least in this context, would be "Is your approach to life trying honestly to figure out what's most likely to be true, or is it maintaining beliefs that meet your emotional needs even if they're illusory?"

Quote:

---

peace

---

And peace to you, Bro!

Dixon, I just read "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, M.D., which is, as the blurb on the cover says, "A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife" and it's the most compelling argument I've seen.......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

To the extent that "spirituality" means claims about the objective universe, such as that some sort of god exists, or that reincarnation or karma is real, it is subject to the same burden of proof as any other claims. ...

I'm very, very skeptical about any claim that involves some sort of soul that survives the death of the body, so no, I don't believe in reincarnation. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Dixon, I just read "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, M.D., which is, as the blurb on the cover says, "A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife" and it's the most compelling argument I've seen.......

---

Sara, I just read the Newsweek article in which Dr. Alexander describes his quite striking NDE ("Near Death Experience"). It is a pretty typical NDE, though more complex and more poetically described than most. It makes one wish to have such an experience oneself, doesn't it?! (I've actually had somewhat similar experiences in psychedelic states.)

My question to you: What in his description of the experience leads you to conclude that it was anything other than imaginary? Why do you think it points to some sort of objective reality outside his brain, such as an afterlife? I saw nothing in the account that would support such a conclusion, but maybe I missed something?

NDEs are usually (not always) ecstatic and very often life-changing, but I have never seen in them any evidence for any sort of god, afterlife, etc. Here is an excellent and interesting brief refutation of Alexander's claim. And here is a very brief discussion of how hallucination works in regards to NDEs and, more specifically, Dr. Alexander's NDE.

This is a good example of the importance of exposing oneself to at least two sides of an issue. Especially when we may be emotionally inclined to want to believe something, it behooves us to have a look at what the skeptics say about it.

Once again Dixon, you are my hero! You, more than anyone I know, explain things in the light of reason and logic, rather than beliefs/superstition/programming/attachments, and you always seem open to learning and sharing new information. I think that's a great combination!

You are always open to being challenged, and not many people really are. I like that your challenges stir things up for people, and although they may not like it, at the time, it may filter in, and take root at a later date.

When I quit the Catholic Church over birth control, at 22, I thought perhaps I might explore other religions. After a short time, I realized that I was looking for a church that would be in alignment with my personal values. For example, I wouldn't choose the Baptist faith because I liked to dance. It didn't take long for me to realize that if adults choose a religion, rather than being born into one, they more than likely will choose one that isn't in conflict with their lifestyle or values. If they do, that would seem irrational.

Ultimately it didn't take very long at all for me to realize that I didn't need anyone to tell me how to live. I know that for many people, church is a social outlet, but I had no need or desire for that. I knew there were plenty of places I could go to find people to connect with, without having to bend my activities to more rules and regulations.

In other words, I trusted myself to make wise decisions. Not that I always have! But I've seen that many people don't trust themselves or are fearful about making important decisions. I have one friend who's highly intelligent, has an MBA, and has lived a wealthy lifestyle at one time. About a year ago, she was "inspired/guided" to move out of the area. She told me that she doesn't decide things anymore...she's led by Spirit! I was speechless.....
because this seemed so irrational, and an obvious lie to herself. But why?

My theory is that if people say they have no control over their lives, or that they don't make decisions, it's really a subconscious ploy to avoid taking responsibility. And a blatant lie.... We're making decisions all the time, and each one of those decisions takes us on a path. But if "Spirit" guides us, we don't have to think too much. I guess it works for many spiritualists.

If I need to make an important decision, and I have time to think about it, I will make a list of "pros and cons", just as I did when I was 19, and wanting to get married. I didn't want my decision to be just from the emotions I was feeling. I wanted to engage my mind, and try to be objective. Getting my thoughts on paper really helped me to see more clearly, as it has throughout my life.

I knew a young woman many years ago who said she wanted to meet a man who would "tell her what to do, and control her." She found that person, and was basically imprisoned in her house, unable to speak to friends or leave without his permission.

Anyway, there are always people willing to tell us how to believe, think, and act. They won't even ask you what you want, but will assume that they know best. I've had people ask me "what's right"? I usually tell them that I can't make that judgement for them. I will instead urge them to consider ways to think about it from their perspective, and come up with a conclusion from themselves.

There are many unknowns for me in the spiritual world, and I accept that. I've had premonitions, and seen things that couldn't be explained, but to me it's just a part of having different capacities, like intelligence in a way. People are on many different levels of abilities, both physical, mental, and spiritual. I want to remain open to learning more along my journey.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Smith, I apologize for having taken so long to get back to you. ....

---

RE:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Chris Dec:

Are alien abductions real or are they products of our imaginations (and what IS the difference).

---

I suppose it 'may' be possible that some sort of 'mind control' (?) or other sense of 'awareness' (which has yet to be {and may never be} 'proven' to exist) that could, (in theory) be conceived as being a form of “alien abduction” (experience) but as far as I know, so far, 'alien abductions' have not been 'reasonably proven' to me as real but I am not closed-minded to the (remote) possibility it may have happened at some point in human history because of the reality of the fact that I, admittedly, don't know everything, but for now I remain unconvinced of claims of alien abductions being factual.

RE:

Quote:

---

...Can prayer help or is it a silly superstition?

---

“Meditation” “prayer” “relaxation techniques” etc. or whatever label you want to stick to it have been at least somewhat 'proven'... ...but before you reach (if you haven't already) any 'conclusion' on the matter you (just as one example) might read the March 31 2006 New York Times article by Benedict Carey titled “Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer”.... ...BTW, there is quite a bit of evidence of denial within that article (even though the article is not about denial) emanating from the 'people of faith' who were quoted in the article.

That being said, I 'believe' that a person's (the patent's) state of mind going into surgery does have an effect on the their body which does not necessarily guarantee anything particular but still has some (albeit difficult to quantify) effect.

RE:

Quote:

---

Does the soul live on or are we worm food? MY answer to these and other similar questions: YES.

---

1- “Scientifically” speaking there is as of yet no way to 'prove' soul; so that may be a thing to be scientifically unknowable and therefore exuberantly denied by the more purest science-minded individuals who in all likelihood will never have a scientifically acceptable 'tool' to use to 'see' (a) “soul” in the first place so as far as I can tell using a “scientific” method to prove so much as what a “soul is”, not to mention weather or not a “soul” 'lives on' is in either case an exercise in futility....

...

Quote:

---

...worm food?

---

... ...2- Probably not so much if the body is cremated....
...and also:

Quote:

---

Chris, I'm kindly disposed toward you because of some nice things you've said to me, but you test my patience when you utter this sort of hogwash. To assert that mutually contradictory claims are both true violates the most basic logic that even a child understands. Either prayer is helpful or it isn't. Either there's a soul that survives the death of the body or there isn't. And if you're unclear on the distinction between objective reality and imagination, you may wish to 1. get a prescription for a good antipsychotic medication, and 2. read my column #4, "Reality Is Real--Really!".

---

...Anyway, it seems to me that virtually all 'beliefs' are, at least at some point in the past, derived from some sort of (circumstantial) fact/s that were present but the conveyance of what actually was (is) the “fact” ({is} particularly more obscure the further into the past a story is from) and what is now 'believed' to be the 'reason/s' a 'believer' gives for the the why is reasonably open for scrutiny... ..at which point the so-called “fact/s” come into question as to; if imaginary, made-up, misinformation or some combination thereof etc..

Shandi, thank you for your kind words. As an outspoken loudmouth, I often find myself on the receiving end of people's extremely unpleasant defense mechanisms, so it's nice that a few folks like you get where I'm coming from. You've always been so supportive to me and I appreciate you!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

After a short time, I realized that I was looking for a church that would be in alignment with my personal values. For example, I wouldn't choose the Baptist faith because I liked to dance. It didn't take long for me to realize that if adults choose a religion, rather than being born into one, they more than likely will choose one that isn't in conflict with their lifestyle or values. If they do, that would seem irrational.

---

I would argue that rationality requires looking past the biases of our lifestyle or values in order to see most clearly what's true. Then I may have to change my lifestyle or values in order to fit what's true. Sometimes this means having to believe stuff that's unpleasant. Other times it means not allowing myself to "believe" stuff that would be pleasant. And occasionally, I even get to believe pleasant stuff and disbelieve unpleasant stuff! I'm more interested in what's apparently true than in what matches or doesn't match my lifestyle or values. The universe doesn't owe it to me to agree with me or make me happy. That's the truth-seeking stance.

Quote:

---

In other words, I trusted myself to make wise decisions.

---

This is one of those areas in which we can err in either direction--trusting ourselves insufficiently or trusting ourselves too much. When "trusting myself" means that I think I couldn't possibly be wrong about something, watch out! However, people who have been overly influenced by oppressive "authority" figures would do well to trust themselves more and those others less--or at least find better authority figures!

Quote:

---

About a year ago, she was "inspired/guided" to move out of the area. She told me that she doesn't decide things anymore...she's led by Spirit!

---

I share your scorn for people's attributing their decisions to "Spirit" or whatever. It's always seemed sort of grandiose to me--"It's not me making this decision, it's Spirit, so it has special importance and validity.":biglaugh: When people think they have a cosmic daddy or mommy figure to tell them what to do, I just want to say "Grow up!"

Quote:

---

I knew a young woman many years ago who said she wanted to meet a man who would "tell her what to do, and control her." She found that person, and was basically imprisoned in her house, unable to speak to friends or leave without his permission.

---

Sad. Dominance and submission should stay in the bedroom where they belong!

Quote:

---

There are many unknowns for me in the spiritual world, and I accept that. I've had premonitions, and seen things that couldn't be explained, but to me it's just a part of having different capacities, like intelligence in a way. People are on many different levels of abilities, both physical, mental, and spiritual. I want to remain open to learning more along my journey.

---

My bias is that there are probably prosaic explanations for the experiences you interpret as paranormal, but I don't know for sure.

Excellent analysis, Dixon, as always.

Thank you once again, Dixon, for revealing a path on the journey to truth finding. This write up by Sam Harris is an intelligent and educated response to Dr. Alexander's experience of heaven. Believing without question isn't the best way to discover truth. Or as Wayne Dyer says "believing is seeing". Maybe he means that we see what we want to believe is true?

I believe that perception creates our experience of events or people. Our perception creates the messages we give ourselves. Of course, many of our perceptions are created early on in our lives, before the age of 6, from messages we get, before judgement comes in. But that's another topic:
subconscious messages received in theta state that become our beliefs.

I so appreciate your sharing of this information, and I have posted it to my FB page to spread the wealth of truth. I encourage others to do this.

I knew Terrance McKenna (referenced in the article) from living in Hawaii during the 80's. I've never experienced DMT, but always had a desire to. Reading McKenna's description, makes me wish I could. :wink2:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Sara, I just read the Newsweek article in which Dr. Alexander describes his quite striking NDE ("Near Death Experience"). ...

---

Dixon, dear, I'm not ignoring you.....but can't check your links just yet....

Sara

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Thank you once again, Dixon, for revealing a path on the journey to truth finding. This write up by Sam Harris is an intelligent and educated response to Dr. Alexander's experience of heaven.

---

I think there's more to this story, and offer this for your further consideration:
https://www.skeptiko.com/sam-harris-...ience-science/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

I think there's more to this story, and offer this for your further consideration:
https://www.skeptiko.com/sam-harris-...ience-science/

---

Karl, thanks for the additional info. I read it with interest, even the dry technical parts. Of course, I haven't the expertise to even begin to assess the validity of Alexander's arguments from brain structure/function. I do note that he doesn't say here that his doctors agree that his cortex was totally shut down. In fact, he himself says "...it is unlikely that even deeper layers of the cortex were still functioning in more than isolated pockets of small networks" [emphasis added by me]. So, if his claim really was that the cortex had totally shut down, he himself seems to have backed off from that a little. In any case, it seems that we have a "he said vs. he said" argument between Alexander and the brain expert Harris consulted. I will be interested to hear the consensus of the experts in the field when others weigh in.

Even if we assume that his cortex was totally shut down, does that mean his experience involved contact with some objectively existent realm, rather than being "all in his head" (whether in the cortex or some more primitive part of the brain)? I would argue that that is not the most parsimonious interpretation of the facts, especially in view of the wide variation of reported details of NDEs, which are substantially shaped by people's religious beliefs and cultural influences, as well as the obvious wish-fulfillment aspects--unconditional love from a young woman who just happens to be stunningly gorgeous? Woohoo!:love: Hollywood couldn't have written it better. I hereby predict that we'll see a movie about this. (Ever wonder why humanoid messengers/avatars in these scenarios are so often physically beautiful? Doesn't that speak to the subjective, wish-fulfillment nature of the experience?)

Alexander cites the perceived "ultra-reality" of his experience as if to imply that that supports his interpretation of it as more than subjective. If that is so, shouldn't we also accept the objective reality of everything perceived as "ultra-real" in every drug trip, psychotic episode, and spontaneous rapture anyone's ever had? If so, we're stuck with thousands of different worlds, some of them nightmarish.

One more thing: the article you linked to was entitled "Sam Harris Won’t Debate Dr. Eben Alexander on Near-Death Experience Science" in big red caps. It seems to me the writer intended to imply that Harris was afraid to debate Alexander. But Harris's explanation (basically lack of time and a feeling that the claim was too unsupported to deserve debate) was entirely reasonable. So much for sensationalistic journalism.

Dixon:
My first reaction to your post was to suggest that, for a more balanced opinion, you should read the book first, rather than the rebuttals....but maybe that doesn't matter much, I dunno.......and I did find the Sam Harris article a bit snarky and egocentric, which always makes me doubt scientific validity. Haven't got the energy just yet to read your other citations here, but I will........

Sara

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Sara, I just read the Newsweek article ....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

My first reaction to your post was to suggest that, for a more balanced opinion, you should read the book first, rather than the rebuttals..

---

.
I read the Newsweek article by Alexander first. I have a bookshelf full of books and a stack of magazines that have been waiting years to be read. There's no way I'm gonna find time to read every book that purports to contain world-shaking information, especially since nearly all of them turn out to be claptrap. But I do try to find a fair summary of a person's claims and evidence before coming to any but the most tentative conclusions. How about you, Sara? Have you ever read a whole book on the subject of experiences like NDEs by a skeptic?

Quote:

---

...I did find the Sam Harris article a bit snarky...

---

Harris did express considerable outrage that a major news magazine devoted a credulous, unbalanced cover story to bizarre, grandiose claims based on crappy logic. Your seeing that as "snarky" may say more about you than it does about Harris.

Quote:

---

...and egocentric...

---

Alexander says "But that belief, that theory, now lies broken at our feet. What happened to me destroyed it...", and you call Harris egocentric? Would it be possible for someone to make a good, articulate argument against something you want to believe without your judging them as egocentric?

Rereading your original article, Dixon, I realize I have a couple thoughts to share. One is that we seem to have different definitions for the word "belief" when used in the context of religious beliefs, etc. To me, it's simply accepting something we've been told to be true in the absence of direct evidence or rational proof. To me, if you have such evidence or proof, then it's not a matter of belief; it's something you know to be true (or at least you could say that).

Having grown up in close contact with "believers" (fundamentalist "Christians"), it occurred to me at a young age that people confused "knowing" and "believing." But I saw - and see - it as their way of making sense out of their experiences or out of existence. I came to see that buying into someone else's explanation for the way things are or what is beyond my understanding can be a dangerous or irresponsible thing to do, so I avoid doing it. But I see this as only one of many ways we can keep ourselves distracted from uncomfortable feelings or unmet needs, so it seems I could have some empathy and compassion for those whose believing is difficult for me to understand. I certainly have my own alternative ways of keeping myself distracted. And can I, as a product and member of an addictive society point the finger of disdain at my fellow addicts, just because their addictions don't work for me?

I get from what you wrote that you accept as true or valid only what your rational mind can make sense of or validate (correct me if I'm mistaken). To me, that would seem quite limiting given that I've had at least a few experiences that my rational mind can't really explain. Like when I had a strong sense of a friend being in danger and finding out later she'd had a stroke at that time; or walking from a campsite to my car after spending a night by a lake in New York state and feeling indescribably ecstatic and connected to everything - for no apparent reason. True, it doesn't indicate anything other than I had that experience, yet my rational mind has no way of making sense out of it.

There is a third alternative beyond believing or knowing, which is being open to other possibilities - even those I cannot experience directly or rationally prove. I find this useful when I hear or read accounts of NDEs in which the person sharing the experience tells of things they were aware of that they couldn't have perceived with their senses. An example would be Anita Moorjani's account of her NDE that included a "hearing" a conversation that took place outside her room and down the hall a ways while she was in a coma (which was verified after she came out of the coma). Or children who tell a story of something that they experienced in a previous life (or someone's previous life) and that story is found to have a factual basis. Such accounts seem to expand my sense of what could be possible, and I don't feel a need to either believe or prove them wrong. Are NDEs merely something people have experienced inside their impaired brains? Perhaps everything we experience is just something happening inside our minds - or wherever the locus of our consciousness really is. Is it possible we can be overly attached to what we can experience through our senses or that our rational minds can make sense of - as a way of avoiding having to admit we don't know, that our human faculties are finite and limited? I prefer to stay open to the possibility that consciousness - what I could potentially be aware of or experience - is not limited to what my very human mind can comprehend or understand.

CSummer

Gee, Dixon, I have so much respect for your intelligence and cleverness that I can only think your post here must be a sort of underhanded example of "snarky".......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

.
I read the Newsweek article by Alexander first. I have a bookshelf full of books ..

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Gee, Dixon, I have so much respect for your intelligence and cleverness that I can only think your post here must be a sort of underhanded example of "snarky".......

---

Sara, you're one of my biggest supporters; I wouldn't knowingly cause you distress. I'm a bit mystified as to what part of my post you found snarky. Maybe it was my negative characterization of the Newsweek article and Alexander's claims? I wouldn't call that snarky; it just seems like accurate descriptions to me. Your mileage may vary.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...Poor naive suckers like me get involved in discussions on the assumption that the person is really interested in whether their belief is true, only to be subjected to frustrating and sometimes nasty, insulting defense mechanisms until we get tired of painfully banging our heads against their armor and give up...

---

I largely agree with you, Dixon; but speaking as Miss Manners, I suggest that you reconsider whether your personal search for truth really justifies inquiring about other people's faith and beliefs, only to find fault with them.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:

I largely agree with you, Dixon; but speaking as Miss Manners, I suggest that you reconsider whether your personal search for truth really justifies inquiring about other people's faith and beliefs, only to find fault with them.

---

Geoff, I'm sorry I took so long in responding to you. As usual, I'm way behind on everything.

You are one of many who have a problem with people's "finding fault" with others' beliefs. Such people seem to consider it a personal attack to suggest, however politely, that they're wrong about something. But how can we find what's true without finding what's false ("finding fault")? Truth-seeking involves separating the wheat from the chaff; you can't do it without identifying some claims as false. Furthermore, truth-seeking requires being open to being shown you're mistaken about something. Another's critique of your belief may be mistaken, in which case that will be shown by a reasoned dialogue, or it may be true, in which case you should thank them for correcting you. Either way, "finding fault" with your belief is an act of love, based on the assumption that you're a truth seeker and would therefore like to be corrected whenever you're wrong. When I find fault with others' beliefs, I'm following the Golden Rule; I want them to likewise critique my beliefs, as I assume I'm wrong about some of them. This is how we collaborate in getting to better approximations of truth. We can't get that sort of collaboration from those who agree with us!

UNDERSTAND: Seeing someone's "finding fault" with your beliefs as obnoxious is evidence of closed-mindedness on your part. Do you assume you couldn't possibly be wrong? Or, do you acknowledge that you could be wrong but, for some reason, resent people's showing you when you are? (I'm using the word "you" here in a general sense, rather than singling you out, Geoff.)

Which do you think is more respectful: My thinking you're wrong and not mentioning it, or my thinking you're wrong and telling you that, so you have a chance to respond and show me that you're right (and also a chance to be corrected if you are, in fact, wrong)? I would MUCH rather have people tell me when they think I'm full of shit, and feel much more respected by their doing that, as long as they're not doing it in a way that's gratuitously snotty, and as long as they're as willing to be changed by the dialogue as they want me to be.

Again (just for emphasis): Polite, open-minded finding of fault in someone's position is an act of love and truth-seeking. To see it as a personal affront is an indication of closed-minded defensiveness on your part. Do you want to know what's true, even if that differs from what you currently believe? If so, how do you expect to find out what's true unless someone "finds fault" with your current belief?

Anyone interested in deeper discussion of these issues is invited to read my previous column "Let's Argue!"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

You are one of many who have a problem with people's "finding fault" with others' beliefs. Such people seem to consider it a personal attack to suggest, however ...

---

I'm an outlier on the social bell curve: like you, I welcome argument as a form of engagement. But first, to be effective, we must recognize that this is not how most people feel.

You assume that beliefs can be divided into "true" and "faulty." This is how some sciences work--physics and chemistry, perhaps. Outside of these specialties, that's a false dichotomy. People believe things about themselves, and those beliefs tend to be self-fulfilling. The world of living things, human culture, and especially the noösphere (realm of thought) are far more complex than any Aristotelian judgment can describe. If you say "the world is terrible" you can find endless examples of why this is so. If I say "the world is beautiful," I can likewise find endless examples. The fault is not in our beliefs, but in our expectation of what it means to believe something.

So instead of true/false judgments about beliefs, I prefer "useful/obstructive." Since beliefs affect how we interact with the world, decide what interaction you want first, then choose the beliefs that help implement that. Anything else would be wrong--for you. But not for someone who has different intentions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Such people seem to consider it a personal attack to suggest, however politely, that they're wrong about something. ..... Either way, "finding fault" with your belief is an act of love, based on the assumption that you're a truth seeker and would therefore like to be corrected whenever you're wrong

---

Sorry, Dixon, but you just pointed out the flaw in your own argument. As Hummingbear says, most people don't fit your assumption. That doesn't mean you can't continue pointing out that people are wrong, just that your justification is based on a faulty premise. So if you are indeed answering Geoff's request that you consider justification (which is of course your prerogative to do or not) you haven't made your case.

I like your explanation of how beliefs can't be divided into true and faulty, but rather "useful/obstructive", although we know that some beliefs about our planet have been proven false, through scientific evidence, which you point out as physics and chemistry. What people believe about themselves is different, or their view of the world in general. Our beliefs about ourselves do usually become self-fulfilling. And, as you said, we can always point to examples to enforce our beliefs, while not accepting anything that disproves them.

What I question is that people actually decide what interaction they want, before they choose their beliefs. I think that people's beliefs come from their early programming, until such time as it becomes problematic, and they realize that it's their beliefs conflict with what they want in their life. As a former Catholic, my (programmed) beliefs hit the wall with the birth control issue. And my new belief came about in a matter of minutes.

In my lifetime I've heard some pretty outrageous, illogical beliefs, but I knew there was no way to convince these people that their beliefs were faulty. Many had to do with God or a spiritual orientation. I'm sure that many people believe that our recent light rain had to do with a meditation, rain dance, or visualization. I knew someone who thought he caused catastrophes, like plane crashes. I realize that goes beyond beliefs, into delusions. But I think that many illogical beliefs are just that....delusions. I wouldn't get into a discussion with people in this category since I believe it would be a waste of time. And, as you said, most people don't welcome argument(debate) as a form of engagement.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hummingbear:

I'm an outlier on the social bell curve: like you, ...

---

Some of us have made dramatic changes in our beliefs due to events we had never imagined beforehand. I am one. I have talked with Dixon many times and there is no budging him even though he extrapolates from experiences unlike any I have had to those he has never had but I have. But in the interests of fun, here is a video beginning in Toronto television studio that suggests the world is a great deal stranger than skeptics of our time will allow themselves to admit.

[The video below can only to be watched on the YouTube website. To do so, pop open the video player by clicking the link below and then click on the small YouTube logo in the bottom right of that window. Barry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2lGPT2J1cc

The book about all this, Conjuring Up Philip. an imaginary 'spirit' is sadly out of print, but I gulped hard and bought a used copy, and it's worth the money I paid.

Or we're all frauds and/or fools.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

...As a former Catholic, my (programmed) beliefs hit the wall with the birth control issue. And my new belief came about in a matter of minutes....

---

RE:

Quote:

---

But in the interests of fun, here is a video beginning in Toronto television studio that suggests the world is a great deal stranger than skeptics of our time will allow themselves to admit.

---

Spoof using Bedford levitator (?)...
...I would not be surprised...
...Yes I am skeptical of that video being a spoof in of it's own right.
What 'reasonable' 'proof' is there which scientifically illustrates that video it is not likely a “spoof”?


Also, RE:

Quote:

---

I have talked with Dixon many times and there is no budging him even though he extrapolates from experiences unlike any I have had to those he has never had but I have.

---

We all “believe” and “disbelieve” what we do of either or the other in our individual lives, but to make actual “scientifically” 'proven' true or false is something that involves others using generalized agreed upon 'guidelines'; whereas the proof is exactly being able to produce the exact same experience with the same means as what was stated as "fact".

In almost all difficult to do experimental cases due to a lack of physical hardware (or in some cases the real threat of actual persecution which have historically prevented and has been responsible for destroying the means of such provability); as far as the hardware aspect, less the persecution:
the Hadron Collider comes to mind as one example why the 'facts' at one point in time were out of reach of such "proof" (of "theory"); until there comes a way to develop and comprehensibly use the instrumentation which was unavailable previously. :

Quote:

---

The Large Hadron Collider
The LHC is the largest machine in the world. It took thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians decades to plan and build, and it continues to operate at the very boundaries of scientific knowledge.

---

Some say that “the the truth is much stranger than fiction”; but right now I am thinking that the existing 'facts' weather we 'believe' we 'know' them or not can rapidly become moot when one comes to the realization that in the whole scheme of things (not just a few or in some cases many cherry-picked factoids) {that} all the actual 'facts' involved in anything are far more complex than any fiction could ever be.:worship::atom::biglaugh:

I am not interested in debating the issue. In my experience some are what I call "irrationally committed to their version of rationality" just as they think those of us who think scientism is an inadequate model for phenomena are similarly afflicted. I really no longer care very much what they think.

However before I posted the video I had just finished a remarkable book, "Conjuring Up Philip," when this thread appeared, so I added the video for fun and entertainment. Make of it anything you want, but for the people in the video it was not a spoof.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

RE:
Spoof using Bedford levitator (?)...
...I would not be surprised...
...Yes I am skeptical of that video being a spoof in of it's own right.
What 'reasonable' 'proof' is there which scientifically illustrates that video it is not likely a “spoof”?...

---

RE:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

...Make of it anything you want, but for the people in the video it was not a spoof.

---

I can't even determine that one way or the other with any absolute certainty any better than you or anybody else who has neither talked to anyone who was in the video or at least seen an interview of at least some of the 'participants' in that video who was not a part of any such (so-called) spoof, which in fact, due to the way the video is presented is highly unlikely.... ...Or knows someone who was in on the whole thing from the inside in the beginning who stated it was a 'spoof which is also not likely here on waccobb....

...But I do have to think that If they have never been informed of being spoofed and did actually really 'believe' what was going on there was a "super natural phenomena" at that time, then of course to them it was not a 'spoof'.

:2cents:I just think that it is much more likely that video is in one way or the other ultimately about a 'spoofing'.

I have been writing another response for this thread It has more to say about how I personally think and process things that I reasonably realize which I don't know to be either fact or fiction.
Anyway, your response to my previous comment came to my attention so I have posted this first.

I have a question I am putting out to all who are into this thread:

Q: At what point or when would it be best for someone (anyone) to say, admit, acknowledge, state the "fact", etc. that: "I don't know"?:dunno: (I am of course referring to the person making that "I don't know" statement).

I will further up the ante of question/s by saying that just because "I don't know" and someone else is absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is "factual" doesn't mean that:
1- they are correct,
2- (doesn't mean that) just because they insist they so strongly 'believe' they know something as "factual" that I am in any way whatsoever required to also "believe" it is "fact" just because someone else is so absolutely sure that it is.
3- this seems to be a good time to mention another thread (thanks to Dixon for that other thread) The Gospel According to Dixon #15: Are You Certain? Where in the introduction Dixon says (in part):

Quote:

---

...any idiot can have subjective certainty about anything no matter how unjustified that certainty is. A subset of subjective certainty is justified certainty. It's the certainty that's supported by good evidence, and the degree of justified certainty is determined by how good the evidence is. Another way to look at it is that subjective certainty is belief, while justified certainty is knowledge, with the understanding that belief is whatever we believe even if it's totally unsupported or even disproved, while knowledge is what we believe with reasonable evidence...

---

Right on the mark Dixon!:thumbsup:

I recommend reading the book the group generated- "Conjuring up Philip" Owen and Sparrow, 1976. I know considerably about the attitudes of those involved and I'm afraid your imaginings are wrong.

Is there any way that you know of to reproduce what is claimed in the book?
It seems to me that there should be a way to at least re produce the same experiment and have at least similar results if what is claimed in the book actually occurred.

Just reading the book would not be enough for me to know what is either fact or fiction one way or the other.

Are there any other similar experiences that have been 'documented' that you are aware of?

Is there anyone that you know of that is doing actual research along the same lines currently?

What are the "attitudes" which you mention?... ...and/or what exactly did you mean contextually speaking when you said "I know considerably about the attitudes of those involved"? The reason I ask is: I have been told that I was "wrong" many times from people who had an "attitude" when they were saying that I was wrong even though most of those times I was not being 'wrong'.
In my 'book' (figuratively speaking of course) attitude/s alone is not proof of what is false or true of much anything other than someone having an "attitude".

In my experience, people who are bonded heavily with a particular 'belief' or whole belief system tend to get defensive when that 'belief' is questioned and even get more defensive and some people even actually get angered and become offensive when such belief/s become challenging to keep hold of in the light of substantial evidence which contradicts that belief.

I think the difference between a so-called true "believer" and a true "scientist" is that a true 'scientist' almost always welcomes his or her "theories" to be challenged to the core, particularly by someone or group who is/are most competent, whereas the true 'believer' despises their beliefs being challenged particularly by someone or group is/are most competent.

I ask anyone on this thread:
Where or even if there is any place in existence that is a reasonable middle ground between the two seemingly opposing sides where the conversation within doesn't end up getting convoluted into obliviousness?

Gus diZerega, please don't take it personally, I just don't read very many books, never have, I wouldn't go out of my way to read that one even if it were on the book shelf right next to me but if it were now just out of curiosity after reading this thread I might at least read some of it. Who knows if it were in my hands I could end up reading the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

I recommend reading the book the group generated- "Conjuring up Philip" Owen and Sparrow, 1976. I know considerably about the attitudes of those involved and I'm afraid your imaginings are wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

I have a question I am putting out to all who are into this thread:

Q: At what point or when would it be best for someone (anyone) to say, admit, acknowledge, state the "fact", etc. that: "I don't know"?:dunno: (I am of course referring to the person making that "I don't know" statement).

---

since that statement is always technically accurate, anyone can say it any time.

but if you mean it tactically, there are different answers. As you mention, when you're discussing something with someone who clearly has less justification for their position than you do for yours, "I don't know" implies recognition that their case is stronger - an implication you certainly don't intend to make. That's one of the problems with using language as a means of reaching understanding. It's subject to misinterpretation.

If you're discussing ideas with someone who's also got an open mind, it's useful to indicate the boundaries of your understanding - an indication of the point where you shift to analyzing your level of confidence (a continuous quantity) vs. a black/white binary dichotomous statement of fact.

or you can use it to cut off further discussion - hell, I don't know - implying lack of deeper interest.

(this is my contribution in the spirit of Dixon's series)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

I am not interested in debating the issue. In my experience some are what I call "irrationally committed to their version of rationality" just as they think those of us who think scientism is an inadequate model for phenomena are similarly afflicted. I really no longer care very much what they think.

However before I posted the video I had just finished a remarkable book, "Conjuring Up Philip," when this thread appeared, so I added the video for fun and entertainment. Make of it anything you want, but for the people in the video it was not a spoof.

---

maybe no debate, but it's here and so part of a discussion.

I'm a bit torn because although I agree that science isn't the ultimate tool, capable of reaching complete understanding of all that is real, I don't think the alternative view you're implying is an alternative either. Sure, there's such a thing as "scientism", which I read as a description of a religious-like belief in the power of science. But science is incredibly powerful as a process. And from what I know of "Philip" it's a tool that could have been, and wasn't, applied. As recent publicity about the difficulties of applying science to psychology illustrate, there are phenomena that are difficult to study rigorously; parapsychology would be in that realm too.

There's a well known bias toward studying or developing things that you can measure, and science is a great measuring tool. The correct response to that is to define what your tool isn't measuring, and make sure that you give that aspect of the problem/situation/phenomenon due attention. But there's often no alternative tool to use, leaving us with the answer Hotspring proposes - "I don't know". And sometimes that includes the observation that despite their claims, no-one else can know either.

Good questions.

Reading the book should not be enough to turn a true skeptic into someone convinced, but assuming honesty by the authors, it should turn a true skeptic into someone who acknowledges something most interesting is going on and those who think the phenomena are genuinely psychic have a reasonable case worth taking seriously. The book gives you a very clear sense of where the people involved were coming from unless you want to assume the people spent years concocting fraudulent activities for no monetary pay off and during that time for no publicity at all. The book does not even give their last names except for the two women involved in writing it, and as the video demonstrates, they existed. That the book does such a good job describing the experiment and those involved is why I think I have a good sense of what their attitude towards all this was.

You can choose not to read books as I choose not to do a number of things others do and enjoy immensely. Some of those things I imagine I would enjoy as well- but not as much as what I already do and there are only 24 hours in a day. No problem- but in all these matters the price of not doing it is not benefiting from the activity involved. That said, the internet benefits non-book readers and Googling "The Philip Experiment" will 'net' you many links some very useful. It's where I started regarding this issue.

The book actually does describe a successful replication involving a fictitious French Canadian woman named "Lilith" who went to France in WWII to be a spy and was discovered and shot. I have recently located some Canadians in Victoria who I hope will be able to bring me up to date on events after the book. I know many directly involved are now dead.

The experiment was scientifically conducted - including efforts at replication. The phenomena it describes has long been reported, even by leading scientists of the time like William James. It breaks new ground (assuming the phenomena exist) in demonstrating there need be no departed ones for much of what is reported to happen, and that even entirely fictitious characters can appear to interact with us. Thus a new theory about what was happening was tested and found to fit the phenomena- and yet the thing they most hoped to accomplish - a materialization visible to the eye - never happened. Sounds like disciplined research to me, with fascinating results that changed the context for understanding what was happening.

I suspect mainstream science has not been much interested in part because it was done mostly by average people. (This was one of the points of the experiment- that you didn't need to think of yourself as a psychic to generate the phenomena.)

Further, most scientists are hostile to such reports if they cannot identify a mechanism by which they could be produced. One told me years ago essentially "if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist." I replied that perhaps radiation did not exist until the Curies discovered how to measure it... He became silent.

In addition, scientists are people with all the prejudices people have. There are collections of world renowned scientists saying things with complete assurance that only a few years later were shown to be completely false. Some years back I asked a professor of physical therapy at a university where I was teaching if she was interested in exploring some healing phenomena I was involved with. She said "no" because the experiment would take enormous amounts of time and energy and would likely discredit her in the eyes of many in her department. She had a career to consider.

As to finding such things around here- I know of nothing like this happening nearby. There are small groups where people meet regularly and often most interesting phenomena happen, but they are private, not doing research, not talking about it, and not seeking publicity. Perhaps the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma will have speakers and such on related issues. I suggest keeping an eye on their webpage: https://noetic.org/

I have no affiliation with them, but to my mind for the most part they are a serious and level headed organization.

There are a number of recent books by scientists with PhDs and plenty of university experience that use very different methods to explore what is generally called psi phenomena, though none I know of have done the Philip type stuff. I recommend two to start

Elizabeth Mayer, Extraordinary Knowing, science, skepticism and the inexplicable powers of the human mind. Random House, 2008. Here is a Youtube of her describing what caused her to become interested in such stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AClVSWvNsWw

Gary Schwartz. The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough evidence of Life After Death, Pocket Books, 2002

Mayer was a full professor at Berkeley,

Schwartz got his PhD at Harvard and is now professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry, and surgery at Arizona.

You write of seeking a middle ground. Actually in many ways the Philip Experiment is such a ground for it suggests the phenomena do NOT need to involve discarnate spirits, and anyone can reproduce the results under the rights circumstances. But because it gives psi phenomena credibility, 'skeptics' discount it.

In other words, there is no middle ground. Either the phenomena, whatever it is, exists, or it does not and those arguing otherwise are frauds, simpletons, or deluded. A genuine skeptic would either withhold judgment and not explore the issue as not likely worth the time, or would withhold judgment while exploring the issue. But as we have seen regarding global warming, religion, and this kind of thing, those claiming to be 'skeptics' are in fact emotionally very committed to their belief. I am now as interested in addressing 'skeptics' about whether or not such phenomena exist as I am in addressing 'skeptics' regarding global warming. That is, not at all.

But as I have just demonstrated, I'll take time to address what I take to be sincere questions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:

Is there any way that you know of to reproduce what is claimed in the book?...

---