RE: Agnosticism and Religion

I’m sure we probably are drifting off topic a little bit, but what the heck…

I agree—diplomacy has its limits, and cults are definitely something society needs to keep in check. Maybe that’s where a proper dialogue on religion needs to start: by distinguishing between religious organizations that are open and reasonable and actually help people, and organizations that exist only to serve themselves.

Perhaps there will always be tension in that regard, but I certainly agree that you can’t let just any old belief become a movement. Of course the counter argument is that we don’t want thought police either… maybe there’s some sort of happy medium. I’m a big believer in happy mediums.

I agree, but I think we need to distinguish between science and atheism. Both are committed to a logically consistent, evidence based worldview, to be sure. The difference is that science, because it deals with testable hypotheses, can’t really say anything meaningful on most of the big questions of religion. There’s no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, for example. Miracles may be another story, but then religious experiences are something else again. Anything subjective or untestable is by definition, outside of science’s ability to answer either positively or negatively.

Atheists extend this idea of logical consistency and say that since there’s no definitive evidence in favour of a God hypothesis, then there’s no reason to believe in one. So—they’re really stepping beyond science and into philosophy, which really makes it a matter of what you consider evidence—which really boils down to opinion. Some will find religious evidence compelling, others won’t. It’s kind of looking at one of those “magic eye” pictures—some people see the embedded 3D shape, and others don’t. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just the way it is—which is why the entire debate between religion and atheism seems ridiculous to me.

Fundamentalists do, indeed. I don’t think that’s true of all religious people, however.

It’s not the texts that are narrow (they’re almost too open-ended); it’s the fundamentalist’s interpretation of the texts which is narrow.

I think that’s true; but just to play Devil’s advocate, I wouldn’t want to get locked into a strictly causal, strictly body and logic-focused reality. It’s important to stay grounded, but there’s such a thing as being too grounded—the imagination withers and innovation and joy soon follow.

Religiousness, to me, is nothing more than the right to dream. Granted, it’s never a good idea to dream all the time, or to impose your dream on others, but to never dream isn’t good either.

Again, I’m a believer in a happy medium.

I’m sure you’re right that many would object to my interpretation; but please be careful—I didn’t say their beliefs were simply figments of their imagination. Religion is a very real thing, and refers to reality—at least, the reality of human existence. Whether or not it refers to the reality of the material world is another question—I think the answer to that is usually no, and I’m certain fundamentalists and evangelicals would disagree with me on that point. However, the human condition / experience is a real thing, worthy of study and expression. Religion is that study and expression. It’s different than ordinary art or literature in that it’s distilled further; more concentrated.

That’s profound (and sorry about your spaniel). Of course, you interpreted it a certain way, but surely you can see how someone else might have interpreted it differently—or at least, in such a way as to leave them uncertain. I don’t think they would be wrong to do so—they just wouldn’t be conforming to a strictly materialist worldview if they did.

Okay—but that’s what I mean—there’s a tendency to simply dismiss these experiences as some physical problem, rather than study them on their own psychological and social terms. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that Teresa of Avila did have epilepsy; does that invalidate the insights she gained from it? Even if she did have a brain disorder, she was still living in the world even if she saw it from a different angle to most people. Maybe that angle gave her insight into the human condition that you can’t get otherwise.

There’s a really interesting video you should see about a neuroscientist who experienced a stroke. Since the normally dominant left hemisphere of her brain was malfunctioning, she got to experience what the right hemisphere does on a day to day basis. The result was effectively a religious experience.

Pay close attention to the first third of the video, where she explains how the different hemispheres of the brain process information (left = linear, right = parallel). It’s analogous to the dichotomy between scientific and spiritual worldviews.

Because of our culture, we are trained early on to be left-hemisphere dominant, so except for artists, most of the time we never understand how the right-hemisphere operates. Various religious practices temporarily shift the focus from the left hemisphere to the right—usually by quieting or overriding the endless chatter of the left.