The Nature of Agnosticism Part 5

-

I was rereading old posts and realized I vaguely touched on miracles and religious experience. Suddenly, it dawned on me that I've neglected these concepts. I've underemphasized their importance in relation to other concepts I've belabored in the past and I never attempted to properly define the terms. I lump these together because there appears to be a deep interrelatedness between the two. "Miracle" tends to be the interpretation of a religious experience. Likewise, religious experiences seem to always involve some alleged miracle. They are deeply related concepts that are actually fundamental to persistence of belief but also point to interesting psychological traits of religious people that seem to predispose individuals to interpret events as miraculous. When you step outside the realm of ridiculous apologetics and theology, many evangelists will testify to some religious experience in hopes of persuading you. Many down to earth conversations with believers will almost always involve some description of their religious experiences. This seems to be the most compelling force driving belief. This also implies the existence of mechanisms that predispose religious believers to look for miracles, interpret arbitrary events as miracles, and block competing interpretations of the sensory experience. All of this will be covered here. We will also cover the dialectical structure that transmits alleged religious experiences. There seems to be a narrative structure or script that is common to religious experiences independent of the, often conflicting, contents described. In other words, there appears to be a role-play that religious people act out when describing their experiences to others; it's a kind of decentralized ritualism that emerges independent of any officially recognized rituals, like a pattern of behavior unique to forms of theism. I've touched on this briefly in the past but now I think its important to investigate.

Before diving into this post, I think its crucial to make quite a few distinctions that are consistently conflated when discussing this topic. I think these are some of the most compelling reasons to become a Theist, but they are also the most problematic. Let X = " some object/event/occurrence/experience/text etc.", the necessary distinctions are:

  1. X vs the cause of X: X is the sensation of experience, while the cause of X is what enabled it
  2. X vs your interpretation of X: X Is the raw data, while your interpretation is the meaning you assign to it within a broader cultural context
  3. X vs your perception of X: X is the thing itself, while your perception of X is distinct
  4. X vs your description X: X is the thing, while your description of the thing are the labels you assign to that thing, which can diverge from person to person
  5. X vs the effects of X: X is the occurrence or object itself, while its effects are what result from it. The effects may be immediate or long-term, but they are distinct from X itself.
  6. X vs the context of X: X occurs within a specific context, which includes its environment, historical background, and situational factors. While context influences X, it is not X itself.
  7. X vs the significance of X: The significance of X is the value or meaning attributed to it by individuals or society. X might be neutral on its own, but it is given importance through interpretation.
  8. X vs your memory of X: X is the original event, while your memory of it is a reconstruction influenced by bias, fading details, and reinterpretation over time. A childhood vacation may be remembered differently than how it actually happened.
  9. X vs your emotional reaction to X: X is what happens, while your emotional reaction is how you personally feel about it. Emotional responses can vary widely between individuals.
  10. X vs your expectations of X: Your expectations of X are predictions, assumptions, or hopes about what X should be, which may or may not align with reality.
  11. X vs the representation of X: A representation (e.g., a painting, photograph, or model) is an attempt to depict X, but it is not X itself. A map of a city (representation of X) is not the actual city (X). This is similar to the fallacy of reification or map vs territory fallacy.  
  12. X vs the language used to describe X: The words used to explain X shape how it is understood but do not define its full reality. A tragedy (X) may be described as "a lesson" or "a catastrophe," but these words do not alter the event itself.
  13. X vs the knowledge of X: X is the thing or event itself, while knowledge of X is the information someone has about it. One can have partial, inaccurate, or no knowledge of X, but X still exists independently.
  14. X vs alternative versions of X: X is the actual thing, while alternative versions are possible modifications or variations of it.
  15. X vs the structure of X: The structure of X refers to its composition, organization, or design, but X as a whole may include more than just its structure. A house (X) is not just its blueprint (structure of X); it also includes its function, occupants, and history.
  16. X vs the purpose of X: The purpose of X is the intention or function behind it (if any), but X can exist without a purpose. A tree (X) exists regardless of whether humans assign it a purpose (e.g., providing shade or oxygen).
  17. X vs the classification of X: The classification of X is how it is categorized based on external systems of organization, which may not capture the full essence of X. A dolphin (X) is biologically classified as a mammal (classification of X), but classification is a human-imposed system.
  18. X vs the perception of others regarding X: Your perception of X is not necessarily the same as how others perceive it. A political speech (X) might be inspiring to one person but offensive to another.
  19. X vs the medium through which X is conveyed: The way X is transmitted (e.g., through a book, film, or spoken word) is different from X itself.
  20. X vs the history of X: X exists at a moment in time, while its history includes all events that led up to it. A law (X) is different from the political and social events that caused it to be enacted (history of X).
  21. X vs the medium that enables X: Some things rely on a medium or environment to exist, but the medium is not the same as X. Music (X) depends on sound waves traveling through air, but sound waves are not the music itself.
  22. X vs the rules governing X: Some events or activities operate within systems of rules, but the rules themselves are separate from X. A soccer game (X) is different from the rulebook that governs it (rules of X).
  23. X vs X as part of a larger system: X may be one part of a greater whole but is not identical to the entire system.
  24. X vs its cultural meaning: A thing may have different meanings in different cultures, but those meanings are separate from X itself. A handshake (X) means different things in different societies, but the gesture itself remains the same.
  25. X vs the level of detail in which X is examined: The way X is viewed—whether broadly or in fine detail—affects how it is understood but does not change X itself.
  26. X vs the utility of X: X is what it is, whereas its utility is its practical use or function as determined by an observer. A rock (X) may have no inherent function, but it can be used as a tool (utility of X)

Summary of agnosticism and Religious Skepticism

  1. The Hidden Problem with Religious Arguments
  2. Begging the Question

Miracle Arguments

  1. Cameron asked about miracle claims. I answered.
  2. Arif Ahmed, On Miracles
  3. Hume Miracles
  4. An Argument for Atheism from Naturalism

Religious Experience

  1. Episode 13, Religious Experience (Part I)
  2. Episode 13, Religious Experience (Part II)
  3. Episode 13, Religious Experience (Part III)
  4. 10 Experiential Arguments for God: An Analysis
  5. Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 11: The Holy Spirit
  6. Christians And Muslims Don’t Want To Think About This
  7. What would convince you of God's existence?
  8. Bad Apologetics Ep 10 - Are Near Death Experiences Evidence of Life After Death?
  9. Dogmatic Materialists DESTROYED by AMAZING EVIDENCE of Pam Reynolds Near Death Experience Case
  10. More Near-Death Delusions and Christian Nonsense



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 1

-
Image
 I've never quite understood, what appears to be, the strong need to associate ones identity with categorical membership. Given this, I hesitantly refer to myself as an Agnostic. I do this because it has avoided, to some extent, rigid definition contrary to other stances; so on this ground I am keen to associate oneself with the label. Agnostics sit adjacent to, rather than opposed to, traditional binaries such as Theism vs Atheism; and can more broadly be applicable in conversations about political and economic ideologies. I've always view Agnosticism as a disposition, a collection of habits, pattern of inquiry, or an attitude toward uncertainty rather than a specific philosophical position towards certain metaphysical doctrines. Of course, there are certain assumptions an Agnostic holds; without a starting point, reasoning would surely be impossible. However, these assumptions seem to be extremely minimal; there is no need to add on any other unfounded base assumptions. This ...
Read more

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 2

-
Image
As I reflect more on my agnosticism I've come to some additional conclusions about the general tendencies or patterns of thinking entailed by agnosticism. I will mention a few arguments from the philosophy of religion that I find utterly unconvincing but are surprisingly convincing to a large fraction of theists, how we should be evaluating the worldviews that generate these faulty arguments, why it's pointless to engage in speculative argumentation, and how we should reevaluate our conceptions of the structure and nature of these types of belief systems. I'll preface this by stating that I've been recently exposed to a religious subculture in my late 20's without much prior involvement. My exposure and reactions come after attending undergrad, graduate school, a decade of reading philosophy and critical argumentation, and self teaching computer science. I've realized that I've had the privilege of growing up in a household that's been more or less open ...
Read more

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 4.1

-
Image
 As I’ve begin converging on the idea that religious belief is independent of evidential reasoning, I begin to ask “What factors contribute to, mediate, moderate, and impact the presence and level of religiosity?”. Observing the statistical variability in religiosity seems to imply that there are predictors correlated with what you believe and the strength of conviction. I now ask myself: “What are they?”. In addition, are there game theoretic explanations for the presence of belief? Are there sociological and economic aspects to belief? Is it biopsychosocial? How about evolutionary aspects and neurophysiology? This is obviously an incredibly complex phenomenon so there won’t be one explanation but various candidates that collectively seem very plausible. The main point is that there seems to be a predisposition to form religious beliefs independent of the mechanisms within any particular religion that strengthen adherence. I first want to outline what I've been reading in regards ...
Read more