Giraffes, X-Rays, & The Earth’s Axial Tilt: My Response To D
Posted in Daylight Atheism, Epistemology, Responses, Skepticism on | 10 minutes | 5 Comments →
First, some backstory to this admittedly oddly-titled entry: Ebonmuse has a post titled Ten Questions To Ask Your Pastor in which he uses the following rhetorical device:
Why do Christians believe in the soul when neurology has found clear evidence that the sense of identity and personality can be altered by physical changes to the brain? —Ebonmuse, Ten Questions To Ask Your Pastor
My immediate questions were, “What in the Christian concept of the soul suggests that our sense of identity and personality shouldn’t be altered by physical changes to the brain?”
Ebonmuse then links to his own essay A Ghost In The Machine, the obvious implication being that said essay provides reasons Christians shouldn’t believe in the soul. The first “question” in AGITM is,
Where is the soul hiding?
Note that such is no question at all, but really just another rhetorical device. Note that Ebonmuse doesn’t even stop to consider whether “souls” fall in the subset of objects that are amenable to experimental science, or if they are even “objects” at all. Why begin with the assumptions that 1) the soul is hiding, and 2) that the soul is amenable to experimental testing? The nuance of these questions alone is sufficient to sustain volumes, and should undercut any unfounded assertions from one side or the other, if you ask me.
Ebonmuse suggests evidence from neurology is sufficient to discard belief in the soul. He’s coming awfully close to attempting to prove a negative, even if the implication remains provisional. Problem is, he’s not going about it in the manner one needs to in order to successfully prove a negative, which can only be done when a process of elimination can be invoked. Need I really remark that the options are not exhaustible here, or on the foolishness of such an errand?
I say no. I’ve already written 4 responses and 10,000+ words outlining the inadequacies of AGITM, and I don’t want to turn this post into my fifth response critiquing that essay. Instead, my entry today is actually a response to D‘s comments here and here, parts of which I submit actually demonstrate the absurdity of Ebonmuse’s question. For those who really like to get into this kind of stuff, I suggest reading the full exchanges. The short version follows.
In general response to my objections to Ebonmuse’s #5, D said,
We don’t need to remove or refute [the idea] either of God or the possibility that consciousness transcends death. This cannot be done, and it’s pointless to try, since a truly all-powerful God could just play hide-and-seek with us forever.
D’s opening comment undercuts Ebon’s #5: if refuting the idea that consciousness transcends death — or that humans have a soul for that matter — if these things “cannot be done,” why does Ebonmuse imply that evidence from neurology is problematic for dualism or the existence of souls?
D continued,
..nobody’s talking about doing that, because nobody cares; we’re not interested in whether we’re obligated to believe God exists one way or the other, we’re interested in whether it is reasonable to posit God as an explanation for any phenomenon X,
I told D that when it comes to decision-making time, I didn’t care for her opinion of what’s reasonable, or anyone else’s for that matter. She replied,
Reasonable, here, has a technical meaning that I think you’re missing, and it also ties into parsimony and checkability.
I “missed” that technical meaning because she didn’t include it the first time around, and now it’s time for me to stop referring to D in third person.
I agree that reasonable ties into parsimony and checkability, D! That’s why I denounced your previous criteria as opinion: it was not sufficiently delineated such that it might lend to any sort of useful application.
If anyone doubts [giraffes, X-rays, and the Earth’s axial tilt], they can be checked to the heart’s content;
Well, kind of: if anyone doubts giraffes, X-rays, and the Earth’s axial tilt, they can be checked to the heart’s content, if that person possesses the means to check those things themselves. If the person does not possess the means to check themselves, then those things are not checkable or justifiable except by logical inferences drawn from processes of logic and pre-existing data, or reliance on the proclamations of those who claim to have done the actual checking — which is faith. Regardless of the ultimate nature of the claim, belief in personally uncheckable claim X is no more or no less based on faith than belief in any other claim which is not checkable but by logical inferences drawn from processes of logic and pre-existing data, or the proclamations of those who claim to have done the checking themselves. So, when you deem cessation (of consciousness) only “slightly less silly” than transcendence, are you merely expressing your own personal opinion, or something more concrete that I’m actually unaware of?
..if you don’t actually check your checkable claims, then all you have are fancy suppositions.
Maybe, maybe not. I can’t check Pluto’s existence, but I can take the proclamations of those who have n faith. Does that mean my assertion that Pluto exists is “fancy supposition” because I can’t personally check it? I’m betting you’ll say no.
Note that no atheist can ever check the claims that no God(s) exist, and that consciousness ceases upon death. This means strong atheism and strong metaphysical naturalism can literally never amount to anything more than “fancy supposition,” since as you yourself noted, “We don’t need to remove or refute either [the idea] of God or the possibility that consciousness transcends death. This cannot be done, and it’s pointless to try.” I understand that you uttered your words in the context of theism being nonsense sans checkability or justification, but if all you mean to assert is the superiority of checkable claims over non-checkable ones when it comes to discerning what’s true, you’ve known we agree on that point for some time now. IOW – why cover ground we already agree on?
I lack belief that consciousness can transcend death for the sole reason that it has yet to be demonstrated in a repeatable, reliable fashion.
Well you’re in some trouble then. Do you equally lack belief in the Gettysburg Address? How about avian lineage as inferred from TENS? Do you lack belief in the Big Bang? None of those can be reproduced repeatably or reliably in the laboratory, and each falls under the aforementioned category of things which are not checkable but by logical inferences drawn from processes of logic and pre-existing data. IOW, on faith that the underlying assumptions are correct, we accept these theories. That, in essence, is what I believe Gideon was getting at when he said atheists have faith, too, and he can correct me if I’m wrong.
You say I need to demonstrate transcendence of consciousness in a “repeatable, reliable fashion,” so let’s linger just another beat or three here, D. There are at least two fundamentally different yet equally useful methods of science: experimental science, and historical science. What experimental basis do you have for your apparent bias for experimental science? What basis do you have for the a priori assumption that experimental science is methodologically superior in deciding questions of alleged metaphysical proportions? I know a great many astronomers, archaeologists and historians who would also be interested in hearing why their methodologies are inferior. At best, such is a bit presumptuous, don’t you think?
Cf. Cleland, I note that
…the reputed superiority of experimental research is based
upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
Now, let’s repeat your statement:
I lack belief that consciousness can transcend death for the sole reason that it has yet to be demonstrated in a repeatable, reliable fashion.
Your statement begins with the assumption that transcendence of consciousness is amenable to experimental science. It’s just a less obvious version of Ebonmuse’s, “Where is the soul hiding?” You say you don’t believe in souls because nobody’s demonstrated them in a repeatable, reliable fashion, but you believe lots of things nobody’s demonstrated in a repeatable, reliable fashion, and you believe even more things you can’t check yourself.
If someone doubts that X-rays exist, I can explain to that person that by X-ray, I mean thus-and-such a thing with this-and-that properties which behaves in other-and-so ways under mom-and-pop conditions (ran out of generic phrases, sorry). I can then demonstrate how an X-ray, as I have described it, is the most reasonable explanation in all manner of tests which can be done, again in principle, on the spot and as many times as one would like (the end of the story goes, “And this thing, which you just saw to do all this stuff, is what we call an X-ray” – because the thing comes first, and our label is a metaphysical afterthought).
I submit I can do the same with souls, though I might not be able to make a machine that repeatedly, reliably “tests” them.
You say that we will all find out whether consciousness transcends death when we die,
Actually, I don’t. That’s a subtle twist of my position that IF consciousness DOES transcend death, then we will all find out after we die. IOW, if true, the transcendence hypothesis is checkable. Contrary, even if true, cessation is not checkable.
..if consciousness does cease at death, then nobody ever “finds it out” because there is no “you” to find it out when you die (that’s what death means, in this context).
I agree. You are now using one of my favorite lines of argument against me, which is only mildly confusing! This is what I mean when I say “even if true, cessation is uncheckable,” and that he or she who disdains uncheckable claims should disdain both strong atheism and strong metaphysical naturalism.
To make it reasonable to believe that consciousness does in fact transcend death, you must explain what would happen whether it was true or false,
I agree, and again, this is no less than my goal in the current stream of posts, but when you say…
..and then perform a test that could go either way after you control for all the other variables we can think of, and we have to do this test over and over again to make sure something else didn’t screw up our results, and we have to get other people’s thoughts on it to see if they can think of any way we went wrong.
You’re right back to the naïve assumption that transcendence of consciousness is amenable to experimental science in the same way any other object is, or that consciousness is even an “object” at all.
I enjoyed your comment, D. It provided the perfect segue into another micro-discussion of epistemology, methodology, and other neat things. However, getting back to the original topic behind the comment of mine you responded to, What in the Christian concept of the soul suggests that our sense of identity and personality shouldn’t be altered by physical changes to the brain? IOW, of what relevance is Ebonmuse’s #5 to anything?
That’s the question I’d like Ebonmuse, or anyone, to answer.
Purple
says...Wow, what an amazing read. I consider myself an atheist, and I’ve never really doubted Ebonmuse’s AGITM essay before, but you have really made me think!
I suppose you’re right in that it is possible the soul exists, and we simply don’t have the technology to test its existence yet. Perhaps a thousand years into the future, science as we know it will be so radically different that they can and will be testing for the existence of the soul. In this case, it would be wrong to assert that the soul exists or does not exist, if we were searching for the absolute truth. However, usually in the case of the absence of evidence on either side of the argument, people take for granted that it does not exist – this, in fact, is what I do.
As to your assertion that the methodology of “astronomers, archaeologists and historians” and the methodology of most scientists are equally questionable, I suppose to an extent I agree. But only to an extent. The reason why I might doubt the accuracy of what a historian tells me is because what he or she claims is based on “evidence” which might be falsified or influenced through time. This is why I (and I others, no doubt) am not incredibly surprised whenever some part of history has been “rewritten” because of “new evidence!” As for astronomers, I assume you refer to events which are beyond their control. These events would not be available for repeated trials under controlled conditions in a lab – supernovae, for example. As far as I know (and I am a very poor student of the matter) these physicists and astronomers have theory to “back up” their assertions, and can thus predict when the next event can occur. The ability to predict an occurrence reliably and repeatedly is good enough for me.
I also agree that many times we take a scientist’s research for granted to be true. But this is also why people repeat experiments. For example, when cold fusion was “discovered,” other scientists took up the job of attempting to recreate the experiment; they couldn’t, so cold fusion didn’t work. What science dictates as “truth” has no doubt been tested over and over again, as well as being able to make certain predictions. If methodology of a certain experiment is questionable, there will always be people pointing that out. But I’m simply repeating what you already know.
In the end, going back to the topic of the soul, does it really matter whether or not the soul exists?
Thank you, cl, for this thoughtful and well-written post.
D
says...Wow! I feel vaguely honored to have a whole post dedicated to my comments on a totally separate website, so I suppose the first order of business is thanks. Thanks!
That said, let’s dive right in!
Yeah, I totally dropped the ball on my technical meaning of “reasonable,” that’s my bad. There’s a million ways to say it, but the rough-and-ready version would be something like, “the story that incorporates the most relevant checkable facts, includes other stories about how those facts have been checked or could be checked, and relies on the least unsupported assumptions.” Those don’t always go together, to be sure; but when they do, it’s a great indicator! Oh, and reasonability is tentative, too; our study of things like logic and argumentation has also changed over time, just as I’m sure your idea of God has changed over time (and such ideas have also changed throughout history).
You’ve also got a great point in that I’ve enjoyed a privileged position as a person with access to zoos and lab equipment. Yes, there is a certain amount of trust in the system at play, but the point is that in principle, these things can be done. And yeah, at the end of the day, our beliefs are all stories we tell ourselves in our own heads, and we humans aren’t always consistent on how we do this. I just try to be as consistent as I can, and when I screw up, I try to acknowledge it and fix the mistake. In short, I try to be intellectually honest. As for “belief in cessation,” I say it’s only slightly less silly because it’s a belief that can’t be demonstrated. You can’t show that something actually ceases, you can only show that it ceases to be detectable by you. Remember that I lack positive beliefs either way, though.
However, note that until or unless you can show why it ought to be believed that it doesn’t cease, the question must be left an open one. Intellectual honesty requires that we walk in doubt sometimes. This is what I’m selling here: skepticism. Doubt everything, until or unless you can prove something.
You can in fact check Pluto’s existence, if you mean that trans-Neptunian object that recently got demoted. Buy a telescope and learn some astronomy, then track it in the night sky. It’s very rewarding to retrace the steps of skilled observers from ages past. As for strong atheism and strong metaphysical naturalism, again, I walk in doubt. Strong metaphysical naturalism is a great methodological assumption, a story you tell yourself in the lab because it gets results: “I’m going to assume that miracles aren’t happening, then see how far I can get to the bottom of this.” Maybe miracles happen, maybe they don’t, but metaphysics takes a backseat to pragmatics in the lab (otherwise you’ve just got a circus). Oh, and repetition is a useful rhetorical device, sometimes.
My beliefs on historical matters are somewhat more complex and convoluted as a result of my commitment to evidence. I believe that the words of what we today call the Gettysburg Address are written in various places, including the internet. I recognize that a great many people say that some bloke by name of Abraham Lincoln delivered the speech to a bunch of folks at some point in history. But I also recognize that history is written by the winners, and that a whole lot of what is said could be false. I don’t place the same level of confidence in these propositions as I do in the mathematical world models that I have gained from my instruction in philosophy, physics, and chemistry. Quite frankly, I have no hope of ever setting the historical record straight, it can only be set “firmly crooked” after much hemming and hawing, and this confidence erodes over time. I’ve also deliberately set about reframing my beliefs about history in light of what I know about the practice of historiography to guard against believing silly things. This means that I have a rather uncommon conception of history, because I don’t think it “really matters” who did what when. What really matters to me are the lessons that we can learn, but those are true regardless of whether or not the events transpired in just thus-and-such a manner. Or at all, for that matter.
Paleontology is way more complicated. We can get into it, if you like, with you asking me how I justify specific beliefs that I actually hold. But know that I do it all piecemeal, and I look it all up, and I assess levels of confidence in things, and I never place all my certainty chips on a proposition (with the sole exception of “I am now having experiences of some kind, regardless of their connection to ‘underlying reality,’ whatever that may be”). I am a skeptic, through and through. I walk in doubt, and I only place my certainty chips as tentative bets which I am liable to change at the slightest provocation. And I’m also acutely aware of the fact that I could be totally wrong on this or that thing – but you’d better show me something if you expect me to be convinced, otherwise I might start thinking you’re just being silly.
The Big Bang is nice and easy, though. I think it’s the most reasonable explanation, given my above definition of “reasonable,” in light of many data – chief among which is the results of the COBE mission. However, I still don’t place all my certainty chips on it, because even though it works on the same principles we use every day in microwave ovens, it’s not 100% justification. That’s not possible. I do, however, acknowledge that the data may have been falsified or mis-gathered or misinterpreted at any step of the way, up to and including me – but part of my inference to the best explanation is that I’ll be able to understand a mistake or flaw if shown, and I just keep my mind open to that possibility, with a willingness to recognize my own errors. Do you have a better interpretation of the data from the COBE mission, or a better idea for an experiment we could have tried? Or something to suggest we should not believe that the results as gathered should be trusted?
Out of curiosity, have you heard of the COBE mission before today? (I honestly don’t know, that’s a genuine question and I’m curious. It’s kind of a big deal, it was a huge game-changer for me.)
As for experimental science, to my mind, it’s all about building a model of the world, testing those models with experiments, and then using the principles discovered in inventions. Technology is living proof, so to speak, that experiments work. Is it 100% proof positive? No, of course not – but nothing ever is, so who cares? Lots of fools who pine after absolute certainty, that’s who. Again, the inference to
the best explanation is that the principles upon which a device explicitly relies are actually correct, or at least close enough to it for the device to work reliably. Do you have better explanations for your monitor, your speakers, your stove, or your plumbing? And do you understand how the principles underlying those inventions inform our picture of how the Universe works? In short, do you really understand just how fuckin’ awesome science really is?
As for Cleland’s comment, I’m not quite sure what that shows, unless you’ve got a very warped idea of just how justified I think my beliefs are (hint: “thinly” is a key word at points). Rather than harp on perceived insults, though, I’ll just ask for clarification: please, clarify!
I’d like to know just what you think I believe, phrased propositionally, that has not been demonstrated in any way. I’ll give you an example:
So yeah, please name a few things you think I believe that haven’t been demonstrated in a repeatable, reliable fashion. I’ll do one of three things: point you at demonstrations, admit that you’re right, or change my belief. (Unless it’s not something I believe, in which case I’ll just correct you.) I’ve been very careful to go through my beliefs with a fine-toothed comb, and while I may have missed a few, I think I’ve done a pretty good job so far. And keep in mind that I’m comfortable walking in doubt on a great many things – that will probably help.
I’m also curious as to why you think transcendence of consciousness might not be amenable to experimental science. I mean, if it is transcendent, shouldn’t there be an evidential footprint somewhere in reality? Maybe, maybe not, but I’m curious as to what you actually think, not just how you can criticize the beliefs of others. Criticizing is just way too easy, especially with skepticism and the Socratic method – but positing something better, that gets better results, is much more difficult and much more commendable. So yeah, what do you actually think, and why do you think that way and not another?
Oh, and by all means, please do the X-ray thing with souls. I really want to know what you think you can do, and I’d love to read it made as analogous to X-rays as possible. After all, souls would be really cool if they did exist; I just don’t see a reason to believe in them that doesn’t avail itself to a more parsimonious explanation (i.e. one without assuming that there’s a soul).
Thanks for clarifying your meaning on what we may or may not find out about death. What do you think will happen, though? And why? I just have a whole bunch of doubts and no reason to believe anything, one way or the other. What have you got to replace that, and why should I buy it? Why should I believe anything? What can you offer me as a good bet for placing a few of my certainty chips?
As for the definition of “object,” I again refer you to my questions on the physicality of quarks, gluinos, etc. I think that “consciousness” would be an “object” only in the same sense that a sound wave is: it’s not something you can put in a jar, but we can investigate the phenomenon as it arises from its causal antecedents (to the best of our ability to suss them out), explore the relationships between mass-energy that make it possible (there’s no sound if you’ve only got heat and light, for example), and so on and so forth.
Your response is also well-timed, for I have an entry planned for the next Humanist Symposium on the necessity of doubt, and it’s intimately tangential to this whole discussion. I can’t wait to see where this goes!
As for Ebonmuse, I can’t really speak for him, and I don’t really feel like arguing on his behalf, since he and I disagree on a great many things. I also don’t know what you mean by “the Christian concept of the soul,” but if you could outline that at least briefly, then I’d be happy to suggest what relevance my interpretation of his comment bears to such an idea, if any.
Happy thinking!
(Oh, and Purple, welcome to the party! Yeah, cl has some very interesting perspectives on things, and has even provoked me to doubt where I think my doubts ought to lead me!)
cl
says...Hello Purple.
Well hey, that’s pretty much the goal: encouraging thought. I’d much rather encourage thought than assert correctness. A warm thanks for your frankness.
Also, if you’re not doing anything tomorrow, you might wanna check out Pt. II because it ties specifically into the discussion over sufficiency of technology, and a few other things you’ve mentioned.
I understand. Many people take that approach. I personally do not; I’m a fan of remaining in the NULL position under a genuine absence of evidence. For me, no evidence means no possibly sustainable conclusion, even if only provisional. Also, allow me to make clear that I don’t believe we’re in an evidential vacuum when it comes to metaphysical or supernatural claims. Temporarily up against a wall, for sure, but not in an evidential vacuum.
Makes sense to me. I take the same position with experimental science, which is equally based on “evidence” (and assumptions) that are often falsified in time. Take the recent changes in avian lineage or the reevaluation of the COBE data as examples in that direction. Or, tomorrow’s post on cathode rays, as another.
I agree; they do. Don’t get me wrong: in no manner do I wish to imply that the findings of today’s astronomers are “just-so statements.” The main point of this post was to argue that IF we can’t check ourselves, the best we can do is take the word of those who’ve claimed to check themselves. IOW, Wilson and Penzias are more justified in their beliefs about the Big Bang than those of us who merely accept their beliefs as true (or provisionally true).
It matters greatly to me; what would you say?
Hey, thank you for stopping by. New commenters often breathe new life into these discussions. I know you’ve encouraged me on a day when I was particularly discouraged about discussing these things. So again, thank you.
cl
says...D,
I wrote a big ol’ spiel, but want to proofread it in the morning when I’m not so fried. Toodles!
D
says...Looking forward to it! Have a great one!