Humanist Materialist Arguments Against Christianity Were "Weakened" Over The Past Century? Not So!

In a recent WSJ review ('Fearful, Faithless', March 1, p. C7) the claim has been made that "the humanist-materialist argument against Christianity has arguably weakened over the past century" and also:

"Atheism is surely produced by a lifeless and unreasoned conformity."

These absurd extrapolations are formed by Jeffrey Collins (a professor of history at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario) in the course of his review of  'Unbelievers: An Emotional History Of Doubt"  by Alec Ryrie.

These are also totally anticipated objections we've earlier seen creep into other forums  - like Physics Today (a general journal for physicists) - often  as lazy shots taken at unbelief and atheism.  For example by the likes of  Tom McLeish, in his specious arguments that science and religion are compatible.  See my arguments against McLeish in this 2018 post :

Response To Tom McLeish's Counter Arguments In Phy...

As well as my original letter published in Physics Today, with an excerpt below:

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

"As I see it, the most fundamental split—an irreparable one—between science and religion is that religion embraces a supernatural order and genuine science, as opposed to pseudoscience, does not.

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.

Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms"

At its core, this is what the entire argument boils down to: the  unthinking invocation of unproven supernatural entities to support religious beliefs, and the invocation of ultimate purpose where none is warranted.   As for the claim of  atheism as produced by a "lifeless and unreasoned conformity" that is choice given how religions uniformly adopt supernaturalism as the de facto default position with no hint of insight, or an iota of critical thought.

Let me again underscore here for the record, that the preceding applies to any religion that enlists supernatural agents to support its basis. It was not intended to be a blanket statement that modern science could find no commonality with any religion. For example, according to the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism there exist a multitude of universes and none of these harbors supernatural agents such as demons, or "Satan".  Many of them, however, may well harbor other intelligent life forms.  This view in its most rudimentary form comports with the multiverse speculations of modern physics. 

Collins also makes a big deal out of:  "virtually all of the pioneering natural scientists of the era being devoutly religious" . But why wouldn't they be?  This was four hundred years (roughly) before the advent of the quantum theory, at least Max Planck's rudimentary formulation of it.  It was, frankly, the development of the quantum theory -specifically the dualistic wave- matter aspect -  that overthrew nearly all religious presumptions, and doctrines..  The new theory, powerfully confirmed, inveighed against every aspect of Christian mythology, from introducing acausal determinism,e g.

A Look At Quantum Acausal Determinism - Its Roots...

To impacting the nature of 'free will',  e.g.

Free Will And Quantum Mechanical Brain States: Wha...

And undermining hundreds of other facets of religiously defined culture and beliefs, most of which could not withstand the onslaught of the new physics.This isn't even taking into account the most recent findings of astrophysics concerning the clear lack of order in the material universe.In cosmological terms, the whole concept of “order” has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:

7% - ordinary visible 

93% - dark component, of which:

- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and

- 23% is dark matter

In effect, 93% of the universe can’t even be assessed for “order” since it can’t be seen. In the case of dark matter, one can only discern its presence indirectly by the visible effects on neighboring matter. In the case of dark energy, the underlying physical basis isn’t even known – though we know the result is an increase in the acceleration of the universe (arising from a cosmic repulsion attributed to dark energy).

This is all critical, since in the past apologists of teleologism (the belief that purpose and design are part of nature) have cited a perceived “orderliness” as a revelation for the “handiwork” of an intelligent Mind, or Creator. Alas, this falls through the cracks if most of the universe is disorderly, or dark-energy-matter. Indeed, by current assessment – and discounting plasma abundance, one may reckon that even rudimentary order is evident in barely 0.00001% of the cosmos.  This is why string theorist and author Brian Greens - e.g. in his new book, 'Until The End Of Time' (see WSJ review, Feb. 15-16, p. C9) concludes that "we have no choice but to accept there is no grand design"  and "the only direction to look is inward", i.e. to forge our own purpose.   

Does this imply that the concept of “God” is outright useless, null and void? Not at all. It merely requires that we re-think the concept so that it is consistent with the absence of higher or extraneous purpose. As Bernard d’Espagnat notes [1]:

“The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles.”

The fact Collins could write such claptrap as the following:

"Atheism is not some natural implication of human progress but a contingency of a particular history"

Discloses he understands none of this. Especially when he also adds (ibid.):

"Modern atheism in the West can have an assertive and even angry quality in part because the emotions that animate it - namely anxiety and anger- were responses to the particular religious upheavals of the 16th and 17th centuries"

But that era is long gone, and no rational or modern atheists I know - mainly physicists, chemists- have any such  emotional axes to grind.   They simply see, as physicist Bernard d'Espagnat observes, that the antiquated (and naive) "Daddy in the sky"  concept of that era is now passe, and indeed, it hasn't changed much since then. Hence, atheism doesn't claim to prove God's nonexistence, only point out that the concept is superfluous to the advance of empirical science,  which like it or not is inherently materialistic.What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of an  exterior infinite deity is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions.  There is no "passion" or "anger" or even "denial" involved.    These are all 'macguffins' inserted by the religionists like McLeish and Collins.

We can also - again dispassionately-   point to the work tying belief in the existence of such an external deity to the brain: e.g. -  ''Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' .  Therein the authors (Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili) trace this God concept directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area.   More to the point here, is that such a brain is singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its ideations. (Ceaselessly reinforced by the particular religion to which it belongs.)  Hence, we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers (like Prof. Collins), or those like McLeish, who defend a religious accommodation by science. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA to promote supernaturalist nonsense, and also efforts to interject it into modern science..

A radically different take is offered by physicist Brian Greene (also an atheist) who points out that our human aspirations are intertwined with human culture- from artistic expression to scientific discovery.  These are in turn driven by a painful awareness of our finite lifespan. This cognizance of a finite lifespan, according to Greene,  is what propels us to search for the "eternal" and to try and understand "why we are here at all."

The failure to appreciate this perspective - as well as the tendency to see all atheists as raging provocateurs and "barbarians at the gate" of Christendom, e.g.

Resides in a failure of flexibility of thought, as well as absence of critical thought, such as in Prof. Collins' review..  It would have been better for him to read Dr. Anthony Kronman's superb book ('Education's End - Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up On The Meaning Of Life') on the essential relationship of secular humanism to education first. Therein we see "Secular humanism thereby enters (positively)  as a philosophical template or infrastructure whereby "students and teachers pursue the perennial puzzle of human existence through the disciplined study  of an interrelated series of works in which how a person ought to spend his or her life provides a connecting theme and organizing focus of inquiry."

In an analogous fashion the physical scientist pursues the perennial puzzle of human existence but via research into the nature of the cosmos - using fundamental physical principles.  Also research, including in cosmology, astrophysics, astrochemistry, plasma physics etc. which comprise an interrelated series of works. By such processes most scientists - again leaving out emotions - come to see the universe for what it is: an impersonal assembly of energy and matter for which  any ultimate design or purpose is immaterial.  

In the same light, we are the least likely of humans to interpret the SARS- COV-2 virus as any kind of "divine retribution" unleashed on a sinful humanity to force it onto the straight and narrow.  Rather we see the virus, and the resulting COVID--19 pandemic it's spawned,  as another facet of evolution. An unfolding,  impersonal process which is always delivering novel mutations and challenges irrespective of the form of life:  virus, bacteria, ape or human.  Our error, mainly in our religions, is seeing the human as a "fallen angel" as opposed to risen ape.

Has the Universe a purpose?

Supernaturalism: The REAL Reason For The "Great Rift" Between Science And Religion

Michael Hobart's recent book, 'The Great Rift' claims to offer a new take on the divide (what he calls "great rift") between science and religion - but is it really?  Hobart's central thesis - to cut to the chase- is that since the Galilean era (1564- 1642) science has communicated using abstract mathematics while religion remained anchored in Logos, i.e. "the logic coupling words and things".   Hence, he avers that not only can the two realms (or "magisteria" in Stephen J. Gould's parlance) not communicate with each other but the quantitative approach has proven to be better at grasping reality.

Galileo's achievement, to fix ideas, was to demonstrate the potency and superiority of the mathematical-experimental method while analyzing projectile motion, e.g.



Thus, Galileo discerned via careful observations that an object hurled into the air, for example, has two independent motions: a vertical  (y-) and a horizontal (x- )one. Through the use of mathematics Galileo managed to combine the two motions algebraically into a model that describes all projectile motion (including for today's missiles) as parabolic.  (See e.g. the parabolic trajectory shown in the graphic above.)

This is an approach to and an identification of a real thing. It is also arguable (certainly to me) that the split between the two magisteria - science and religion - is actually predicated on the split between the applied mathematics (i.e.to models in physics) and a false  "Logos". The latter is a coupling of words with non-existent things, i.e. supernatural artifacts engendered by specific brain regions.

For the sake of argument let's agree that Logos implies a coupling of words with things. This begs the question of what kinds of things, and does this coupling confer reality?  I will argue here that science and religion - or at least spirituality - might find a kind of common ground so long as the introduction of supernatural agents is disdained in the latter.   As I wrote in my recent letter to Physics Today,  on science and religion and why they are so mutually antagonistic so cannot be harmonized,  e.g.

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

 
"As I see it, the most fundamental split—an irreparable one—between science and religion is that religion embraces a supernatural order and genuine science, as opposed to pseudoscience, does not.

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.

Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms"

Let me again underscore here for the record, that the preceding applies to any religion that enlists supernatural agents to support its basis. It was not intended to be a blanket statement that modern science could find no commonality with any religion. For example, according to the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism there exist a multitude of universes and none of these harbors supernatural agents such as demons, or "Satan".  Many of them, however, may well harbor other intelligent life forms.  This view in its most rudimentary form comports with the multiverse speculations of modern physics. 

One can then argue that a genuine Logos,  or coupling of words and real things,  is not necessarily mutually exclusive with modern science or its quantitative formulations. This leaves open the possibility that any bifurcation or "rift" between science and religion may actually be between a false version of one, and a false version of the other. A false version of science would be a pseudo science like astrology.(see e.g. the preceding quote from my letter and the reference to the astrologer's "malefic influences.")  In many ways these echo conventional religionists' invocations of "Satan" and "demons" - say to account for earthly evil.  This also suggest any religions that make such invocations must be false. Let's recall again the words of philosopher George Santayana, in his book, Reason In Religion, Dover Books, p.157:

"In a word, theology, for those whose religion is secondary, is simply a false physics, a doctrine  about eventual experience not founded on the experiences of the past.  Such a false physics, however, is soon discredit by events. It does not require much experience or much shrewdness to discover that supernatural beings and laws are without the empirical efficacy attributed to them."

One can then understand why a religion grounded in supernaturalist demonology, say, cannot be true. But make no mistake, the consequences pertaining to these beliefs have been quite real! The most profound example lay in the wide use of the Malleus Maleficarum of Heinrich Kramer (Dean of Cologne University) and Jacob Sprenger (Dominican Inquisitor General of Germany). This was the book which gave the prescriptions for exposing those possessed by demons, or under their influence, including: accused witches,  familiars, succubi, and incubi) . This was under a Bull issued by Pope Innocent VIII. 

Once the suspect was identified as a witch (especially if possessing a "familiar', usually a cat) it became necessary to obtain her confession.The procedure first required obtaining evidence in the form of "devil's marks".  Prosecutors and examiners often made great displays of such searches, which usually included the shaving of the head and genitals in public as the witches were prodded with sharp implements by their accusers. The Malleus, after all mandated "diligent and careful inspections of secret parts".   The Malleus also advised that torture, deception and terror be used to extract confessions.  

The rack, scourging, burning and eye gouging were all sanctioned as inducement to confess, and the impetus for confessions was primarily driven by the fact the more confessions forthcoming the more the pay for the prosecutors-Inquisitors.  Thus, under torture, the accused witches were routinely forced to name any and all accomplices including those who participated in sabbats.  One of the most infamous cases, as described by historian Henry Lea ('The Inquisition of the Middle Ages' ),  concerned a 71 -year old woman put to the rack no less than seven times, especially after confessing to signing a pact with the devil. 

Females suspected of being witches and in congress with "the Devil"  caught holy hell for sure, with ultimate tortures that would give most people today psychotic nightmares.  Males, often accused as "warlocks" for their part,  did not entirely escape suspicion either, and often faced tortures just as unnerving, according to historian Henry Lea,  e.g.

This  then was the real fruit of the unreal beliefs of millions once supernatural agents were admitted into the pantheon of religions such as Christianity and Islam. And again, I reiterate, any religion that must resort to torture or invocations of "demons", "Hell" and "Satan" to gain allegiance and "faith" - cannot be sincere.  They must be false. They clearly cannot be evocative of a God of love.     

Some may argue or claim at this point that those practices -  taking a cue from demonology (belief in supernatural forces, demons) -  are things of the past and the RC Church, for example, no longer invokes demons or Satan. This would be a mistake, given how just over 50 years ago a Loyola University (New Orleans) priest attempted an exorcism on a women's dorm, e.g.

Brane Space: Did "Satan" Visit Loyola University Women's Dorm Back ...

brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/09/did-satan-visit-loyola-university.html

Not to mention the fact the Vatican is evidently still "all in" with general exorcisms. For example, back in 2015 a new school for exorcists  The Pope Leo XIII Institute  opened  "for the “education & training of priests in the holy ministry of exorcism and deliverance”. It was further revealed that another reason for promoting exorcism was that the Church needed to "grow its numbers".  What better way than to excite superstitions about demons?

  Heck, even when I attended Loyola (1964-67) , the common Theology course always included a first section dealing with "demoniac" accounts as described in the Gospels. I still have 


those old 1964 notes to prove it:

The following 6 pages then go into detail, citing chapter and verse, why we need to take such accounts seriously. 

Interestingly, the philosopher Alvin Plantinga, in his recent book:  'Where The Real Conflict Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism', makes the basic argument that the supposed conflicts between science and religion are superficial because of the "methodological naturalism used by science".  For a brief summary of what this means, re-read the second paragraph of my quotation above, from my Physics Today letter.   In other words, Plantinga is advocating that science open the door to supernatural agents ...via a methodological supernaturalism, I presume.  What types of investigation  this might portend, we can only surmise.   Seances like the Loyola girls attempted? Ouija boards?  He doesn't really say. But what he does do, on this basis, is argue that naturalistic evolution - relying on mutation and natural selection - is wholly consonant with  a supernatural theistic underpinning.  This was one of the primary memes I demolished in my book, The Atheist's Handbook To Modern Materialism, (Chapter Three, The Evolutionary Foundation')

  Regrettably, like Tom McLeish in his Physics Today appeal ('Thinking Differently About Science and Religion")  https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3831

to harmonize science with religion, Plantinga  is reduced to desperately seeking a back door  entry for the supernatural.  There is no way, I would counsel him, that physics - and certainly biology and chemistry - will allow such nonsense anytime soon!

 The conclusion?  The real Logos is quite compatible with mathematical sciences such as physics and astrophysics, because the words and 'things' it describes possess an innate reality embodied in what quantitative science describes. The job of believers then is not to oppose science as an enemy but to seek the real Logos which is compatible with that real science, as Santayana indicates.   That real Logos is itself divested of the supernatural, but which can still provide an avenue for transcendence as I explained in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God..  And as I also wrote in the last paragraph of my PT letter:

"Is it possible for religion and science to coexist? Possibly, but only if religion is diluted to the point that it’s devoid of all supernatural memes, agents, and explanations. Otherwise, all bets are off and we are left with embracing glorified superstition, and a deleterious form at that, able to use its fantasy agents to subvert objective human inquiry."

If then reality is the most important thing for the human mind to apprehend and supernatural entities only obscure this reality, why is there the need for supernatural religion?  More importantly why can't science and religion find common cause as opposed to being at each other's throats?  As noted in my quote above, that day happens when religion divests itself of supernatural memes, agents, artifacts and explanations.  Only then can a common ground be feasible.

 To highlight where are at now, the top most graphic shows the mathematics  embodied in Emmy Noether's famous equation  which encapsulates "Noether's therorem".  For reference, Noether's theorem became a foundation of the standard model of particle physics in the second half of the 20th cnetury and today retains a central role in continuing to define physical reality via inherent symmetry properties.  These hold  no matter how far one travels in space or time.  In many respect then,  Noether's first and second theorems, e.g.


Noether's first theorem 

highlight the quantitative physics responsible for divorce of modern quantitative science from conventional religion and conventional spirituality's more limited reality.  For example, symmetries in the 2D quantum gravity model peculiar to the first theorem, show up in the 3D quantum gravity in a different context in Neother's 2nd theorem.  In greater generalization, one can say a quantum theory of particles on a 2D surface (say for atomic spin magnets) can act as a hologram for a 3-dimensional theory of quantum gravity in curved spacetime.

Interestingly, ,the late quantum physicist David Bohm used an analogous quantitative approach incorporating his development of stochastic quantum mechanics to show that our 4 dimensional universe can be enfolded holographically into a five dimensional implicate order. (See e.g. "Wholeness and the Implicate Order-  which the interested reader can access here as a pdf:

[PDF]

Wholeness and the Implicate Order

www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

Bohm postulated that all material forms are the unfolded or explicated manifestations of a fundamental implicate order reality. This explication arises at the level of the particulate (atoms, molecules etc.)  and is emphasized over the wave aspect (defined by de Broglie waves).  Particles bespeak the separation of the cosmos - waves (quantum waves) its unity. The problem with traditional thinking, of which most modern theology is the embodiment, is that it has treated reality in a particulate rather than wave context. In a sense, the false theology of the orthodox theologians (along with their false God concepts) fits hand in glove with the false physics reflected in the Cartesian-Newtonian viewpoint, leading to an ultra- reductionism. 

Not surprisingly, in this view the universe is perceived to be fragmented: galaxy from galaxy, star from star, each human from every other and even man from himself (body vs. Soul, mind vs. Body, etc.). It is out of this background of a false theology that the conceptual theological horrors like ‘heaven and hell’, ‘damnation’ and ‘salvation’ arise. The reaction of the false physicists to this is also natural and understandable: i.e. they wholesale reject all of the false theology as puerile rubbish so like the ancient Greek Epicureans they cut the false theologians off at the pass by proclaiming everything ends at death.

In the implicate order proposed by Bohm, the separateness of the universe is ultimately submerged within its higher dimensional implicate aspect. All seemingly separate entities are ultimately unified into one, much like the apparently separate ‘waves’ seen on the ocean ultimately dissolve and submerge into the vastly greater background sea that spawned them.  This illustration helps to understand the relation:

Explicate Order:

___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___  

(IMPLICATE ORDER)

The waves are the explicated manifestation of the unfolded implicate 'sea'. This is where the often used term oceanic reality originates.

In human terms, this implies that at a higher dimensional level all matter, especially as embodied in human forms, along with human minds, becomes interfused into one reality, one whole without division. As Bohm describes it[1]:

In the implicate order we have to say the mind enfolds matter in general and therefore the body in particular. Similarly, the body enfolds not only the mind but also in some sense, the entire material universe.

Physicist Bernard d 'Espagnat provides again the real basis for science (reality) and spirituality to come to a unifying stance [2]::

The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards Being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles

---

[1] Bohm, D.: op. cit., 209

[2] d’Espagnat,, B.  : In Search Of Reality,  .158.

Amy Coney Barrett - The Nightmare Dotard SC Pick That Could Send Women's Rights Back A Century

Tonight, (p)Resident Donnie J. Dotard is set to announce perhaps the most critical Supreme Court pick in a generation.   It is not exaggeration or hyperbole to say that liberal America will be holding its collective breath - and experience no small degree of trepidation - when he announces it at around 9 p.m. EDT.  Knowing Dotard's perverse nature, I will bet that he will want to rub his malignant narcissism in our faces and pick Amy Coney  Barrett.  His degenerate base will also love it, because their primary entertainment these days is to watch liberal America freak out over each and every Dotard insult, especially if it impacts the (mostly)  silent sane majority.

Amy Coney Barrett may well be quite a nice person, as well as being a dutiful, devoted Catholic mom of 7 kids. As nice as she may well be, we cannot afford to have her as a Supreme Court Justice, which I suspect Dotard the pussy grabber will seek to impose on us tonight. And as you process that, also process the absolute irony of a self-described pussy grabber appointing a religious zealot like Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

At issue here is whether Barrett can deliver honest,  well reasoned judgments in critical cases such as to do with abortion, and lower case rulings re: Rose v. Wade.  At root is the extent to which the group to which she belongs, called People of Praise, which has roughly 1,700 members,  will be dictating her brain dynamics as she considers any abortion or contraception cases (the latter say, as regards contraception provided via the ACA for employees of religious outfits.)

A critical aspect of the group is their belief that they can receive divine or other esoteric, spiritual  messages via "speaking in tongues".   An old saw I recall from my brief foray into charismatic Catholicism  in the early 70s went like this: "It's okay and fine when you talk to God, as when speaking in tongues....but the time to worry is when God starts talking back!" Indeed. And the issue here becomes how does one distinguish an internal "voice" issuing from a brain center, from an external "God"?

Put another way: When Amy Barrett issues judgments how can we be certain these are forged by her innate intellect and not products of  "spiritual" voices she may "hear"?  This question is not frivolous at all, nor should it be construed as an attack on religion. Given its massive impact on human lives and life quality,  religion can never be exempt from serious scrutiny - or even criticism where and when appropriate.

In an earlier (June 18)  post on my response to the religionist  Tom McLeish,  I referred to  brain research done by Andrew Newberg, M.D. and his associate Eugene Daquill M.D.. Their main findings were published in their book, ‘Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief’.   Specific attention was directed at the brain region known as the OAA or orientation association area. Most pertinent is the authors’ portrayal of how a subject's OAA (orientation and activation area) translates images, sounds into religious reality, described in detail on pages 121-22.

Within minutes of holding a fixed image or religious ideation, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans,  showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions amplified as the ideation or image was sustained.  As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area. 

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation or religious ideation.  In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area, and surrender to the supremacy of the ideation.  In the words of the authors (pp. 121-22):  "“it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”

Based on this, I argued in my response that "we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers, or those like McLeish who defend religious accommodation. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA."

Now, if Coney Barrett belongs to a group that gives prominence and unquestioned validity  to  speaking in "tongues" then these will play the same role as a fixed religious ideation or imagery in the OAA experiments.  In effect, the recipients will firmly believe they are in a special communication loop and privy to information and knowledge - say from the divine- that no one else is.  This is clearly going to cause them to also be convinced they possess superior judgment.

In many respects related to alleged "esoteric" communications, one finds parallels to the brain activity of ancient humans, say at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Much of this was already expounded in the 1976 book  authored by Julian Jaynes,  'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Jaynes, a Princeton psychologist (who'd also been in communication with Dr. Pat Bannister in the early 70s while she worked with schizophrenics at the Jenkins Mental Institution in Barbados) argued that ancient  human brains - prior to any evidence of higher consciousness (say as exemplified in use of  logic, reason and ethics) would have resembled the brain dynamics of modern schizophrenics.  

Jaynes maintained that, like schizophrenics, ancient humans would have initiated conversations with unseen deities as well as inanimate objects. And this is most important: even be the beneficiaries of their conversations with them! Jaynes argued that this showed there existed a constancy and wholeness of reality for these early Bronze Age humans. 

In line with this, one of the most startling finds by Daquill and Newberg was that the focus mandate of the OAA leads to a total de-afferentation of the orientation region. This then gives rise to the state known as Absolute Unitary Being, otherwise described as "one Mind linking all minds".  In other words, the OAA experiments showed the potential to attain states not unlike the ancient Bronze Age humans, or modern day schizophrenics. 

 By logical extension, one can conclude the potential for achieving these unitary (or schizophrenic)  states is also  possible for those who engage in speaking in tongues - such as Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise. Again, in itself there's nothing wrong with pursuing such activities, but it does lead one to ask whether such practitioners can also serve as rational Justices.

Attainment of such exalted brain states may well be worthy of celebration and acclaim, but do we really want a Supreme Court Justice whose head is already filled with dogma subject to them?  Can we be absolutely certain when Ms. Barrett is rendering an opinion those hidden OAA "voices" aren't providing input - which we won't know and she certainly won't tell us?  Or, to be sure, her fellow Justices.

 The imperative for People of Praise  to seek meaning in esoteric communications  is understandable given the Scientism which is now ubiquitous in our modern world. Scientism insists the cosmos is purposeless and is the product of a long. purposeless evolution which also produced our material brains. Take that purposeless evolution away and these brains no longer exist.   The primary evidence for  the brain being a product of purposeless evolution as opposed to being a divine masterwork is the hodge podge way it is thrown together. That is, the more recent neocortex -  which embodies human intellectual achievement and creativity, sitting just 'above' more ancient ape and reptile brain regions. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/04/evil-natural-outcome-of-innate-brain.html


 Faced with this verdict on their brain limits by materialist evolution it is no wonder the ardent religionists, say like Tom McLeish or Amy Coney Barrett, seek a reality beyond those limits. That is their right to do, of course, and that defines the extent of religious liberty: the liberty of the religiously inclined to seek and perhaps find what they are looking for, even if only in secret rituals. Whether that be accommodation with modern science (McLeish) or being a beneficiary of supposed divine messages and guidance via "tongues" (Amy  Barrett). 

However, religious liberty does not include imposing these  aspirations (or their claimed 'results') on the secular side, or imposing one's beliefs to the extent of making the latter surrender its control over its own reproductive decisions.  That is especially the worry with Barrett, given we cannot be sure her  presumed divine messages will not dictate more severe controls, not only on abortion but the use of artificial contraception.  Such decisions could well wreck those parts of the ACA allowing it, and even hurl women's reproductive rights back a century or more. 

If Coney Barrett is indeed named to the highest court compliments of  the nation's pussy grabber-in-chief, it is the signal for all out resistance on a massive, national scale.  In other words, this nomination cannot be allowed to materialize or proceed. (I am invoking a variant of Dick Cheney's "1 percent" doctrine here, i.e. if there is only a 1 percent chance Barrett will be influenced by esoteric, "spiritual" communications, she can't be allowed to move forward.)

If one were to ask me what the least offensive SC pick might be, I would have to respond, Brett M. Kavanaugh - mainly because he appears to be able to question his past decisions. But that pick would require the Dotard to be in a sane and sober state, which I doubt we can expect.  Maybe I will be wrong, we will see.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/alex-henderson/80033/sex-trump-and-the-supreme-court-here-are-8-seminal-decisions-trumps-far-right-appointees-could-rever

Response To Tom McLeish's Counter Arguments In Physics Today

Following my letter appearing in the June issue of Physics Today, Religionist Tom McLeish was allowed an extensive response to all the published letters - numbering six. Here I focus on his response to my letter and I rebut each of his counter arguments in turn:

McLeish writes (p. 14):

"Although religious tradition naturally requires discourse about personal and corporate encounters with divinity in order to make sense of history and experience, it is far less concerned with the supernatural than with life, hope and justice here on Earth."

Of course this is too clever by half and is yet another permutation of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. Antony Flew, in his Thinking about Thinking, first made people aware of the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy.

As he put it:

"Here we have Angus, a Glaswegian (inhabitant of Glasgow), who puts sugar on his porridge, and who is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”.

Then the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.

(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

(3) Therefore: Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.

And:

(4) Therefore: Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Thus the 'No true Scotsman fallacy' is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position.  In this case, McLeish bids us not to look at or address the 'elephant' (actually wooly Mammoth) in the 'mind space' of religiosity - i.e. the supernatural - but to look instead at religion's emphasis on "hope, life and justice"..   In other words, the supernaturalist- bound entity I had addressed was not the "true" religious tradition but a specious one. 

Indeed, if McLeish's claim was in any way sound, the rational skeptic could simply retort: "Then if you're just invested in life, hope and justice why not dispense with the  redundant window dressing of supernatural hokum and embrace humanism?"  Of course they can't do that because the supernatural - including a supernatural divinity - is an integral part of their whole tradition.   So rather than robustly defend the supernatural as a physicist - which McLeish knows he can't - he punts and resorts to a deflecting fallacy.

McLeish again:

"So it is not right to declare a parting of the ways at the start."

Really? Then WHEN exactly are we enjoined to do so?   If there are indeed two orders or putative orders, one scientific and submitting to some form of objective inquiry, and the other (supernatural)  not, then when does one part ways? It would seem to me for clarity sake alone and to avoid obfuscation one clearly delineates the separate orders at the outset -  so there can be no ambiguity. Obviously, McLeish doesn't wish to do this because it would effectively mean 'game, set, match' and he goes home without a rejoinder.

He continues:

"Nor is it appropriate to complain that experience and exploration of God is devoid of rationality.  Stahl's presentation of two alternatives and fundamentally competing worldviews derives not from a knowledge of history or theology but ultimately from the Draper and White polemics, whose alternative history introduced that perspective. (For a more nuanced reading of history see: F. Harrison 'The Territories Of Science and Religion)."

Actually, I  have never heard of Draper or White far less their "polemics". I come at McLeish's claims from the position of reason alone, as well as from my extensive university (Loyola - run by Jesuits) exposure to comparative religion, theology, metaphysics, biblical exegesis and textual analysis.   I have also blogged on these and related matters before, for those interested, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/apologetics-textual-analysis-and.html


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/04/some-basics-on-exegesis-textual.html


 No one is asserting btw, that rationality cannot be enlisted in religious explorations, say of "divinity", but we would be remiss if we didn't also acknowledge how easily such rationality can be perverted toward deformed ends.

Thus, Pope Innocent VIII summoned excellent theological reasons for issuing a Bull allowing for the wholesale pursuit and torture of witches, warlocks, familiars and others in the form of incubi or succubi.  Much of this was formalized in the Malleus Maleficarum of Heinrich Kramer (Dean of Cologne University) and Jacob Sprenger (Dominican Inquisitor General of Germany). On account of this well-reasoned Bull, tens of thousands were subjected to vile tortures, including finally being crushed in the Iron Maiden or barbecued on large, heated griddles.   

Then there is the hyper rational Xtian moralist C.S.  Lewis . Recall Lewis’ rational justification for Inquisitional tortures is mind-boggling in itself  and effectively renders whatever morality he espouses as useless, and indeed dangerous!  In this case, in his book Mere Christianity, he pardons the witch burners for making a “mistake of fact”, i.e. in believing women described as witches were evil incarnate.  To quote one critic[1]:

If Lewis is willing to accept that witches do not exist, and that, while believing in them, it was right to put them to death, what other "ungodly" transgressions can we forgive as mere "mistakes of fact”?

Interestingly, Lewis’  "rational" pseudo-morality could easily have been incorporated into the Third Reich’s justifications for genocide. I mean, the Nazis really believed the Jews were “vermin” – as so much of their propaganda portrayed- so by Lewis’ standards they’d be excused for making a “mistake of fact”.  Lewis might well reply here that the Nazis really knew better than that so their actions were inexcusable. But how do we know there were also not more percipient Inquisitors who also knew better than to believe more than a quarter million women burned as witches did not really embody evil or have pacts with “Satan”? It amounts to mere question begging.

McLeish continues:

"Stahl's letter also manages to capture the misinformed philosophy of most late modern confusions, especially neo-atheist ones, about the nature of deity."

Actually, in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God, I had been highly critical of the "neo atheists" (cf. The Problem For Hard Core Atheist Reductionism, Ch. XII, p. 294))  - not that McLeish would have read it any more than I'd have read his referenced text, 'Atheist Delusions' by David Bentley Hart.   Regarding the latter, one reviewer's take on it is especially noteworthy, e.g.:

"Atheist Delusions is a misleading title: this book is really, as the author says in his introduction, a historical essay, only tangentially related to these delusions. It is not, or only as the argument demands, concerned with philosophy, metaphysics or theology."

So why does McLeish commend it as capturing a "misinformed philosophy"? Who knows? Again, it may most likely be merely a 'hail Mary' tossed out so he can muster some kind of weak retort, even if irrelevant.  And before McLeish gets too high on his high horse about "atheist delusions" one wonders if he is at all familiar with the work 'Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' wherein the authors (Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili) trace the God concept directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area. 

The authors’ investigation of how the brain’s OAA translates an image into a religious reality is also described in detail[2].This is in connection with a person given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it. Within minutes, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans[3], showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions as their subjects focused on an image of Christ. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”.  As the authors describe the situation: [4]:

It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus

Newberg and D’Aquili note that as the process of re-cerebralization continues, all irrelevant neural inputs are stripped away until the only reality left is Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby takes over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”   This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA-  or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region.More to the point here, is that such a brain is singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its ideations.Hence, we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers, or those like McLeish who defend religious accommodation. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA.

McLeish's next move is to invoke Aquinas:

"Everything has a cause", says Stahl, quoting Paulos….He omits the reminder that the argument of no infinite causal recursions was used by Aquinas who ran it in reverse as an argument for theism."

I was aware of Aquinas' trick - of course- but there are limits of space for letter writers in PT. I did address it in my book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God. 

As I noted, asserting "God is a first cause" is actually and technically unprovable within an axiomatic system based on cause.  This follows from Kurt  Gödel's  1st and 2nd Incompleteness theorems.  Say C₁  ->  Z is equivalent to saying "C₁ is the first cause of all Z". But consider:  if C₁  ->  Z is really provable-in-the-system of axioms, we’d have a contradiction. If it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system.  Hence,  asserting: " C₁  -> Z is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false. Again, it can't be provable in the system since C₁ is an element from a presumed causal set. So, the statement “C₁  ->  Z is unprovable-in-the-system” is not provable-in-the-system (Z), but unprovable-in-the-system (Z). Technically, one would require a meta-set such that Z' = Z + k', e.g. including k’ as the uncaused element, i.e. with Z purged of it. However, it can be shown that invoking such a meta-set leads to an infinite regression.

This shows why, before one interjects first causes (or invokes Aquinas' trick), he had first better be sure Kurt Gödel isn't looking over his shoulder!  Of course, Gödel's Incompleteness theorems didn't exist at the time of Tommy Aquinas so he couldn't have known his arguments were basically hollow mush. Alas, Kurt Gödel and his Incompleteness Theorem(s) isn’t the only daunting challenge to the naïve God-thinker. 

Quantum acausality will also have a role in tempering the naïve believer’s simple causality propositions and claims .  See e.g.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20180328a/full/

An excellent way out of the causal morass is to consider necessary and sufficient conditions.  Say if a religious rationalist is proposing support for his divinity -then he must show the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist.  Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c, d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.
  

A necessary condition is one which, if absent, the entity cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which, if present, the entity must exist. For example, a sufficient condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. The necessary condition is the nebula exists in the first place. Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. 

 Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far. Also, if we confront a disjunctive plurality of causes, we may be at moot dead ends using a naïve causal paradigm.

 
McLeish's final parry is against the notion that religious traditions harbor any superstition, by appeal to the venerable Bede, e. g.

As  for "superstition",  8th century English Christian scholar Bede advocated the study of science as a God-given faculty to counter superstition!

Note the exclamatory emphasis here, as if, to suggest:  'How can Stahl have the temerity to even suggest this?'  But according to Frederick Harrison , in his book Medieval Man:

"Yet even Bede believed that storms could be raised by witches. He records that the ship in which Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus, Bishop of Troyes, were voyaging home was driven out of its course by demons, who, however, dispersed when the two holy men bade them, in the Name of the Trinity, depart. Then the storm ceased."

Witches raising storms? Demons driving ships off course?  Sorry, McLeish, but if a person - even in the 8th century (we make NO allowances because of era lived) embraces or invokes demons and witches, then they ARE purveyors of superstition.  Incredibly, McLeish via his absurd and irrelevant   arguments and citations, would have us interject even more of supernaturalism and superstition into our science.  But thankfully most physicists are dedicated physicalists so this misplaced agenda is not likely to get very far. And I am confident most physicists will not sacrifice their principles to being bought out by the Templeton Foundation.

---

[1] Inniss: The Secular Humanist Newsletter, (Spring, 1998), 1

[2] Newberg and D’Aquili., pp.  121-22.

[3] PET = positron emission tomography, SPECT = single photon image tomography.

[4] Ibid.