Response to Comments – Evangelical Atheists | Real Talk World

(To view the entire thread on this subject visit the message board on Thom Hartmann’s website.)

Poor Richard to Worldchangeguy (Pete):

Worldchangeguy wrote:…people who only accept empirical evidence as proof of reality, are selling themselves short.

That could sound pretty insulting to some, guy. And pretty naive to some.

There’s a difference between observation and judgment. The questions are, what is “reality” and what is “science”?

What we see through our eyes, hear through our ears, feel through our skin, smell through our nose and taste with our tongue is unique to each one of us even though, empirically, we can agree that all people can see, hear, taste, touch and smell. We can also prove empirically that we all have inner senses and intuitive abilities. We can all dream and imagine. To say that experiences perceived through our outer senses are more “real” or important than experiences perceived through our inner senses is a matter for the individual to determine. I learn as much from my inner experiences as I do from my outer ones; maybe, even more.

In the paragraph below, you say you’ve had many experiences in “exotic states of consciousness”. The fact that you and many others say this is empirical evidence that these abilities do exist even though the subjective matter we experience is unique to us because each one of us is unique. What is science if it is not curiosity and careful observation without prejudice? What is life without curiosity and careful observation. How can we learn and grow without these things?

I have experienced an extensive variety of exotic states of consciousness, religious experiences, and intuitive, creative experiences without experiencing a compulsion to cast off the bonds of science.

There are many kinds of “evidence” and many “standards of proof”. Its great for people to contrast and compare their differences on these. I think it might possibly be framed as information quality control (the badly needed branch of science that doesn’t exist yet).

I agree. We need to be as children. We must keep our hearts and minds open as though we’re seeing things for the first time. As we grow older we tend to become fixed in our thinking. We tend to take shortcuts and eliminate a lot we could learn from.

The only point of view I recommend on the subject of religion is the point of view of “Religious Studies”, particularly evolutionary religious studies (ERS).

Excerpt from Evolution Religious Studies:

“It is important to stress that most religious scholars, regardless of their intellectual perspective, study religion as a human-created phenomenon. Religious scholars (as opposed to theologians) have no more use for supernatural explanations than do biologists. What’s new about the evolutionary perspective is that it provides a conceptual framework for organizing existing knowledge about religion and directing future inquiry. In short, evolutionary theory can do for the subject of religion what it has already done for the biological sciences. This kind of basic scientific understanding is essential for addressing the myriad public policy issues, positive and negative, posed by religion.”

The excerpt above is a good example of how we compartmentalize our thinking. We paint ourselves into corners to create convenient truths. The entire paragraph is designed to frame our thinking, to herd us into a box where only certain perspectives are considered valid. It employs a “this is right and that’s wrong” formula that forces us to draw certain conclusions while denying others. This is not “science” or open thinking, it is something else entirely. Everything we do must be worthy of our ideals or they become something else, something less than ideal.

For the rest, subjective experiences can be extremely compelling. But none of them happen very far from a living brain, so they provide opportunities for cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, etc. Trying to go from out-of-body experiences or such to a theory of mind or soul or god without using the scientific method will be of limited interest to educated and serious people. Without science, you can produce little more than entertainment.

Aren’t we learning something about who we are and what reality is by developing our imaginations and paying attention to our dreams? They are as much a part of who we are as the keyboard I’m typing this response on. What we imagine and dream often becomes the “reality” we experience, from the buildings we build and occupy, the thoughts we express in word and on paper, the cars we build and drive, the businesses and jobs we create, and the movies we film and watch. Should we consider one aspect of our being more important than the other? Does careful observation, documentation and experimentation only work in the material world? No.

When we only accept “empirical” evidence that is limited to what we can perceive through our biological senses and intellectual abilities, we have effectively confined ourselves to life in a box. No matter how pretty it is, it is still a box.