Utopianism

I by and large agree (for the most part) with many of your criticisms here and in the other thread you started recently about the connection or lack of between M1 and M2.

But I'd like to make what I think is a relevant point:

Skeptiko is a really cool podcast, (and maybe you agree (?)) . . . And one of the reasons, IMO, that it's good is because Alex is the host. I don't really want hushed tones and elevator-style muzak, and NPR type stuff . . . I want what I'd do, which is, in a quite a few ways, what Alex does. I want someone who at least starts somewhat as a layman. When I first started coming to understand what the current scientific paradigm was all about, I was majoring in anthropology, with an emphasis on cultural anthropology . . . (which was a mistake; I should've been smarter than to actually go to college, for one, and for two, I should've majored in, say, literature). I was floored by how scientifically predictable they thought culture and humans were . . . and that they actually thought, if we made it far enough with science, we'd be able to explain, well - I hesitate to say everything, but that's kind of what I think they - my professors and fellow students - thought. Anyway, I railed against the stuff; I wanted to lash out in anyway possible . . . I mean, mainly on intellectual grounds . . . I thought they were - sorry to use the word - kind of stupid, intellectually crude, black-and-white type thinkers. (And, of course, they weren't really stupid, but it's like they had an enormous blind spot or were, well, indoctrinated). So, I was furious, and sometimes I'll still have that feeling when I think back on college . . . God only knows what I would've thought/said had I been aware of parapsychology; my nonmaterialist views at the time were strictly shaped by hallucinogens and Art . . . (Art because I believe for it to really happen, the person doing it has to get out of the way, so to speak, and allow something else, something greater, to take over . . . and that that thing that does take over will never, ever be accounted for). Anyway, this is all just to say, Alex isn't an impartial NPR host or a college philosophy professor; he's on a personal journey. He's coming from where I'm coming from. And it's this, I think, that's possibly at the root of your frustration.

Reece, you make some good points here. I totally agree that Skeptiko is a great show. Alex has exposed a lot of ignorance, arrogance, closed-mindedness and dogmatism among skeptics, atheists and materialists on these matters. And yeah, it could be that you need someone like Alex who can be really aggressive and angry to get things done. Still, that doesn't mean we should just remain silent as Alex goes off on yet another of his bizarre rants blaming materialism for the Iraq War, capitalist consumerism, political apathy, technology worship, or whatever. It's precisely because I like Skeptiko that it annoys me so much to hear this kind of thing.
 
If you look at chapter 18 of the book The Afterlife Experiments by Gary Schwartz, you will see a slightly different form of paranormal utopianism from the type I usually criticize. He basically wants to say that it's a really good thing that our dead relatives are watching over us all the time, and for some strange reason he doesn't see anything negative or worrying about this.

One reason he thinks it's good is that he thinks we'll feel less lonely. Here's the quotation:
And knowing that our loved ones were always close and available to listen would allow us to feel less alone. The ache of being lonesome for our loved ones would be diminished. (p242)

He doesn't even mention the fact that it could be a bit creepy having these people watching us all the time, or that it might in fact be an invasion of privacy. No, he seems to think it's all good.

Another reason he gives has to do with morality. He thinks we'll be kinder and more honest because our departed loved ones could be watching us at any time. The secular person will immediately respond to this that if you're only doing the right thing because you think Grandmother might be watching then it's not really a moral act at all. Intention matters.

The final reason I remember him giving is that he thinks these dead people could help the police catch murderers and the like. The problem is, he doesn't even consider the possibility that, if there's an afterlife, then perhaps murder wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway. If our departed loved ones are still with us, then perhaps we shouldn't be so concerned about catching and punishing the murderer.
 
He doesn't even mention the fact that it could be a bit creepy having these people watching us all the time, or that it might in fact be an invasion of privacy. No, he seems to think it's all good.

Paranormal Utopians are probably not thinking about all the possibilities. There's no definitive reason for the afterlife not to be a mix of good and bad, much like Earth. The whole Siren Call of Hungry Ghost story should probably make us wary if we find the spirit world is real.

There's also Braude's writing that precogniton might actually be probability influence, either on the part of the experiencer or something/someone else.

Another reason he gives has to do with morality. He thinks we'll be kinder and more honest because our departed loved ones could be watching us at any time. The secular person will immediately respond to this that if you're only doing the right thing because you think Grandmother might be watching then it's not really a moral act at all. Intention matters.

If you're only doing the right thing because the atoms that make up your brain collided in the right way then it's not really a moral act either.
 
The overwhelming acceptation of the existence of an afterlife does not automatically bring a better world, but of course I'd rather live in a world where the existence of an hospitalary afterlife basing on empirical evidence with a conception of infinite life about love and knowledge is accepted rather than live in a world that turns its back on these issues as if these phenomena do not exist.
 
There's no definitive reason for the afterlife not to be a mix of good and bad, much like Earth.

Indeed. And if it becomes a scientifically established fact that dead people are around us all the time, then that will surely have both good and bad consequences for us in this world in terms of happiness, morality, politics and all the rest. The paranormal utopian wants to deny this seemingly obvious point. They need to believe both that psi and the afterlife will make this world a much happier and more moral place, and that the afterlife will be much happier and more moral than this world.

If you're only doing the right thing because the atoms that make up your brain collided in the right way then it's not really a moral act either.

Yeah, well you think that we can't have morality without libertarian free-will, and you might be right about that. If you are, then in order to have a genuinely moral act, we need libertarian free will, no dead people watching over us, and no punishments and rewards in the afterlife.
 
Indeed. And if it becomes a scientifically established fact that dead people are around us all the time, then that will surely have both good and bad consequences for us in this world in terms of happiness, morality, politics and all the rest. The paranormal utopian wants to deny this seemingly obvious point. They need to believe both that psi and the afterlife will make this world a much happier and more moral place, and that the afterlife will be much happier and more moral than this world.

Yeah, well you think that we can't have morality without libertarian free-will, and you might be right about that. If you are, then in order to have a genuinely moral act, we need libertarian free will, no dead people watching over us, and no punishments and rewards in the afterlife.

To be fair, we have lived in a world where the dead are thought to interact with the living in some fashion. In fact a good majority of the world lives in such a world right now. Only subsets of the Western World thoroughly deny this possibility.

So while I doubt it will be utopian to know spirits are either around us or can touch us, it's not clear such a discovery would overturn how most people live their lives. OTOH, there is a difference between definitive knowing and assumption so it might change things considerably.

As for being moral, that's a philosophical concern. I think even with free-willing souls we end up with so much complexity and weight given biology and conditioning that humanity is collectively, like Dante at the beginning of Inferno, lost in a dark forest. In fact the Cherokee don't have a word for "sin", rather the closest term means to be lost in the forest.

The writer Mike Carey suggests there are no mortal sins, rather "we are all just souls lost in a maze Someone Else has made."

What most people want is to have an open path to their goals, to have comfort when those goals are not met, and to feel they and their loved ones are safe. This allows people to make a meaningful story out of their life. Morality is a means to this end, with the pragmatic concern being the reduction of suffering.

Though if the reduction of suffering is the goal, rather than some religious adherence to Truth, it's unclear to me how Materialist Evangelism will improve the world.
 
To be fair, we have lived in a world where the dead are thought to interact with the living in some fashion. In fact a good majority of the world lives in such a world right now. Only subsets of the Western World thoroughly deny this possibility.

So while I doubt it will be utopian to know spirits are either around us or can touch us, it's not clear such a discovery would overturn how most people live their lives. OTOH, there is a difference between definitive knowing and assumption so it might change things considerably.

As for being moral, that's a philosophical concern. I think even with free-willing souls we end up with so much complexity and weight given biology and conditioning that humanity is collectively, like Dante at the beginning of Inferno, lost in a dark forest. In fact the Cherokee don't have a word for "sin", rather the closest term means to be lost in the forest.

The writer Mike Carey suggests there are no mortal sins, rather "we are all just souls lost in a maze Someone Else has made."

What most people want is to have an open path to their goals, to have comfort when those goals are not met, and to feel they and their loved ones are safe. This allows people to make a meaningful story out of their life. Morality is a means to this end, with the pragmatic concern being the reduction of suffering.

Though if the reduction of suffering is the goal, rather than some religious adherence to Truth, it's unclear to me how Materialist Evangelism will improve the world.

There are two philosophical topics that don't get enough attention on this forum. One of them is radical skepticism (of the matrix, evil demon or universe as a computer simulation variety) and the other is the problem of evil and suffering.

Because a lot of believers tend towards utopianism, they somehow buy into this whole idea that their loved ones will be safe forever in the afterlife. But why should anyone believe this? We still don't know why there's so much suffering, unfairness and injustice in this world, and until we do get a good explanation for this, there's no reason to believe that the afterlife is good and will remain so forever or that God is good and will remain so forever.

Radical skepticism is important because it shows us that NDEs don't necessarily tell us anything deep or profound about the nature of God or the universe. There are all sorts of reasons why a higher intelligence could be messing with us and playing games. All we can really say is that people are having wonderful experiences, and of course that's a great thing as far as it goes.
 
One of them is radical skepticism (of the matrix, evil demon or universe as a computer simulation variety) and the other is the problem of evil and suffering. [..] Radical skepticism is important because it shows us that NDEs don't necessarily tell us anything deep or profound about the nature of God or the universe.

I'm fairly sure Descartes quote about the evil demon is to demonstrate how radical skepticism is not a rational point of view. He highlights, "How do I know all that I see is not a demon trying to trick me?" to reference that if you take skepticism too far you can position yourself to where you cannot know anything because any number of unknowable situations could have interfered.

Usually, radical anything is a poor policy.
 
I think radical skepticism is useful in considering the possibility that nature does not have definite laws and cannot be completely described via equations assuming our usual understanding of space, time, or causality.
 
I'm fairly sure Descartes quote about the evil demon is to demonstrate how radical skepticism is not a rational point of view. He highlights, "How do I know all that I see is not a demon trying to trick me?" to reference that if you take skepticism too far you can position yourself to where you cannot know anything because any number of unknowable situations could have interfered.

Usually, radical anything is a poor policy.

I'm not suggesting that we all become radical skeptics or that we should all become hardcore atheists because of the problem of evil and suffering in the world. I'm just saying that we should keep these things in mind.

The problem of evil and suffering is particularly important, because it gives us a lot of reason to doubt the existence of a good God and/or a good afterlife. Even if we find that there is a wonderful afterlife, we still won't know why there's so much suffering and injustice in this world here, and so we may worry that this wonderful afterlife could go bad too.

It's a bit disappointing that NDErs never give us any answers to the problem of evil and suffering in this world.
 
Radical skepticism is better directed at materialist evangelism and how it's permeated the sciences.
 
I'm positing a idea no one seems to acknowledge.
There is presumed to be purpose in the world by most, but what if there isn't? If there is no purpose; there are no answers.
People have been seeking answers since recorded history and presumably in prehistory. So far there are no answers. This trend does appears to be a lasting one.
 
Plenty of people seem to have found satisfactory answers that they utilized in living out their lives.

The danger of Utopianism is assuming a singular answer fits everyone, which is pretty much the big problem with materialist evangelicals.
 
Sciborg, the point here is about atheism, not materialism. The atheist will say that because of the problem of evil we can know beyond reasonable doubt that there is no all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God. This being so, the atheist will also be very skeptical about the idea of a wonderful afterlife that's long-lasting or ever-lasting. This world is deeply unjust and unfair, so the chances are that the afterlife will be too. The fact that people are having incredibly beautiful and powerful NDEs is perhaps SOME evidence for a wonderful ever-lasting afterlife where our loved-ones are safe, but it doesn't even come close to outweighing the evidence on the other side about the suffering, cruelty and injustice in this life.

Strangely enough, both the hardcore materialists and the hardcore paranormal believers are often guilty of scientism. They think that science can show us the meaningfulness (or meaninglessness) of the world and of our lives, and can answer the age-old philosophical questions about why we're here, how we should live and why there's so much pain and suffering in the world. As I see it, scientific evidence about psi and the afterlife doesn't help us to answer any of these questions. They're philosophical questions, not scientific questions. Even if psi and the afterlife are real, we still won't know why we're here, why we suffer or which ethical system is correct.
 
For a very clear example of the kind of philosophical naivety and paranormal utopianism I'm talking about, take a look at this quotation from Jeff Long from one of his interviews on Skeptiko (http://www.skeptiko.com/jeffrey_long_takes_on_critics_of_evidence_of_the_afterlife - around 34 minutes on the MP3):

For me, I am absolutely clear, absolutely certain that there's a wonderful afterlife for all of us.

This is an astonishing statement. Not only is it utopian and incredibly naive but it's also potentially very dangerous for the ethics of killing and suicide.
 
It might be a little risque, but we have millennia of human history in which immortality of the soul didn't lead to mass suicide and murder. This might have been linking suicide to sin, but the notion of sin isn't universal.

If we're concerned about morality, I would think passing the buck for all immoral actions to the Big Bang would be a bigger problem? I suppose it's hard to see for people like Churchland or Coyne, but determinism is already used as an excuse for criminal activity. Heck, Tony Soprano denies free will in Season 1 as I recall...

It's funny to think the some of the same people who argue that immaterialism leads to justification of immoral action want to adopt a paradigm that eliminates all moral responsibility.
 
but determinism is already used as an excuse for criminal activity. Heck, Tony Soprano denies free will in Season 1 as I recall...
Excuse? I don't know about that. As a reality of correlation between the brain and mind, absolutely. What do you say of cases in which brain damage or alterations results in a criminal act that didn't seem possible previously? Will you make exceptions in certain cases, and why?

some of the same people who argue that immaterialism leads to justification of immoral action
Leads to it? Who makes that argument?

want to adopt a paradigm that eliminates all moral responsibility.

The way this is stated is unfair, as you've already determined somehow that the paradigm in question eliminates moral responsibility.
 
Leads to it? Who makes that argument?

If immaterialism doesn't lead to immoral action, why can't we replace JREF-type pseudoskepticism & materialist evangelism with legitimate skepticism?

Of course I've yet to hear a good answer for the point of the current skeptical movement and its varied subsets - New Atheism, JREF, CSICOP, etc.

The way this is stated is unfair, as you've already determined somehow that the paradigm in question eliminates moral responsibility.

How does the paradigm in question preserve notions like integrity and moral responsibility?
 
What do you say of cases in which brain damage or alterations results in a criminal act that didn't seem possible previously? Will you make exceptions in certain cases, and why?
If a skilled driver decides to drive a perfectly functioning car in a reckless manner and kills someone, the fault lies with them. If they are driving a malfunctioning vehicle to the best of their ability, it does not. If that's the exception you're talking about, then I'd make that exception.

Cheers,
Bill
 
It might be a little risque, but we have millennia of human history in which immortality of the soul didn't lead to mass suicide and murder. This might have been linking suicide to sin, but the notion of sin isn't universal.

If we're concerned about morality, I would think passing the buck for all immoral actions to the Big Bang would be a bigger problem? I suppose it's hard to see for people like Churchland or Coyne, but determinism is already used as an excuse for criminal activity. Heck, Tony Soprano denies free will in Season 1 as I recall...

It's funny to think the some of the same people who argue that immaterialism leads to justification of immoral action want to adopt a paradigm that eliminates all moral responsibility.

Long always goes on about how he's just a scientist following the data and doesn't want to jump to conclusions. Yet now he somehow knows that there's a wonderful afterlife waiting for everyone! Given the problem of evil and suffering, we just have no idea what's going to happen in the afterlife. It could be great at first but then nothing but pain and torture after that. Maybe the creator is just making it look and feel good at first so that the subsequent suffering will be all the more excruciating. Who knows?

You think I'm being inconsistent in that I think the belief in a wonderful afterlife for everyone could be dangerous ethically and socially whereas I don't think the belief in determinism could be dangerous. Maybe the difference is this. The first belief has very direct implications in everyday life, but the second one doesn't. Nobody thinks, "All my actions were determined at the big bang, so I will go and rob that bank or rape that woman." Yes, people may sometimes appeal to determinism AFTER they've done it, but that's a different point. What I'm talking about is moral motivation. The first belief is highly motivating but the second one isn't.
 
Back
Top