Skip to main content

Seeing the divine in the world: illusion or reality?

An ultrasound scan

Some religious folk believe that, perhaps with the right training and/or immersion in religious practice - some can become sensitive to meaning and significance in the world - meaning and significance that is lost on atheists. I look out the window and just see the sunset. They look out the window and see the Glory of God. But are they detecting meaning and significance that is really there for anyone with eyes to see? Or are they merely projecting that meaning and significance onto a realty that lacks it?

I suppose it boils down to something like the difference e.g. between 1. seeing the baby or the tumour in those shifting, fuzzy ultrasound scan images - something not everyone can do, and which requires training to get really good at it, and 2. seeing the canals of Mars.

In the 1870s the astronomer Schiaparelli thought he could see the Martian canals through his telescope, and started to map them. Others joined in. They confirmed the existence of Schiaperelli's canals, and even noted that new ones had appeared. Then small black spots at the intersections of the canals were observed and recorded. Eventually, detailed maps of the canals were created and theories about them developed. Lowell famously theorised the canals were a planet-wide irrigation system designed to bring water down from the icy poles. Of course, the canals did not really exist.

My suspicion, of course, is that religious experience of the sort described above are more like the latter than the former. An interesting question is: how can we tell which of these things is going on: detecting real significance and meaning in what’s before us, or merely projecting that meaning and significance into what we see?

With ultrasound images we can at least check against something independent how well we are doing in reading the scans. I thought that was a hand, but it turns out it was a foot. We can now perform similar checks on the surface of Mars. But no such check is possible (I think?) when it comes to the veracity of the religious experience.

Notice that mere agreement among experts doesn’t count for that much, as we have that in the Martian canals example too. On the other hand, defenders of the veracity of such religious experiences may insist that just because there’s no objective independent check possible doesn’t mean what the religious seem to detect isn’t actually there.

Here’s Schiaperelli’s 1877 map, and then a 1962 map, of the canal systems of Mars (it wasn’t until 1965 Mariner fly-by that the canal theory was entirely debunked)
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se
446 comments
Read more