The Matrix & the Crocoduck

 

Instinctively circling to escape the box in which they find themselves, a ‘Believer’ might move on successively to the Origins of the Universe, infinite regression, a Cosmological argument of some dubious stripe, stridently citing the Big Bang Theory without any more understanding then they brought to their pathetic gibbering about Darwin or the geologic column or carbon dating.

For example, the ‘Believers’ apparent inability to understand the most rudimentary, foundational precepts of evolution or the Big Bang or abiogenesis is proudly paraded on full display. This is sign that the ‘Believer’ has lapsed from conversational mode to the echoing of a suppositional script of talking points. 

(I contend that when that word ‘abiogenesis’ is uttered, the Believer only hears ‘genesis’ which triggers thoughts about the Biblical account.)

On evolution, one often hears an erroneous postulation that if ‘Darwin is true then two chimps could have a human baby, or that a new hybrid species should appears (e.g. a croco-duck); or the faux coup degras: ‘If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?’

On the Big Bang, (which I contend ‘Believers’ love to cite because it’s so easy to remember; Big! Bang!) ‘Believers’ launch into either ‘infinite regression’ or ‘something from nothing’ arguments. These arguments are typically based on an erroneous and weak grasp of the subject matter or slide to arguments which are a ‘special pleading’. The ‘special pleading’ argument can be summed up with one monosyllabic word; ‘god’. 

So, I propose that fear and ignorance are the two-pronged basis for most ‘Believers’; fear of being wrong, fear of ostracisation from the group and fear of the abyss of the unknown coupled with ignorance (often willful ignorance) of basic science, logical argument and critical thinking.

The counter to that contention is that there are many quite educated, erudite and intelligent ‘Believers’ and apologists for god and religion. I willfully concede that point but use it to point out that the ignorance spoken of beforehand was alternately both willful and unwillful. Believers who are otherwise intelligent, erudite and educated are willfully ignorant of their own logical fallacies when they attempt to pretzel-logic their effort to reconcile science with their concept of god as father-creator. 

‘Infinite regression’ and ‘something from nothing’ along with ‘special pleading’ are the principle bolts in their quiver. Obtuse points of foggy philosophy are cited to muddy the waters and derail arguments; they are the shiny objects in the distance which can’t be focused on as the field of vision oscillates and changes continuously.

One such foggy philosophy is ‘solipsism’. Solipsism is often called ‘the brain in a vat’ concept. It is the philosophical concept that only one's own mind is certain to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. It’s plopped down by the ‘Believer’ when the going gets rough; ‘How can we know anything?’ is pleaded as a distraction. Special pleading often arrives in the argument of pure solipsism.

(Think ‘The Matrix’)

This concept links aptly to the ‘Believers’ argument that the ‘mind of god’ is unknowable by us mere humans. (Notice the introduction of weasel-words presupposing that god exists and has a consciousness. It also infers a corporeal form and a brain.) Augustine or some other Church Father is quoted to support this contention; again, the Believer feels assured that the coup degras has been delivered with a fortune cookie deepitie: “We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what He is.” - Saint Augustine.

A bit wordy for a satin pillow…

When pressed up against the walls of the corner ‘Believers’ have backed themselves into, it seems they will invariably – and rather sheepishly – claim that they had a ‘Revelation from god’ or that the Holy Spirit entered them and guides them on the path of righteousness. Sometimes, the ‘Believer’ will relate a dream they had which they take as the direct contact from god. Quite typically, the revelation/dream/Holy Spirit epiphany will be extremely mundane and unremarkable to any but the most sympathetic fellow ‘Believer’.

Nice story, dude!

Perhaps the primary argument produced as ‘proof’ or evidence of a ‘higher power, a ‘creator’ or an almighty ‘god’ is the fact that so many adherents to the notion of the existence of ‘god’ is the proliferous religious experiences which are purported to be direct revelation from ‘god’ or the ‘Holy Spirit’. Paul/Saul’s epiphany on the road to Damascus is a prime example. The children at Fatima or Bernadette of Lourdes are cited by Catholics as revelations which prove ‘god’, the Trinity or the continued existence and power of the Blessed Virgin. More mundane revelation comes in the form of adherents ‘speaking in tongues’ or being ‘possessed by the Holy Spirit’ or what is claimed as immunity to poisonous snake bite as evidence of godly protection. 

As these are all personal, intimate experiences, there can be little to offer to disprove the claims that the experiences happened. There can be little to disprove that the hallucinations of schizophrenics or psychedelic adventurers happened either, but few take such hallucinations as being ‘divine’ or revelatory of deeper truth. 

To be clear, none of these internal experiences should be considered as evidence, no matter how epiphanous or revelatory the claim may be. The verisimilitude of peyote eaters or magic mushroom eaters as proof of another dimension would then by necessity be lumped with the stories of being ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’. This cannot be done without substantial bolstering evidence that a ‘spiritual realm’ exists. 

That would be appealing to a mystery to solve a mystery. That is special pleading writ large and should be discounted by a rational skeptical observer.

I contend that if the Believer had had psychedelic experiences enough that such departures from reality were common-place, then the ‘revelation’ would have been determined to be nothing more than a passing brain state devoid of supernatural intent or content. This would put ‘mystics’ out of business, of course.