The Dawkins Confusion
October 16, 2007 | 5 Comments
While researching ideas for a potential little section called “Atheists with Attitude” for the next issue of WIE, I came across this awesome deconstruction of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion. It’s called, fittingly, “The Dawkins Confusion” and was written by Alvin Plantinga, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame. His ripping conclusion beautifully dovetails off the point I made in my last post, about the self-defeating nature of materialism (a.k.a. scientific materialism, naturalism, positivism, extreme empiricism, etc.). He says:
From a theistic point of view, we’d expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he’d have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.
If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; naturalism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.
The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins’ naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can’t rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.
How cool is that? Plantinga thwarts Dawkins’ radar-lock on God and transmogrifies the hapless fighting atheist back into the philosophical uroboros that he really is!
BTW, tonight I’m going to Boston to experience a Smashing Pumpkins concert for the first time in seven years! Thus, God does exist.
Ye Ole Scientistic Bias of SciAm
October 4, 2007 | 1 Comment
I was just looking at the cover of the October issue of Scientific American, sitting here on my desk, and was intrigued by this metaphysically loaded cover line:
CONSCIOUSNESS
Scientists Debate How
Neurons Make Us Aware
Now, does that cover line even make sense in a materialistic framework? How neurons make “us” aware? Are “we” the physical body? Is the body separate from the neurons? And if the neurons are making the body aware, then what, exactly, is aware of the neurons? Consciousness? What is that? And what does it have to do with “us”? Hmm… 
Ah, the performative contradiction strikes again. Scientific materialism isn’t even internally consistent, let alone consistent with the rest of reality. (The contradiction, in simplest form, via Ken Wilber: Scientism holds that all conscious experience is simply a byproduct of neurological activity, and that this should be considered a true statement. But if that statement is itself a product of conscious experience, then it is self-denying. Because there is nothing “true” or “false” at the level of neurological activity; there is simply neurological activity. So if scientism is true, then it cannot be true.)
I have no sympathy for the devil of our age.
The Secret of Enlightenment
September 28, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Here are two quotes that would’ve surely eased my soul a decade ago, when existential angst tormented me day and night (particularly of the “Why is there something rather than nothing?!” variety). Though separated by centuries, the quotes point to a dimension of reality that is eternally untouched by the torments of time, confusion, and duality…
Andrew Cohen (Nov. 20, 2005):
“Most postmodern men and women, who are products of a secular culture, are full of doubt — profound, frightening, and confusing existential doubt about the meaning and purpose of life. At the deepest level of our being, most of us have no idea why we’re here. The conscious experience of consciousness itself, which is what enlightenment is, has always been the ultimate answer to that question. There’s a sense of knowing, unequivocally, before thought, that I am. The question “Why am I here?” falls away. Before everything that was and before everything that is, I already am. This revelation is the ground of everything.”
Friedrich Schelling (c.1809):
“…that last question of the understanding which stands dizzily at the abyss of infinity, the question: why is there not nothing, why is there anything at all? This question is eternally banished by the knowledge that being necessarily is, i.e., by that absolute affirmation of being in knowledge.”
Amen.
Jacques Vallée Speaks!
September 27, 2007 | Leave a Comment
While looking into an upcoming remote viewing conference for possible WIE coverage, I was excited out of my head to learn that my hero since I was about 14, the one and only Jacques Vallée, was giving the keynote address! For those who aren’t up to speed on the field of ufology, Vallée is probably the world’s most highly respected UFO researcher, having pioneered the first empirical studies of the phenomenon in the 1960s as well as casting the first truly integral, or “second tier,” lens on the subject. In an interview conducted by ufologist Jerome Clark for Fate magazine in 1978 (who aptly described Vallée as ufology’s “most original thinker”), Vallée proposed that the UFO phenomenon needed to be studied across three broad areas:
I don’t think there is such a thing as “the flying saucer phenomenon.” I think it has three components and we have to deal with them in different ways.
First, there is a physical object. That may be a flying saucer or it may be a projection or it may be something entirely different. All we know about it is that it represents a tremendous quantity of electromagnetic energy in a small volume. I say that based upon the evidence gathered from traces, from electromagnetic and radar detection and from perturbations of the electromagnetic fields such as Dr. Claude Poher, the French space scientist, has recorded.
Second, there’s the phenomenon the witnesses perceive. What they tell us is that they’ve seen a flying saucer. Now they may have seen that or they may have seen an image of a flying saucer or they may have hallucinated it under the influence of microwave radiation, or any of a number of things may have happened. The fact is that the witnesses were exposed to an event and as a result they experienced a highly complex alteration of perception which caused them to describe the object or objects that figure in their testimony.
Beyond those — the physical phenomenon and the perception phenomenon — we have the third component, the social phenomenon. That’s what happens when the reports are submitted to society and enter the cultural arena. That’s the part which I find most interesting.
Now, for those up to speed on their integral theory, what Vallee is hitting on here are simply the “Four Quadrants” of reality, or what philosopher Ken Wilber typically simplifies as Plato’s Big Three — the three fundamental, interlocking dimensions of reality that need to be taken into account when we look at any person, place, thing, or event (including close encounters, of any kind). These three dimensions are variously described as:
In the tagline for What Is Enlightenment? magazine, we call the Big Three: Consciousness. Culture. Cosmos.
According to integral philosophy, any inquiry that fails to take all three of these dimensions into account cannot be considered complete, whole, or “integral.” I suspected a decade ago — when I first started getting into Ken Wilber’s work — that Vallee was an integral thinker way ahead of his time. And a couple of years ago, when I saw his precise breakdown of the UFO phenomenon into those three integral categories, that confirmed it for me beyond a doubt.
I hope to have the opportunity to interview him someday (even though I always have to stretch to find a way to mention UFOs in WIE , but in the meantime, Coast to Coast AM’s George Noory seems to have done a good job of it last Monday, when Vallee made what’s probably his first radio appearance in years (and the first I’ve ever heard). If you have a Coast to Coast subscription, you can download the mp3s here (or pay the $6.95/mo. if you don’t have a sub). Or you can go the cheaper route and listen to the interview, in twelve parts, on YouTube. Part 3 is particularly good, giving a clear overview of why Vallee has strongly felt, since the late 60s, that UFOs can’t possibly be merely ET spaceships come to probe us all…
Like any good integral, evolutionary thinker, Vallée is convinced that how we perceive and interpret the flying saucer phenomenon — whatever its true origins might be — is highly skewed by the cultural, social, and historical context in which we experience it. The biblical prophet Ezekiel saw metallic “wheels” in the sky and was abducted by four-faced cherubim; the 17th-century Scottish folklorist Rev. Robert Kirk went around recording tales of close encounters with elves, piskeys, fauns, and faeries (who, naturally, liked to abduct people and take them into their mysteriously illuminated fairy-homes); and in the 20th-century “space age,” we had no shortage of abductions by aliens in spaceships from Zeta Reticuli. Now, I personally suspect we’re probably dealing with interdimensional beings with steady-state access to the subtle realms, who have been working, over millennia, to subtly steer and provoke the evolution of human consciousness, as any good kosmocentric beings would do (hey! stop laughing!). But I also think that contrary to popular convictions, nobody really knows what the hell they are.
My biological father, Don Dixon, recently posted about his own encounters with UFOs on his Flatfile blog. He remains skeptical about the reality of the phenomenon, but in my UFO obsessive teenage years (when I spent my weekends photocopying old flying saucer newspaper articles at the Seattle Public Library, or filing FOIA requests for declassified UFO documents from the NSA [yes, the FBI now has a file with my name on it]), I tried to persuade him to at least consider the evidence. To be sure, there’s a hell of a lot of it to consider…
And the truth, as always, is out there.
Bring the Light
September 27, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Why the Smashing Pumpkins will always be beloved by my slightly tortured generation, summarized in a simple YouTube comment I just saw:
i love this video i love the smashing pumpkins i love billy and i love that they help me stay alive and keep my head on strait. i love this band and if it wernt for them i would not be here.love
brianna
One of many SP lyrics that has always helped shed a little light in the narcissistic teenage darkness of postmodern flatland:
When you decide
That your life is a prize
Renew and revive
It’s alright, honey
It’s alright, yeah!
To get a full taste of the band, watch the excellent 6-part documentary Graceful Swans of Never. Or see them in concert…
Our Latest Beautiful Creation
September 26, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Here it is, the one and only WIE Issue 38, featuring ultra-progressive, inherently-integral inquiries into techno-environmentalism, the contemporary geopolitical scene, and “super-integral” possibilities at the leading edge of consciousness exploration. Plus articles on evolutionary Christianity, integral music, the fallacies of “self-esteem,” the narcissistic peril and future potential of Second Life (written by Thomas de Zengotita), and lots more. Not bad for a measly $7.50, eh?
On newsstands very soon… And to subscribers even sooner!
Gen Y “Discovers” Postmodernism!
September 25, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Check it out: PomoWorld. Inspired by some newfangled revolutionary philosophy called postmodernism, the site declares:
Nothing short of a social revolution, PomoWorld is the internet/world’s first community for people around the globe to discover and explore the idea of postmodernism and pomosexuality, while uniting with each other to work towards the goal of becoming a force too strong to be denied, [and] in [the] end, revolutionizing society.
Awesome! Just like our parents did in the Sixties! Let’s not create a new culture; let’s just rehash the old!
Ah, perhaps I’m being too cynical. Obviously they mean well, and they seem sincerely inspired and passionate, which is totally cool. But, my fellow Gen-Yers, I’m afraid that postmodernism is the water we’re already swimming in — and, dare I say, drowning in, too. In fact, my initial cynical response to that site is itself a conditioned response born of the postmodern mind. As Ken Wilber has explored at length, that cynicism is the natural result of our parents’ revolution not exactly delivering on its Age of Aquarius promises. Instead, we’ve got ourselves a hyper-individualistic world where everyone is living out their own Choose Your Own Adventure lifestyles, secure in the bubbles of their easy isolation, rocking out to their iPod Touches, experimenting with their pomosexuality, and innocently (oblivious to even recent history, which itself is delightfully postmodern) creating websites that herald a philosophical perspective — and stage of consciousness — whose domineering reign on this earth has already expired.
Then again, maybe these kids live in Texas or Alabama or someplace where the 60s hippies were driven out of town by the good ol’ Christian soldiers (or downright strung up) before their psychedelic party could even get started… If that’s the case, then I forgive PomoWorld and wish them well. A little more peace, love, and open-minded tolerance certainly can’t hurt this world any. In fact, we could all use a hell of a lot more of it (especially in the Middle East…or Africa…or China…or Alabama). But for those of us in the postmodern West, it isn’t revolutionary. It’s the status quo we need to evolve beyond, because it’s killing us softly in our personally empowered individualism, day after disconnected day…
But there are alternative possibilities.
Zwei kühle ZEITGEIST Videos, ja!
September 24, 2007 | Leave a Comment
A confession: I’m an old-timer (27) and don’t quite have the “blog” meme embedded in my consciousness like my younger Gen-Y cohorts, having grown up online in the heyday of mailing lists and message boards. So please forgive me for not quite getting this particular ball rolling yet. I fully intend to start crunching it into my time-crunched schedule, one way or another…
That said, one of the quickest forms of blog posting is, of course, the embedded-video post! Therefore, in the Geist of the age, I hereby present to you the two latest videos from my favorite contemporary (and recently re-formed) rock band, The Smashing Pumpkins. The first one has a very cool sf/steampunk thing going on, and the second one was actually created by a fan (who won a contest to see who could redo the “Tarantula” video better than the original, official, pretty-lame version). Enjoy!
“That’s the Way (My Love Is)”:
“Tarantula”:
(Videos courtesy of the far-superior-to-YouTube site, Brightcove.tv.)
Conferencing In Consciousness
June 20, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Two of the senior instructors of EnlightenNext’s new Evolutionary Enlightenment courses, Katherine Miller and Jeff Carreira, have been conducting weekly conference calls over the past few months to delve into various aspects of Andrew Cohen’s teachings. The calls are free and open to anyone interested, and are apparently — like many evolutionary processes — getting better all the time. Though as they point out in the following video, recorded during the last call, the old paradigm of two radio personalities dishing out advice to legions of passive “listeners” are not what these calls are about. No, oddly enough, it turns out that conscious evolution actually requires conscious participation, which, generally speaking, isn’t what we postmodern slackers want to hear…
[youtube v08ZjfUl2b8]
Jeff and Katherine’s next call is tomorrow night, June 21st, at 9pm EST. The topic: “Do We Really Need to Evolve Now?” They’re going to address the common concern that evolution seems to be doing just fine on its own (really?), so why, then, do we need to get all up in a fuss about “engaging” with it?
For the access number and to be added to the list for Jeff’s weekly email updates, you can simply write to him and ask (and find his email address here). To listen to tomorrow night’s call live online, and to listen to all the previous calls free of charge, go here.
I should warn you, though, my fellow Earth citizens: If you’ve never participated in an EnlightenNext conference call, then prepare to have your neural circuits nicely basted in the bliss of evolutionary tension and lightly broiled by the wildly passionate inferno that is God. (Seriously. They’re cool like that.)
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Women But Were Afraid to Ask
June 20, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Here it is, Issue 37, the latest edition of WIE — and one of our most provocative yet. It’ll be arriving in subscriber’s mailboxes starting this week and at newsstands near you in a couple of weeks:
It’s an awesome issue, written mostly by the female members of our staff. For a preview of one of the feature articles plus the full TOC, go here. To read my snazzy marketing copy for the issue, click here, and please feel free to provide your name, address, and credit card info while you’re there.
I’ll be writing about why all males of the human species should read this issue as soon as I get a chance. But for now, I must get back to meeting my copy deadlines for Issue 38!
May the Divine Feminine be with you.
-
Subscribe -
About
- Welcome to the personal blog of Tom Huston, one of the editors at EnlightenNext magazine. Arising from the cultural milieu of late 20th-century America, armed with the combined powers of Integral Theory and Evolutionary Enlightenment, he has become … Kosmic Tom.
- + See bio.
- + See published writings.
-
-
Kosmic Links