The belief that no one has a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon is irrational
Offline Okay, this has been bugging me for a while, so I'm officially challenging anyone who holds to the position that no one has a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon to put forth a rational justification for that position. To start off, we'll need some working definitions. I propose that we use these definition, but am open to revisions:
Justified belief - an opinion, supported by valid logical, inductive, and epistemological reasoning, that a certain proposition is true
Spiritual - that which exists, does not consist of any form of matter or energy currently recognized by the physics community, and has been observed by specific individuals either directly or indirectly
Note that spiritual does NOT mean supernatural... supernatural would imply that the phenomenon doesn't need to follow natural laws, but a spiritual phenomenon that's an inherent part of the universe, and is a normal everyday occurrence that we just don't typically recognize, would be a natural phenomenon. I offer 3 specific examples of phenomenon which some people would consider to satisfy these criteria, but I make no claim as to whether or not any of these actually do:
Chi/ki/qi - Many martial arts disciplines and alternative medicine practices claim that there's a kind of "spiritual energy" that's present in each of us and in the world around us.
Ghosts - Some people think that it's possible for a person's spirit/soul to linger around their place of death after said death has occurred.
Reincarnation - Some people think that a person's spirit/soul incarnates in multiple physical bodies over the course of history.
Also, let me just point out that I am not claiming and would not claim that it's irrational to not believe that any spiritual phenomena exist. I also am not claiming and would not claim that it's irrational to not believe that anyone has a justified belief that a spiritual phenomenon exists. It would be a false dichotomy to assume that you have to either believe that something is true or believe that it is false. So, saying the burden of proof is on those claiming that spiritual phenomena exist, while certainly valid as a justification for not believing that any spiritual phenomenon exists, is not sufficient justification for believing that no one has a justified belief that a spiritual phenomenon exists.
I think it's fair to say that in order for a person to have a justified belief in a phenomenon, that phenomenon would have to actually exist, so if someone had a justified belief that a specific spiritual phenomenon did not exist, that would be sufficient grounds to rationally believe that no one has a justified belief in that specific spiritual phenomenon, but would not be sufficient grounds to rationally believe that no one had a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon. However, it's rather difficult to demonstrate the non-existence of a phenomenon which doesn't consist of any form of matter or energy currently recognized by the physics community. So, how do people justify the belief that no one has a justified belief in a spiritual phenomenon? Here are some common arguments I'm aware of:
1) There have been plenty of people who've made public claims of spiritual abilities, and have been revealed as frauds.
2) If a spiritual phenomenon really existed, and if people were aware of it, then someone would have claimed the $1 million prize from the James Randi challenge by now.
3) If a spiritual phenomenon really existed, and if people were aware of it, then it would have been demonstrated experimentally and recognized by the physics community by now.
4) In all my years of life, I've never seen anyone who had a justified belief in a spiritual phenomenon, therefore I have a justified confidence that there probably exists no such person.
And here are my counter-arguments for each:
1) There certainly have been plenty of cases where people used slight of hand and other tricks to pretend to have a spiritual ability, and a number of these people have been exposed as the frauds they are. This is an excellent justification for why people shouldn't readily believe claims about spiritual abilities, but it's not sufficient to justify the belief that no one has a genuine spiritual ability. Assume that 99% of the people that make money from allegedly using spiritual abilities as a service for customers are frauds... have enough skeptical investigations been done to be able to use induction to be confident that if the remaining 1% were genuine that it's statistically impossible that a member of that 1% was not investigated? Of course, it would be an unreasonable burden to randomly investigate every such person, so for purposes of debunking professionals' spiritual claims, I would recommend targeting their credentials rather than the individual practitioners. For example, if a skeptic organization or a consumer organization were interested in debunking, say, acupuncturists, the way I would recommend going about it would be to check their credentials, and debunk 2-3 practitioners from each acupuncture school, thereby discrediting the schools and the accreditations they provide. Of course, all of this only deals with people who profit from claims of spiritual abilities, and does nothing to demonstrate that no one has a spiritual ability that they don't advertise or make a living off of.
2) There are many issues that someone considering attempting James Randi's challenge (and actually qualified to pass it) would have to weigh. Of course, before they could even get to that point, they would first have to know that the challenge exists... and I managed to go through the vast majority of my life without ever hearing about it, so I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't even know it exists. But, once that's out of the way, the next major issue is whether or not the person in question considers it worth becoming famous for. The JREF does not allow anonymous applicants, and it reserves the right to record and publish any demonstration an applicant performs. An extension of the fame issue is the issue of everyone knowing that they have a rare skill. There's probably not going to be any agreement about how much, if at all, that would be a problem... but I'm pretty sure there are religions out there that advocate killing witches, and power-hungry people that would wonder how they could profit from a rare commodity. Finally, the question has to be asked, how would it change the way people think? Maybe there are people out there that would like to share the information but worry that if word got out that James Randi's challenge had been passed, cases of people fraudulently claiming to have supernatural abilities to prey on those who lack critical thinking skills would vastly increase. Furthermore, the JREF doesn't accept any application that they believe would put the applicant at a risk of injury, which would rule out many martial arts demonstrations. So, there are a number of other explanations for why a person might choose not to claim the JREF's prize besides the obvious one that they might not have an ability worth demonstrating.
1, 2, & 3) Just because a person might not have the skill to reliably demonstrate a spiritual ability doesn't imply that that person doesn't have a justified belief in a spiritual phenomenon. If they were to witness someone else performing a spiritual ability, or if they were to witness some spiritual phenomenon which was not an ability performed by a person, and if they could verify that no fraud or deception was being employed to trick them, then they would have a justified belief in a spiritual phenomenon, but would not have the ability to demonstrate that phenomenon.
3) One of the greatest strengths of the scientific community in general is the requisite for repeatability. If one scientist does bad research, other scientists can review it and perform their own experiments. This is important, because it makes the findings more reliable over time. If an event occurs only very rarely and unpredictably, however, it's not repeatable, and can't be accepted by the scientific community. In this way, false positives are avoided, but some things may be real which are not yet accepted. Also, try a quick though experiment. Take the discovery of subatomic particles as an example. There was a certain point in time at which a physicist discovered that subatomic particles exist. Prior to that point in time, the physics community had not demonstrated experimentally and recognized the existence of subatomic particles. Now, this thought experiment is not quite enough to demonstrate that the reasoning in argument #3 is invalid, because it's not a parallel situation... in the case of the subatomic particles, we can presume that no one had knowledge of them before the physicist who made the discovery. The belief that I'm asserting to be irrational is not that no spiritual phenomenon exists (for which this counter-argument would be sufficient)... it's that no one has a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon, which is a weaker belief, so I'm making a bolder claim by asserting that it's irrational. That is to say, it's possible for a phenomenon to exist and be entirely unknown, but it's not possible for a phenomenon to not exist and be known. So, this thought experiment only rules out why spiritual phenomena not being discovered scientifically is not sufficient, but doesn't address the issue of why a layman might happen across justification without it being adopted by the scientific community. Some obvious possible reasons include: if the evidence the layman observes is not repeatable, if the observation is internal, apathy, and concern for what technologies might be developed as a result.
4) This argument bugs me the most, because it doesn't have much to do with the issue in question, and is just a case of bad induction. There are 2 quantities to consider here. First, what percentage of the earth's population have you observed, and second, on average what is the likelihood that for any person you have observed, you would have successfully recognized the quality in question (in this case, a justified belief in a spiritual phenomenon) upon such observation. Multiply those two quantities together, and you have a justified level of confidence, expressed as a percentage, that no one on earth has the quality in question. In this case, the probability of recognizing someone with a justified belief in an area that most people don't ask total strangers about would be quite low, and the earth's population is quite large, so even if you've observed 1 million people, the percentage of the earth's population observed is still very small. Multiplying two very small percentages together yields a much smaller percentage than either operand, so this line of reasoning fails.
You completely ignored perspective in your definition of "justified belief". That person may damn well believe they are justified in their belief through what they consider to be sound reasoning. That doesn't mean a thing.
If somebody said to you, "My mother is the best cook in the world", you would need certain evidence to believe that statement - like the kind that would be good enough to prove to the Culinary Institute of America. Sure that person may have sampled a lot of mother's cooking, and his opinion may be justified in that regard. But is his mom really the best cook in the world? The evidence will tell us so. This may be an absolute statement, but really its not far fetched - certainly somebody out there has to be the best cook as judged by the evidence. There are no super natural claims here.
It gets even worse, consistently worse, when you start adding on supernatural beliefs. Ghost stories for example require more evidence that "justified belief" - which cannot even be used in this case, as a person does not know what they are seeing, and often will see things relevant to their cultural dictates. For example, how or in what manner a ghost appears will not be the same in America that it is in Spain, or Mexico, or the middle east. This is because ghost stories told in those regions are different, and when people "see" ghosts they are really not seeing anything - their minds "fill in" the blanks with the stories they've heard, as part of an instinctual survival tool we have evolved. It's called pareidolia. Now this why we see faces on the moon, on mars, Jesus on food-stuffs, etc. We see a pattern, our mind fills in the blanks with memories, often with illusions.
The problem is that people so often turn these illusions into delusions. That doesn't even cover all the bases. You would need to quantify what a soul is that person believes they are seeing, you would need to explain how "supernatural" can materialize in "natural" and can be seen by "natural" eyes, yet leave no "natural" traces. (If it is energy, for example, why no residue or burn marks - imagining that the energy needed to "materialize" would have to at least scorch something) You would need to locate the functions of the body controlled by a "soul". These factors would need to be determined before one could even being to "logically justify a belief."
Finally, you ignore intent. Ever wonder why the most prominent ghost sightings and alien abductions happen in trailer parks? Srsly. Read my article on ghost stories and hauntings.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Are you saying that it's impossible to have objective standards for logic, induction, and epistemology by which a the justification of a belief can be determined? Are you saying that even if such objective principles were followed diligently, the bias of an observer is so inherent that it can never be trusted? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth... just trying to understand your objection. If you think my definition is insufficient, is there another you would recommend instead?
Actually, this is not the same kind of situation. "Best" is an entirely subjective judgment... in other words, the claim "My mother is the best cook in the world" is by nature an opinion rather than a fact. Even if the claimant were to sample every dish from every cook in the entire world, "best" would still be a matter of his personal preference. The existence or nonexistence of a phenomenon is a much more concrete, objective matter. Also, I didn't make any assertion regarding supernatural beliefs, only spiritual beliefs.
Again, I didn't mention anything about supernatural phenomena... but clearly the cases you're referring to were not cases of people with a justified belief in an objective sense. Now if, hypothetically, a person were to see a ghost, and then had the ghost throw a chair at him, that would be much more justification for the belief in a ghost than just that person thinking that he saw something that kind of looked like a person.
Oh, I wouldn't disagree with the statement that most ghost stories are false. But, even if they're all false, that's only 1 possible phenomenon. To say that no one has a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon is a much broader claim.
Again... not talking about supernatural... but if souls were made of energy, at least of a form we were aware of, then one of them would likely have been detected already, unless the rest of our bodies were enough of a distraction to make them unnoticeable. As far as materialization and scorching, that just sounds like wild speculation. In any case, a phenomenon doesn't need to be completely understood to be observed.
Well, that would certainly be good evidence, but I wouldn't say that no other evidence would be valid. If a child sees his ice cream cone melting, is he not justified in believing that it is, in fact, melting just because he doesn't know that materials phase shift from solids to liquids when their temperature increases?
I dont think the definition of spiritual is '
Surely the definition of spiritual is that which exists that can NEVER be recognised by the physics community, not what is currently recognized.
There could easily be forces out there we don't understand but doesnt make it supernatural merely beyond currently knowledge. Maybe there is some sort of weird soul that can survive outside our bodies (not likely but still possible) but there is no evidence that this couldnt be observed, measured and studied
Hmm... an interesting point.... www.dictionary.com gives this definition for 'physics': the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force.
So, I guess, for something spiritual to be recognized scientifically, and depending on the specific nature of the thing in question, it might have its own field of study, hmm? Maybe a better definition would be something like this?
Spiritual - that which exists, does not consist of any form of matter or energy currently recognized by the scientific community, and has been observed by specific individuals either directly or indirectly
Your thoughts?
Yes, that's my point exactly. We don't know everything there is to know about how our universe works, so how can we say that nobody has seen or recognized something real that isn't yet common knowledge?
Your definition begs the question. How do these individuals *know* that what they observed 'does not consist of any form of matter or energy currently recognized by the physics community'? They may *believe* that what they experienced has no physical basis, but they don't *know* that.
The clear argument against believing in non-physical spirituality is Occam's Razor, the principle that we should not accept those ideas that can just as easily be done without. Spiritual *experiences* may have a physical basis, so there is no reason to assume that the experiences point to a reality beyond the physical. Have you ever seen a magic trick? Pretty convincing, eh? It *looks* like the only explanation is magic. But does that mean that magic exists? No. It doesn't. There is a physical explanation for what *appears* to be magic. Likewise with spiritual experiences.
Q: "Isn't it a miracle that the universe/life/consciousness/myself exists?"
A: "No."
----
For any person P, question Q, and concept X
If the asking of Q depends on the existence of X, and P asks Q
Then X exists, and P should not be surprised of that
If the question is "is the belief that no one has a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon irrational..."
wikipedia partially defines irrationality as belief in the supernatural without evidence (this includes higher powers or beings, such as God)
I agree with this definition. Unfortunately there is no physical evidence of any supernatural forces. Hence, the term supernatural. So, it is very rational not to believe in the supernatural as a default.
Since there is no physical evidence, and can never be any, then would one be willing to allow personal testimony as evidence? If so, then it may be possible to slowly build evidence for the supernatural. Most would need so much personal testimony that it would be practically impossible to convince oneself of the supernatural (since people lie and are mistaken). It would have to be true testimony to be justified. The odds are very stacked against this.
The only other evidence would be personal experience which could also be mistaken and often is as Rook_Hawkins points out.
since justification hinges on truth we can argue forever to what amount of personal testimony "should" be necessary. Some would say a lot. Some would say no amount is enough for me.
To have a justified belief that the spiritual experience points to a *real* spiritual (as per your def'n of non-physical) phenomenon, the person would have to conclusively show that this experience can *not* be explained by physical concepts. They would essentially have to be well-versed in physics, i.e. a physicist, and they would have to have some form of evidence that the non-physical exists. Aside from the impossibility of such evidence, even if such evidence were possible, the person would also have to have followed the scientific method to establish that their conclusions were not biased. Therefore, this person would have to have a scientifically recognized theory of the non-physical. Such a theory does not exist on this planet. If it did, we would have heard about it through the scientific pulbications, which is an essential part of the scientific method. Therefore, it is not justified to believe in non-physical spirituality.
BTW: I hold that such a theory is by its nature impossible to construct, since science can only deal with the physical. But, even granting that evidence of the non-physical were possible, the lack of such a theory is justification for believing no one has a justified belief in the non-physical.
Q: "Isn't it a miracle that the universe/life/consciousness/myself exists?"
A: "No."
----
For any person P, question Q, and concept X
If the asking of Q depends on the existence of X, and P asks Q
Then X exists, and P should not be surprised of that
Your definitions are a bit skwronky.
Belief - holding a thing to be true and real.
Knowledge - Justified True Belief.
Justified - adhering to and passing tests for logical validity, empirical reality, and objective verification.
True - Objectively existing as described.
These are not my definitions. They're generally agreed upon by most of the philosophical world, and disagreement usually comes in the form of additional conditions, not a reworking of the base definition. For instance, many (including myself) say that knowledge must also be intentional. In other words, if I tell you that there's a quarter in your pocket right now, and there is, it's not knowledge. It's true and justified, and I may well believe it, but I don't have the evidence and objective verification, so it is not knowledge.
Now, with these (correct) definitions, there is no such thing as knowledge of spirituality, for there is no objective verification. Also, any belief, whether true or not, cannot strictly be called justified because it fails the tests of objective verification, and quite possibly empirical reality.
I think it's not impossible for you to get where you want, but you have to change your wording a little to be philosophically sound. It is quite rational for someone to have a belief in spiritual things, or even the supernatural. That's because we can reach a valid conclusion that either or both exist. All we need is untrue data. With false premises, we can reach the conclusion that god, or spirits, or esp, or ufo abductions exist, and the conclusion would be valid, and therefore rational. The only time it's irrational to believe in such things is when either:
1) We have true data and use invalid logic
or
2) We have true data and ignore sound logic
or
3) We have false data and use invalid logic
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
Isn't using data that doesn't have evidence for it's being true irrational though?
Example:
All cats are immortal
all immortal things are gods
Therefore the Ancient Egyptians were right and all cats are gods.
Completely valid logically, though the first premise is obviously false and the second isn't necessarily true. So even though it's technically valid it would be a very irrational thing to say.
The main problem with born-again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
Only if you have evidence that the data doesn't have evidence.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
Really not sure I get this thread,
If someone can come up with evidence that ghosts exist then the study of ghosts becomes physics and possibly biology
If someone can come up with evidence that life exists after the death of the body then that becomes biology
If someone can come up with evidence that god exists than the study of god becomes well all sciences
Science is the methology in obtaining information about the universe it isnt the actual facts themselves. The the whole material/non material thing just doesnt make any real sense.
If its exists its material in one form or the other
For personal testimony to have weight as evidence, the person who is judging the supernatural event should be well versed in physics, con games, magic tricks, slight of hand, hypnosis, etc...to be able to say that the event was "apparently" not natural. Still, the likelihood of it being supernatural only increases slightly due to our general lack of knowledge of all natural things. It would take a lot of these testimonies to add up to significant weight or a lot of supernatural events to accumulate weight of evidence. This would still not be scientific evidence.
By definition, no supernatural events are testable or repeatable and therefore cannot be studied through scientific method.
If the "supernatural" event was repeatable, then by definition it is no longer supernatural. Scientific method would eventually figure out the natural cause.
But somehow supernatural claims are objective?
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Ghosts arent real.
could only be considered objective to those who agree on their individual subjective beliefs. Objective may be the wrong word. Maybe axiomatic is a better word. Or just "agreed upon terms" is better. " Supernatural events are always subjective to the person who experienced them. Some may call it "scientific" or logical to try to rule out all natural possibilities. At best I might call it abductive logic. But there is no way to deduce any supernatural claims as being true.
Can we stay with our traditional RRS statement "you claim an imaginary friend; You have to prove it is real."
jeffrick
Sorry. I should have put a smiley or something to indicate humor.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
I don't think so, nor would I suggest that to be the case. Supernatural, as I understand it, means not bound by the laws of nature. A claim is an assertion of something as a fact. I'm not talking about the supernatural, and I'm not even necessarily suggesting that there would be any claims. I'm talking about some hypothetical natural, spiritual phenomenon which could either have been observed somehow or could have caused some observable effect. The hypothetical phenomenon, then, would be what I'm referring to as objective, not the observation of it. To go back to your food example, the appropriate corresponding claim would not be that "My mother is the best cook in the world", but rather that "My mother is a cook."
However, I think Hamby (and others) might be right that my definitions need adjusting. I wasn't very confident in them to begin with... I just haven't yet thought of better definitions to use.
What do you have against the correct ones?
All you have to do is adjust your statement slightly, and you're right, and philosophers the world over will be happy. There can be a rational and untrue belief because bad data can yield valid and false conclusions. So, there's no such thing as knowledge of or justified belief in the spiritual or supernatural. However, there are people who are being rational by holding such beliefs.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
That would defeat the purpose of the discussion, I'm afraid. Whether the statement is that anyone who believes in a natural, spiritual phenomenon must necessarily hold that belief without justification, that anyone who believes in a natural, spiritual phenomenon might have some justification for their belief, but that belief would still be false, there is still an assumption being made that no natural, spiritual phenomenon can exist (or alternately that no natural, spiritual phenomenon could be in any way observable). I don't see any justification for making that assumption... in other words, to use the definitions you pointed out, such an assumption appears to be an unjustified belief for which the truth value is unknown.
Hmm... you're right. I don't just mean justified belief, I mean justified true belief. The reason I hesitated to use the word knowledge, however, is that it's not a requirement that these people know how the phenomenon works... just that they have a justified true belief that the phenomenon exists. I suppose a better term for what I was thinking of as knowledge would actually be understanding.
Am I right, then, in understanding your objection to be that it's impossible to have an objectively justified belief in the existence of a spiritual phenomenon because you think it's impossible to have an objectively justified belief in anything?