Really good read. I especially liked your point at the beginning - "I don’t think miracle claims rise to the level of sufficient plausibility to be worthy of serious investigation or discussion by most people."
I've been thinking about that in connection with the Schmid conversion recently. There's an argument that Christians make which looks something like: "if we can convert an atheist/agnostic who has spent years investigating the truth of our religion, that's a sign of how strong our arguments are."
But I think it runs the other way: somebody who spends years investigating the truth of a religion probably already finds the religion plausible enough to justify the investigation. And it's by no means self-evident that a serious philosopher or thinker would have to regard any religion as plausible enough to warrant that degree of effort; or even that a philosopher would have to regard religion as an object of philosophy at all, alongside the primary objects like knowledge or ethics.
Of course, that risks entering into a kind of closed circle where you dismiss religion on insufficient grounds, and then don't consider the evidence when it's presented. But I think you're right in general that a lack of interest can be the result of prior experience or understanding, not merely of prejudice - with the question just being the strength or validity of that prior experience and understanding.
I share this sentiment. I was a bit spooked at first when I became aware of all these different marian apparitions and eucharistic miracles and whatnot, but after some examination I no longer have even a bit of doubt that it's pretty much all bullshit.
It’s tough, because I think I’m to the point now of saying there’s likely SOMETHING going on with the abduction and UAP question, but it doesn’t preclude an ultimately mundane but very interesting psychological explanation. So that particular area of inquiry I feel needs a fresh look, without big presumptions about actual space aliens. The overlap between some of what’s recounted from some abduction accounts and things like altered states under ayahuasca seem to imply some sort of trans-cultural phenomenon. So I don’t view the options as being “space aliens are real” and “people are bullshitting”. I think there’s probably a stranger story at root, that isn’t really well addressed by either believers and conspiracy theorists, or most skeptics. What that story IS I’m very hesitant to say, but I find that particular topic more difficult to completely set aside than say ghosts or telekinesis. Of course neither you nor anyone else is required to take it seriously. I think it just bothers me a little bit to talk about these things all in the same breath, when I see the likelihood of there being something genuinely interesting at root as varying quite heavily between them. But this could be just my own bias speaking.
Excellent post
Really good read. I especially liked your point at the beginning - "I don’t think miracle claims rise to the level of sufficient plausibility to be worthy of serious investigation or discussion by most people."
I've been thinking about that in connection with the Schmid conversion recently. There's an argument that Christians make which looks something like: "if we can convert an atheist/agnostic who has spent years investigating the truth of our religion, that's a sign of how strong our arguments are."
But I think it runs the other way: somebody who spends years investigating the truth of a religion probably already finds the religion plausible enough to justify the investigation. And it's by no means self-evident that a serious philosopher or thinker would have to regard any religion as plausible enough to warrant that degree of effort; or even that a philosopher would have to regard religion as an object of philosophy at all, alongside the primary objects like knowledge or ethics.
Of course, that risks entering into a kind of closed circle where you dismiss religion on insufficient grounds, and then don't consider the evidence when it's presented. But I think you're right in general that a lack of interest can be the result of prior experience or understanding, not merely of prejudice - with the question just being the strength or validity of that prior experience and understanding.
I share this sentiment. I was a bit spooked at first when I became aware of all these different marian apparitions and eucharistic miracles and whatnot, but after some examination I no longer have even a bit of doubt that it's pretty much all bullshit.
It’s a rehash. There were skeptics handling this stuff years ago. People have short memories.
Fantastic piece, Lance.
You said you used to be a hardcore new atheist. Did your complete 180 from conspiracy theories lead you to new Atheism?
Or are the two not related?
Yes, they are very closely related. And this was right around the time New Atheism began to emerge.
It’s tough, because I think I’m to the point now of saying there’s likely SOMETHING going on with the abduction and UAP question, but it doesn’t preclude an ultimately mundane but very interesting psychological explanation. So that particular area of inquiry I feel needs a fresh look, without big presumptions about actual space aliens. The overlap between some of what’s recounted from some abduction accounts and things like altered states under ayahuasca seem to imply some sort of trans-cultural phenomenon. So I don’t view the options as being “space aliens are real” and “people are bullshitting”. I think there’s probably a stranger story at root, that isn’t really well addressed by either believers and conspiracy theorists, or most skeptics. What that story IS I’m very hesitant to say, but I find that particular topic more difficult to completely set aside than say ghosts or telekinesis. Of course neither you nor anyone else is required to take it seriously. I think it just bothers me a little bit to talk about these things all in the same breath, when I see the likelihood of there being something genuinely interesting at root as varying quite heavily between them. But this could be just my own bias speaking.