It did occur to me though that the tactic for me would not be presenting absolutely, categorically true and irrefutable proof. They always have a way out. What would however be easy would be pointing out that their views are not based upon empiricism. Given that their belief system and self understanding rests FIRMLY on empiricism, this makes them hypocrites of the worst sort. This would be easy enough to show.
As one example, take William Crookes . He was a pioneer of vacuum tubes, and one of the most prominent scientists of his generation. Yet, when he carefully investigated medium Daniel Dunglas Home–who was the first person to be called “psychic”–and found his power genuine, he was vilified.
When a scientist does an experiment, do other scientists take his word for it? Of course not. They try to, what:? REPLICATE it. How many scientists tried to replicate Crookes work prior to denouncing it? None. In what other field of science are apparently successful experiments done by qualified professionals not subjected to efforts at replication? These scientists, at a minimum, could have attended a Home seance. He took all comers, and did his work in well lit rooms he had not previously visited. If you read about what he did, and ponder the sheer quantity of witnesses, you have to conclude that it nothing short of a scientific crime that so few investigated him.
That was not actually the main point I wanted to make, so after my foray into channeling Arlo Guthrie, let me move on to Part Two.
I have long felt that atheists have a different vibe to them, as well, a certain emotional detachment, a certain machine-like-ness, a certain feel of metal. It is not a strong, but a subtle thing. As William James pointed out right at the beginning of his Pragmatism lectures, your sense of the world and your place in it is by far the most important element of who you are, and such people at root have to admit they are dirt that exists in apparent consciousness for a short time, then disappears for all eternity.
This emotional aspect got me to thinking about how they handle emotions, then it hit me: I think dogmatists pick their stance, their form, their religion based upon what emotions it enables them to suppress.
Think about it: no dogmatist of any stripe can claim to be rational, since by definition they are unwilling to change their views in response to new evidence. Consistently, of course, the strategy is to avoid new evidence, to make this fact less clear.
If you believe in God, you believe in your connection with the universe and your fellow humans. If you do not, then you are alone. Some people like that idea, that they have private chamber that is theirs alone, in which no spirit, no psychic, no transpersonal anything can penetrate. Their mind may consist solely of electrical impulses and chemical reactions, but it is THEIRS.
As I see it, spiritual freedom consists in allowing a constant wind to blow out of you into the world. It does not blow constantly, or always in the same direction. At some level, we have to reject all fixity in order to follow and grow it. Buddhist monks wandered, to facilitate this. I would argue that if you don’t interfere with this flow, you can be anywhere and doing anything, and grow equally.
But some people don’t want that flow. They don’t want that connection. They don’t want to grant certain emotions of pain deep within them access to light and air. This is why they reject so violently people who are religious. As I said, I have debated many atheists, and a great many of them border on the sadistic. They know full well that the ONLY thing that gets some people through life is their religious beliefs, yet they DELIGHT it attacking them and their faith. They invest enormous energy in it. I wonder if they are attacking their own vulnerable selves, that lie buried beneath a facade of apparent rationality, one heavily conditioned by emotional attachments they cannot manage because they cannot recognize.
This idea of flow is key. I am sure of it. What stops the flow is bad, and what facilitates it is good. Atheism stops it, so it is bad. People like Sam Harris have caused a lot of suffering, not least among those who admire him. What he has done for them is rationalize shelving unwanted pressures and failings, angers and sadnesses, into a package that purports to be perfectly tranquil, perfectly reasonable, and fully compatible with the best ideas of science.
It is a lie.