The hallowed spectrum

 

An extremely interesting "discussion about everything" featuring Emerson Green and Jon from the podcast "Christianity on the spectrum". Jon has tried to get to the bottom of the question "Are autists more likely to be atheists" and the answer seems to be "yes". But why? The idea that autists lack a theory of mind and therefore can´t understand religion and spirituality (i.e. the minds of invisible gods) seems intuitively true, but Jon believes its much more complicated. 

After all, not all religious traditions are the same. Indeed, Jon´s research suggests that autists who are Christian gravitate towards liturgical and ritualist forms of religiosity, while shunning more emotionalist and spontaneous versions. Which makes perfect sense. It also turns out that many Christian autists are preoccupied with doctrinal orthodoxy. Perhaps because they can´t stand ambiguity and inconsistency?

So why do many autists de-convert and become atheists? The main reason seems to be precisely that they find themselves unable to uphold orthodoxy due to Bible contradictions or illogical theology. The cognitive dissonance becomes too great. However, there does seem to be another more sinister reason: Christian fundamentalists are often uncomprehending or downright hostile to autists. Children on the spectrum may be subject to exorcisms to cast out their "demons". In general, these groups tend to shun people with real or perceived mental health issues. There are theologians who argue that the "image of God in man" includes having a complex theory of mind - precisely what autists lack. One theologian even referred to the state of non-belief as "spiritual autism"!

Yet another factor could be that many autists are...ahem...a bit weird. And many Christian groups don´t tolerate weirdness (or *this* kind of weirdness). Thus, many autists have gender dysphoria and identify as trans or non-binary. Jon was at one point invited onto a Christian autists´ forum and soon realized that he was the only person there who *wasn´t* a Furry?!  

Jon also discusses the phenomenon of "autistic" influencers on TikTok and other social media platforms. They don´t know squat about autism and broaden the definition to include as many people as possible. These groups are usually Woke and exclude people with the wrong opinions. Jon himself is diagnosed with "autism 1" (what used to be called Asperger´s or high-functioning autism), suffered from gender dysphoria as a teenager, and left Christianity for atheism. Later, he re-converted. He has worked for the US military and is presumably more conservative in orientation.

I´ve heard of many of these things before, so it was nice to get them confirmed. One thing I didn´t know about was that some Christian theologians define "the image of God" or "communion with God" in such a way that people with autistic traits are excluded. I mean, that´s...wild.

Recommended. Although Jon, as a typical "aspie", talks too much!      

Frightfully bad skepticism

 

Emerson Green (the only non-dogmatic, real skeptic on the internet) deconstructs three bad arguments against ghosts. Weirdly, they are Chinese and 2000 years old?! Presumably the internet skeptics who linked to the article about the old Chinese philosopher Wang Chong thought he really nailed it. 

Not so, argues Green. In fact, Wang´s arguments are rather weak and based on implicit assumptions about how ghosts "should" behave. Yet, no ghost-believer actually makes them and the assumptions aren´t even logical to begin with. In other words, the skeptics are attacking a strawman. Or perhaps boogeyman?

Green also points out that there *are* cases in which ghosts supposedly behaved in exactly the way Wang claimed they never do. Finally, he points out that the data-set (behavior of alleged ghosts) is compromised *by the skeptics themselves* (or hostile religious authorities) since they create a climate in which eye-witnesses are mocked and seen as crazy. So how the heck does a skeptic know how ghosts are supposed to behave in the first place?

As far as I know, Green doesn´t actually believe in ghosts, but he loves to explore the fringes of human knowledge. This is probably connected to his rejection of physicalism in favor of dualism or panpsychism. And also to his observation of a werewolf-like creature as a teenager!   

Death and lying

 

Emerson Green on the Christian apologetic claim "Nobody dies for a lie". Here promoted by none other than Mel Gibson! Unfortunately, people die for lies all of the time. Including self-conscious ones. Personally, I don´t think the apostles died for something they knew was a lie, but the claim that *nobody* would do this is gullible in the extreme. The opposite is also the case: true believers in other religions may chose to die for *their* beliefs based on allegedly supernatural events. Say a Hindu who believes that one of his gods (or his deceased guru!) have actually appeared to him... 

One in a googolplex

 

Emerson Green is a former atheist who defines himself as an agnostic these days. He is also a non-materialist, but I´m not sure if he´s a dualist or a panpsychist. In this long video, Green discusses with philosopher Michael Huemer, who is obviously a dualist. Indeed, he defines himself as a substance dualist. Judging by his book "Ethical Intuitionism", Huemer is also a non-naturalist moral realist. He is, however, an atheist and holds the dualist position on purely philosophical grounds. 

The video is a bit difficult to follow (or am I just showing my age?). I get the impression that Huemer´s position is really a hybrid between substance dualism and emergent materialism. He seems to be saying that the soul emerges from a material substrate at a certain point in time when the structural configuration of matter is just right, due to psycho-physical laws the origins of which remain mysterious. Then, the soul becomes in effect eternal. But it´s possible that I´m misunderstanding him. He certainly does believe in reincarnation, although he concedes that it may take "a googolplex years" before your soul gets reincarnated. I *think* his point is that the soul can only reincarnate in a body that looks almost similar to the one it emerged from. But this, too, suggests that the body and the soul have a very strong connection. Your soul will lose all its memories, so presumably "past life regression" doesn´t work.

The most intriguing part of the video (around 39:00 to 50:00) discusses Einstein´s theory of relativity. Huemer offers a kind of "common sense" critique of relativity, arguing that space and time are two different things, and that all measurements must be absolute (or else absolutely wrong).

I admit that I became somewhat *less* convinced about dualism after watching this video. Huemer admits (!) that the strong correlation between brain states and mind states isn´t expected on dualism, albeit it isn´t incompatible with it either. True, but in science, the winner is invariably the theory that makes the most fruitful predictions. So this would favor either physicalism or panpsychism over dualism. Frankly, many arguments in the video are of this form: "We can´t prove it, but we can´t disprove it either. Therefore dualism". Nah, the correct approach is "therefore agnosticism".

The strongest argument in favor of dualism is (of course) that thoughts simply doesn´t seem physical, which has led most humans throughout history to be intuitively dualist (in some sense). On the other hand, our intuitions are often disproven by modern science or even by philosophy. So I suppose my current take on the problematique is somewhat, shall we say, dual... 

Maybe we´ll get the answer in a googolplex years.   

Emerson´s dogman

 

OK, this was interesting. Last year, I linked to an article by science blogger Darren Naish, who argued that the US cryptid known as Dogman is fakelore rather than folklore (although I suppose you could see it as emerging folklore). YouTube atheist content-creator Emerson Green begs to differ. A former Skeptic, he is much more open to the unexplained than the average "angry atheist" on the web, who (cough cough) merely lacks a belief in cryptids.

It turns out that Green actually saw a Dogman when he was a teenager roaming the woods of a certain Midwest state. Yes, it actually was Michigan, the traditional folkloric haunt of these creatures. Or was it fakeloric? Green is 100% convinced that the running bipedal creature he observed was physically real and attempts to come up with a kind of minimal explanation, speculating that facultative bipedalism might perhaps exist among canids. In the second link, please read the long comment by "donnievance1942". 

As I said: interesting.

PS. My AI must have some kind of safety filter against generating pictures of dogmen or werewolves. After several tries, the system finally created a somewhat believable pic of a werewolf chasing two teenagers in the woods, although it still looks as if the monster is just running ahead of them!

That time I saw a cryptid 

YouTube comments

Theism´s demand

 

A powerful criticism of theism by Emerson Green, who is actually somewhat more sympathetic to religious worldviews than the average atheist. Maybe because he isn´t a materialist? Currently, he defines himself as an agnostic. Some quotes below, and then the link to Green´s substack.  

>>>It’s true that the kind, degree, and distribution of pain (and pleasure) in our world is evidence supporting an indifferent universe. But for me, there’s something else blocking the road to theism. I can’t shake the feeling that it would be wrong to believe, somehow. Becoming a theist would require a seal of approval on the suffering on earth. I would have to believe, for any instance of pain, or at least for pain in general, that it was okay that it occurred, all things considered – that it was not unjustified for an all-powerful God to permit or create. There is some sense in which theism demands approval of suffering that surely wouldn’t be endorsed by the sufferer. This is a betrayal and an abandonment of those creatures. Theism asks too much of me. It asks me to betray every creature who ever suffered without reason.

>>>To affirm the truth of theism is to issue a moral judgment, not a merely descriptive one. Here’s a trivial example. Typically, to affirm the truth of theism means affirming the existence of a God who had the power to prevent evil, but who chose not to, for whatever reason. This would imply that the evil was not intrinsically impermissible, meaning it would be wrong always and everywhere to permit such an evil from occurring. Since God, if he exists, permitted the evil to occur, a theist must affirm that the evil act was not impermissible to allow. An atheist has the freedom to reject this, while the theist does not. The affirmation of theism cannot be totally divorced from all moral considerations.

>>>There is no escaping these kinds of moral judgments when one evaluates the truth or falsity of theism. Belief in God could never be a merely descriptive belief.

>>>The atheist asks, “What about the fawn in the forest?” “What about them?” the theist must answer. “In the end, the suffering of the fawn is not significant enough to count for much against the existence of a good God who had the power to prevent it.” How can this be purely descriptive judgment? No, it is a moral judgment as well. I would owe the fawn in the forest an apology if I were to become a believer. I would have to beg for her forgiveness.

>>>Theism’s demand: Either close your heart or close your eyes. Stop caring or stop looking. Those are my options when it comes to the suffering on earth. How could I live with myself, knowing that I’m doing one or both every moment I affirm the existence of God?

Theism´s demand

Natural born dualists

 

Emerson Green (a heterodox atheist or perhaps agnostic) is currently a panpsychist. In this clip, he argues that humans are instinctively biased *against* panpsychism. 

Natural selection has turned us into "natural born dualists". Ironically, even physicalists (materalists) think in a "dualist" fashion when attacking panpsychism, since they can only conceive of one possible alternative to everything being physical: that consciousness is indeed freely floating around in a realm of its own...

Evolution hasn´t given us the ability to detect all forms of consciousness. Doctors can miss that "coma" patients are really conscious. There are also a lot of cultural constructs and bad theorizing about consciousness. We understand that our pet dogs are sentient, but don´t care about wild animals. Descartes, notoriously, claimed that pets weren´t really conscious either!

One problem with Green´s presentation is that many people surely *do* experience everything as conscious. Small children who think that their toys can speak or have imaginary friends is a good example. Another is animism. The consciousness Green describes might be a culturally conditioned or genetically mutated *modern* consciousness. What if our default setting actually is panpsychist?  

Core emergence

 

Emerson Green is back! In this video, he takes on the latest form of reductionist materialism, known as the Core Theory. Green´s alternative is a form of naturalism that also includes consciousness as a strongly emergent property. I suppose more old fashioned people would call it pantheism...  

Rooting for the Christian aliens

 

Our favorite atheist Emerson Green discusses what would convince him of Christianity being true (and by implication, other religions). The first and foremost is the existence of Christian aliens! That is, space aliens. 

The second are well-documented miracles, and the third is religious experience. In this particular case, I assume we are talking about miracles and/or spiritual experiences specifically proving Christianity. Interestingly, the Christian apologists Green has interacted with and/or is familiar with don´t like the third response. 

I find that intriguing since actual experience is very high on my personal list, as well! Could it be that certain Christian denominations feel ashamed for not having experiences of God? I´ve met charismatic Christians who didn´t have any problem with the experience argument - quite the contrary, in fact. Or is there a fear that people might experience all the wrong things, Catholicism instead of Protestantism say, or New Age instead of Christianity?

Green then quotes William James and Alvin Platinga (!), arguing that "rationality" isn´t some kind of absolute put-down argument on the side of atheism (or theism, for that matter), since people of diametrically opposed opinions on the same issue can still be equally rational. Green recently declared himself an agnostic rather than an atheist, and he seems to be a kind of "pluralist" in ontological and epistemological matters. My man might be on to something here...

As for aliens, I´ve heard from *very reputable sources* (heh heh) that they are actually Theosophists! Make of that factoid what ye wish.    

The thinking atheist

 

Youtube content-creator Emerson Green has always (?) been an atheist skeptical of mainline atheism and skepticism. I previously linked to his defense of "conspiracy theory" and a video about UFOs and aliens. He also seems to be a kind of ontological pluralist, rather than a materialist.

In the video above, posted ealier today Swedish time, Emerson says that he is no longer an atheist but rather an agnostic. His agnosticism seems to be a form of process philosophy (or ditto theology). He mentions Pierre Teilhard de Chardin sympathetically, and says that theism (although probably wrong) might still be a rational position to hold. 

In general, he seems to believe in a kind of soft teleology in the cosmos. Wouldn´t surprise me if this guy actually becomes spiritual one of these days. Which "proves" my contention that a consistent and intellectually grounded atheist must be a materialist.

And they cheat, too. 

Alien apologetics

 

If you have two hours to spare, I have a real treat for you. The YouTube clip above, "Alien apologetics", contains a discussion on the UFO phenomenon, featuring maverick atheist Emerson Green and all-around maverick Jimmy Akin. I think Green may believe in UFOs and aliens, while Akin (who is a Catholic) is clearly skeptical...*but* in this podcast, the latter plays the role of "Devil´s advocate" (or perhaps "alien apologist"). While I disagree with Green and Akin on a number of points, I admit that their conversation is extremely interesting. 

Akin easily debunks or problematizes many common skeptical arguments against the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH). "Why do the UFOs crash, if they were built by an advanced space-faring civilization", "why don´t the aliens contact our leaders", "why are UFOs mostly a modern American phenomenon", "Bill Nye says that the government sucks at keeping secrets" (that´s a good one), "where are the whistle-blowers" (answer: everywhere, but the Skeptics refuse to listen), and so on. I´m embarassad to say that I often used some of these myself, although not on the authority of Bill Nye the Mermaid Guy! Of particular interest are the arguments in favor of a conspiracy of some sort. It simply isn´t true that the government (or the military, or the spook community) can´t keep a secret. Every year, millions of dollars are funelled into "black budgets" completely unaccounted for. 

It struck me that the military sometimes unveils projects no whistle-blower ever exposed (except maybe to the Russians!): the nuclear bomb, the Skyhook balloon, the Stealth bomber. Trump hinted at the US having some kind of new super-missiles, but nobody knows for sure. And, as already pointed out, when supposed whistle-blowers come forward, Skeptics refuse to listen anyway, unless the informers have the right "vibes" and confirms the Skeptics´ deeply ingrained belief system. And, as already pointed out, Skeptics might not even *care* about alternative information, in the same way as people on both sides of the political aisle don´t care about news broadcasts from the "wrong" network... 

My main objections to the ETH would be "how on Earth (pun intended) did they get here" and "why are they so consistently mimicking our latest science fiction flicks or magazines". Akin points out that if aliens are real, they might use robots or multi-generational ships to get here, and while that´s certainly possible (and not defeated by the objection that *we* couldn´t pull that off), it´s still very hard to see where the energy to power the space ship would come from, or how they could even approach something like the speed of light, let alone go beyond it. These may be hard physical limits no intelligent species could ever cross. 

Green and Akin are dismissive of the claim that belief in UFOs is just a misguided religious impulse, a kind of "religion for atheists". By contrast, I think it´s pretty obvious that a large portion of "active" belief in aliens is connected to precisely such an impulse. The aliens really are substitute gods, indeed, many true believers in extraterrestrial UFOs were probably never atheists to begin with, but Theosophy-inspired. The strange way in which the phenomenon always mimics our latest pop cultural obsessions  - and ancient mythology or folklore - surely suggest that it has some kind of connection to humans on planet Earth. 

A skeptic would (of course) argue that aliens and UFOs simply are pop cultural, mythological or folkloric artefacts themselves, and that´s that. More "fringe" possibilities would include fairies, who according to folklore have the ability to read people´s minds and shape-shift! Sounds crazy? Perhaps, but it´s still different from the ETH, and able to explain why the "aliens" looks exactly like the angels and demons of our imagination... 

Of course, a religious believer of some sort could easily explain (or perhaps explain away) the UFO phenomenon precisely by suggesting that it´s really supernatural. Akin, despite being a Christian, thinks that´s a too easy way out, and criticizes apologist Hugh Ross on this point, who suggests that "aliens" are really demons and the whole UFO phenomenon hence a Satanic deception. Akin´s own positions, when not playing advocatus Diaboli, is more skeptical towards ETH, although not entirely dismissive. He discusses the notion that the UFO phenomenon might be "staged" by the US military, mentioning the notorious Bennewitz case and Richard Doty (*that* guy shows up all the time in contexts like this one). Hoaxes also happen, Akin claiming that well-known contactee Steven Greer have faked UFO observations using flares. 

With that, I close this little conversation. Happy hunting! And let´s be careful out there... 

Seeing through a stone darkly: Atheist respect for Mormonism?

 

If you have like three hours of your life to spare, the above could be worth your time. Maverick atheist Emerson Green discusses philosophy and Mormon theology with three members of the LDS Church. To be honest, all three seem somewhat heterodox and open-minded. I´m more used to the old style Mormons who were just as dogmatic about their peculiar version of Christianity as standard American evangelicals are about theirs. Green (who I think is ex-Pentecostal) originally agreed with Sam Harris, who famously said that Mormonism is the least probable religion, since it takes all the absurdities of Christianity and simply adds new ones on top. However, after thinking about it more (and discussing with actual Mormons), Green came to the conclusion that on some kind of philosophical level, Mormonism is actually *better* than mainline Christianity, although I assume he still considers the more "empirical" claims of the LDS Church to be somewhat out there (golden plates, et cetera).

The discussions cover a lot of ground, obviosuly, but here are some of the main take aways. Green believes that evangelicals who criticize Mormonism have a double standard, since many Mormon claims may just as well be true, if you have a supranaturalist worldview. If you accept the miracle stories in the Bible, why can´t the miracle stories surrounding Joseph Smith be true, just as well? If you accept the New Testament as new revelation, why can´t there be additional new revelations? As for the Book of Mormon being heavily anachronistic, well, what about all the anachronisms and contradictions in the Bible? (Apparently, Abraham´s camels are an anachronism, just as much as the Book of Mormon horses.) Green is right. It does seem very common for apologists of one religion to use the historical-critical method when attacking every other religion...except their own! (See also the Outsider Test of Faith or OTF á la John Loftus.) Interestingly, the Mormons Green is talking to don´t view Joseph Smith as infallible, pointing out that the Biblical prophets or even the Christian apostles weren´t infallible either. 

The Mormons featured in the discussions are universalists, or near-universalists. They seem sympathetic to panpsychism or panentheism. There is even a streak of "physicalism" in their reasoning. God is seen as a being within the universe, not standing outside it and creating it ex nihilo. In other words: God isn´t all-powerful, at least not in the standard Christian sense. Green sees this as a philosophical advantage, since Mormons don´t have to explain why a perfectly good, loving and just god who is omnipotent doesn´t simply eradicate evil and suffering. It seems some of the LDS members he talks to don´t accept the "orthodox" Mormon view that humans can become gods since God himself was once a human. There is an eternal God who has always been God, but - as already indicated - he exists within the universe and is subject to certain cosmic laws. (Avid readers of my content may recall process theology here.) 

One of the Mormons featured is African-American, and freely admits that this was a huge problem for him when as a teenager he started investigating Mormonism. For a long time, the LDS Church held White supremacist views of Blacks, denying them "the priesthood" and access to the secret temple rituals (since most Mormon males are "priests", this effectively barred Blacks from most positions in the Church). However, it has surfaced that Joseph Smith actually appointed at least one Black male to the priesthood, Elijah Abel. (I assume this is what is alluded to in the discussion.) It could therefore be argued that the racist view is really a deviation from the original stance. It was officially rescinded already during the 1970´s. 

I´m sure more (much more) could be said about this topic, but three hours may be just enough right now... 

Fallacy Man has a fork

 

Emerson Green is a self-proclaimed atheist (I sometimes wonder where he´s really at) who is very skeptical (pun intended) of the really existing atheist/skeptic online community. I previously linked to a video in which he discusses conspiracy theories and the blank denial of such by the Skeptics (who seem to be skeptical of everything...except their own government and military-industrial complex). 

In the video above, Green takes on Fallacy Man, pointing out that many "fallacies" sperged about by Skeptics are really thought-stoppers and not "fallacies" at all. At the very least, certain kinds of fallacious reasoning are actually pretty close to perfectly sound reasoning, making the topic somewhat more complicated than Skeptics like to admit. Others are just strawmen. 

As an example of the former, why is it always wrong to point out that a person defending a certain proposition (X) has a vested material interest in defending precisely X? Why is that information irrelevant, an "ad hominem" or a "logical" (sic) fallacy? Maybe it´s very relevant indeed that rich people oppose higher taxes on rich people. 

An example of the latter would be to counter, say, a political argument with the claim that the person putting it forward is a ginger. True, that would be "ad hominem", but how many people use arguments *that* dumb in a political debate? Almost nobody, making the "fallacy" a strawman (in itself a fallacy, I believe). 

It´s almost as if Fallacy Man is a midwit! 

The vibe of skepticism

 

I recently discovered this YouTube content-creator, Emerson Green. He is something as unusual as an atheist who isn´t a materialist. Rather, he seems to be a kind of ontological pluralist. Several of his videos feature long interviews with non-naturalist moral realist philosopher Michael Huemer. His book "Ethical Intuitionism" made a brief guest appearence on this blog years ago. 

In the clip above, Green explains why he left the Skeptical community. His criticism speaks for itself, but I can´t help making a brief summary here. While I disagree with Green´s radical leftism (he supported Sanders in 2016 and seems to be a kind of leftist conspiracy theorist), he does make several good points and pertinent observations. 

The most obvious is (unsurprisingly) that the Skeptics aren´t particularly skeptical to begin with. They are pseudo-skeptics, uncritically beholden to a dogmatic atheist-materialist worldview. Nay, more: they aren´t simply atheists or materialists, they are enamored with the *aesthetics* of "Science", "Rationality" and "Skepticism". Things like parapsychology, conspiracy theory or UFOs simply *must* be wrong, since they have the wrong "vibe", and no further investigation into the matter is needed. The Skeptic (TM) *knows* that X is wrong...since the Establishment he is so fascinated by and wants to emulate says so. Everyone else is simply psychologically irrational, and that´s that. 

The "skeptical" attitude of these people is often of a lazy armchair variety, with no actual research being done. Even established scientists can come under attack, if they take the "wrong" side. Green points to the case of ´Oumuamua, which the Skeptics insisted simply *couldn´t* be an alien craft of some kind, despite Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb having published research to that effect. Them vibes are all wrong, dude!  

Green wonders why the Skeptics aren´t skeptical of the establishment, of power structures in society, and so on. Isn´t it strange that they never, even by chance, criticize the official narratives? Most Skeptics according to Green are "socially liberal but fiscally conservative", which I assume would make them centrist Democrats or liberal Republicans. Very often, the Skeptics spend considerable time debunking topics Green considers downright silly, such as Bigfoot, but they never seem to probe more important topics pertaining to politics or the economy. 

Green discusses conspiracy theory at some length, and plays an interesting clip featuring "honest Skeptic" Michael Shermer (not to be confused with Michael Huemer) and UFO researcher Nick Pope. Both point out the fallacy of the common anti-conspiracist argument "all conspiracies are exposed" or "it would take too many people". And while Green doesn´t explicitly endorse 9/11 Truthers, he holds that their motives are more complex (and in a sense more understandable) than Skeptics give them credit for. In Skeptical books, Truthers are usually depicted as irrational "anomaly-hunters" who simply can´t accept that a few discrepancies might exist in the official version. But according to Green, many Truthers have a left-wing background of well-founded skepticism towards the military and the political establishment. The US vice president at the time of 9/11, Dick Cheney, had a longstanding interest in pushing through something like the Patriot Act, there were forces which for geopolitical reasons wanted to start more foreign wars, and so on. So is 9/11 Trutherism really completely irrational? 

All things considered, Emerson Green seems to be an interesting maverick. I might continue watching this channel in the near future. 

Of course, it´s also important to be skeptical of left-wing establishments and Russian disinfo operations! :P