Z-Bate: Faith, Reason & The Four Quadrants (response 1)

Thanks to Julian for engaging me in the first ever Z-Bate.

Julian is the most passionate, intelligent, and articulate Zaadzster I've met so far when it comes to expressing his views on certain subject matters. More often than not I find myself agreeing with most of his assertions, yet I decide to challenge him not necessarily to "disagree" with him, but to shed light on some areas that he might have overlooked due to his passionate zeal on the topic at hand. Because of this we've noticed that we have certain "nuanced" differences in our views, specifically the application of the "integral" lens on certain issues. Hence, this Z-Bate.

First of, I'd like to express my gratitude to Julian for providing a high level summary of the Four Quadrant model of Ken Wilber, as well as the differences between faith and reason (e.g. the scientific method). He did an excellent job at them. So it frees me up to just respond to his assertions on areas "where we may diverge."

What follows is like a "call and response" played by blues musicians. I'll quote Julian's assertions (that's the call) and then provide a brief explanation (that's the response) on whether his assertions are accurate, way off, or partially correct. To me we're both blues players playing different styles of blues music, the music is slightly different due to the nuances of our personalities, but the structure is still within the blues context (e.g. four quadrant model and integral theory of Ken Wilber). My goal is not to outplay the other blues player, but to engage in a bluesy performance that will inform, enlighten, and entertain the audience and ourselves, with our bluesy mojos :)

Julian says: "I think you are in substantial agreement with this, which is why i find it quite odd when you use phrases like “rational fundamentalist” to describe people like Richard Dawkins, or when you say that James Randi is able only to debunk obvious con artists claiming magical powers, psychic or paranormal abilities, but that the small percentage of real-deal claimants would stump him."

Ok, I will first address the issue why I call Richard Dawkins as a "rational fundamentalist". Let's break up the phrase. What I mean by "fundamentalism" is this: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles." By that definition I'm using the word not in a religious sense but to "strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" be that political, secular, or even scientific. As for "rationalism," let me put it this way, we have three basic eyes (or modes) of knowing: the eye of flesh (empiricism), the eye of mind (rationalism), and the eye of contemplation (mysticism).

When Dawkins attacks religion and the idea of God he uses the eye of flesh (e.g. we've got to have evidence which can be "seen" by our senses) and the eye of mind (rationalism), which are great by the way, and I'm all for it. However, in the process, he often ignores the eye of contemplation (mysticism)--where religious experience and God is often "known" by direct experience-- thus leaving his arguments devoid of interiority, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity. So when I use the label "rational fundamentalism" what I mean is his "strict and literal adherence to what the eye of flesh and the eye of mind could see."

I admit that I may be too harsh on labeling Dawkins as a "rational fundamentalist." For the record, I'm a closet fan of Dawkins. I find him engaging and even funny. I'm grateful to him for taking the debate on the mythic idea of God into the mainstream. However, due to his approach of taking no prisoners (e.g. accusing both religious fundamentalists and religious moderates of perpetrating the problem of religion and idiocy), and ignoring the psychological development of people to get to the "rational stage" first to even relate to what he's talking about, I'm afraid that he doesn't pass my own test of an "integral" (or more-embracing) thinker.

But then again I haven't read all of Dawkins' works to form a more informed opinion. I'm merely basing the "rational fundamentalist" label from all the interviews, videos, and essays written by Dawkins which I've encountered. If you can point me to any of his work wherein he uses the eye of contemplation (mysticism), or where he articulated his views on mysticism, or even practice any form of yoga or contemplative science, then I'll be more than willing to retract my labeling and spank myself silly.

As for James Randi, let me put it this way. James Randi is good for entertainment and he does a great service for exposing the frauds who claim psychic powers and take advantage of other people's gullibility. But to refer to Randi's work and $1M dollar challenge to conclude that there's no evidence for psychic phenomena (or psi) is stretching it. There is a great body of scientific research that proves that psi is real and deserves further serious investigation (see Conscious Universe by Dean Radin for a meta-analysis of psi research). I won't elaborate further because this is another very long topic for discussion. But let me just say that James Randi is not the final word, or even an authority, on the validity of psi. I think he's better off starting a reality TV show wherein he debunks people who claims to have psychic powers. I'd watch it. But even that won't invalidate the body of evidence supporting the existence of psi. It's just good entertainment.

"Nor do I think that the term “rational fundamentalist “or “scientific fundamentalist “is anything but an oxymoron. It's like calling someone a round-earth fundamentalist, or saying that being 100% committed to the belief that the sky isn't green is somehow extremist because what if maybe the sky actually is green - it just makes no sense. When new evidence for the sky being green is in, reasonable people will chage their minds - until then it simply isn't."

As I've explained above, I don't think it's an oxymoron. Now allow me to do a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal on the "sky is green" example. What if I tell you that the sky is grey? That I can empirically observe that the sky is grey. Well, this scenario is possible if I am color blind. Or what if I tell you that I can feel the texture of taste, or that I can see the color of sounds? Well, this scenario is possible if I have a "disorder" called Synesthesia.

I'm not using those "disorders" to justify claims that go against our consensus of reality. I'm merely citing that our perceptions are limited by our sensory input and the extent of our imagination. We experience "reality" and then come up with "rational" theories so we can communicate it with others at the rational level. But we then become "rational fundamentalists" if we only resort to rationality to explain away everything and forget that rationality is only one of the three modes of knowing.

"I think too that using empirical science to evaluate psychic claims is entirely appropriate and not reductionist at all - because the claimant is actually suggesting that they can act on simple-location-bound reality with their minds and defy the laws of physics."

Same here. I'm interested to know why you think that I see it otherwise.

"This is of course entirely different than claims about, say, satori in meditative practice. In fact were someone to claim that experiencing satori gave them paranormal power over the exterior world, I would suggest that it was more likely a somewhat psychotic experience than one of spiritual depth. Yet when I have challenged the existence of the paranormal and called for evidence you have said that this was like asking for that kind of evidence for meditative states."

Well, most probably you are right. But I just have a problem equating "paranormal powers" with "psychotic experience." When I use the word paranormal I mean it as "seemingly outside normal sensory channels." So, to me, this includes intuition, and modes of knowing that is beyond the known laws of physics. So if you're referring to paranormal claims that exert influence on the physical reality (e.g. bending a spoon by thought), then I'm in complete agreement with you that they have to pass the rigorous test of scientific method.

However, you seem to be focusing on the worst examples of paranormal claims against the best of scientific empiricism, and then use that example to cast doubt on everything paranormal. That's a valid argument. I partially agree with your assertion. But paranormal is too big of a topic to cover here, and I'm no expert on it either to argue on its validity. So let me just say that a big chunk of "paranormal powers" are subjective and are often correlated with altered states of consciousness, e.g. out of body experiences, intuition, mystical union. Those are the "paranormal powers" which I associated with meditation states when I talked about asking for evidence. That's what makes scientific investigation challenging in these areas, because although you can observe and show physical correlates of the experience (e.g. brain waves), you have to deal with subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and eventually the hard problem of consciousness itself. This is where the empirical and rational approach of science come to a halt. That's why people turn to Philosophy and even Metaphysics.

Then again, compared to empirical and rational scientists, most mystics, if not all, don't deny the reality of "paranormal powers." When asked by people whether paranormal powers (or "siddhis") are real or not, they dismiss it not by saying that it's not real, but instead they say to not pay any attention to them because they are distractions on the spiritual path.

Also note that by the nature of the paranormal I've discussed above, mystics who could last for months without eating or drinking are essentially displaying "paranormal powers" because it's beyond what "normal' people can do.

Another more outrageous example: when Sri Aurobindo claimed to have traveled to different dimensions (e.g. spiritual journeys similar to that of ancient shamans) wherein he got his inspiration for writing the book Savitri, did that make him psychotic? Maybe. But I think not. Because Savitri is one hell of a "spiritually" charged epic masterpiece. I would love to have a "psychotic episode" like that myself.

But then let's stretch this a bit since you seem to cling too much on the rational mode of knowing of scientific method (e.g. laws of physics). Let's say, using our "rational" minds, which do you think is more outrageous, paranormal phenomena or the existence of parallel universes?

As far as I'm concerned paranormal phenomena seems to be more plausible and rationally easier to grasp than the idea of parallel universes. Yet theoretical physicists welcome the notion of parallel universes with the eye of mind (rational proofs via higher mathematics). Some mystics welcome the notion of parallel universes not with the eye of flesh, nor the eye of mind, but with the eye of contemplation (e.g. direct experience of the Kosmos).

If there is a possibility of parallel universes (wherein there are universes which doesn't follow the law of physics), doesn't it follow that paranormal phenomena seem reasonable and has its place in the Kosmos? I guess we can only answer that based on our own bias and beliefs.

My own bias is being open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena, because there are evidences and research that support its validity, and that "reality" according to the mystics and theoretical physicists is not what it seems to be.

So bottomline, let me just say that when it comes to the subjective nature of "paranormal powers" and "religious or Gpd experience," I trust the account of the mystics more than the empirical and rational scientists because mystics are talking from a different mode of knowing (e.g. eye of contemplation). And yes, I say "trust," because I have yet to prove it myself. That's why I've added paranormal phenomena and "spiritual awakening" to my list of things that I believe even if I have no proof for it. You can also call that "faith" as well. Not blind unbending faith. But a reasonable and open-ended faith that includes yet goes beyond the mode of knowing offered by rationality.

I hope I've sufficiently responded to your call and have clarified my views on this matter.

And this bluesy music continues to play....