Saturday, February 02, 2013

Extraordinary E.T.s require extraordinary evidence

Atheists raise three objections to the argument from religious experience:


1. The Logical Gap Objection: We have to distinguish the experience and the subjective conviction it produces from the objectivity (or veridicality) of the experience, for example, a very “real” hallucination or dream is a live possibility. The critics, such as Antony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre,20 admit that religious experiences often produce subjective certitude in the subjects. However, it does not follow that the experience is objectively certain. In other words, there is a logical gap between the psychological data and the ontological claim of the religious experiences. To bridge the gap, we need independent certification of the religious belief. For example, Flew challenges the defenders of religious experiences to answer this basic question: How and when would we be justified in making inferences from the facts of the occurrence of religious experience, considered as a purely psychological phenomenon, to conclusions about the supposed objective religious truths?21

2. The Theory-Ladenness Objection: The religious experiences are heavily (or even entirely) shaped by the conceptual framework of the experients. Hence they are not useful as evidence for ontological claims.22

3. The Privacy Objection: According to Rem Edwards, “the foremost accusation leveled at the mystics is that mystical experiences are private, like hallucinations, illusions, and dreams, and that like these ‘nonveridical’ experiences, religious experience is really of no noetic significance at all.”23

Kai-man Kwan “Can Religious Experience Provide Justification for the Belief in God? The Debate in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy,” Philosophy Compass1/6 (2006).

Carl Sagan was famous for his deceptively simple adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” However, Sagan was also deeply invested in the quest for E.T.s. One reflection of that quest was his promotion of S.E.T.I.

But he also wrote a novel which was later turned into a movie: Contact. Here’s a summary of the novel’s climactic scene:


The Machine is activated, and the five of them are shot into a wormhole. They are shot in a kind of cosmic mass transit system, viewing all sorts of star systems (one of which is Vega) and end near the center of the galaxy, where a large docking station awaits.

The five envoys to the galaxy find themselves on what appears to be an Earth beach. While the others explore, Ellie stays behind on the beach. Waiting for a welcome from the extraterrestrials, she instead receives a welcome from someone in her childhood: her father, Theodore. Only it is not her father, but one of the intelligent beings who is hoping to make Ellie at ease. Ellie asks as many questions of the alien as she can, and discovers that there is a long-lost species who has created the tunnels she and her companions traveled through, as well as the strong possibility of a Creator of the universe. Ellie's father suggests that she look at the number pi for a signature.

When the five ambassadors to space return, they are told that they went nowhere and were only out of contact for about twenty seconds. They claim that they have been gone for about eighteen hours, but they have no evidence, as Ellie's camera has recorded only silence. Ellie is accused first of delusions, but later of helping to perpetrate a hoax. She is unable to prove her story, and thus many people are unconvinced. However, there are still many who believe her, including Palmer Joss. There is one bit of evidence to back Eleanor's story up: her camera may have only recorded static, but it recorded eighteen hours of static, not twenty seconds.


What’s striking about this is how Ellie’s first contact parallels the argument from religious experience. It falls prey to the same secular objections. 

1. The Logical Gap Objection: We must distinguish the ostensible experience and the subjective conviction it produces from the objectivity (or veridicality) of the experience, for example, a very “real” hallucination or dream is a live possibility. Ellie’s experience produced subjective certitude in the reality of first contact. However, it does not follow that the experience is objectively certain. In other words, there is a logical gap between the psychological data and the ontological claim of first contact. To bridge the gap, we need independent confirmation of the E.T. belief. Unfortunately for her, Ellie’s camera didn’t record the alleged encounter. It only recorded static. Moreover, by objective metrics, she was only incommunicado for 20 seconds–far shorter than the duration of the alleged encounter. How would Ellie be justified in making inferences from the facts of the occurrence of E.T experience, considered as a purely psychological phenomenon, to conclusions about the supposed objective existence of E.T.s? Much less how would second parties be justified in drawing that inference?

2. The Theory-Ladenness Objection: The ostensible first contact experience was entirely shaped by the conceptual framework of the alleged alien: an earthly beach, Ellie’s father. Hence this isn’t useful as evidence for ontological claims about E.T.s.

3. The Privacy Objection: Since Ellie’s camera only recorded static, all we have to go by is her private recollection of the ostensible encounter. But that makes it indistinguishable from other inveridical experiences, like hallucinations, illusions, and dreams. Hence her first contact experience is really of no noetic significance at all.

Although the example is fictitious, this is Sagan’s own example. Does Sagan think the character of Ellie was justified in believing that she made first contact with real E.T.s? Does Sagan think readers of his novel or viewers of the cinematic adaptation should conclude that Ellie was justified in her belief? Is the narrative viewpoint of his novel consonant with his rules of evidence in assessing religious claims?

12 comments:

  1. If Ellie had no evidence outside her own mind, and if she had nothing to show other people, then she could not have been completely convinced her experience was real. I think Sagan would have agreed with this point.

    Maybe if she could repeat her experience, that would constitute evidence within herself. But if it's just a one-time thing with no effect on your present material surroundings, then it's indistinguishable from an illusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that the movie presents her as a sympathetic figure and a brave, lonely martyr for the cause of science. In addition there was Sagan's passion for exobiology. So the audience is expected to identify with Ellie. Take her side.

      Delete
  2. In the movie Ellie's camera recorded 18 hours of static, despite the fact that her trip only appeared to last seconds to earthbound observers. This provides some objective evidence for her experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It provides objective evidence for a temporal discrepancy, but nothing more. And even then, it doesn't say which measurement was correct: 20 seconds or 18 hours.

      Delete
  3. That's great. Now if you accept… oh say… miracle working icons on the same basis, we might be onto something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does that have any bearing on whether or not Sagan was consistent?

      Delete
    2. I just have a strong suspicion that you suffer from precisely the same inconsistency he does. You accept many things in Christianity, and in fact Christianity itself because of the experience of the Christian community. But you are selective. You don't accept most of the miracles and experiences of the Christian community throughout history. Mostly you just accept what happened in the 1st century, and then debunk the rest.

      So I guess the point is, if you debunk Sagan with an argument that debunks yourself, did you win?

      Delete
    3. Thanks for admitting that he's inconsistent.

      You then impute to me a position I don't take. Indeed, my public, stated position is contrary to your fact-free imputation. "Strong suspicions" are a sorry substitute for knowing what you're talking about.

      Likewise, what makes you "suspect" that I accept Christianity because of the experience of the Christian community? What does that even mean?

      Delete
    4. So you do accept the veracity of the long history of miracle working icons. Good to know for future reference.

      Christianity is entirely founded on the experience of the Christian community. The apostles experienced stuff. They wrote it down. The community experienced more stuff. They wrote it down. This is the epistemological foundation that Ellie objects to, but you support, right?

      Delete
    5. John

      "So you do accept the veracity of the long history of miracle working icons. Good to know for future reference."

      Needless to say, your selection is arbitrary. I can credit miracles in church history without ascribing miracles to icons.

      "Christianity is entirely founded on the experience of the Christian community."

      Not according to Paul:

      "1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:1,11-12).

      "The apostles experienced stuff. They wrote it down."

      A solid basis for sola scriptura.

      "The community experienced more stuff. They wrote it down."

      Evangelicals also experience "stuff."

      "This is the epistemological foundation that Ellie objects to, but you support, right?"

      We were discussing Sagan's view of Ellie, not Ellie's view of the church.

      Delete
    6. Oh yes? I'd like to see your argument against miracle working icons that couldn't also be deployed against Christianity itself. In other words, I'd like the spectacle of you immersing yourself in arbitrariness and inconsistency the way you apparently accuse Sagan of. I mean, that is the crux of your complaint, right? Sagan supported one set of experiences but denied the wisdom in accepting a different set. Thus your accusation of inconsistency.

      "Not according to Paul"

      I take it this "revelation" he received was his experience of Jesus Christ.

      "Evangelicals also experience "stuff.""

      No doubt.

      Delete
    7. John

      "Oh yes? I'd like to see your argument against miracle working icons that couldn't also be deployed against Christianity itself."

      Since you haven't presented any argument to show how the two are necessarily linked, it's hardly incumbent on me to present a counterargument to disprove your nonexistent argument.

      "In other words, I'd like the spectacle of you immersing yourself in arbitrariness and inconsistency the way you apparently accuse Sagan of. I mean, that is the crux of your complaint, right? Sagan supported one set of experiences but denied the wisdom in accepting a different set. Thus your accusation of inconsistency."

      I'm not assessing Sagan by my own standards. Rather, I'm assessing Sagan on his own terms. You need to learn elementary distinctions.

      "I take it this 'revelation' he received was his experience of Jesus Christ."

      His gospel wasn't founded on the experience of the Christian community, but by direct divine revelation.

      Delete