The Trail of the Supernatural II

THE BARLOW/COLLINS DEBATE

Rumours abounded. They were circulated by The Sun, no doubt. People asked questions. Answers were fleeting. Now the truth can finally be revealed. For, last Monday – the 5^th August – there was a clash of the titans. Yes, in what will go down in history as the response to my “The Trail of the Supernatural”, we have the Barlow/Collins debate. A debate that shall recall the awe deemed appropriate for Sapir/Whorf, Huxley/Archbishop and Gould/Dawkins before it. Therefore, without further ado, here it is.

I thought briefly about sexing it up, but really could not be bothered/have the time so you get the transcript instead. Baring spelling errors, the transcript is not much different from the original. Even the horrible moment where I was completely pawned is still present. (I was tempted to airbrush it out of history, but alas, my conscience got the better of me.)

The Debate

EDWARD BARLOW

Interesting LJ post

MICHAEL S COLLINS

Yeah, I was putting it up on my blog (remnants of a debate last night on the DWF) and I thought I'd put it up on LJ since Seumas is using that the now and it'd interest him

BARLOW

My late grandfather was a clergyman in the Church in Wales. He worked rurally which meant that he had quite a few duties to do (in addition to "the usual")

Bereavement counselling, sorting out family feuds, helping the occasional farmer, liaising with passing travellers, that sort of thing

And he was occasionally asked to perform exorcisms

Exorcisms still happen in the Anglican Church (I sang at the licensing of exorcists when I was a child), but quite a lot of exorcists try and rationalise it.

The "There aren't ghosts, what I do is calm the person's mind so they stop experiencing these phenomena" line (Stopping the experience, rather than the phenomenon)

However, my grandfather did say that on several occasions he was put in a position where he could honestly say that there are forces and things in the world that human beings cannot explain and perhaps never will. (Which is actually a pretty basic religious line anyway, but in this circumstance he was referring to the more "spooky" rather than the religious notion of the supernatural)

COLLINS

That’s very interesting. It would be more than foolish to claim that we can explain everything (The old Hamlet line comes to mind again). Certainly, there's enough of a gray area to be able to assume with conviction there's more to it...just look at domestic animals reactions for one. No explanation can fit even 80% of all cases.

BARLOW

It's actually similar to a religious argument that our humanity places a veil between ourselves and the divine and that's why 9for example) we can't fully know God until we're in Paradise. The Buddhist perspective is also interesting:

That our physicality, and the suffering and desire that comes with it prevents us from being enlightened: From having true knowledge of the Universe, and it's only when a human being understands and gets rid of that barrier that they understand the world as it truly is.

When they see the world as it truly is, they are a Buddha in the state of Nirvana, and their existence (and capacity for action) becomes what non-enlightened beings would perceive as "supernatural"

Yeah, it's a bit like what happened to Keanu Reeves in The Matrix

COLLINS

The Buddhists point of view has always been intriguing. And yes, so was the Matrix (or Plato for that matter!)

Roald Dahl wrote one of his serious shorts around 1950, "The Sound Machine" which focuses on a scientist who creates a machine with which he can listen to all the noise - not just the noise a human can here, or even a dog but all noise - and of course he hears and even begins to see the true state of life and the pain of the world, and goes quite mad.

There is existence well beyond human parameters...to claim otherwise would be foolhardy. What exists in the areas beyond us we can only contemplate. It goes hand in hand with religious faith whatever way you look.

M.R. James, the most revered ghost story writer, was also a devout Christian and one of the great Biblical scholars

I'm pretty sure though that if we were to see the universe in its true form, or even our own world, then we would go mad, for our brains are not equipped to deal with it.

BARLOW

I think many openly religious people are less frustrated by the idea of mystery than those who are more hostile to the notion of blind faith

Although most people who claim there's no such thing as blind faith only say that because they BELIEVE that it doesn't work! And therefore make a leap of faith themselves! (in my opinion)

COLLINS

I'm not hostile to blind faith. i'm hostile (or displeased is a better word, hostility is rare accurately warranted) to people who use that faith for their own hate filled agenda (I put it down to the vocal minority).

There is blind faith. Even those who claim there isn't still have faith. My dad is complete atheist in the Dawkins mould. But he has faith in his kids. He has faith in selected people

I would claim it is impossible to dismiss faith because everyone has it in something, regardless of its religious intent or not.

BARLOW

There are always things we claim to know, even though we can never fully justify why we think we know them (Unless we admit that they are a matter of faith)

COLLINS

Exactly. I know for example that I can always count on Mandy to be there in my ill health, even if it gets really bad and I'm rushed into hospital and stay there.

I dont have definite knowledge in front of me that she wont run off and join a LGBT commune. But I know that she wont regardless.

I have my uttermost faith in her, Shimmy and my parents and sister. It's just faith.

BARLOW

Or then again, at an even more grassroots level: How do you know Arithmetic works?

COLLINS

ah, thought you might go there.We don't. It only works because everyone, from the littlest kid being taught it at age 5, to the brainiest scientist, believe it works. it works because of the belief.

BARLOW

(insert non-scientific smiley emoticon here)Yup, the leap of faith is required. The same when someone who claims to have proven something through "rationality" is then asked how they KNOW that their rational methods work (Even using logic requires a leap of faith)

And in turn the same leap is made when a theist says that God exists or (to use Kierkegaard's example) when Abraham believed that God had told him to sacrifice his son.

COLLINS

Exactly. But then faith is at the heart of society. Think finance. That paper everyone exchanges is fundamentally worthless. The whole monetary system works on the faith everyone has in the worthless paper as signifier of actual money.

BARLOW

Oh yeah. It goes deeper than that: Faith is at the heart of being human!

COLLINS

Some famous scientist or philosopher (cant remember which one!) said, "The most fundamental faith in society is when one stands up and says 1+1=2"

BARLOW

Oh yeah. In fact, I'm sure I've said that on occasion. Although the Cartesian leap of faith is to stand up and say "I exist" Which means that the only people truly not to have faith are the total sceptics

COLLINS

That's a bit Descartian

BARLOW:

That's why I said "Cartesian". Except skepticism is actually a matter of refusing to believe either way: Because the second you say something isn't true, you're actually committing to a view. Which actually means that instead completely rebuking faith, a true skeptic would be in more of an agnostic position (of not claiming to know, but still being open to the possibility). If that makes sense?

COLLINS

yes it does (i think you're explaining Mandys dissertation with every post now by the way! )

Scepticism has always struck me as being silly in its truest sense. I prefer the notion of having an open mind with which to see you through your life experiences.

BARLOW

But at the same time Scepticism often is a sign of open-mindedness.

COLLINS

By claiming athiesm, a person states belief in another view. Ergo faith itself

BARLOW

For example if a scientist tells me "The world works like this", and I reply, "I'm not too sure, the jury's still out for me" I am being a sceptic whilst still allowing for the possibility that any argument could be right. Atheism isn't necessarily the same as scepticism. You can be sceptical to the existence of God by being agnostic, but, as you've said, to be atheist means you are not sceptical to the idea that there is no god. Agnosticism, on the other hand is, by definition, a state of "not knowing" (literal translation: Gnosis=knowledge) and so with it's lack of commitment to knowing a particular idea is a sceptical line

COLLINS

I know that. I was working under the (blinkered) scepticism

"I'm a sceptic"

"There's phenomena. Explain it."

"I can't. Still sceptical though."

Agnosticism is more of an open-scepticism as by not knowing it implies one is open to knowing.

BARLOW

But "I can't" is not the same as "It's not possible" and even then "It's unexplainable" is not the same as "It couldn't possibly happen."

COLLINS

True.

BARLOW

Unless one is Richard Dawkins and is arrogant enough to only believe the stuff one can explain. Most people, on the other hand, would say that being unable to explain something does not necessarily entail it's impossibility. Which brings us right back to the point we were making about the supernatural

COLLINS

"There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Shakespeare did still say it best, when it comes to the ability to explain something and its existence regardless

BARLOW

That there are, and always will be unexplainable things, but this doesn't negate the POSSIBILITY that the may exist

COLLINS

Exactly. Which is the point in Hamlet, in your argument and one I would always find sensible to agree with

BARLOW

Which point in Hamlet is it? (I preferred the plays with fairies in them!)

COLLINS

haha. You're missing the best tragedies then.

Hamlet's just been talking to his dad about his happy Freudian family life (his dad is a ghost). Horatio appears and goes "Ah, ghost! Whats go on? I am a logic person, ghosts! (except in iambic pentameter)

So Hamlet explains the universe for his friend in the oft quoted ...

Hamlet:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That being, no one person can understand the world in its entirety or what makes up the world, but it still exists alongside us regardless

BARLOW

More things in heaven and earth. Ah yes, I remembered just as you hit enter! But that's why I get narked at Atheists who tell me really adamantly that a faith-view is worthless

COLLINS

Yes, the faith view is not worthless. It is what you do with it on claiming to have it. Hang on, I'll reword that having a faith view is not worthless. What matters is what you do, on claiming to have faith. That sounds better

BARLOW

So for example, if I treat my faith as an intrinsic thing, making it clear to others that it is important to me, but do not expect others to also follow it then is that okay?

COLLINS

yes. if it is important to you, then you will realise that others have similar beliefs important to them, and that respect of each others beliefs is important.

BARLOW

But what about scientists, who constantly try and convince other people to follow their theories? How are they any different to religious zealots?

COLLINS

I wouldn't say there is much difference. Each has their own faith-view, each want to express it on others. The line crossed of course, is when expressing that faith-view leads to violence or intolerance.

BARLOW

Which has happened from both sides

COLLINS

Exactly. And it should not be tolerated from either side

BARLOW

Like in Gulliver's travels where the entire island of Lilliput is divided on the grounds of a disagreement over which is the best way up to eat a boiled egg!

COLLINS

Swift was one of the great satirists though. It would be expected. Anyhow, I am going to head and make myself some dinner or lunch or whatever the time is. Interesting talking with you.

Which just goes to show that you can be dragged into debate when you least expect it. The two went in friendly with agreeing positions and found it. Now, if only I could bump it up to ninety minutes, add in some angst and worth philosophy (even if fundamentally incoherent to the plot) then I can sell it to the BBC, win lots of awards and call myself Poliakoff. On the other hand, maybe not.