We all would like special powers or miraculous helpers

I admit that I'm generalizing, and it's technically a fallacy, as there are a few contented people outside the "all," I'll bet.

But, just as Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis gets comfort from this:

I’ve long believed in angels on earth, in a higher power, in moments when someone or something comes into your life out of the blue and saves you from the dangerous path you’re on.

As do many other "spiritual but not religious" types,

And, just as Albert Einstein went to see, and believed in the powers of (yes, really) a psychic, so I think most people in the world would like to have some sort of "special powers," whether we technically call them "supernatural" or not. (I still don't think Einstein believed in a personal deity, but, per his famous "dice" quotes, it is interesting to think that this opens new cans of worms as to just what sort of God = Nature of Benedict Spinoza Einstein did believe in, as for how "active" this capital-N Nature might be, etc.)

Athletes want to believe God is on their side. Taken to an extreme, an Adrian Peterson wants to believe God is OK with him abusing his own son. (Last paragraph of story.)

Per my admitting this is a generalization, yet, in informal versions of classic logic, still "inductively valid," I include a lot of people who might even be atheists. Even Gnu Atheists.

If we peeled beneath their surface objections, I suspect many a naturalist would admit they'd like special powers, or another shot at life, or similar.

I know I would.

Even though I see very good evidence that such things aren't possible.

Throwing aside the attempt to self-justify one's behaviors, as with Adrian Peterson, or the trivializing of god, common with athletes in general, and there's still this will to believe?

Is it a mix of our old evolutionary history as pattern detectors plus agency imputers, that most people, even intelligent ones, can't shrug off, especially here in the U.S.?

Or is it more or different? With a Wendy Davis, are most people simply unable, or perhaps more unwilling than unable, to accept major fear-inducing events in a naturalistic and existential way? (I once got lost, way in the backcountry of the redrock desert of Canyonlands National Park, start of August. Ran out of water, before remembering that there was some back down the trail in a tinaja. I recited, almost by rote, the names of several deities, before calming down a bit, then accepting that life "is," existentially, period, then remembering the tinaja and getting water.)

I'm still not sure what explains an Einstein. First, I'm doubtful Spinoza would have believed in psychics. But Einstein, from the link, it seems clearly wanted to believe.

According to Upton Sinclair, Professor Einstein has long been concerned with psychic matters and has done some investigation in the field.

The story doesn't say what type of investigation, but it very clearly seems this was not Harry Houdini (or James Randi) skeptical, scientific investigation. (I wonder if there's any stories about him seeing other psychics?)

This was 1932; Germany was stormy, but Hitler was not yet in power. Einstein arguably had no huge fears he faced, no existential crisis.

Back to the main point. His, or Davis', beliefs aside, both engaged in selective perception.

Why didn't Davis' "higher power" give her a healthy baby in the first place?

Why didn't Einstein's psychic foretell the Holocaust, World War II and atomic weapons?

Because, there was no real higher power nor any real psychic foresight, of course.

I had briefly wished for the same, in Canyonlands.

But then, I "accepted."

Now, many us might like the miraculous helpers or special powers on less onerous terms than fundamentalist Christianity or Salafist Islam requires. Hence, Wendy Davis with her higher power (and similar "fuzzy Christianity" or outright New Age beliefs). Hence, still shockingly, Einstein with his psychic. (Knowing the future's a pretty big special power, and, from a psychic, on relatively easy terms other than, perhaps, for your wallet.) Others might think such special gifts only via mental gymnastics such as the "submission" that is Islam's name, or the "believe because it's absurd" of traditional Christianity.

But, neither an easy way, via the power of belief itself, or the hard way of mental sacrifice, makes this real.

As for the "all"? Yes, I think even many a Gnu Atheist, after becoming or accepting that he or she was an atheist, has still wished for "something" on occasion. Maybe the thought, even under duress like mine, was fleeting.

I certainly would consider Ray Kurzweil's singularity in particular, and transhumanism in general, to be just such a wish.

#Buddhism is still a religion, folks (updated)

I've written a little bit about this at my secondary blog, where I usually delve in more depth into matters philosophical, as well as aesthetic and artistic. Specifically, I've talked about its metaphysical aspects and their religious overtones, in a way that shows what I think is a comfortable Western non-Buddhist's familiarity with it. I've discussed briefly the paradox involved at the core of making claims about ineffability. Related to that, I've written about how some of the Buddha's own observations lead to logical snares.

But, with a new post by Massimo Pigliucci bringing out all the first-generation converts who claim "Buddhism is just a philosophy" or even "Buddhism is just a psychology," I thought I'd jump into this in a bit more depth here. (Many of the same types of apparent first-generation converts to "secular Buddhism" as made statements on those blog posts above.)

(Update: Per a new guest post at Massimo's site, written in response to his own, I'm also addressing claims about the alleged rationality of Buddhism. See more on the detailed update, below.)

First, for those trying to claim otherwise, or hold up Stephen Batchelor or the likes of him as having a direct illuminative pipeline back to 2,500 years ago? Wrong!

The idea of "Buddhism is just a philosophy" (along with similar claims about Hinduism) was cooked up by Victorian-era Europeans and Americans, in some degree of cahoots with "Westernizing" Indians.

The reality is that Buddhism deals with two matters of "ultimate concern," even "ultimate metaphysical concern," namely karma and reincarnation.

Therefore, contra those who claim varieties of Buddhisms (and claim this is analogous to varieties of Christianities), I strongly disagree.

All major Buddhist traditions believe in karma and reincarnation. Major practices of how to "align" oneself for better karma and a better reincarnation may differ, indeed, but those two core elements do not.

Second, a sociology of religion observation, and a snarky one, too.

I think that most of the "just a philosophy" claimants come from one of two previous backgrounds. They're either old Reform Jews who like being able to paste meditation and Zen-type inscrutable phrases that sound like updated, Easternized versions of comments by medieval rabbis, all from folks in saffron robes with a hipster angle, on top of their denatured Reform Judaism, or else they're liberal Unitarian Christians or post-Unitarian New Agers who wish they had been born as Reform Jews, etc.

And, yes, that's a snarky comment. But, isn't snark itself an updated word for the psychology in which Zen masters often presented their observations?

Yes.

And therefore, it's the best style of answer available to give to the "just a philosophy" folks. 

Third, in line with Massimo and contra his Buddhist friend who inspired his post, even if you trot out modal logic, multivalent logic or similar post-Aristotelean thought, Buddhism, if you try to sell it as a philosophy, is more illogical than anything that's come out of the West.

As for ideas that Buddhism is more rational about its metaphysical claims than other religions? If "Buddhism is just a philosophy" folks admit it makes metaphysical claims, this may be the next line of defense. Some people who bite the bit of admitting Buddhism as a religion use this to say it's different or better than other religions.

In a word, "bullshit."

The idea that a "no-self" can be reincarnated, based on karma from previous lives, but yet, there's not a "self" to be responsible for that karma, is probably the most irrational thing, but by no means, the only irrational thing, about Buddhism. (See second update for some specific insight for what I think the Buddha meant about "no-self," or "anatta.")

If you don't like that all above? Mu!

Yes, I know what the word means. I've used it here to "unask the question" or "unask the issue" of "free will versus determinism" to many people, including Massimo.

Today, though, I use it in Zen-snark mode to "unanswer the protests" by first-generation Buddhist converts. And, per one commenter on Massimo's post, and my observations above, that's exactly who you are. Aaron Shure observes:

The joke from the late ’60’s about the old Jewish lady who travels to the Buddhist monastery asking to speak the the Lama: after a long journey on donkey, finally talking her way into the inner sanctuary, she approaches the Lama, smacks him with her purse, and says, “Sheldon, come home.” Graham needs to Kimmen heim.

I don’t think it’s an accident that there are so many first generation Buddhists in America claiming it’s a philosophy and not a religion. Only if your parents aren’t Buddhists can you claim that Buddhism will do, unlike other religions, all that it promises. The first gen acolytes do all sorts of backbends to get around the obvious malarky of the dogma. Whether it’s the three card monty move of saying “there are many Buddhisms” so that any BS version of the doctrine you point out can be quickly pushed onto the wrong sect, or whether it’s the annoying “ineffable” dodge, or whether it’s the putting off until other lives the need for any sort of freaking evidence. 

Owan Flannagan did his best to come up with a naturalized Buddhism, and I find it unsatisfactory. Nagarjuna is no more a logician than Democritus and Leucippus were Physicists, which, with Massimo’s blessing, they were not. Still I’m going to read the book for the history of logic.

I agree with the joke. I also agree that Flanagan (correct) does a better job than Batchelor, at least in some ways, in trying to intellectually craft the idea of secular Buddhism, Buddhism is just a philosophy, etc. At least Flanagan, in the subtitle of his latest book, by saying "Buddhism Naturalized," seems to admit this is a conscious effort on his part. However, whether that's due to combatting what he sees as misinterpretations, or whether he's rewriting what he sees as the normal, historically-rooted understanding of Buddhism, I don't know.

And, also, I found this quote from him:

What they make of the hocus pocus about karma and rebirth is another matter.

In light of that quote, how many Buddhist arhats, etc., would accept him as a legitimate expostulator of Buddhism? I know it's primarily directed at Americans (many of them commenting on Massimo's blog?) who largely equate meditation with Buddhism, and putting thoughts into their heads, but what does he think of Buddhism's core doctrines — yes, doctrines — himself?

Anyway, folks, per Aaron and myself, I can make the same claim about Judaism. If I make the right readings of scriptures I choose versus ones I neglect and other things, hell, I can make the same claim about Christianity.

Which, after all, is what many Unitarians essentially do.

And, "back in the day"? First-generation Christian apologist Justin Martyr tried to sell Roman emperor Antoninus Pius and members of the Senate on the idea that Christianity was just a philosophy, after all!

So, to the degree anyone claims Buddhism is "just a philosophy," it's true, but not unique, and it is essentially trivial.

Back to the philosophy angle. If, as did someone on Massimo's blog, you make claims that because David Hume came up with observations about human psychology that parallel those of the Buddha, this is "proof" that either  Buddhism is just a philosophy, or worse, that metaphysical doctrines and all, Buddhism is still just a philosophy, you just kneecapped yourself in my court.

And, if prose for philosophical statements doesn't totally float your boat, well, this short poem of mine, and this other one, point out some of Buddhism's conundrums in verse.

===

Update, Aug. 20: Well, I'm considered "full of myself," I've found out.

I'm not crushed. Not at all.

I've said before that I can find things to like about Buddhism without signing off on the idea that it's "just a philosophy." I've also said that about Judaism (Ecclesiastes) and Christianity (selected portions of the Sermon on the Mount, but not the full thing).

If I am "full of myself," I'm far, far from alone in seeing Buddhism as a religion.

With a graduate divinity class on world religions, while I'm not a practitioner, I'm not totally ignorant.

With graduate and undergraduate philosophy classes, I'm quasi-semi-professional, at least, as a philosopher. And, between the two, I, along with many others, can definitely tell you Buddhism is not "just a philosophy."

I can also reject the "spiritual but not religious" ideas of 12-Steppers and New Agers along with Buddhists. (And have federal district and appellate courts support me on 12-Steppers.)

That said, per the photo-poster of mine at left? I have no problems with getting enlightening ideas from Buddhism. And, from Judeo-Christian thought, too, like, the "hymn to time" from Ecclesiastes made famous by the Byrds.

But, I "de-baptize" them and remove them from their metaphysical context as small slivers. Buddhist mental disciplines, like Hindu yoga (in all four types, not just the "exercise") are designed with metaphysical ends in mind.

Back to my "complainants." I'm OK with blogging about, and making pronouncements on, a fair variety of classical liberal arts/humanists issues. And, without boasting too much, I'm OK with having a fair degree of confidence in those pronouncements.

I'm with the one commenter at Massimo's blog: I think this is in part the general "fervor of the convert" with an extra spice from the "otherness" of Buddhism or whatever.

Specifically to on point related to secular Buddhism, and Buddhism vis-a-vis other religions, namely, the issue of Bu-Jews: why go chasing after Buddhism for a secular or quasi-secular philosophy when you can mine Job and Ecclesiastes for plenty, and Song of Songs and Proverbs to some degree, and throw away the metaphysics, just like secular Buddhists of all stripes do with Buddhism? Per a commenter to (I think) Massimo's article, it's part of a first-generation of converts fad, in my opinion.

And, per what Bu-Jews could find in their own tradition (and Bu-Xns too), in reference to said fad: "There is nothing new under the sun."

===

Second update, Sept. 12: Per that "guest post" link above from Massimo's site:

Conversations with Johsh, especially, and somewhat with Ezwinner and others, have made me come to the conclusion that:

Achieving Buddhahood is the same as becoming a …

A p-zombie! 

As I also said there, I’m being “puckish.” But, that’s only about 25 percent or so. I’m 75 percent or more serious. “P-zombie” is a reasonable “handle” within ideas in modern Western philosophy for what I understand the Buddha to be saying.

And that is an idea that I totally reject, which should make it clear that I reject the idea of “anatta,” too. That said, I think, as I also said at Massimo’s site, that I think most “Bu-Jews” and other “philosophical” or “psychological” Buddhists don’t take what I see as a radical idea by the Buddha seriously enough.

Again, if that’s too radical for some, well, it’s too radical for some. It reminds me of George Bernard Shaw’s quote about Christianity and nobody following it but the founder.

Meanwhile, rather than extinguishing my sense of self as the goal of enlightenment, instead, per sci-fi writer John Shirley, I'd rather enlighten myself with a mental flashlight:

“If you have to walk along a dark mountain path, don’t you prefer to have a flashlight to shine on the path ahead? I would suggest that it is possible to have that flashlight in life all the time. What does a flashlight give us? Light.
 That is, a flashlight sheds light. It is like the faculty of attention—if we turn our full attention to something, we learn more about that thing. We are seeing it with more light. Our attention is our ‘flashlight.’ So it’s all about how much and how fun an attention we consciously bring to life. This quality of attention doesn’t make us hesitant, or slow to decide, particularly—just as the flashlight doesn’t make us hang back on the trail. So, how do we get to the better quality of attention? With attention!”

This, in turn, brings me to another "paradox," to be polite, of "philosophical Buddhists."

"Intentional meditation" is supposed to work like this flashlight. But, how does that lead to anatta?

#HobbyLobby — does the IUD really cause #abortion and other issues

Whether or not SCOTUS was right in extending the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to undercut a bit of Obamacare, many secularists, or reproductive choice liberals in general, want to call both the 5-man SCOTUS majority and Hobby Lobby anti-science for claiming that the birth control methods to which they object, like IUDs, cause abortion. Here's one sample from the New York Times.

But, not so fast.

Contra some people's claims that IUDs don't do this, a place like WebMD says they do. That's not their primary, or intended, methodology of birth control, but, they can do that.  WebMD isn't Dr. Oz, either. It's a popularizing site for a variety of medical information, but it's mainstream medical information.

On the other hand, Hobby Lobby and The 5 want to ignore, if they're even aware of, something else entirely, namely, per biologist Francisco Ayala, that "God is the greatest abortionist of them all."

Ayala, one of the world’s greatest evolutionary biologists, spells that out in battling the Intelligent Design types, while also standing up for theistic evolution:

In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”

Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, “God is the greatest abortionist of them all.”

Or consider, he said, the “sadism” in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates’ genitals, along with all their other parts.

For the midges, Dr. Ayala said, “it makes evolutionary sense. If you are a male and you have mated, the best thing you can do for your genes is to be eaten.” But if God or some other intelligent agent made things this way on purpose, he said, “then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer.”

So, there you go.

To further riff on Ayala, and further refute some "end of science" types, it's clear that we still don't know everything in the world about the gestation process.

We do have a good idea, though, that it does NOT cause creation of a metaphysical soul. Well, if you really, really want to stretch that idea, if you're of the ilk of Hobby Lobby,  or Catholics, then, in the case of chimeras, you have to quadruple down on the biblical myth of Jacob and Esau in the womb, and believe that one of two fraternal twins, in many births, is a cannibalistic soul-devourer. Or else, it's a physical cannibal with two souls "attached" to what on the outside seems to be one body, with one brain.

That said, on the IUDs, etc. Since preventing implantation is not their intended methodology, at least, where was Team Obama on this? If the Justice Department knew this was at least part of Hobby Lobby's rationale and didn't try to refute it, that's not good lawyering at all. Who knows? Maybe Dear Leader told the solicitor general's staff to take a dive.

In short, of the science actually presented in this case, Hobby Lobby wasn't so far off the mark. In terms of the broad world of available reproductive science, Hobby Lobby's ignorant and Team Obama was either AWOL or definitely taking a dive.

Because this wasn't based on First Amendment issues, it's unclear how narrow or wide this case's potential precedent could be. A lot of the religiously liberal and secularists have already pointed out that there's theoretically no stopping SCOTUS from agreeing with a Scientology-owned business not paying for psychiatric meds, a Jehovah's Witness-owned company not paying for blood transfusions or a Christian Science-owned business ... not paying for health insurance at all.

That's because Justice Ginsberg raised that issue herself:

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, each of these cases …would have to be evaluated on its own…apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

That, in turn, reminds me a bit of Town of Greece vs. Galloway, and how  SCOTUS seemingly thinks that it can sideline sectarian Christianity, let alone non-Christian religion. 

While not getting too much into detailed speculation, this blog covers the general ground, albeit with a fair amount of bias of its own. It's a bit toward the Gnu Atheist area, which most of Patheos' atheist blogs are. In addition, it's by a layperson, not a lawyer. See Scotusblog for a good overview of the ruling from a pro-choice supporter who filed an amicus, but who is also a lawyer, and presumably not a Gnu Atheist. This overview, more importantly, notes that Kennedy's controlling concurrence greatly muddied the waters.

Finally, per a thread on Facebook? American law on abortion, combined with this ruling, isn't "sharia." And, a Canadian pointing to Canada's unlimited abortions law (while Canada's gender pay gap is no greater than that of the US) is a good starting point.

Here's a short roundup of abortion laws throughout the world. Let's note a few countries generally considered more liberal than the US.

Germany
Although a 1995 law makes abortion illegal, neither doctors nor women are prosecuted if the mother is a victim of rape and the procedure is performed within 12 weeks of conception. A similar waiver exists in the first trimester for cases in which the mother has received counseling to encourage carrying her baby to term but still wants an abortion. After the first trimester, abortion is available only to preserve the life or mental or physical health of the mother. State insurance generally does not pay for the procedure except in cases of financial need.

More conservative than the US.

Sweden
Since 1974, abortion has been legal in Sweden in all circumstances within the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. After this point, abortions are only permissible to save the life or physical health of the mother, or if approval is granted by the National Board of Health and Welfare. To date, abortion has not been a politically controversial issue in Sweden.

More conservative than the US, unless the national board is very, very liberal on its exemptions.

Great Britain
Abortion is freely available in Great Britain due to a broad interpretation of the Abortion Act of 1967, which permits abortion for a variety of reasons if certified by two physicians. Within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, these reasons may include: to save the life of the mother, to protect her physical or mental health, to terminate pregnancies involving fetal abnormality, or for social or economic reasons. In cases in which the mother’s life or health is “gravely threatened” or there is significant risk for fetal abnormality, there is no time limit on when an abortion may be performed.

About the same as the US, if one averages out state laws.

And, per Wikipedia, Australian law also varies by state/territory, and on average, is of about the same restrictiveness as the US.

And, this is why I don't blog about reproductive choice issues more. (Weirdly, one former Facebook friend, whose views I generally thought I agreed with, unfriended me over this issue. Or maybe, for him, it was a "last straw" related to other issues.)

I'm generally a social liberal, but, after a point of fetal viability, I oppose unlimited abortion, like Canada allows. I'm on the left-hand side of the great American center on this issue. Since becoming a secularist, nothing has empirically or logically moved me to anywhere near an unrestricted abortion stance. That said, unlike a secularist such as Nat Hentoff, nothing's led me back to the pro-pregnancy stance I held while religious.

And, as fetal viability issues show, BOTH poles on this issue can be selective about their science. Of course, one can be even uglier, like P.Z. Myers, and on paper at least, support post-birth infanticide on a very narrow definition of viability.

And, on the Patheos thread linked above? Contra one commenter, availability of services is an entirely different issue than "abortion on demand." I've blogged here before opposing undue restrictions on access to services. But, in the clear demonstration that they're different issues, Western Europe has high access to services, certainly in the three countries mentioned, but, unlike Canada, does not have abortion on demand.

Also, some people there assume that because I don't support "abortion on demand," I'm a heartless conservative otherwise. Actually, no. I've blogged before that I think Medicaid should still pay for poor people to have abortions, albeit within the viability restrictions I've mentioned.

As for the idea that a, say 22-week window for viability runs up against the normal 15-20 week period for amniocentesis? Well, a procedure like chorionic villus sampling, though somewhat more limited, can be done at 10-12 weeks. And, again, those "liberal" countries of western Europe and Australia that don't have a theocratic patriarchy deal with very similar issues.

I'm also learning that at least per nonscientific sampling "abortion on demand" folks tend to overestimate the percentage of severe disabilities in premature births, even very early ones. And, trying to discredit referencing Wikipedia, as if it doesn't link to actual medical research in its articles on preterm birth or fetal viability? You're coming close to obfuscation.

And, when I otherwise present statistics, claiming they're wrong? Or presenting your own claims to statistics without links? You're getting as close to being as fact-free as you claim the Hobby Lobby folks are.

And, to any social justice warrior types, ready to say, "You're not a woman," I'll respond that "You're not a 25-week-old post-viability fetus. And, something similar to that eventually came up on the thread. I cited a 25-week-old contracting encephalitis vs. a 2-year-old contracting encephalitis, both eventually with equally severe mental handicaps. I was told that was "some ridiculous academic discussion. I then brought up real-world infanticide; even if P.Z.'s stance is only on paper, or cyberpaper, infanticide.

I had turned off notifications of updates in the thread before that. Well, after that, fighting fire with fire, I said I'd leave because, after I was accused of illogic, and other things, I said we'd probably be in social justice warrior territory next. I wound up blocking one person as we got near to what I expected to become mansplaining terrritory. I took the use of the word "dude" as being the first concrete hint of that possibility.

The other reason I don't blog much on this issue is illustrated by that FB thread. On this issue, both polarities generally have the "if you're not for us, you're against us" stance.

Update, July 5: In a related issue, re Wheaton College, SCOTUS has made clear that, despite Justice Alito's claims, this is NOT a narrow ruling. It was this follow-up that drew the special ire of the three female justices. And, given that what SCOTUS first says, we're finding out, is not necessarily the officially final word but far from it, stay tuned.

Chimerism causes problems for souls, life forces and other metaphysics

I had originally titled this post, pre-publication, as "How many individuals are inside each of us?" But, as I later expanded it more, I decided I wanted the change, especially when I, like one of the few good things Christopher Hitchens did as a Gnu Atheist, took Eastern as well as Western religion into my gunsights.

That first sentence? That's a rhetorical question, as regular readers of this blog might guess. But, it's one based on hard science, and this time, it's not based on neuroscience or philosophy ideas of Dan Dennett.

Carl Zimmer's latest science piece in the New York Times is simply fascinating. It appears that many more humans than previously recognized are chimeras.

That is, whether you were part of a twin birth or not, you were part of a twin conception, and you either absorbed some cells from your twin or, in many cases, you absorbed the entire twin.

Or, some of us may be a mosaic, just like the mosaic cats you see with two halves of their faces with definitely different colors. In humans, it seems the mosaic patterns don't show up in outward appearance; rather, more insidiously, they may be behind the formation of some cancers.

A mosaic is not a blend of two different persons' DNA, as one twin absorbing another. Per this new piece by Zimmer, rather, a mozaic is when one zygote undergoes mutations early in cell division, before any differentiation, and both (or three or more!) cell versions are preserved. Result? Part of the cells of a heart may be defective, but not all.

As regular readers of this blog know, I'm also an atheist. And, not just an atheist in the way the Dalai Lama is, or some New Agers claim to be. Rather, I'm also an anti-metaphysician.

And, while I'm not a Gnu Atheist, generally poking fun at Christians liberal and fundamentalist alike just because they're Christians, nonetheless, to anybody who believes in an immaterial, metaphysical soul, the fact of chimerism (and other issues of human conception behind it) present stark challenges to your belief. As they do to religious-based prolife stances. (What a Nat Hentoff does with information like this, I have no idea, but he may "elide" it too.)

My answer to the rhetorical question is that there's quite posssibly more than "one" inside of me, if we're talking about DNA. It's also that, Dennett's multiple-drafts theory of consciousness, and ideas of subselves, aside, that there's only one inside of me if we're talking about core personalities. That's because I have only one brain, and only one body to embody the consciousness that's inside me, and zero souls, no matter whether my DNA is from one fertilized zygote or two, representing that consciousness. 

This is why that, though my move from conservative-to-fundamentalist Lutheranism to eventually land in atheism, or secular humanism, began over psychological and philosophical issues related to the problem of evil, as well as doing intellectual judo on my religious upbringing from my own religious graduate school training, eventually, science issues also came into mind.

Now, liberal versions of Christianity can find themselves perfectly compatible with, say, evolution. But, any religion that believes in an individualized, metaphysical soul? I simply don't see how you reconcile these scientific findings with your beliefs. And, under "individualized, metaphysical soul" I include the likes of the Dalai Lama and millions of other Buddhists who believe that some individualized life force is reincarnated. If it's an item tied to an individual person and it's metaphysical, it fits the bill here.

Many people claim that the Dalai Lama has said that he'll accept whatever science says.

However, I have read (sorry, I never did bookmark it) that he has elsewhere said that if it is science vs. one of two core Buddhist principles — karma and reincarnation — then science goes and Buddhism stays. 

And I don't doubt that its true.

In other words, chimerism simply wrecks the idea of a soul being created at conception, unless one is prepared to stand by an even darker god than John Calvin was.  If you're of the ilk of Hobby Lobby,  or Catholics, then, in the case of chimeras, you have to quadruple down on the biblical myth of Jacob and Esau in the womb, and believe that one of two fraternal twins, in many births, is a cannibalistic soul-devourer. Or else, it's a physical cannibal with two souls "attached" to what on the outside seems to be one body, with one brain.

Chimerism also has other connections to the abortion debate, especially within the Western monotheistic/monotritheistic tradition.

It's another variant on the old problem of evil. How can a deity purportedly both all-powerful and all-good let human reproduction be such a minefield of problems? Beyond all the chimeras (which, to be most blunt, from the fundamentalist point of view, must be considered versions of tiny infant cannibalism) to the fact that as many as one in four, maybe even one in three, human conceptions is spontaneously aborted, it is not even close to being anything but an evolutionary minimum of success, it would seem. And, aside from the fundamentalist problems I just lined out already, it's also a vast waste of putative divine economy.

If any fundamentalist tries to do the old hand-waving about how god's ways aren't are ways and vice versa, and god is inscrutable, etc., therefore there's surely an ultimate good behind this, I answer twice.

The first is that a god who is all-powerful and all-good not only can but morally should make his plans scrutable to any sentient beings he creates. Therefore, this is just the problem of evil squred.

Second is that said god is illogical, and unless one wants to be Martin Luther and talk about "that whore, reason," not all-good and therefore self-refuting.

To any fundamentalist who says "original sin," I reply three ways.

First and second, the two answers above.

Third, that you believe in a monster who isn't even close to all-good. (And, yes, like Ken Ham, some Xns actually will attribute the cause of anything wrong in our world to original sin.)

And, speaking of "souls," maybe chimerism explains why identical twins aren't so identical, even in their brains. (Of course, this would require parental cells/DNA, or else a third, fraternal twin.)

Update, May 2, 2021: Fascinating Smithsonian piece here. If you're familiar with what chimeras are, namely a human fetus that has absorbed another in the womb, the discovery that moms can become chimeras from their fetuses is ... fascinating.

The varieties of infinity, or why heaven won't work

I'm an avid nonfiction reader. So, especially at larger libraries, I just head to the new books display and grab what I want ...

While at the same time, knowing I can't read every book I want to.

That has an analogy to Western monotheisms' view of a perpetual, individual-soul afterlife. (Hinduism and some other religions besides the Judeo-Islamo-Christian tradition may fall here, too, but I'm focused on them.)

The analogy? Has roots in one Georg Cantor and the mathematics of infinity.

If you have any familiarity with this, you know there are different infinities of sets, such as

א-null, א-one and א-two. Well, picture your or my individual infinite life in heaven as א-null. Well, if the “set” of א-null is multiplied by itself, we get א-one, a different level of set-infinity. Arguably, even though the number of people in the Western version of heaven, with no procreation, will be finite, one could still say that all the works they will produce will be something like א-one to an individual person’s א-null.

So, heaven would be a sort of “bounded infinity,” and, aside from medieval Christian notions of the real greatness of heaven being to bask in the glory of god, we would see our individual infinities as essentially “bounded.” That, in turn, would be a sort of psychological pain.

The soullessness of Pat Robertson

The flippant part of me says, "Hey, Christians, how's the shoe feel pinching the other foot," now that the the evangelical leader has pissed off Christians now with his comment that it's OK to divorce a spouse with Alzheimer's.

But, the more serious part of me wants to riff on Pat's "soullessness," per the header. And, I don't mean his hard-heartedness, I mean his soullessness, metaphysically speaking.

Obviously, he undermines every utterance he has made about human life beginning at conception and every utterance he has made opposing euthanasia even when the ailing person wants that. Because Pat Robertson has now said what many a secularist naturally accepts, and something over which liberal Christians wrestle: that human life, the quality of human life, and the humanness of that human life derive from human mental functioning.

His co-host pressed Robertson about whether that violates the marriage vows. Robertson responded that Alzheimer's "is a kind of death" and added, "I certainly wouldn't put a guilt trip on you" for choosing divorce in such a scenario.

Oh, Pat's going to try to put this cat back in the bag, not just for wanting to get past pissing off Christians, but because he knows the barn door that he's opened. And, it's too late.

And, this thing about bending marriage vows goes back 500 years. Martin Luther told a German prince that it was OK to commit bigamy.

Pat's still a hypocrite; that hasn't changed. But, the old "blind hogs and acorns" line rings true here.

Some thoughts for soul believers

As Sean Carroll notes, it is technically true (Hume and the problem of induction strike again!) that an immaterial soul exists and is outside the provability bounds, or investigation, of current science.

But, as he also notes, it's also technically true that the moon, or some part of it at least, could in fact be made of green cheese!

And, he makes the burden heavy by whipping out Dirac's electron interaction equation and then asking soul believers to explain, in the terms of that equation, or if not, by adding scientifically measurable terms to that equation, how a soul could interact with the brain.

That said, one could be an epiphenomenalist. Perhaps Adam Frank, to whom Carroll is replying, is. But, while not logically impossible, nor inductively disprovable in a narrow sense, an epiphenomenalist soul that totally mirrors brain activity while never interacting with it is even more ludicrous than a soul that does. It's not too much to claim that it's impossible for such a critter to have evolved. And a deity that made that sort of soul would be even more ... risible? ... than one who made an immaterial, but interactionist, soul.

That said, it is true that science hasn't come close to investigating everything; it's also true that logically, you can't prove the nonexistence of anything — it's the equivalent of dividing by zero.

But, realistically? ....

Perhaps, as Alva Noe notes, the idea of a soul's existence is incoherent, a thought that a Wittgenstein would have us unask or unthink.

Otherwise, like many religious/philosophical ideas that originated thousands of years ago, it sounds wonderful to a nonrational part of our brains. But, wondrousness and desirability don't make anything more real. Not souls, not pearly gates, not weight-reducing chocolate or other things.

Plus, it's like the conservative Christian story of how non-rebellious angels were "confirmed in their goodness" after Satan's rebellion. Why couldn't the Judeo-Christian god have done that for Adam's progeny? Or, if immaterial souls are so good then, like the angels, why weren't we created with just them?

And, while I'm focusing on Christianity, it's not just it as a religion. It's the metaphysical claims of religion in general. If they're so good, and there's a divinity that does care about us that much, why not give us that at the start?

Claiming we need to "grow" here on earth? Really? That claim is never made as something we need to keep doing, and to keep doing with psychological toil and anguish, in an afterlife.

I think most agnostics, and the majority of atheists, even, would like to see some version of some of the metaphysical promises of organized religion be true. But, again, wondrousness isn't reality-making.