Vision and Faith—Response and Supplement (2)

[Note: Since online media such as "Stand News" and "Zhongxin" have stopped operating earlier, I have republished some articles (or a small number of articles that were previously submitted but not accepted for publication) that were published in these media in the past. Therefore, this article is one of them. ]

Earlier, the author wrote two articles, "Vision and Faith - Reflecting on My Ten Years of Religious Experience in Fuyatan" and "Vision and Faith - Responses and Supplements ", and I received some responses later, and I myself Think of some additional content, so this article continues to discuss.

Readers who have read the above two articles may have a feeling of "reaching the throat but not the lungs", because I did not discuss some important specific situations about the Fuya altar in the text, such as the writing. Yes, this is intentional, because, although I personally think that this altar has visions that deserve scientific attention, but since I try not to affect other people's religious life, I don't want too much attention to be placed on this altar. It is to encourage general attention to Fuya, or to learn more about Fuyao altars (if any) who are willing to communicate rationally with the outside world. Therefore, my discussion can be understood as a preliminary attempt driven by rationality and considering the limitation of emotional factors.

1. Response

Discussion with a philosophical friend: Here's a rather casual conversation I had a while ago with a philosophical friend (who doesn't really mind being named, but I chose to remain anonymous) in an online chat group (among others) The discussion (so the expression is not very rigorous), but it is also of reference value, so it is recorded as follows (only the typos and sensitive information have been revised, and some supplementary responses have been added).

Zheyou:

[1] After reading Weiwen's two articles, I basically agree with his point of view. But there are two points I would like to discuss. There are two points of confusion about Fu Ni Weiwen, but I think it can be explained.

[2] First, the pen can move. Where does the origin of its movement come from? The author claimed that he was not voluntarily writing, but was driven by some force involuntarily.

[3] I have been on [the forum] several times. As far as I can see, the ji pen doesn't really write any characters. [X] is the master. While [X] is writing, he recites words in his mouth, while others write down what [X] said. [X] The movements of the brush strokes are the same, or almost the same. They are just gestures on the table covered with red cloth, and the movements are repeated regularly.

[4] This is not surprising. We can say that the action of [X] is just "habitually natural". The master said that he did not move his pen on his own, so it is not difficult to get an explanation.

[5] I have only been on the forum of [X], and I have never been on other forums. I don’t know if I can really write meaningful words or sentences on other forums. If so, the possibility of deception cannot be ruled out.

(My supplementary response now: The movements of the jibi are somewhat regular, such as circling, but is there no writing? In addition to some regular movements, the jibi seems to have some irregular movements, and according to the master hand It has been stated (but the memory is hazy) that Jibi is writing cursive, and not necessarily the whole word but maybe just the last stroke.)

[6] Like Wei Wen, I do not doubt [X]'s personality, and I also believe that [X] will not fake it. But this does not rule out the possibility of fraud in other forums, especially those forums that pay to help people solve problems. I have read many articles exposing all kinds of scams that borrow money from gods.

[7] Second, the master's performance was astonishing and seemed beyond his capabilities.

On the altar of [X], I also witnessed [X] perform with my own eyes. [X] It is admirable indeed to have a well-written and well-written export.

[8] However, [X] is a professor in the Department of Chinese, and what [X] said is within [X]'s knowledge. What [X] is talking about is nothing more than writing poems and lyrics, or interpreting ancient classics. Nothing is beyond [X]'s abilities.

My response at the time:

[Response 4:] But you mean that the power still comes from [X], but [X] is used to exerting power like this, but it has been said that the hand means that the power does not come from it, and [X] sometimes Trying to help, but the pen doesn't move, [X] means that the immortal may walk away.

[Response 8:] If you read my article carefully, you will see that I mean "without preparation", for example, I do not rule out that [X] understands the Book of Changes to some extent, but without preparation Under the circumstances, it seems that it is not easy to explain the content of the Yijing lectures on the Yitan.

Zheyou:

[9] As far as I have seen at [X]'s altar, the use of gods to explain [X]'s "amazing" performance is unconvincing, because we have other better explanations. For example, under self-suggestion, the potential of people will be tapped, and sometimes the client does not believe that he will perform so well.

[10] How do you know that [X] did not prepare a lesson the day before? [X] Said himself?

[11] The most critical issue now is that what [X] said is all within the scope of [X]'s knowledge. So I don't see any "vision" here. If [X] can explain Gödel's incompleteness theorem, or prove Fermat's last theorem, it is indeed a vision. In this case, I agree that other explanations are needed, and cannot be explained by "fulfilling potential".

[12] //The hand indicates that the force does not come from it, //but this does not prove that the force does not come from it. Many believers claim that he can hear the voice of the gods, but it does not mean that the gods really speak to him.

[13] There are two theories to explain the "amazing" performance of [X]: one is the psychological explanation, that is, in the case of self-suggestion (not self-hypnosis), people will play a Amazing potential. The second is the interpretation of religion, that is, the upper body of the gods.

[14] These two theories are competing with each other. So, which explanation is more plausible? There are many criteria, including whether the theory is compatible with known knowledge, whether it has inherent contradictions, whether it has predictive power, whether it can explain more phenomena, and so on.

[15] I think the psychological explanation is more reasonable. First of all, it is compatible with our existing knowledge, and there are indeed such facts as "self-suggestion" and "potential development" in psychology. As for religious interpretation, it is incompatible with our existing knowledge. and many more.

[16] In addition, using gods to explain the above phenomenon not only fails to solve the problem, but adds new problems instead. That is, not only can it not relieve our confusion, but it will increase it. This is also mentioned in Weiwen's article.

My response at the time:

[Response 9:] Your self-suggestion plan is only a preliminary suggestion, and we need to enrich the specific content before we can judge whether it can really be explained.

Zheyou:

Yes.

My response at the time:

[Response 10:][X]Why do you need to prepare lessons? It has been said that we believe that [X] is not false, that is, we believe that [X] himself also believes that the text is not from [X]. If [X] prepares a lesson, will [X] doubt that the text is from [X] himself? ? Besides, I haven't heard [X] admit to having lessons, but of course I'm embarrassed to ask directly.

[Response 11:] I know what you mean, but what I mean is that there is a vision under the assumption of my discussion. And what you said is all within the scope of [X]'s knowledge. It can only be said in general terms. If you look at it in detail, it will be controversial.

(My current supplementary response: This response emphasizes that it is important to "see the specifics", because, if pushed to the extreme, someone can also absurdly say: Fuyi comes out in Chinese, and X understands Chinese, so The text is not beyond the scope of X. In addition, if "X can explain Gödel's incompleteness theorem, or prove Fermat's last theorem", then it seems to involve a more significant anomaly, but it cannot be said that " "Gentle" visions are not visions—there are degrees of vision. Besides, are situations that involve explaining or proving difficult theorems necessarily visions? Not necessarily, because someone could retort, "You Think X doesn't understand these theorems? In fact, X learns them secretly and you don't." Always, judging whether there is a vision requires looking at the situation in detail.)

[Response 12:] Yes, it can't, but I'm not trying to prove that the force does not come from it, but just to help frame one of the discussion threads.

[Response 15:] It has been said that it will not be possible to judge until the psychological explanation you speak of is concretely formulated.

Zheyou:

[17] [X] I was present when [X] explained the I Ching [Press: Actually, there are many lectures]. I also asked [Y] [press: Y is the person who should be more aware of X's situation]. [Y] said that with the help of the gods, [X] was able to perform so well. Note: [Y] uses the word "help". In the impression, [Y] and [X] never said that the interpretation of the classics came from the mouth of the gods.

[18] Therefore, will it be the case that every time I go to the altar, there will be several different programs, some explain the classics, some answer the questions of believers, and so on. Only some links come from the mouth of the gods (such as answering questions of believers), and some links are only assisted by the gods (such as explaining the classics, as a cultural activity). If that's the case, then it's not surprising that [X] has prepared the lesson beforehand, and it doesn't mean that [X] is cheating.

[19] Of course, I'm not sure if that's the case. Can you be sure? Maybe we all lack sufficient information, and inevitably we all have the element of "taking it for granted".

(My supplementary response now: As for 18, according to this philosophical friend's position, of course, he did not assume the existence of gods, but should only imagine how the people in the altar understood the arrangement. However, if he also thought that "there is a certain Some links come from the mouth of the gods", then he has to consider the question: X is not prepared in these links, and has he done some things beyond the scope of X's ability? In addition, for 19, my answer Yes: I'm pretty sure about this forum because of about ten years of experience.)

[20] Even if [X] believes that his explanation of the classics comes from the mouth of the gods, [X] can prepare lessons in advance. Many believers believe that God only helps those who are prepared. Many believers will pray to the gods for blessing before the exam, but at the same time they will actively prepare for the exam and will not fail to do any preparation. So, it's entirely possible that [X] prepared a lesson before going to the altar.

[21] Even if [X] did not prepare a lesson beforehand, it is not too strange that [X] can explain the Book of Changes fluently. As a professor of Chinese, it is not surprising that [X] may have a good grasp of the Book of Changes.

[22] [Z] [Note: Z is also a university professor] Can prove Gödel's incompleteness theorem from beginning to end without any preparation. ([Z] said it himself, I believe [Z] didn't lie to me.) Gödel's incompleteness theorem is complicated, I believe you understand it. Proving Gödel's theorem is much more difficult than explaining the I Ching. [Z] can do it by himself, why can't [X] do it by himself?

[23] In a nearly 2-hour speech on mathematical logic, I myself proved more than a dozen theorems of mathematical logic in one breath without reading the manuscript. I am familiar with the proofs of these theorems, and all I have to do is memorize the names of the dozen or so theorems.

Therefore, [X] being able to explain the I Ching proficiently on the altar is not too "visionary" to consider explaining it with theories other than psychology.

[24] Consider Kuhn's paradigm theory. According to Kuhn, new theories are only considered when there is an anomaly that cannot be explained by existing theories. The situation of [X] is certainly not in the eyes of scientists, and would not be regarded as anomalous enough to affect the current scientific paradigm.

My response at the time:

Let’s give a general response: 1. You try to imagine some possibilities based on your experience at the altar. For example, the immortals are just assistants, but according to my ten years of experience, I can only tell you that this is not the case, but I have Could it be misunderstood? Yes, but the possibility seems very low. 2. Regarding the example of proving [Gödel's incompleteness theorem], I can understand it, because [Z] may just remember how to prove it or remember the key steps in it. If [X] is an I Ching expert, [X]'s behavior is a little easier to understand, but I have never heard of him. Moreover, the Book of Changes is just an example, and there are other cases to explain. In addition, some other forums are said to have people who don't know how to read and can also help them out, unless you think these examples are not credible.

[Response 24:] I don't agree, I was just about to explain in the article why I think there is a vision, but it is inconvenient for me to say too much in some places, for fear of offending people.

[Response 24:] I think it is not impossible to need a paradigm shift, you know, before the real paradigm shift, many scientists always try their best to deny the need.

Zheyou:

[25] I wonder if you have paid attention to the recent research results of cognitive science, philosophy of mind, neuroscience and other disciplines? In fact, scientists have conducted in-depth research on various ghosts and supernatural phenomena, and they can finally be explained by existing scientific theories. Those so-called visions are actually not visions.

(My supplementary response now: I want to reiterate what I said in " Vision and Belief - Response and Supplement ": I am against the simple belief that the vision of the altar must not be explained by science, which will hinder the development of science; however, I also oppose the simple belief that existing scientific theories must be able to explain the altar vision, which will also hinder the development of science!)

My response at the time:

I want to explain it scientifically, but I don't know how to explain it concretely.

Just giving directions is not an explanation.

Zheyou:

[26] Of course, this requires rigorous scientific inquiry. But I can't do that right now.

2. Supplement

Beyond the fairy Buddha? : Do you think it is credible to say that someone's cognition in some important aspects of religion has surpassed that of immortals and Buddhas? Not without logical possibilities, but it seems hard to believe. Earlier articles have said that there is no shortage of high-level intellectuals in this altar, and some of them have openly expressed some transcendental religious views, that is, they try to point out that the teachings of the existing major religions are flawed or insufficient, and try to propose some more fundamental ones. more reasonable beliefs.

I myself have not heard any criticism or refutation of these new beliefs, and if they are correct - at least it should be assumed that some people in the altar believe so - the problem arises: since the immortals and Buddhas still seem to be limited to the Tao In the teachings of the Buddha, does it mean that the person's cognition of religion has surpassed the immortal Buddha in relevant aspects? Is it believable?

A world of gods who understand science: In the first two articles, I also discussed some of the difficulties that our technological world poses to the belief in immortals and Buddhas. If there is a new religion in which the gods know our science well, even some science we don't know yet (if the hypothesis is verified), then that would constitute good reason to believe that they do exist and that they are important Under the meaning has surpassed us, because their advanced science is verified. It is a pity that no such religion has been heard and confirmed.

Why didn't the gods show up? : I believe that some people who are interested in the issue of gods have questioned: on the one hand, gods seem to contact us through certain channels (such as fuja), but why don’t they show up directly? Their manifestations are only recorded in some scriptures, or predicted to happen in the future, or some rumors indicate that they have been seen with their own eyes, but why can't they be not too rare in front of us ordinary people? appear?

To be sure, many people will come up with various answers to try to explain the hidden nature of the gods (such as "don't want to unduly influence the world"); however, whether these answers actually make sense is another question. At this point, I just want to remind you to be careful about some of the unreasonable defense methods I mentioned in " Vision and Belief - Responses and Supplements ", because it may form a "closed system".