As can be seen by other posts today, I'm in a bit of a "is this the right room for an argument?" mood. 

So, building on a post by Goethea, I'd like to relate my experiences attempting to argue against simple atheism, by really bright people.


Clearly, like Goethea, I'm not partial to either side.  Creationism is very shallow, and very political/stupid, while atheism, once you have had any type of spiritual experience, is similar.

There was a thread on Matthew Yglesias's blog, where I attempted to engage "liberal atheists", with the views I hold regarding spiritual evolution (I'm the JC poster in the comments).  I came at it from a somewhat softer position than what I believe because I wanted the dialogue.

Here's my first comment.

Here's a good response.

The basic gist of the response is to resort to Occam's Razor - i.e. if you are going to postulate beyong the evidence of our senses, you may as well postulate anything - an underlying intelligence, a great green glob, a giant purple unicorn, etc.

This is really the cruz of the issue, I think. 

Ken Wilber responds to this by, basically,  pointing to other modes of empirical research, as accepted by other disciplines outside of science -

"Surely there is a broader science that attempts to understand not just rocks and weasels but humans and minds? Well, in fact, we do acknowledge these types of broader sciences, sciences that are not rooted merely in the exterior, physical, sensorimotor world, but have something to do with interior states and qualitative research methodologies. We call these broader sciences the "human sciences"

From the research methodology of the human sciences, then, we can search the empirical literature of the practices of mystics, past and present, and like Piaget for early development, formulate the higher structures of the "mystical" brain. 

I think though, that this isn't necessarilly a convincing argument for the Occam's Razor atheist comeback, but only a partial one.   The point is still that these are only pointers to "structures of the brain". 

At this point the options then, seem to me, to be one of the following - accept that there are "structures in the brain" that give rise to mystical experiences, but that don't really mean anything to the world as is. 

The aethist then would point out that so many mystical experiences are "different", that one would need to believe in an infinity of gods. 

Or, you can accept that these experiences ARE indicative of  the underlying structure of the world, but mixed with personal and social patterns of interpretation. 

All the experiences of energy, spirit, heart, that I have, clearly put me in the second camp.

But politically, perspectivally, I'd really like for a more integrated liberal view to be LOUD and acceptable in media/political circles.  It's a travesty that the "chattering classes" see God talk as only available to the right.

What is a decent counter-argument to the Occam's Razor logic of the smart liberal, decent athiest?