Return of the Superbeing
Due to coursework (imagine that), I’ve procrastinated on writing this post. Too, it seems like I’m painted into a corner, so to speak. If I try to avoid skepticism about personal communication, then am I committed to embracing any claims about a Superbeing? But skepticism about human communication and identity leads us to deep quagmires which I’d rather avoid. So here goes my stab at a reply. I’m bringing some of Patrick and Jeong’s comments into the post because they’re very helpful.
1. Patrick says "One can insist (perhaps quite reasonably) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But that doesn’t prove anything. Not really. It just supports the notion that the consensus reality is what it is–is real–because of consensus. That’s tautology, if comforting." The situation as I’ve laid it out is that there is a Superbeing of undefined character communicating revelations, but these revelations seem to change in content and form. The problem is how to know if it is the same Superbeing each time–an important question for religions with either many progressive revelations over time (Judaism and Christianity) or different kinds of revelations to the same individual (Islam). Patrick points out that because the entire scenario is so out of the ordinary that we might be justified in seeking extraordinary evidence.
This was my initial thought–ask the Superbeing to demonstrate its continuity. How do I know you are the same being that appeared to me a few days ago? In the case of humans, probabilistic reasoning (notice I’m trying to avoid the requirement for absolute certainty) would yield some confidence that good answers to my questions mean you are not a body double or imposter.
But the Superbeing has already demonstrated that it is powerful. Perhaps there are two: Superbeing A and Superbeing B. They are able to see what the others do, have access to my mental states, etc. Then B could reasonably convince me that it is A by telling me things only A (given human limitations) could know. So again, it seems without some kind of knowledge about the Superbeing’s powers and character (which are entirely self-revealed, it seems, not something I can examine on my own), we’re stuck.
2. Based on this problem, Jeong surmises "In what way is it novel to say that instead of there being one being with inconsistent personalities and the same memories, that there are now two beings with self-consistent personalities and differing memories? Havent we just shifted the problem to a question of when and where we draw the boundaries between beings?" And that is to take the problem to a whole additional level. If we return to my problem about a potential imposter impersonating the government official, there are a whole host of thought experiments that could tangle the experiment even further. Perhaps the official has been cloned. Then would I say I was dealing with a different person? If not, why? One of the stories we tell about boundaries of persons is causal. My continuity with my self just is the "set of psychophysical elements to maximally causally connected sets." (Siderits 49) The reason that it doesn’t make sense to put boundaries around myself at age two and a turnip in my kitchen, and call that a "self" is not because there is anything "essential" or "intrinsic" about my self that resists lumping these two groups of matter together. Rather, there are better causal stories to tell about myself at age two, three, four, etc. up to the present day than the turnip and my two-year old self.
This seems odd, but if we reduce reality to the physical and deny an essential self, then it seems like any grouping whatsoever is "right", as there are no natural boundaries. Since I’m not claiming that the Superbeing is (necessarily) non-physical, this problem could apply to it as well. If that’s the case, then a causal story might help draw boundaries.
Again, though, while we have some access to the causal story of our own self, or other humans (making the clone situation especially problematic, since it does seem that there can be two "real" government officials), we don’t for the Superbeing. The causes are inscrutable.
So, back to Jeong: "When speaking of your hypothetical super-beings…. The boundaries could be drawn anywhere, or nowhere – its location would not be a fact about that realm, but rather the self-understanding of the one having the religious experience." A causal story about the Superbeing won’t help us, but only an interpretive story from the first-person perspective of the prophet.
Thus my conclusion: If we take revelation as originating from some external being(s), we have no way to check the continuity of revelation is from the same being. While there are all kinds of claims religions make, which are primarily ethical or contentful, these are not immune from being "interpreted away" under the right circumstances. Typically, it seems these right circumstances involve a sense of indubitability of the individual’s perception. So says Santa Teresa in The Interior Castle: "Here there is no reason whether the experience is brought on naturally or caused by melancholy, or whether it is some trick of the devil or some illusion. It is something that leaves clear understanding of how this activity comes from the place where our Lord, who is unchanging, dwells."
When she says "how this activity comes", she’s not talking causal explanation. She doesn’t know anything about the mechanism, but only the inner certainty she’s gained.
In the Qu’ran, the certainty comes from the style and beauty of the revelation: "And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful." (Surah 2:23) And further, "And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases; surely He is High, Wise." (Surah 42:51)
Even by giving credence to the religious intuition that a powerful, really-existing, external and personal source (what I’ve called a Superbeing) is responsible for the content of their revelations, we have no way to check that there are not multiple beings, toying with humanity in presenting contradictory revelations, or a being with contradictory traits.