0:00

In 2020, a group

0:02

of young women found themselves

0:04

in an AI -fuelled nightmare. Someone

0:06

was posting photos. It was just

0:08

me naked. Well, not me,

0:11

but me with someone else's body

0:13

part. This is Levitown, a

0:15

new podcast from iHeart Podcasts, Bloomberg

0:17

and Kaleidoscope, about the rise

0:19

of deep fake pornography and the

0:21

battle to stop it. Listen

0:23

to Levitown on Bloomberg's Big Take

0:25

podcast. Find it on the iHeart radio

0:27

app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you

0:29

get your podcasts. This

0:31

episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You

0:34

chose to hit play on this podcast

0:36

today. Smart choice. Make another

0:38

smart choice with AutoQuote Explorer to

0:41

compare rates from multiple car insurance

0:43

companies all at once. Try

0:45

it at Progressive .com, Progressive Casualty

0:47

Insurance Company and affiliates, not available

0:49

in all states or situations. Prices

0:51

vary based on how you buy. That

1:03

scene in Through the Looking Glass,

1:05

when the Queen brags to Alice

1:07

about believing in six impossible things

1:10

before breakfast, it is usually

1:12

read as absurd humor. But

1:14

what if the really preposterous thing is

1:16

to believe that we can tell

1:18

the difference between what is real and

1:20

unreal, possible and impossible? From

1:22

K .E .R .A. in Dallas, this is

1:25

Think. I'm Chris Boyd. We all

1:27

know what impossible means,

1:29

right? Like, absolutely, positively cannot

1:31

happen. But there are nearly

1:33

unlimited accounts of human beings

1:35

experiencing things we cannot explain,

1:37

from premonitions and ghost sightings

1:39

to alien abductions. And

1:41

maybe, if we stay open to the idea

1:43

that these experiences have something to teach

1:46

us, they can lead us toward a

1:48

certain kind of truth. Jeffrey

1:50

Kripel holds the J. Newton Razor

1:52

Chair in Philosophy and Religious

1:54

Thought at Rice University, His new

1:56

book is called How to

1:58

Think Impossibly about souls, UFOs, time,

2:00

belief, and everything else. Jeff, welcome

2:02

to Think. Thank

2:04

you. Thank you very much. What does

2:07

it mean to think impossibly? It

2:10

means not to assume what you

2:13

think and what you believe

2:15

and to recognize that impossibility is

2:17

a function of your worldview and

2:19

not of what actually happens. The

2:23

idea that you mentioned the book

2:25

of thinking with people about

2:27

their experiences, what is significant about

2:29

thinking with as opposed to

2:31

listening to or thinking about? My

2:36

sense is that people

2:38

who have these

2:40

impossible experiences don't theorize them,

2:43

don't turn them into a

2:45

worldview, and that the job

2:47

of the the writer or

2:49

the intellectual in this case is

2:51

to think with the person. And

2:54

by thinking with, I mean

2:56

thinking outside one's own comfort

2:58

level, one's own box, one's

3:00

own set of boxes, and

3:02

recognizing that the person has

3:04

indeed had these sets of

3:06

experiences, which one doesn't have to

3:08

interpret or understand literally, but

3:10

does have to recognize actually

3:12

happened. So thinking with,

3:14

it's more than being

3:17

sympathetic to or listening to.

3:19

It's really a kind

3:21

of creation of a new

3:23

worldview or a new

3:25

thought system with the experiences

3:27

of the individual involved. So

3:30

it almost sounds like what we're not trying

3:32

to do is to disprove something that

3:34

someone tells us they've experienced. I

3:38

mean the language of proof

3:40

and disprove is

3:42

a scientific secular

3:44

worldview and I'm calling

3:47

that, not into question, but

3:49

just recognizing the inadequacy or

3:51

the limitations of that and

3:53

that people have experiences outside

3:56

or beyond that system all

3:58

the time. And generally what

4:00

we do is we dismiss those

4:02

experiences, we call that person crazy

4:04

or we call it a hallucination

4:07

or we invoke some other easy

4:09

reduction of the experience to our

4:11

own explanatory

4:13

worldview and impossible thinking is

4:15

essentially the call to

4:17

not do that and to

4:20

dwell in a kind

4:22

of openness or even confusion

4:24

that I think is

4:26

very healthy. Most

4:28

of us go through life at

4:31

least after childhood with this notion that

4:33

certain kinds of experiences are possible

4:35

while others are impossible. And

4:37

yet, as you remind us in the

4:39

book, many of us have also

4:41

experienced flashes of things that are supposed

4:43

to be impossible. Right.

4:46

I think my sense

4:48

is that if you scratch

4:50

the surface of human

4:53

beings, yourself or your loved

4:55

ones or your acquaintances, these

4:58

kinds of experiences are actually quite

5:00

common. And the

5:02

cultural sensor suppresses

5:04

them. until we

5:06

actually believe that they're not common

5:08

and that they're not part of our

5:10

world but they in fact are

5:12

and we go on our days or

5:15

we go on our assumptions believing

5:17

that they're not they're not significant even

5:19

though these are often the most

5:21

important things that ever happen to someone

5:23

they're clearly very significant to the

5:25

individual. I mean the way we

5:28

treat these accounts is so interesting because

5:30

on the one hand We love stories

5:32

about the miraculous or the impossible or

5:34

the metaphysical or however we want to

5:36

name these things. But if we've had

5:38

these experiences ourselves, we tend

5:40

to be quite careful about how and

5:42

whether and with whom we share them. Why

5:44

is that? Well,

5:46

I think it depends on whatever the

5:48

politics or sociology of knowledge is

5:50

that one inhabits. And by that, I

5:52

mean, it depends on the

5:54

belief systems of those around us. So,

5:57

for example, my

5:59

colleagues in physics or chemistry are

6:01

not going to talk about these

6:03

things in a grant proposal because

6:05

they know they won't get the

6:07

grant or they'll be dismissed. People

6:10

who are not inside the

6:12

sciences or outside the sciences are

6:14

more free to discuss them,

6:17

but sometimes there are other religious

6:19

censors or other social censors

6:21

that kick in and prevent people

6:23

from talking about these experiences.

6:25

So I think these experiences get

6:27

hit from from multiple

6:29

sides. It's certainly not just the

6:31

secular scientific side. It's also the

6:33

religious side. I can

6:36

understand why your colleagues wouldn't want

6:38

to put these things into a

6:40

grant proposal, but you teach at

6:42

Rice University, which is like nationally

6:44

admired, particularly for STEM fields of

6:46

study. How open are

6:48

your science and math and engineering

6:50

colleagues to the benefits of thinking

6:52

impossibly? Are you welcome at the

6:54

cool faculty table? I

6:58

don't know the answer to that

7:00

question. I mean, you'd have to

7:03

ask them. But the university as

7:05

a whole, I think, is very

7:07

supportive of this. And I think

7:09

why it's supportive is that we're

7:11

not trying to land on a

7:13

conviction or a conclusion about what

7:15

this all means. We simply want

7:18

to have the conversation. And

7:20

I want to keep these things on the table,

7:22

as I say. I

7:24

want us to make these part

7:26

of how we theorize and how we

7:28

think about history and society and

7:30

religion and philosophy and science. I want

7:33

it to be all inclusive. So

7:36

I think that kind

7:38

of open -mindedness, which is

7:40

also a kind of open

7:42

-heartedness, is very obvious to

7:44

people. And I think

7:46

it's why this is accepted

7:48

and recognized in a

7:50

way that I think might

7:52

surprise people. You

7:54

note in the book that fringe phenomena

7:57

are fringe because we make them

7:59

so What do you think is our

8:01

motivation to keep these things confined

8:03

to a category that is separate from

8:05

what we perceive to be a

8:07

rational search for explanation? I

8:09

think we want to live in

8:11

a little world Chris I think we

8:13

want to be puny and and

8:16

I don't think we are and I

8:18

think once we allow these things

8:20

to come in as it were we

8:22

have to refigure the world and

8:24

ourselves in a much bigger way. And

8:26

I think we're afraid of that. And

8:29

I don't always understand why

8:31

we're afraid of that, but

8:33

that's clearly my experience over

8:35

and over again talking to

8:37

people. They're just afraid

8:39

of these experiences because they

8:42

call into question not the

8:44

true value of their worldview,

8:46

but its limitations and its

8:48

inadequacy. How

8:51

do we interpret what we experience as

8:53

impossible and cannot explain? What do we do

8:55

with that when we have those experiences? The

9:00

answer is I don't know.

9:04

But these sorts of experiences, and

9:06

by these experiences, I mean

9:08

things like near -death experiences, out -of

9:10

-body experiences, psychedelic experiences, precognitive

9:12

dreams. I mean, it just goes

9:14

on and on. These events are

9:16

trying to speak to us. they

9:19

are trying desperately to get

9:21

our attention and to get

9:23

us involved and concerned. And

9:25

I don't think we're generally

9:27

listening as a culture. I

9:29

think we listen sometimes as

9:31

individuals or as subcultures, but

9:33

we don't listen well enough

9:35

or long enough as a

9:37

broad public culture. And that's

9:39

what I think I'm certainly

9:41

calling us to do in

9:43

the book, but not again,

9:46

come to a set of conclusions or

9:48

a set of interpretations about these

9:50

experiences. That's not what thinking impossibly is

9:52

about. That's

9:54

a later conclusion or conviction

9:56

when it arrives at,

9:58

but I think always tentative.

10:00

I think it's always,

10:03

always maybe, maybe or perhaps.

10:06

Our interpretations of impossible experiences

10:08

are obviously shaped by

10:10

the culture that surrounds us,

10:12

the times we live

10:14

in. But our interpretations also

10:16

shape those cultures in

10:18

turn, right? Correct. I

10:21

think it's naive to

10:23

think that human experiences are

10:26

not already interpreted. And

10:28

one of the things I'll

10:31

often say is it's also naive

10:33

to think human beings have

10:35

control of these things or to

10:37

speak ethically are the moral

10:39

agent. I don't think

10:41

we are, actually. I

10:43

think these things happen to

10:45

us. They're shown to

10:47

us, they're revealed to us,

10:49

and they already come

10:51

with interpretation that I think

10:54

most people take literally. And

10:57

I'm suspicious of that. I

10:59

mean, thinking impossibly is, again,

11:01

not believing what the believer

11:03

believes or what the experiencer

11:05

thinks, but it's taking that

11:07

experience as a data point

11:09

and trying to advance some

11:11

kind of theory or thought

11:13

with it. something that matters.

11:16

Yeah, let me give you an example. I

11:18

know I'm speaking abstractly. Take

11:21

near -death experiences. First

11:24

of all, they always happen

11:26

in a state of physical

11:28

trauma. People

11:31

almost die to have these

11:33

experiences. They have a heart attack

11:35

or they fall off a

11:37

mountain or they're in a car

11:39

accident or something really, really

11:41

physically traumatic happens. But if

11:43

you look at these experiences

11:45

closely enough, and I think

11:48

honestly and exhaustively enough, you

11:50

realize that they're very different.

11:53

But they also share certain

11:55

patterns or certain sensibilities

11:57

that that are significant. And

11:59

so it's that both

12:01

end. It's the similarity and

12:03

the differences that really

12:05

matter here. And this is

12:07

why I keep saying, it's not

12:09

about signing your name to a

12:11

particular impossible experience, but in

12:13

this case, a near -death experience.

12:15

But it's about looking at these

12:18

comparatively and cross -culturally and globally

12:20

and figuring out what the

12:22

shared patterns are. And we just

12:24

haven't done that, Chris. We

12:26

haven't even begun that project. This

12:28

is all leading us toward

12:30

your hypothesis that there is no

12:33

final distinction between subjective and

12:35

objective states or between consciousness and

12:37

cosmos. Will you talk us

12:39

through that, Jeff? Yeah,

12:42

again, that's a very it's

12:44

a very heady topic, but

12:46

I I think when when

12:48

again when you think with

12:50

these experiencers you realize at

12:52

some point that The

12:54

experience is not of an object

12:56

out there. It's not like I

12:58

see this chair or, you know,

13:00

I see another human being. It's

13:03

somehow myself I'm looking at

13:05

and that the physical world is

13:07

also myself, that this distinction

13:09

we make between the subjective and

13:11

the objective is really a

13:14

function of our grammar and a

13:16

particular belief system. But in

13:18

reality, The

13:20

mind is the cosmos and

13:22

vice versa. It's all

13:24

one thing. And

13:26

I think the most radical forms

13:28

of these experiences show that quite

13:30

clearly, actually. I know

13:33

that sounds extraordinary with two

13:35

egos talking here, but it's not

13:37

extraordinary at all once you

13:39

get into these experiences. How

13:42

might our perception of

13:44

time, specifically time as a

13:46

linear one direction only

13:48

phenomenon, Play into what we

13:50

think of as possible and impossible. First

13:53

of all, you've really read the book. My

13:56

job. So I think we

13:58

generally think of time in a

14:00

very naive fashion. We think of the

14:02

past as set. We already made

14:04

a set of decisions and the past

14:06

is causing or leading up to

14:08

the present and the future hasn't happened

14:10

yet. And I think

14:12

that's really naive. It certainly

14:14

doesn't sit well. with contemporary

14:17

physics and a kind of

14:19

Einsteinian universe in which we

14:21

live, I think

14:23

this is why we consider

14:25

people's precognitions impossible is because

14:28

we don't think the future

14:30

has happened. But

14:32

what precognitive experiences show quite

14:34

dramatically is that the

14:36

future has already happened, often

14:38

down to really significant

14:41

or insignificant detail, banal detail.

14:44

So you can't have a precognitive

14:46

experience if you reside in a

14:48

worldview in which time is only

14:50

in the past and you're somehow

14:52

on the cosmic wave of all

14:54

time. But you can have a

14:56

precognitive experience. Suddenly it's not only

14:58

possible, but it's plausible if we

15:00

live in a universe in which

15:02

the future has already happened. And

15:04

we happen to be inhabiting this

15:06

present because of our bodies and

15:08

brains, but we're moving through time

15:10

like we're moving through space. Jeff,

15:13

did societies of the past,

15:15

specifically before the introduction and

15:17

adoption of the scientific method,

15:20

did they have an easier

15:22

time folding possible and impossible

15:24

experiences together as equally worthy

15:26

of investigation? In

15:30

some sense, yes. There's

15:33

a lot of literature,

15:35

certainly in philosophy, that

15:37

sees the modern subject as

15:40

more buffered. And what we

15:42

mean by that is there's

15:44

something about modernity, there's something

15:46

about science and technology and

15:48

the way we live our

15:50

lives that has put a

15:52

thicker space suit on the

15:55

ego or the subject as

15:57

it were. And so the

15:59

external world or environment gets

16:01

into us a lot less.

16:03

We have an easier time

16:05

imagining that we're separate atomic

16:08

-like substances moving through the

16:10

world. And

16:12

even in European society, say in

16:14

the 13 or 1400s, I think

16:16

the world was more porous, or

16:18

the human being was more porous.

16:20

The world got in more easily.

16:24

The space got into the space. Who does

16:26

it work more easily? But

16:28

that doesn't mean. I'm

16:30

not suggesting that's better or

16:32

that that's somehow a good thing,

16:34

but I do think these

16:36

impossible experiences were recognized more

16:39

than because they, I think they

16:41

happened probably more often and

16:43

they fit into whatever the religious

16:45

worldview was of our ancestors. But

16:49

again, I'm not... I'm

16:51

not proposing a religious

16:53

worldview of our ancestors. I

16:56

think the rise of

16:58

modern science and cosmology and

17:00

physics and mathematics has

17:02

been crucial and important, and

17:04

it's fundamentally changed how

17:06

we imagine these things and

17:08

how we experience these

17:10

things. Yes,

17:13

it helped, I guess, in a

17:15

certain way, but I don't

17:17

think our ancestors knew what we

17:19

knew. about the physical world,

17:21

about the world in general. So

17:24

now we have science and

17:26

specifically physics to help us

17:28

draw this line between outside

17:30

reality, real reality maybe,

17:32

and internal reality, which might be

17:34

more mystical in nature. But

17:37

you note that some quantum

17:39

physicists are intrigued by the way's

17:41

perception influences reality. Tell us

17:43

about that. Yeah, so,

17:46

you know, I have spent...

17:49

career really going around

17:51

to universities and colleges and

17:53

talking about the impossible. And

17:56

what I have found over and

17:58

over and over again is that my

18:00

colleagues in the sciences or the

18:02

social sciences or the humanities are actually

18:04

very open to this. They know

18:06

darn well that it happens. But

18:10

the physicists in particular, you

18:13

know, they work in a

18:15

discipline in which The mathematics

18:17

and the physics argue

18:19

that the world is not

18:21

what the senses sense

18:23

or what reason thinks. It's

18:26

really very different

18:28

than what we experience.

18:31

And so the physicists, particularly the

18:34

quantum physicists, they really live in

18:36

two different worlds. They live in

18:38

this Newtonian world up here where

18:40

their objects bouncing around in

18:42

some kind of empty space, but

18:44

they also know that deep deep

18:46

down, it's all

18:48

quantum, which is to say

18:50

it's all united or

18:52

it's all connected in a

18:54

way that isn't apparent

18:56

up here. And it's

18:59

that double vision that

19:01

fascinates me, particularly as I'm

19:03

a historian of religions

19:05

by training. And if

19:07

there's one conclusion of the

19:09

history of religions, is

19:11

that the world is two.

19:16

There's this world of

19:18

separate selves and Chris

19:20

and Jeff and everybody

19:22

else, but there's also

19:24

this other world of

19:26

unity, of connectedness

19:28

that underlies it. And

19:30

so I think

19:32

there is a profound

19:34

parallel between the

19:36

religious worldviews and the

19:39

physics, but that doesn't

19:41

mean they're the same either. I'm not

19:43

suggesting that. So the

19:45

universe may indeed be one thing

19:47

but our experience of it as

19:49

humans if I'm understanding you correctly

19:51

That's that's two things mental and

19:53

material Correct that I mean one

19:55

of the phrases I use in

19:57

the book is that the human

19:59

is to but the world is

20:01

one and What I mean by

20:03

that is you know to speak

20:05

philosophically for a moment I'm referring

20:07

to dual aspect monism and basically

20:09

what it says is that there's

20:11

actually one One thing

20:13

one substance or one presence

20:16

that we call the universe,

20:18

but it splits up into

20:20

a material external Objective dimension

20:22

and an internal subjective dimension

20:24

in and as human beings

20:26

and you and me so

20:28

we we think that there's

20:30

an internal and an external

20:32

world, but that's because that's

20:35

That's what the body and

20:37

the brain do. That's what

20:39

that's who we are so

20:41

so that that That

20:43

notion that the world is

20:45

to that's us. That's actually

20:47

not the world and Occasionally

20:49

the world breaks in to

20:52

to our experience and it

20:54

appears as one and and

20:56

I think that's that gets

20:58

us back to to to

21:00

this this argument that that

21:02

we were talking about earlier

21:04

that that again our ordinary

21:07

experience is definitely sensory and

21:09

cognitive and and material and

21:11

two, but there's this deeper

21:13

reality where things are deeply connected

21:16

in one. I spoke

21:18

not long ago to a philosopher

21:20

who ostensibly was writing about

21:22

why dogs are happier than people,

21:24

but his sense was that

21:26

for dogs, there is no bifurcation.

21:28

There's like one set of

21:30

experiences and they're not sort of

21:32

thinking on a metal level.

21:34

I wonder if you can relate

21:36

to that. Yeah, I mean,

21:38

I have a dog too. I

21:40

admire dogs. You know,

21:42

in my language, they're simpler than

21:44

human beings are. I don't

21:46

know if dogs, you know,

21:49

how this comes into my

21:51

own field is that human

21:53

beings are probably distinct and

21:55

that they fear death. And

21:58

they fear death because they think

22:00

they're separate. Whereas,

22:02

you know, Perhaps

22:04

a dog or a cat

22:06

does not experience themselves

22:08

as separate from the world.

22:11

And of course, they'll die. They're

22:13

organically die, but so what? If

22:16

you're one with the universe

22:18

or cosmos, does it matter

22:20

in the same way that

22:22

death really does matter if you're

22:24

an individual soul or person?

22:26

This is hence the subtitle of

22:28

the book. I

22:32

certainly get the argument.

22:34

I think it's true. The

22:37

other thing, you know, Chris, just a kind

22:39

of riff here. I

22:42

sometimes feel very guilty

22:44

about eating meat, eating

22:47

creatures. And

22:50

then I'll go in the backyard

22:52

and my dog is like chewing on

22:55

the head of a bunny rabbit.

22:57

And I'm like, well...

22:59

Clearly, the natural

23:01

world doesn't have

23:03

this reservation. So

23:06

what is it about human

23:08

beings that have these thoughts

23:10

or that have these emotions

23:12

or feelings? So

23:14

I do think that the

23:16

dog or the non -human is

23:18

in a very different situation

23:21

than the human. And

23:23

I think that that sense

23:25

of separation allows

23:27

us to be human, but it also

23:29

comes with all kinds of costs, all

23:31

kinds of emotional and philosophical costs. What

23:34

do we gain collectively by

23:36

insisting that the humanities have

23:38

as much right to claim

23:40

knowledge of reality as the

23:42

sciences? So,

23:44

you know, the sciences,

23:47

which I've thought about

23:49

a lot, are essentially third

23:51

-person external views of the

23:53

world. they're

23:55

absolutely pragmatic and correct

23:57

to that extent. But

23:59

what the humanities do

24:02

is offer this first

24:04

person or this inside

24:06

perspective on things that

24:08

the sciences can't give

24:10

us in principle. It's

24:13

not the fault of the sciences. It's just that's

24:15

not what science is. That's not what science does.

24:17

And so I think that the focus

24:20

on subjectivity or the first person is

24:22

really the gift

24:24

of the humanities. And

24:27

my feeling about the humanities is,

24:29

first of all, nobody can say what

24:31

they are, although I just did

24:33

say what they are. But

24:36

most of my colleagues can't

24:38

say what they are, and that's

24:40

a problem. That's a real

24:42

problem. I think we're generally losing

24:44

the cultural battle because the

24:46

sciences are very good at telling

24:48

their story, and we're very

24:51

bad at it. What

24:53

is the experience source

24:55

hypothesis? The

24:58

experience source hypothesis is

25:00

basically the idea that

25:02

the origin of religious

25:05

ideas and beliefs is

25:07

in human experience. In

25:10

other words, people don't think

25:12

their ways to these ideas.

25:14

They have experiences for which

25:17

these ideas are. really

25:20

understandable conclusions or

25:22

interpretations. So, for

25:24

example, you know, the easiest one to talk about

25:26

is, again, the soul. One

25:28

of the early theories of the

25:30

soul was that this was

25:33

basically human beings having dreams after

25:35

a loved one died, where

25:37

the loved one shows up. And

25:40

so the people mistakenly thought

25:42

that the person lived on

25:44

after death, and so you

25:46

get this idea of the

25:48

separable soul or of the

25:50

person who lives on. But

25:54

in fact, we know that's not

25:56

true today. We know that people

25:58

have actual experiences outside their bodies,

26:00

or that's their experience of being

26:02

outside their bodies, in death or

26:04

near death, and that this is

26:06

likely the source of these beliefs.

26:08

It's nothing to do with people

26:11

thinking or wishing their way to

26:13

this, it has to do with

26:15

experiencing one's way to this. And

26:17

I think that fundamentally changes. That's

26:20

a game changer for me because

26:22

it means that religious ideas aren't something

26:24

you can think your way to,

26:26

but they are something that you can

26:28

have experiences of. How

26:30

did the romantic

26:32

philosophers and poets and

26:35

artists employ natural

26:37

supernaturalism? So.

26:40

Yeah, again, I'll sound like a professor, but

26:42

I suppose that's what I am. That's

26:44

your job. Yeah, that's my

26:46

job. So the supernatural was

26:48

coined actually in the century.

26:52

And it was coined

26:54

in Europe and it

26:56

referred to the agency

26:58

really of extraordinary events. And

27:01

if an event was from

27:03

God, it was supernatural. It was

27:05

from outside the natural world

27:07

because God dwelt outside the natural

27:09

world, which this God created.

27:11

So there was a division between

27:13

the natural and the supernatural

27:15

in the coining of that very

27:17

term. What

27:19

the romantic poets and writers

27:22

did, so they come after

27:24

the Enlightenment, by the way,

27:26

they come after Europe had

27:28

started to create modern science

27:30

and modern secularism. And the

27:32

Enlightenment was essentially this argument

27:34

that human reason was

27:36

the universal truth of

27:38

things. And there

27:40

was a kind of

27:42

equality or embedded in

27:44

human reason. And

27:46

what the romantic thinkers and

27:49

poets thought was that

27:51

that enlightenment picture of the

27:53

world was too dry. It

27:56

was too machine -like. The

27:58

romantic thinkers realized that

28:00

The Enlightenment was essentially

28:03

correct, but that there

28:05

was more to the

28:07

universe than just machine

28:10

or mechanical truth, that

28:12

there was something living

28:14

and natural and vibrant

28:16

about nature and poetry

28:19

and inspiration. And

28:21

so they moved to this

28:23

model where the imagination, and that's

28:25

really what begins this book, where

28:28

the imagination is

28:30

not producing fantasy,

28:32

it's mediating

28:34

truth. Jeff, does

28:36

religion try to impose limits

28:38

on our capacity for superhuman

28:40

abilities and experiences so that

28:43

it sort of keeps space

28:45

for a deity or deities

28:47

to inhabit our consciousness? I

28:51

think so. I

28:53

think the historical

28:55

religions enable some

28:57

things that we

28:59

suppress today. but

29:01

they also disable other things. I

29:03

don't think there's a free lunch, as

29:05

it were. And

29:07

I think the religious systems, certainly

29:11

to take Catholicism, Roman Catholicism,

29:13

which is something I know a

29:15

lot about, the

29:17

extraordinary or the impossible was

29:19

really important to how someone

29:21

was declared to be a

29:23

saint. But on the other

29:25

hand, you had to teach

29:27

or had to write the

29:29

right things within the tradition

29:31

to become a saint. So

29:33

there was a doctrinal or

29:35

dogmatic or exclusive hold on

29:37

what was considered to be

29:40

holy, even though there was

29:42

also a necessity of the

29:44

marvelous or what I call

29:46

the impossible. What

29:48

I'm trying to call the

29:50

impossible doesn't have those handrails

29:52

as it were. It's

29:56

more, I

29:58

suppose, more putty -like

30:00

or more open to

30:02

future worldviews than I think

30:04

the religions are. Religion

30:06

is a kind of, again,

30:09

this goes back to the subtitle, I

30:11

think religion is a kind of believing back.

30:14

It's a kind of

30:16

affirmation of someone else's

30:18

impossible experiences. It is

30:20

not an affirmation of,

30:22

present, impossible experiences, unless

30:24

they fit into that

30:26

believing back, then it's

30:28

okay. I

30:30

do want to talk about

30:33

the ways that we are

30:35

shaped by cultural understandings provided

30:37

by religion, whether or not

30:39

we're religious ourselves. First

30:41

of all, you and I are

30:43

speaking English. And if

30:45

you think about thinking, what

30:48

you realize is that it's essentially

30:50

language in your head. None

30:52

of us invented language. We

30:55

were born into a

30:57

language or languages, and

31:00

we were socialized into seeing the world

31:02

through those languages. And

31:04

we're not in control of that. That's

31:06

not something we choose. That's just how

31:08

we grow up, and that's what a

31:10

human being is. And all

31:12

those languages are informed by

31:14

historical religions as well. And

31:16

so that's why I think

31:18

we are informed by these

31:20

religious ideas. For example, when

31:23

I go to a bookstore,

31:25

a big bookstore, there's

31:28

a bookshelf called something

31:30

like Supernatural. Well, that

31:32

came out of medieval Christianity, that

31:34

whole category. And people don't

31:36

think about the dualism or

31:38

the theism or the external or

31:40

extra -cosmic God behind it. They

31:43

just assume that that's the case

31:45

or that's what it's about. In

31:48

the word paranormal today, it's often

31:50

used for a synonym for supernatural,

31:52

even though it's not. It's not

31:54

at all. It means completely different

31:56

things than the supernatural man. It

31:59

was a way to get away from the

32:01

supernatural and get to what I call the supernatural,

32:03

two words. I

32:06

think, yes, we are embedded in

32:08

these religious ideas because we don't

32:10

just think but we dream and

32:12

we experience ourselves in language. Jeff,

32:16

what can we learn from

32:18

the different approaches people take

32:20

to getting to the bottom

32:22

of reported UFO encounters or

32:24

even UFO abductions? Well,

32:28

first of all, I don't think we'll ever get to the

32:30

bottom. I

32:32

think that's really

32:35

the message I most want to

32:37

send is that if you

32:39

think you know what a UFO

32:42

is, you're almost certainly wrong. And

32:45

that's why I love the

32:47

UFO, not because I understand it,

32:49

but because I don't understand it, and

32:51

nor does anyone else. People have

32:53

bits and pieces of the puzzle,

32:55

I think, for sure, but

32:58

nobody has the full picture. And

33:01

I think my own

33:03

feeling Again, as a historian

33:05

of religions is that

33:07

the UFO phenomenon is a

33:09

kind of science fiction

33:11

camouflage of what our ancestors

33:13

would have clearly recognized

33:15

in religious terms. And

33:18

that doesn't mean it's religious. It

33:20

means that's what our ancestors would

33:22

have thought. But I think our

33:24

contemporaries experience it and think of

33:26

it in different ways. But

33:30

I do think fundamentally it's

33:32

a religious or spiritual phenomenon.

33:35

To be clear, you're candid about this in

33:37

the book. You don't believe in aliens, you

33:39

don't believe in demons, you don't believe in

33:41

gods. What do you think

33:43

accounts for your fascination with stories

33:45

about people's experiences with these things?

33:51

First of all, I'm

33:53

obsessed with religion and

33:55

God even though I'm

33:57

deeply suspicious of people's

33:59

images of God. You

34:03

didn't do this. But when people

34:05

refer to me as an atheist,

34:07

I simply say, no, I'm not.

34:11

But that doesn't mean that I

34:13

think anybody knows what God

34:15

is. And I

34:17

don't actually believe in what

34:19

they call the extraterrestrial hypothesis

34:21

or the ETH. I think

34:23

it's naive. And I

34:25

think it's a literalization of

34:27

what is experienced. And

34:29

I think my fascination comes

34:32

from the legitimacy and the

34:34

integrity of these experiencers. It's

34:36

just so obvious to me

34:38

that they're telling the truth.

34:40

And it's not that they know

34:42

what happened or know the

34:44

explanation for it, but they know

34:46

far more than people who

34:48

have not had those experiences. And

34:51

so that's... think that's where my

34:53

fascination comes in. And these

34:55

experiences are often deeply traumatic. These

34:58

are not happy experiences. They're

35:00

not looking for fame or money

35:02

or all the nonsense you

35:04

hear. They want to talk

35:06

about it. And they want to

35:09

theorize it and create a new

35:11

kind of culture or a new

35:13

kind of worldview in which these

35:15

things make a lot more sense.

35:19

So that's what I'm trying to

35:21

do. I mean, by definition, everyone

35:23

who reports an alien abduction has

35:25

escaped and lived to tell about

35:27

it. Is there some lesson we

35:29

can take from these stories? Yeah.

35:32

I mean, so first of all,

35:34

not everybody escapes. You know,

35:36

people do get harmed or

35:38

even killed in these events. And

35:40

the literature is filled with

35:42

those cases. So it's just, it's

35:44

not true that everyone escapes. But

35:47

I... What I take

35:49

away from what you just

35:51

said, and I think

35:53

that's generally true, is

35:56

that these experiences want

35:58

to be talked about,

36:00

and they want to

36:02

be interpreted. And

36:04

they're speaking in the

36:07

really dramatic terms

36:09

to us, and in

36:11

probably the only way they can speak.

36:14

And I think we should listen,

36:16

and I think we should think

36:18

about what it is they're saying.

36:20

And it doesn't mean we should

36:22

believe what they're saying again. I

36:25

think deception is at the core

36:27

of the phenomenon. But I don't

36:29

think that deception is always human. It's

36:32

not about some

36:35

shady intelligence service

36:37

or military. Sometimes

36:39

the phenomenon itself is

36:41

presenting itself as other than

36:43

it is. But

36:46

that's very familiar to me.

36:49

In terms of religious experience,

36:51

I think religious experiences

36:53

are like this as well.

36:55

They're they're not what

36:57

they seem even though people

36:59

believe what they see

37:01

What might account for the

37:04

fact that encounters many

37:06

encounters with perceived aliens describe

37:08

creatures with similar physiology

37:10

Well, one of the things

37:12

that I've been Happily

37:14

challenged on and I mean

37:16

that is the physicality

37:18

of a lot of these

37:20

events, not all of

37:23

them, but there is a

37:25

kind of physical entity

37:27

component to these encounters that

37:29

really challenges, certainly my

37:31

own worldview, but I think

37:33

challenges most people's worldview. And

37:35

I think we tend to

37:37

think of entities or creatures

37:40

in organic or material terms, but

37:42

these are encounters with entities

37:44

that that are non -organic

37:46

or even non -material. And I

37:49

don't think we have a

37:51

way of integrating that. I

37:53

think we either call that

37:55

nutty or crazy or we

37:57

just say it didn't happen.

38:00

And this is, again, why I love these

38:02

experiences, because they clearly did happen. And

38:04

these people are being very honest and open

38:06

about it to their great detriment often. You

38:10

note throughout the book, Jeff, that

38:12

people who experience the impossible. Sometimes

38:14

describe the experience as being

38:16

more real than real. What

38:18

does that mean? It

38:21

means you know one

38:23

the way I end the

38:25

book is on this

38:27

notion of ontological shock and

38:29

The fundamental message at

38:31

least I get from talking

38:33

to hundreds and hundreds

38:36

of experiencers is that reality

38:38

is not what we

38:40

think it is and That

38:42

what is most shocking

38:44

emotionally, spiritually, existentially to them

38:46

is the encounter. It's

38:48

not always with an alien, by

38:50

the way. Sometimes it's not. But

38:53

they realize in a

38:55

very clear and direct way

38:57

that the material world

38:59

we assume to be the

39:01

full spectrum of reality,

39:04

it's just not. And

39:07

again, that's a very

39:09

philosophical and religious message.

39:12

that goes back thousands of years.

39:16

But I think we're not, particularly

39:18

because of our science and

39:20

technology, we're not always, we

39:23

can't always hear that. But

39:25

again, that doesn't mean it's not the case. It

39:27

just means we can't hear it. And

39:30

just to be clear, the real that

39:32

interests you is the first one in more

39:34

real than real, the one that feels

39:36

somehow more meaningful than what might be empirically

39:38

verified. So for

39:40

example, you know, For

39:44

example, a

39:46

number of contact experiencers

39:48

describe entities that

39:50

come out of nowhere,

39:53

come out of some other dimension or come

39:55

through the wall or something. That

39:58

just makes no sense if

40:00

you live in a three

40:02

-dimensional box, which is essentially

40:04

where we live in. So

40:07

you have to posit some kind

40:09

of some kind of multiple dimensions or

40:11

some kind of other universe that

40:13

they're popping through. And

40:15

so, can you empirically

40:17

verify that? No, you

40:20

cannot. And this is

40:22

why I always, frankly, roll my

40:24

eyes a bit when I hear the

40:26

call for empirical proof because I'm

40:28

like, you're just

40:30

using science to justify

40:32

your science. You're

40:34

just using one worldview to

40:36

prop up itself. But what

40:38

if that's not the full

40:41

world? What if that's part the

40:43

truth, but not the full truth? And the

40:45

image I always give is, look, you don't

40:47

go to the North Pole to prove the

40:49

existence of zebras. If

40:51

you go to the North

40:53

Pole to empirically verify zebras, guess

40:56

what you're gonna find every

40:58

time? There are no zebras. But

41:01

if you go to where

41:03

they actually live, In Africa you're

41:05

going to find lots of

41:07

zebras So this is this I

41:09

guess is what what I

41:11

think the experiences are trying to

41:13

tell us is that we

41:16

have to go to the the

41:18

environment and use different methods

41:20

and different ways of knowing so

41:22

that we can access these

41:24

other other dimensions of reality that

41:26

are not part of our

41:28

Our three -dimensional world not part

41:31

of our physics or mathematics. There's

41:33

something else Jeff How does

41:35

thinking impossibly remove limitations from our

41:37

thinking? Limitations that, you know,

41:39

as you've explained, sort of take

41:41

possibilities off the table. So

41:45

the main skill set

41:47

that I try to instill

41:49

in students in the

41:51

classroom is what we call

41:53

reflexivity. And that's

41:55

the ability to step

41:57

outside one's own thoughts

41:59

and beliefs and to

42:02

take on the worldview or the thoughts

42:04

and beliefs of someone else. But

42:08

I think impossible thinking

42:10

is even further than

42:12

that. It's a recognition

42:14

that all human thoughts

42:16

and human beliefs are

42:18

human. And they're not,

42:21

they're representations of reality, but

42:23

they're not reality. Let's not

42:25

confuse the map with the

42:27

territory, as we sometimes say. And

42:30

so I think impossible thinking

42:32

allows us, it

42:34

instills a kind of humility, but

42:37

also a kind of open -mindedness and

42:39

open -heartedness that I think is really

42:41

powerful here. But

42:43

what it doesn't land on,

42:45

Chris, is it doesn't provide certainty.

42:48

And I think that that's

42:50

where You

42:52

know, I think that's where a lot

42:54

of religion and a lot of

42:56

science and kick in you know people

42:58

want they want to be certain

43:00

they want thick walls They want high

43:02

walls. They don't they don't want

43:04

to live in this world where there

43:06

are no walls but There are

43:08

no walls in the world. I mean,

43:11

it's it's it's it's wide open

43:13

Well, that's really interesting because I think

43:15

people who have religious faith they

43:17

may not believe they can do anything

43:19

impossible themselves or experiencing experience

43:21

it, but they think

43:23

nothing is impossible with God.

43:26

But you're saying religious beliefs can

43:28

also limit our sense of what

43:30

is possible. Well, you just gave

43:33

a good example. They project that

43:35

superhuman ability outside themselves and posit

43:37

it in some kind of deity

43:39

or some kind of God -man, but

43:41

they won't own it themselves. you

43:44

know, when the impossible appears in

43:46

their own lives, they'll attribute it

43:48

to God or to some other

43:51

external deity, but they won't say

43:53

it's part of the human being.

43:57

And I think it is. I

43:59

think it's always, I think

44:01

what religion is is essentially a

44:03

projection of our own superhuman

44:05

nature outside ourselves into some kind

44:07

of deity or God or

44:09

being. What

44:11

does it mean for an

44:13

experience to be not supernatural,

44:17

not belief, not delusion, but

44:19

what you call ultra -natural?

44:24

So, I mean, I'm

44:26

not actually sure about

44:28

that line. I

44:31

do refer a lot to what I

44:33

call the supernatural, these

44:35

two words. And what I'm

44:37

trying to gloss is the

44:39

word paranormal in the French, which

44:41

was coined in 1903, to

44:43

try to get away from

44:45

what we were just talking about.

44:47

The supernatural is essentially to

44:50

project these abilities outside the human

44:52

being. And the example

44:54

I always give here is

44:56

the poltergeist. Poltergeist

44:58

phenomena, which are quite

45:00

common, our ancestors

45:03

often identified with noisy or

45:05

angry ghosts. There were spirits

45:07

in the house doing bad

45:09

things. And what

45:11

the researchers started to recognize

45:13

in the late 19th,

45:15

early 20th century is that

45:17

maybe there is no

45:19

ghost or spirit in the

45:21

house. this activity

45:24

is around what they call the

45:26

focal agent or a human being

45:28

who is suffering or being marginalized

45:30

in some way in the family

45:32

network or was a servant or

45:34

something. And so that's

45:36

a move from a religious

45:38

interpretation of a ghost or

45:40

a spirit to what I

45:42

would call a superhuman interpretation.

45:45

And what's interesting about that

45:47

is that the focal agent

45:49

almost never knows that

45:51

they are the focus of

45:53

and the source of the activity.

45:55

You have to posit some

45:58

kind of superhuman ability to exteriorize

46:00

itself, but it's camouflaging itself

46:02

in the form of religious phenomena.

46:05

There's a kind of ultra -natural

46:07

model of the poltergeist that

46:09

doesn't involve ghosts or spirits,

46:11

but it does involve human

46:13

beings who have these abilities

46:15

to exteriorize their emotion. Does

46:18

thinking impossibly get easier with

46:20

practice? I

46:24

think so. I

46:28

think impossibly quite

46:30

naturally, I suspect, but

46:33

I also feel very lonely.

46:35

It's a very lonely thing to

46:37

do. I think

46:39

most People don't think impossibly.

46:41

They're certain about some particular

46:43

model or explanation in worldview.

46:45

But I do think impossibly.

46:47

I think it gets easier.

46:50

Yes, to answer your question

46:52

in a clear way. It

46:54

doesn't mean it ever gets

46:56

easy, easy, or it comes to

46:59

some certainty or conclusion. I

47:01

guess that's what I want to

47:03

leave the audience with, is that

47:05

there is a kind of vulnerability

47:07

here. But I also think

47:09

it's an honesty and a good place

47:11

to be. Jeffrey Kreipel

47:13

holds the J. Newton Razor Chair

47:16

in Philosophy and Religious Thought at Rice

47:18

University. His new book is called

47:20

How to Think Impossibly, about souls, UFOs,

47:22

time, belief, and everything else. Jeff,

47:24

thank you for this conversation. Thank

47:27

you, Chris. I really do appreciate

47:29

it. Thank you. Think is

47:31

distributed by PRX, the Public Radio

47:33

Exchange. Again, I'm Chris Boyd.

47:35

Thanks for listening. Have a great day.