Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Faith Versus Science (1)
Content Versus Method
Before discussing faith and science*, I think it's first important to understand the difference between content and method. Content refers to the truth claims someone or something makes. Method, on the other hand, refers to the way that content was created or discovered.
Typically, we use a method to discover or establish our content. We don't normally make claims about reality based on the mere ideas we have in our head. We want them grounded in something outside ourselves.
For example, if I want to write a book on the history of garden gnomes, I'll probably go through some process to formulate the truth claims I want to make or include in my book. I might identify garden gnome experts, read their books, and select the information from these books that I want to include in my book. This process constitutes my method.
In the end, the published contents of my book represent the truth claims I am making about garden gnomes.
Pretty simple, right?
Potential for Conflict
With this difference in mind, it is easier to understand the ways in which faith and science may differ. Each may offer different content and each may offer a different method of truth.
This is not to say their content and method will necessarily conflict. Rather, their content and method may compliment one another or occupy entirely separate territory.
For instance, some people argue that the content and method of science concerns only our observable world (i.e. empirical truth), while the content and method of faith concerns only the un-observable world (i.e. spiritual truth).
If this argument is true, faith and science could not possibly conflict with one another. Here, science deals with observable reality using a method suited for it, while faith deals with un-observable reality using an equally suitable method.
The Overlap
Unfortunately, the former thinking is too simple. Sometimes the content of faith and science overlap. When this happens, their methods sometimes overlap as well.
For instance, religious texts and traditions often include claims about the observable world.
Opening up any Bible will demonstrate this pretty quickly. The creation of the world and the history of ancient Israel are reported in the Old Testament; The history of Jesus and the early church are reported in the New Testament; And, finally, observational truths are found throughout the entire Bible (e.g. Proverbs 14:15).
Here, we can see that faith sometimes includes claims about our observable world. It is not restricted to the un-observable spirit world.
Real Conflict
Because of this overlap with the observable world, we have real potential for conflict between faith and science. If faith dictates a particular version of our observable reality which conflicts with what we observe or discover through science, both can't be right.
For instance, if textual scholars claim that your religious Holy Book has been clearly altered or falsified based on the observable manuscript evidence, this presents a potential conflict between science and your faith. Similarly, if archeologists say the observable evidence they discover contradicts the history presented by your faith, we again have potential conflict. Finally, if scientists claim the earth is billions of years old but your religious Holy Book explicitly or implicitly suggests otherwise, we again have potential conflict.
Resolution
Now, this is not to say these potential conflicts cannot possibly be resolved. The content of science may change or be seen in a different light. Similarly, the content of faith may change or be seen in a different light.
However we handle these conflicts, we must first admit that there is real potential for them to exist. We must also admit that some conflicts may not be resolvable if we are honest with ourselves. There is no way of knowing until it occurs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I am using the term science broadly here to refer to any method employed by professionals in a field which has widely been believed to have advanced knowledge of our observable world. In contrast, faith is often only believed by its select constituents to have advanced knowledge. Often this knowledge concerns the unobservable world.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Raising Children with Religion
It Makes Sense
I get it. Parents want the best for their children. They want to point them in the right direction and help them develop spiritually.
If parents have the responsibility to teach their children practical life lessons like the need to wash hands, eat healthy, and obey the law, surely parents also have the responsibility to give their children spiritual guidance. What could be more important than this?
Being raised in a Christian home myself, this was my perspective for a time. While my perspective has changed, I'll say on the outset that I certainly don't see anything malicious in this practice. It makes sense.
Faith is Different
Having said that, I think we can all recognize some things about faith that sets it apart from the kind of practical knowledge we pass on to our children. Faith is deeply personal, subjective, and controversial, more so than any other aspect of life.
Most of us tend to view faith as something people must choose for themselves. I think most would even say that coercing, manipulating, or forcing people to accept our faith is wrong. Attempting to do either of these might only produce a false or impersonal conversion anyway.
Contrasting this with practical knowledge, imploring people to eat healthy and even preventing them from consuming certain foods via regulation is not considered a serious breach of personal freedom. There is no "freedom of consumption" clause or concern over the "separation of food and state". For faith, there are such concerns.
While faith is deeply subjective and personal, the general prohibition against consuming rat poison is not.
On Brainwashing
With this difference between faith and common knowledge in mind, it is easier to see why some would view the act of imposing our religious views on children as a violation of something deeply personal and subjective. It can take advantage of their ignorance and malleability as they are incapable of making an informed decision themselves. We are essentially making a faith-decision for them.
Further, we wouldn't drag a complete stranger off to church twice a week, make them pray before bed, make them celebrate our religious holidays, or coerce them to read our holy book each day. However, when that stranger is our child, we feel we have some right to do this.
When it comes to our child, we no longer treat faith as something each person must choose for themselves. We no longer treat faith as something each person can only choose for themselves. Rather, we view faith as something we can impart to them and hopefully make stick for life.
But I Give My Child a Choice!
I imagine there may be parents reading this who are saying that they do not "impose" their religious views onto their child. That sounds too forceful. Rather, you merely influence, encourage, or persuade your child into making the right faith-choice for themselves.
However, let's be honest. When we ask our eight-year-old child if they want to go to heaven with mommy and daddy, be forgiven of all their bad behavior, and avoid going to hell, are we really giving them a choice? How many eight-year-old children would genuinely say no to any of that?
Children have very few options. They have very little ability or reason to doubt whatever someone tells them is true. Giving them an option between your belief in something wonderful and your belief in something horrible pretty much dictates their choice. There are no real faith options on the table. We are manipulating their personal choice in faith.
But They Can Change When They're Older!
In light of manipulating a child's faith choices, you might argue that your child can make a more personal and informed decision when they're older. So whatever you do now doesn't matter. No harm, no foul. You're merely giving them an advantage by cultivating the right conclusion in their minds while they're young.
Once again, I don't think this is a very honest argument. In the least, this isn't a very thoughtful or informed argument.
By successfully manipulating your child into carrying your religious beliefs, convictions, and fears, you're making it very difficult for them to make a personal decision on faith when they're older. You've made it part of their identity and part of what defines your family as a whole. It is emotionally binding. That is to say, the manipulation continues well after adolescence.
Not many people are comfortable distressing or disowning the family they love over religion. Not many people are comfortable losing an identity their family has cultivated in them since childhood. This would explain why hereditary religion has so much sticking power.
Viewing a map of the world by religious population and reviewing statistics on the traits of hereditary religion make it pretty clear that whatever religion you make your child believe when they're young, it generally sticks for life. Even if they fall away from it, they'll come back before converting to anything else. So, ultimately, we're still dictating the religious views of our children. There is very little choosing going on in the world when it comes to hereditary religion.
My Perspective
I don't think there's anything wrong in telling our children what we believe and why we believe it. There's also nothing wrong in telling our children why we think the rest of the world is wrong on the matter of faith.
What I do think is wrong is intentionally trying to impart our religious convictions onto our adolescent children. No matter how you do it, this takes advantage of their uncritical and malleable state of mind. I think it is also wrong to make them feel that there is only one religious identity or choice you will accept from them in life. By doing this, we're making a decision for them and giving them no real freedom in life to make a decision for themselves. It is emotionally manipulative, whether we intend it to be or not.
We don't emotionally coerce other people's choice of faith and we shouldn't do it to our children.
Instead, I think we have a responsibility to prepare our children to make a personal decision on faith when they are mature. Give them all the information and tools you think they need. Give them your personal conclusion as well. But assure them that the decision is theirs to make when they are older. Tell them you'll accept their decision as best you can but hope they accept the truth you found.
As I see it, anything less than this is manipulative and sets them up for some huge scars should they ever feel called to forge their own path later in life.
I get it. Parents want the best for their children. They want to point them in the right direction and help them develop spiritually.
If parents have the responsibility to teach their children practical life lessons like the need to wash hands, eat healthy, and obey the law, surely parents also have the responsibility to give their children spiritual guidance. What could be more important than this?
Being raised in a Christian home myself, this was my perspective for a time. While my perspective has changed, I'll say on the outset that I certainly don't see anything malicious in this practice. It makes sense.
Faith is Different
Having said that, I think we can all recognize some things about faith that sets it apart from the kind of practical knowledge we pass on to our children. Faith is deeply personal, subjective, and controversial, more so than any other aspect of life.
Most of us tend to view faith as something people must choose for themselves. I think most would even say that coercing, manipulating, or forcing people to accept our faith is wrong. Attempting to do either of these might only produce a false or impersonal conversion anyway.
Contrasting this with practical knowledge, imploring people to eat healthy and even preventing them from consuming certain foods via regulation is not considered a serious breach of personal freedom. There is no "freedom of consumption" clause or concern over the "separation of food and state". For faith, there are such concerns.
While faith is deeply subjective and personal, the general prohibition against consuming rat poison is not.
On Brainwashing
With this difference between faith and common knowledge in mind, it is easier to see why some would view the act of imposing our religious views on children as a violation of something deeply personal and subjective. It can take advantage of their ignorance and malleability as they are incapable of making an informed decision themselves. We are essentially making a faith-decision for them.
Further, we wouldn't drag a complete stranger off to church twice a week, make them pray before bed, make them celebrate our religious holidays, or coerce them to read our holy book each day. However, when that stranger is our child, we feel we have some right to do this.
When it comes to our child, we no longer treat faith as something each person must choose for themselves. We no longer treat faith as something each person can only choose for themselves. Rather, we view faith as something we can impart to them and hopefully make stick for life.
But I Give My Child a Choice!
I imagine there may be parents reading this who are saying that they do not "impose" their religious views onto their child. That sounds too forceful. Rather, you merely influence, encourage, or persuade your child into making the right faith-choice for themselves.
However, let's be honest. When we ask our eight-year-old child if they want to go to heaven with mommy and daddy, be forgiven of all their bad behavior, and avoid going to hell, are we really giving them a choice? How many eight-year-old children would genuinely say no to any of that?
Children have very few options. They have very little ability or reason to doubt whatever someone tells them is true. Giving them an option between your belief in something wonderful and your belief in something horrible pretty much dictates their choice. There are no real faith options on the table. We are manipulating their personal choice in faith.
But They Can Change When They're Older!
In light of manipulating a child's faith choices, you might argue that your child can make a more personal and informed decision when they're older. So whatever you do now doesn't matter. No harm, no foul. You're merely giving them an advantage by cultivating the right conclusion in their minds while they're young.
Once again, I don't think this is a very honest argument. In the least, this isn't a very thoughtful or informed argument.
By successfully manipulating your child into carrying your religious beliefs, convictions, and fears, you're making it very difficult for them to make a personal decision on faith when they're older. You've made it part of their identity and part of what defines your family as a whole. It is emotionally binding. That is to say, the manipulation continues well after adolescence.
Not many people are comfortable distressing or disowning the family they love over religion. Not many people are comfortable losing an identity their family has cultivated in them since childhood. This would explain why hereditary religion has so much sticking power.
Viewing a map of the world by religious population and reviewing statistics on the traits of hereditary religion make it pretty clear that whatever religion you make your child believe when they're young, it generally sticks for life. Even if they fall away from it, they'll come back before converting to anything else. So, ultimately, we're still dictating the religious views of our children. There is very little choosing going on in the world when it comes to hereditary religion.
My Perspective
I don't think there's anything wrong in telling our children what we believe and why we believe it. There's also nothing wrong in telling our children why we think the rest of the world is wrong on the matter of faith.
What I do think is wrong is intentionally trying to impart our religious convictions onto our adolescent children. No matter how you do it, this takes advantage of their uncritical and malleable state of mind. I think it is also wrong to make them feel that there is only one religious identity or choice you will accept from them in life. By doing this, we're making a decision for them and giving them no real freedom in life to make a decision for themselves. It is emotionally manipulative, whether we intend it to be or not.
We don't emotionally coerce other people's choice of faith and we shouldn't do it to our children.
Instead, I think we have a responsibility to prepare our children to make a personal decision on faith when they are mature. Give them all the information and tools you think they need. Give them your personal conclusion as well. But assure them that the decision is theirs to make when they are older. Tell them you'll accept their decision as best you can but hope they accept the truth you found.
As I see it, anything less than this is manipulative and sets them up for some huge scars should they ever feel called to forge their own path later in life.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Life as an Extreme Introvert (1)
Big Picture
Introverts can be pretty weird. I can attest to that first hand (and I'm not proud of it). We just don't fit in with our largely extroverted society. Our interests and social skills are typically narrower, often causing a range of both apparent and very real problems when interacting with others.
But naming any particular introverted qualities might be painting with a broad brush. There are a number of characteristics which could be associated with introversion and each would come in degrees. There are, however, a few characteristics typically named which give people a rough idea as to which direction we lean. The highlights typically include:
1. Small talk is stressful for us
2. We write better than we talk
3. We're easily distracted
4. Details are very important to us
5. We have a few select interests in life
6. We choose stability over adventure
7. We prefer a few close friends to many acquaintances
8. Crowds either make us feel lonely or overwhelmed
9. Our lack of socializing is mistaken for depression or a lack of confidence
Disabilities, Strengths, and Challenges
Some view introversion as a disability. Others see strengths in it. I imagine it's a bit of both. Our inability to freely and rapidly interact with the world on many fronts cause us to focus our attention on a few select areas in life where we hone our skills. And because we cannot find happiness in rapid changes of scenery, we look for happiness in things which are more stable.
The challenge for us introverts is in coming to accept that we'll never be the person we might want to be. The more aware we become of our limitations and the more aware we become of how much adventure passes us by, the more difficult it can be to accept the direction we're headed in life. We can feel overwhelmingly isolated and disappointed as we watch the world go by without us. If we're not fortunate enough to have people in our life who understand and value our uniqueness, depression can be a way of life.
Of course, we might also be fortunate enough not to notice our differences or care much at all. I certainly know some who are blessed with this sweet ignorance.
Small Picture
I write all this with a twinge of pain. It took me years to realize the extent of my introversion and, in some ways, I wish I'd never known. My ideal self and my actual self are universes apart. I've never been able to accept this.
As a result of my particular characteristics, I've had to let virtually every relationship in my life die a slow, natural death. I've had to avoid people as much as possible. It was too painful being reminded of what I was and it was too painful to watch myself systematically derail otherwise normal interactions with people. A relationship was nothing more than something for me to probably screw up. The concentration and effort alone it took to survive small talk without making a stupid mistake was almost unbearable.
Now, I don't mean to play the tiny violin here. I just think some should know what introversion can be like –at least in my case. I think back on all the friendships I lost and imagine they never understood why I couldn't or wouldn't reciprocate. It wasn't because I didn't like them. It was because I was afraid of screwing up. The effort and commitment involved was high, and it often ended in disappointment no matter how hard I tried.
There are other factors involved, but this "fear of commitment" is a big one. And not to end on such a low note, I certainly haven't given up on relationships. It's a work in progress. People are great, introversion is sometimes not.
Introverts can be pretty weird. I can attest to that first hand (and I'm not proud of it). We just don't fit in with our largely extroverted society. Our interests and social skills are typically narrower, often causing a range of both apparent and very real problems when interacting with others.
But naming any particular introverted qualities might be painting with a broad brush. There are a number of characteristics which could be associated with introversion and each would come in degrees. There are, however, a few characteristics typically named which give people a rough idea as to which direction we lean. The highlights typically include:
1. Small talk is stressful for us
2. We write better than we talk
3. We're easily distracted
4. Details are very important to us
5. We have a few select interests in life
6. We choose stability over adventure
7. We prefer a few close friends to many acquaintances
8. Crowds either make us feel lonely or overwhelmed
9. Our lack of socializing is mistaken for depression or a lack of confidence
Disabilities, Strengths, and Challenges
Some view introversion as a disability. Others see strengths in it. I imagine it's a bit of both. Our inability to freely and rapidly interact with the world on many fronts cause us to focus our attention on a few select areas in life where we hone our skills. And because we cannot find happiness in rapid changes of scenery, we look for happiness in things which are more stable.
The challenge for us introverts is in coming to accept that we'll never be the person we might want to be. The more aware we become of our limitations and the more aware we become of how much adventure passes us by, the more difficult it can be to accept the direction we're headed in life. We can feel overwhelmingly isolated and disappointed as we watch the world go by without us. If we're not fortunate enough to have people in our life who understand and value our uniqueness, depression can be a way of life.
Of course, we might also be fortunate enough not to notice our differences or care much at all. I certainly know some who are blessed with this sweet ignorance.
Small Picture
I write all this with a twinge of pain. It took me years to realize the extent of my introversion and, in some ways, I wish I'd never known. My ideal self and my actual self are universes apart. I've never been able to accept this.
As a result of my particular characteristics, I've had to let virtually every relationship in my life die a slow, natural death. I've had to avoid people as much as possible. It was too painful being reminded of what I was and it was too painful to watch myself systematically derail otherwise normal interactions with people. A relationship was nothing more than something for me to probably screw up. The concentration and effort alone it took to survive small talk without making a stupid mistake was almost unbearable.
Now, I don't mean to play the tiny violin here. I just think some should know what introversion can be like –at least in my case. I think back on all the friendships I lost and imagine they never understood why I couldn't or wouldn't reciprocate. It wasn't because I didn't like them. It was because I was afraid of screwing up. The effort and commitment involved was high, and it often ended in disappointment no matter how hard I tried.
There are other factors involved, but this "fear of commitment" is a big one. And not to end on such a low note, I certainly haven't given up on relationships. It's a work in progress. People are great, introversion is sometimes not.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Why I Write
Priority Number 1
I don't consider the things I write about to be anything new or groundbreaking. Nor do I offer fresh perspectives or nuanced opinions. That isn't my goal. I think we're already immersed enough with new ideas, controversies, and events. We'll never be short on these.
What I think we lack most is clarity on a fundamental level. We lack a basic understanding of the issues. We also lack an interest in intellectual growth.
Too many of us think we have it all figured out and too many of us oversimplify the issues. We have very little incentive to reevaluate our convictions and make room for growth. As a result, the gap between laity and scholarship continues to widen and opposing extremes continue to develop between us.
Alarmist Thinking
From my perspective, if we don't make an effort to bridge this gap, we can only look forward to more societal dissonance and frustration. Our future will be filled with more pious dogmatism from both sides clogging up the system and making cooperation impossible.
While scholarship is busy advancing society behind closed doors, I don't believe their ivory towers can withstand the force of an angry mob. It only takes one event to trigger panic, causing doors to slam shut on progress. I think we've seen this happen numerous times. It's happening right now.
While many trust society to slowly advance forward despite all the kicking and screaming in between, it's not something I'm willing to gamble on. Will we ultimately overcome our fear, apathy, and selfishness? Or will the pendulum of human progress continue to swing back and forth, only on more advanced platforms?
Further, how much time do have left to get our shit together? Does the forecast predict clear skies and sustainability for the next three hundred years? Does anybody know?
I don't want to say "The End is Nigh", but I also don't want to assume we have an unlimited number of attempts to get humanity pointed in the right direction. I think the more education and curiosity we pump out into the system, the better our chances.
I don't consider the things I write about to be anything new or groundbreaking. Nor do I offer fresh perspectives or nuanced opinions. That isn't my goal. I think we're already immersed enough with new ideas, controversies, and events. We'll never be short on these.
What I think we lack most is clarity on a fundamental level. We lack a basic understanding of the issues. We also lack an interest in intellectual growth.
Too many of us think we have it all figured out and too many of us oversimplify the issues. We have very little incentive to reevaluate our convictions and make room for growth. As a result, the gap between laity and scholarship continues to widen and opposing extremes continue to develop between us.
Alarmist Thinking
From my perspective, if we don't make an effort to bridge this gap, we can only look forward to more societal dissonance and frustration. Our future will be filled with more pious dogmatism from both sides clogging up the system and making cooperation impossible.
While scholarship is busy advancing society behind closed doors, I don't believe their ivory towers can withstand the force of an angry mob. It only takes one event to trigger panic, causing doors to slam shut on progress. I think we've seen this happen numerous times. It's happening right now.
While many trust society to slowly advance forward despite all the kicking and screaming in between, it's not something I'm willing to gamble on. Will we ultimately overcome our fear, apathy, and selfishness? Or will the pendulum of human progress continue to swing back and forth, only on more advanced platforms?
Further, how much time do have left to get our shit together? Does the forecast predict clear skies and sustainability for the next three hundred years? Does anybody know?
I don't want to say "The End is Nigh", but I also don't want to assume we have an unlimited number of attempts to get humanity pointed in the right direction. I think the more education and curiosity we pump out into the system, the better our chances.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Clearing the Air on Marijuana
Immoral Behavior
Let’s get one thing straight. Marijuana, like any other
substance or object on this earth, is not good or bad in itself. Inanimate objects
are nonmoral. We can all agree to
this at least, right? Just as guns can be used for good or bad purposes, marijuana
can also be used for good or bad purposes.
(Need it be said that Marijuana has several different uses
beside recreation.)
Further, I think we can also agree that consuming marijuana
is not, in itself, an immoral act. Whether it’s used for medicinal purposes or to
achieve relaxation, no one is directly, immediately, or permanently injured by
its use. (At least, no more than a thousand other acceptable things we do to
ourselves.)
Consuming marijuana, like the consumption of any other
substance, becomes immoral depending on the way we use it. Similarly, just as
pain killers can be used responsibly, they can also become an addiction which begins
to cost us personally and cost those who depend on us.
Moderation versus Extremism
When does consuming a substance like marijuana become moral or immoral? I tend to agree with Aristotle on this one (please excuse the
pretentious reference): Moderation, guided by wisdom, can lead us to a prosperous
life. That is to say, determining unhealthy extremes for ourselves demarcates appropriate
and inappropriate behavior.
Incidentally, this also happens to be a theme exhibited in
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and several other religious and secular philosophies.
Simply put, the use of a substance becomes inappropriate when
we abuse it. When we allow it to alter our priorities, degrade our health, ruin
our relationships, jeopardize our integrity, impact our choices, and make us unnecessarily dependent on it… we’ve gone too far. However, it is possible to use any substance (alcohol
and pain medication included) responsibly.
The Domino Argument
I know what you’re thinking. What about the addiction factor?
What about the domino effect? How can we expect people to resist such a
tempting extreme or keep their defenses strong against other potential addictions?
It’s an important question. If something radically interferes
with our judgment and necessarily diminishes our sense of self-control, it’s
dangerous. It’s hard to imagine how we could use such a thing responsibly.
However, the question remains, is marijuana one of those things? Does any consistent use of marijuana, in whatever portion, lead to
an eventual breakdown of self-control? Does it dramatically alter our judgment
in a way that is dangerous?
Many would answer this question by relying on either gut
instinct, anecdotal accounts, or isolated reports they happened to stumble upon.
Some might even be ambitious enough to visit Google and type in the words “reasons
marijuana is bad”. However, both groups haven’t really done their homework and their motives are questionable. We’re gonna have to roll up our sleeves and survey
all the available research if we really want to have an informed opinion.
Research
...Yea, I’m not about to compile all that for you. But I can give
you a hint on what you’ll probably find. You’ll find some studies supporting your view,
and some against it. Nothing unusual there. However, to date, it seems most
research concludes marijuana is generally safe. In the least, it’s far less
dangerous than alcohol, and if that hasn’t already brought society to it's knees, I don’t know what would.
But have no fear concerned parents! Research doesn’t yield
indisputable truths. It merely provides us with the best information available to date. Research will probably
continue. That’s the nature of science.
The important point is to acknowledge the scientific consensus,
include it within our assessment, and reserve at least a little bit of skepticism
for the conclusions both we and the scientific community formulate. Digging in our
heels and insisting we know better than every professional in the field puts us
one step away from the anti-vaccine movement, and two steps away from the
Westboro Baptist folks. Simple-minded dogmatism sucks.
Morality and the Law
Whatever our conclusion about marijuana, I think it’s
important we recognize the distinction between what the law permits and what we
actually consider moral. Morality and the law are not synonymous. They serve
different purposes. What our government fails to criminalize is not a statement
about what our government deems moral.
Sometimes we criminalize things that aren’t immoral by any
standard (e.g. building fires in your backyard or lighting off fireworks.)
Other times, we deliberately fail to criminalize an act we all agree is immoral.
For instance, we do not criminalize gluttony, laziness,
arrogance, or divorce yet many people would consider these immoral qualities
and behaviors. Many religious types would consider blaspheming their deity or
rejecting conversion immoral, but they do not insist that the government criminalize
such actions (at least not nowadays and not in this part of the world, thank
the Good Lord).
We make room for certain personal freedoms for many reasons.
Sometimes it’s simply impractical or superfluous to criminalize an immoral
behavior. We can’t exhaust our resources attempting to beat everyone into
perfection (as if that would work). Other times, criminalizing an immoral
behavior incites even more immorality or makes our living conditions even
worse. The balance between enforcing personal morality and actually improving the world is a hard one to strike.
Ultimately, whether or not you personally determine all uses
of recreational marijuana to be immoral, consider the fact that the law is here
to make life better for everyone. It is not here to futility exhaust resources
in attempting to beat everyone into our ideal moral mold. Sometimes a compromise is in everyone's best interest.
My Conclusion
Officially introducing the freedom to smoke marijuana
may put one more potential addiction or vice on the table for everyone, but the
evidence suggests it’s far less of a concern than a dozen others things which
have been on the table for much longer. We may ultimately determine it is not good
for society as a whole, but we have little reason to demonize it at this point.
Further, cultivating self-control in ourselves and in our
children has always been a challenging task and far from an exact science. If
we can maneuver ourselves around a dozen other worse obstacles towards this
goal, we’ve probably got a fighting chance. This is not to say marijuana is of
no concern. But we’ll need better evidence than the proverbial, “It’s bad, Mkay.”
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Everything Wrong with Dogma
The Problem of Dogma
I've made the mistake before of calling religious people dogmatic without qualification and this has unfortunately given me the appearance of being jaded towards them. They see me as painting the faithful with a broad brush, discounting all the gentle and respectable church folk who have no intention of pushing their religious views on others.
The word dogmatism conjures up images of rude, pushy, and brash people who simply can't take in criticism or advice. We might be reminded of Westboro Baptist proponents or Muslim Jihadists, for example. We see them as being so engorged with hatred that they simply cannot be reasoned with.
However, in reality, dogmatism isn't so much a bad attitude or a particular outlook on life. It's an approach to the truth. It's a belief we hold about ourselves on how we access or relate to the truth. It's a belief we can hold quietly or loudly, innocently or viciously.
My Definition
Dogmatism, as I use the term, refers to the belief that we can intuit or recognize the truth instinctively. It is a deep trust in oneself. It is a belief that our powers of perception are sufficient.
Where we claim to discover truth is not important. We may find truth within ourselves. We may find it in the world around us. We may also claim to find it through spiritual revelation. But the important part is, when we see it, we know it is the truth. We trust our internal truth-compass. Unless something else comes along and smacks us upside the head, we usually stick with what we've discovered.
This may sound an awful lot like merely having an opinion, but the key difference is in the amount of confidence we invest into an opinion versus a truth. We hold opinions tentatively. We recognize the gap between our perception and reality. However, dogmatism causes us to consider our perceptions as being virtually synonymous with reality. Here, we are comfortable holding on to our perceptions tightly, without concern for what alternatives might be out there.
Fundamentally, dogmatism is the state of ignoring our fallibility, ignoring the multitude of possibilities in the world, and being unmotivated to look any further as a result. We are no longer critically evaluating ourselves and seeking out new possibilities. We are satisfied, confident in our initial perception, and we are stagnant.
Shortsightedness
As I see it, this approach to the truth is the root of so much human shortsightedness, limitation, stagnation, and stubbornness. We dig a trench too soon because the ground just feels right for it. We can't accept the possibility that our fundamental values and intuitions about the world could truly be wrong. They seem so right, and that is good enough for us.
Thus, the world remains in stalemate. We can only achieve so much cooperation, compromise, and creativity because so many of us can't give up our fundamental feeling of being right. We see no need to leave our comfort zone and look around for more once we've found what we think we're looking for. Worse, some of us are engaged in trying to bring the whole world into the little trench we've dug for ourselves.
Spirituality
Bringing this back home, religion and other kinds of mysticism are often heavily fortified by dogmatism, from my perspective. Granted, this is not the case for all religion. But certainly Christianity would be a prime example of one. Aside from its blatant reliance on subjective spiritual affirmations –the weakest of all approaches to truth– it encourages members to dig their trenches deeper. It encourages more faith.
It sounds like a very pious thing to place more faith in the deity, but what believers are really being asked to do, is place more faith in themselves. That is to say, believers are encouraged to abandon concerns over their fallibility and turn a blind eye to possibility. They need to focus on being right in their view of God. If they were to consider their fallibility and consider alternative views on reality, doubt would be the result. And that's very bad for faith.
Christianity, like many other religions, encourages dogmatism. It does so under the guise of piousness and humility. "Believe more, consider other alternatives less." If this were not the case, church would be a research center, not a place where people encourage each other to hold on to a conclusion till the point of death.
I've made the mistake before of calling religious people dogmatic without qualification and this has unfortunately given me the appearance of being jaded towards them. They see me as painting the faithful with a broad brush, discounting all the gentle and respectable church folk who have no intention of pushing their religious views on others.
The word dogmatism conjures up images of rude, pushy, and brash people who simply can't take in criticism or advice. We might be reminded of Westboro Baptist proponents or Muslim Jihadists, for example. We see them as being so engorged with hatred that they simply cannot be reasoned with.
However, in reality, dogmatism isn't so much a bad attitude or a particular outlook on life. It's an approach to the truth. It's a belief we hold about ourselves on how we access or relate to the truth. It's a belief we can hold quietly or loudly, innocently or viciously.
My Definition
Dogmatism, as I use the term, refers to the belief that we can intuit or recognize the truth instinctively. It is a deep trust in oneself. It is a belief that our powers of perception are sufficient.
Where we claim to discover truth is not important. We may find truth within ourselves. We may find it in the world around us. We may also claim to find it through spiritual revelation. But the important part is, when we see it, we know it is the truth. We trust our internal truth-compass. Unless something else comes along and smacks us upside the head, we usually stick with what we've discovered.
This may sound an awful lot like merely having an opinion, but the key difference is in the amount of confidence we invest into an opinion versus a truth. We hold opinions tentatively. We recognize the gap between our perception and reality. However, dogmatism causes us to consider our perceptions as being virtually synonymous with reality. Here, we are comfortable holding on to our perceptions tightly, without concern for what alternatives might be out there.
Fundamentally, dogmatism is the state of ignoring our fallibility, ignoring the multitude of possibilities in the world, and being unmotivated to look any further as a result. We are no longer critically evaluating ourselves and seeking out new possibilities. We are satisfied, confident in our initial perception, and we are stagnant.
Shortsightedness
As I see it, this approach to the truth is the root of so much human shortsightedness, limitation, stagnation, and stubbornness. We dig a trench too soon because the ground just feels right for it. We can't accept the possibility that our fundamental values and intuitions about the world could truly be wrong. They seem so right, and that is good enough for us.
Thus, the world remains in stalemate. We can only achieve so much cooperation, compromise, and creativity because so many of us can't give up our fundamental feeling of being right. We see no need to leave our comfort zone and look around for more once we've found what we think we're looking for. Worse, some of us are engaged in trying to bring the whole world into the little trench we've dug for ourselves.
Spirituality
Bringing this back home, religion and other kinds of mysticism are often heavily fortified by dogmatism, from my perspective. Granted, this is not the case for all religion. But certainly Christianity would be a prime example of one. Aside from its blatant reliance on subjective spiritual affirmations –the weakest of all approaches to truth– it encourages members to dig their trenches deeper. It encourages more faith.
It sounds like a very pious thing to place more faith in the deity, but what believers are really being asked to do, is place more faith in themselves. That is to say, believers are encouraged to abandon concerns over their fallibility and turn a blind eye to possibility. They need to focus on being right in their view of God. If they were to consider their fallibility and consider alternative views on reality, doubt would be the result. And that's very bad for faith.
Christianity, like many other religions, encourages dogmatism. It does so under the guise of piousness and humility. "Believe more, consider other alternatives less." If this were not the case, church would be a research center, not a place where people encourage each other to hold on to a conclusion till the point of death.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Proud to Be an American
Extremes
I struggled a long time with my position on nationalism and patriotism. On the one extreme, I knew people who seemed to blindly worship their nation, considering its every defender a hero, and refusing to consider the possibility that its people were not as morally superior and high-minded as they believed themselves to be. On the other extreme, there were those who seemed committed to finding fault or who didn't care either way.
I knew there was plenty of good here in my home country which deserved credit, but I wasn't sure what it meant to pledge my allegiance to the nation as a whole. Would I be embracing everything it stands for and everything it has done historically? Would I be pledging allegiance to a contrived human institution? Would I be placing this contrived institution on a pedestal, further deepening human tribalism and segregation?
I knew my nation wasn't perfect. I knew it had done things and will continue to do things which are morally questionable. The U.S. does have a lot of blood on its hands, like it or not. Yet we also have some great ideals here. We are rights-oriented, and our internal struggle to maintain and reproduce values like these is proof that our democracy and philosophy hasn't been broken quite yet. Whatever our level of corruption (compared to that of any other), we still have a good number of people here trying to make a positive difference in the world.
My Conclusion
Taking the good with the bad, my personal conclusion was intended to be a moderate one. I wouldn't blindly pledge allegiance to my country or take pride in merely being part of it by the sheerest of accidents. Nor would I assume we were morally superior. There's some good here and there's some bad here. How much of each, I'll never know.
My commitment to this country, or rather my patriotism, is conditional. That is to say, insofar as my nation supports me, gives me due process, and does the same for others, I will support my nation and give it due process. Just as it holds me responsible for my injustices, I will hold it responsible for its injustices.
My commitment to this country is also familial. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius noted long ago, our nation is our extended family. It supports and provides for us in many ways and we, in turn, support and provide for it. That seems fair enough. And, not to discount the rest of the world here, I would also hope more and more that we view the international community as our extended family. I am also committed to this goal.
With this reasoning in mind, I can say in good conscience that I pledge allegiance to the flag. It's a commitment to a people and a system which are, at this time, committed to me and at least some of my ideals. Admittedly, I have to stop short of the 1954 addendum, but that's a matter for another post.
I struggled a long time with my position on nationalism and patriotism. On the one extreme, I knew people who seemed to blindly worship their nation, considering its every defender a hero, and refusing to consider the possibility that its people were not as morally superior and high-minded as they believed themselves to be. On the other extreme, there were those who seemed committed to finding fault or who didn't care either way.
I knew there was plenty of good here in my home country which deserved credit, but I wasn't sure what it meant to pledge my allegiance to the nation as a whole. Would I be embracing everything it stands for and everything it has done historically? Would I be pledging allegiance to a contrived human institution? Would I be placing this contrived institution on a pedestal, further deepening human tribalism and segregation?
I knew my nation wasn't perfect. I knew it had done things and will continue to do things which are morally questionable. The U.S. does have a lot of blood on its hands, like it or not. Yet we also have some great ideals here. We are rights-oriented, and our internal struggle to maintain and reproduce values like these is proof that our democracy and philosophy hasn't been broken quite yet. Whatever our level of corruption (compared to that of any other), we still have a good number of people here trying to make a positive difference in the world.
My Conclusion
Taking the good with the bad, my personal conclusion was intended to be a moderate one. I wouldn't blindly pledge allegiance to my country or take pride in merely being part of it by the sheerest of accidents. Nor would I assume we were morally superior. There's some good here and there's some bad here. How much of each, I'll never know.
My commitment to this country, or rather my patriotism, is conditional. That is to say, insofar as my nation supports me, gives me due process, and does the same for others, I will support my nation and give it due process. Just as it holds me responsible for my injustices, I will hold it responsible for its injustices.
My commitment to this country is also familial. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius noted long ago, our nation is our extended family. It supports and provides for us in many ways and we, in turn, support and provide for it. That seems fair enough. And, not to discount the rest of the world here, I would also hope more and more that we view the international community as our extended family. I am also committed to this goal.
With this reasoning in mind, I can say in good conscience that I pledge allegiance to the flag. It's a commitment to a people and a system which are, at this time, committed to me and at least some of my ideals. Admittedly, I have to stop short of the 1954 addendum, but that's a matter for another post.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Free Will vs Determinism
Common Sense!
Presumably, from the time we are born, most of us are inclined to believe that we are, in some sense, free. That is to say, we believe that we control our thoughts and decisions from start to finish. We believe we have the power to create new thoughts, dwell on old thoughts, or act on our thoughts.
Because of this belief, we hold people responsible for their behavior. No one else is to blame for the decisions people make or the mental process that leads up to them. Each of us have the power to choose whether to think or to act on something.
Common Sense?
To the surprise of many, plenty of people in the world have come to reject this instinctive belief in some form. They do not believe people have this power. Rather, they believe people are either partially and entirely programmed by things beyond their immediate control. These "programming influences" or deterministic factors are believed to include things like culture, psychology, spirituality, personal experiences, economics, history, and, ultimately, the laws of nature.
Because of this belief, some people come to the conclusion that we are either only partially responsible for our decisions or that we are not responsible for them at all. However, others still believe that, despite being programmed, people can rightfully be held responsible for their decisions. (Spoiler Alert: I'm one of those people.)
Three Views of the World
More formally, these notions of human freedom (or lack of freedom) are subsumed within three distinct views of the world:
1. Hard Determinism
All events in reality are caused. True randomness does not exist. All events can, in theory, be predicted by some fundamental rule or law. (This implies that our decisions are caused by rules or laws beyond our control.)
2. Soft Determinism
This view holds that, while virtually all events in reality are caused, the human mind is capable of producing at least some decisions on its own, without any prior causes to explain them.
3. Indeterminism
This view holds that not everything in reality is causal. There is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in reality that can't be predicted or determined by any rule or law. (This implies that our decisions, among other things, may be fundamentally random.)
My View
As indicated previously, I'm inclined to embrace the view of hard determinism. That is to say, I think every event in reality, including our decisions, can be explained by a cause. In other words, I think there is a reason for everything that happens in the most literal sense possible. Nothing is truly random. Nor do our minds create or initiate decisions out of nothing. They are caused just like everything else.
I won't get into the heady details of why I think this. However, I'll offer some analogies which might resonate with you and show where I'm coming from.
Example 1
If I receive a phone call from a friend who tells me that they've arrived at the airport, I have the good sense to assume my friend has departed from somewhere else to get there. If my friend insists that they have arrived but that they never actually departed from anywhere, I no longer know what they are talking about. Their words are, to me, meaningless.
Similarly, I don't know what it means to say that our thoughts and intentions arrive in our mind without something bringing them there. (If we say "we bring them there", we must then ask where we brought them from and how we got them there. Thus, we find ourselves explaining the causal events leading up to our thoughts and decisions whether we like it or not.)
Example 2
One other example theists might appreciate concerns how theists commonly (and mistakenly) view atheism:
Sounds absurd, doesn't it? I agree! Out of nothing, comes nothing!
Similarly, to believe that our mind can generate new thoughts and decisions out of nothing and for no specific casual reason is, to me, tantamount to believing that the universe can pop into existence out of nothing and for no specific causal reason.
In What Sense Are We Responsible?
The question then remains for hard determinists like me: "But if we are programmed to think and act the way we do, in what sense are we responsible for our decisions?"
Great question! It does seem troubling, doesn't it? I agree that, if hard determinism is true, people cannot be held responsible for their decisions, in the sense that they are not the creators of their decisions. However, I think people can be held responsible for their decisions, in the sense that they are the agents of their decisions.
Confused?
In other words, I don't hold a serial killer responsible for all the things that systematically made them a serial killer. However, I do hold them responsible for being a serial killer. They are the ones with malicious intentions and they are the ones taking enjoyment in murder, regardless of whether or not they ultimately caused their condition. It is this state of having malicious intentions and taking enjoyment in the needless suffering of others which I consider evil and potentially deserving of punishment. It is not the decisions leading up to this state which matter.
(Please note that this is my view on how determinism relates with human responsibility. It is not necessarily held by every hard determinist.)
The implications of hard determinism and how it relates with the proper distribution of punishment and reward is a whole different topic of discussion. Maybe I'll give my take on that in the future.
Concluding Remarks
Needless to say, this whole subject can seem pretty complicated at first. In some ways, it is complicated, and in some ways, it isn't. Like anything else, once we familiarize ourselves with the concepts and terms, things become clearer and simpler over time as they work away in the back of our mind.
The question of human freedom is an important one to face if we want to properly understand what we can hold humans responsible for and what we can expect from them morally. Sometimes conclusions on this subject have deep implications for other areas of our thinking. Sometimes they impact our views on theology, ethics, or politics. They may even impact how we view our justice system.
Presumably, from the time we are born, most of us are inclined to believe that we are, in some sense, free. That is to say, we believe that we control our thoughts and decisions from start to finish. We believe we have the power to create new thoughts, dwell on old thoughts, or act on our thoughts.
Because of this belief, we hold people responsible for their behavior. No one else is to blame for the decisions people make or the mental process that leads up to them. Each of us have the power to choose whether to think or to act on something.
Common Sense?
To the surprise of many, plenty of people in the world have come to reject this instinctive belief in some form. They do not believe people have this power. Rather, they believe people are either partially and entirely programmed by things beyond their immediate control. These "programming influences" or deterministic factors are believed to include things like culture, psychology, spirituality, personal experiences, economics, history, and, ultimately, the laws of nature.
Because of this belief, some people come to the conclusion that we are either only partially responsible for our decisions or that we are not responsible for them at all. However, others still believe that, despite being programmed, people can rightfully be held responsible for their decisions. (Spoiler Alert: I'm one of those people.)
Three Views of the World
More formally, these notions of human freedom (or lack of freedom) are subsumed within three distinct views of the world:
1. Hard Determinism
All events in reality are caused. True randomness does not exist. All events can, in theory, be predicted by some fundamental rule or law. (This implies that our decisions are caused by rules or laws beyond our control.)
2. Soft Determinism
This view holds that, while virtually all events in reality are caused, the human mind is capable of producing at least some decisions on its own, without any prior causes to explain them.
3. Indeterminism
This view holds that not everything in reality is causal. There is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in reality that can't be predicted or determined by any rule or law. (This implies that our decisions, among other things, may be fundamentally random.)
My View
As indicated previously, I'm inclined to embrace the view of hard determinism. That is to say, I think every event in reality, including our decisions, can be explained by a cause. In other words, I think there is a reason for everything that happens in the most literal sense possible. Nothing is truly random. Nor do our minds create or initiate decisions out of nothing. They are caused just like everything else.
I won't get into the heady details of why I think this. However, I'll offer some analogies which might resonate with you and show where I'm coming from.
Example 1
If I receive a phone call from a friend who tells me that they've arrived at the airport, I have the good sense to assume my friend has departed from somewhere else to get there. If my friend insists that they have arrived but that they never actually departed from anywhere, I no longer know what they are talking about. Their words are, to me, meaningless.
Similarly, I don't know what it means to say that our thoughts and intentions arrive in our mind without something bringing them there. (If we say "we bring them there", we must then ask where we brought them from and how we got them there. Thus, we find ourselves explaining the causal events leading up to our thoughts and decisions whether we like it or not.)
Example 2
One other example theists might appreciate concerns how theists commonly (and mistakenly) view atheism:
Similarly, to believe that our mind can generate new thoughts and decisions out of nothing and for no specific casual reason is, to me, tantamount to believing that the universe can pop into existence out of nothing and for no specific causal reason.
In What Sense Are We Responsible?
The question then remains for hard determinists like me: "But if we are programmed to think and act the way we do, in what sense are we responsible for our decisions?"
Great question! It does seem troubling, doesn't it? I agree that, if hard determinism is true, people cannot be held responsible for their decisions, in the sense that they are not the creators of their decisions. However, I think people can be held responsible for their decisions, in the sense that they are the agents of their decisions.
Confused?
In other words, I don't hold a serial killer responsible for all the things that systematically made them a serial killer. However, I do hold them responsible for being a serial killer. They are the ones with malicious intentions and they are the ones taking enjoyment in murder, regardless of whether or not they ultimately caused their condition. It is this state of having malicious intentions and taking enjoyment in the needless suffering of others which I consider evil and potentially deserving of punishment. It is not the decisions leading up to this state which matter.
(Please note that this is my view on how determinism relates with human responsibility. It is not necessarily held by every hard determinist.)
The implications of hard determinism and how it relates with the proper distribution of punishment and reward is a whole different topic of discussion. Maybe I'll give my take on that in the future.
Concluding Remarks
Needless to say, this whole subject can seem pretty complicated at first. In some ways, it is complicated, and in some ways, it isn't. Like anything else, once we familiarize ourselves with the concepts and terms, things become clearer and simpler over time as they work away in the back of our mind.
The question of human freedom is an important one to face if we want to properly understand what we can hold humans responsible for and what we can expect from them morally. Sometimes conclusions on this subject have deep implications for other areas of our thinking. Sometimes they impact our views on theology, ethics, or politics. They may even impact how we view our justice system.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Why I Stopped Praying (2)
Like I said before, I couldn't possibly address all the different views on prayer in one blog post. I don't think it's possible to address them in even two, three, or four posts. However, on the matter of prayer as a means of petitioning for intervention, I think there are some very important points to add.
Some of you may have read my last post on prayer and thought, "So what about your supposed intellectual dilemma! Prayer works!" That's an important point, to be sure. Regardless of the skeptics difficulty in making sense of prayer, if it works, isn't that reason enough to continue doing it?
The Efficacy of Prayer
To put it bluntly, the evidence for the power of prayer is almost purely anecdotal. That is to say, it typically comes to us in the form of people selectively passing around stories of its success. It isn't backed by consistent, verifiable, and objective results. It's typically selective and subjective.
This also happens to be the status of every other supposed spiritual power proposed by world religions and mystics. Believe it or not, theists are not the only ones making miracles claims in this world. In fact, it's widespread. We don't hear about them because, surprise surprise, we don't live in those communities, we don't live in those countries, we don't live in those cultures, and we deliberately do not involve ourselves with other religious ideologies. We live in a closed, dominantly-Christian system.
But all that aside, attempts have been made to research the efficacy of prayer from a statistical standpoint and the results, for skeptics, have not been surprising. Sure, you'll find studies giving some weight to your ideas, as expected, but overall (i.e. in terms of meta analysis) a significant and concrete correlation between prayer and any verifiable results has not been found.
Example
One example here would be the highly-acclaimed STEP study conducted in 2006. In this 10 year study, 1,802 patients –all having been admitted for coronary artery bypass graft surgery– were sampled (Fung & Fung, 2009). Divided three ways, one group received prayer and knew about it, one group received prayer and didn't know about it, and the final group received no prayer at all.
The results of the study, not surprisingly, indicated that no significant correlation between prayer and the reduction of complications occurred (American Heart Journal, 2006). What was surprising, however, was that the group who had known they were being prayed for actually did worse.
But I Know People Who...
I know, I know. You know people who have experienced miraculous healing as a result of prayer. So do I. With my Pentecostal background and family, I've been loaded up with these stories. Sunday after Sunday. Why am I not convinced?
These stories are, once again, anecdotal –just as they are for any other religious miracle claim. People selectively share them when prayer seems to work for them and they don't share all the other times (99% of the time) prayer seems to fail.
Statistically, people are bound to have fortunate events occur following a prayer, especially when they prayer about everything troubling them. And when people only share these apparent success stories, hearers are led to believe there is something significant or causal about prayer.
In reality, if they had, instead, clashed two sticks together every time they wanted something good to happen, they might have had the same results. There's no way of knowing. Statistically, this seems to be the case.
Sidenote
As the son of a pastor, I've actually been privy to a few untold accounts of miraculous "un-healings". That is to say, I've heard the miracle story in person and found out later that the cancer had sadly and mysteriously returned. And this time, the cancer didn't go away.
Strange Things Happen
Sure, there are some accounts which seem credible to us and we can't easily explain them away. However, is this true only for prayer? I think there are a number of extremely strange events which occur on earth which none of us can easily explain. And what about all the other miracle claims made by other religious or mystic groups?
Conclusion
As always, there are a number of ways to justify this scenario. We can all come up with reasons as to why your God or spiritual power wouldn't want its power to be recognizable through statistics, associated solely with his true faith, or why miracles simply can't be measured in the first place. (See the rather humorous justification offered by Fung & Fung.)
But all this ex post facto justification only reminds us of a much bigger problem for spirituality. It is poorly defined. That is why we can so easily adapt it to every failure or new empirical discovery we happen upon.
If statistics had consistently shown that prayer did, in fact, produce significant results, believers would say, "But of course! That's our God at work!" But when statistics show otherwise, believers are permitted to say, "But of course! God isn't mechanical. You can't test God!" (Fung & Fung).
Religious theories can't be easily destroyed because religious theories can be molded to fit virtually anything. They are inherently and, perhaps, brilliantly ambiguous. But that's an entirely different topic for another post in the future.
Some of you may have read my last post on prayer and thought, "So what about your supposed intellectual dilemma! Prayer works!" That's an important point, to be sure. Regardless of the skeptics difficulty in making sense of prayer, if it works, isn't that reason enough to continue doing it?
The Efficacy of Prayer
To put it bluntly, the evidence for the power of prayer is almost purely anecdotal. That is to say, it typically comes to us in the form of people selectively passing around stories of its success. It isn't backed by consistent, verifiable, and objective results. It's typically selective and subjective.
This also happens to be the status of every other supposed spiritual power proposed by world religions and mystics. Believe it or not, theists are not the only ones making miracles claims in this world. In fact, it's widespread. We don't hear about them because, surprise surprise, we don't live in those communities, we don't live in those countries, we don't live in those cultures, and we deliberately do not involve ourselves with other religious ideologies. We live in a closed, dominantly-Christian system.
But all that aside, attempts have been made to research the efficacy of prayer from a statistical standpoint and the results, for skeptics, have not been surprising. Sure, you'll find studies giving some weight to your ideas, as expected, but overall (i.e. in terms of meta analysis) a significant and concrete correlation between prayer and any verifiable results has not been found.
Example
One example here would be the highly-acclaimed STEP study conducted in 2006. In this 10 year study, 1,802 patients –all having been admitted for coronary artery bypass graft surgery– were sampled (Fung & Fung, 2009). Divided three ways, one group received prayer and knew about it, one group received prayer and didn't know about it, and the final group received no prayer at all.
The results of the study, not surprisingly, indicated that no significant correlation between prayer and the reduction of complications occurred (American Heart Journal, 2006). What was surprising, however, was that the group who had known they were being prayed for actually did worse.
But I Know People Who...
I know, I know. You know people who have experienced miraculous healing as a result of prayer. So do I. With my Pentecostal background and family, I've been loaded up with these stories. Sunday after Sunday. Why am I not convinced?
These stories are, once again, anecdotal –just as they are for any other religious miracle claim. People selectively share them when prayer seems to work for them and they don't share all the other times (99% of the time) prayer seems to fail.
Statistically, people are bound to have fortunate events occur following a prayer, especially when they prayer about everything troubling them. And when people only share these apparent success stories, hearers are led to believe there is something significant or causal about prayer.
In reality, if they had, instead, clashed two sticks together every time they wanted something good to happen, they might have had the same results. There's no way of knowing. Statistically, this seems to be the case.
Sidenote
As the son of a pastor, I've actually been privy to a few untold accounts of miraculous "un-healings". That is to say, I've heard the miracle story in person and found out later that the cancer had sadly and mysteriously returned. And this time, the cancer didn't go away.
Strange Things Happen
Sure, there are some accounts which seem credible to us and we can't easily explain them away. However, is this true only for prayer? I think there are a number of extremely strange events which occur on earth which none of us can easily explain. And what about all the other miracle claims made by other religious or mystic groups?
Conclusion
As always, there are a number of ways to justify this scenario. We can all come up with reasons as to why your God or spiritual power wouldn't want its power to be recognizable through statistics, associated solely with his true faith, or why miracles simply can't be measured in the first place. (See the rather humorous justification offered by Fung & Fung.)
But all this ex post facto justification only reminds us of a much bigger problem for spirituality. It is poorly defined. That is why we can so easily adapt it to every failure or new empirical discovery we happen upon.
If statistics had consistently shown that prayer did, in fact, produce significant results, believers would say, "But of course! That's our God at work!" But when statistics show otherwise, believers are permitted to say, "But of course! God isn't mechanical. You can't test God!" (Fung & Fung).
Religious theories can't be easily destroyed because religious theories can be molded to fit virtually anything. They are inherently and, perhaps, brilliantly ambiguous. But that's an entirely different topic for another post in the future.
Works Cited
American Heart Journal. (2006, April). Study of the
Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a
multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving
intercessory prayer. Retrieved October 29, 2014, from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567
Fung, G., & Fung, C. (2009, May 15). What Do
Prayer Studies Prove? Retrieved October 29, 2014, from
christianitytoday.com:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/27.43.html?start=1
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Overcoming Bias
The Problem
Needless to say, I think we have a tendency as people to focus only on the good parts of ideas and beliefs we've made our own. It's not that we deliberately ignore important details, per se, but rather those details are overshadowed by the apparent awesomeness of our object of faith. We can't see the relevance of those details in the light of its brilliance.
I think this tendency to downplay or ignore potentially problematic issues is true for any ideology, people group, or individual we admire. Perhaps you know certain "liberal types" who can't seem to recognize or acknowledge any fault in their advocates, whereas, these are the only things you can see in them! As expected, many liberals feel the same way about how conservatives view their own.
But, we all know about this problem in principle. We are biased, whether we like it or not. The only thing we can do is try to be as objective and earnest as we can, trusting that our sense of reason has pointed us generally in the right direction.
Down the Rabbit Hole
However, I can't entirely agree with this fatalistic conclusion we hold of ourselves. While it's true we can't be perfectly objective on demand, there are some things we can do to greatly improve our objectivity. Incidentally, these are also great ways to learn about controversial subjects in general.
1. Deliberately Look for Problems
Instead of fixing our gaze on the things we love and admire so much about our object of faith, explore alternatives and criticisms. Deliberately try to prove your position wrong. Regardless of the outcome, you will probably learn some incredibly valuable things along the way. You might even come to understand and appreciate your position more.
2. Deliberately Look for Solutions
Conversely, look for reasons why your opponents are right. We spend so much time believing we know better and attempting to demonstrate this to other people that we never get around to trying on our opponent's glasses. We focus on why they are wrong. We focus on why they are uninformed, irrational, or why they appear disingenuous. Counter this tendency by exploring how they might have something valuable to offer. You just might find a grain of truth somewhere in that seemingly heaping pile of trash.
The Hurdle
This entire process may be very uncomfortable at first and it may even feel wrong. But that's exactly when you know you're doing it right. Your values have burrowed themselves deep within your heart and disturbing them should feel very unpleasant.
These values help define us. Sometimes they give us a feeling of purposes. But sometimes these values can stagnate us.
The world is a complex and dynamic place. If we stake out immutable positions for ourselves, sometimes we will miss the boat. Perhaps it's better to value being dynamic and adaptable, rather than value holding any particular label.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat
I don't think this process should ever be a one time event. You don't automatically become objective and fully informed by reviewing some of your opponent's arguments (there's a million more anyway). You took one brave step forward, but believing you've arrived at your final destination places you right back at the start of this process.
That's the point. The process of learning and adapting is never over. It's never over because we'll never know everything and we'll never be perfectly rational all the time. Life is one giant learning curve. Try to enjoy the journey!
Needless to say, I think we have a tendency as people to focus only on the good parts of ideas and beliefs we've made our own. It's not that we deliberately ignore important details, per se, but rather those details are overshadowed by the apparent awesomeness of our object of faith. We can't see the relevance of those details in the light of its brilliance.
I think this tendency to downplay or ignore potentially problematic issues is true for any ideology, people group, or individual we admire. Perhaps you know certain "liberal types" who can't seem to recognize or acknowledge any fault in their advocates, whereas, these are the only things you can see in them! As expected, many liberals feel the same way about how conservatives view their own.
But, we all know about this problem in principle. We are biased, whether we like it or not. The only thing we can do is try to be as objective and earnest as we can, trusting that our sense of reason has pointed us generally in the right direction.
Down the Rabbit Hole
However, I can't entirely agree with this fatalistic conclusion we hold of ourselves. While it's true we can't be perfectly objective on demand, there are some things we can do to greatly improve our objectivity. Incidentally, these are also great ways to learn about controversial subjects in general.
1. Deliberately Look for Problems
Instead of fixing our gaze on the things we love and admire so much about our object of faith, explore alternatives and criticisms. Deliberately try to prove your position wrong. Regardless of the outcome, you will probably learn some incredibly valuable things along the way. You might even come to understand and appreciate your position more.
2. Deliberately Look for Solutions
Conversely, look for reasons why your opponents are right. We spend so much time believing we know better and attempting to demonstrate this to other people that we never get around to trying on our opponent's glasses. We focus on why they are wrong. We focus on why they are uninformed, irrational, or why they appear disingenuous. Counter this tendency by exploring how they might have something valuable to offer. You just might find a grain of truth somewhere in that seemingly heaping pile of trash.
The Hurdle
This entire process may be very uncomfortable at first and it may even feel wrong. But that's exactly when you know you're doing it right. Your values have burrowed themselves deep within your heart and disturbing them should feel very unpleasant.
These values help define us. Sometimes they give us a feeling of purposes. But sometimes these values can stagnate us.
The world is a complex and dynamic place. If we stake out immutable positions for ourselves, sometimes we will miss the boat. Perhaps it's better to value being dynamic and adaptable, rather than value holding any particular label.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat
I don't think this process should ever be a one time event. You don't automatically become objective and fully informed by reviewing some of your opponent's arguments (there's a million more anyway). You took one brave step forward, but believing you've arrived at your final destination places you right back at the start of this process.
That's the point. The process of learning and adapting is never over. It's never over because we'll never know everything and we'll never be perfectly rational all the time. Life is one giant learning curve. Try to enjoy the journey!
Monday, October 27, 2014
Gladness
Here's another song fragment I'm not totally ashamed to "release". Needs lots of work but I like the concept.
Needless to say, it was the result of happier times.
Needless to say, it was the result of happier times.
Why I Stopped Praying (1)
Holding On To a Prayer
I suppose it goes without saying that by becoming an atheist, one no longer believes in prayer. However, for me, the transition from believer to non-believer was a slow one, and prayer was one of the last aspects of my faith to go. It was just too significant to pass off as mere superstition.
Prayer was still my way of expressing humility, thankfulness, and finding peace. It was my hope of becoming a better person, discovering truth, and knowing God, whoever it was. Prayer was a lot of things –which I’m sure is true for many believers reading this. Overall, prayer just felt right. I couldn't explain why.
But, as fate would have it, that obnoxiously analytical mind of mine (God forgive me) kept picking away at the meaning of prayer over the years, trying to understand what its allure was. And while I would never presume to have cracked the code, so-to-speak, I did find a distinction which was, for me, very important.
Revelation
Prayer was both emotional and intellectual.
Ok… No surprise there. But it was the sharp contrast between these two aspects of prayer which I found so important. I could see clearly the emotional and spiritual significance of prayer on the one hand, while the intellectual aspect of prayer seemed to diverge radically. That is to say, we could all experience its emotional and spiritual significance, but what it really meant and what it accomplished was a question we all answered differently (or didn't answer at all!). It was as though the answer wasn't as important as the function prayer served.
Pause Button
At this point, I imagine many are thinking to themselves that they do, in fact, know the purpose of prayer and know what it accomplishes. That very may well be. However, I think there are a variety of views on prayer which most believers, including myself, did not receive in church. Prayer is just one of those things you start doing, rather than one of those things you properly study and practice in a new believer’s course. At any rate, differing views on prayer are important to understand as they highlight some of the questions we have about its purpose.
Some believers see prayer solely as a way of aligning our will with God’s will. Some see it purely as an act of obedience or worship. Others think it’s a way of pleading for intervention where their otherwise would be none. Some of the more Pentecostal types think it’s an exercise in faith –to name it and claim it in the mighty name of Jesus! Still others are lost somewhere in between, finding value in each perspective but not really knowing how they all gel together (and probably not caring very much either way).
Write Your Senator Today
For the most part, I think it’s safe to say most believers cherish and practice the pleading aspect of prayer. We petition God to intervene, insofar as his will allows. We ask God to make us a better person, we ask God to help our children do well in school, and we call on prayer warriors to raise a mighty cry for so-and-so in the hospital after their terrible accident.
It was this aspect of prayer, in particular, I found most troubling. It ultimately led me to believe we valued prayer primarily for therapeutic purposes and not because it was rational.
Think about it. We believe an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being is literally surrounding us at all times (did I mention this being is omnipresent?), yet we have to plead with this all-merciful being to intervene and do good? Imagine it. If I forget to say morning prayers with my child before they go to school, this loving deity might figuratively fold their arms and stare as my child is abducted during recess? And if we don’t get at least fifty people on the prayer chain praying for little Johnny in the hospital, this deity won’t intervene to save his life? What is this being anyway –a politician we must strong-arm into action with enough signatures on a petition?
In short, something didn't seem to fit here. It doesn't really make much sense to ask a good person to do good things, instead of stand there and do nothing. That is to say, I shouldn't need to ask, plead, and petition a friend to intervene when my wife is being brutally beaten in front of their eyes. I think it goes without saying.
Witchcraft
Along with this point, it was also troubling to see the way in which we believers attempted to make our prayers more effective. It wasn't enough to telepathically transmit our hopes and dreams to the deity, no no. We needed to vocalize them. Loudly. We needed to physically lay hands on people and anoint them with oil. We needed to repeat our requests over and over and over. We need to close our eyes and rock back in forth, scrunching our faces up as though we were in pain. We had to REALLY mean what we said and we had to be VERY convincing. “God doesn't answer prayer, he answers desperate prayer”, we were told.
We also wanted lots of people making the same prayer request with us. Because, of course, with our powers combined, we might more likely summon a response!
It was also important to be as close to the object of prayer as possible. Laying hands on the subject was ideal. This way, our spiritual power could travel more directly through our arms and into the person we were praying for. This only made sense since, after all, our spiritual energy levels and field of affluence was limited.
Never mind the sarcasm. Do you see what I’m getting at? It starts to look a bit like witchcraft. People are attempting to manipulate spiritual powers by doing things with their bodies. It isn’t just asking anymore. It’s frantically trying to get someone’s attention as though they can’t hear you, can’t be bothered, or must be summed from beyond the grave.
The point here is that it doesn't seem like we really believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent being. We believe in making desperate attempts to contact and strong-arm a mysterious spiritual power into doing something we want.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, prayer, in the sense of pleading for intervention, just seems to portray the deity someone either hard of hearing or unwilling to get involved unless a lot of superfluous noise takes place first.
Don’t get me wrong, there are many ways of defending this scenario theologically. There are also many alternate views on prayer, and God, for that matter. (Don’t worry ivory tower theologians, I know you’re there.) But I can’t address all these views in one post and, fundamentally, I don’t think these views are important on a pragmatic level (i.e. practical theology).
As I see it, what I’ve described here seems to be the way most believers actually practice and view prayer. It is the implications of this view which seem to clearly conflict with what people claim to believe about God.
The Power of Prayer
This is not to say prayer isn’t powerful. It has great significance for people and it is sometimes the only thing people have in times of crises. I think it’s fair to say that I myself may return to prayer should crises find me. The only point I hope to make here, and the only thing I try to keep in mind for myself, is that the emotional and intellectual value of prayer differ. Prayer may get us through difficult events, but it doesn’t necessarily fit in coherently with our spiritual beliefs. It’s something people need to believe in rather than something which actually makes sense.
After five years of wrestling with faith, I finally called it quits on prayer. I didn't call it quits because I was bitter or because of some lengthy intellectual argument. I did it because, frankly, I thought more highly of the deity theists worshiped.
I suppose it goes without saying that by becoming an atheist, one no longer believes in prayer. However, for me, the transition from believer to non-believer was a slow one, and prayer was one of the last aspects of my faith to go. It was just too significant to pass off as mere superstition.
Prayer was still my way of expressing humility, thankfulness, and finding peace. It was my hope of becoming a better person, discovering truth, and knowing God, whoever it was. Prayer was a lot of things –which I’m sure is true for many believers reading this. Overall, prayer just felt right. I couldn't explain why.
But, as fate would have it, that obnoxiously analytical mind of mine (God forgive me) kept picking away at the meaning of prayer over the years, trying to understand what its allure was. And while I would never presume to have cracked the code, so-to-speak, I did find a distinction which was, for me, very important.
Revelation
Prayer was both emotional and intellectual.
Ok… No surprise there. But it was the sharp contrast between these two aspects of prayer which I found so important. I could see clearly the emotional and spiritual significance of prayer on the one hand, while the intellectual aspect of prayer seemed to diverge radically. That is to say, we could all experience its emotional and spiritual significance, but what it really meant and what it accomplished was a question we all answered differently (or didn't answer at all!). It was as though the answer wasn't as important as the function prayer served.
Pause Button
At this point, I imagine many are thinking to themselves that they do, in fact, know the purpose of prayer and know what it accomplishes. That very may well be. However, I think there are a variety of views on prayer which most believers, including myself, did not receive in church. Prayer is just one of those things you start doing, rather than one of those things you properly study and practice in a new believer’s course. At any rate, differing views on prayer are important to understand as they highlight some of the questions we have about its purpose.
Some believers see prayer solely as a way of aligning our will with God’s will. Some see it purely as an act of obedience or worship. Others think it’s a way of pleading for intervention where their otherwise would be none. Some of the more Pentecostal types think it’s an exercise in faith –to name it and claim it in the mighty name of Jesus! Still others are lost somewhere in between, finding value in each perspective but not really knowing how they all gel together (and probably not caring very much either way).
Write Your Senator Today
For the most part, I think it’s safe to say most believers cherish and practice the pleading aspect of prayer. We petition God to intervene, insofar as his will allows. We ask God to make us a better person, we ask God to help our children do well in school, and we call on prayer warriors to raise a mighty cry for so-and-so in the hospital after their terrible accident.
It was this aspect of prayer, in particular, I found most troubling. It ultimately led me to believe we valued prayer primarily for therapeutic purposes and not because it was rational.
Think about it. We believe an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being is literally surrounding us at all times (did I mention this being is omnipresent?), yet we have to plead with this all-merciful being to intervene and do good? Imagine it. If I forget to say morning prayers with my child before they go to school, this loving deity might figuratively fold their arms and stare as my child is abducted during recess? And if we don’t get at least fifty people on the prayer chain praying for little Johnny in the hospital, this deity won’t intervene to save his life? What is this being anyway –a politician we must strong-arm into action with enough signatures on a petition?
In short, something didn't seem to fit here. It doesn't really make much sense to ask a good person to do good things, instead of stand there and do nothing. That is to say, I shouldn't need to ask, plead, and petition a friend to intervene when my wife is being brutally beaten in front of their eyes. I think it goes without saying.
Witchcraft
Along with this point, it was also troubling to see the way in which we believers attempted to make our prayers more effective. It wasn't enough to telepathically transmit our hopes and dreams to the deity, no no. We needed to vocalize them. Loudly. We needed to physically lay hands on people and anoint them with oil. We needed to repeat our requests over and over and over. We need to close our eyes and rock back in forth, scrunching our faces up as though we were in pain. We had to REALLY mean what we said and we had to be VERY convincing. “God doesn't answer prayer, he answers desperate prayer”, we were told.
We also wanted lots of people making the same prayer request with us. Because, of course, with our powers combined, we might more likely summon a response!
It was also important to be as close to the object of prayer as possible. Laying hands on the subject was ideal. This way, our spiritual power could travel more directly through our arms and into the person we were praying for. This only made sense since, after all, our spiritual energy levels and field of affluence was limited.
Never mind the sarcasm. Do you see what I’m getting at? It starts to look a bit like witchcraft. People are attempting to manipulate spiritual powers by doing things with their bodies. It isn’t just asking anymore. It’s frantically trying to get someone’s attention as though they can’t hear you, can’t be bothered, or must be summed from beyond the grave.
The point here is that it doesn't seem like we really believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent being. We believe in making desperate attempts to contact and strong-arm a mysterious spiritual power into doing something we want.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, prayer, in the sense of pleading for intervention, just seems to portray the deity someone either hard of hearing or unwilling to get involved unless a lot of superfluous noise takes place first.
Don’t get me wrong, there are many ways of defending this scenario theologically. There are also many alternate views on prayer, and God, for that matter. (Don’t worry ivory tower theologians, I know you’re there.) But I can’t address all these views in one post and, fundamentally, I don’t think these views are important on a pragmatic level (i.e. practical theology).
As I see it, what I’ve described here seems to be the way most believers actually practice and view prayer. It is the implications of this view which seem to clearly conflict with what people claim to believe about God.
The Power of Prayer
This is not to say prayer isn’t powerful. It has great significance for people and it is sometimes the only thing people have in times of crises. I think it’s fair to say that I myself may return to prayer should crises find me. The only point I hope to make here, and the only thing I try to keep in mind for myself, is that the emotional and intellectual value of prayer differ. Prayer may get us through difficult events, but it doesn’t necessarily fit in coherently with our spiritual beliefs. It’s something people need to believe in rather than something which actually makes sense.
After five years of wrestling with faith, I finally called it quits on prayer. I didn't call it quits because I was bitter or because of some lengthy intellectual argument. I did it because, frankly, I thought more highly of the deity theists worshiped.
Animal Rights
Warning: Highly pretentious rhetoric ahead. It doesn't make for good dialogue and it will piss you off. But, I like the way it rolls off the tongue... You've been warned.
We dismember, bash, boil, and consume thousands of animals alive every day across the globe. It’s part of our global cuisine. Whatever your feelings may be, if your defense for this excruciating practice concerns theology or human superiority, I think you've greatly misunderstood the purpose of morality.
Morality isn't about who is bigger, stronger, and smarter. Nor it is about who more closely resembles our creator, if one exists.
Morality is about love. It’s about caring for the weak, the simple, and the small. It’s about ending unnecessary suffering. It's also about finding love for our enemies.
If love is our highest calling as enlightened, moral creatures, it shouldn't end with our own species. Creatures with the capacity to suffer deserve compassion and all the arguments about moral superiority ought to be set aside. You would never want cruelty for yourself. Why accept it and impose it on others?
Don't get me wrong. Death and killing are a huge part of how we survive as a species. We wouldn't be here without it. I can't advocate shutting down the industry or suggest we all convert to veganism. That would be absurd. However, I can suggest that we work towards eliminating as much suffering and death as possible. We'll accept what we must, but hope for something better.
We dismember, bash, boil, and consume thousands of animals alive every day across the globe. It’s part of our global cuisine. Whatever your feelings may be, if your defense for this excruciating practice concerns theology or human superiority, I think you've greatly misunderstood the purpose of morality.
Morality isn't about who is bigger, stronger, and smarter. Nor it is about who more closely resembles our creator, if one exists.
Morality is about love. It’s about caring for the weak, the simple, and the small. It’s about ending unnecessary suffering. It's also about finding love for our enemies.
If love is our highest calling as enlightened, moral creatures, it shouldn't end with our own species. Creatures with the capacity to suffer deserve compassion and all the arguments about moral superiority ought to be set aside. You would never want cruelty for yourself. Why accept it and impose it on others?
Don't get me wrong. Death and killing are a huge part of how we survive as a species. We wouldn't be here without it. I can't advocate shutting down the industry or suggest we all convert to veganism. That would be absurd. However, I can suggest that we work towards eliminating as much suffering and death as possible. We'll accept what we must, but hope for something better.
Fundamental Principles of Intellectual Humility
1. We are fallible.
Our reasoning powers, perceptions, and intuitions are limited. Sometimes they can mislead us without our knowing. Never presume to be infallible at any point.
2. There is always more to know.
We do not know how many possibilities, interpretations, or facts exist which may be relevant to our opinion. To claim we “know enough” would require that we know everything. Never presume to know enough.
Conclusion
There is always room for error. We would be wise to refrain from claiming certainty, or near certainty, about the world at any point.
If we can critically evaluate our beliefs and approach disagreements with these principles in mind, I think we'll be in a much better position to listen, learn, and dialogue, rather than accuse, criticize and preach. Acknowledging our fallibility mitigates our presumptuousness and arrogance, making it possible to respect our opponents and hear what they have to say.
While there's nothing wrong with holding opinions and propagating them with a degree of confidence, I think it's wise to resist speaking in terms of fact, rather than in terms of perspective. Many times, things are more complicated than they appear and we'll never know it until we do.
Our reasoning powers, perceptions, and intuitions are limited. Sometimes they can mislead us without our knowing. Never presume to be infallible at any point.
2. There is always more to know.
We do not know how many possibilities, interpretations, or facts exist which may be relevant to our opinion. To claim we “know enough” would require that we know everything. Never presume to know enough.
Conclusion
There is always room for error. We would be wise to refrain from claiming certainty, or near certainty, about the world at any point.
If we can critically evaluate our beliefs and approach disagreements with these principles in mind, I think we'll be in a much better position to listen, learn, and dialogue, rather than accuse, criticize and preach. Acknowledging our fallibility mitigates our presumptuousness and arrogance, making it possible to respect our opponents and hear what they have to say.
While there's nothing wrong with holding opinions and propagating them with a degree of confidence, I think it's wise to resist speaking in terms of fact, rather than in terms of perspective. Many times, things are more complicated than they appear and we'll never know it until we do.
Wisdom Hides
I'm almost a little embarrassed to post this song. It has some moments I like, but I made it when I was much younger and the lyrics, among other things, needs some work. I've cut out the first verse for this reason alone.
That aside, this song was supposed to represent a philosophical conclusion of mine. At the time, I had discovered the depths of philosophical skepticism, and, as a result, I begin to view the world as a mere parade of human arrogance.
That is to say, we inherit our beliefs and common sense from the paradigm of the day and presume ourselves enlightened. We propagate these ideas, fight over them, and cling to them for dear life until a new generation and a new ideology takes control. Every individual thinks they're independent, rational, and informed, yet we all "mysteriously" end up holding views based on geographic location and family heritage.
I still view the world this way to a large degree, but I don't know that I despair over our predicament as much as before –a tone you can hear in the melody. While we may never ascertain certainty in life, we may find some very useful theories along the way. That is to say, I've taken the more optimist view that the scientific method and its ivory tower proponents may help advance us beyond our shallow conflicts and the hubris of the mob –if we can only survive them long enough.
That aside, this song was supposed to represent a philosophical conclusion of mine. At the time, I had discovered the depths of philosophical skepticism, and, as a result, I begin to view the world as a mere parade of human arrogance.
That is to say, we inherit our beliefs and common sense from the paradigm of the day and presume ourselves enlightened. We propagate these ideas, fight over them, and cling to them for dear life until a new generation and a new ideology takes control. Every individual thinks they're independent, rational, and informed, yet we all "mysteriously" end up holding views based on geographic location and family heritage.
I still view the world this way to a large degree, but I don't know that I despair over our predicament as much as before –a tone you can hear in the melody. While we may never ascertain certainty in life, we may find some very useful theories along the way. That is to say, I've taken the more optimist view that the scientific method and its ivory tower proponents may help advance us beyond our shallow conflicts and the hubris of the mob –if we can only survive them long enough.
A Change of Heart
His idealism didn't last long in the real world. People and their ideas were complicated. One day he comes to me, folds his arms, looks down and says, "I'm accepting the fact that there's a logic to other belief systems. I used to think Christianity was the only faith with any integrity or sense to it, but I admit there's a lot of challenging questions out there for us all."
I nodded and said, "Yes, I think we're all in this struggle for answers together." There was a moment of silence, and I continued, "But that doesn't mean we need to stop believing what looks true to us. We just can't assume our perception is perfect and that nothing could possibly change our mind."
I nodded and said, "Yes, I think we're all in this struggle for answers together." There was a moment of silence, and I continued, "But that doesn't mean we need to stop believing what looks true to us. We just can't assume our perception is perfect and that nothing could possibly change our mind."
Angry Atheists
In Principle
One reason many atheists are angry concerns how they are treated and perceived by their religious community of family and friends. By expressing doubts or simply failing to believe, an atheist is automatically put in either the "lost sheep" or "black sheep" category. This is how they are perceived and this is how they are treated.
It doesn't matter if these atheists know far more about faith than religious adherents themselves, they will still be perceived and spoken to as though they are children in rebellion. This can be very emotionally oppressive and frustrating. If you want to help an "angry atheist", counter this perception.
Method
Exhibiting "righteous anger" to an atheist does little more than portray yourself as small minded, while stooping down, out of the goodness of your heart, to save the poor unbeliever is little more than patronizing. Talk to us normally. If you want to discuss religious views, just ask us. There's no need to smuggle your beliefs into the conversation as though we'll be impressed by how natural they flow from you. In the least, gauge your audience and adjust your approach accordingly.
Back-Story
At one time, I would place myself in the "angry atheist" category. It only took a few remarks from friends and family to let me know that they had zero respect for the path I found myself on. It was also clear that some of them were just waiting for on opportunity to swoop down in my time of need and proselytize me.
This was very agitating, among other things. Here I was learning amazing things about faith and grappling with questions none of them would touch with a ten-foot pole... but I was the ignorant one, I was the one suppressing the truth for a comforting lie, and I was the one who simply didn't understand that their simplistic notion of Jesus literally trumped the entire history of Christianity and everything it could possibly represent. Yep, they knew better. Why? Because their church told them they knew better. Contemporary church rhetoric had convinced them they had reached full enlightenment without ever having critically analyzed an alternative view in their life.
I don't blame them for reacting to me the way they did. That's just how the American evangelical church programmed them. But I also can't blame myself for reacting the way I did. It was an overpowering sense of isolation and emotional oppression as I wrestled with questions which threatened to tip me over the edge of hell. I was forced to face them alone.
Over time, I managed to better accept what was happening to me and tone down my reaction. I wouldn't say it ever feels great going against the grain of a highly religious community and culture, but at least I understand why they react the way they do. They all mean well. They just don't have much experience with alternative views.
One reason many atheists are angry concerns how they are treated and perceived by their religious community of family and friends. By expressing doubts or simply failing to believe, an atheist is automatically put in either the "lost sheep" or "black sheep" category. This is how they are perceived and this is how they are treated.
It doesn't matter if these atheists know far more about faith than religious adherents themselves, they will still be perceived and spoken to as though they are children in rebellion. This can be very emotionally oppressive and frustrating. If you want to help an "angry atheist", counter this perception.
Method
Exhibiting "righteous anger" to an atheist does little more than portray yourself as small minded, while stooping down, out of the goodness of your heart, to save the poor unbeliever is little more than patronizing. Talk to us normally. If you want to discuss religious views, just ask us. There's no need to smuggle your beliefs into the conversation as though we'll be impressed by how natural they flow from you. In the least, gauge your audience and adjust your approach accordingly.
Back-Story
At one time, I would place myself in the "angry atheist" category. It only took a few remarks from friends and family to let me know that they had zero respect for the path I found myself on. It was also clear that some of them were just waiting for on opportunity to swoop down in my time of need and proselytize me.
This was very agitating, among other things. Here I was learning amazing things about faith and grappling with questions none of them would touch with a ten-foot pole... but I was the ignorant one, I was the one suppressing the truth for a comforting lie, and I was the one who simply didn't understand that their simplistic notion of Jesus literally trumped the entire history of Christianity and everything it could possibly represent. Yep, they knew better. Why? Because their church told them they knew better. Contemporary church rhetoric had convinced them they had reached full enlightenment without ever having critically analyzed an alternative view in their life.
I don't blame them for reacting to me the way they did. That's just how the American evangelical church programmed them. But I also can't blame myself for reacting the way I did. It was an overpowering sense of isolation and emotional oppression as I wrestled with questions which threatened to tip me over the edge of hell. I was forced to face them alone.
Over time, I managed to better accept what was happening to me and tone down my reaction. I wouldn't say it ever feels great going against the grain of a highly religious community and culture, but at least I understand why they react the way they do. They all mean well. They just don't have much experience with alternative views.
Beneath the Tree
Music was once a big part of my life. But, lately, it's been drowned out by all that grown-up stuff. It's been difficult to let go of. Whenever I see certain faces, experience personal tragedies, or find myself lost in another world, it all comes rushing back and I have to wrestle it back into submission.
I'm an artist at heart. I just don't have the tools, resources, and time to record all the music going round in my head while I juggle all these pesky societal norms. Ideally, I'd like to live in a hole in the ground, away from all the noise and expectations, where I could create without interruption. But, I'm told that's pretty odd. Well, it is odd. And I guess that wouldn't be very nice for friends and family. So, onward I march into the abyss of society.
At any rate, this is the best part of a song I'm not sure I'll ever get around to finishing. It comes from a very emotional time in my life when, perhaps out of immaturity, I wasn't sure I wanted to continue. I was looking for a hole in the ground to take up residence.
Intellectual Humility
I can think of few things more important for the world than a lesson on intellectual humility. We seem to thrive on dogmatism, extremism, and propaganda. Our opinions gives us a feeling of significance, purpose, and definition, and we won't let go of them easily. We remain, whether passively or actively, in a state of conflict.
Whether we protect our beliefs from scrutiny under the guise of faith or fact, I think one of our biggest problems as semi-rational beings concerns our discomfort and distrust of opposing points of view. It's as though we're geared to presume our opponents are either ignorant, irrational, or disingenuous. While we, of course, presume ourselves sufficiently informed, sufficiently rational, and well-intending. We leave very little room for error.
Could it be that our views –no matter how simple and straightforward they appear to us– are potentially oversimplified? Can we ever presume to know enough? Can we ever presume to be perfectly rational?
Intellectual humility has become an important message to me. Albeit, one might consider this message a form of propaganda in itself. However, after swinging from one extreme (faith) to another (skeptic), I both experienced and witnessed a thought pattern which seemed more fundamental than all the words, arguments, and rhetoric surrounding it.
In the spirit of consistency, I could be mistaken about the need for intellectual humility. But, for now, it appears to me that humanity suffers from severe epistemic limitations. Unless one claims to be omniscient, knowing all possible interpretations of the world and recognizing all logical implications of them, I think this message applies to you. I think it applies even moreso for we laypeople.
The sooner we release our death grip on faith and facts, the sooner we can begin to explore the world together and see what's really out there. The sooner we stop accusing, criticizing, and preaching, the sooner we can start listening, learning, and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Whether we protect our beliefs from scrutiny under the guise of faith or fact, I think one of our biggest problems as semi-rational beings concerns our discomfort and distrust of opposing points of view. It's as though we're geared to presume our opponents are either ignorant, irrational, or disingenuous. While we, of course, presume ourselves sufficiently informed, sufficiently rational, and well-intending. We leave very little room for error.
Could it be that our views –no matter how simple and straightforward they appear to us– are potentially oversimplified? Can we ever presume to know enough? Can we ever presume to be perfectly rational?
Intellectual humility has become an important message to me. Albeit, one might consider this message a form of propaganda in itself. However, after swinging from one extreme (faith) to another (skeptic), I both experienced and witnessed a thought pattern which seemed more fundamental than all the words, arguments, and rhetoric surrounding it.
In the spirit of consistency, I could be mistaken about the need for intellectual humility. But, for now, it appears to me that humanity suffers from severe epistemic limitations. Unless one claims to be omniscient, knowing all possible interpretations of the world and recognizing all logical implications of them, I think this message applies to you. I think it applies even moreso for we laypeople.
The sooner we release our death grip on faith and facts, the sooner we can begin to explore the world together and see what's really out there. The sooner we stop accusing, criticizing, and preaching, the sooner we can start listening, learning, and engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)