Recently I had the pleasure (once again) of hearing a friend of mine say something so profound in its simplicity and with such humility that I wanted to write about it here at Every Fork in the Road. 

The name of this particular friend of mine is Peter. I've eluded to or quoted from him on other pages on this site, but this time I wanted to make sure he gets full credit for his honesty and humility. These are qualities which I am very much attracted to. I sense there are other people whom are attracted to these as well. That's why I thought it might be helpful to post this here on this site. 

First I will quote a few lines from recent e-mail conversations with my friend Peter. Then I'll offer my thoughts. Peter's comments are prefaced with P: and will be in "this color", while my comments are prefaced with S: and will be in the usual green (which sometimes appear in between some of Peter's comments). 

S: "We haven't really talked much about the natural history of humans outside of the [Bible] Text. So, where are you at with understanding it and where do you stand on acknowledging or not acknowledging the validity of scientific method and studying our species history through the fossil record and genetics and societies and civilizations and all that?"

P: "I'm 100% into acknowledging the validity of scientific method in the study of our species history through all valid sicentific [scientific] means (including those in your post above). In fact, I would love to get deeper into science. Unfortunately, I have to for the most part plead ignorance with regard to most scientific findings [emphasis mine]. Not being trained as a scientist, I'm not really qualified to discern what scientific theories are valid and which are based on bias or flow from a closed mind world-view."

First of all, I admire my friend's willingness to be so honest and humble with regard to his knowledge and understanding of scientific things. He really doesn't know much, and it is wise of him to acknowledge this point when in a conversation in which [maybe] scientific knowledge (specific to the issue being discussed) and [certainly] understanding (generally, the scientific method, critical thinking, the skeptical approach, etc) are necessary. 

By doing so, he is opening him self up to a potential wave of intellectual attack from someone as poised as I am for such an event as this. I'm not going to attack him for his ignorance of scientific understanding of the world though. I include his acknowledgment here in an attempt to invite other religious-believers to see that 

1) It can look very mature, responsible and wise to non-believers when religious-believers acknowledge their ignorance with regard to science, the scientific method, scientific research and the findings and conclusions of this approach to studying the natural world. 

  -and-

2) Not only am I (a fervent non-believer) not going to attack them personally for such revelations, but am in fact going to acknowledge what seems in my opinion to be a healthy, valuable, very attractive, both personally confronting and encouraging as well as inspiring character rarely seen among the Homo Sapiens I've come in contact with (religious or non) over the years. 

[in another related e-mail message...] 

S: "If we're not exposing our own worldview to the light of reason and intellectual integrity, how can we be comfortable being so confident in what we hold to be true?"

P: "You may disagree with our conclusions, but you must know that many, many Christians are Christians because they've done exactly what you have said they should do - i.e. looked critically at all the facts and come to a conclusion about their worldview and belief system. Even those of us like myself who grew up in the church and truly did simply "believe" while growing up, most of us have gone later through a process of questioning that belief system we grew up with and deciding, based on a more mature, adult knowledge of the facts, whether to continue to embrace our faith, or to reject it for a more reasonable worldview and belief system" 


[here starts my comments for this present page...referring to my friend Peter in the third person from now on...] 

Interesting that he would choose to use the phrase, "a more mature, adult knowledge of the facts" in a conversation about critical thinking versus believing, the Christian worldview versus the scientific method and the natural history of Homo Sapiens after having said that he must "plead ignorance with regard to most scientific findings". 

So, what I'd like to know (and I'll include Peter's response when I get it if alright with him) is, what is meant by "a more mature, adult knowledge of the facts"? What facts? It would seem that the non-scientific religious-believer's database in adulthood would still be the same as it was in childhood with regard to the scientific understanding we now have of the natural world. The only difference is that they (the non-scientific, older, religious-believers) are now more mature as persons (with which I whole-heartedly concur in the case of my friend Peter) when considering these issues than before. 

That seems like it may produce a more mature understanding of their religious views about God and the Bible and maybe a more mature understanding of the Story and how the people portrayed in it interacted with each other and their environment, and certainly a mass of wisdom about human relations in real, present day life on Earth as well, but doesn't seem to say much for one's understanding of our complex and microscopic nature as evolving, biological organisms or the world in which our ancestors actually lived or their history as a species revealed through natural and scientific means of investigation. 

What's my point? Well, can any appraisal of scientific conclusions without much understanding of science it self really be considered a reasonable appraisal? 

As I see it, what is happening here is another case of the challenge in which one worldview (based on an unbiased, natural, logical and reasoned study what we actually find in nature) stands in opposition to another (based on counting unfounded, unscientific, and sometimes completely outlandish and unreasonable claims of unknowable, supernatural and magical things in Stories from ancient, superstitious ancestors as more authoritative than the natural, scientific findings of level-headed, sober-minded, modern geologists, paleontologists, psychologists, biologists and anthropologists) and someone thinks that it is an even match, and that any theory about human origins and history from one worldview is just as valid as that of another. 

As long as ignorance (the word Peter used to describe his level of understanding when it comes to scientific findings) is a neutral word (simply a state of not knowing) for those reading, I am comfortable acknowledging one's ignorance in the area of scientific knowledge and study in general. Along with my friend Peter, I can also acknowledge my own ignorance of the exhaustive specifics of any one particular field of scientific study. 

This brings to mind something else from Peter's comments earlier... 
P: "Not being trained as a scientist, I'm not really qualified to discern what scientific theories are valid and which are based on bias or flow from a closed mind world-view." 

Discernment 
Interesting. Actually, I think my friend Peter is capable of discerning such things. All it takes is using the skills that most of us already have. Critical Thinking is probably the most overlooked, misunderstood and least expensive way to go about understanding the natural world. No one has to be trained to do critical thinking. We all do it to certain degrees already without even calling it that. The problem comes in though when we give up our right to do it in the realm of "important truths" and just "believe" what we're told instead.

The fact that most people are ignorant of the real nature of scientific study and research is the main piece of truth that most pseudoscience and superstition is based on. It is also the main reason why so many wild and crazy ideas about the nature of us and the world can get so popular that it seems odd to even question them at all. 

They know that we're not trained scientists. That's how they know that they can just say anything they want and think we'll believe it. That's why I continued believing for so long. It was really my own ignorance that kept me in the dark. 

As I've said elsewhere on my sight, I only wish I would have been exposed to the real world as a child. I won't go into my whole history here, but let's just say that I'm 32 years old right now and my mind basically missed at least the first two decades of action it could have otherwise had due to a purely religious upbringing, a willingness to let someone else think for me and a tendency to mistake brilliant sounding eloquent nonsense for wisdom. 

 No one was forcing me to remain in the darkness of an uncritical mind all that time. It's all I had to go on, and so what else could have been expected? 

A Belief in Science? No! 
To be sure, it's not that I've just left one belief system (religion) for another (science). I do not have any intentionally held "beliefs" about scientific things. However, in light of the fact that I only have a certain amount of time and resources, I can only focus a certain level of understanding in scientific things and maybe a great deal of study in one particular area (which, for me, is more and more becoming the areas of Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology). Since I can only focus on a limited area, I have to rely on the scientific research of others in their respective fields of expertise. 

For some people, in some circumstances, this could lead to a situation in which they're just "believing" whatever is being told to them. However, since I no longer intentionally practice "believing", that shouldn't be the case with me. What I do though is trust to a certain degree. Trust not in someone just simply for the facts they claim to offer to me or because of the group they're part of or because of their ability to write or speak convincingly, but in their character as revealed in the quality and accountability of their research and the conclusions they've arrived at as a result. 

Is it Science or Pseudoscience? 
Do they go off the deep end with crazy hypotheses that have no basis in reality and speculate on things that we have no way of studying at all in the natural world, or do they present their work along with the evidence they've actually studied? Do they quote willy-nilly from whomever, wherever without actually telling whom and where it came from or do they fully disclose their sources of information from other researchers so the reader can do their own home work and follow up on it to verify that what was actually done here was scientific research? 

Is it really science they're doing or just a matter of someone using scientific language and terminology? 
Remember, science isn't a subject. Science is a method. Are they doing research in accordance with the scientific method? 
Have they really discovered anything or are they just trying to repackage an old myth in a new wrapper more palatable to today's readers? Are they challenging people to actually think, or are they just trying to convince them all the more of what they already believe? 

Are they inviting others to consider what they have to say and helping them think critically about it by offering various opposing views of the topic at hand or are they simply taking advantage of weak-minded (whether temporarily or permanently, whether by conditioning and choices or by nature) people stuck in the mode of "believing" and leading them wherever they want by the shear force of their personalities (like the "Intelligent Design" claim of the religious so-called "Creation Scientists" and the secular "theoretical physicists" who claim that time is relative and that there are really multiple universes and that ours is so insignificant that we might as well just sit down and forget it all and just die and fade away or the alien religious folks who claim we were planted here by another race of beings on another planet)?

Weak-minded people (or people living as though they were weak-minded) are valid targets for anyone wanting followers in their particular belief system (religious, secular, pseudoscientific or whatever). I don't claim to have achieved expert status in any particular field of scientific research thus far. However, I know enough already to help a bit. What I can offer at this point may seem small to some, but I'll just work with what I've got and not pretend that I'm more accomplished as a research scientist than I really am. Here's the most helpful thing I can offer; the approach of critical thinking. It can be an antidote to weak-mindedness and most of the unfortunate manipulation and the suffering that so often goes undetected in the lives of the people being manipulated by the kinds of pseudoscientific and superstitious tricks I just mentioned above. 

In Conclusion 
So, when it all comes out in the wash, the only thing I can really say that I know for sure at this moment is that I want to know what's real, I desire to be open, honest and real about the degree to which I understand that known-reality, and I prefer not to pretend about the rest. I do not claim to know the Absolute Nature of Absolute Reality. All I claim to know is that which can be studied through natural means. If there is a God that exists, I am ignorant of it. If there is a Matrix and we're living in it, I'm ignorant of it. Yes, I acknowledge that I am ignorant of all kinds of stuff, even stuff that we already know for sure exists. 

I am encouraged by my friend's willingness to be open, honest and real about his ignorance of scientific things in general. This acknowledgement clears the path for future discussions. It allows me the privilege of knowing where he's at. It exposes part of his worldview and makes him vulnerable to condescending attacks. As I said close to the beginning of this page though, "I'm not going to attack him for his ignorance of scientific understanding of the world". 

It is not my intent to attack someone where they're at with regard to scientific understanding of the natural world. If ya don't know, ya just simply don't know and that's all there is to it. It is only my desire to attack that part of their worldview which holds them back intellectually from acknowledging the logical conclusion of such ignorance. 

As we walk along as fellow seekers of truth in this life, I'm sure that Peter and I will have many more occasions to examine each other's thoughts and worldviews. I only hope that I can continue to learn from and incorporate into my own life the example he has lived before me as a friend. Honesty, Humility and Intellectual Integrity in the Face of Ignorance. An Admirable Acknowledgement indeed.