|
|
This section is all about
beliefs, believers and believing in relation to things like
magic, religion,
astrology, numerology,
palmistry, philosophy,
pseudoscience and 'theoretical
physics'.
Really, it's not even about
believing in these particular things. It is neither
an attack on believers, nor necessarily on the
subject of their beliefs, but on the psychological activities relating to the
act of believing it self.
Please keep in mind that when I use the
word 'pathology' in the title of this section, I'm using it in the following
manner:
"any deviation from a healthy, normal, or efficient condition."
pathology. (n.d.).
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)., Retrieved December 10, 2006, from
Dictionary.com website:
The 'healthy, normal, or efficient condition' I'm referring to is when we only
use the act of believing both very carefully and very sparingly.
Just to be clear, I don't mean that belief it self is the deviation. On the
contrary, the act of believing has been very helpful in our species'
evolutionary history and can indeed still come in quite handy in various
situations.
The deviation which I really intend to get at in these articles is that
which happens when one loses sight of the fact that they are believing; when the
act of
believing becomes a permanent replacement for acknowledging and
acting according to knowable reality when doing the latter would be the
healthier choice.
Believing
To Believe or Not to Believe(?)
Counting unknown things to be real
may be a
Means of Being Prepared
But
what about Claiming unknown things as real?
Children and
Adults Believe
I used to be a believer too
Atheism versus Agnosticism
Still wondering where I'm at
now?
Harder to Believe than Not to?
Not to
Vilify my Former Choice to Believe
Not to
Vilify God or
Belief
in God
Not to Vilify Believers
Believers are Confused
Reasonable Faith?
Assumptious Claims?
Supposed Necessitating Factors
but What about the
Believer-Teachers
Admirable Acknowledgements
"Seeing is Believing" =huh?
Four Fundamental Flaws
in Heaven
about
the
Natural History of Believing
From Pattern Seeking to
Denial
A case from
recent "Ground-Zero" history
Splitting Hairs about Believing in Turbulence
Skeptic, Skeptical and Skepticism
What About SETI@home? =
(segment in progress)
Believing and
Relationships
Believing and Learning
Religion in the Public Arena
A Creationist Trojan Horse
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Believing
I acknowledge that there is absolutely no way in which I can really know for
sure whether
or not there is any supreme, absolute, predetermined, objective purpose for or
meaning in this life (other than that which I personally designate as such) or
whether or not there is any kind of supernatural, paranormal or metaphysical
person, being, entity or force outside this present reality.
Since these are things about which we can not be absolutely certain, any and
all absolute claims for or against the existence or nature of such things are "beliefs".
I understand
"believing" to mean that one is choosing to count (and claim) something as being
real and actual even though it isn't known for sure or can't be known for sure whether or not
it is real or actual (and sometimes in spite of the fact that it is clearly not
real or actual). It's about being convinced. One can be very convinced of
something without actually knowing for sure whether or not it is really true. It
is this state of "being convinced without proof of that which we are
convinced of" (whether it is in religion, philosophy or science) which most
people commonly call "believing".
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
To Believe or Not to Believe: Does anyone really even ask this question?:
An Examination of some of the issues relating to the choice to believe.
I hear a lot of people in this world arguing about WHAT to believe, but I don't really hear many discussions on whether or not to believe anything at all in the first place.
The superstitious, religious or metaphysically minded person's answer is, "Yes", so long as the belief or the believing of the belief somehow fits into their worldview. On the other hand, the critical thinking person's answer is most definately, always "No", regardless of the belief, because of the simple fact that believing, in and of it self, is contrary to critical thinking in the first place.
Critical thinking leaves no room what-so-ever for believing. It's not even that "Critical Thinkers" somehow dislike believing (perhaps they do dislike it, but that's irrelevant). It's just that the two ways of thinking simply can not be done at the same time, about the same thing by the same person.
Now, it may look like both are happening at the same time in some minds. We do sometimes see pre-conveived notions guiding even the critical thinking person's thinking path, but that's another issue. In such cases, they are not purposely choosing to "believe" something in full light of the fact that that's what they're doing. They're simply going on what they have to go on at the time and the thinking that they are currently doing is in fact critical thinking, even if it is being done within the framework of or on a foundation of concepts that were previously formed without critical thinking involved. In this sense, they are no different or any more advanced in their thinking than the primarily non-critical (specifically superstitious, religious or metaphysically minded) thinkers.
We all have a world view that goes with us wherever we go. The critical thinker and the non-critical thinker alike each have a genetic and experiential history which, to one degree or another, both helped and hindered
our growth and maturing as thinking organisms. Our genetic connection with our ancestors has given
us certain traits and capabilities with regard to thinking, and our experiences
have effected the way in which we learned to think along the way.
The genetics part of our history has an enormous effect on
our capability for certain kinds of thinking in certain areas of thought and it also passes on certain aspects of critical thinking that have aided
our ancestors in surviving, but it does not necessarily determine the total and eventual extent to which
we will develop critical thinking skills later on. The genetic code does not necessarily make it inevitable that any single person will become a great thinker.
Our experiences in life are also very instrumental in helping us form our worldview (whether one of critical
thinking based on facts and the natural world or one of pretending based on myth and legend). Our experiences (on our own and with other people) have set us up with a giant bundle of thoughts, beliefs, concepts, absolutes and so on, some of
which helped and hindered our very ability to even think critically at all.
The difference that separates the basic two kinds of thinkers though is what
we do with this fact once we realize it. A question to ask at this point is,
"Is reality something that is primarily perceived or primarily
conceived?" The following dichotomy is an admittedly slanted one and I
don't normally like to draw such blatantly obvious extremes, but in this case I
think it helps to stress certain key points of two primarily opposite
approaches to understanding the nature of reality and the construction methods
used in the development of a world view.
As a critical thinker, I have made a choice to examine my own worldview and not just be ok with what
I've been given. I've decided to not just give my self the benefit of the doubt in matters of
thinking. I am open to the fact that I don't yet have the whole picture and am
willing to look for it and acknowledge it when it is recognized that someone
else might have something valid to offer with regard to the nature of reality.
To the critical thinker, reality is primarily a matter of perception (verses
conception). Though we acknowledge that reality may indeed be something other
than how we perceive it to be, we also acknowledge we can't possibly know the
difference between "true reality" and our perception of it since all
we honestly have to go on is our understanding and interpretation of nature
which we can perceive through our five natural senses. It doesn't mean that
we're convinced that nothing else exists outside the realm of what can be
perceived through the five natural senses. Though we may have desires, hopes and
dreams, we certainly don't have an opinion about such things. Having said that,
it should also be stated that there certainly is no room in our world view for
things which, being outside the realm of natural perception, somehow contradict
or otherwise find conflict with that which is within it. My personal opinion on
this one is that there is enough internal conflict and misunderstanding and
enough unexplored area that it doesn't seem wise to ignore all of this and go
off chasing unknown things when there is still so much work to be done right
here in the realm of the reality that we know for sure. We seek to learn and grow and
to expand our awareness of our self, others and our world.
With non-critical thinkers on the other hand, some are content to sit right where they're at because of the trust they've placed in their parents, elders, teachers and in their own ability to think. They figure, "surely no one has lead me astray, and I'm bright enough to figure it all out on my own, and I know that I know that I know that these beliefs are real, because it's all I've ever known. Besides, it's a personal thing. These beliefs seem logical to me. They have always worked out just fine in my life. I have all the proof I need and I'm not interested in considering anything else".
For what ever reason, they choose the route of conceiving reality instead of
perceiving it. They understand and interpret nature through the thinking grid of
their particular chosen belief system rather than through the means afforded
them for free in nature it self. They seem to have a very strong distrust for
"the natural" and end up rejecting part of nature it self when opting
out of using the best mechanism available to understand it with in the first
place, their own mind. If you can't see the difference between the basic two kinds of thinkers here then I don't know what to say.
On the issue of the original question I asked in the title of this article, "To Believe or Not to Believe: Does anyone really even ask this question?", I wonder who really does. Have you ever really asked that question? Have you ever heard of such a question? Have you ever even considered the nature of believing or the fact that it is not something that everyone necessarily chooses to have as part of their worldview? Does it fit in yours? If so, what part of substituting wishful-thinking and pretending for critical thinking and acknowledging reality seems healthy to you? Is there a legitimate function for it in your worldview that actually helps you live a healthier life as a homo sapien? You might be offended by my line of inquiry and it might seem arrogant, but it is not arrogance but compassion that allows me to be bold enough to ask you these questions. I care about my fellow humans and I really and genuinely do want to know what you think.
If you're at all interested in sharing your thoughts with me and dialoguing with
me about it, please contact
me. (This
entry added 20030605)
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
But what about Claiming
unknown things as real and actual?
"Counting" some unknown thing as being real is bad enough in my view, but
I suppose it is possible that it can still be done within the framework of reality and critical
thinking (though I'd rather just not do it).
To count something as real without proof does not necessarily constitute what I mean when I say
"belief" (though it is often enough all by it self). It can simply be a
tool in a hypothetical conversation or even a precautionary safety measure ( as
in the case of using the skills of imagination and creativity for the sake of
survival in the jungle I mentioned
in this article).
In such cases, I suppose that counting some unknown thing as
real might be a legitimate way of preparing for possibilities if it is done in
such a way that the "counter" is still aware of and fully
acknowledging that they don't really know. Calculating in such ways can even be
considered a critical thinking kind of mental function.
On the other hand, when one takes it to the extreme of "claiming" that some unknown thing is real, that's an area which critical thinking can not
tolerate in the least. This is because when someone makes a claim about unknowable things, it has gone outside the realm of critical thinking
all together and into the world of make-believe. To "count" some unknown thing
as real is to calculate the possibilities and make a bet on something for the sake of being prepared for it possibly being real. To "claim",
on the other hand, is to think one has some kind of inside connection with the dice themselves.
I've done this and I think it happens in my life only when the intellectual engine of
my brain isn't firing on all cylinders.
This can either be from misuse (accepting and adopting the opinions of others
over my own without questioning) or simply lack of use (allowing others to do my
thinking for me and not even have an opinion which could be considered my own in
the first place). Now as I'm faced with the reality of my past, I'm not
going to claim that I'll never do it again, but I sure hope I never do.
Though I know it might happen from time to time, it is not something which I am
comfortable with. I don't want to be so oblivious to the nature of my own mental
processes that I'm not even aware of the difference between critical thinking and
fantasy (even if only for a moment).
I don't just say this as a disconnected, unfair, unfamiliar, negative,
non-believing, outside observer either. My intellectual engine used to run on religosine
only (a very conservative brand with fundamentalist additives for an extra
kick). Needless to say, since it was
only being fed fantasy (instead of facts) and not being exercised by the journey
of critical thinking, and since it wasn't being maintained by the mechanics of investigation and research, it wasn't performing up to its potential. I've managed to rescue much of it from the junk yard, but I assume I still have a ways to go before the fire of inquiry has had a chance to burn out all the remaining sludge left behind by decades of improper use and an inexperienced
maintenance crew.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Children and adults
believe
Often children create make-believe friends in their minds (usually they know
that they are pretending and are not "convinced" that the friend is
actually there). Also however, they are even
encouraged (by the adults who could be helping them learn how to think
critically) to believe in things like Santa Claus and other
mythicized historical Figures (in which case they often do indeed become
convinced of the existence or nature of the Figure they're told about).
Many intelligent adults choose to believe in a God of one kind or
another. Others
believe
in some mystical and/or mysterious Force or another. There are also people who
choose to believe that such inanimate objects as the planets of our
solar system and the stars of our galaxy have some kind of magical effect on our
lives or that the digits in the date we were born and the letters of our name
are significant markers of our personalities.
They are all convinced, though not all of them consider it
pretending. They actually think that they have received something which
constitutes proof in their estimation of reality. I'm not just
looking in from the outside either, as though I'm removed from their experience
altogether and don't have a valid opinion. I used to be a "believer".
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
I used to be a believer too
I'm not
"looking down on" believers either. That would be falling into
"shame-based" thinking which I'm trying to grow out of. All I'm really
doing is acknowledging the facts about believing. The fact is, when I used to believe
(in God), I was absolutely convinced of the existence of God
and also absolutely convinced that I knew "the true nature" of God
too. Clearly though, I was mistaken. How could I have known for sure something
which can't be known for sure?
Against the "proof" (or lack of it) I
made a conscious choice to believe in God. I chose to count God as
being real and actual even though I had not actually studied or researched the
issue to find out if God were something which is verifiably real and
actual. So, not only did I not test the claim about God being real and
actual, I didn't even
care. I just chose to believe without regard to the nature of
reality at all. It didn't matter to me at the time whether or not it made any
sense in the light of critical thinking. It just made sense to me
and I guess that must have been good enough for me at that time.
I now realize my own, persisting naiveté and I acknowledge
my own gullibility. I haven't arrived. Nor am I above falling for
something that in the end turns out to be just plain goofy. Having said that for
the sake of being honest about my self, I must say that exciting,
mysterious or wondrous claims of unverifiable people, places or things no longer
have any place in my evaluation of reality. They may slip in at some point along
the way, or they may still be left behind from my days of believing, but
my intent is to annihilate from my world view all unhealthy intellectual
practices such as pretending about such things. I may not be prepared to handle whatever
myriad of possibilities may lie ahead, but I am prepared to think about them
when they come and
I most certainly will not claim to know anything for sure about them before I do.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Still wondering where I'm at now?
What if, because I may mention it once in a while, or because I always sign my
e-mails with "love, joy and peace to you", someone still thinks I have
a relationship with God (even though I go out of my way to express how I no
longer believe)?
The problem i see in such an interpretation of my life is the fact that i actually
say out loud that i do not claim to have a relationship with God. Now, i'm not
going to claim to know for sure whether or not there is any God living inside me
(as in the indwelling of the Spirit), because there's no way one could ever
really know such a thing conclusively. The Spirit of the Living God (whose
existence I have no claim about, for or against) may very well indeed be living
inside me. However, in light of my ignorance and agnosticism, having an opinion
seems presumptuous and arrogant to me now. Also, i'm not going to say that i
wouldn't want a relationship with God (the Communal God from the Stories about
Jesus that is). I still think that such a relationship with such a Community
would be pretty neat (so long as every person were invited to be part of the
Community). (remember, the only reason I make the
point to mention a specific kind of God is the fact that I've never delved into
studying all the other world religions yet. I may some day, but it's not
necessary for my current point since I'm obviously not favoring this God above
known reality anyway) I'm just saying that i do not currently have a
relationship with God (that God or any other).
I think part of the problem is that "relationship" is a word that
means something else (perhaps too specific) to me than what appears to be a very
broad and maybe vague concept in the religious use of it. For me,
relationship would mean that there is obvious, purposeful, known and detectable
(to all parties) interaction between parties (perhaps that's too narrow), not
just a relationship with information about a person (which I used to have when I
was still a believer), but a relationship with a real person (like I have with
my wife).
What i thought was "a relationship with God"
previously in my life clearly was not, unless we're going to include imaginary
friends in our list of whom we can have a genuine relationship with (which i
guess isn't unacceptable for a period if that's what we need to get through the
darkness we're in... i mean there certainly isn't any legitimate argument
against the existence of the Friend in such cases.... i would just caution when
getting into the area of nature and science or in making any big life decisions
based on the imaginary Friend's existence or words which clearly contradict
natural reality).
That's no insult. It's just a realization of what was most
likely going on for me back then. I was convinced of the existence (and
interaction) of someone about whom i had no business being convinced. I did not
really know for sure that God was there. So, how could i know for sure that
Someone was interacting with me if i didn't even know for sure that that Person
indeed actually exists at all in the first place? It seems to me that the former
must precede the latter. No? Though it may indeed be true that God was
interacting with me back then, there is no way for me to know (or have known)
that for sure. Everything i took as being God interacting with me was totally my
subjective interpretation based on already being convinced that God is there in
the first place. So i was always "looking" for the "hand of
God" active in my life. It was up to me to decide whether it was or not.
So, in light of the fact that we don't really know for sure whether or not
God exists, it is hard to see how we can rationalize the position that we know
for sure which events and twitches and jolts and flashes and thoughts and
feelings and realizations and encounters in life are the hand of God and which
were the result of human choices or other natural causes (i know too that some
will say that they could in some "mysterious" way be both, but come
on...that seems like a cop-out to me). Not to say that the hand of God is not
active in our lives, but to pose the question... How could we know for sure IF
it is active in our lives, let alone where or how it is active? Of course, we
could watch for things which seem to line up with what we sense as God's
character as we get it from the Story, but that's not good enough.
I've met many people in life that have what seems to be the
character of God (the God in the Stories about Jesus that is) in their
attitude and lifestyle, but how can we know for sure how it all came about in
them? Couldn't it possibly be that they've just grown as persons and have become
more like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self-control, gentleness etc...
without any religious or spiritual or supernatural intervention what so ever? If
that is possible, then where's the rationale for entering something supernatural
into the mix?
When something can be explained by natural causes, it seems
intellectually irresponsible to admit such make-believe into the equation
(again, not an insult, but just an acknowledgement of what i used to be doing).
Once we do, all reasoning would seem to be useless. Where do we draw the
line? Who decides how, when and where to replace known and knowable reality with
fantasy? How do we ever know whether or not this is what we're doing?
Faith? So, we "just believe" that God is there? Is "just
believing" that God is there a legitimate intellectual reason for claiming
that we know for sure that God is interacting with us? In a world view in
which faith is the evidence for things not seen, anything is possible. This
seems like a slippery slope. It seems that one could conceivably use "just
believing" to justify that God is not interacting with them just as easily
as someone else could use "just believing" to justify that God is
interacting with them. Both positions seem like unfounded opinions to me, and
i'd rather just admit that i have no freakin clue.
As with the whole issue of not being a believer anymore in general... i
guess that what's most uncomfortable for me about people claiming to have a
relationship with God isn't so much the idea of claiming that God is interacting
with them when they're not sure that God is even there, but just simply
claiming anything that we don't really know for sure.... whatever angle or
position one is going to or coming from. I'd rather not have a position on the
issue of whether or not i have a relationship with God. I'd rather have an
approach to it.
Perhaps saying that i do not have a relationship with God is
going too far (though i don't honestly see how that could be too far especially
since it seems to me that i would be the one to know whether or not i was having
a relationship with another). There is a planet out there somewhere in the
universe which I have a relationship with (gravity) even though I am not yet
even aware of its existence (certainly two gravitational units do effect each
other in the grand scheme of things, even though we're not going to try to
calculate the effect of such relationships here and now). So what?
Also, it may very well be that in some situations i find my
self in, i might claim to have a relationship with God (or at least not make
much of a fuss about not having one) if i can see that it will help my overall
mission as it pertains to relating with persons (that of reaching out to
others with and inviting them into love and compassion and critical thinking as
i've come to understand them). However, the way i approach the issue
intellectually right now, it seems that i can not legitimately claim to have
a relationship with God.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Not to
vilify my former choice to believe
This is not to vilify my choice to believe back then. I just
want to expose my former believing to the light of critical thinking so that it
can be acknowledged for what it really was and deal with it like a mature,
intelligent, adult homo sapien. What was it? It was believing. Believing is
not the same as knowing even though I thought it was at the time. It's not that
I'm even saying that I was being dishonest at the time. I was genuinely
convinced that I knew for sure that this particular God actually exists and that
everything else about the Story was true as well. However, my distrust for
science back then was not based on actually studying my world but based on the
fact that the scientists did not believe the same things I did about God and the
Bible. Their not-believing in what was most important to me was my
"reason" for rejecting their findings. Clearly a mistake on my part,
but not a matter of dishonesty.
Dishonesty would be if I were to know what I
know now through actually looking at my world and paying
attention to it and investigating and doing research and then to turn around and
claim, with absolute certainty, that I know for sure that a God exists and what
that God is like. It would not be dishonest for
me to say that I am open to the possibility of the existence of a God, but it
would certainly be dishonest to claim that I know for sure that a God either does or does
not exist.
So, I'm not saying that people who make such claims are necessarily
being dishonest if it is something which they are genuinely convinced of. I'm just
saying that they are mistaken (because of how I now know that I was) about the
actual, objective absoluteness of the
claim since it is a claim about something which is not testable.
In
scientific terminology, it is not falsifiable, which means that if it is false,
there's no way to prove that it is false. If there is no way to prove that a
claim is either objectively and absolutely true or false then its validity can not be verified one way or
the other and all adherents to the claim that this God exists are counting it to be true without
actually knowing for sure whether or not it is true. On the other hand, all
adherents to the claim that there is no such God are also counting something to
be true without actually knowing for sure whether or not it is true. Both groups
are believers. They are both choosing to count something as being real and
actual without the possibility of being able to test it to find out for
sure.
Just to be sure... I used to be a believer. Now I am a
thinker. I'm not claiming that thinkers are somehow better than
believers (though perhaps they are better off). My world view considers
everyone to be equally valuable as persons. However, I do think that thinking is
better than believing. Just the facts.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
B05:Not to vilify
God or belief in God
Neither is this about vilifying the God I used to believe in.
I am not atheistic, but agnostic about God. I do not make any absolute claims
for or against the existence or nature of any supernatural, paranormal or metaphysical
person, being, entity or force outside this present reality. Since there is no way I can know
for sure, if I am going to remain honest about the matter, I must remain
agnostic (not-claiming-to-know). I certainly will investigate claims and I certainly will
expose nonsense and foolishness when it is obvious, but I do not want to make any claims about things which I can't really
know for sure.
I can even still enjoy an occasional reading of a Story or teaching from
religious or philosophical material, whether it be the Bible or some other text,
whether it be from or about Eve, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, the Buddha, Gandhi, Patch
Adams or any other person or character, whether it be real and verifiable,
genuinely historical, fictional or Fictionalized.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Not to vilify believers
Neither is this about vilifying the group of religious people
with whom I used to participate in community around those ideas about a God. Though there have
been many nasty things done in the name of religion and by religious people
throughout the history of our species, I did indeed learn a great deal about homo sapiens and
our ways of relating with each other while in a particular religious
congregation back in Minnesota
years ago and from the writings of other religious people along the way. Just because I am
choosing to think critically about natural history and the world in which I
actually live now and am no longer pretending that there is a God, doesn't
mean that I throw away everything good that I might have happened to pick up
along the way in that environment and during that part of my life. Of course, there may be aspects of that part
of my life which still cling to my world view. When I notice them I acknowledge
them. Then I take a good, hard look to find out whether they are healthy
concepts which I and others can still benefit from or if they are simply
outdated, irrelevant or unverifiable abstractions which serve no purpose other
than to carry on a particular "belief" system.
I have no problem with people choosing what they will or will not
"believe". I just simply want to acknowledge the fact that all of this
"believing" is done apart from, outside the realm of and sometimes regardless of
the evidence either for or against the Person or Thing being
"believed" in. In many of these situations, no evidence would even be
relevant to the "believers" at all since the whole reason for the
"believing" in the first place is internal to the particular system or
Story, entirely personal and not based on anything verifiable here in the real
world.
No, I have nothing against pretending. I appreciate and
employ liberally in my own life and enjoy the benefits of imagination and creativity. I
just want to be honest about the logical flow of thought in that area of the
lives of homo sapiens and draw the line between that which is actually known to
be real and that which we're not sure of or can't be sure of. For instance,
if I am attracted to certain aspects of the lives of religious or philosophical
personalities (Eve, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, the Buddha, Gandhi etc), I can
"follow" them without "believing" in them. If I choose to
"follow" someone because of the attitude of their mind and the
character of their lifestyle (even if they are a fictional character), this is
very much different from choosing to "believe" in them or in their
existence. For me, if I ever do "follow", the choice to
"follow" is not on the basis of "the Bible says" or
"God says" or "the Buddha says" or "Some other so and
so says" or on any other abstract basis. It's simply a matter of desiring
to incorporate part of their portrayed lifestyle (such as love and compassion
for self and others) into my own because it seems healthy and helpful to
me.
If there is something you find attractive about the attitude of someone's mind
or the character of their lifestyle as portrayed in some ancient (or modern for
that matter) story, why would it matter whether or not you know for sure if that
person ever really existed? Do you want to follow them for the character of
their lifestyle or because of some claimed magical link to a place or state
beyond our present reality or for some promised future goodies?
Also, why would it matter whether or not anyone else anywhere
in history ever recognized this thing about this person? Why would it matter
whether or not anyone else ever agreed with you about what you're attracted to
in the person's lifestyle? Do you need the opinions of others to validate your
own perceptions? Your perceptions are your own. Sure, we can talk about things
and share our perceptions with each other and even debate whether or not we all
see it the same way, but come on. How will we ever know whether or not we're
really alive if all we do is follow someone or something because someone or
something else has told us to do so?
Likewise, would you need someone else to tell you to NOT believe in or follow
someone like Hitler? If so, why? Can't you see for your self what he was like
and make your own decision based on your own opinion of whether or not he seems
like someone you want to follow? If you can make such decisions on your own,
then why would anyone else's opinion ever matter on the subject? I think that we
are all smart enough and capable of making such choices on our own. Now, I know
that there are still Nazis around that would argue with my decision regarding
Hitler (I would not follow him). I wouldn't want to just bash them about it
though. I would want to hear them out and find out why they are choosing to
follow him. That's because it matters more to me why someone is following than
whom they follow.
Following someone traditionally seen as "Good"
because we're told to do so would seem more evil to me than to follow someone
traditionally seen as "bad" because we've actually studied the
attitude of their mind and the character of their lifestyle and found something
that we think is healthy and worthwhile which we'd like to incorporate into our
own attitude and lifestyle. I'm not saying that it would be easy for me to see
the healthiness in someone following Hitler (Certainly that particular one would
be very hard for me to grasp, of course). I just use him as an example (going to
extremes to make a point). What matters most to me is whether or not someone has
actually thought much about whom it is that they are following and whether or
not they even have they're own personal reason for doing so or whether it is
just something passed down to them from their ancestors or from some trusted
person or organization.
I'm not saying that the opinions of others are irrelevant. I'm just saying that
without actually having our own opinions (which are two steps removed from
reality already) based on our own objective investigation (which is one step
removed from reality) into the things of this life, it is dangerous to use the
opinions of others (which must then be at least three steps away from reality)
as building blocks in our world view at all, let alone laying them down on the
ground floor as the foundation of it. Dangerous? Well, when Hitler told the
world what to believe and whom to follow, what did millions of people do in
response, and what was the result?
Like I said, I do not want to vilify believers (people who
believe in or follow a particular religious or philosophical person or concept)
solely on the basis of their choice to believe or follow. However, what I do
want to vilify are what seem to me to be unhealthy choices stemming from an
uncritical mind. ...and really, I think it's the uncritical mind that is the
true villain in the first place.
It may seem to some people like they are bound for greatness in the afterlife or
that they have "the moral high ground" in matters of social welfare,
but may never truly know the thrill of simply being alive if they've abdicated
careful use of their minds to the magical notions of supernatural and metaphysical
suggestions and propositions. If they refuse to pay the price and do the work of
investigation and experimentation in the light of logic and reason, they'll get
what they pay for, being duped into following the grandiose directives of
trusted leaders. If they have sacrificed reality on the alter of make-believe
and wishful thinking, how will they ever know the difference?
To be fair, I acknowledge that the existence of an uncritical
mind is sometimes just a matter of unintentional neglect. Those who have
knowledge and wisdom have an opportunity to pass it on and to invite others to
think. We can be grateful for what religious and philosophical people have to
offer and I do indeed thank those who are doing the work of inviting others to
think. However, those who choose to "just believe" have waived their
right to think. I do not applaud this behavior, nor those who encourage it. I am
compassionate and would willingly die for another person, but I will fight the
intellectual battle against the uncritical mind with all that is in me until I
take my very last breath.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
but What about the Believer-Teachers?
Here is a section of thoughts having to do with various religious and
philosophical leaders, teachers and so forth that I'll add to from time to time
from my encounters and experiences with them at every fork in the road.
(This
section added 20030525)
table of contents for this
section
"GODISNOWHERE"
at Boulder Creek Festival, 2003
[B-TTOC]
= Table of Contents for this section
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
"GODISNOWHERE"
at Boulder Creek Festival, May 2003
Yesterday evening when I was at the Boulder Creek Festival
I stopped at a tent that was displaying a sign with this on it,
"GODISNOWHERE", which can be interpreted as either, "God is
nowhere" or "God is now here". It was very interesting to say the
least. I was not impressed though. All I got were the same old lines. I tried to
explain that I do not believe in anything, let alone not believing in their
particular system of religious beliefs. One of the people there told me that he
just couldn't understand that. So, since I figured they are there to "reach
out" to people, I asked him something like, "Well, are you interested
in hearing more about and getting a better understanding of where I'm coming
from and what I'm talking about?" and he said, "No. I don't believe in
what you believe and I'm not interested in knowing anything more about it
either". Wow, I thought that was odd, so I motioned for another of their
people to come over and I explained the situation. This second person seemed a
bit more open to dialogue than the first. So, I stuck around a bit longer to
find out how open. Not much as I actually found out as the conversation went
on.
At one point, while talking about the subject of
"knowing for sure", he said something like, "Well, if God would
make him self known in a way that we'd all know for sure that he is real, then
that would take away our free will". I thought for half a second (it
shouldn't have even taken me that long, but...) and said,
"What?!?!?, that doesn't make any sense at all." I added a couple of
examples... "So, you're saying that when my wife and I met, and later
decided to get married, since I knew for sure that she was real, my free will
was out the door? Somehow I guess I thought that us being together was the
result of us making free will choices to do so." I also added... "What
about Lucifer, the Angel of Light (a religious figure now called the Devil, or
Satan, which was constructed from a combination of the Hebrew word for adversary
and from the Serpent in the Genesis Garden story and from other places including
a few references to a particularly daunting enemy of God and hater of people in
the collection of writings known as the New Testament and from Christian
tradition)? According to the story, he was the closest to God that anyone has
ever been. Not only had God fully revealed himself to Lucifer, but Lucifer began
his existence in the very presence of God and continued to exist in the very presence of God, face to Face with God until
the very he freely chose to rebel against God and go out on his own to try
to take God's 'throne' and 'rule' in his place. Now, certainly you're not going to
tell me that Lucifer's free will was somehow impaired by his lot in life, being
stuck, face to Face, right in the very presence of God, right?" I could have gone into the case of Adam in the Genesis
Garden story too since it says that God walked with him in the Garden "in
the cool of the day", but I didn't get a chance. After I pointed out the
theologically and intellectually bankrupt condition of his free-will -vs-
full-disclosure hypothesis, he promptly moved on to talk about something else
without so much as even acknowledging my clearly well-studied grasp of the Text
and the Story or what I had so graciously just pointed out about his.
Of course nothing I could
have said would have made any difference. Nothing outside their narrow mindset
of religious beliefs even matters. It doesn't even matter what the Bible it self
says, because they are absolutely and fundamentally convinced that they already
know everything about God AND the Bible and that their particular, narrow
interpretation of the Text and their version of the Story it tells is the
absolutely correct one as if they got it right from the very mouth of God. Whenever I confront religious people about
stupid comments like this guy's one about our free will being diminished with
the revealing of the presence of God, instead of acknowledging that their
comment was stupid and baseless and just an attempt to stump someone with
theological mumbo-jumbo that they didn't know was incapable
of being stumped with theological matters (even though I am no longer a
believer, I am still just as much of a theologian as when I was believing it
all) they quickly jump to the next point in their string of points used to try
to "convince" people to believe in their belief system. It's really
pretty sick to me. I didn't even argue with the guy from a stand point outside
of his realm. I actually referred to the Text of the Story he claims to
"Believe" in (and which I know very well), but that point was missed I
guess.
Once again, it just goes to show that these people are not
even interested in thinking critically about their own world view, let alone
taking time out to try to understand where someone else is coming from. They
want to spread their worldview to others without ever relaxing, taking a step
back and tearing it apart and examining it for what it really is first. What is
it? Well, just as with any other religious worldview, they are pretending that
something is real and actual which they don't actually know for sure is real and
actual and then they are trying to manipulate others into taking that same step
into the land of make-believe and wishful thinking and join them in pretending
the same thing that they're pretending on the basis of its internal, unfounded
and untestable claims of eternal punishment for those who do not. Sick, just
sick. (This entry added 20030525)
[B-TTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believer-Teachers section
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
"Seeing is believing"
=huh?
What? That's goofy. No, seeing is not believing. I think the enormous popularity of this
cute? little phrase is actually the result of our faulty core thinking and a willingness to allow brilliant sounding
eloquent nonsense to masquerade in the guise of and become accepted, designated and proclaimed as wisdom. When we stop to think critically about it though, we all know that seeing is actually just seeing. Once we actually see something, what would be the point of "believing" anything in, on, over, under, around or about it? Now that we see it, we can say that we know it. It is very unfortunate that "seeing" has gotten such a bad wrap that it has been
subjugated to the realm of something as intellectually immature and scientifically ignorant as believing. Believing is not something we do when we've actually seen something. It is something we do when we have not seen something yet.
What is believing? What does it mean to "believe"? Again,
these are worthwhile questions relating to this particular issue. I go into much greater detail about "believing"
just above, but in case you just tuned in i'll briefly comment on it here as it relates to this issue of seeing and believing getting confused.
As far as I understand "believing", when someone "believes" something, they are basically choosing to count as real and actual something which they cannot be sure is
truly real and actual. This is not to vilify "believing", but just to acknowledge out loud what it actually means that we're doing when/if we "believe". It does not mean that it is necessarily a worthless endeavor which should be thrown out of all human experience all together. You can decide that if you'd like to and if that would help you live a more
fulfilling life, but that is not my angle here. So then, if we agree that "believing" is a matter of counting something as real and true without actually knowing for sure whether or not it is real and true, we have to acknowledge that "believing" is essentially "pretending".
So, believing is pretending. Contrary to popular "belief", pretending is not the same thing as knowing (or seeing).
Pretending is either...
1. something we do with regard to things which we know are not real when we are choosing to
make something up in place of known reality in order to make living in denial of
reality either more comfortable or more socially expectable, or
2. something we do with regard to things which we're not sure of when we are choosing to
make something up in place of known reality because we're in a hurry to have
answers.
With the former (pretending as a form of denial or escape from reality) the problem is more obvious and getting help is as close as a healthy journey through the stages of grief if we are willing to open our selves to the necessary pain involved in such an adventure for the sake of a better outcome on the other side. However, with the latter (pretending as a proactive, lifestyle choice in direct, intentional opposition to the evidence of known
reality for the purpose of forcing an issue that is not yet certain) the problem is potentially much more hidden and
hideous, because when we do this, we end up with a world view full of make-believe and entirely based on
wishful thinking rather than the reality of the world in which we actually live. The journey out is much harder and longer from within the darkness of an uncritical mind.
(DISCLAIMER: I do not think that the word "ignorant" has any
inherent, negative connotation. It is simply a declaration of the facts at hand. This is neither good nor bad necessarily. It's just what it is. You may take it as either a good thing or a bad thing your self in your interpretation, but coming from me it is just a statement of fact. Ignorance is simply a state of not knowing or of being unaware. I think i know a lot, but i don't claim to know it all [sometimes not much]. I hope that, if i'm ignorant of any particular thing related to that which i have to say, that you would not look down on me for it, but instead look across the table to where i'm sitting and help me see things better from your perspective or the perspective of the scientific studies which either you or someone else has actually done in the particular subject area.)
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
A case from recent
"Ground-Zero" history in New York City
Sometime
within the past year i heard a man being interviewed about his experiences in New York
during and after the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. He was
asked about what he thought about the connection between the events and god. He
said, "Well, I still believe in God, but I just don't really trust Him very
much anymore".
Now, i'm not even going to go into all of the goofy ideas he must have about god
and the nature of reality (god somehow being in control of everything that
happens for instance), but i want to talk about the issue raised by his comment,
"I still believe in God".
Since to me, "to believe" means "to count
something as if it were real and actual regardless of whether or not it can be
proven one way or another", in an ideal situation, for someone to say
"I believe" would be to acknowledge the fact that what the person is
about to say is something which they are choosing to count as being real and
actual even though they can't possibly prove, with absolute certainty, that it
is in fact real and actual. However, i don't think that this is the way most
people use the word. I find it troubling when i see people going along without
the slightest hint that they are taking into account the difference between what
they believe (are convinced of) and that which they actually know for sure. It
can be as real as can be in the mindset of the one doing the believing (I know
because I recall doing it), but that does not actually make it be real....only
real to the believer. Our species used to believe that the world is flat, but
that did not make it actually be flat. That might be considered a bad example at
this point because the "flat earth" theory has obviously been proven
false whereas there is no conclusive proof one way or another for or against the
existence of a god of any sort.
So, i often feel left in a very weird funk. Here's a guy that
claims to "believe" in god, but no longer trusts god very much.
Whereas, i'm a person that has an enormous amount of trust in the heart of a
particular god whom I only know of as a fictional character in a book containing
a mixture of history, stories, and mythology from a number of ancient
civilizations even though i don't have a
"belief" in either the existence or non-existence of that god at all.
The existence or non-existence of that god is irrelevant since my trust is not
in the existence of that god, but in what is represented by the attitude of that
god's mind and the character of that god's lifestyle. My trust in that fictional
character is not absolute though since the story is not absolute and the portrayal
of that god and the people writing about that god aren't necessarily consistent
throughout all of the writings the book contains.
My compassion goes out to that guy in the interview. I'd really like to help
people think critically about them selves and the world in which they actually
live. I'd also like to help them get in touch with a different kind of concept
of god than the one they're currently working with. If they're not living with a
belief in any god then
i'm not going to go that route, but if they are then i will go that route for
the sake of my compassion for them. I still think there is much wisdom in
something I learned from someone long ago, "The way out is through".
It's not the same as, "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em". It's
different. Instead, it's like, "If they aren't going to think critically in
every single way all of a sudden, at least I can offer a bit of light along
their path".
Clearly though, i'm not arguing for or against the
"beliefs" themselves. I'm not saying that it is not good to have the
beliefs or even saying that they are in any way wrong. I'm just acknowledging
the nature of believing. I am not an "atheist". I think that an
atheist is someone that "believes" that there is no god. They are
choosing to count as real and actual the idea that there is no god even though
there is no way what-so-ever that they can prove that there is no god. That is
not me. I prefer to be "agnostic" about god (and any other such
thing). By that I mean that I am not going to claim a definitive position, one
way or the other about the existence or non-existence of a god. I acknowledge
that I can't really "know for sure" and therefore, in being honest
with myself and others, I have to say, "I don't know". Having said
that, I will live my life based on the reality that we do know for sure, not
based on the world of make-believe and wishful thinking (whether it comes from
the realm of religion, philosophy, theoretical physics or anywhere else no
matter how many other "believers" there are).
So,
just where am i coming from?
Now, it's good to keep in mind the fact that i'm not saying,
"I don't know" from a stand point of never having been in a position
of thinking that i know for sure. I have indeed been in that position....for
many years. It's not like i'm coming from a standpoint of having been totally
disconnected from god or the experience of the "life of faith". I was
a fairly liberal Christian in my early years while i was a child in Minnesota
and in later years I was more of a radical, hard-core, fundamentalist,
conservative Christian than many people have probably ever met in person. I'm
still radical i guess (some would probably even say, "hard-core Jesus
freak!!") and i still consider my self to be someone concerned with the
"fundamentals" (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness etc...).
It's not that i don't
have any concept of what is real and what is not real either. I acknowledge the
reality that we find through studying ourselves and our world through the
scientific method. The difference now is that I am acknowledging the fact that i
don't, and never really did know for sure that the god i know of from the Story
is actually there and that when i thought i knew for sure, i was clearly
mistaken. I can't be totally open, honest and real with my self or anyone else
if i claim something that i know my self to be false. The god part wasn't
necessarily false (I'm agnostic), but the part about knowing for sure certainly
was. I don't know whether or not god actually exists. Therefore, it would be
dishonest, for me, to claim that god either does or does not exist. I think that
to "believe" that god is there is the same as "considering it to
be and claiming it as absolute truth without knowing for sure", something
which i am no longer willing to do.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
A message I sent to James Randi's Internet Radio
Show having to do with
our society's
understanding and usage of the words skeptic, skeptical and skepticism
"Hi.
(Don't worry, I don't even expect you to read this whole thing. If you do
though, thanks a bunch. I'd really like to hear what you think about my
questions herein on the show sometime)
First of all, thank you very much for your work to invite your fellow humans to
actually think. I so appreciate the mission of the JREF and 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. Also,
I was probably less comfortable with being open, honest and real than I was with
pretending.
Now however, I've been "born-again", again. (a 'born-again' skeptic?)
:-)
About the Raelians' cloned-alien and cloned-human claims:
Recently I've heard many radio and TV news people say things like, "What a
bunch of kooks" (I think this is a direct quote of Charles Givens [name?]
on the Today Show or Good Morning America or whatever it is) and "How crazy
can ya get?" and "Scientists are very skeptical about their
claims". All of these things of course are about the Raelians and their claim that they have successfully cloned a human being and that it has
been born. Now, I don't "believe" in their hypothesis about us being
cloned aliens, and I don't want to come off sounding like I'm defending that
view as scientific (because it is not, it is a "belief"), but I do
want to come to the rescue of the word "skeptical".
Why, in the context of talking about that group's beliefs,
would all these news people say something so outlandish about scientists? What
do they mean, "Scientists are very skeptical about their claims"? No
true scientist doing real science is any more "skeptical" about this
group's cloned-human or cloned-alien hypothesis than about any other "Weird
Thing". A scientist (in an ideal world) is skeptical....just skeptical. Not
skeptical about this and that, but just skeptical, all the time about
everything. Right? I haven't read any of your (James Randi) books yet (but I'm
about to), so I'm not sure how you would put it, but in "Why People Believe
Weird Things" Michael Shermer states that "Science is not a subject
but a method" and that "skepticism is not a position but an
approach". So, if he's right, skepticism isn't something I choose to have
about a certain claim, but it is a way of life which helps me continue to think
critically about everything I encounter. Right? Why would I want to be
"more skeptical" about one thing than another? Why would there be one
item in the news about which I am "very skeptical", but other items
which I'm only slightly skeptical about? Doesn't that sound kinda goofy and
perhaps dangerous? "Oh, I'll just be skeptical about things which do not
fit with my current world-view". No, no, no....I will be skeptical about
everything, including that which I already hold to be true. If I don't do that,
then where is my foundation? Also, if someone has a 'position' about something
before having even investigated it and done the research to find out whether or
not the claim is valid, then that is not actually skepticism at all, but
cynicism. Right? I think that many if not most people think that skepticism is
cynicism. When they say things like "Scientists are very skeptical about
their claims", I think they're actually superimposing their own cynicism on
the scientists and coating it with the word skeptical.
Click
this link to view my understanding of the difference between a cynic and a
skeptic....
Click this link to view my understanding of the difference between a cynic and a
skeptic....
Click this link to view my understanding of the difference between a cynic and a
skeptic....
Like I said, I don't "believe" in their cloned-alien claim, but what's
more "kooky" about that claim than the claim that a God created this
whole planet (sedimentary layers and all) in a matter of just 6 days or that
this is all just an illusion or any other claim from the world of make-believe?
None of these are claims which account for the evidence of the natural history
of life on Earth that we find by actually studying the Earth. It's not like the
cloned-alien thing could not have happened. Certainly it could. We all know that
it is possible to clone a human being. We also know that it is possible (though
not probable with our current understanding of what's involved) that another
intelligent species has traveled vast distances to come to Earth and plant
either clones of them selves or their DNA here and then leave to never come back
(very far fetched, but entirely possible I think). The possibility of such
things isn't the problem. The problem is that a claim like that is something
about which we can't be certain and any "belief" in it is not
scientific, but wishful thinking.....while at the same time we do actually have
a more logical, statistically probable and skeptically sound hypothesis which
only comes to us after investigating what the evidence actually suggests...we
evolved from slime. There's really no two ways about it. Perhaps the DNA in the
slime was planted by someone else, or perhaps it got here on the back of an
asteroid crashing in, but the backward trajectory of our evolution clearly seems
to point to something which originated, here on this planet, long before (at
least 4 billion years) our species ever existed.
My Questions:
As long as it is clear that I do not support the Raelians' cloned-alien claim,
I'll continue with these questions.....
So, why are the Raelians (in particular) so "kooky"? Has it become
politically incorrect to be open, honest and real about how "kooky"
certain other beliefs are? Are the news networks scared of losing viewership? Am
I way off base here or too naive or too idealistic with my understanding of
skepticism or too grandiose in my commitment to critical thinking? What do you
guys think?
What do you think about our society's understanding and usage of the words
skeptic, skeptical and skepticism?"
I never actually got a response to this e-mail. I think it may have been so long
that they didn't even bother to read it. Oh well. I understand that they must
get bunches and bunches of messages all the time and probably can't get to them
all. It may even be that they did read it, but specifically decided to avoid it
for some reason. I don't know.
Follow-up....
I did send them another message asking about whether or not they had ever gotten
to it. On the show that night they just said something like...
"Well, we prefer not to use that word [skeptic]
anymore since it has gotten such a negative connotation. We'd rather use the
term Critical Thinking instead. As for why we might have missed your message in
the mix; it was way too long and [with a surprisingly
harsh tone, about which I was confused] this isn't a forum for personal
views or anything like that."
(The wording of my paraphrase might not be very precise, but I think it conveys the
general gist of what they had to say)
So, I guess they see the problem with the words skeptic, skeptical and
skepticism too, but they just choose to not use them anymore whereas I'm not
quite ready to go that route yet (although other words have gone that route for
me over the years). I wonder what they think of things like Skeptic
Magazine and The Skeptic's Dictionary
and such. I won't ask though since it really, truly and honestly is not my
intention to piss anybody off.
On the matter of their comments about it not being a forum
for "personal views"...I'm not exactly sure what they mean. The whole
point of my long message in the first place was not to have it read on the show,
but to hear what they think [on the show after having read and considered it in
private].
I wasn't asking them to read it on the show (as is
clear from the opening remarks of my original message to them), but just to
address my comments and questions. I thought that was what the show is supposed
to be all about. Certainly other people's comments and questions get dealt with
on the show even when they ask very simple and unchallenging questions. I see
them going through one right after the other for a half hour or so sometimes. Oh
well. I'm sure there must be something I'm misunderstanding.
They are people whom I respect for their critical thinking mission,
their compassion for people and their level-headed approach to life and I simply
wanted to invite them to examine my thoughts and my thinking process and ask for
their understanding of the ideas I brought up in the message. I think this point
was missed. Oh well.
In any case, I'll still tune in to their show from time to
time and will still point people in their
direction as part of my mission in life to offer Critical Thinking and
invite other people into it.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
What about SETI@home? = (segment in
progress)
"What's
your main reason for running SETI@home?"
This segment sprang out of trying to answer a simple question in a user
survey on the SETI@home (I
participate) website. The question was, "What's
your main reason for running SETI@home?"
I want to be involved in the Search. Let's let hopes, desires, dreams and wishes remain as what they are. I personally really do hope that there are other intelligent life forms out there somewhere, but that's my hope, not a belief. A hope or a desire or a dream or a wish is one thing, but it is something entirely different to "claim" something or for someone to "believe" that claim. Why? Because we just can't be absolutely certain until we find out one way or the other. It is immature and unscientific to make claims about things which we haven't found to either be true or false yet.
I want to be part of the "Search"....not the religion that "believes" that there's already an answer to the question without the slightest bit of evidence yet. I wish we could all just relax and let them do scientific reSearch here and lay off the religious stuff. Certainly many (if not most) of us are fed up with all the religious nonsense we've received while children or as adults from the believers of various religions and kooked out pseudoscience. What makes a "belief" in or a claim (choosing to claim something as absolutely true without it being proven either true or false yet) about one unknown thing any different than any other?
What we claim to know might hurt us
We do not know for sure yet whether or not any life of any kind exists anywhere else off our planet (other than on our own spaceships and stations).
The only thing we can actually say that we know for sure (or at least be fairly
certain of) is that there is no ETI capable of communicating (or willing to)
with radio signals at least as far out as the first 25 light-years into space.
In light of the fact that we've been pumping radio signals out there for at
least the past 50 years, if there were any radio capable ETI out there,
certainly it is reasonable to think that we would have heard from them by now
(25 years out and 25 years back), right?
Sure, I've heard of the
supposed "statistical probabilities" and all that, but why can't we leave statistical probabilities as they are? Why pretend that statistical probabilities are logical certainties? Why claim that we know for sure until we find out for sure? What's so uncomfortable about being totally open, honest and real? Since we wont know for sure whether or not there's life out there until we find it, why not acknowledge that fact and deal with reality the way it really is so that we can move forward, thinking critically with a level
head in our Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence?
What do you think we look like to the world (or even the rest of the scientific
community) when we claim that we know for sure that there is ETI out there? Do
you think such claims actually help our mission to find it...in the long run I
mean? ...and if such claims do somehow help our mission to Search, does
the resulting help justify the false claims? Don't get me wrong...I think
that there are indeed valid circumstances in which lying can be seen as a good
thing...example = I think it was a good and healthy thing for certain German's
to lie about hiding Jewish people in their attic during the Nazi Holocaust. It
was in lying that they were able to help innocent people avoid certain death at
the hands of men who wanted them dead for no good reason, but simply on the
basis of their genetic and/or religious link to a certain ethnic people
group.
However, lying is neither a good nor a bad thing in and of it
self. So, in that example, lying wasn't just a bad thing done for a good reason.
That would only be true if we were to hold to some goofy notion that lying is
always a bad thing. What is lying? It is simply a matter of telling wrong
information. There's nothing inherently bad about telling wrong
information. It's just what it is...wrong information. Likewise, there's nothing
inherently good about telling correct information. I think what makes a
thing be either good or bad is the attitude and motive of the one
doing it and the outcome of it relative to other available, known options.
The key point here relating to the whole alien-believers
issue is, "other available, known options". Since we do indeed have other
available, known options to help our mission (that mission being SETI), it
doesn't seem like a good decision to me to choose lying about this
particular issue in this particular context at this particular point in history.
Could there ever be an appropriate situation in which to lie about this issue?
=Perhaps, but I'd have to see some darn good reasoning (like direct,
indisputable proof that we'd be helping to save the lives of millions of
innocent people or some such thing) to support such an extreme move before I
(being a scientist i.e. one who conducts studies and proposes conclusions in
accordance with and only after following through with the scientific method)
would be willing to sign on to it.
I want to find ETI. So I will help Search for ETI and wait for the finding of it to be that which convinces me that it is out there? Until we find ETI, I will not claim that we know for sure whether or not ETI exists, simply because we can not know this for sure.
For now, I can only honestly say that I don't know. I even want there to be
ETI, but I just, plain old don't know if it exists.
A Bit of History Perhaps?
(right here I want to put a segment about where the phenomena might have
come from...and at least deal with the issue of people being in a hurry to
either to arrive at the end of the rainbow of their particular hopes, dreams and
wishes or to "prove" one religion wrong by making up their own)
"If I weren't convinced..."
To illustrate a point, I'd like to tell a story about a
Christian friend
(Yes, friend. Strong disagreements about the nature of reality do not
necessarily mean that we can't be friends.) of mine and his belief in god (Keep in mind that I am a skeptic who chooses to remain agnostic about such things. So, I acknowledge that there is absolutely no way in which I can really know for sure whether or not there is any supreme, absolute, predetermined, objective purpose for or meaning in this life or whether or not there is any kind of supernatural, paranormal or metaphysical person, being, entity or force outside this present reality).
Within the past year or so, this friend of mine said something like this to me, "If I weren't convinced that God is real, I wouldn't continue doing what I do. Why would I?"
(FYI: This particular Christian friend of mine is the pastor of a church in Longmont).
This brings some vary interesting questions to my mind. If being convinced of the existence of God (let alone the fact that he is also convinced of the true 'theological' nature of that god) is the only reason he continues what he is doing (being a pastor), then what does that say about the actual attitude of his mind toward the people he is
'pastoring'? Well, in this case, it just so happens to be that I have come to know that he really does care for people...genuinely....apart from his "state of being convinced" of God's existence and the logical problem
which that belief poses to his theological system and the statement of his which I
quoted at the beginning of this illustration. Like many religious people
I've met, his genuine care for others shows that he is, at least to some noticeable
degree, living in a way that is at least slightly inconsistent with his stated
theological system of beliefs.
Putting that aside though and turning to the pure intellectual issues at hand in the statement, I wanted to ask....and did ask him questions like, "Why do you have to be convinced of God's existence in order to continue your work of being the pastor of your church? Why is it so important to be
'convinced'? How can you be so 'convinced' of something that is impossible to verify? What would happen to your worldview, your mindset and your attitude toward people if you somehow became unsure of the existence of God or became convinced that God indeed does not exist? Why is being convinced of the existence of God a necessary component in loving and serving people in the
fashion and footsteps of Jesus? Do you follow Jesus because you notice and are attracted to the attitude of his mind and the character of his lifestyle in the Story or because the Story or someone else says you're supposed
to follow him? If it is the latter, then are you even actually following Jesus anyway? Could you or would you not still love people and serve them without the component of
'convincedness'? Wouldn't you still love people and seek justice for them simply because it seems healthy to you in your estimation of
life as a homo sapien? If not, is it really love for the people that you're showing then or is it simply an act of
blind obedience to an unknown, unknowable entity resulting in accidental
goodness towards people for whom you would have no genuine concern if it were
not for the precepts and mandates of your belief system? If it is the latter, then why do you still have so many wonders about why so many people want to have so little to do with Jesus or God of any kind for that matter?"
This is not a matter of spite towards another human due to a
difference of belief systems between us. It is simply a matter of wanting to be
totally open, honest and real and ask the hard questions that never really get
asked in such circles (I know because I was in such a circle for many years). It is not about
attacking people, but about being as gentle as I can with the person while aggressively
confronting the systems of thought that still hold so many
people in the darkness of an uncritical mind.
What's uncritical about thinking he knows for sure though?
Well, first of all there is the fact that that kind of thinking does not take
reality as the foundational starting point but fantasy. All we can ever claim to
know about God (or gods of any kind) comes from the writings or talkings of
humans. There is nothing in the entire natural universe that reveals anything
about any kind of god what-so-ever. The only way to know about god at all is
from whatever we make up in our own mind or by 'special revelation' through
either written Text or voices we might think we hear in the wind or in our head
or from another human standing next to us. This is all fine and I won't argue
with the personal experiences of any believer of any kind of belief system. The
only problem I have is when that belief turns into something which they claim to
know for sure and even worse when they start trying to (and far too often
succeed at) convince other uncritically-thinking people that they can and do
know for sure as well. It's no wonder why beliefs sometimes spread like wildfire
and often stick around for many, many centuries. Claims about things which can't
be verified can not survive very long in an environment of critical thinking.
The Converse=Here we are, talking about it, wishing for such an
environment.
Why love? Do you love because
someone tells you to or because you want to? Because you're 'supposed to"
or because you've chosen love as your way as a result of experiencing it and
wanting to offer it to and invite others into it because it seems good and
healthy to you in your own life? If it is for the latter in these two previous
questions and you really have grown as a person into someone who genuinely cares
for the well-being of others and truly desires to love them and show compassion
for them and to them with your life, then can't that stand on its own?
All I got from him on these kinds of questions was, "Sure I would still love people, but I'd go be a psychologist or a
counselor or something like that, not a pastor...but I know that's not going to happen anyway because I know for sure that he is real because he has revealed himself to me in ways that can't totally be explained because it is about faith, not
reason" (this is a paraphrase of course....and also a compilation, but an
accurate one). So, as normal with people who are deep into one particular religion or another over their head (like I also used to
be many years ago) we needn't really look farther than "it is about faith, not reason". He is not
primarily concerned with what is verifiably real and true, but only with maintaining his belief in the Story as he currently understands it to
be (and perhaps allowing for a few augmentations within that framework along the
way since he's not totally closed minded). For him, everything else is meaningless and pointless. Why? Because he can not afford to open his mind enough to allow the possibility of being wrong about the existence of God. If he did, he has shown us that he would have to radically change his worldview and his lifestyle...and he'd clearly rather not do that.
Maybe all of us would rather not do that. I would rather not do that, but I must
if I am going to be totally open, honest and real and if my lifestyle is going
to reflect my understanding of life and the world around me and my attitude
toward my self and others.
So, my real point is not to talk about his particular beliefs
(remember that segment B11 started out and will get back to the issue of
ET-believers), but to bring into the light of logic and reason the fact that he is choosing to claim something as being real and actual when it is clearly something about which we can not be absolutely certain one way or another ... i.e. we can't
definitively say, with absolute certainty, for sure whether or not there is a god.
It's not even that he's wrong about God. We can't know that yet. The only thing
"wrong" about it is where the desires, dreams, wishes and hopes turn
into claims.
So, it would make more sense to me if he were to say (and if
years ago I would have said) something like, "Well, I'm not really sure whether or not God exists, and I'm not really sure what God is like if God does exist, but I do know this, I care about people and I want to spend my life reaching out to them to help them
discover love and compassion as I have which has set me free from the extremes of
a shame-based mindset and self-hatred on one hand and from selfishness, self-centeredness and self-worship on the other. Because
I've discovered love and compassion, I want to share it with others so that they can be free from whatever chains hold them down and keep them from experiencing all that life as a human has to offer. Even if I were to find out tomorrow that there is no god at all, I would still keep going simply because love it self has grown in my heart and it is love for my fellow humans that keeps me going, not an unknowable, unverifiable claim in a book written thousands of years ago by
a superstitious people who hadn't yet discovered critical thinking. I have actually grown and matured as a person. I actually love people now.
It's no longer something I do as part of a religion, but as just part of what
matters to me. People matter to me. That will not change, regardless of whether or not any part of the Story is actually true. I no longer love people because I'm supposed to, but because I've made a
conscious choice to do so because it seems good and right and healthy to me. It is something which I was attracted to in the Story about Jesus and because of that Story, I've been inspired to love my self and others and that's just what I desire to do whether he ever even existed or
not. I was not attracted to the claims of his divinity or his promises of some
kind of afterlife, but by his attitude and lifestyle of love and compassion for
self and others." Of course I'm pretty sure that this particular Christian friend of mine is no closer to saying all of this today than when we had the conversation in
early 2002 (I think I recall the timing correctly) from which I quoted the earlier statement.
Ok, so what does this illustrate with regard to what I have to say about the various alien-religions (of which, the main component is usually that they 'believe' that there are absolutely for sure aliens out there somewhere)? It is just the same with the alien-believers as it is with the other religious people. I've even heard
prominent scientists in the endeavor say things like, "Being convinced that they are out there is the only reason I keep searching". Well, guess what folks?...that's the same kind of thinking that my
Christian friend is doing. The only difference is that his belief is based on an old book written by humans and the alien-believer's belief is
based on more recent hopes and dreams and wishes which have not had enough time
to become an old book yet.
Oh, people will say that it is based on statistics and "common sense", but certainly only the first part of that stands a chance. Statistics may indeed indicate that certain things are likely or not likely, but they can say nothing about something which has simply never been studied yet. We only have one example of life existing on a planet, and that's right here on Earth. There are no statistics what so ever that can say anything at all about how likely it is or is not that life exists anywhere else. Wouldn't there first have to be at least one more example of life out there before we could actually call it statistics at all? Before that discovery (which I am looking for indeed and would very much like to find just like everyone else here) we have no business saying that we know for sure that there is life out there and then calling it a scientific statement....because it is not...it is a religious one in the same vein as that
Christian pastor friend of mine claiming that he knows for sure that there is a god. It's not that we can't know these things, but just that we do not know them at this point with the means and data we have available, and it is
emotionally immature, intellectually dishonest and entirely unscientific to claim that we do.
"Common sense"? Where? Remember that not all that's
common is normal. So, even if the belief is held "in common" by a
majority of the people, that does not mean that the belief necessarily
"makes sense" or that it is the result of critical thinking in the
light of a clear and reasonable understanding of the actual data on hand. The whole world used to "believe" that the
Earth is flat, but believing something does not make it be real and true.
So, "common sense"? Well, we can see that a claim about unknowable and unverifiable things can be common,
but does that mean it is 'sensible'?
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Believing and Relationships?
What about Believing in the context of relationships? Don't you have to believe certain things that people tell you in order to be able to continue having a relationship? Isn't trust somewhat based on believing what they are telling you?
While acknowledging that I don't know for sure whether or not they are telling me the truth, in certain kinds of relationships, with certain people, there's a certain degree to which I can live as though knowing for sure is less important to me than the relational experience and the potential, true intimacy that could be gained from such a chosen path. It's not that I'm giving the person 'the benefit of the doubt' though. That would just be another way of saying that I believe them. So, it still doesn't mean that I 'believe' that the person is always being totally open, honest and real with me, but it does mean that I'm willing to live with not knowing. Such a path is not an intellectual problem so long as I am living with a full awareness of and acknowledgement of the fact that I really don't know.
Now I am going to share with you some of my thoughts about my relationship with
my partner, Karen, followed by some excerpts from an e-mail conversation (about
Karen and I and our relationship) I had in Spring 2003 with a religious person
in Boulder, Colorado...
We don't believe in any concept of "fate". Whatever we do today is by
our own, present choosing. Of course we are influenced by many various things
(genetics, family upbringing, society, life experiences etc), but ultimately, we
each make our own decisions and choose the path we will take. Nothing can be
known for sure until it comes about. I can't say for sure whether or not we'll
still be together, say 10 years down the road. In our relationship, we do not
pretend that we will always love each other. We say that at this moment in time
we are committed to love each other and we want to love each other and that we
will try to love each other and that we will work on loving each other together.
Where we're at in 10 years though still remains to be seen and we're not
substituting pretending for actually getting there. We're not just letting it
come upon us either. We're going there together, deliberately. Deliberately
together. We intend to be together, working on continuing a healthy
relationship, and that is why we are still together even to this day, not
because of pretending.
To help bring out a bit more of the details of my thinking on this issue of
Believing and Relationships, here is an example of the kinds of conversations I
get in with people from time to time about this relationship I have with Karen.
This conversation (via e-mail ) took place in late May and Early June of 2003. The parts marked with Q: are
comments and questions from someone else and the parts marked with A: are
my responses....
Q: "is there ever a time for faith in any aspect of your life? What about the love of your wife, do you have faith that she loves you or do you require
empirical evidence for this love?"
A: Certainly you can't be serious. Why must there be a conflict between faith and empirical evidence when there obviously actually is empirical evidence?
Remember, faith is not something humans do with regard to things that are known for sure, but with regard to things that aren't. That is why faith
comes up. Since they don't know for sure, and they want to be sure so badly that they are willing to forego critical thinking and pretend that they know
for sure just to calm their nerves and satisfy their insatiable appetite for an absolute sense of security, whatever the cost to their intellect and the
rest of their worldview.
No, I don't have any faith what-so-ever in my wife's love. I know for sure
that she loves me. Well, at least I know it as surely as I can know anything else in the natural world with regard to what people think and what people
do. According to her track record in my life, I can say with confidence (though not with absolute certainty) that she will still love and care for
me tomorrow. Will she? We will see when we wake up tomorrow. Certainly you must agree that the sun rising tomorrow is more certain than whether one
person will still love another, right? However, we don't really even know "for sure" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Oh, it's most likely....almost
sounds stupid to even put it into the category of unknowns though doesn't it? That's the rub. Since the future is open and since we all have choices,
nothing in life is absolutely certain. So, people look for things outside of reality to lock on to and claim them as absolutely certain. Since they are
outside of known reality though, at the end of the day, if we are going to be completely honest with our selves, we have to acknowledge that these absolute certainties which lie outside reality are not really as absolutely
certain as we like them to be. We can be so convinced though that it is next to impossible to be that brutally honest with our selves and each other. For
future reference though, if you ever think that I'm advocating a philosophy of "no knowledge = no action", please recall my answers to these
questions...
1. Will the sun rise tomorrow?
Based on the nature of the star as we now understand it to be and based on the history of the star as we now know it, I would say that it will probably
rise tomorrow morning. I am certain that, without any unforeseen intra-solar or interstellar events
(in or on Sol {the name of our star, commonly known as the Sun}, in or on Earth, the solar system, the galaxy or
anywhere else in the universe) or any changes in the basic physics of our universe that it will indeed rise tomorrow morning.
However, as certain as I
am, based on all of the available data, I still will not claim to know for sure, with absolute certainty, that it will indeed rise tomorrow. Although
to do so would indeed be an acceptable thing to do in our society (and even in the scientific community for the most part), it would still be a step
outside the realm of critical thinking (a level-headed thought process which leads me to the conclusion that I am not absolutely
certain with regard to the exact nature or future experiences or condition of
certain persons, places, things or events since they have not yet come about
which will be the only way for me to observe them and make a valid judgment).
2. Will my wife still love me tomorrow?
Without duplicating the language of my answer to the question about the Sun rising, I'll just assume the same principles and say, "Most likely, yes, but
I won't be absolutely certain until I get there".
Q: "I put faith in the love of my wife and I place trust in her based on this faith"
A: Interesting. I'd recommend rechecking the condition of your relationship if you really mean what it seems like you're saying here Chris. Your trust in
"her" is based on your "faith" in her love? I guess maybe it's just a mixed up way of saying the same thing I say about my relationship with my wife,
but if you really mean it like that, oh boy. In my case, I do not trust in my wife's behavior, but in my wife. I do not have faith in my wife, but I
trust her. I trust her because of her track record in my life. Unlike in your faith condition, trust is not something that just comes about magically as the result of some other magical thing like faith. Trust is something
which is placed in someone whom has shown their self to be trust-worthy.
It's not a matter of faith because there are no unknowns involved. My wife
has shown her self to be trust-worthy, so I trust her. Yes, my trusting her is based on the empirical evidence of her life lived out before me, with me,
with others. To trust someone without knowing whether or not they are actually trust-worthy, as spiritual of an act as it might seem to
hyper-religious people (like I used to be), is not something that seems healthy to do in my understanding of personal health and relational
communities.
It's not that I "dis-trust" people for whom I have no track record though.
Dis-trust is for people that have shown them self to be untrust-worthy. For people that I do not know yet, I simply trust them to the extent to which I trust anyone without a track record in my life....from a distance, and with all eyes wide open and willing to participate with them
in life and learn and grow together with them to the extent that they are open to it with me as well, and in time, as we go down that path, I will
choose to either trust or dis-trust them to the extent that they show them self to be trust-worthy or not.
Q: "It still seems to me that the promise of marriage that we make to each other seems to require a large step of faith (trust and hope) doesn’t it?"
A: Again, I do not have any faith to speak of. No, our marriage is not based on faith, but on a choice to love. There are no guarantees. It is always our
individual choice each and every day whether or not to love the other. It's not about feelings either. If it were about feelings, certainly our marriage
would have gone the way most of the others go a long time ago....either separated, divorced or still living together, pretending that everything's
ok. It is specifically because of understanding this that we have not gone any of those ways. We would never claim to have the best marriage on the planet according to anyone else's standards, but we certainly do recognize
our uniqueness and it is clear to us that very few other people on Earth have as high of a quality of relationship as we have. I know that every day
when I wake up, when she says, "I love you", that it is for real and that she actually means it because we both decided long ago not to say things we
don't mean and we continue to check in with each other about this and other things on a regular basis. We're not just skipping along, waiting for the
next disaster to happen. We actually decided to be proactive in our relationship with each other, to seek to learn more about our selves and
each other and about relationships and to seek help from whomever will give it.
We do not always "get along" but this is because we are open, honest and
real. We are different people and we will not always see things eye to eye. Since we choose to value our selves, each other and all others as persons
(regardless of performance), we are able to deal with problems along the way and work on them together without running from them (well, at least without running for ever), and we are able to celebrate the healthy and enjoyable
things and share them with others and invite others to walk a path of love and compassion for self and others in an environment of critical thinking
without getting puffed up with pride.
Yes, we encounter storms, but we get through them. Yes, we experience the
full range of emotions and thoughts just like everybody else, and we get through it. Even though we're not religious anymore, we learned something
from a religious leader in Minnesota named David Johnson, "The way out is through". Since there are no guarantees, and since the future is open, and
since the nature and quality of our relationship is up to us, we're choosing to go through together. Will we always? We'll see. Neither of us has any
intents on leaving this joint journey. Imagine that. All of this, but no faith. I'm just simply open, honest and real. One thing for sure, what you
get from me is no bag of tricks or fancy philosophy or religious mumbo-jumbo that you have to wade through. You just get me.
(this section of this entry was created in
late-May-early-June of 2003, but
not added to this page on Believing until 20030807_0703)
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
Believing and Learning
What about believing in the context of someone else's "say-so"?
Just because I'm not absolutely sure that what they are telling me is true doesn't necessarily mean that I am pretending that it is. For some (probably even most) people that may indeed be the case. However, I have an alternative way of thinking about it to offer to the world.
Instead of defaulting to the usual state of believing in the information being presented when it comes to situations like this, I prefer to think of it as trusting the person. So, instead of counting the person's statement as being real and actual without knowing for sure whether or not it is (which would fit my definition of believing), I choose to trust the person according to the attitude of their mind and the character of their lifestyle as I understand it to be at this point in time. I am not pretending that the information they are giving me is real and actual, I am trusting that they are not pretending that it is.
Somewhere along the line, I have to trust other people with regard to study, research and investigation simply because I can not possibly do it all by my self. If there is a credible, scientifically minded, legitimate resource (whether in the form of a person or an organization of multiple persons) which either specializes in or is to some degree an expert in a particular area of study, it
seems like an ok and healthy thing for me to go with their research. Since my trust has been earned by the fact that they have an attitude and lifestyle of being a credible, scientifically minded, legitimate resource for such information and since I'm putting my trust in them to not pretend to me and since I'm not pretending that what they're telling me is real and actual, then in this kind of situation, I'm still not believing even though I do not really know "for sure" that what they are telling me is absolutely true, real and actual.
Now, of course someone could say, "Well, then what's the difference between you trusting this person in a context such as described above and the religious person trusting what they're leader tells them is the truth?" Well, BIG DIFFERENCE!
1. The religious person's foundation is built on pretending in the first place, whereas mine is based on empirical evidence.
2. The religious person doesn't even care about whether or not the leader is pretending let alone not knowing whether or not the information they're getting is truly real and actual. On the other hand, I do care and am trusting, based on the person's attitude and lifestyle, that the person I'm getting information from is just as concerned with empirical evidence as I am and if they are telling me that they are doing scientific research, and if they have a history to which I can refer that reflects such, then I think it is reasonable to trust that they are indeed not pretending and that they are indeed only giving me information that they have gained as a
result of a process of scientific research.
With certain types of information, I'm still not absolutely certain that the information I'm receiving is truly real and actual, but that's what "quoting" is for. I reveal the resource of the information through "quotes", foot-notes and bibliographies for the sake of inviting my peers to review what I've found and to check into it for them selves. The religious believer has no such recourse outside of the realm of pretending that the Stories are true, the person teaching them doing the same and the Collection of Writings which contain the Stories that they are all pretending about in the first place. Why it would seem
to anyone that these two scenarios I've just described are the same kind of situation, I'll never know.
[BTOC]
= Table of Contents for the Believing section
[TOC] = Main Table of
Contents
|
|
