On December 17th, I posted (as excerpted from "Practical Matters")
"My thought is that we should be teaching a course on the benefits and perhaps hazards of critcal thinking AND the benefits and hazards of Magical thinking and let the chips fall where they may. If we provide these two knowledge bases, perhaps our children will be able to sort out a more amicable set of belief structures than our generation could ever hope for."
Somehow, my former blogging buddy got...
".... She has even expressed a 'desire' to see that all schools eliminate any reference to religion, and emphasize rather, a tactic of indoctrination that would label any religious concept as being a 'fairy tale'...." (See www.speedbumpsinroad.blogspot.com for the entire post).
How he got this from that I can only surmise was based on my use of the terms "critical" versus "magical" thinking. I am guessing that he infers this to mean that I am using "Magical Thinking" as a slur. I am not. For reasons I don't really understand myself, I regularly "count crows"... an absolutely, positively magical sort of thinking! I also have and will continue to study world religions, which in many, many cases involve the belief in prayer and ritual connected to future life recompense. This IS a viable definition of magical thinking but is NOT an indictment or a put-down.
In my post, I very explicitly suggested an ADJUNCT COURSE wherein the merits and demerits of BOTH critical and magical reasoning styles could be presented and the students allowed to judge for themselves which they prefer. How is this "indoctrination"? In fact, I do not object to religious education in public schools and have never said such a thing. I truely don't mind having science class right along side RE class, in fact, given the importance religion has in the world, I cannot fathom how RE could responsibly be left OUT of a curriculum!
Now, I will say that I lost my temper with this person and flamed him in a direct email once.... exactly once. He has since seen fit to twist and exagerate much of the content of my blog posts to his own liking (or not) and to do so exclusively on his own blog where he screens any and all retort comments. He has rarely retorted to my blog posts directly so readers can compare his words directly to mine. He now is "saying goodbye", with a final swipe, suggesting how benign he is and how, something, I am.... In his words...
"As a result, our discussions, for the most part, turned into my questioning 'why' she believed what she did about her journey, and her, casting self-righteous, 'illuminai'/elitist arrogant insults at me for not accepting the 'authorities' she esteemed."
... and as a closing remark...
"My 'fairy tales' vs your 'imaginations' is not a battle either of us won, or will win. I was wrong to think my efforts mattered; I was wrong to think you could be anything but the enemy."
"Enemy?". How am I any real threat to you? Arrogant I may be, but I never counted you an enemy. In fact, I can't say I have ever had a stated enemy. I don't sit on any community boards (aside from occasionally volunteering to sanitize the local dog pound floor... and you know that is true), I gave up any thoughts of running for town office because, as a townie once told me "they would eat me alive!", and I don't sit on any school board (having no children of my own)... I just pay taxes that allow other people's kids to go to school and eat a hot lunch. And you know what? I don't complain about paying those taxes. And up until recently, I didn't have the guts to say a peep to anyone near me about my view of the world. So I guess if arrogance makes me a public menace, I must be one! Oh, woe to the world for my arrogance and dangerous opinions!
NOT!
Monday, December 27, 2010
The seeds of Intolerance.
"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~ Thomas Paine
If you met me, you would not count me a militant. I do not enjoy confrontation and I endeavor to listen actively to other people's opinions. Yet, of late, I have been vexed by a growing impatience with theists. I think it has been creeping up on me for some time but it hasn't always been that way. As a scientist (by profession as well as by temperment) I value openmindedness. It is the lifeblood of my career! As soon as one closes one's mind to a slate of ideas, one narrows one's options for discovering new things about the way the universe works. True, one must set some ideas aside as improbable if weight of evidence suggests it, but a good scientist never throws anything away completely. We are idea hoarders by necessity-they are our building blocks. In fact, we collect ideas like gems, tucking them away for later use, if the right niche comes along. We are like puzzle players, turning the pieces this way and that until we find out where they fit. If they don't fit here, maybe they will fit somewhere else.... so we save them for later. Good scientists don't let their emotions attach them or detach them from any one piece (or bunch of pieces). Ideas are GOOD things, right? Or at least neutral?
So, it is with great displeasure that I admit that I have begun to dislike an idea- fundamentalism. Or, perhaps more honestly, I dislike the intolerance that seems part-and-parcel of fundamentalism. For some reason that I can not fathom, fundamentalists seem to feel vulnerable to "diluting" the power of their beliefs by exposure to other ideas, yet, they profess that their ideas are truth. How can this be? If an idea is true, then it is true and can NOT be diluted. Ah! but perhap I have been blind again! Perhaps they fear being hoodwinked and their concern is not that the truth is being diluted but that they, as fallible humans, might be led astray by peddlers of impure ideas. Ok, so are these the only two options? Surely there must be other explanations why fundamentalists are intolerant of other belief systems? How can I find out? Hmm...
OK, so maybe I can point the microscope toward myself to find out... Some believer friends of mine have called me intolerant of theists, fair enough... So, what are possible reasons for me being intolerant 1) I can't stand being wrong or changing my mind, 2) I hate know-it-alls (except me, of course) and feel the need to "bring them down a peg", 3) I feel that my principles are correct and I would like to spread the good news, 4) are there any more? Dear readers let me know if you think I've missed some.
Explorations of the proposed reasons why we (fundamentalists and Atheists) might be intolerant:
1) "I can't stand being wrong or changing my mind": Well, I suspect this is probably true of most people who invest alot of their time and efforts in something, however, I would put to you, good reader, that scientists base their whole professional contributions on proofs and testing the potential fallability of those proofs. In fact, it is unusual NOT to be found wrong in some way, shape or form in the doing of science. It's just the way it all works! Ours is a cooperative effort to ferret out robust answers to nature's mysteries. While it is a bit painful to admit to holding on to a theory that gets proven wrong, we all know that this is how progress is made and some of our more gracious members have been known to thank their rivals for elegant counter-proofs. I don't think that is a common practice amongst religious fundamentalists-I wish it were. Now, I can't say that I like being wrong or having to change my ideas, but I do it often as part of my work and I'm not too bad at it. I challenge my fundamentalist collegues to practice it more often.
2) "I hate know-it-alls (except me, of course... thats a joke...) and feel the need to 'bring them down a peg' ": Don't we all feel that irritation factor with know-it-alls? I know my Mom felt it with me, reminding me that "I always had to have the last word"! Its true that I am like that. I hate to leave an arguement on the table unresolved, especially if that argument had alot of magical thinking involved in it. I would LOVE to say that I don't fall prey to this one, but I do. The presumption of unerring certainty drives me right out of my otherwise moderately rational mind and into full competition mode. So, given that I admit to this one, is this a viable explanation for why both atheists and fundamentalists are intolerant of others? Perhaps! Perhaps each side should ratchet down the "I know the Truth" business. Perhaps a little bit of moderation in this could help us all.
3) "I feel that my principles are correct and I would like to spread the good news": Ok, I'll admit it, I swiped the "Good News" idea, but I'm trying to make a point here. In what way am I able to share what I think I understand if I can only exchange ideas with people who already agree with me? Likewise, how can fundamentalists hope to share their good news with me, if they want me and my kind gone? Surely, there is value in understanding each other. I'd love to have that goodwill conversation, but fear that posturing (on both sides) will ixnay the whole business. In this, I am agreeing with Thomas Paine, "Moderation in temper is always a virtue" while also agreeing that "moderation in principle is always a vice". Let us find truth together through temperance AND reasoned debate.
If you met me, you would not count me a militant. I do not enjoy confrontation and I endeavor to listen actively to other people's opinions. Yet, of late, I have been vexed by a growing impatience with theists. I think it has been creeping up on me for some time but it hasn't always been that way. As a scientist (by profession as well as by temperment) I value openmindedness. It is the lifeblood of my career! As soon as one closes one's mind to a slate of ideas, one narrows one's options for discovering new things about the way the universe works. True, one must set some ideas aside as improbable if weight of evidence suggests it, but a good scientist never throws anything away completely. We are idea hoarders by necessity-they are our building blocks. In fact, we collect ideas like gems, tucking them away for later use, if the right niche comes along. We are like puzzle players, turning the pieces this way and that until we find out where they fit. If they don't fit here, maybe they will fit somewhere else.... so we save them for later. Good scientists don't let their emotions attach them or detach them from any one piece (or bunch of pieces). Ideas are GOOD things, right? Or at least neutral?
So, it is with great displeasure that I admit that I have begun to dislike an idea- fundamentalism. Or, perhaps more honestly, I dislike the intolerance that seems part-and-parcel of fundamentalism. For some reason that I can not fathom, fundamentalists seem to feel vulnerable to "diluting" the power of their beliefs by exposure to other ideas, yet, they profess that their ideas are truth. How can this be? If an idea is true, then it is true and can NOT be diluted. Ah! but perhap I have been blind again! Perhaps they fear being hoodwinked and their concern is not that the truth is being diluted but that they, as fallible humans, might be led astray by peddlers of impure ideas. Ok, so are these the only two options? Surely there must be other explanations why fundamentalists are intolerant of other belief systems? How can I find out? Hmm...
OK, so maybe I can point the microscope toward myself to find out... Some believer friends of mine have called me intolerant of theists, fair enough... So, what are possible reasons for me being intolerant 1) I can't stand being wrong or changing my mind, 2) I hate know-it-alls (except me, of course) and feel the need to "bring them down a peg", 3) I feel that my principles are correct and I would like to spread the good news, 4) are there any more? Dear readers let me know if you think I've missed some.
Explorations of the proposed reasons why we (fundamentalists and Atheists) might be intolerant:
1) "I can't stand being wrong or changing my mind": Well, I suspect this is probably true of most people who invest alot of their time and efforts in something, however, I would put to you, good reader, that scientists base their whole professional contributions on proofs and testing the potential fallability of those proofs. In fact, it is unusual NOT to be found wrong in some way, shape or form in the doing of science. It's just the way it all works! Ours is a cooperative effort to ferret out robust answers to nature's mysteries. While it is a bit painful to admit to holding on to a theory that gets proven wrong, we all know that this is how progress is made and some of our more gracious members have been known to thank their rivals for elegant counter-proofs. I don't think that is a common practice amongst religious fundamentalists-I wish it were. Now, I can't say that I like being wrong or having to change my ideas, but I do it often as part of my work and I'm not too bad at it. I challenge my fundamentalist collegues to practice it more often.
2) "I hate know-it-alls (except me, of course... thats a joke...) and feel the need to 'bring them down a peg' ": Don't we all feel that irritation factor with know-it-alls? I know my Mom felt it with me, reminding me that "I always had to have the last word"! Its true that I am like that. I hate to leave an arguement on the table unresolved, especially if that argument had alot of magical thinking involved in it. I would LOVE to say that I don't fall prey to this one, but I do. The presumption of unerring certainty drives me right out of my otherwise moderately rational mind and into full competition mode. So, given that I admit to this one, is this a viable explanation for why both atheists and fundamentalists are intolerant of others? Perhaps! Perhaps each side should ratchet down the "I know the Truth" business. Perhaps a little bit of moderation in this could help us all.
3) "I feel that my principles are correct and I would like to spread the good news": Ok, I'll admit it, I swiped the "Good News" idea, but I'm trying to make a point here. In what way am I able to share what I think I understand if I can only exchange ideas with people who already agree with me? Likewise, how can fundamentalists hope to share their good news with me, if they want me and my kind gone? Surely, there is value in understanding each other. I'd love to have that goodwill conversation, but fear that posturing (on both sides) will ixnay the whole business. In this, I am agreeing with Thomas Paine, "Moderation in temper is always a virtue" while also agreeing that "moderation in principle is always a vice". Let us find truth together through temperance AND reasoned debate.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Practical Matters
When I talk to my believer friends about atheism, we invariably get to a point where my friend is just incredulous that I don't "...... believe in SOMETHING". This is often followed by a conversation about science being a religion or the idea that when drilling into a person's philosophy, there must come a time (or spot?) where faith must take precedence because we "can't know". Well, my answer is that as you push past that point in one's psyche, you get to a place where your heart has to sit with the idea of what to do when you don't have enough information to confirm something.... you are in a philosophical "null space". I think the human tendency (or desire) for closure causes people to "fill in the blank" ... to either make up or adopt a scenario that they personally can live with... to guess, based on the information they DO have. This leaves space for all manner of wishful or magical thinking to occur. I think this is the place where atheists and theists part company. It is my best guess that the two camps split here because one group (the theists) want to "get on with things... to settle on an explanation and move on to practical matters, whereas the atheists are forever second guessing the solutions, always looking for ways to ferret out the error that might cause them to be wrong. Atheists don't like to be wrong, but they'd rather know about errors than get caught sideways by an arguement they haven't thought of before. I think atheists (myself included) are more uncomfortable with getting caught sideways than anything else, so we are constantly seeking verification. Theists seem to be more comfortable with having an answer and not second guessing it. In some (all?) theistic belief systems, there appears to be active discouragement of verification through a number of mechanisms, including the powerful implication that lack of faith is ultimately damning. I think this is a diabollically clever way to ensure commitment and, to a certain extent, complacency on the part of the adherents.
Am I being condescending in my implications that theists prefer to stay with an idea, not constantly interogating the crap out of it? Not intentionally. But it is interesting to consider which group is more confident of their oppinions. In a way, this is what it all boils down to.... a sense of certainty. A personal estimate of the confidence one places in one's "data" and one's ability to determine/"know" [the TRUTH]. In that respect, theists seem to me to be overly assured, and sometimes sassy about it (not that atheists aren't equally guilty of cockiness). Posturing happens on both sides and causes no end of animosity. We should all keep a handle on our egos in this regard and we can, if we accord others common courtesy and respect (assuming that the other person isn't violating some universal human moral code). And this is where big problems arise-it is the day-to-day practical matters that highlight and activate our differences. For instance, what do we teach our children in public schools; evolution, intelligent design or ,, FSM? My thought is that we should be teaching a course on the benefits and perhaps hazards of critcal thinking AND the benefits and hazards of Magical thinking and let the chips fall where they may. If we provide these two knowledge bases, perhaps our children will be able to sort out a more amicable set of belief structures than our generation could ever hope for.
Am I being condescending in my implications that theists prefer to stay with an idea, not constantly interogating the crap out of it? Not intentionally. But it is interesting to consider which group is more confident of their oppinions. In a way, this is what it all boils down to.... a sense of certainty. A personal estimate of the confidence one places in one's "data" and one's ability to determine/"know" [the TRUTH]. In that respect, theists seem to me to be overly assured, and sometimes sassy about it (not that atheists aren't equally guilty of cockiness). Posturing happens on both sides and causes no end of animosity. We should all keep a handle on our egos in this regard and we can, if we accord others common courtesy and respect (assuming that the other person isn't violating some universal human moral code). And this is where big problems arise-it is the day-to-day practical matters that highlight and activate our differences. For instance, what do we teach our children in public schools; evolution, intelligent design or ,
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Here we go again....
I thought my banter with my email buddy was over.... I can't say I'm thrilled that he refrains from addressing me in retorts to my blogspot so that my readers can see the thread, but hey... I can cut-n-paste.... Here is the section of his latest blog that pertains to me and our recent disagreement. (See bottom of this post for a cross-reference.)....
Comment 1) The second blog, published by 'bloggerB', a person who long-ago opted out of 'religion', is one I follow casually, because we know each other.
Response 1) Wrong: I didn't opt out. I was never in.
Comment 2) There were 'heated' discussions between us; I expressed my understanding of the topic, bloggerB became incensed, feeling I was hurling insults at him;
Response 2) Wrong: I felt you were hurling insults at everyone, not just me. Point of clarification: I was "incensed" by the idea that anyone would trivialize the accumulated wisdom of the world's religions by refusing to consider <"gasp"> READING any viewpoint but your own. In your words, their opinions are "trivial".
Comment 3) then he expressed hsr views, and when I questioned about the logic of, and the basis for those views, the answers were less than salient and substantial.
Response 3) Less than Salient and substantial? Even if I were a moron, I would still deserve a listen (as would the other 6.5 billion people on the planet who you cast aside as unenlightened idiots!)
Comment 4) So now, I refuse to discuss bloggerB's viewpoint.
Response 4) You clearly lack other post material...
Comment 5) When it comes to religious discussions, humanism and atheism are lies.
Response 5) How would you KNOW? You don't read or consider as salient any other viewpoints!
Comment 6) This is a 'give no ground' stand I must take.
Response 6). Sigh.
Comment 7) Blogger B discusses a topic I totally believe is wrong.
Response 7) Yup. Got that part.
Comment 8) I only follow that blog to observe the blogger's journey down a dead end path.
Response 8). Your contempt is breath-taking!
Comment 9) That is my 'give no quarter' stand.
Response 9) Yeah, yeah, you've already said that....
Comment 10) BloggerB's latest blog summarizes the dynamic between bloggerB and a friend, which vaguely resembles the dynamic between bloggerB and myself.
Response 10). Yes, it does resemble it. The important differences are that:
a) my friend isn't discarding the world's viewpoints as inconsequential,
b) my friend IS listening (but not necessarily agreeing), and
c) my friend hasn't jumped ship because we don't agree.
Comment 11) Our discussion ended with the two sides of the topic diametrically opposed, as did bloggerB's discussion with his friend.
Response 11). Nope, my friend and my conversation hasn't ended yet....
Comment 12) Our views can't meet, can't find common ground, because the two sides are mutually exclusive, much the same as black and white, light and dark concepts are incompatible.
Response 12) Can't meet? Won't meet is more likely. We're both stuck!
Comment 13) I am curious to see if anyone who posts comments or responses in opposition to bloggerB's views, is able to make any dent in the 'armor' bloggerB wears.
Response 13) Considering that you posted this question to only your readers, I guess nobody but your readers will be aware of your wonderment.
Comment 14) I'm just a spectator, watching what happens.
Response 14) Hardly.
Comment 15) I've gone down the '...give an answer for the hope....." path, to no avail.
Response 15). You're flying your colors.... you consider your position the side of "hope", thus you imply that I am "hopeless". Goodness only knows how deep your contempt goes for anybody who disagrees with you.
Comment 16) This ties in with the first item above, in that all the questions I posed to bloggerB were legitimate.
Response 16) We ALL think our own questions are legitimate! The question is whether you and I are comfortable enough in our own skins to step back and look at ourselves with skeptical eyes. Why do you think that your questions are legitimate yet mine weren't "salient or substantial"?
Comment 17) They asked for consideration as to the ramifications of taking the model to the nth degree, ad nauseum, its ultimate conclusion, if you will.
Response 17) I'm not sure how this sentence fits, so I will put it aside...
Comment 18) By looking at the extremes, by asking BloggerB what keeps man from going there, or, how man arrived where he is now, based on his model, I did not receive sufficient logical or conclusive evidence that supports his claims about why, and how, man is, where he is.
Response 18) "I did not receive sufficient logical or conclusive evidence".... Oh! I'm sorry your honor, I was certain that I had heard you profess to a "give no ground" position.
Comment 19) This strikes me the same way as the item above: How? Why don't....?.
Response 19) See http://www.speedbumpsinroad.blogspot.com for the full text, but know that the author screens and censors all replies and/or retorts.
Comment 1) The second blog, published by 'bloggerB', a person who long-ago opted out of 'religion', is one I follow casually, because we know each other.
Response 1) Wrong: I didn't opt out. I was never in.
Comment 2) There were 'heated' discussions between us; I expressed my understanding of the topic, bloggerB became incensed, feeling I was hurling insults at him;
Response 2) Wrong: I felt you were hurling insults at everyone, not just me. Point of clarification: I was "incensed" by the idea that anyone would trivialize the accumulated wisdom of the world's religions by refusing to consider <"gasp"> READING any viewpoint but your own. In your words, their opinions are "trivial".
Comment 3) then he expressed hsr views, and when I questioned about the logic of, and the basis for those views, the answers were less than salient and substantial.
Response 3) Less than Salient and substantial? Even if I were a moron, I would still deserve a listen (as would the other 6.5 billion people on the planet who you cast aside as unenlightened idiots!)
Comment 4) So now, I refuse to discuss bloggerB's viewpoint.
Response 4) You clearly lack other post material...
Comment 5) When it comes to religious discussions, humanism and atheism are lies.
Response 5) How would you KNOW? You don't read or consider as salient any other viewpoints!
Comment 6) This is a 'give no ground' stand I must take.
Response 6). Sigh.
Comment 7) Blogger B discusses a topic I totally believe is wrong.
Response 7) Yup. Got that part.
Comment 8) I only follow that blog to observe the blogger's journey down a dead end path.
Response 8). Your contempt is breath-taking!
Comment 9) That is my 'give no quarter' stand.
Response 9) Yeah, yeah, you've already said that....
Comment 10) BloggerB's latest blog summarizes the dynamic between bloggerB and a friend, which vaguely resembles the dynamic between bloggerB and myself.
Response 10). Yes, it does resemble it. The important differences are that:
a) my friend isn't discarding the world's viewpoints as inconsequential,
b) my friend IS listening (but not necessarily agreeing), and
c) my friend hasn't jumped ship because we don't agree.
Comment 11) Our discussion ended with the two sides of the topic diametrically opposed, as did bloggerB's discussion with his friend.
Response 11). Nope, my friend and my conversation hasn't ended yet....
Comment 12) Our views can't meet, can't find common ground, because the two sides are mutually exclusive, much the same as black and white, light and dark concepts are incompatible.
Response 12) Can't meet? Won't meet is more likely. We're both stuck!
Comment 13) I am curious to see if anyone who posts comments or responses in opposition to bloggerB's views, is able to make any dent in the 'armor' bloggerB wears.
Response 13) Considering that you posted this question to only your readers, I guess nobody but your readers will be aware of your wonderment.
Comment 14) I'm just a spectator, watching what happens.
Response 14) Hardly.
Comment 15) I've gone down the '...give an answer for the hope....." path, to no avail.
Response 15). You're flying your colors.... you consider your position the side of "hope", thus you imply that I am "hopeless". Goodness only knows how deep your contempt goes for anybody who disagrees with you.
Comment 16) This ties in with the first item above, in that all the questions I posed to bloggerB were legitimate.
Response 16) We ALL think our own questions are legitimate! The question is whether you and I are comfortable enough in our own skins to step back and look at ourselves with skeptical eyes. Why do you think that your questions are legitimate yet mine weren't "salient or substantial"?
Comment 17) They asked for consideration as to the ramifications of taking the model to the nth degree, ad nauseum, its ultimate conclusion, if you will.
Response 17) I'm not sure how this sentence fits, so I will put it aside...
Comment 18) By looking at the extremes, by asking BloggerB what keeps man from going there, or, how man arrived where he is now, based on his model, I did not receive sufficient logical or conclusive evidence that supports his claims about why, and how, man is, where he is.
Response 18) "I did not receive sufficient logical or conclusive evidence".... Oh! I'm sorry your honor, I was certain that I had heard you profess to a "give no ground" position.
Comment 19) This strikes me the same way as the item above: How? Why don't....?.
Response 19) See http://www.speedbumpsinroad.blogspot.com for the full text, but know that the author screens and censors all replies and/or retorts.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Trials and Errors
My believer friend and I keep talking, but we always get to the same place-- civil, friendly statements of our respective beliefs. For example, from the discussion I described in my previous post, we ended up in a space where my friend was expressing the belief that intuition is a gift from god while I was expressing my belief that intuition is an accumulation of personal experience that informs (perhaps subconsciously) when extended analysis is impractical. And thats where it hung. My friend actually exclaimed "We always end up having the same discussion in the end, you say your stuff and I say mine!"
So, my question is "How do we learn to talk to each other so each of us hears and understands in a heartfelt way? Ok, so I went with my friend to a workshop where the participants (including me) were to "meet" some enlightened beings and learn to work with them to improve ourselves and potentially make some headway in clearing up our Karma.
I tried. I really did, but the activities just reminded me of simple guided meditations. I enjoyed the meditations (and all of my friends know how much I desperately NEED to get better at meditation, if not for my own health but for that of my loved ones). And I tried to "see" the visitors, but alas, I just didn't. I breathed in white light, and breathed out white light, but still, nothing. I wasn't consciously trying to block. Heck, I've even tried hypnosis (which might have worked, who knows), but I just couldn't connect to my higher self! Maybe, I need to try some peyote or something (just kidding). So, try as I might, I wasn't able to relate..... yet.
So, I'm trying to imagine what it might feel like to be cuddled in a nice warm space, say the palm of an almighty being. This being, I am imagining, loves me and is protecting me and will understand my shortcomings and love me anyway, ultimately welcoming me to 'a better place' somewhere, sometime. It's a nice feeling. Warm and cozy. But..... There is a nagging feeling.... I can't sustain the belief. Its like going to a good movie.... it works as long as the lights are low. As soon as I lift my head, I'm back in "the REAL world" where God allows suffering of innocents. Hhm, guess I really need to keep a constant vigil on this disbelief thing if I hope to discover what believers feel and why. So, I will keep trying, but for now, I still believe there is no God.
But, what about bridging from the other side? So far, I have been completely unsuccessful at trying to get a believer to try even a simple experiment, like watching a video on humanism, or reading a text on physics and "the ether". Gah! It gets frustrating to hear things like "Well you believe that intuition is a gift of God, don't you?". I could manage an outright denial of a non-creationist origin of the universe, if I could get across that I REALLY do think like that! I just want a believer to try, but it seems insurmountable!
Now, I imagine (again) that some of my readers (especially my atheist friends, but maybe even my believer friends) may be thinking "Why? Why try to 'feel' something you don't believe in? Or are you TRYING to not be an 'unbeliever' really?". Well, my rebuttal to that is, again, yes, I really am an atheist, but I don't think deists are going away anytime soon, so we better start understanding them better! I actually feel that religious belief has wrought the worst sorts of crimes on humanity, the planet and other life that lives here. I think it is hubris on the part of atheists to expect mass conversions, but perhaps with a better understanding of what motivates and enriches believers, we can hope to find common ground for solving the worlds ongoing problems. We simply must act cooperatively.
'Til next time...
So, my question is "How do we learn to talk to each other so each of us hears and understands in a heartfelt way? Ok, so I went with my friend to a workshop where the participants (including me) were to "meet" some enlightened beings and learn to work with them to improve ourselves and potentially make some headway in clearing up our Karma.
I tried. I really did, but the activities just reminded me of simple guided meditations. I enjoyed the meditations (and all of my friends know how much I desperately NEED to get better at meditation, if not for my own health but for that of my loved ones). And I tried to "see" the visitors, but alas, I just didn't. I breathed in white light, and breathed out white light, but still, nothing. I wasn't consciously trying to block. Heck, I've even tried hypnosis (which might have worked, who knows), but I just couldn't connect to my higher self! Maybe, I need to try some peyote or something (just kidding). So, try as I might, I wasn't able to relate..... yet.
So, I'm trying to imagine what it might feel like to be cuddled in a nice warm space, say the palm of an almighty being. This being, I am imagining, loves me and is protecting me and will understand my shortcomings and love me anyway, ultimately welcoming me to 'a better place' somewhere, sometime. It's a nice feeling. Warm and cozy. But..... There is a nagging feeling.... I can't sustain the belief. Its like going to a good movie.... it works as long as the lights are low. As soon as I lift my head, I'm back in "the REAL world" where God allows suffering of innocents. Hhm, guess I really need to keep a constant vigil on this disbelief thing if I hope to discover what believers feel and why. So, I will keep trying, but for now, I still believe there is no God.
But, what about bridging from the other side? So far, I have been completely unsuccessful at trying to get a believer to try even a simple experiment, like watching a video on humanism, or reading a text on physics and "the ether". Gah! It gets frustrating to hear things like "Well you believe that intuition is a gift of God, don't you?". I could manage an outright denial of a non-creationist origin of the universe, if I could get across that I REALLY do think like that! I just want a believer to try, but it seems insurmountable!
Now, I imagine (again) that some of my readers (especially my atheist friends, but maybe even my believer friends) may be thinking "Why? Why try to 'feel' something you don't believe in? Or are you TRYING to not be an 'unbeliever' really?". Well, my rebuttal to that is, again, yes, I really am an atheist, but I don't think deists are going away anytime soon, so we better start understanding them better! I actually feel that religious belief has wrought the worst sorts of crimes on humanity, the planet and other life that lives here. I think it is hubris on the part of atheists to expect mass conversions, but perhaps with a better understanding of what motivates and enriches believers, we can hope to find common ground for solving the worlds ongoing problems. We simply must act cooperatively.
'Til next time...
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Open-Closed-Confused....
One of the things I truly enjoy doing is talking with my believer friends. They think so differently than I do-- not badly, or worse-- just different. For instance, today I was feeling a bit fiesty and decided to broach the subject of magical versus critical thinking with a friend who is a firm believer in a very marginalized spiritual practice. My friend seemed in a receptive mood and that's always a good place to start. So, I opened with "I'm always amazed at how much your life is spiritually driven and how much you attribute the wonders of our world to magical or mystical origins". My friend responded well (given the opening) and replied with something like, "We don't call it magic". Hmm. Well, yes, that went well. Lets try that again.... "I mean, I've heard that people are more likely to believe something first, and only disbelieve something after some conscious examination, like if you were in the way-back machine and out on the savannah and you believed a lion was hunting you, it would be more prudent to immediately believe it was true, run away, and be wrong but alive, than to doubt the lion was hunting you and be wrong and be dead....". "Uhm...." said my friend..... I continued... "Well, I guess what I'm saying is similar to what many believers have told me, that its easier to believe in god than to not believe in god, and I guess I'm agreeing. That it comes quickly and naturally to say 'Yeah! That makes sense to me!' but it doesn't necessarily get followed up on... to think retrospectively and critically to see if there might be any errors in the conclusion... any unintended biases there that might lead one to a false conclusion."..... "Uhm...." said my friend.... Then added, "Well, I can tell you a story about a fellow believer who talks to his plants and while not with them had a vision that the plants were being harmed, so he went home to discover that indeed someone had broken into his greenhouse, trampled his plants and made off with the greenhouse heater. I believe this happened to him and that he was in communication with his plants. I am a believer". I listened patiently, but then responded "That just drives me CrAzY!!! You'll believe his stories, but you wouldn't believe one of mine!". Taken a bit aback, my friend retorted "Well, tell me a story then! But it can't be made up. It has to be real". Now it was my turn to say "Uhm". How was I gonna get back to the point from here?!? Yikes! "OK, so I'm a geophysicist and I'm out at a site where I need to determine the difference between...". "Hey, is this a REAL story? It can't be made up!". "Yeah, this is real! So, as I was saying, I need to determine how much subsurface metal is scrap metal and how much is unexploded Improvised Explosive Devises (IEDs). I can only use physics, 'cause peoples lives are on the line"..... "Are you SURE this is a real story?" said my friend. "Yes! You KNOW I do this for a living! Let me finish!..... So I need to be able to say WHY I conclude there are 'X' percent unexploded bombs in say a particular area".... Then my friend interjects, "I'd use intuition". "But that's my point! I CAN'T use intuition!". "Why not?" "Because you can't explain why! You can't use it to predict the way the universe works with any kind of consistency!". "Well of course! Intuition is a gift from God. Each person's gifts are unique and can't be transferred. They're special. They're Gifts from God". "I don't believe in god". "But you believe in intuition, don't you?". "Well, no, I don't" (Ugh! That's not quite right!) "Wait! I mean, I don't believe in intuition the same way that you do. I believe that intuition is an accumulation of personal experiences that informs a person when extensive research or consideration isn't practical, but I don't believe intuition is a divine gift to a person"...... "But your friend Steve has a Gift for solving problems no one else seems to be able to solve-- I've told him he has a Gift." "I don't think it's a gift, I think it is a set of skills and proclivities...". "Well I think its a Gift from God. Hey, you didn't finish your story about the bombs...."
Sigh....
And so it went.... our conversation. Both of us open to hearing, but neither able to hear. Our vocabulary is still too different. No-- Its worse than that. We are using the same vocabulary, but meaning different things by the same words. Somehow, I want my friend to hear me. I don't want to convert my friend, but I want to be known... understood.... Open, not closed. Not confused.... I guess I'll keep trying....
Sigh....
And so it went.... our conversation. Both of us open to hearing, but neither able to hear. Our vocabulary is still too different. No-- Its worse than that. We are using the same vocabulary, but meaning different things by the same words. Somehow, I want my friend to hear me. I don't want to convert my friend, but I want to be known... understood.... Open, not closed. Not confused.... I guess I'll keep trying....
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Sam Harris' challenge to obfuscating scientists: Reconsidering relative moralism
So I'm reading Sam Harris' book "The Moral Landscape". When I got to the section titled "Moral Blindness in the name of "Tolerance", I knew he was referring to people like me and it was gonna hurt! Having just finished an extended debate with an email buddy wherein I had been using the term moral relativism rather frequently, I knew that Mr. Harris was about to call me on it. Indeed, after reading just a bit of the material (I'm only on chapter two) I am painfully aware that 1) I am not really a moral relativist at all, and 2) I had been using the "softer", "relative" form as a way to sustain connections across chasms of different philosophical leanings.
What I mean is: 1) I believe, and have said before, that our common human biology ensures that there are human-universal values; that we as a species have more in common (morality-wise) than we have differences. Thus, I do believe that there are, at least some, absolutes and have been using the term moral relativism improperly. And 2) I guess I felt that if I said what I truley believed; that man, not God, was the source of morality, then my conversations would be over before they started. Thus, my relativism was a form of cowardice on my part. An inability to take a stand about what I believe to be true. Mr Harris is trying to convince us (most specifically scientists) to stop being weenies and take a position!
Ok. I get that. My next question then is; if Mr. Harris is correct, and morality is based on common needs and the well-being of humans and (some/most?) animals then is intervention to "right" a "wrong" always a moral responsibility? For example, Mr. Harris points to the compulsitory wearing of Burqas for women as a moral wrong. I agree. Is it then my moral responsibility to attempt to right that wrong? Am I immoral if I don't act? What if there are so many wrongs needing "righting" that I have to decide how to spend my time? What if I feel that capital punishment is a nastier form of immorality than burqas and perhaps one I can make an impact on? Suppose I conclude that both concepts are morally wrong, but.... am I making a judgement on their relative wrongness when I decide which deserves my attention? I have to admit to being somewhat confused now. Am I being an absolutist with little time, or a relativist with lack of.....hmm... cojones?
I guess I do feel there are moral absolutes, but I don't yet know how that fact should be incorporated into my life. Guess I better read the rest of the book!
What I mean is: 1) I believe, and have said before, that our common human biology ensures that there are human-universal values; that we as a species have more in common (morality-wise) than we have differences. Thus, I do believe that there are, at least some, absolutes and have been using the term moral relativism improperly. And 2) I guess I felt that if I said what I truley believed; that man, not God, was the source of morality, then my conversations would be over before they started. Thus, my relativism was a form of cowardice on my part. An inability to take a stand about what I believe to be true. Mr Harris is trying to convince us (most specifically scientists) to stop being weenies and take a position!
Ok. I get that. My next question then is; if Mr. Harris is correct, and morality is based on common needs and the well-being of humans and (some/most?) animals then is intervention to "right" a "wrong" always a moral responsibility? For example, Mr. Harris points to the compulsitory wearing of Burqas for women as a moral wrong. I agree. Is it then my moral responsibility to attempt to right that wrong? Am I immoral if I don't act? What if there are so many wrongs needing "righting" that I have to decide how to spend my time? What if I feel that capital punishment is a nastier form of immorality than burqas and perhaps one I can make an impact on? Suppose I conclude that both concepts are morally wrong, but.... am I making a judgement on their relative wrongness when I decide which deserves my attention? I have to admit to being somewhat confused now. Am I being an absolutist with little time, or a relativist with lack of.....hmm... cojones?
I guess I do feel there are moral absolutes, but I don't yet know how that fact should be incorporated into my life. Guess I better read the rest of the book!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The End of the Blogging Buddy Exchange....
journeyman said...
buddy:
I don't need an apology! I was under the assumption, since you confessed to others, (via a request for advice in you blog), that the initial outburst you flamed at me was 'over the top, that you'd be moral. (The fact you asked others for advise, "whether you ought to 'apologize' or not", in some form or another, is proof that you knew you were wrong). Your 'flames' did no damage to me. They were only words. However, having done wrong, and having received my explanations that what you perceived as 'insults', were a)not aimed at you, and b) were OPINIONS about the mindset you hold, (along with millions others). I would have expected one so advanced, morally and culturally (as you presume to be), to be able to admit error. But you haven't/don't, so my conclusion stands; your attack was justified because I expressed opinions that don't agree with your humanism. Therefore, I'm arrogant, self-righteous, and the antagonist.
Similarly, if you expect me to apologize for what you perceive as attacks, I am not as unsure about my opinions being 'attacks' or arrows, (as you were about yours). If I regret anything, it is that I 'persevered' to express my beliefs beyond the first or second exchange, for all the impact it had, for as little as you understood my opinion. I understand what you believe. I disagree. I believe it is wrong. But that is my opinion. How does expressing that become an 'insult' to you? Or is humanism the 'state' religion, and dissenters punishable?
You also said:
>>By the way, in what way should I NOT be offended by the line "You have become your own god"? You sling arrows just as liberally as I do, my righteous friend.<<
I could ask, "why is that an arrow?" Why does that inflict 'damage'? If there is no god, then each person becomes their own god by logical extension; what they believe is right/true is right/true; and anything that doesn't agree is wrong. It doesn't matter that you aggregate those who think like you into that definition, of 'god'; since there is no (other superior)deity to judge you(all/each), you take that office, individually or collectively. Thus, you are your own god.
As for continuing this 'repartee', this exchange of opinions, since you believe you are in a 'battle of wits, with an unarmed man' (me), I'll just put my opinions away. That way, you can stop shooting, and you won't feel like I'm throwing rocks. I won't pass this way again.
Delusions of Grandeur-Take Two.
Buddy's Comment 11: Saying you don't believe in a hereafter, that you have no 'hope' for anything past the end of your life, that you deny the existence of that, is the saddest commentary for atheism or humanism. You say you don't need it; you are blind to your insufficiency, to your incomplete-ness. You have become your own god.
My Response to Comment 11: Hog-wash! I am aware of my insufficiency and guess what? I'm ok with it. I know I am human. I'm not claiming godliness. Remember, I'M AN ATHEIST! Why must people of faith always succumb to defining atheist's behaviors in mystical terms?!?! I have not become my own God because I don't believe in Gods! Over! Done! Oh yeah, and here is a special announcement... For those believers who say that my atheism is just a passing fad or that it is just that I'm not ready yet... Well, thats alot of condescending hoo-Ha too!
My Response to Comment 11: Hog-wash! I am aware of my insufficiency and guess what? I'm ok with it. I know I am human. I'm not claiming godliness. Remember, I'M AN ATHEIST! Why must people of faith always succumb to defining atheist's behaviors in mystical terms?!?! I have not become my own God because I don't believe in Gods! Over! Done! Oh yeah, and here is a special announcement... For those believers who say that my atheism is just a passing fad or that it is just that I'm not ready yet... Well, thats alot of condescending hoo-Ha too!
Bribery for good behavior: Is it the only way to get good behavior?
Buddy's Comment 10: Regarding personal motivations, without a reason to do 'good', a 'carrot or a stick', why not do whatever, and live to the fullest, at whatever cost to those around you?
My Response to Comment 10: Why do you define "doing whatever" as living to the fullest? Your definition works only if you get your kicks out of doing bad things, which has no survival benefits, or really any benefits at all, save getting sick jollies. I think good thing benefit and bad things don't. I don't see any reason whatsoever, to adhere to your equation.
My Response to Comment 10: Why do you define "doing whatever" as living to the fullest? Your definition works only if you get your kicks out of doing bad things, which has no survival benefits, or really any benefits at all, save getting sick jollies. I think good thing benefit and bad things don't. I don't see any reason whatsoever, to adhere to your equation.
History favors the Godly?
Buddy's Comment 9: To say that a self- or community-directed code of conduct suffices, ignores history. To say that the code is a 'work in progress' also fails. No civilization, whose morals were based on their own evolved consensus of right and wrong, has survived because of that code. They were either overcome by invading neighboring civilizations, (with a different 'code' that allowed their behavior), or because they became lax in their own code, or they evolved the code out of existence, passing on a devolved code to the next generations. The only exception to this string of failures, is the one nation that acknowledges that 'right' and 'wrong', good and evil, are 'God'-defined, Israel.
My Response to Comment 9:
What about China? They're still here.....
My Response to Comment 9:
What about China? They're still here.....
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Absolute Morality and the "Stay-puffed" Marshmallow Man....
Buddy's Comment 8: Other forms, as well as our current day culture, readily show the shortcomings of non-absolutes. From dictatorships to socialisms to theocracies (Islam?), (and including our current democracy), they prove the point that mankind needs governance, and the 'governors' need governance, by absolute standards. As much as this country has attempted to define what is 'good', 'right', and 'fair' for its citizens, our news media is filled with society's failures, as well as those of our 'governors'.
My Response to Comment 8:
I'm pretty sure this is a repeat, but lets see.... Why haven't we talked at all about moral victories? Are those not part of the equation too? Surely relative morality isn't so useless that no moral victories can be claimed in balance with the bad? Or are the good bits reserved soley for the agrandisement of the diety? It would seem, from your arguement, that all that is bad comes from man, AND nothing good comes from man either. This is not a simplistic point! The believer would say "well of course! God is all good!" But does that mean that man is all bad? If not, then some good MUST come from man! I want to hear that part! Go ahead! Say it! "Man is good!". Soup kitchens, adoption, nurses, international aid associations, the "Stay-puffed Marshmallow man" for goodness sakes!.... what could ever go wrong with him?
My point is, I've heard enough about man's failings and evil doings. If all you can see is corruption and despair in the works of man, then it should come as no surprise that you would want to shed your human skin as quickly as possible to get to that better place at the end. With each post, I see more clearly how much you despise your humanness and that of your fellow beings. You cannot enjoy (or even acknowledge) life as a journey because to you every day is evidence of your own fallibility. Gah! I can't imagine how you can hold in such low regard, the creation of your own God! Ach! If I were "He", and I met you at the pearly gates, I wouldn't let you in!
But!, I'm letting my emotions get the best of me, so I'll sign off for now. Phew!
My Response to Comment 8:
I'm pretty sure this is a repeat, but lets see.... Why haven't we talked at all about moral victories? Are those not part of the equation too? Surely relative morality isn't so useless that no moral victories can be claimed in balance with the bad? Or are the good bits reserved soley for the agrandisement of the diety? It would seem, from your arguement, that all that is bad comes from man, AND nothing good comes from man either. This is not a simplistic point! The believer would say "well of course! God is all good!" But does that mean that man is all bad? If not, then some good MUST come from man! I want to hear that part! Go ahead! Say it! "Man is good!". Soup kitchens, adoption, nurses, international aid associations, the "Stay-puffed Marshmallow man" for goodness sakes!.... what could ever go wrong with him?
My point is, I've heard enough about man's failings and evil doings. If all you can see is corruption and despair in the works of man, then it should come as no surprise that you would want to shed your human skin as quickly as possible to get to that better place at the end. With each post, I see more clearly how much you despise your humanness and that of your fellow beings. You cannot enjoy (or even acknowledge) life as a journey because to you every day is evidence of your own fallibility. Gah! I can't imagine how you can hold in such low regard, the creation of your own God! Ach! If I were "He", and I met you at the pearly gates, I wouldn't let you in!
But!, I'm letting my emotions get the best of me, so I'll sign off for now. Phew!
Does Atheism mean "Anything Goes"?
Buddy's Comment 7: If there are no absolutes, anything is allowed, at some time or some place. Man, in general, has a need to have moral boundaries. Our government is based on the principle that power be balanced among the 'rulers', lest that power be abused; it has been extolled as being the epitome of human government.
My Response to Comment 7:
"If there is no absolutes, anything is allowed, at some time or some place."
Hmm. Well, not really. I believe that their are social pressures that come into play when members of communities act outsides of the social norms. It is homeostasis... equilibrium at work. You say anything is "allowed" but that's just not true. Revolutions happen because social pressure acts to return communal behaviors to homeostasis. Cultural norms work because people act (cooperatively or in isolation) to rein in extreme behaviors. If this were not the case, there would be no word "ostracism", but there is because it exists and it works. Abberant behaviors may not be prevented from starting, but they can be stopped and/or mitigated. Which is more than I can say for the efficacy of devine intervention. Where was God in Rwanda, for instance? I'd say neither absolute or relative morality has produced a particularly well behaved populous. Try another arguement.
My Response to Comment 7:
"If there is no absolutes, anything is allowed, at some time or some place."
Hmm. Well, not really. I believe that their are social pressures that come into play when members of communities act outsides of the social norms. It is homeostasis... equilibrium at work. You say anything is "allowed" but that's just not true. Revolutions happen because social pressure acts to return communal behaviors to homeostasis. Cultural norms work because people act (cooperatively or in isolation) to rein in extreme behaviors. If this were not the case, there would be no word "ostracism", but there is because it exists and it works. Abberant behaviors may not be prevented from starting, but they can be stopped and/or mitigated. Which is more than I can say for the efficacy of devine intervention. Where was God in Rwanda, for instance? I'd say neither absolute or relative morality has produced a particularly well behaved populous. Try another arguement.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Can absolute moral codes cure psycho/social pathology?
Buddy's Comment 6: What benefit was the community's morals on the likes of J. Dahmer, or E. Gein, or A. Hitler? It is because the communities they belonged to could not enforce or convince them of the 'right-ness' or 'wrong-ness' of their actions, that the self-imposed, self-governing moral code failed.
My Response to Comment 6:
It is my firm belief that psychopaths and sociopaths have a biologically inherited, or traumatically induced brain injury or deformity that affects their ability to conform to social norms. Furthermore, I suspect that like other medical maladies, psycho-social issues occur at a regular statistical rate in the human population, regardless of whether absolute or relative moral codes are in place. Your contention implies that christianity can cure psychological illness- I vehemently disagree. It is all too simple to disavow the mentally ill and attribute their behaviors to a failure of their personal piety. I put to you that in the case of the truly deranged, neither absolute or relative moral codes will have any influence on their behaviors. Both approaches would fail.
My Response to Comment 6:
It is my firm belief that psychopaths and sociopaths have a biologically inherited, or traumatically induced brain injury or deformity that affects their ability to conform to social norms. Furthermore, I suspect that like other medical maladies, psycho-social issues occur at a regular statistical rate in the human population, regardless of whether absolute or relative moral codes are in place. Your contention implies that christianity can cure psychological illness- I vehemently disagree. It is all too simple to disavow the mentally ill and attribute their behaviors to a failure of their personal piety. I put to you that in the case of the truly deranged, neither absolute or relative moral codes will have any influence on their behaviors. Both approaches would fail.
Are Atheists doomed to amoral lives of hopeless despair?
And so the debate with my email/blogging buddy continues...
Buddy's Comment 5: People need universal absolutes, (morals), that provide a timeless standard of right and wrong, good and bad. Without that standard, and by extension, the rewards and consequences for good or bad behavior, a feeling of hopelessness is unavoidable, if not for everyone, then for the majority.
My Response to Comment 5:
This statement has two parts. a) The first is the people need absolute standards. b) The second part is that without absolute standards, hopelessness is inevitable.
My Response 5a).
I'm not in agreement with this because I believe that there are good, moral people who have never heard of the Bible. And if this is true, then people don't NEED absolute standards. If you insist that people still NEED absolute standards, then all those people would be immoral, or at least "accidentally" moral. This seems unlikely to me. If they can be moral, then what do you mean by the term "Need"?
My Response 5b)
This implies that all non-christians will inherently experience hopelessness. I strongly suspect you are wrong about this. While I understand that rates of depression are a smidgen higher in the atheist population than in the deist population, that is a far cry from the blanket statement you have made here. I think you are stating an opinion that you cannot support with any objectivity.
Buddy's Comment 5: People need universal absolutes, (morals), that provide a timeless standard of right and wrong, good and bad. Without that standard, and by extension, the rewards and consequences for good or bad behavior, a feeling of hopelessness is unavoidable, if not for everyone, then for the majority.
My Response to Comment 5:
This statement has two parts. a) The first is the people need absolute standards. b) The second part is that without absolute standards, hopelessness is inevitable.
My Response 5a).
I'm not in agreement with this because I believe that there are good, moral people who have never heard of the Bible. And if this is true, then people don't NEED absolute standards. If you insist that people still NEED absolute standards, then all those people would be immoral, or at least "accidentally" moral. This seems unlikely to me. If they can be moral, then what do you mean by the term "Need"?
My Response 5b)
This implies that all non-christians will inherently experience hopelessness. I strongly suspect you are wrong about this. While I understand that rates of depression are a smidgen higher in the atheist population than in the deist population, that is a far cry from the blanket statement you have made here. I think you are stating an opinion that you cannot support with any objectivity.
Friday, October 29, 2010
My Atheism: Searching for Truth?
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 4) If your 'truth' is indeed truth, or better, if your searching is in itself truth, what do you do about the millions who can't read or write; who have no access to the 'wealth of knowledge' of the world and are, therefore, relegated to their own uninformed 'box' of ignorance?
Response 4). I'm skeptical by nature and training. "Truth", and those professing to know it, give me a case of nerves with their hubris. I have never claimed to know the "Truth". I'm not even sure what it is I CAN know, let alone make such a bold statement. Searching is neither "Truth" nor "Knowledge" but an activity. Searching requires an open mind, a willingness to consider many different perspectives, but does not require books, or money, or worldliness. Just curiosity and an ever-present tendency to ask "why?, or maybe, "How"?
The deeper thread in your question is your conclusion that in order to reap a "Just Reward" at the end of life, one must know the "Truth". For you, life appears to be a constant competition for "rightness". In your world, the "ignorant" are somehow at risk of some horrible fate (some "Justice" that is). In my world, my atheistic world, we are all equal. Nobody gets a reward for being human, nobody gets a punishment. There is no Universal Arbiter.
"Imagine there's no heaven
it's easy if you try
No hell below us
above us only sky"
(Lennon).
Question 4) If your 'truth' is indeed truth, or better, if your searching is in itself truth, what do you do about the millions who can't read or write; who have no access to the 'wealth of knowledge' of the world and are, therefore, relegated to their own uninformed 'box' of ignorance?
Response 4). I'm skeptical by nature and training. "Truth", and those professing to know it, give me a case of nerves with their hubris. I have never claimed to know the "Truth". I'm not even sure what it is I CAN know, let alone make such a bold statement. Searching is neither "Truth" nor "Knowledge" but an activity. Searching requires an open mind, a willingness to consider many different perspectives, but does not require books, or money, or worldliness. Just curiosity and an ever-present tendency to ask "why?, or maybe, "How"?
The deeper thread in your question is your conclusion that in order to reap a "Just Reward" at the end of life, one must know the "Truth". For you, life appears to be a constant competition for "rightness". In your world, the "ignorant" are somehow at risk of some horrible fate (some "Justice" that is). In my world, my atheistic world, we are all equal. Nobody gets a reward for being human, nobody gets a punishment. There is no Universal Arbiter.
"Imagine there's no heaven
it's easy if you try
No hell below us
above us only sky"
(Lennon).
My Atheism: A Breach of Einstein's "Laws"?
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 3) Doesn't the theory that life 'evolved-from-inanimate-matter' contradict (at least one of) Einstein's laws?
Response 3) OK, give me a hint.... which law(s)? Or are we in the realm of biochemistry maybe?
Question 3) Doesn't the theory that life 'evolved-from-inanimate-matter' contradict (at least one of) Einstein's laws?
Response 3) OK, give me a hint.... which law(s)? Or are we in the realm of biochemistry maybe?
My Atheism: Morality and Justice
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 2d) If morality is a consensus of opinion, how universally 'just' is that? If it doesn't have to be universally 'just', how is the applicability of the 'moral' determined?
Response 2d: Universal Justice -- Two words which seem so "right" when brought together. But, a human DESIRE for universal fairness does not make it happen or make it even feasible. In order to HAVE universal justice, one MUST require a devine and, presumably, omniscient arbiter and, as the title of my blog implies, I don't believe there is one. I personally consider morality, not so much a consensus, as an innate human sensibility.
According to Wikipedia (see "Justice"), studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need". Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human." indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
As I have stated in previous posts, I believe humans have evolved as a species with morality developing as an integral part of its reliance on socialization for survival. I stick with that hypothesis here. Because I feel this way, I look to communities to execute their own rules of law. As long as the members of that community recognize and uphold those rules, justice works.
Question 2d) If morality is a consensus of opinion, how universally 'just' is that? If it doesn't have to be universally 'just', how is the applicability of the 'moral' determined?
Response 2d: Universal Justice -- Two words which seem so "right" when brought together. But, a human DESIRE for universal fairness does not make it happen or make it even feasible. In order to HAVE universal justice, one MUST require a devine and, presumably, omniscient arbiter and, as the title of my blog implies, I don't believe there is one. I personally consider morality, not so much a consensus, as an innate human sensibility.
According to Wikipedia (see "Justice"), studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need". Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human." indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.
As I have stated in previous posts, I believe humans have evolved as a species with morality developing as an integral part of its reliance on socialization for survival. I stick with that hypothesis here. Because I feel this way, I look to communities to execute their own rules of law. As long as the members of that community recognize and uphold those rules, justice works.
My Atheism: Me versus Hitler?!
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
2c) What makes the morality of 'nighthawk' any better than the morality of Hitler?
I'm not sure whether this question deserves an answer, as the implications are repulsive. But, I said I would try to answer to the best of my abilities, so here goes...
I'm pretty sure that murder and torture are morally prohibited in most cultures. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not a murderer or a torturer (the quality of my writing being one possible exception). So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my morality is more socially acceptable than Hitler's was. Thus, it's "better". Saying any more than that is quibbling.
2c) What makes the morality of 'nighthawk' any better than the morality of Hitler?
I'm not sure whether this question deserves an answer, as the implications are repulsive. But, I said I would try to answer to the best of my abilities, so here goes...
I'm pretty sure that murder and torture are morally prohibited in most cultures. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not a murderer or a torturer (the quality of my writing being one possible exception). So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that my morality is more socially acceptable than Hitler's was. Thus, it's "better". Saying any more than that is quibbling.
My Atheism: The Origins of Morality.
Preface and Context: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
2b) Where does 'morality' come from?
The striking consistency of human values across cultures supports the conclusion that morality, like language, is an adaptive ability in (at least) humans -- that is, I think that morality evolved with the species. I don't attribute mystical qualities to the ability to learn and abide by societal rules. One could substitute any number of human behaviors in place of morality in the question, such as love, anger, compassion, envy, or language, for that matter. The believer is convinced they are designed. I am not. I think they work, and that is their strength.
2b) Where does 'morality' come from?
The striking consistency of human values across cultures supports the conclusion that morality, like language, is an adaptive ability in (at least) humans -- that is, I think that morality evolved with the species. I don't attribute mystical qualities to the ability to learn and abide by societal rules. One could substitute any number of human behaviors in place of morality in the question, such as love, anger, compassion, envy, or language, for that matter. The believer is convinced they are designed. I am not. I think they work, and that is their strength.
My Atheism: The benefits of morality...
Preface: I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These qestions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any mis-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 2a) If you don't believe you have an 'existence' beyond this life, what is the benefit of ANY morality?
Response 2a) I like the definition of morality used by Stan Slap in his business book "Bury My Heart at Conference Room B" wherein he proposes that "Morals" or "how a person ought to act in the opinion of authority, consensus or the popularly interpreted rules of society" are " the right thing to do". This definition is similar to that posed in the Oxford New American Dictionary that morality is a set of "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". It seems to me that any community that hopes to survive will require rules to maintain and sustain itself and its members. I see morality as a social imperative. So, I guess the short answer to Question 2a is that I don't believe in an afterlife, and morality keeps us alive and ensures the perpetuation of the species. That seems like a benefit to me.
Question 2a) If you don't believe you have an 'existence' beyond this life, what is the benefit of ANY morality?
Response 2a) I like the definition of morality used by Stan Slap in his business book "Bury My Heart at Conference Room B" wherein he proposes that "Morals" or "how a person ought to act in the opinion of authority, consensus or the popularly interpreted rules of society" are " the right thing to do". This definition is similar to that posed in the Oxford New American Dictionary that morality is a set of "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". It seems to me that any community that hopes to survive will require rules to maintain and sustain itself and its members. I see morality as a social imperative. So, I guess the short answer to Question 2a is that I don't believe in an afterlife, and morality keeps us alive and ensures the perpetuation of the species. That seems like a benefit to me.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
My Atheism: Rewards and the afterlife?
I was recently challenged by a blogging/email buddy to explain my atheism and I responded, rather reflexively, with curt answers. The questions were good ones, if not just a bit vehemently posed. This post is one of a short series that attempts to answer those inqueries in a more respectful way. Two disclaimers though: a) The questions were posed as a set and therefore have a certain coherency. At the risk of losing the thread, I have decided to separate the individual parts and offer a post on each. I have preserved the original order of the questions in the order of the posts if you choose to reconstruct the original query, b) I have, in some cases, edited the question to tone down the sarcasm. These questions were posed in the heat of "battle", and in order to reduce the chance of my responding in kind and missing the important points, I have tried to responsibly restate the question in the spirit in which it was originally intended. Any miss-treatment in this respect is my own error and I apologize in advance, although I have made an effort to maintain my civility.
Question 1) What is your reward for the life you lead, if you deny the existence of an afterlife?
Response 1: Ok, so I've written two previous versions of this response and both were rejected by my stalwart editors; the short one for being curt, and the long one for being "P-P" ( pretentious and pedantic). So maybe the third time's the charm, eh?
So, here we go again.
I do not believe in an afterlife and I do not believe in rewards for living. As my mother used to say, "You don't get money for getting good grades, you get an education". (Well, maybe she didn't say it quite that way, but that was the gist of it). I believe we are born, we live, we die. Done. I don't believe that people need "carrots" or "sticks" from outside of ourselves or our communities to be good. I suspect that humans (and perhaps animals) have innate capacities for "rules" much as we humans have for developing languages (see "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" by Marc D. Hauser, or any number of other recent books on the subject of the development of human moral systems). If one absolutely cannot fathom my lack of a need for a reward, perhaps I can offer that I love feeling the sun on my skin, the taste and sensations of fresh berries, the smell of fresh brewed coffee, the company of friends and family, and warm memories. I mostly live in the "now" timeframe and have learned that I am most peaceful when I am neither fretting about past mistakes or worrying about future calamities. And I try very hard to be "good".... right now. But that is another subject and it comes up in the next Question! Stay tuned!
Question 1) What is your reward for the life you lead, if you deny the existence of an afterlife?
Response 1: Ok, so I've written two previous versions of this response and both were rejected by my stalwart editors; the short one for being curt, and the long one for being "P-P" ( pretentious and pedantic). So maybe the third time's the charm, eh?
So, here we go again.
I do not believe in an afterlife and I do not believe in rewards for living. As my mother used to say, "You don't get money for getting good grades, you get an education". (Well, maybe she didn't say it quite that way, but that was the gist of it). I believe we are born, we live, we die. Done. I don't believe that people need "carrots" or "sticks" from outside of ourselves or our communities to be good. I suspect that humans (and perhaps animals) have innate capacities for "rules" much as we humans have for developing languages (see "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong" by Marc D. Hauser, or any number of other recent books on the subject of the development of human moral systems). If one absolutely cannot fathom my lack of a need for a reward, perhaps I can offer that I love feeling the sun on my skin, the taste and sensations of fresh berries, the smell of fresh brewed coffee, the company of friends and family, and warm memories. I mostly live in the "now" timeframe and have learned that I am most peaceful when I am neither fretting about past mistakes or worrying about future calamities. And I try very hard to be "good".... right now. But that is another subject and it comes up in the next Question! Stay tuned!
Sunday, October 24, 2010
In Search of "My Holiday Season"
October, November and December... Ah, the atheist season of challenge! Lets see; Halloween, Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Islamic Ahura, Kwanzaa, Christmas... How does an atheist honor friend's and family traditions without compromising our own values? I struggle with this one every year. I can't count the number of times that I, as a closeted atheist, was asked to say Grace at the official Thanksgiving day meal. Eeeehk! I always dreaded being "selected" and that horrible moment when all those faithful, grateful eyes turned to me expecting a soliloquey starting with something like "Lord, we humbly ask you to bless...", well you get the point. I can't remember a single time when I had the guts to decline on the grounds of being a conscientious objector. And, if it weren't bad enough that by saying Grace I had somehow failed my sensibilities, I wondered (rather hypocritically) whether I had somehow sullied my friend's piousness by saying a less than pious grace. Oh Dear!
So, I enter the holiday season with the warm memories of holidays past, but slowly weary of it when I consider that the secularization of these special occasions is, at least in part, enhanced by a desire (on many levels) to include secularists like me. For how else can believers include their non-believer friends in their celebrations? Its a quandry that leaves me pale. I hold dear in my heart the sights and sounds of my believer friends enjoying their celebrations which of course have special meaning to them. To me, their joy is THE JOY of the season. I'd hate to remove myself from the mix, but I wonder... do the believers ever wonder what its like for people like me? I somehow doubt it much crosses their minds. I mostly hear utterances about how terrible it is that religious holidays are secularized and that this is most commonly attributed to commercialism. Perhaps true, but I secretly feel somewhat relieved. Now don't get me wrong, I despise the commercialization of religious holidays, but I am not down on the idea of Kris Kringle. He (that would be Kris) gives me a place to stand when the world around me is awash in swirling showers of giant, fluffy snow and swaying to the strains of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem", bright copper kettles, and warm woolen mittens... Uhm... Sorry... different Blog....
I'd look to Thanksgiving for a smidgen of secularism, but all those hats remind me of the puritan ideals that permeate the celebrations, so no-can-do. Halloween? Who would we be kidding if we thought that was a secular holiday? Ahura? Nope. Hanukkah? Unh-uh. But.... there is Kwanzaa. Now there is definately more hope for that one... Although Kwanzaa, as originally envisioned was offerred up as an alternative holiday for African-Americans to celebrate their cultural uniqueness, I strongly appreciate the principles upon which it is based. According to Wikipedia:
"Kwanzaa celebrates what its founder called the seven principles of Kwanzaa, or Nguzo Saba (originally Nguzu Saba—the seven principles of blackness), which Karenga said "is a communitarian African philosophy," consisting of what Karenga called "the best of African thought and practice in constant exchange with the world."
These seven principles comprise Kawaida, a Swahili term for tradition and reason. Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of the following principles:
Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems, and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle."
Now, I don't happen to be African-American, but who would decline from getting behind those values? So this year, perhaps as I participate in faith-based celebrations, I can recite to myself these seven wise principles and revel in the joy I feel in being with loved ones, old and new.
So, I enter the holiday season with the warm memories of holidays past, but slowly weary of it when I consider that the secularization of these special occasions is, at least in part, enhanced by a desire (on many levels) to include secularists like me. For how else can believers include their non-believer friends in their celebrations? Its a quandry that leaves me pale. I hold dear in my heart the sights and sounds of my believer friends enjoying their celebrations which of course have special meaning to them. To me, their joy is THE JOY of the season. I'd hate to remove myself from the mix, but I wonder... do the believers ever wonder what its like for people like me? I somehow doubt it much crosses their minds. I mostly hear utterances about how terrible it is that religious holidays are secularized and that this is most commonly attributed to commercialism. Perhaps true, but I secretly feel somewhat relieved. Now don't get me wrong, I despise the commercialization of religious holidays, but I am not down on the idea of Kris Kringle. He (that would be Kris) gives me a place to stand when the world around me is awash in swirling showers of giant, fluffy snow and swaying to the strains of "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem", bright copper kettles, and warm woolen mittens... Uhm... Sorry... different Blog....
I'd look to Thanksgiving for a smidgen of secularism, but all those hats remind me of the puritan ideals that permeate the celebrations, so no-can-do. Halloween? Who would we be kidding if we thought that was a secular holiday? Ahura? Nope. Hanukkah? Unh-uh. But.... there is Kwanzaa. Now there is definately more hope for that one... Although Kwanzaa, as originally envisioned was offerred up as an alternative holiday for African-Americans to celebrate their cultural uniqueness, I strongly appreciate the principles upon which it is based. According to Wikipedia:
"Kwanzaa celebrates what its founder called the seven principles of Kwanzaa, or Nguzo Saba (originally Nguzu Saba—the seven principles of blackness), which Karenga said "is a communitarian African philosophy," consisting of what Karenga called "the best of African thought and practice in constant exchange with the world."
These seven principles comprise Kawaida, a Swahili term for tradition and reason. Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of the following principles:
Umoja (Unity): To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility): To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems, and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics): To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (Purpose): To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (Creativity): To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (Faith): To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle."
Now, I don't happen to be African-American, but who would decline from getting behind those values? So this year, perhaps as I participate in faith-based celebrations, I can recite to myself these seven wise principles and revel in the joy I feel in being with loved ones, old and new.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
An Explanation....
To those of you, good readers, who have been following my posts here at "Reflections of An Atheist" you will be aware that I was involved in a rather heated feud with a believer friend of mine. Well, through the courage of that friend, and through some little contribution of my own, we have come to an accord. I thank him for his care and generosity and look forward to a future of gentile reflection and thoughtful exchange. Thanks for sticking with me during this difficult time.....
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Oops...
Well, that nasty exchange I had with my email buddy seems to have taken an even more unfortunate turn. My friend took down his blog and I am afraid I may have precipitated that sad decision. I don't know how I expected him to act after my vitreolic email response to his blog but taking it down wasn't what I was trying to get him to do. I wanted him to know that his philosophy regarding other people's faith being "trivial information" is not something I can reconcile my feelings to. I didn't intend to drive him underground! Now, I am afraid that he will be even more inaccessible than he was before! Oh dear! I've let my temper make a mess of things.
So, what should I do dear readers? How do I fix this without compromising my principles?
On the one hand, I did get ridiculously angry and flamed him something fierce, so I guess there is a question of whether that was called for or not. On the other hand, there is the question of when should someone take a stand? I'm stuck....
So, what should I do dear readers? How do I fix this without compromising my principles?
On the one hand, I did get ridiculously angry and flamed him something fierce, so I guess there is a question of whether that was called for or not. On the other hand, there is the question of when should someone take a stand? I'm stuck....
Need Your Advice...
Need your Advice...
So here's an update on my very first post ("Existential Aloneness").
Yup, everybody wants to be "connected", not the least of which is me. In my first post, I referred to an email exchange with a friend about religion during which I became offended and lost my temper. No, I mean REALLY, REALLY lost my temper. In an uncharacteristic fit of rage, I sent a vile and vitreolic retort and vowed to end my friendship with him. I even went so far as to include his generally innocent, bystander- wife in the ostracizing (guilty by association you know). I was so mad that I had no problem hurling personal insults and ill wishes! So here I am, touting my belief in respect and tolerance, and I go off like a roman candle when MY VALUES are not supported by somebody else! I should practice what I preach, don't you think?
Clearly, my values of respect and tolerance have limits, I just didn't know that before. I generally don't care for militancy, but I fear I may be becoming a militant something. I was about to write "militant atheist" but then I recalled that the values that got tripped weren't god-based, they were.... well.... respect... and humility based. I guess what I am learning is that I feel that in order to respect others, you must be curious about them and have enough humility to allow yourself to listen to them and really hear them. To "get to know them" on a very deep level. Is it possible to respect someone (or someones) and NOT be curious about them? I can't see how. And reversing the question is just as difficult; does not being curious about someone mean you don't respect them? I'm reminded of the tenets of "active listening". According to Wikipedia:
"Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."
So I wonder; was I angry about his blatant disdain for other people's wisdom traditions because I saw this as a disrespectful thing to do backed up by a lack of humility, OR, was I plainly being disrespectful of HIS belief system? Geesh! This is tricky to pare apart! This must be what parents feel when thier kids make "bad decisions". So, do parents have the "right" to yell at their kids about bad values? Do I have the "right" to yell at somebody else? Maybe parents think it is their responsibility to take a stand? Maybe I do too. So how do parents live with kicking a kid out of the house when it gets too much? How do people NOT go back and "give in", in order not to lose a connection to someone? Why do I feel badly about losing a friendship if that person holds values that are repugnant to me?
Why? Because people crave connection! Thats why! Ok readers, so what do I do now? Stick to my guns or cave? Or is there something in between... Need your advice. What sayeth you?
So here's an update on my very first post ("Existential Aloneness").
Yup, everybody wants to be "connected", not the least of which is me. In my first post, I referred to an email exchange with a friend about religion during which I became offended and lost my temper. No, I mean REALLY, REALLY lost my temper. In an uncharacteristic fit of rage, I sent a vile and vitreolic retort and vowed to end my friendship with him. I even went so far as to include his generally innocent, bystander- wife in the ostracizing (guilty by association you know). I was so mad that I had no problem hurling personal insults and ill wishes! So here I am, touting my belief in respect and tolerance, and I go off like a roman candle when MY VALUES are not supported by somebody else! I should practice what I preach, don't you think?
Clearly, my values of respect and tolerance have limits, I just didn't know that before. I generally don't care for militancy, but I fear I may be becoming a militant something. I was about to write "militant atheist" but then I recalled that the values that got tripped weren't god-based, they were.... well.... respect... and humility based. I guess what I am learning is that I feel that in order to respect others, you must be curious about them and have enough humility to allow yourself to listen to them and really hear them. To "get to know them" on a very deep level. Is it possible to respect someone (or someones) and NOT be curious about them? I can't see how. And reversing the question is just as difficult; does not being curious about someone mean you don't respect them? I'm reminded of the tenets of "active listening". According to Wikipedia:
"Active listening requires the listener to understand, interpret, and evaluate what they hear. The ability to listen actively can improve personal relationships through reducing conflicts, strengthening cooperation, and fostering understanding."
So I wonder; was I angry about his blatant disdain for other people's wisdom traditions because I saw this as a disrespectful thing to do backed up by a lack of humility, OR, was I plainly being disrespectful of HIS belief system? Geesh! This is tricky to pare apart! This must be what parents feel when thier kids make "bad decisions". So, do parents have the "right" to yell at their kids about bad values? Do I have the "right" to yell at somebody else? Maybe parents think it is their responsibility to take a stand? Maybe I do too. So how do parents live with kicking a kid out of the house when it gets too much? How do people NOT go back and "give in", in order not to lose a connection to someone? Why do I feel badly about losing a friendship if that person holds values that are repugnant to me?
Why? Because people crave connection! Thats why! Ok readers, so what do I do now? Stick to my guns or cave? Or is there something in between... Need your advice. What sayeth you?
Knowlege
How do people know things? Have you ever thought about how we become aware of where a tree's branches become sky? Or where a house abutts a tree? Or where the sidewalk starts? In thinking about these things which we take for granted everyday, it amazes me that we can feel certain of anything! We walk on the ground with confidence that our next step will fall on solid ground because we have felt it before. We know the Earth is below us waiting to catch our fall. But what if we didn't know? What if we did not rely on our past experiences; the wisdom accrued through years of skinned knees and whacked "funny" bones? Wouldn't we be lost in a sea of meaningless sensory input? So why, when it comes to spirituality, do we cast our senses aside and opt to believe in .... what, the "unsensed"? The unseen? Untouched? Unsmelled?
I can hear my believer friends all chiming in at the same time now... "What do you mean, unsensed? I sense the hand of God in all things! Don't YOU sense it in the beauty and order of the cosmos?". Well, truthfully... no, I don't. I don't "sense" anything remotely like that. I do, however, recognize beauty and ugliness. I acknowledge kindness and cruelty. I cherish love and despise hatred. Cherish. Acknowledge. Recognize. All of these words describe human abilities --sensation-like, but not "senses". And as with our senses, we learn to trust these abilities too. But what happens when we consider how these abilities compare with our senses. While I can point to a bird and compare the details of that image with my sighted friends, I find that if I try to do that with beauty, the details we each describe may be very different. Why then do we look to find commonality in the concept of a God? Do we desire to find shared perception in our subjective abilities as well as our physical sensory experiences? I think maybe we do. I think that many of us shutter at the thought of "to different from me" ideas. It exacerbates our sense of isolation - a painful reminder of the human condition.
The Oxford New American Dictionary offers the following definition of "know" -- to "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.". How do the words "Acknowledge", "Recognize", and "Cherish" compare with "Observation", "Inquiry", and "Information"? My mind seems to think that the first set is more subjective than the second, but my believer friends often speak of knowing the "Truth". How can these two approaches to "Truth" be reconciled? I'm not sure they can be. Some people are more comfortable with relying on the subjective than the objective, and vice-versa. Why, I do not know. I do not know how anything subjective can be universally true, as many would wish. I wish that I had a crystal ball so I could know the "Truth", but I find I can only come back to my objective sensations combined with my subjective perceptions, and those, I'm afraid, I cannot be so bold as to define as "Truth" for all mankind. I only wish my believer friends would (or could) afford the same generosity to me and my other non-believer friends. Were that true, there might be considerably less strife in the world.
I can hear my believer friends all chiming in at the same time now... "What do you mean, unsensed? I sense the hand of God in all things! Don't YOU sense it in the beauty and order of the cosmos?". Well, truthfully... no, I don't. I don't "sense" anything remotely like that. I do, however, recognize beauty and ugliness. I acknowledge kindness and cruelty. I cherish love and despise hatred. Cherish. Acknowledge. Recognize. All of these words describe human abilities --sensation-like, but not "senses". And as with our senses, we learn to trust these abilities too. But what happens when we consider how these abilities compare with our senses. While I can point to a bird and compare the details of that image with my sighted friends, I find that if I try to do that with beauty, the details we each describe may be very different. Why then do we look to find commonality in the concept of a God? Do we desire to find shared perception in our subjective abilities as well as our physical sensory experiences? I think maybe we do. I think that many of us shutter at the thought of "to different from me" ideas. It exacerbates our sense of isolation - a painful reminder of the human condition.
The Oxford New American Dictionary offers the following definition of "know" -- to "be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.". How do the words "Acknowledge", "Recognize", and "Cherish" compare with "Observation", "Inquiry", and "Information"? My mind seems to think that the first set is more subjective than the second, but my believer friends often speak of knowing the "Truth". How can these two approaches to "Truth" be reconciled? I'm not sure they can be. Some people are more comfortable with relying on the subjective than the objective, and vice-versa. Why, I do not know. I do not know how anything subjective can be universally true, as many would wish. I wish that I had a crystal ball so I could know the "Truth", but I find I can only come back to my objective sensations combined with my subjective perceptions, and those, I'm afraid, I cannot be so bold as to define as "Truth" for all mankind. I only wish my believer friends would (or could) afford the same generosity to me and my other non-believer friends. Were that true, there might be considerably less strife in the world.
Delusions of Grandeur
As the title of my Blogspot attests, I profess to being an atheist. Recently, I have had friends suggest that I'm not REALLY an atheist, I just WANT to be an atheist and because I also describe myself as a "seeker" that means I'm REALLY an agnostic (like that somehow makes me more redeemable, I'm guessing). Well, that's an interesting statement. That's like me telling my believer friends that they aren't REALLY believers, they just THINK they are believers. The stumbling block seems to be my interest in theology. Well, I'm here to say that yes, an atheist CAN be interested in theology and be a seeker without secretly longing for a conversion. Like any body, I want to know "THE TRUTH" too. I just don't think I KNOW, in the full sense of the word. I have a strong intuititve sense, but in my philosophy, that counts as a hypothesis, not a truth. I seek knowledge to confirm or contest my hypothesis. So far, I am aware of little/no conclusive evidence of a god. I am an atheist, despite what others would like to believe.
What I DO have is a deep respect for the comfort many people derive from their respective spiritual practices. Even atheists have been known to express a deep sense of "rightness" in their take on the way of things. So, despite our differences, we still have commonalities -- we're all the same species with a great number of cross-cultural "human" values. Recently, my commitment to my values has been tested in a variety of ways, and because I am a seeker, I went seeking whether I was a "GOOD" person or whether I should rethink my values. Much of my interest in this grew out of discussions I had with my believer friends. In many circles, the prime question is: "Can one be 'good without god' ?". My first response to my inquiry was "Yes, of course I'm a good person! I stick to the rules! I'm a "responsible child", how could I NOT be a good person!?". Well, I think that answering that question may be alot harder for atheists than it is for believers. In the world of believers, morality is prescribed by god. For atheists, it is not, although it is bounded by societal norms. So, when I went to describe my values I also found myself inquiring of the societal norms that applied to me, as a citizen of the U.S. and as a citizen of the world ( to quote Socrates).
What I think I have come to better appreciate after all of this is that at their core, many belief systems share similar values (makes one wonder if all deities are from the same family, ey?). Be that as it may, where differences arise, they seem to focus our tendency to factionalize people as either "us" or "them". The distinction can become ever more refined as one drills deeper and deeper into a particular group, until you ultimately arive at "the individual". This, of course, is not a new idea with me. I'm just trying to fathom the question why believers may feel sorry for non-believers, or why I may feel the need to reassure myself that I do, indeed, have a valid moral code, despite being a non-believer. As an atheist, I am acutely aware of being an "other". You know, "not saved", or perhaps, an "infidel". When I travel abroad, I kind-of expect to feel my otherness, but strangely, I often feel it most acutely within my own peer group. Its as if social structures are inherently unstable, always trying to divide themselves. Make more little factions which, in time, may grow into bigger factions that must again divide or collapse. One might think of this as a deist-based limitation on empire building. What a strange thought?!
But, I digress! Back to the question of 'goodness without god'... I personally feel that there is sufficient evidence from the World's divine texts to suggest that there is at LEAST a double standard between the moral codes that dieties hold themselves to (assuming, if you will, that they exist at all) and those codes they hold their followers to. This would suggest that there is no true "universal" moral code that covers both man and god. But what about cross-cultural consistencies in moral codes? Can't we, as a world community, recognize those commonalities and use them as a basis for moral judgements? I think we can and we must if we are to avoid religiously based factionalism and its apparently inevitable consequence of violent intolerance. Perhaps I suffer from delusions of grandeur when I think that mankind can establish an internally consistent moral code for itself, without the imposition of an "all-powerful being's" concepts of morality. But if not, I fear that we may be destined to revisit the atrocities of our forefathers.
What I DO have is a deep respect for the comfort many people derive from their respective spiritual practices. Even atheists have been known to express a deep sense of "rightness" in their take on the way of things. So, despite our differences, we still have commonalities -- we're all the same species with a great number of cross-cultural "human" values. Recently, my commitment to my values has been tested in a variety of ways, and because I am a seeker, I went seeking whether I was a "GOOD" person or whether I should rethink my values. Much of my interest in this grew out of discussions I had with my believer friends. In many circles, the prime question is: "Can one be 'good without god' ?". My first response to my inquiry was "Yes, of course I'm a good person! I stick to the rules! I'm a "responsible child", how could I NOT be a good person!?". Well, I think that answering that question may be alot harder for atheists than it is for believers. In the world of believers, morality is prescribed by god. For atheists, it is not, although it is bounded by societal norms. So, when I went to describe my values I also found myself inquiring of the societal norms that applied to me, as a citizen of the U.S. and as a citizen of the world ( to quote Socrates).
What I think I have come to better appreciate after all of this is that at their core, many belief systems share similar values (makes one wonder if all deities are from the same family, ey?). Be that as it may, where differences arise, they seem to focus our tendency to factionalize people as either "us" or "them". The distinction can become ever more refined as one drills deeper and deeper into a particular group, until you ultimately arive at "the individual". This, of course, is not a new idea with me. I'm just trying to fathom the question why believers may feel sorry for non-believers, or why I may feel the need to reassure myself that I do, indeed, have a valid moral code, despite being a non-believer. As an atheist, I am acutely aware of being an "other". You know, "not saved", or perhaps, an "infidel". When I travel abroad, I kind-of expect to feel my otherness, but strangely, I often feel it most acutely within my own peer group. Its as if social structures are inherently unstable, always trying to divide themselves. Make more little factions which, in time, may grow into bigger factions that must again divide or collapse. One might think of this as a deist-based limitation on empire building. What a strange thought?!
But, I digress! Back to the question of 'goodness without god'... I personally feel that there is sufficient evidence from the World's divine texts to suggest that there is at LEAST a double standard between the moral codes that dieties hold themselves to (assuming, if you will, that they exist at all) and those codes they hold their followers to. This would suggest that there is no true "universal" moral code that covers both man and god. But what about cross-cultural consistencies in moral codes? Can't we, as a world community, recognize those commonalities and use them as a basis for moral judgements? I think we can and we must if we are to avoid religiously based factionalism and its apparently inevitable consequence of violent intolerance. Perhaps I suffer from delusions of grandeur when I think that mankind can establish an internally consistent moral code for itself, without the imposition of an "all-powerful being's" concepts of morality. But if not, I fear that we may be destined to revisit the atrocities of our forefathers.
Existential Aloneness
To me, thats what the whole believer/non-believer thing comes down to - and today, I think I handed myself a strong lesson in just what that means. You see, I live with a believer, as I suspect most atheists do, and during a casual (non-religious) discussion over lunch, she had a revelation about how god had aligned the events of her life such that she was given an experience in her youth that she greatly enjoyed. The revelation made her cry... hard. And I, the atheist, sat there in silence waiting for her to continue with what she was saying (which, by the way, was a sweet and lovely and engaging story of her time abroad as a youth) and despite her tears, it was clear that she was planning on continuing with her story. When the tears subsided, she expressed her overwhelming gratitude to god for guiding her life and giving her that experience. As an atheist, I had never had such an experience, and I marvelled at the importance her faith had in her life. I didn't feel like I was missing anything by not having a benevolent diety guiding my life, but it made me introspective about how wrenching a conversation with an atheist might be for a believer who feels that they are being second guessed by someone who doesn't "know" the spirit of god. The tearful experience had not been initiated by a discussion of god, but it brought to mind another recent exchange between myself and another believer that I had -- one that had ended very badly indeed.
You see, I am a atheist with a strong interest in theology, so I avail myself of the opportunity to talk to believers regarding their faith, when they are game for it. Some are, some aren't, thats ok and to my knowledge, I do not try to deconvert anybody, I'm usually just trying to gain an understanding. And I don't even mind if somebody wants to try to convert me. I really try to hear them and to feel what they are trying to get me to feel, but I just don't. In the case of the conversation that had gone wrong, I sort of flew in the other direction and by writing about this, I'm trying to work out why. Of course, the first thing that a believer might suggest at this point was that the feelings got "too close to home". Well yes, of course they did, or I wouldn't have flown off the handle. The interesting thing is that my partner in this conversation hadn't been trying to convert me, in fact he wrote (this was an email exchange) that he thought one way and I thought another and neither of us was likely to change. Was I enraged because he failed to play the game right? That I was looking for conversion and he wasn't biting? Fair question, but unfortunately...no. I have had many conversion opportunities and this wasn't going in that direction, and I wasn't expecting it to. What appears to have happened was that my email buddy offended a personal value of mine that was/is so Important to me that I couldn't sit impassionately with it. I pride myself on being able to maintain these types of discussions and getting riled usually is deleterious to the cause, so I really, really try to not lose my cool. And, in fact, my email buddy wasn't trying to get me riled! He was just being honest about his beliefs! So what gives? Why did I write him a vile, vitreolic rant as a response?
Well, in looking at the conversation, it started to go south before it actually even got started! I made the ill-considered decision to forward my friend a link to a recent Pew Research study showing that atheists were well versed in the World's Religions, including Christianity. Better versed, in fact, than most Americans. I didn't think that he would be the least bit surprised and, in fact, he wasn't. He did, however, take very seriously that I was boasting. (Was I? Maybe... maybe I was "poking" at him to get a conversation going.... I don't know). But he didn't react the way I was expecting. What he did say was "As for ‘knowledge’ about world religions: to me, that is a matter of pride in trivial information.". THATS the statement that set me off. I was deeply offended that someone would purposely blind themselves to others experiences (I used the word "wisdom") because it would take up too much time and was "prideful"! Wow! I truly lost it and replied in a very nasty way. In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to a DIFFERENT aspect of a blog he had posted earlier. In it, he implied that he felt comforted by the knowledge that, and I'm paraphrasing here, his focus on the literal word of god (i.e. the Bible alone) would result in him being with Jesus (presumably after death). I think the key phrase here is "comfort".
Taken together, my witnessing of my roomie's tears of gratitude and my belated realization of the comfort factor, brings me to a slightly different understanding of the whole, nasty exchange between me and my email friend. I was (and still am) offended and horrified that someone would trivialize others so cavalierly; however, I now think I see how all-encompassing faith can be. The question I now pose to myself is: "To what extent am I willing to "witness" for my own values in the face of a clear denial (by someone else) of that value's importance?". I sure don't know at this point. My roomie's opinion is that I should at least try to make some sort of amends for my less-than-civil email but, as you might imagine, I'm not sure I am willing to do that. Perhaps I was less than civil. When your ethical foundations are criticized or made light of, it seems that one is ethically bound to defend it. The real question is "how vociferously?". Ask yourself " if I witnessed a crime, would I have the courage to intervene? or, for believers, are you willing to offend in defense of your faith? Same question for me. How far should I go?
So, how does this all tie together? Just like my believer friends, I too am afraid of the idea of being alone in the cosmos... They look to god for peace of mind and security of a bond that will transcend their lifetime(s). I, as an atheist, don't look to a god, but that doesn't mean I don't experience my own existential aloneness. Its hard to be an athiest sometimes. It can be lonely, especially when one's bonds to friends and family members are threatened or even severed by a lack of mutual respect. In my own feeble attempt to find commonalities with others, I have been guilty of defending my own values at the expense of others while those others have been guilty of believing that I have a self-concept of steel. All of us, believers and non-believers alike, seek companionship and understanding: to be well understood and well liked by other beings like ourselves. And we all stumble when we (or our values) are rejected. The principal difference between believers and non-believers is that the believers have a secured bond, a secured connection -we unbelievers don't, we float in the universe, perhaps in wonderment and awe, perhaps not. But, at least for this atheist, I never reduce the value I hold in my relationships with other human beings for the sake of a relationship with a god. Its just a thing I have and can hold onto.....most of the time.
You see, I am a atheist with a strong interest in theology, so I avail myself of the opportunity to talk to believers regarding their faith, when they are game for it. Some are, some aren't, thats ok and to my knowledge, I do not try to deconvert anybody, I'm usually just trying to gain an understanding. And I don't even mind if somebody wants to try to convert me. I really try to hear them and to feel what they are trying to get me to feel, but I just don't. In the case of the conversation that had gone wrong, I sort of flew in the other direction and by writing about this, I'm trying to work out why. Of course, the first thing that a believer might suggest at this point was that the feelings got "too close to home". Well yes, of course they did, or I wouldn't have flown off the handle. The interesting thing is that my partner in this conversation hadn't been trying to convert me, in fact he wrote (this was an email exchange) that he thought one way and I thought another and neither of us was likely to change. Was I enraged because he failed to play the game right? That I was looking for conversion and he wasn't biting? Fair question, but unfortunately...no. I have had many conversion opportunities and this wasn't going in that direction, and I wasn't expecting it to. What appears to have happened was that my email buddy offended a personal value of mine that was/is so Important to me that I couldn't sit impassionately with it. I pride myself on being able to maintain these types of discussions and getting riled usually is deleterious to the cause, so I really, really try to not lose my cool. And, in fact, my email buddy wasn't trying to get me riled! He was just being honest about his beliefs! So what gives? Why did I write him a vile, vitreolic rant as a response?
Well, in looking at the conversation, it started to go south before it actually even got started! I made the ill-considered decision to forward my friend a link to a recent Pew Research study showing that atheists were well versed in the World's Religions, including Christianity. Better versed, in fact, than most Americans. I didn't think that he would be the least bit surprised and, in fact, he wasn't. He did, however, take very seriously that I was boasting. (Was I? Maybe... maybe I was "poking" at him to get a conversation going.... I don't know). But he didn't react the way I was expecting. What he did say was "As for ‘knowledge’ about world religions: to me, that is a matter of pride in trivial information.". THATS the statement that set me off. I was deeply offended that someone would purposely blind themselves to others experiences (I used the word "wisdom") because it would take up too much time and was "prideful"! Wow! I truly lost it and replied in a very nasty way. In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to a DIFFERENT aspect of a blog he had posted earlier. In it, he implied that he felt comforted by the knowledge that, and I'm paraphrasing here, his focus on the literal word of god (i.e. the Bible alone) would result in him being with Jesus (presumably after death). I think the key phrase here is "comfort".
Taken together, my witnessing of my roomie's tears of gratitude and my belated realization of the comfort factor, brings me to a slightly different understanding of the whole, nasty exchange between me and my email friend. I was (and still am) offended and horrified that someone would trivialize others so cavalierly; however, I now think I see how all-encompassing faith can be. The question I now pose to myself is: "To what extent am I willing to "witness" for my own values in the face of a clear denial (by someone else) of that value's importance?". I sure don't know at this point. My roomie's opinion is that I should at least try to make some sort of amends for my less-than-civil email but, as you might imagine, I'm not sure I am willing to do that. Perhaps I was less than civil. When your ethical foundations are criticized or made light of, it seems that one is ethically bound to defend it. The real question is "how vociferously?". Ask yourself " if I witnessed a crime, would I have the courage to intervene? or, for believers, are you willing to offend in defense of your faith? Same question for me. How far should I go?
So, how does this all tie together? Just like my believer friends, I too am afraid of the idea of being alone in the cosmos... They look to god for peace of mind and security of a bond that will transcend their lifetime(s). I, as an atheist, don't look to a god, but that doesn't mean I don't experience my own existential aloneness. Its hard to be an athiest sometimes. It can be lonely, especially when one's bonds to friends and family members are threatened or even severed by a lack of mutual respect. In my own feeble attempt to find commonalities with others, I have been guilty of defending my own values at the expense of others while those others have been guilty of believing that I have a self-concept of steel. All of us, believers and non-believers alike, seek companionship and understanding: to be well understood and well liked by other beings like ourselves. And we all stumble when we (or our values) are rejected. The principal difference between believers and non-believers is that the believers have a secured bond, a secured connection -we unbelievers don't, we float in the universe, perhaps in wonderment and awe, perhaps not. But, at least for this atheist, I never reduce the value I hold in my relationships with other human beings for the sake of a relationship with a god. Its just a thing I have and can hold onto.....most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)