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...

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....    

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com

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!

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!

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.

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.....

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!

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.

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.

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.