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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)