A Response to Roger Scrutton

 

In “The Return of Religion”, (which you can find on www.edge.org) Roger Scrutton attempts, poorly, to paint Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens (The Four Horsemen of the Anti-Apocalypse as they are sometimes called) as evangelical, untidy, strident and even VIOLENT advocates for atheism.  He even goes so far as to suggest that they promote a type of blind faith in atheism, which limits our questioning nature and keeps us from defining our humanity accurately. 

Where he gets off attacking these gentlemen as VIOLENT, even in vocabulary, I’ll never know.  But worse, Scrutton’s entire essay provides what seems to be an attempted defense of the claims that religion makes, and the process of ignorance by which we humans are comforted, all the while scolding Dawkins, et al, for not having alternative, all-encompassing answers. 

The Four Horsemen are just the tip of the iceberg, of course, just a few among thousands of what Scrutton calls Evangelical Atheists, but what I call, much more appropriately, Fundamentalist Evangelical Agnostics.  For that is what The Four Horsemen are… agnostic.  They don’t THINK there is a God, and they also know they cannot prove that there ISN’T a God.  They have all stated, clearly, that they recognize this, and so their ‘atheism’ is only in practice (just as you and I are atheists, in practice, when it comes to Zeus).  What they DO claim is that the probability, based on evidence, that there is a personal, religious God that fits any religious definition, is so vanishingly small, that they can confidently attack the specific fact claims about the nature of God & the Universe that are being made by religions of all 6,000+ different sects (who happen to be worshipping some cross-pollinated version of a mythical Sun God). 

The reason opponents of religion (like the Four) promote the practical side of Atheism, is that for some reason (most likely a complete and total misunderstanding of the word Agnostic), religious folks tend to just brush agnostics off as ‘future converts who just need more time’ or ‘no real threat to the salvation of their children’ or ‘not REAL unbelievers’, much in the same way they misunderstand what the word Theory means, in “The Theory of Evolution”.  Many people tend to think that Agnostics simply say, “I don’t know” and then move on with their lives.  But what many an agnostic REALLY says, is ‘I don’t know, and NEITHER DO YOU.”  Promoting Atheism in practice, then, does not make Dawkins & Co. any less agnostic.  They are simply emphasizing the fact that all Theists in the world are claiming things that they, by every reasonable calculation, CANNOT and DO NOT know!   

Atheism, you see, can be defined as the simple absence of belief in deities.  It is that word, Belief, that most troubles your average fundamentalist agnostic.  Beliefs are counter-productive and distract from the purpose of finding out what is true.  And so, the Four Horsemen are simply taking a stance against theistic BELIEFS, as a part of a greater itch to eradicate blind beliefs of all kinds. 

Scrutton, unfortunately, makes the common mistake of saying that The 4 take away important questions, and by doing so, limit the answers we can come up with.  This is patently false.  These fundamentalist agnostics simply don’t want ‘holy’ people to ‘provide’ arbitrary  religious answers in the place of actual data or scientific theory.  That’s it.  Their approach takes away no questions, and only limits the answers, in that it requires any “answer” to have accompanying evidence. 

In calling Dawkins, et al, ‘strident’ he compliments them.  A loud, forceful and persistent (the definition of strident) voice in the defense of reason and in objection to the irrational claims that have, over centuries, proven to lead to unnecessary death, destruction, ignorance and the handicapping of critical inquiry is EXACTLY what we need.  What we don’t need are more blind sheep that aren’t creative enough to see the possibilities for transcendent experiences outside the framework of our present day religious insanity.  Besides, a critic can be strident and caring at the same time, can he not?  

Scrutton also asserts that , “All faiths, to the atheists, have remained in the condition of Islam today: rooted in dogmas that cannot be safely questioned.  Believing this, they work themselves into a lather of vituperation against ordinary believers, including those believers who have come to religion in search of an instrument of peace, and who regard their faith as an exhortation to love their neighbour, even their belligerent atheist neighbour, as themselves.” 

In saying this, he misses the point.   It’s not always a matter of safety.  It’s a matter of truth.  Not all religions are an immediate physical danger to humanity, but to the degree that any religion helps create a climate that is receptive to subjective opinions being presented as objective truths, that religion is creating a buffer between critical thought, and the extreme fundamentalists that HOPE to do harm by carrying out the word of their God.  While I certainly do not fault people for searching out ways to find peace & love, I do think that even the religious moderates have missed the target, and I think that there is no fault in persistently pointing this out to them.  After all, if it is true love & peace that moderate religious folks seek, they should be easily convinced that ANY significant level of blind faith is no avenue to their ends.  Unfortunately, these same moderates are NOT easily convinced.  They are steadfast in their blindness.  And that is the reason for the increase in volume & persistence of the message extolled by Dawkins, Harris & company. 

He admits that the existence of the universe, the galaxy, the planet, the primordial soup, the gene and the human experience raise questions that should be solved by discovering the laws of motion that govern the observable changes at every level of the physical world.  Further, he admits that any mystery we are confronted with results from our partial knowledge of the subject, and can only be solved by further knowledge of the same kind – the knowledge that we call science.  He goes on to state that only ignorance would cause us to deny this general picture of things, and says that our four fundamentalist agnostics (he calls them evangelical atheists) assume that religion must deny this general picture, and therefore must, at some level, commit itself to the propagation of ignorance or at any rate the prevention of knowledge.  All of this.  All of it… is RIGHT ON. 

But he doesn’t stop there.  Unfortunately Scrutton goes on to say that all of his religious acquaintances accept this general picture, but don’t regard it as posing the remotest difficulty for their faith (which I find hard to believe).  In fact, he blames our Agnostic Four, for simply pointing out that there are TONS of things we simply don’t know.   Apparently, he thinks it’s a good thing that religion provides, as Scrutton says, “Something that removes the paradox of an entirely law-governed world, open to consciousness, that is nevertheless without an explanation: that just is, for no reason at all.”  Well, yes, religions DO offer ideas about this paradox.  Unfortunately, and this is important, religions don’t present these ideas as THEORIES.  They take subjective opinions and present them as objective facts.  In other words, what religions offer are lies, to fill the gaps in our understanding.   

Moreover, Scrutton says that Dawkins & Co. , “are subliminally aware that their abdication in the face of science does not make the universe more intelligible, nor does it provide an alternative answer to our metaphysical enquiries.” 

Well, he’s wrong that science does not make the universe more intelligible, but what, you may be asking yourself, is an alternative answer?  Seriously?!  What is the definition of an alternative answer?  What a ridiculous premise, that we should be offering alternative answers simply because the “answers” provided by an ill-equiped forum (religion) turned out to be false.  Why can’t we just say, “There is no evidence that there is a God.”  Why do we have to fill people with falsity so that they can sleep at night?  Shouldn’t humanity just get used to saying, “I don’t know” and then endeavor to correct our ignorance, and not simply provide fake answers to our biggest questions?  Isn’t THAT the most humble realization of our finite nature that exists?  

He then goes on to say that because these brave men don’t offer this equally fake ‘alternative answer’, it simply brings inquiry to a stop, which is, again, patently false.  Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens want ALL questions to be asked.  They want ALL answers to be attained.  It is a bogus claim, therefore, that they want anything less than the truth through inquiry.  Wanting to end religious dogma is very different than wanting to end inquiry.  The reason this is true, is that religion is NOT inquiry.  It’s subjective opinion being presented as objective fact.  Mr. Scrutton must not recognize that the most enquiring minds in the world are likely to be atheist leaning agnostics, not Baptists.  And the reason?  Because the intelligent folks out there cannot bring themselves to make stuff up, or pretend to believe things that, from all accounts, are made up.   

As Scrutton says, “The thought of consciousness gives rise to peculiar metaphysical anxieties, which we try to allay with images of the soul, the mind, the self, the ‘subject of consciousness’, the inner entity that thinks and sees and feels and which is the real me inside. But these traditional ‘solutions’ merely duplicate the problem. We cast no light on the consciousness of a human being simply by re-describing it as the consciousness of some inner homunculus – be it a soul, a mind or a self. On the contrary, by placing that homunculus in some private, inaccessible and possibly immaterial realm, we merely compound the mystery.”  He argues that it is this mystery which brings people back to religion. 

“People continue to look for the places where they can stand, as it were, at the window of our empirical world and gaze out towards the transcendental.”  And I support this.  GO FOR IT!   To look at the unknown with wonder is no crime.  In fact, it may be the most important thing we do, as long as we admit we’re are looking at the unknown, and not claiming to know it’s  nature… and I think Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens would agree with me.  I don’t think they are fighting against some nebulous, impersonal, non-dogmatic, doctrine-free set of pseudo-transcendental personal experiences. 

These experiences of looking towards the transcendental are quite different than making Theist claims about the nature of God.  This is what Religions do everyday.  Social endorsement and theological infrastructure, though comforting to us as social beings, mean next to nothing if they represent something that is false.  

Religion is the problem, and this is where people fail; by turning to religion as a comfort to their awareness of the incomprehendable nature of Universe.  Religions do NOT satisfy our need for answers. Feeding today’s Religions to the true seekers, is like feeding Iceberg Lettuce to the starving.  Sure it’s SOMETHING, but all you’re really getting is Vitamin K and some water.  This isn’t nutrition.  Where’s the meat?  Where’s the fruit?  Where’s the bread?  Where’s the truth?  People don’t HAVE to have these all-encompassing answers.  They just WANT them.  People come back to religion because they aren’t comfortable not knowing.  I’m not saying it’s surprising, I’m just saying it’s an outdated practice and because we can see the harm in this process, I argue that religious beliefs are not useful anymore. 

You see, real answers ARE scientific, thoughtful, evidence based, answers.  If an ‘answer’ doesn’t qualify as a knowable fact, then it’s a theory, hypothesis, hunch, etc.  Religion offers claims.  Conjecture.  Smoke & mirrors.  Science offers a competitive marketplace of ideas.  All the best ideas win.  You tell me, Roger, who is the truly reasonable group?   Life is a beautiful and wonderous thing.  Let’s find out more about it, and stop stunting the process of finding things out, by making or defending aggregiously inaccurate claims about the nature of reality, especially when those claims are force-fed to the innoncents.  

In other words, let’s be reasonable.  If God is not dead, it’s going to be the thinkers that clue us in.  Not the believers.  Right?

 

CCD, 

Ben

If this is true of political partisanship, what about….

 

…ANY partisan thought!  Including, of course, religious thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24find.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I particularly liked the part about ‘ruthless self-reflection’.  Don’t you wish ruthless self-reflection and honesty were championed over arbitrary beliefs?  I do.

Check it out!

CCD,
Ben

Mailbag #4 – Religion isn’t alone…

A reader named Mark commented on a few posts, and had some wise words to share.  I think his ideas are worth repeating.

Mark said, “Any ideology which frames a subjective understanding as objective fact should be accountable for the consequences of the beliefs that creates.  Unfortunately that also applies to science, at least where scientists (and the science journalists they allow to go unchallenged) misconstrue tentative findings as fact. These days that’s fairly rare, but what’s not rare enough, is scientists vehemently arguing for a particular interpretation of some evidence, while ignoring (or worse, altering) evidence which doesn’t fit with their preconceptions. As far as dogma is concerned, everyone is capable of it.  So I while I agree that religions put forth ideas as facts, I think it’s ultimately counterproductive to single them out as doing so. It’s far too easy for believers to point out some scientists’ false claims as weak points in the framework of valid scientific understanding of reality. And more so, it’s too easy to simply dismiss what a proponent for science says only because they criticise religion.  In the end I’d prefer if everyone improved their ability to think critically.”

I think Mark makes a great point.  Unfounded claims are made by many people OUTSIDE of religion, too.  Scientists are not without fault.  Everyone is capable of producing some form of ‘dogma’.  And to the degree that they do so, I contend that we should hold them accountable

I am absolutely against dogma in any form, although, it is debatable whether or not we can be totally objective as humans on a minute by minute basis.

The reason I will single out religion in this space, and the reason I disagree with Mark when he says it is counter-productive to do so, is simple.

Religion represents the most aggregious, world-wide, collective forum for subjective thought being presented as objective fact that I think of.  No, not every religion is exactly the same in this regard, and many religions will get MUCH more negative press than others on this site.  But I will focus on religion because I truly think that my impact on the world will be more positive by doing so.  If I were to jump between topics I would be doing a disservice to those millions of people out there who think they are critical thinkers and consider themselves to be reasonable, but, because they don’t have someone consistently pushing them to turn a critical eye on their religious beliefs, still somehow allow themselves to indoctrinate their children.   

Politicians openly debate their points and have their campaigns disected by the public and the media.  Scientists participate in the process of peer review and have their studies compared to others in a competitive setting.  Economists debate almost unendingly the ‘nature’ of the market and what trends we should expect.  Each ’school of thought’, though, is still up for debate.  In each forum, the men & women involved know that their thoughts are still, in principle and in process… theory.

Now, can a politician mislead.  Of course.  Can a scientist doctor his experimental evidence.  Yes.  Could economists change their tune for personal reasons?  Uh huh.

So why am I not going after them with as much force?  Well, I won’t say that this space is CLOSED to that type of debate, but I will say that I think it would be more counter-productive for me to spread myself that thin at this time.  Create Cognitive Dissonance is dedicated to questioning religious thought.  This is where I think I can have the greatest impact in the name of critical thought.  The systems for questioning politicians, economists and scientists are WELL established.  In fact, politicians, economists and scientists REGULARLY change their minds based on opposing ideas, and regularly (if not as publicly as they could) debate the validity of their thoughts.  So while they may, from time to time, make claims that are completely unfounded or mislead, the system for ‘checking’ their claims is already in place in the minds of the common man. 

Religious thought, however, has a special place in our society, where many people think it is RUDE (!?!?!) to question a religious belief, as if it has some special privilege ‘outside’ the realm of critical thought.  This is the problem that I am working to correct.  “To understand complex issues, we must free our minds of dogma and guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict and to experiment.  Arguments from authority are unacceptable.”  Carl Sagan said that, and I think he was spot on.  

It’s not that I think we should rid the world of religions.  I don’t.  I simply think that religions need to evolve, reasonably, the way every other ‘idea forum’ has.  My theory is that years from now, when religions have evolved to an acceptable level (no, I do not have a specific definition of this…yet) and are no longer making their basic arguments from authority, they will have evolved to a place where many of them are unrecognizable by comparison to their contemporary versions.  And we’ll all be better off as a result.

Thanks Mark, and for those of you who are interested, check out Mark’s website at www.thewindingpath.net

 

CCD,
Ben

July 25th – 100 readers!

Good news!  As a rookie blogger, I’m excited to announce that 100 people visited Create Cognitive Dissonance today!  Part of me thinks this is a pretty weak showing, and yet I’m encouraged.  A couple weeks ago my readership was zero, because there WAS no CCD.  Keep reading folks, and keep encouraging others to Create Cognitive Dissonance!  My goal is to hit 1000 readers a day by the end of the year.

Thank you! 

Ben

Science Debate 2012?

Hello All,

This year, every remaining candidate was invited to debate a range of political topics that touch on Science.  Every candidate refused to debate. 

This is what was written on the 2008 Science Debate invitations:

“Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.”

Unfortunately, the candidates for President of the United States of America don’t think Science is worth debating.  And why would they?  I’m sure that understanding how to come to logical conclusions about our environment, economy, ethics, health and technology isn’t all that important when you’re the leader of the free world.  Right?

If you have a problem with this trend, check out the website below and petition to get this debate going in 2012.  It could be the most important thing you do today!  And as an added bonus, supporting this debate will put you in good company.  My company! 

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2

 

CCD,

Ben

Where is Robert Ingersoll when we need him?!

After choking back vomit during the Faith Forum on April 13th, I thought to myself, “Why is this happening?  Why are we championing ‘Faith’ in our leaders?!?  Why is it somehow more important to Americans that our leaders have some abstract beliefs, instead of a solid ability to critically iquire as to the true nature of a topic?”

Thankfully we didn’t have to listen to McCain speak (slowly) about God, but as Obama filled the air with fluff, and the ever disingenuous Clinton rambled on about her feelings, I was left thinking that I should start my campaign to run for president in 2040, and how I would be sure to either refuse any invite to such an event, or speak my mind without bending over for the radical religious right.  No in between.  What a crock!  What a sham!  The forum just shows how much pull religion has in our media.   And our poor politicians are given a choice.  Pander to this increasingly mislead majority of our population, or lose. 

The link below drips with the obvious.  We need more Robert Ingersoll’s in today’s America.  And fast!

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-legend-of-a-heretic/index.html
CCD,

Ben

Mailbag #3 – Religion Evolving? Religion as Theory?

Ty, thanks for writing again.  (see Ty’s comments under Mailbag #2)

You are exactly right that many in the religious tradition do not see religion as an unchallengeable monolith, but I’d say they might be kidding themselves to a great degree.  It’s a pleasant, but misleading half-truth that Catholocism has ‘evolved’ since 313 A.D., or that Fox helped Christianity ‘evolve’.  Of course these religions have changed!  And of course many unfounded claims have been made in science, literature, history, etc.  This is part of the learning process.  People will continue to make these claims in all areas of life, too.  

My point, though, remains unchanged.  To compare the evolution in religion to the evolution in the ‘competitive marketplace of ideas’ is ludicrous.  Religions, by comparison, are monoliths (if not ABSOLUTE ones).  They have evolved UNWILLINGLY!  It took hundreds of years for the Church to admit it was wrong about the ‘Heliocentric’ solar system.  It would have taken the scientific community (free of their infected religious upbringing) a few weeks (months maybe?) to recognize the strength of the theory, had scientific thought been the dominant ‘climate’ of that age. 

So to say that religion challenges itself and evolves through inquiry the same way EVERYTHING else does?  You must recognize that this is false.  Religion, in general, is slow to change.  Too slow.  Too slow to admit DOUBT, even, and what is the harm in DOUBT?  Doubt is simply an avenue to more accurate knowledge, but it has been systematically removed from much religious discourse and definitely from mainstream religious practice.  That’s why according to Gallup in 2004, 35 percent of Americans believed that the Bible is the literal word of the Creator of the Universe, while only 17 percent of Americans DOUBTED that there is a personal God at all. 

So, no.  I don’t think that religion evolves through inquiry the way everything else does.  And I think there is a Mt. Everest sized pile of evidence to back my theory up. 

As for Religion without Dogma, I’d say that it is, by my definition, not really possible.  Religion has boundaries.  Religion makes doctrine based claims about the nature of things.  

Any ‘religion’ that doesn’t make any claims about the nature of the world, and doesn’t claim that there is more wisdom in their ‘process’ than in all other processes, and doesn’t judge anyone based on any ancient doctrine, and doesn’t claim anything concrete about the nature of God or the supposed afterlife….  Well, that’s not a religion.  

That’s just contemplative living. 

And contemplative living is FINE BY ME!  You want to pursue transcendent experiences?  You want to seek to connect with nature?  You want to meditate and quiet your mind?  You want to ATTEMPT to connect with a ‘spiritual realm’.  GO FOR IT!  I’m behind you 100%.  But as soon as you take those experiences and make the enormous leap to being dogmatic in any way… well, then we will butt heads.  And this is why I butt heads with religion in general, because religion in general does this WAY, WAY too often.   

I disagree with you that the ‘religious thinkers’ that spent their lives trying articulate that which cannot (yet) be articulated, and spent their lives trying to show people an honest path to enlightenment, and spent their lives trying to describe a (theoretical) world apart from the one we can see and touch, and in so doing provided a model for how to live a good, liberated life were in the realm of RELIGION.  

These men were obviously THINKERS above all else.  And, I would argue that they still could have had a concept of another ‘world’, a liberated life, and a path to genuine enlightenment without any real religious belief.  The difference is, they could have come to these ideas through THEORY.  Not through claims.  And to the degree that their model was painted by their doctrine?  

Dogma & doctrine… these were things that provided boundaries to where & how they defined this ‘liberated & honest’ life.  These are the foundations of religion.  And this is why I think religion is a problem.  It holds back our best & brightest.  It gives them specific boundaries.  It leads these otherwise intelligent & deeply thoughtful men to claim some of the things that I quoted previously. 

The contemplative life does not.  It is free thinking.  It is comfortable with theory.  It is a life without artificial boundaries. 

Your comments on reality are odd, to me.  Science is the explanation of reality as we can BEST understand at the present time.  After that, there is a theoretical realm, a realm that can only be theoretical, because we cannot KNOW it.  Rumi and Eckhart may seem much more enlightening to you, but to attach Reality with a capital R to their thoughts?  That MUST be a theoretical Reality you are speaking of, right?  It must be that a Reality that jives with your ‘feelings’.  Your intuitions.  

I think it’s fine to have these strong intuitions!  My advice would be:  Follow those intuitions.  Follow your feelings.  But test them.  Revisit them.  Do not let them take the shape of a religion by adhering to a particular intuition & making it dogmatic.  Don’t pretend that your feelings should ever be presented as anything but personal feelings, theories, hunches, intuitions.  Those are valuable things.  So valuable!  But to present those things as counter-CLAIMS to what has been proven about the only Reality we can KNOW (through the process of identifying a theory and testing it), this must be Theoretical.  

And so it is, that at the core of my beef with religion, lies the general unwillingness to admit that their doctrines and beliefs are simply theory.

I’m glad you agree that religion is easier to twist & manipulate than science.  And I absolutely get that political expediency is often the cause behind many of the twisted, authoritarian ideologies we see today.  I absolutely get that expediency will continue to be the cause behind many attempts to manipulate & twist reality, in religion, science, literature, media, etc. 

This is why it is so important for us to treat CNN like theory, the Catholic Church like theory, FoxNews like theory, the Mormon religion as theory, the BBC as theory, and Islam as theory…. EVERYTHING.  Everything is theory.  

If your theory can hold its own in the competitive marketplace of ideas, SO BE IT!  My observations tell me that religion will not compete very well.  At least not as I define religion (as opposed to a contemplative lifestyle).  Most religion competes better when it is successful in getting people NOT to question it. 

About nuclear technology, since you brought it up.  I do hold science accountable for the discovery of nuclear technology.  I hold PEOPLE in general (scientists included) responsible (expediency rearing its ugly head again) for the use of said technology.  The technology has been used to create weapons of mass destruction.  It has also been used to power millions of homes.  If you want to talk about NEUTRAL, science is neutral.  It simply chases knowledge.  Then after the knowledge is gained, those scientists become philosophers (which is a bit like the idea of The Third Culture, by John Brockman), and engage politicians, religious zealots and the common man in getting to decide what to do with said technology.  

It IS a mighty shame that nuclear power is used for destruction and not production, and it is my theory that if religion were not so dominant, our fear of nuclear annihilation would be greatly diminished.  I would bet my right arm that if you surveyed everyone in the world, you would find out that those who want nuclear arms proliferation the most, would be those who are the LEAST scientific in their quest for knowledge.  And, I’d bet, they’d be the most dogmatic & radical in their beliefs (primarily religious beliefs).  Armageddon doesn’t scare people who already TRULY believe they are ‘saved’. 

One last thing before I close.  You said you are a teacher, and I respect that greatly.  I truly do.  You and I very likely DO have the same goal (making the world a better place).  

Not that you are this way, but I remember many of my teachers in high school (I went to a small, private boarding school near Philadelphia that happened to be highly religious as well).  When I was there, we had chapel every morning before school, and chapel every school night in the boys dormitory.  We also were required to attend church every Sunday, and were required to take 2-3 religion classes per week, which were taught by clergymen.  That’s 13-14 REQUIRED religious activities per week.  527 per school year.  Not to mention all the religious banter, non-required activities, and the pervasive religious tone that seeped into every waking minute of my life.  

This is inescapable indoctrination.  Especially when you consider that rarely, if ever, was any of the doctrine/dogma at my school ever presented as truly scientific THEORY.  The ministers just KNEW (or at least acted as if) it was true.  The teachers BELIEVED (or at least acted as if) and supported the ministers arrogance.  And the kids, ages 14-18 in the dormitory?  They were asked to actually stand in front of their peers and preach the word of God on a regular basis.  Sure we were challenged to think for ourselves, but when you are required to be preached at 527 times in a school year, your thoughts are not your own, and to do ANYTHING but conform was highly uncomfortable, at best.  Again, this was MY experience, and I’m fully willing to admit that I bought it hook, line & sinker while I was there.  It wasn’t until later in life that I stopped to consider whether I really KNEW, what I thought I knew. 

My humble message to you as a teacher, would be to take a look at your surroundings.  Maybe you teach at a religious school.  Maybe this type of thing is going on around you on a daily basis.  If so, I would simply ask that you require the theoretical ideas that are presented each day to be presented as such.  As theory. 

In the meantime, I’ll do the same… and then some.

 

CCD,
Ben

Mailbag #2

Ty, thanks for writing again.  (folks, you’ll have too look at the comments from the last post)

In response, I don’t think I’m saying that all religions are exactly the same, except in one key area.  Every religion requires a monumental leap of blind faith, on some level.  In one way or another, to buy a religion, you’ve got to sell your rational mind to the ‘devil’.

The most ‘rational’ religions boast that “they don’t teach creationism” or that “they don’t teach Jihad”.  Congrats.  But this only lets them off the hook in the “Blatantly Obvious False Claims” category. 

Every religion.  EVERY religion makes HUNDREDS of unfounded claims about the nature of reality.  This is not ignorant.  This is fact.  My problem with religion, which I think you missed, is in how religion differs with science in coming to ‘knowledge’.

Religions attempt to get people to ‘know’ something through ‘belief’, regardless of the veracity of the belief claims.  Belief.  Religion is about belief.  Religion tells you ‘how it is’.  (and don’t confuse religion with personal, transcendent experiences).

While religion is doing its thing, rational inquiry seeks to ACTUALLY KNOW things as best we can.  Men and women, on equal footing (unique when compared to most religions), seek to understand the mysteries of life.  They have an idea, they test it, they ask others for their opinion, they test those ideas, and they create theories.  When they are proven wrong, they accept (sometimes with great eagerness) their mistakes, and get on with the job at hand, namely, continuing to EXPLAIN ‘how it is’.

The difference lies between EXPLAINING how it is, vs. TELLING us how it is.  Religion tells us.  Science and the competitive marketplace of ideas which it represents, they try to EXPLAIN life, to the best of their ability.

I’ll be the first to admit that my knowledge of religious history is limited (not by comparison to the average person, but in comparison to say, Karen Armstrong, whose book, “A History of God”, I’m reading right now.)  It matters not, though.  This IS a simple topic.  If you’re looking for the truth, then get ready to modify, correct, edit, revisit, theorize and test your ideas.  Religion does not do this.  That’s why the books in religion never change, and the ‘books’ in science change almost DAILY! (www.sciencedaily.com, for instance)

“This is not to say that the deepest concerns of the faithful, whether moderate or extreme, are trivial or even misguided.  There is no denying that most of us have emotional and ’spiritual’ (my quotes) needs that are now addressed – however obliquely and at a terrible price – by mainstream religion.  And these are needs that a mere understanding of our world, scientific or otherwise, will never fulfill.  There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life.  But we will find that it REQUIRES no faith in untestable propositions (insert my examples… young Earth creationism, 73 virgins, the nature of hell, women not being fit for ministry or any of the millions of untestable props that any religion puts forth) for us to do this.”  -Sam Harris

Ty, you ask, “Did I, at any point, say that these guys (referring to the people you listed) state only true, reasonable statements?  Do the proponents of your way of thinking only state that which is true?”

No!  Of course you didn’t say that.  You’re not stupid.  You know that religious people can’t tell the difference between accurate information and absolute fantasy!  They will just say what they think, (or worse, what is written in some ancient text) and they state this as fact, without testing it.

The proponents of my way of thinking?  At least they ATTEMPT to state that which is true by means of an honest process.  That, again, is the KEY difference between a randomly selected preist/minister (even if selected from the top 10% of rational religions) and a randomly selected physicist, for instance.  Odds are, you will find that at some point, the religious man begins to make claims about the nature of reality that he has not (and in some cases CAN not) test or be sure about.  Yet he states these claims as if they are God’s truth (because he BELIEVES, mostly through a lifetime of ignorance and a process of brainwashing & repetition).

The randomly selected physicist?  He is too humble to assert fact.  And definitely not silly enough to say, “Well, you just need to have more faith.”  No, the scientist will continue to test his theories until the mountain of evidence he has compiled URGES him to take a stronger stance.  Science is so humble that the theory of evolution is still called a THEORY (which leads ignorant yokels the world over, to dismiss it).

Scientists will be vetted through the process of history in their time.  And history will tell us if they ended up being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ on their theories.  But a REAL scientist doesn’t need to be ‘vetted through the process of history’.  They are vetted through the process of HONESTY.  Double blind studies, peer review, journals, websites like www.edge.org … a competitive marketplace of ideas!  These things keep science as HONEST as possible.  What is there to keep religion honest?  Fear of hellfire doesn’t seem to be working.  The only process by which we can keep religion honest is… you guessed it!  Critical Thinking!

Science, if you will.

I do NOT dismiss the bodies of work produced by Aquinas, etc. and I apologize if my quoting them unfavorably seems ‘unfair’ to you.  I challenge you to quote Daniel Dennett as unfavorably, though!

I simply assert that we can move past these impressive men and their thoughts.  I KNOW they said plenty of wise things, but Ty, like I said, “I think we’d be kidding ourselves if we thought that their brand of ‘critical inquiry’ was free from the context in which Religion had infected their minds.  I simply think that we’ve done away with most, if not all viable NEED for religion and religious dogma.  Most, if not all religious dogma is full of patently false claims about reality, and has been throughout history.  At what point has religious dogma provided us with critical inquiry and new thinking that we could not have had without it?”  Can you please answer that question?  And I mean the PROCESS of religion.  What do we get from this that we don’t have a rational need to CHECK?

Sure there have been good and bad things done in the name of religion.  Anything can be done in the name of religion.  Religion can be ANYTHING.  It certainly doesn’t need to be true, or even attempt to SHOW that it is true.  Just because good and bad have come from religions doesn’t mean that it is NEUTRAL!  Absolutely not, because it is a BROKEN PROCESS for accessing information about the world we live in.  Religions have proven OVER AND OVER that you can’t accurately access real information using their methods.  This isn’t neutral, this is broken.  Dead.  Religions are (in dramatically different ways) a failed attempt at explaining the very real, transcendent and meaningful feeling we have about our existence.

About explaining what happened in the name of science in the late 1800’s.  I don’t attribute it directly to religion, as you insinuate.  What I said was (I’ll repeat myself since you couldn’t have read it):

“I would argue that any time Darwin’s theory of natural selection is used to promote death and destruction, the problem was not TOO MUCH rational and critical inquiry.  Just the opposite!  In fact, I would argue that the climate of ‘accepting things as fact without inquiry, but from ‘belief’, is a climate that religious dogma promotes and thrives in.  The same is not true of science.  It is in this blind climate (whether or not a religion is at the heart of the action), this lack of the scientific process, that almost all atrocities on Earth have been performed under.  Any ideology can be used for destrucitve purposes, but the easiest climate in which to promote your ideology’s destructive ends, is one where folks have been under-educated and taught to believe, not OVER-educated and taught to question!”

The problem is, the general population of the world, in a climate where faith & belief (in God, in a political ideology, in ANYTHING) are championed, that population is EASILY MANIPULATED.  This is a climate under which atrocities can more easily be performed.  You are absolutely right that it was powerful people using the latest ideas to justify destructive actions.  Of course powerful people (GWB, for instance) need to become more powerful, more influential, less tolerant, etc.  Naturally they’re going to USE and TWIST religion to suit those goals.  THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT.  Religion, my friend, is easily used.  It is easily twisted.

Science is NOT as easily twisted.  If the children of the world were brought up to question things, to be curious, to investigate the truth, the CLIMATE that I’m speaking of would be VERY different (and would have been throughout history).  In a climate where you are taught to absolutely trust/follow your politicians, preists and other leaders, of course it’s easy to manipulate & take advantage of that trust.  All I’m saying is that manipulation, twisting, etc… all of that survives MUCH more easily when the scientific process isn’t championed among all citizens.

Humans CAN twist the scientific method.  But you have to admit, when your audience is continually skeptical, it takes MUCH more evidence to get them to do your bidding.  How can it be that you would argue the opposite?  It can’t be.  You’d have to be cuckoo for Coco Puffs.

Since you brought it up, I’ll let you know that it is a bit of an joke between non-believers that whenever they debate religion with a religious apologist, they hope that said apologist tries to use Mao and Stalin as examples of ‘the problem when you let science run things’.  Not that you did this exact thing, but the argument is a pathetic one. 

Again, the problem in Russia and China was not that we had TOO MUCH critical inquiry and science!!  The answer to bad science (there is plenty, click on Ken Ham under the People links) is more science.  Better science.  NOT religion.  To fight bad science (which almost all religions are an example of), you must participate in the scientific process.  The problem in Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia wasn’t that they’re social & political actions were a result of people thinking TOO critically.  

Would you say, that to fight ignorance, we must use unfounded claims about the nature of God as a central building block to our solution?  Would you say religion is the answer to ignorant destruction?  I fear your answer, but I’d say that the best process by which to fight ignorance is the process that best leads us to understanding reality.  And this process is aptly named The Scientific Process.

Your quote at the end is telling, Ty.  “The stuff of which is most real, to me, cannot be accurately communicated, much less scientifically measured.”

This is the best way I can describe why religion is a problem.  People, instead of being honest and saying, “I don’t know”, and then THEORIZING about these feelings, have founded religions, and then tried to describe the things which cannot be accurately communicated or measured as FACTUAL claims about reality because it “just seems so real” to them.  (which, it turns out, is almost an attempt to be scientific.  It’s just a MISERABLE attempt.)

Like Sam Harris said in ‘The End of Faith’:

“It is important to realize that the distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and spiritual experiences from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being honest about what we can reasonably conclude on their basis.  There are good reasons to believe that people like Jesus and the Buddha weren’t talking nonsense when they spoke about our capacity as human beings to transform our lives in rare and beautiful ways.  But any genuine exploration of ethics or the contemplative life demands the same standard of reasonableness and self-criticism that animate all intellectual discourse.”

I’ll leave it at that for now.  Please.  Disagree.

 

CCD,

Ben

My first “Mailbag” post…

A thoughtful reader posted this in regards to the Tolstoy article.  It is my hope that you will all feel compelled to comment on the articles, links, posts, etc. that we publish here at Create Cognitive Dissonance.  Please keep the comments coming!

—

 

“In regard to your last point, I disagree.  It’s too simplistic.  In my humble opinion, though I have no doubt “Brights” vehemently disagree with this, religion is neutral.  At first thought, this assertion sounds ridiculous.  But if you look deeper, and dare to avoid simplistic conclusions, you might see some validity.  What I mean by neutral is that is that it is, in itself, a conglomeration of ideas — ideas subject to a vast array of interpretation.  I think I could make a strong case to prove the very opposite of your claim:  that religion is the no.1 factor in spurring critical inquiry.  Consider Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Fenelon, William Law, Meister Eckhart, and many more in the Christian tradition, to say nothing of eastern traditions.  At any given point, the views of these thinkers may not (probably not) were not the dominant view of the times.  But that is hardly relevant.  These people and many others found it to be a fundamental key to critical thinking and understanding.  My point is that, it is worth reconsidering the notion that religion is the no. stifler.  Perhaps, there lies a deeper cause, and more importantly a more accurate cause that better explains historical impediments to inquiry.  And in this space, I would argue the notion of selfishness.  That to me is what silences reason.           

Many, many a man have used religious faith as means to inquiring into the most pressing and important matters of the human condition.  And that is why I say religion is neutral.  It may or may not stifle thought.  However, selfishness, guarantees that religion, or I would argue any basic worldview, will be used for destructive ends.  

Take a very simple example from the post-Enlightenment era.  Darwin comes up with this great idea called evolution, which helps to explain our world and how humans came to be.  The catalysts in evolution, variation and natural selection, guaranteed that over time, the strong species/genes/whatever i’m not a damned biologist would survive.  A novel idea, and a theory worthy of pursuance.  And indeed, this opened the world to much reasonable thought.  It also was a tool for death and destruction of the most unreasonable kind.  You see, Darwin’s theory proves that the strongest humans (aka, European ones) have the RIGHT to dominate the world.  Before you know it, 5-10 million Congolese are dead (almost 50% of the pop).  And there justifying EXTERMINATION are those proponents of Darwin’s theory.  It would later be used in all manner of death and destruction. 
         

In light of this, I would argue that if you mix selfishness with any basic ideology and this is the stuff you’ll get.  Aldous Huxley, in the religious tradition, called this “turning to god without turning from self” and this is where fundamentalism, dogmatism, etc comes from.  Had religion of any kind not been the dominant view in the world for the past, oh, 3000, it most definitely would have been something else. 
           

I’m sure there are some holes to this, that I haven’t considered, but for now I think this is worthy idea to consider.

peace”

Here is my response: 

Tyklip, 

A very worthy set of ideas to consider.  Thank you.  However, the assertion that religion is neutral, does sound ridiculous to me.  I’d be interested to hear which simplistic conclusions you think we should avoid.  I may agree on some of them.  But I disagree about religious neutrality.  Religion is a set of thousands of differing claims about reality.  I think ideas are (or should be) presented as theory.  Religions are presented as God’s truth.  Attend church this week and find the minister that says, “Now people, surely you understand that anything I say up here is purely an IDEA, and is not necessarily true, but is a theory.”.  At some level, (though some religions are worse than others) truth is not up for debate.  In ALL religions.  And I am, therefore, forced to disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of religious neutrality, especially when it is compared to the neutral and objective processes that are in place within the scientific community.  Pending further evidence, of course…

 

What I would agree with, is that religion has been the #1 force in the world, period, for the last ____ thousand years.  So for the blanket of religion to also have provided us with philosophers, thinkers, and men of abundant optimism is no surprise.  The problem is, claims about reality that don’t have any basis IN reality, are simply conjecture.  That is why the worst of religion is dangerous, and not just silly.  Any absurdity can be defended by any OTHER absurd idea, when the bounds of reason are not so important, and the merits of faith & belief are championed.  As Voltaire so properly put it, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” 

 

Since you mentioned their names, let’s discuss Augustine.  He said (among many other quotes, some of which I think sound wise), ”Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.“and “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” and ”Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” 

 

The sum of these quotes is essentially, “Just believe what the church says.  It will be better for all involved.  Oh, and don’t bother thinking about it first.  That comes after you blindly follow my bidding.”  This wouldn’t be SO bad, if 6000 religions worldwide weren’t saying the same thing, all with different stories, all with false claims about the physical reality we live in, and some with sincere hopes for armageddon on Earth, (not to mention the spiritual reality they claim to have intimate access to).

 

Thomas Aquinas said, ”As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.” and…  ”How can we live in harmony? First we need to know we are all madly in love with the same God.” and “There is but one Church in which men find salvation, just as outside the ark of Noah it was not possible for anyone to be saved.”

 

This is scary stuff, thank you very much, Tom.  Good to know that women are produced from a ‘defection’, that the way to harmony is through total submission/brainwashing to ONE dogma, and that we must find salvation in the ONE true church.  This isn’t the promotion of critical inquiry.  This is madness.  This is the problem.  It isn’t enough that Aquinas was a seeminly good fellow.  It is only enough to pursue the truth with your eyes open, and not to actively lead people into a process of blindness.

Fenelon said, “The best use one can make of his mind is to distrust it.”  – I happen to agree, but I have a feeling that Fenelon might have been considering his words differently than I read them.

 

William Law said, “Hell is nothing else but nature departed or excluded from the beam of divine light.” and “If you have not chosen the Kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what you have chosen instead.“ and “No education can be of true advantage to young women but that which trains them up in humble industry, in great plainness of living, in exact modesty of dress.“ and ”What can you conceive more silly and extravagant than to suppose a man racking his brains, and studying night and day how to fly?”

  

Come on.  These are the great thinkers?  This is submissive, blind, degrading and unimaginative.  And we can talk about Hell and the nature of Hell later on.  That’s a gigantic problem of its own…

I am certainly happy that, in their time, it was possible for some people to pursue critical thinking to some degree.  But I think we’d be kidding ourselves if we thought that their brand of ‘critical inquiry’ was free from the context in which Religion had infected their minds.  I simply think that we’ve done away with most, if not all viable NEED for religion and religious dogma.  Most, if not all, religious dogma is full of patently false claims about reality, and has been all throughout history.  At what point has religious dogma provided us with critical inquiry and new thinking that we could not have had without it?   

 

How have these great thinkers above used religious faith as a means to inquiring?  I would contend that they have NOT used it, but instead, their vast capacity to think & consider life has been nothing short of handicapped by their faith, because it limited their imagination & the possibilities about the reality of the Universe to those things prescribed for them by their particular brand of dogma.  Just because one makes a great effort to come by their knowledge scientifically, does not mean that he/she cannot imagine things unknown in great detail & creativity.  Humans do not need religion to inquire about the most pressing and important matters of the human condition.  Those matters are starkly obvious to anyone who is looking with any eagerness.   What, would you say, is necessary about religion itself?  I would say it has been a vehicle for both positive & negative value in humanity, but what is NECESSARY about it?  If nothing is necessary about it, then let’s just call it a past phenomenon of the human condition move on without it, free from limitations, eternal fear & prejudice. 

 

So yes, Religion is one of the least neutral things I can think of, especially when you look at each religion individually.  Religions are notoriously radical and dogmatic.  Even the most rational (by comparison) pale when compared to the reason & rationality of critical thought WITHOUT the chains of faith. And if it makes the faithful feel better, it is still the case that one can still come to the conclusion that there is a God, without starting his process with religious faith.  I would think it to be unlikely to ‘conclude’ that there IS a God, but still, it could happen.  Much more likely would be that a person would theorize that there MIGHT be a God, and then bounce ideas off of his fellow man, about the possible nature of said God, and what ways we MIGHT access a connection with said God.  All this can happen, too, without ever subjecting his neighbor to any dogma whatsoever.  This is the scientific process.  This is how knowledge and understanding are come by.  And, yes, religion has shown itself over and over again to curtail the scientific process by the very ACT of NOT championing it, but rather, championing intellectual stagnation of some form, through faith in outdated and often, false claims about the Universe.

 

If you haven’t done so already, I would recommend reading The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.  I say this because it seems as though your definition of the word ’selfishness’ might be limited.  It’s not written for other biologists.  It is written for the laymen of the world, and it is brilliant!

 

I would argue that any time Darwin’s theory of natural selection is used to promote death and destruction the problem was not TOO MUCH rational and critical inquiry.  Just the opposite!  In fact, I would argue that the climate of ‘accepting things as fact without inquiry, but from ‘belief’, is a climate that religious dogma promotes and thrives in.  The same is not true of science.  It is in this blind climate (whether or not a religion is at the heart of the action), this lack of the scientific process, that almost all atrocities on Earth have been performed under.  Any ideology can be used for destructive purposes, but the easiest climate in which to promote your ideology’s destructive ends, is one where folks have been under-educated and taught to believe, not OVER-educated and taught to question!

 

 

CCD,

Ben 

Homo-bots?!

Just a quick post.  I thought this would be a good time to introduce the idea of the Singularity.  Very interesting article here, and there are TONS of web articles that address this topic.  Briefly, the Singularity can be defined as, “the culmination of the merger of our biological thinking and existence with our technology, resulting in a world that is still human but that transcends our biological roots.”

Not everyone has a positive reaction to this type of forecasting…  what do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/07/15/bio.tech/index.html

 

CCD,

Ben