Passion. Religious believers consider that they're the only ones with it. For example, they have "The Passion of the Christ." It fills Christians with energy, conviction, determination, zeal.
Well, there's also "The Passion of Reality." It fills me with exactly the same feelings. Just as fundamentalists are driven to rid the world of Satanic influences (including pagans like me), when I come across nonsensical dogmatic blathering my reality-loving blood begins to boil.
I get fired up to defend the ramparts of truth against the neo-barbarian hordes who want to substitute superstition for science (and a scientifically founded spirituality).
This morning, on Pharyngula, I came across a well-deserved rant about another blithering apologist.
I read these lame exercises in making excuses by theologians, and I don't understand how anyone can be foolish enough to fall for them. The latest example is by Edward Tingley, who babbles on painfully about how believers are the true skeptics, the true scientists, while claiming that the believers have a deeper, stronger knowledge than mere atheists.
Yet nowhere in his ramble does Tingley ever give any evidence or rational reason to believe in his god or any god — in fact, he triumphantly declares that there is no evidence — god exists, but (I can scarcely believe he makes this argument seriously) he's hiding…hiding in such a way that only someone "muscled up with virtues" can see him. It's the Emperor's New Clothes argument all over again.
Exactly. I muscled up with the virtue of reading crap that I don't believe in and headed over to Tingley's Christian web site to inspect "The Skeptical Inquirer: If Only Atheists Were the Skeptics They Think They Are."
It was painful to peruse. I confess that I didn't read every word. But only a small proportion of the words made any sense, so I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything important.
These sentences seem to capture the essence of Tingley's argument:
A seeker of truth has to go where the truth can be found, and to go on until it is found, and both the atheist and the agnostic are early quitters… Maybe, if he exists, God would show himself directly to our senses. But maybe he wouldn't. Maybe he would hide from us—maybe he is a Deus absconditus.
… We now have evidence for a conclusion that all our fellow seekers of truth ought to draw: Either God does not exist or he exists but does not show himself to our senses.
… When the smart scientist of the seventeenth century was asked, "Is clear water pure?" he did not go with his gut and answer "yes" or "no." "The naked eye says yes," he answered, "but is there an instrument better than the naked eye with which to see?" We need to listen to the scientist who claims that there is, and that scientist is Pascal.
That instrument is the heart. "It is the heart which perceives God, and not the reason"… In a world in which God both exists and hides, relying upon conclusive evidence is the way to be wrong about God.
Wow! What an amazing load of bullshit.
Tingley says that since there is no evidence for God, either (1) God doesn't exist or (2) God wants to hide from us. The simplest explanation obviously is (1), in the same sense that since there is no evidence of gnomes who live under flowers in our garden, either (1) they don't exist or (2) they want to hide from my wife and me.
Now, someone else could move into our house and have a deep sense of conviction in his or her heart that there really are gnomes under our flowers. They just want to hide, and don't want to leave any demonstrable evidence of their existence other than that heartfelt sense.
Great. Each to his own. I've got no problem with gnome-lovers or with God-lovers. Just call your devotion what it is: a purely personal vision that has no foundation in objective reality.
Don't try to conflate what you feel in your heart with genuine knowledge. Don't insult truth by equating your subjective conviction that gnomes, God, Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus is real with how the cosmos truly is.
Just say, "I don't know, but I'm pretending that I do because it feels good." That's honest.
There's various ways to respond to those who, like Tingley, want to foist their medieval faith-based claptrap onto those of us in the 21st century who are just fine with what the Renaissance brought us. Physicist Brian Greene takes the high road in his "Put a Little Science in Your Life."
He correctly sees science as more than just an activity pursued by white-coated nerds off in their own little experimental worlds.
The reason science really matters runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.
Then there's the low road, which attracts me more after having my heart tell me that Tingley and his fundamentalist friends need to be stopped with some shots across the bow before they kill civilization. This is the path taken by "Carnival of the Elitist Bastards."
Here she stands in dry-dock, awaiting launch: a ship of the line, cannon gleaming, masts straight and strong: the H.M.S. Elitist Bastard, built to withstand the endless assaults of ignorance. Her mission is to seek and destroy stupidity and make the world safe for knowledge once more. Where she sails, no IDiot is safe, no ignoramus secure: she's armed to the teeth and filled with a feisty crew begging for battle.
Only when necessary, though. Since I'm an ignoramus in so many ways, you're my comrade in not-knowing if you're similarly willing to admit your ignoramusness.
Notice the if. It's important. Like Socrates said, those who believe they know when really they don't are disadvantaged compared to those who know that they don't know.
Worse, they disadvantage the rest of us when they try to found social or educational policies on their religious ignorance – such as teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools or not supporting embryonic stem cell research.
When Tingley and his band of "I feel God in my heart" no-nothings who believe they do set themselves up as superior to us genuine godly ignoramuses, that's a call to arms.
Time to unfurl the sails of the H.M.S. Elitist Bastard and show them who really rules the roost of ultimate reality: Mystery.
I've been watching "The Tudors" series on Showtime cable TV. King Henry VIII beheading (or worse!) anyone who didn't swear allegience to him as head of the Church. Now THERE'S some religious intolerance.
Along with so much else of world history... it gives me the sense that in the grand sweep of things, we really are moving towards more rationality and tolerence. The incredible increase in communcation media may make us more AWARE of religious zealots, but I think their numbers and influence are slowly and unsteadily shrinking.
(Sure, plenty of people may TALK about being Catholics, but how many really blindly follow the Pope's orders? How many people, when faced with serious illness, rely on faith healers instead of good ol' Western Scientific Medicine?)
As individuals, there are plenty of people still caught in fundamentalists thinking, and many of them will be ready to grow out of it with time. There is good reason to make efforts to help such people, explaining and demonstrating that life goes just fine when I accept that my beliefs are only my beliefs. It's great to continue such efforts... and I feel there's no need to despair, since the big trend is in the right direction.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Stuart Resnick | June 03, 2008 at 05:33 PM
Whoa Brian, crusader of truth! Slow down a minute bro....
You have a good point here, but Tingley, perhaps unfortunately, has at least half a good point also. Forget his point about proving God's existence with this or that tool, the senses or the heart. That's the point that's driving you crazy, and I am on the same page. But the idea that cultivating the heart might be a useful thing is at the very HEART of Tibetan Buddhist practice, which as I understand it, can basically be summer up as "have a kind heart." I think it is the following enormous leap that Tingley makes, that "trusting on'es heart actually proves something" that drives you nuts. An open heart does not mean that all the superstitious crap we bought into is actually true--on the contrary--but why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Posted by: Adam | June 04, 2008 at 08:14 AM
Adam, good points. But your use of "heart" is different from Tingley's, which is along the lines of "I just know it in my heart."
Knowing in this sense seems different from compassion. Knowing that God exists because your heart tells you seems different from feeling compassionate toward someone suffering.
Like I've been writing about recently, we all have a sense of "knowing." This isn't really a knowing in the sense of 2 + 2 = 4, but more in the sense of a feeling of rightness.
If we didn't have that sense, we'd be in a perpetual state of perplexity, unable to act. So I agree that each of us has to trust our "heart," if by that we mean that sense of inner knowing.
As you said, what irks me about Tingley is that he elevates this personal sense of heartfelt knowing into a conclusion about the cosmos that is objectively true -- a justification for the rightness of Christianity (and other monotheistic religions, one would suppose.)
Posted by: Brian | June 04, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Brian,
I understand your point that the stretch from knowing it in one's heart to actually believing in something objective is perhaps crazy, if at least not accurate.
The point I want to emphasize (and one I have been thinking about recently) is that perhaps we can actually cultivate "knowing in one's heart." For example, do I "know it in my heart that it is sad or painful" if I see someone hit by a car? Perhaps. Do I know it in my heart when there's an old person walking too slow in front of me, or do I just want to get around the person? If I am being honest with myself, perhaps I know, perhaps I don't. I have been recently intrigued with Tibetan Buddhist practices that are designed to actually practice "knowing in one's heart," and I think the focus on this type of knowing, as opposed to rational knowing, is actually a very important distinction. I am not repeating this because I think you disagree, I am just clarifying my point.
Posted by: Adam | June 04, 2008 at 10:37 AM
This'll sound silly, but I think it's got some relevence.
If you're gambling at a roulette table, almost everyone gets these really strong feelings, like, "I KNOW that the next spin will be Red. I can just FEEL it!" We must be biologically wired to get intuitions like that. It must have some evolutionary purpose. (We see patterns when they exist, and also when they don't exist.)
We don't need to ignore or deny such feelings... but as human beings, we also have rational minds, and when there's time (when we don't have to make the decision instantaneously), we can check our feelings vs our reason. In the case of roulette, reason very clearly demonstrates that our intuition in this case is worthless. Whether the next spin will be red, black, or green (it turns out) has precisely nothing to do with our intuition or feeling about what it will be.
When I see a beggar on the street, my feeling may be to give him money. It'd give me a warm feeling inside to do so. But my reason tells me that depending on the particular situation, hand-outs may be helpful, or may be harmful.
"Following your heart" may for some mean to ignore or deny reason, and just do what feels best. That's surely a simple solution... just like it's a simple solution to blindly follow a religious dogma or a political party. But maybe there's greater success when we take the trouble to examine each situation, case-by-case, taking into account reason also.
Maybe it's OK for some of us to be unbalanced on the side of feelings, and others on the side of reason. Maybe it balances out on the species level.
Not everyone needs to be Bill Gates. But it's worth noting that he's far and away the most charitable man on earth... and all indications are that he's basing his charity on reason, not feelings. He reasons out which charities will help the most people to the greatest extent... and his conclusions may reveal possibilities that would never be found if he only "followed his heart."
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Stuart Resnick | June 04, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Having known many people who know in their heart things that are diametrically opposed to each other, I believe in fostering our intuition but understanding it better go with what is physical reality. Intuition is handy in a disaster. We need to be more aware of instinct which wild animals have but domestic ones like us have forgotten. But as for knowing... someone could know they could walk in front of a fast moving train and be just as dead no matter how much they 'knew'. I like mystery and it works for me. I think it adds to the joy of life.
Posted by: Rain | June 04, 2008 at 03:24 PM
How very afraid of the unknown must be those poor souls that must have an explanation for a personal god, an explanation which must be on the third-grade reading level, and a god who must be re-created each week in man's own likeness.
The fear is so overwhelming as to subvert sense past generations; so conditioning that even the death of one unbeliever is too small; so complete that even circular logic is too perfect.
Can I coin the term "adeiphobia", or is it taken?
Posted by: Edward | June 04, 2008 at 03:41 PM
Stuart,
While in Hawaii, was Kileau volcano still erupting? Is the Volcano House still worth staying at?
Posted by: Roger | June 05, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Roger wrote...
> While in Hawaii, was Kileau volcano still
> erupting? Is the Volcano House still worth
> staying at?
At the volcano crater, there was a huge plume of steam (or whatever that stuff is) shooting out, but no lava. I believe the lava is coming out of the side of the volcano and flowing underground to the sea. We took a helicopter ride, and there were places where you could see through holes in the ground to the orange glow.
At night, we snuck past the road blocks (for safety, they don't let people get close) to see the glowing plumes in the distance where the lava hit the ocean. In daylight (from the helicopter), you couldn't see the glow, just the wild and massive plumes of steam in the 2 or 3 places where the lava was flowing into the ocean.
I don't know about the volcano house. The helicopter ride was $200 and very cool. The volcano crater was also worth seeing, but lots of the roads around the volcano were closed for safety.
It blew my mind when they told me about a previous flow that destroyed a shoreline town. It took 2 years for the flow to reach the town. During the whole time, they tried all sorts of methods to try to stop the flow from reaching the town, but ultimately nothing worked. There was a church that they where they actually moved the building to safer ground, but mostly everything was destroyed. Must have been and "interesting" 2 years.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Stuart Resnick | June 06, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Stuart,
That steam stuff, might be a fumarole. Pahoehoe will turn into aa, that might explain the time to reach the town.
"During the whole time, they tried all sorts of methods to try to stop the flow from reaching the town, but ultimately nothing worked."
--I wonder if 'letting go' would have helped in this situation. I think, I understand the force of magma at a hot spot.
Posted by: Roger | June 07, 2008 at 07:39 AM