Reality belongs to those who know, not believers

Reality is real. This is, for some, an unreal statement.

They believe that reality is whatever someone considers it to be, that it's possible to create our own reality, that reason, logic, facts, and demonstrable evidence are useless in revealing whatever lies behind obvious appearances, that intuition and a gut feeling are better guides to truth.

Well, as I said in a post a few days ago, Tuesday's national election in the United States was a victory for reality. And a concomitant defeat for those who value subjectivity over objectivity, passionate belief over reasonable facts, "I feel..." over "I know... ."

Quite a few readers of this blog reside outside of the United States. You may not be aware of the extent to which politics in my country is polarized.

Our Republican Party has become the haven of dogmatic religious fundamentalists. They're matched in their closed-mindedness by dogmatic "Tea Party" types who yearn for good old days that never were, days when America commanded other nations, women were kept in their place, and the rich bestowed some of their wealth to whoever they felt deserved charity, social programs for the poor not yet having come into existence.

In their world view it was unthinkable that President Obama could be re-elected, since they expected that the imagined reality in their minds actually existed in the objective world.

When respected political analysts like Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight dispassionately studied polls and other evidence that bore on who would be elected President, concluding that Obama was a clear favorite to win, these pundits consulted their gut and tuned into their feelings.

Then said: "Romney will be victorious."

But they were wrong. Nate Silver was right. In fact, the most right of anyone. He picked the winner in every state, all fifty of them. And almost exactly predicted the percentage of the national vote Obama and Romney would receive.

Now, what does this have to do with the sort of philosophizing about churchless matters that usually is the central theme of this blog? A lot, in my pro-science, anti-religion opinion. 

Knowledge is known in a similar fashion, no matter the subject matter. How we distinguish between truth and falsity isn't all that different, whether we're talking about the likely result of a presidential election or how likely it is that God exists.

The big difference between these examples is that an election settles the question of who knew the most about the reality of voters' intentions, whereas the question of God's existence remains unsettled after thousands of years of human debating.

On November 6, once most of the votes had been tabulated, it was obvious that careful analysis of polls resulted in a much closer approximation of truth than the intuitive feelings of pundits. Demonstrable evidence mirrored reality, while personal beliefs didn't.

Consider a thought experiment.

What if the United States hadn't held an election on November 6? What if all the polling and punditry had proceeded just as it did up to that point, yet somehow we never knew whether it was Obama or Romney who had been elected president?

The objective reality of who voters planned to cast a ballot for would remain. There still would be true and false predictions of the election outcome. We just couldn't know for sure that Nate Silver was right, and all of the pundits on Fox News predicting a Romney victory were wrong.

But Silver still would have been right. And those pundits still would have been wrong. Objective reality is what it is, whether or not we know it to be that.

Similarly, God either exists or does not exist. There is essentially zero demonstrable evidence that any God believed in by the major world religions exists. So a dispassionate analysis of the question, "Does God exist?", leads to a simple prediction: No.

Yet pundits, who in this case are the myriads of religious true believers who have a feeling that God is real, continue to proclaim their own prediction: Yes, God exists.

So who is correct?

The 2012 United States election points to a firm answer: those who consider all of the evidence for and against the existence of something (like a presidential victory, or God), not just the evidence which supports a deeply held personal belief. 

There's nothing wrong with believing. Everyone does this. What's wrong with believing is considering that we can't be wrong.  

Comments

[cc]

"There's nothing wrong with believing. Everyone does this. What's wrong with believing is considering that we can't be wrong."

Without doubt, belief is madness.

[Gaz]

Hey Brian, this might interest you.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/4636931/sally-woodmansee-talking-to-tony-letters.html

Let me know what you think

[tucson]

50% voted for O. 48% voted for R and 2% voted for X. This means that 50% did not think O was the best choice and that 50% think your reality, Blogger B, is not real. Hardly a triumph. A win by a whisker, but not a triumph. It's sort of like a split decision in MMA where one fighter wins 29-28, 28-29, 29-28. Half the people go home thinking it was the wrong decision. Nothing was clearly decided. The same wide division remains in the country. Who's imagined reality is real? Both? Neither? A bit of both?

Frankly, I'm rather impressed by the unreasonableness and irrationality of your post above than by the reality of it.

i.e. I mean, the Republican Party being the Haven for those who want women kept in their place. Like the party is composed of mysogynists with R being the leader of the pack. C'mon man. Get a grip. You sound hysterical like a woman on her period :). And don't bring up Sandra Fluck. I'm not opposed to her desire to mess around with the sperm endowed or her right to do it. I just don't want to pay for it.

You say, "What's wrong with believing is considering that we can't be wrong."

--OK. God O won this election and God R lost. But that doesn't prove God O is really real. It may be that both are false Gods and that God X is the real one. Nothing has been resolved and the never ending battle continues...

[tAo]

i agree with tucson. nothing has been resolved.

obama only won because of the long outdated electoral college nonsense. that crap was uselful back in the 1700s or early 1800s, but its quite obsolete in the 21st century. and unlkess i'm wrong, i think romney had more of popular votes anyway.

all that is really evident, is that there are tens of millions of dumb ignorant voters that were/are stupid enough to want more of the same bullshit -- namely, four more years of obama flavored fascism (government wedded to bankers and corporate interests).

its all too clear that obama was/is the preferred choice of puppet. after all, obama has served their intersts quite well... so why not get some more mileage out of him. anyone who thinks that obama actually runs the government, or that he calls the shots, is a lame-brained idiot. obama is merely a teleprompter reader and PR front-man for the TPTB (the powers that be). his job is to pretend to be president, so as to keep the lower and middle classes pacified. obama doesn't control anything. nada. he is merely an actor, playing a role. if you think obama is anything more than that, then you aren't very smart.

the real power, the serious power and control, is held by those who have and control most of the world's money (and of course everything that money controls), and who also own the mainstream media. none of this is a secret, its all well known and blatantly obvious.

romney would have had to tow the line as well, had he been selected to play the role of president. keeping people in a democrat versus republican dichotomy, is nothing more than social engineering (manipulation). you only think you have a choice.

no one gets to be president (of the united states of america) unless that person is willing to serve the interests and agenda of TPTB (the super-rich international bankers and corporations). wanting obama rather than romney, is like wanting chocolate poison rather than vanilla poison... they are both poison.

so people, wake-up. quit being such stupid ignorant suckers.

[Blogger Brian]

Wanted to point out that Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/who-won-the-popular-vote-2012_n_2087038.html

"(UPDATE (2): As of Noon on Friday, with nearly all votes in, Obama assuredly will win the popular vote, leading Romney by a count of 61,173,739 or 50.5% to 58,167,260 or 48.0%. At this point, a few final votes are being counted and then all that's left is for the results to be officially certified.)"

[Blogger Brian]

Gaz, what I think is...

Book deal! Gullible people love make-believe stories about God and heaven. Hard to believe that so many believe stuff like this.

[tucson]

Blogger B wrote: "Wanted to point out that Obama won the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote."

--Yes, O did win the popular vote, BUT he got about 9 million fewer votes than he did in '08.

A win is a win but, as stated above, nothing has been resolved. Same would be true if the situation were reversed.

I pretty much agree with tAo. Both are front men of those who finance them, but the power and influence of the office remains to some degreee.

O-care certainly has not benefited me because my insurance premiums have gone up $500 monthly with a higher deductible since he went into office. Sure, I get a "free" colonoscopy every ten years and my wife gets a free mammogram (whoopee!) but I'm paying for it, and then some, via higher premiums.

People like the idea of free medical care, education, obamaphones, and government entitlements and subsidies of all sorts, but still they are (or someone is) paying for it. Like the "free" wi-fi connection you get included in the price of your hotel room. You're paying for it.