The best way to resolve a problem is to realize that it doesn't really exist.
Poof! Gone. Problem isn't solved; it is dissolved.
More and more, I'm concluding that this is a big drawback with religions. They want us to believe in problems that aren't evident to a non-believer.
Like:
(1) How does one come to know God? (If God doesn't exist, this isn't a problem)
(2) How can our sins be forgiven? (If sins are imaginary, this isn't a problem)
(3) How can we be sure of going to heaven after we die? (If there is no heaven, or life after death, this isn't a problem)
I've talked about this in a couple of other blog posts.
Religions make a Big Problem out of life's little problems
When did humans start making life itself into a problem?
Today, in my Tai Chi class, our instructor talked about dissolving in a different context. Someone pushes you. Instead of resisting, you melt away, flowing with the push, emptying yourself.
He likened it, sort of weirdly, to the old Alka Seltzer commercial: "Plop, plop, fizz, fizz." Meaning, the solidity of the capsule dissolves into water, offering relief.
Sure, you could fight back, resisting with your own strength. But it's a lot easier to avoid the problem of being pushed by simply relaxing and not engaging with it.
This is how I feel about most of religion's Big Problems. They are no longer a problem for me, because I don't see any need to engage with them.
I also don't worry about being attacked by mean gnomes in our garden, since I don't see any evidence that they exist.
Recently I came across an interesting 1996 essay by Patricia Churchland that takes a somewhat similar approach to a supposed Big Problem in consciousness research, the so-called "hard problem." Her essay is called The Hornswoggle Problem.
I found it pretty damn brilliant. In another post I'll talk about it in more depth. For now, here's some excerpts. It's well worth a read.
Beginning with Thomas Nagel, various philosophers have proposed setting conscious experience apart from all other problems of the mind as "the most difficult problem." When critically examined, the basis for this proposal reveals itself to be unconvincing and counter-productive.
Use of our current ignorance as a premise to determine what we can never discover is one common logical flaw. Use of "I-cannot-imagine" arguments is a related flaw. When not much is known about a domain of phenomena, our inability to imagine a mechanism is a rather uninteresting psychological fact about us, not an interesting metaphysical fact about the world.
Rather than worrying too much about the meta-problem of whether or not consciousness is uniquely hard, I propose we get on with the task of seeing how far we get when we address neurobiologically the problems of mental phenomena.
...One danger inherent in embracing the distinction [between Easy and Hard] as a principled empirical distinction is that it provokes the intuition that only a real humdinger of a solution will suit The Hard Problem. Thus the idea seems to go as follows: the answer, if it comes at all, is going to have to come from somewhere Really Deep -- like quantum mechanics, or -- Wow -- perhaps it requires a whole new physics.
As the lone enigma, consciousness surely cannot be just a matter of a complex dynamical system doing its thing.
Yes, there are emergent properties from nervous systems such as co-ordinated movement as when an owl catches a mouse, but consciousness must be an emergent property like unto no other. After all, it is The Hard Problem! Consequently, it will require a very deep, very radical solution. That much is evident sheerly from the hardness of The Hard Problem.
...Moreover, the mysteriousness of a problem is not a fact about the problem, it is not a metaphysical feature of the universe -- it is an epistemological fact about us. It is about where we are in current science, it is about what we can and cannot understand, it is about what, given the rest of our understanding, we can and cannot imagine. It is not a property of the problem itself.
It is sometimes assumed that there can be a valid transition from "we cannot now explain" to "we can never explain", so long as we have the help of a subsidiary premise, namely, "I cannot imagine how we could ever explain..." . But it does not help, and this transition remains a straight-up application of argument from ignorance.
Adding "I cannot imagine explaining P" merely adds a psychological fact about the speaker, from which again, nothing significant follows about the nature of the phenomenon in question.
Whether we can or cannot imagine a phenomenon being explained in a certain way is a psychological fact about us, not an objective fact about the nature of the phenomenon itself. To repeat, it is an epistemological fact -- about what, given our current knowledge, we can and cannot understand. It is not a metaphysical fact about the nature of the reality of the universe.
Seems very smug and selfish- those people living in their ivory towers surveying all beneath them thinking - everything is fine in my world because it is after all my very own brain that’s creating my reality and stuff everyone else out there living with terror and horror from war and disease and suffering - just ignore the ongoing destruction of the planet because I'm okay and that’s all that matters - no need to have empathy or care about others because all problems are imaginary...
Posted by: observer | February 12, 2015 at 01:44 PM
Observer, did you even read this post? Or my other posts that I linked to?
Naturally there are lots of genuine problems people need to deal with.
My point is that they can do this better if they stop being concerned with imaginary problems involving imaginary things like God, sin, salvation, and the afterlife.
Posted by: Brian Hines | February 12, 2015 at 01:50 PM
Okay, so I am not concerned about "God, sin, salvation, and the afterlife". But I am aware of the many problems in the world and I care for others. What is your take on this? Should I simply dissolve my concerns and live in a happy blissful state of mind? I know this sounds weird but I seem to have some kind of aversion to this because it seems so selfish.
Posted by: observer | February 12, 2015 at 01:58 PM
Observer, all I can do is share my own experience. I'm deeply involved in various forms of citizen activism. I worry a lot about local, state, national, and world problems.
I've got no desire to live in a blissful always-smiling "enlightened" state. I enjoy getting outraged at outrageous stuff, then trying to do something about the problems.
I'm nowhere near as motivated or committed as many people I know. But i do my best. For me, the time and energy I no longer spend on spiritual/religious pursuits is better spent on trying to improve the world -- which I know exists (as contrasted with hypothetical spiritual realities).
Posted by: Brian Hines | February 12, 2015 at 02:14 PM
Sounds good Brian, thanks for the reply. I would imagine your sphere of influence in your community work is greater than mine but anyway, I just do the best I can.
Posted by: observer | February 12, 2015 at 02:54 PM
I am aware of the many problems in the world and I care for others. What is your take on this? Should I simply dissolve my concerns and live in a happy blissful state of mind?
If you "care for others", why waste your time with blogs? Go do something for the others you supposedly care for.
Posted by: x | February 12, 2015 at 07:18 PM
x What a odd comment to make to observer..Are you implying that you don't care for others?..You yourself visit this blog, besides to "help others" should one not first improve oneself and know oneself..Do you not think that by sharing and commentating the person is doing just that.
Posted by: june schlebusch | February 13, 2015 at 12:22 AM
"""(1) How does one come to know God? (If God doesn't exist, this isn't a problem)""
I don't think you will place this but then take it personal
If there is no God there is no Brian either
Unbelievable is to claim a scientific approach, while editing and deleting texts
and above saying : 0*1=1
777
Posted by: 777 | February 13, 2015 at 01:09 PM