The last few months I’ve undergone what I like to think of as an awakening, as I have come to embrace critical thinking.
I have called into question many of my previously held beliefs and found them to be false. It’s scary, but at the same time liberating… as if I’m shedding the shackles of society and embracing truth.
For someone like me, it’s cool to do that. I have the intelligence to cope with the fact that there is no supernatural power at work in the universe. I can deal with the fact that I’m on Earth for no reason other than the fact that I am… I wasn’t put here by any creator (be it God, Xenu, Allah, Marduk, Zeus or any other mythological character) other than my biological parents.
But not everyone is able to handle that truth.
Some people feel that they need to have an external purpose… it’s not enough for them to define a purpose of their own. It’s as if they feel overwhelmed by their own lives, and feel as if there has to be someone else at the helm.
I don’t understand why it’s so difficult… surely if you’re the only one who controls your life it makes it easier? Because then everything is your own decision… if you must do something, then do it… there’s no need to pray to ask for permission or assistance.
As euphoric as my awakening has been, I can’t decide if I have any sort of responsibility to share that awakening with others.
I mean, people who subscribe to religious beliefs based entirely on fiction, like Mormons, Scientiologists and Sitchinites… I can show them hard evidence that their religions are entirely fake and have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.
But what if they’re happy?
What if their beliefs, no matter how idiotic, bring them comfort and solace in difficult times? Do I have the right to deprive them of that by showing them the truth?
Is it up to me to unplug them from the Matrix, or is it better to leave them hooked up and oblivious?
Is it better to live a happy life based on lies, or a difficult one based on the truth?
Let me put it like this: if your partner was cheating on you, but in such a way that you would never find out. As a result, your partner was happier, which resulted in a more stable relationship for the two of you. Would you want to carry on like that, or would you prefer to know about the infidelity?
It’s the Prime Directive – to not interfere in the natural development of those less advanced than I. But what criteria would I use to decide whether someone is ready to be unplugged?
It’s not as simple as offering them a choice of two coloured pills… offering someone a choice like that already constitutes interference.
(I know what you’re thinking. “How arrogant is this guy to suggest that his beliefs are more correct than mine?” Well the fact is that I don’t have beliefs anymore. Beliefs are things you have when you lack evidence… my world view is slowly reshaping itself to conform to that which can be proven. Saying something is true isn’t good enough… you’ll have to show me.)
See, now that's where I differ. The universal truths of which you speak (1+1=2 and so on) are the only truths.
ReplyDeleteWhat is truth if it doesn't stand up to examiniation?
Religious "truth" is a fundamentally flawed concept... I would go so far as to call it an oxymoron. Religion, by definition, insists that its believers embrace doctrine instead and in spite of fact.
I site the Sitchinites as an example. Their spiritual leader Zecharia Sitchin based his ideas on his own flawed and incorrect translations of anceint Sumerian texts and simetic etymology.
These are ideas that he gained from Velikovsky and Von Deiniken... who were proved wrong long before Sitchin came onto the scene.
He then uses the ideas themselves as proof to fill in the monstrous gaps of logic in his explanations.
His kind of nonsense appeals to people who don't know any better: people who are interested in the pseudoscience of ufology and who are dissatisfied with more mainstream religions.
I don't have to believe that he's wrong, I can prove it. I can go to any scientist in any of the fields in which Sitchin claims to be an expert: astronomy, molecular biology, paleoanthropology, linguistics... the list goes on... and I can obtain hard evidence that what he says is wrong.
it's not even a case of believing what the scientists tell me... they would be able to prove it to me. No faith required anywhere in teh equasion.
Faith is what you need when presented with unqualifiable information... you assume that it's correct.
There's that responsibility again... by placing your trust in the person who gave you that information you're absolving yourself of the responsibility of determining the accuracy of it.
I think "faith" is something stupid* people use to hide behind, so that they feel they aren't to blame for the bad things in their lives.
It's much easier to say "The devil made me do it" (or the contemporary pseudoscientific approach "my post-traumatic stress disorder made me do it") than to say "It was me. I did it. I'm to blame, and I am prepared to accept the consequences."
The truth... the real truth, as defined by fact, is more difficult to deal with.
*My definition of 'stupid' is somewhat more restrictive than most. I regard stupidity as a conscious choice, a decision made by a person to be less than they are capable of.
That's an interesting point though... religion does have its positive aspects.
ReplyDeleteMy religious upbringing had a very important influence on who I am today, and I derive much of my personal moral code from the teachings of Christ.
Although I doubt he was the son or emmisary of God any more than any of us are (assuming there is such a thing), I agree with many of the things he is alleged to have said. I regard myself as a Christian from a philosophical point of view, as opposed to a religious one.
If it weren't for my Christian education, I would most likely not have been exposed to that, and may well not have turned out the way I did. Indeed western civilisation would not be the same without the organised religions that helped to shape it... whether that's good or bad is a matter for debate.
I find your quote from Abu-al-Ala al-Marri particularly interesting... the intelligencia of ten centuries ago were already freeing themselves from the bonds of superstition and silly religions. One would have assumed that this would be a growing trend, but looking around me I fear the opposite is true.
In fact, I suspect we are on the verge of a speciation... the enlightened and ignorant humans are already worlds apart. I think we can count the generations on one hand now to when these two will become completely seperate.
The question one must ask is: will your descendents be Morlocks or Eloy?
Which brings me back to my original question: is ignorance bliss?
I can see valid points in both your theories - but one thing I will say that I think you are both forgetting...
ReplyDeleteMyself as a "non believer" appreciates others, their opinions and their beliefs. Trying to invalidate others opinions just makes you the same as them! Also feeling that they are stupid for their beliefs is unfair – don’t they think you’re stupid for not believing??? Again, making you just like them… Basically you’re creating a religion about non-religion!
I feel the problem with religion is that it is a set of rules enforced on one whether or not one agrees with them. This is the reason I have chosen to not believe in a particular religion, and by doing this I have made sure that I don’t enforce my opinion on others. Every individual in this world has their own ideas on things, and, most of the time there is no one correct answer.
picto: enlightenment is very much a relative state.
ReplyDeleteIf what we know of the universe so far is true, it tells us that we'll probably never know everything there is to know about the universe. Science is an eternal pursuit, constantly narrowing the margin of error by describing the nature of the universe to us.
taz: Ah yes, the "Science is a religion too" argument.
The problem with that is that science isn't a fixed viewpoint... it's not an all-encompassing framework of rules and regulations... it's a process of constant improvement and refinement.
Religion makes a stand based on an idea. They will then cling to that with everything, to the exclusion of everything else. If someone proposes something else they are branded heretic and could be subject to any manner of punishement from dirty looks to death... Christ himself may have been a victim of that when he said things that disagreed with the popular religious standpoints of the time.
Science, however, isn't static. The process of science involves arriving at a hypothesis, testing it to prove it's reliability. If its reliability is sound, then it's adopted until a more accurate hypothesis is proven, at which point the old one is rejected.
Science is prepared to attempt to test the claims of religion, but religion rejects science (real science) as it knows that it would be detramental if its followers were to start asking the wrong questions.
The essence of religion is faith, the essence of science is doubt.
Yes, everyone has the right to their own opinion... but just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I'm right.
To seek truth is to seek what is right, accurate and correct, not to seek an opinion.
hmmm, my 5 cent's worth. Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion. This post is at the one end of a very passionate (elicited from the constituents) spectrum. (And no O1, I am not intimating that your argument is based on emotion). Like-minded people clump together in groups. Like you guys on this blog plotting to let the "OTHERS" in on your breakthrough. The truth is that YOU need to know... and THEY (religious zealots) need to know as well. EVERYONE wants to know. And if science gives YOU the answers and religion gives THEM the answers then there is no problem. But it is not just good enough to know. YOU and THEM have to let OTHERS in on your secret as well. :-) Sometimes the OTHERS are YOU and sometimes the OTHERS are THEM. Pretty interesting stuff. And sometimes the OTHERS are just plain OTHERS...
ReplyDeletejb: I'm very pleased to find another truth-seeker. There are far too few of us.
ReplyDeleteduke: I don't think it's really a matter of US vs THEM.
The way I see it, most people are tragically misled. They believe in falsehoods because they don't know any better... they haven't been taught critical thinking.
The reason for that is that critical thinking will never be taught in schools... no government would allow something to be taught that could potentially undermine their authority.
The simple fact is that there is only one truth. There's no sliding scale. There's no relative truth.
I don't pretend to know the full extent of that truth, it's most likely beyond my comprehension. However through critical thinking I have been able to come closer to the truth than any religion has. This I know.
Just because someone disagrees with me, doesn't make them my enemy, necessarily. It just makes them wrong. That is, of course, assuming that I am right... but since I try to think critically, I am more likely to be right than someone who disagrees with me.
The question I put forward though, is do I have the responsibility to demonstrate the truth to the poor, unfortunate sheep? Is it up to me to encourage people to question theit assumptions, or should I rather stand back and let them revel in their ignorance?
It's also not about 'converting' people. It's not about infusing a sheep with a new doctrine to replace an old one.
It's about getting people to think for themselves; to question, challenge and test what they're given. To find the truth for themselves, and not just accept the "truth" that someone else gives them.
Be careful not to fall into the "science is another religion" trap. As I said before, this is simply not the case.
What I'm curious about is how a person can be a truth-seeker and not be spiritual at the same time? Is that not the basis of religion?
ReplyDelete"A man climbed to the top of a mountain and seized hold of the Truth. The Devil, sensing something was wrong, sent one of his underlings to go and investigate. The demon returned, quite panicked, and reported to the Devil that someone had seized hold of the Truth. The Devil was unperturbed, “It does not matter; I will just tempt him to institutionalize it.””
Stripping major religions of their various dogmas you’ll find that most believe in the same thing: love your neighbors, don’t lie, live a good life… etc. What is the rest? They are just stories and myths. The problems arise when people forget about being compassionate towards each other (and take those stories literally).
There are many different routes at the base of a mountain and each have there own challenges and difficulties. As you climb the paths begin to converge upon each other. The climber begins to realize that all of them, despite their differences, are leading to the same place.
I’m a former Christian and am researching Buddhism (they don’t seem to get involved in wars quite as often as their Western counterparts and I’m seeing less of the hypocrisy that exists in Christianity). Buddhism allows you to create your own purpose, to make your own decisions, and encourages all the critical thinking you want; there is no god to judge you. Salvation does not reside on my believing the ancient stories, instead, find your own path.
Arrogance begins, and compassion ends, when we believe that our particular beliefs are solely correct. The same can be applied to those who don’t believe anything.
The trouble is that religion as a whole is not a search for truth at all, quite the opposite.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware that religion and spirituality are not the same, but they are closely linked. They both involve incorporating a spiritual or supernatural element into your world-view that goes beyond the physical universe.
The problem with that is that there is no evidence to back any of it up. It's all fiction.
I won't dissallow the possibility that there are spiritual forces at work in the universe, but I'm not about to place any trust or faith in them until they can be tested, measured... and for that matter, proven to exist.
The reason for this isn't that I have chosen a new set of beliefs. It's because when somebody says to me "Jesus loves you" I say "How do you know?".
There is a possiblity that natural science as it is today will be turned on its ear one day when Heaven opens up and choirs of angels descend staircases of light to welcome us all into the afterlife. But I won't bet on it.
Of all the religions I have examined, I would say that Buddhism is probably the least problematic. The idea that followers are encouraged to acquire a state of clear sight and absolute understanding is admirable... almost akin to the process of scientific study.
Although even Buddhism isn't immune to the problem of relgious doctrine. The concept of reincarnation, for example. Although a fitting metaphor for the cyclic nature of life, there is no logical or rational reason to believe that such a thing might happen.
The thing I like about it most of all, is that it doesn't purport to demonstrate the truth to its followers, but invites them to find it for themselves.
Although I disagree with the methods (meditation), the principle is sound.
As you say, most mainstream religions do dictate a set of instructions for everyday living that make sense - love thy neighbor and all that. These values and morals are, no doubt, what has allowed our civilisation to flourish the way it has.
Our ancestors would have had a hard time propagating those ideals if they hadn't bolted them into a vehicle that appeals to the human tendency towards superstition and fear. But there must come a time when we can move beyond that superstition, and embrace morality for its logical applications, not because we'll go to Hell if we don't.
Perhaps that time hasn't yet come for all of us, but I think it has for me, and a few others.
The point here isn't about adopting a new set of beliefs... even nihilism is a belief structure. It's about fostering an attitude of questioning what you've been given. Finding the truth, in amongst all the crap.
Religious doctrine does contain some good ideas, so let's use them. But at the same time we must be careful not to allow anyone to pull the wool over our eyes.
Always question.
One of my favourite websites is that of James Randi, a famous sceptic. He is proud of the fact that whenever a fan approaches him and announces that they too are a sceptic, his standard response is "I doubt it."
That's the kind of attitude I'm looking at here.
In the last 24 hours I've been accused of being arrogant, naieve and illogical. Perhaps I am, but you'll have to prove it.
This doesn't relate directly to your comment, Picto... but I was just reminded of something Neitzche said that relates to my comment: "But there must come a time when we can move beyond that superstition, and embrace morality for its logical applications, not because we'll go to Hell if we don't."
ReplyDeleteHis concept was that of the Übermensch - the over-person. Which is more commonly known in english as the superman (with a small S).
Among other things, the superman is a person without a god or gods, who embraces morality and lives a good life despite not being bound to it by religious doctrine.
I'm curious. I'm not aware of any wars involving an atheist agressor. Can anyone else think of an example of one?
What I'm getting at is that I submit that atheists are inherently more peaceful than religious people. Perhaps because they don't have a reason to fight anyone?
Maybe I'm wrong... just spitballing.
Ah yes, the socialists. The argument could be made that 20th century communism closely resembled organised religion in its application, replacing the idea of the supernatural deity with the fascist leader thus elevating him to almost messianic status. But I won't go there. I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, I think the ideal of Nietzche's superman is an admirable one... one worth striving towards.
Nietzche tought about the principle of abandoning our primal animal nature in favour of reason and logic. These supermen are no longer bound by the rules and dictates of human society because they are essentially no longer human.
Instead they are governed by their own set of self-imposed rules.
Hey, I'm a transhumanist... the idea of transcending humanity and achieving the next stage in evolution appeals to me.
:-)
ReplyDeleteWell, it all depends on how much of a conservationist this superman would be.
I dunno, I quite like monkeys. They don't make good pets, but they're so cute! I wouldn't want to hurt any of them as I speed past them on the evolutionary highway.