Here is scientist and author Sam Harris' thoughts on the subject of death and dying. He speaks succinctly with a scientific background, but also, it appears as though he is being as kind as he can possibly be....well, considering the subject.
Now, how many proponents of a mind/body "duality" do you think will actually change their minds and position when it comes to a "hereafter" after having seen this short video? How many Christians will change their minds about "Heaven" and "Hell", or how many New Agers will change their minds about there existing some sort of "spirit world" or universal "energy", the latter of which they co-opted from actual physics; the former of which they co-opted from religion(hence the hodgepodge of "science" and religion that is "New Age")
I will wager that the answer is precisely zero. I would further contend that the reasons that the above-mentioned people won't change their minds after watching this short video are many, but one of those reasons is not the way in which Mr. Harris conveyed his thoughts. People who are willing to change their minds about their core beliefs have to be in possession of a few things before anything else can happen, one of which, is doubt. But doubt, alone, doesn't always lead to the next thing that is necessary, which is this: The ability to entertain the notion they could actually be wrong, and this is especially when it comes to being wrong about one's personal experiences.
Some people might readily concede that they have doubts, and/or, they might have altered/updated previous views, but this sort of admission, alone, is not any sort of precursor or guarantee that they will eventually do a 180. And of course, when it comes to deconversion from theistic beliefs, not all people do a "180". No, some people only do a 45, or a 60, or a 90. IOW, something is preventing them from applying skepticism comprehensively.
I contend that, nine times out of ten, it is personal experiences that keep proponents of the supernatural clinging to their core beliefs, beliefs that, in a practical sense, we know are likely mistaken based on what we do know via science. If someone is not going see the error of their particular sphere of thought because of personal experience, there is little to nothing that can be done until/unless they are first willing to admit that those personal experiences can in fact be deceiving them. Moreover, people who deconvert from theism but who still hold onto some of the fringe metaphysical aspects of theism have a tougher time I think, because they then have to square-up how their personal experiences misled them in their former supernatural, theistic beliefs, but how those experiences are not misleading them in their current situation. To be in such a position, a real quagmire for some, requires what's called compartmentalization.
Chances are, if one compartmentalizes, they are experiencing at least some cognitive dissonance. What the person does with that dissonance varies, but one thing is for sure, the final outcome cannot be predicted. In all my years in observing and participating in these sorts of discussions, I've yet to see a "One Size Fits All" approach that will elicit a "light bulb" moment in the believer.
IOW, in terms of results, I've not seen a significant difference in one's approach..e.g...passive and compassionate, versus direct and aggressive. For me, it all depends on the person on the other end. Of course, just ridiculing the person isn't going to accomplish much, because they shut down. On the other hand, I will not say that ridicule in conjunction with good, well-supported arguments is not effective. Although not a proven method by any means, we know that ridicule works in some cases, simply because we all remember what it was like to be a teenager. It's called "peer pressure".
6 comments:
"I will not say that ridicule in conjunction with good, well-supported arguments is not effective"
I think, depending on the person and current conversation, one MUST be careful of how one uses ridicule and limit it to target the idea/belief as a separate entity from the person who holds the belief. The person is generally an innocent bystander/adopter of the belief since it was most likely adopted looong before they had the correct analytical tools to properly examine these/this belief at the time it was presented by those viewed as "authority" and "trusted".
Now once the person actively goes on the "attack" after having been presented with the evidence, all bets are off and "it's on!"
"I think, depending on the person and current conversation, one MUST be careful of how one uses ridicule and limit it to target the idea/belief as a separate entity from the person who holds the belief."
Yes, I agree. After all, if one can "hate the sin, not the sinner", then in theory, I can hate the belief, not necessarily the believer.
"The person is generally an innocent bystander/adopter of the belief since it was most likely adopted looong before they had the correct analytical tools[...]"
Again, we have agreement. In the scenario you mention, the person is most certainly a victim. However, as you say...
once the person actively goes on the 'attack' after having been presented with the evidence, all bets are off and 'it's on!'
...yes, that, and/OR, when it is clear-cut case of willful ignorance, then ridiculing the ridiculous can be a useful tool.
Back when I was a Christian? Well, I wasn't exposed to people who held opposing views; everyone believed in "God"(the Christian god, of course), and that was that---thee end. I couldn't wake up, grab some coffee, click a few buttons, and have some guy saying to me..."WTF, dude? You actually believe that sh*t with all the scientific evidence against it!?!?!?!?"
And to be perfectly honest, I wish I had been exposed to some of that. As I've stated numerous times, I had doubts as early as 9 years old, but I was told to just have faith, just believe, and don't question. This aggravates me just thinking about it, because if I'd have listened in on Atheist/Theist discussions earlier on, I'd have escape the mind-numbing clutches of religion earlier on.
People are leaving religion in droves, and the biggest contributing factor is access to knowledge, which of course includes views that oppose our own. Kids in religious households are getting slammed on a daily basis by other kids for using the bible as their source of "truth". These kids have far less to lose in getting out than the adult who's carried the family belief for 40, 50, 60 or more years. For me? Agreeing to disagree is the last resort, and I even see that as a cop-out at times.
I like the way Sam Harris puts it here, factual, yet humble enough to not make any super definitive statements.
Death is a bummer (as Sam says, "unacceptable"), but I was thinking lately that not so much for us (because we won't know anything) but for those left behind. That is what really sucks about it.
"I like the way Sam Harris puts it here, factual, yet humble enough to not make any super definitive statements."
Yeah, he's got the "kid's gloves" on for sure, here. Sam knows his audience and adjusts accordingly. I'm sure you notice, though, that he did say that we "have many reasons to be doubtful about naive conceptions about the soul", etc.
In any case, there are other videos where he takes part in debates with various theists where the kid gloves come off. I've seen him tear New Age guru Deepak Chopra a new in a few videos.
But none of that was really my point. My overall point was that something has to happen from within the believer's mind before they will let the opposing information penetrate into the compartment in their brain which they have "roped off" to reason, AKA, compartmentalization.
Now, I will grant that a theist or spiritualist will be more apt to watch the entire video when the calm, cool, humble approach exhibited in the video is used. No question about that. But none of that, I contend, is going to increase the chances of them actually changing their mind about a "hereafter" or "souls", etc., and, IMO, the # 1 obstacle in preventing that isn't the bedside manner with which we point out that they could be mistaken. The # 1 obstacle is their own personal experiences, which, as we know, these experiences are built upon ad hoc reasoning and subjective validation.
"Death is a bummer (as Sam says, 'unacceptable'), but I was thinking lately that not so much for us (because we won't know anything) but for those left behind. That is what really sucks about it."
Yeah, the older we get, the more we're going to see our loved ones pass on. I did like what he said about religion being the "antithesis of grieving". That's so true....and usually it starts small. Parents naturally don't want to see their children sad. The hamster croaks, and we say, "Awww, don't be sad, honey. 'Theodore' is in heaven, now" yadda, yadda. Nothing confuses a child more than lying to them.
I wish I had been exposed to some of that ... I'd have escape the mind-numbing clutches of religion earlier on.
I think it safe to assume that we'd all like to have had only truthful, provable information (or at least info with reasonable evidence to support a hypothesis) presented to us throughout our lives. My memory fails, me but I'm fairly certain you endured a more conservative ans strict church upbringing compared to me - i came up in a fairly liberal Lutheran environment. I wonder whether if you HAD been exposed to doubts earlier if it may have made your earlier childhood more tumultuous and contentious? I know from my experience, open defiance of anything from a child perspective, doesn't end well for the child.
I might also contend that had you not had the exposure you had, you may not be the knowledgeable advocate that you are for the atheist position - you might have not been as interested in the subject and been more indifferent. In which case, I may have never finished my deconversion (at least when I did). Granted, I was pretty close before I "found" your blog, but you and others' blogs brought the subject back to the forefront (at least for me).
Generally speaking, I think "faith" among the masses (at least in most western countries) is weakening ... I think it will still take a long while before many are ready to give up on faith entirely and publicly ... but I think we're also seeing the old guard establishment backlash and they're attempting to tighten their grip or even expand it (See: Supreme Court giving for profit businesses religious rights that usurp the rights of their employees).
I fear that the way religion is becoming even MORE deeply intertwined with politics, it will lengthen the time it takes to get religion out of our (atheist/secular) lives.
We need more reasonable - like Sam Harris, highly visible voices out there posing the questions that get adults to rethink their childhood foundations. At least atheism is no longer a scary underground thing to be feared - it's now not necessarily an instant blacklisting (in many areas) to declare non-belief
"I'm fairly certain you endured a more conservative ans strict church upbringing compared to me"
And you'd be right. At twelve yrs old I was told at the dinner table one night that "Jesus" was coming to take believers with him to "His Kingdom" and that non-Christians would be left behind and be marked with the "number of the beast". The world was going to self-destruct, and, so, I needed to "get right" with "God" or I'd be left behind. IOW, what they were describing was "Rapture", which if I'm not mistaken, isn't even mentioned in the bible.
Needless to say, this scared the living sh*t out of me, since, after all, it was coming from the mouths of the people I loved and trusted the most.
"I might also contend that had you not had the exposure you had, you may not be the knowledgeable advocate that you are for the atheist position - you might have not been as interested in the subject and been more indifferent."
That's a thought-provoking perspective. But I think that if I could somehow go back in time and choose, I think I'd prefer to have had things like my sanity that whole time over being an advocate for Atheism towards the later years of my life. I mean, really. What are the "rewards" I get for being an outspoken Atheist? Let's see, most people in my society don't trust me. (Great!) I'm demonized as "negative" and "close-minded". (Awesome!) I'm a "fool" and I worship "Satan", who, incidentally, is another invisible being that I don't even believe in.
Oh, and Robert, let's not forget that when I'm busy advocating Atheism, that 99% of the people that I take the time to talk to have already dismissed what I have to say *before* I even say it. And if that's not discouraging enough; if that's not indicative of a monumental waste of time, check this fun fact out: There is no guarantee that some of measly 1% who actually entertain what I have to say won't turn around and play the victim. That might sound insane to you, but, unfortunately, I've seen it happen. They come to you and they say that they prefer the ugly truth over beautiful lie, but they become indignant and accusatory when you tell them the ugly truth and it begins to actually set in.
This, Robert, is why I greatly appreciate people like you and a few dozen people on FB who have given me props 'n kudos for saying what I say and doing what I do. Thx for that, bro'.
Post a Comment