All in the Delivery?

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".

Just Because I love It.....

So, without further ado.....

Being Right

It's been a while since I've posted here. As I state in my "about" section, I mainly blog about religious matters. Likewise, when I venture out into the blogosphere, I naturally tend to read blogs that deal with religion and its various philosophies. I'm letting the record show that I do not do what I do in this pastime called "blogging" for the same reasons that a lot of other bloggers do it. For example, I do not do it to become a popular spokesperson for "Atheism", or for anything else, for that matter. I do not do what I do to see if I can outdo my site's "activity" from last month, or anyone else's blog activity. I just don't care that much about that sort of thing. Here, on my own blog, I can jot down my thoughts, if for no other reason, just as an outlet for self-expression. Other times it can be for trivial things, and yet, other times it can be for having a critical look at other views out there. There is no "One Size Fits All" way to blog. If there is and I missed it, I'd like to know who the arbiter of that is.

Moving on, I learned the other day that some bloggers might regard my blog as "dead". Hmmm. Okay, well, people are of course free to think that, but from where I sit, if I have only one reader, then my blog is very much "alive", thank you very much. And anyway, even if it were "dead'", who's to say it cannot be "resurrected"(no pun) at some point?

While I've touched on multiple topics in the past, I've never really dedicated an entire post to what it means to be right, that is, to possess views that align with reality(a working definition), that which reality I contend is an objective one. And what I mean when I say "objective" is that, irrespective of what we as conscious, thinking beings all think about the universe, the universe will go right on being the universe no matter what we think; it doesn't care how we regard it.

Slightly tangential---in the "New Age" movement, there's a few gurus who are proponents of this notion that our "consciousness" actually creates reality. I disagree with this, but this is for another discussion.

Right now I want to talk about being "right", so I should probably get this part out of the way first:

I believe that I am right when it comes to my being an Atheist. Furthermore, I'm not going to sit here and apologize for that.

Why won't I apologize for it? Simple, because it is natural for everyone to want to be right and to think that they are right when it comes to having the correct view(s) of reality. The alternative would be, what?... to knowingly harbor incorrect views of reality? I think so. So, who would admit that they have false views of the way that the world works?

While the answer is probably "nobody", I contend that this doesn't preclude people from knowing that they're likely wrong, but clinging to their current position, despite that. But let me be clear: No person, regardless of their religious (or non-religious) persuasion, is exempt from or incapable of this behavior, including me.

 Since it's impossible to know each and every person's motives, we can still look at people's motives, as a whole, to get a general idea of a group's thought-process. That said, I contend that, by and large, theists use apologetics, not to convince us non-theists that we're wrong, but more so to convince themselves that they are right. Christians, and in particular, those who are forthright and vocal in their stance(e.g..Xian bloggers), more than likely use apologetics to quell their own doubts. I'll get to the evidence of this in a minute.

The other day I heard it contended that Atheists are just as capable of bias as Theists are. It was argued that, like theists, namely Christians, Atheists become Atheists because of the perks and benefits. This is especially interesting, since it was an Atheist who was contending this. Now, I'm not a stranger to this argument; I've heard this "corollary" attempted before, but it's rare to hear it from a fellow Atheist, especially a former Christian turned Atheist.

Speaking only for myself for the time being, you can wager a lot of money that I did NOT "become" an Atheist for emotional reasons. At first, I fought it tooth and nail, every step of the way. This is not to say that I didn't have some of the same doubts that I contend your average believer has, but those doubts were intellectual. It was, without a doubt, my emotions, not intellect, that kept me a believer in spite of those nagging doubts. And this it getting to my point.

One day I decided to explore the reasons that people "become" Atheist, and at the time, I (mistakenly) thought that being an Atheist is something that you just "do" by one's own will. Bzzzzt. Wrong. In hindsight, which, as they say, is "20/20", I saw(see) that Atheism is a result or conclusion. It is not something that you just wake up one day and "decide to become".

I silently lurked over debates/discussions between Christians and Atheists. Being "on the fence", my emotions wanted to see the Christian put forth the more reasonable, logically-sound argument. If I was "wrong" as a Christian, this meant that I'd cease to exist one day and that the day would come that I'd never see the people I love the most ever again. It would mean that I spent a great portion of my life believing a lie. It would mean that the inner "voice" in my head that I thought was "God" at the time, is really just my own imagination; my own conscience.

IOW, there's a lot at stake for those who actually think about the future and how/if their loved ones will be a part of that future. This is not to say that there aren't any people who might not ever think about that sort of thing. To me, that would be bizarre, but, whatever, that's just my opinion.

In contrast, if the Atheists were wrong, then I could rest assured that I'd see my love ones again one day, albeit, one can never be 100% certain that they are "saved".

Much to my dismay and displeasure, I had to finally admit that the Atheist's arguments, as whole, were more logically-sound than the Christian's arguments. I hated this fact, at first. I began checking out sites like TalkOrigins Archive. I was slowly seeing that Evolution better explained the reason for the diversity of life we see on Earth than the "In the Beginning" narrative of "Genesis".

Over time there were more chinks in my believer armor.

Fast forward

The "bell" has been rung and I cannot "unring" it. My intellect finally had to give way to my emotions. It is precisely because of this resultant sphere of thought that I can sit here and contend that Christians, as a whole, are not as objective of researchers as that of Atheists as a whole. Evolution is a fact of science. It is every bit a fact of science as that of "gravitational theory". You don't hear people going around saying, "Do you believe in gravity?", and there's a reason for this.

Now, that being said, there may very well be those Atheists who were never theists who only look at what science and Atheism has to say on the matter. These people are essentially doing what I just charged that Christians do. But as for those Atheists who are former Christians, we've been on both sides and we know what both sides have to offer. I know what Ken Ham and William Lane Craig have to offer. Today, I reject it, because, as an Atheist, I, yes, have Googled what other Atheists are saying. Guilty. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm ignorant of the other side of the issue. So, to the person or persons who assert that I, as an Atheist, am just as guilty as Christians of things like subjective validation and confirmation bias, I say that you are mistaken and misinformed.  

Now onto how I know I'm right: For starters, I don't claim to know that I am right in any absolute sense; I only claim to be right provisionally. That, right there, shoots the first hole in the every popular corollary that "Atheism" is just the other side of the "Theist" coin. Let's remember, theism claims to be the be-all/end-all when it comes to "Truth" and reality. The method with which I conclude I am right about how reality works and/or what it entails, is science. Science is provisional; it is self-correcting. Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Although not perfect, science is, to date, the most reliable way to know how reality operates. This is not to say that poetic wisdom cannot be gleaned from Theism and religion. It can. But I'm talking about epistemology and what we can know about objective reality, and in this reality so far, I've yet to any evidence (or even good reasons) to believe that any invisible, conscious beings created and oversee this universe.

It could be stated...... Atheists are biased, too!

Yes! Busted! It's true. I'm biased. Yup.......biased to want to know what's actually true about the world I live in, regardless of how I feel about it. IOW, yet one more hole in the "Atheists are just other side of the same coin" corollary. We know that science-supported information is out there and is accessible to most every Christian Theist. Christians, by and large, choose to either ignore this information, or employ apologetics against it, both of which I contend are to keep themselves convinced.

It could be asked...... aren't Atheists just worshiping another type of God..i.e..science?

To my knowledge, no Atheists congregate at temples, read from holy writs, or point to any mandates when it comes to morality.

This is yet a third hole, and for now, the last, in the tired "Atheism is just other side of the same coin" corollary. This corollary is demonstrably false on many levels. Yes, we are all human, all biased, and all prone to error, etc., but that fact doesn't make it a fact that all beliefs are equally plausible. It also doesn't make all methods for obtaining truth equally reliable.