Archive for the 'reason' CategoryPage 2 of 2

Anti-intellectualism

In my opinion, anti-intellectualism is one of the world’s most serious problems, these days.

What is it? It’s the belief that what is good are the “simple people”, the “common people”, who are supposedly more honest and “real” than so-called “ivory tower” intellectuals.

It’s also the belief that thinking and learning are trouble, that they lead people to unhappiness, sinfulness, asking too many questions, and such.

It’s geeks, or more intelligent students, being called “brainy” or “nerds” and harassed by classmates. It’s science being seen as a waste of time and money. It’s a political candidate winning an election because he successfully depicted his opponent as an “egghead”. Incidentally, it’s likely that one of the reasons America currently has one of its worst presidents ever is that, by being less educated and articulate than Gore or Kerry, he appeared “more in touch” with the common man (of course, one should then wonder if you really want the village idiot in charge of the most powerful nation in the world… but I digress.)

There are several sources of anti-intellectualism. Religion is an obvious one, of course, since being intelligent and learning makes one less likely to accept arguments from authority, and to question unproven assertions. An intelligent, learned man has no need for religion - therefore, we don’t want any intelligent, learned men (to paraphrase The Fountainhead’s Elllsworth Toohey).

Besides “normal” religion, there’s also the usual mystical, new age thinking, according to which the mind is “flawed” and imperfect, incapable of perceiving any real “revelations”, which you supposedly can only grasp with “your heart” or “your spirit”. The mind is human, and therefore imperfect, while the heart/spirit are filled with “the cosmos’s love” or any other generic, meaningless terms.

Another reason is populism, the belief that the honest, hard working “masses” are oppressed by the corrupt, privileged “elites”. While they certainly are, sometimes (in dictatorships, for instance), populism is wrong because of its belief of “the lower, the better”, and its worship of ordinariness. Populism, like most forms of collectivism, punishes people for ability and for success - therefore, it promotes mediocrity and sameness. And a populist certainly hates and feels threatened by anyone with more “brains” or education.

Dictatorships (communism, fascism, etc.) always strongly promote anti-intellectualism, for mostly the same reasons as religion does: an intelligent, educated person is much more likely to question, and to see “what’s rotten”. The “unwashed masses” are much easier to keep in line. Higher education is seen as “dangerous” and “subversive”.

Finally, a lot of people simply believe the lie that intelligence causes unhappiness, and stupid people are happier. Even today, at breakfast, I had this conversation with a co-worker, who strongly believes that lie: that most people are dumb (true) and happy (false), that most geniuses suffered their entire lives (if they did, which was not always the case, it was usually because they were persecuted), that intelligence and learning are mostly “theoretical” and are of no use in the real world, and can’t be used in order to improve your life, and so on. And I know a lot of people who think like her.

An intellectual isn’t necessarily someone more intelligent or with more knowledge than the norm. It just means that the person highly values the mind, thinking, and the pursuit of knowledge. And it’s frightening, to me, how few intellectuals (by that definition) I personally know. Anti-intellectuals (people who deride the mind, who pride themselves on not thinking, on not using their reason), on the other hand, are everywhere.

Workaholics

Definitely, I don’t like workaholics.

I may like people who are workaholics, but it will be despite that, not because of that. It will always be a part of their personality that bothers me.

On top of that, I have had the misfortune of knowing a lot of them!

Many people (even non-workaholics) don’t really understand the concept, and they confuse “workaholic” with “responsible, hard-working person” - which are positive qualities. But they’re wrong. Being a workaholic is something irrational, unhealthy.

Some people also think that it’s just a case of someone loving what he does. But it’s not that - many workaholics spend most of they time depressed, stressed, and with health problems (both physical and mental). It’s a compulsion, an obsession.

What does being a workaholic tell about a person? In my opinion, one or more of the following: Continue reading ‘Workaholics’

Theist and Atheist thought; or The God of the Gaps

Browsing through Reddit, I found a link to this picture on Flickr, called “The Need for Answers“. Here’s the image:

The Need for Answers

The comments, both on Reddit and on Flickr, seem to understand the message in different ways. I’ve read some which said that the image was pro-theist, as it meant that “atheists have to explain everything and can’t see beauty”.

But I don’t think that that was the intended meaning. Partly because the “discussion” in the picture is familiar, but also because of a single sentence at the bottom:

Where do you draw the line?

Continue reading ‘Theist and Atheist thought; or The God of the Gaps’

People and their stated goals

I wanted to talk about Jack Thompson’s latest disgusting scheme (he said he would donate $10.000 to charity if someone made an absolutely revolting game about going on a murder spree against real members of the video game industry, then someone did it, and he said his offer was just “satire”, then the Penny Arcade guys donated the $10K to charity - in his name - and now he wrote a letter to the police asking them to arrest the PA guys…), but everything that could be said about that has already been said elsewhere.

So, instead, I’m writing about one of the possible ways that that creep could be successful:

Equating someone’s stated goals with the person himself.

Consider that example: Jack Thompson says he wants to prevent school shootings and cop killings… by banning violent video games.

Now, preventing school shootings and cop killings is a laudable goal, certainly. But:

  1. Thompson doesn’t really want to do that, he only craves attention, fame and money
  2. there’s no relation between video games and violence, several studies have already indicated so
  3. none of his attempts, if successful, would actually lower real life violence
  4. his methods have been despicable - lies, personal insults, threats of lawsuits against people for simply disagreeing with him.

However, to a certain… let’s say, “more intellectually-challenged” segment of the population, it’s easy to make the jump from:

- Jack Thompson is trying to prevent cop killings

(which is already untrue, but let’s even imagine that it was true, that he was simply misguided instead of being what he is)

to:

- Anyone who opposes Jack Thompson’s methods, or criticizes him, is in favor of cop killings.

To anyone who uses reason, that’s absurd - there’s no way to logically conclude the second from the first (even if the first was true, which it isn’t). But it’s easy to get confused, and perform that leap of “logic” - “he says he’s in favor of X, so anyone who criticizes him is against X”. Or the other way around.

It happens the same way, but on a larger scale, with a certain current American president. He says he’s fighting terrorism. Whether he actually is, or not, isn’t important - anyone who disagrees with him or his methods, or criticizes him in any way, is “supporting terrorism”.

Just like anyone who opposed Senator McCarthy was “a communist”. He said so, and people believed him.

People, please think a little more about things like this. A person isn’t defined by his stated goals, which are usually laudable, but by his actions - and you aren’t against those goals when you notice that his actions don’t actually do anything to accomplish such goals… and say so.

Stupidity and consequences

I bet most people have been in a situation like this: you warn a friend or relative not to do something, because it will have bad consequences. That person ignores you and does it anyway. And then you do something to protect that person from those bad consequences - maybe even sacrificing yourself so it is you who suffers them.

And you probably believe that makes you a good, caring friend.

Here’s some news: by doing that, you are only harming that person in the long run. And believe me, I’ve committed that error myself. But I try not to, any more.

Continue reading ‘Stupidity and consequences’

The Ten Commandments

As I said somewhere else, I don’t want to turn any of my blogs into a “hey, look at this cool link!” list. But this one is much like what I could have written, (except that mine wouldn’t be U.S.-centered, since I’m European) and I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel. :) So, here it is: The Ten Commandments vs. America.

Conversations with “mystics”

Let me know if this is familiar to you. (Though maybe you’ve been on the opposite side…)

You meet someone, maybe through a friend or co-worker, who has a strong belief in the supernatural. Maybe he/she (”she” from now on - blame my laziness) loves astrology, and believes in it with all their heart - up to the point that she says “it’s not a superstition, it’s a science”. Or maybe she’s a devout Christian, who believes that there is a God, that Jesus Christ died for mankind’s sins, and she is sure that she will be “saved” through Jesus. Maybe she is a “new age guru”. Or believes in alien abductions (probably including cattle mutilations and anal probes as well :)), or believes she has “alien experiences” or “out of body experiences”. Or is a wiccan, or a druid, or…

In short, she is a mystic.

Let’s say that this is one of the open minded ones, and that she has above average intelligence - she’s a “challenge”, in a way, and you both want to discuss the nature of reality with each other. So, you talk. And talk. You refute many of her points, one by one - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is no proof of any kind, only “I saw it” claims. Occam’s razor says that if two explanations explain something, then the most likely one is the one with the smallest number of entities - in other words, if something could have happened without a god or aliens, then there were probably no gods or aliens involved. Many animals die every year, and insects tend to eat the “softer parts” first, like eyes or testicles, so they appear “mutilated”. There are many contradictions in the Bible, and in the beliefs or most religions; and many people have several conflicting beliefs, like Christianity and astrology (which Christianity absolutely condemns), yet they are OK with it. Many claims of “supernatural” events were later explained as perfectly natural occurrences, and every “medium” has either been proven to be a hoax, or has refused to be tested scientifically… which amounts to pretty much the same thing. James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge is still unclaimed, though anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers - and, again, be tested scientifically, by a man who knows every trick of stage magicians, because he’s been one himself - could claim it. And so on, and so on. She will lose every argument she dares argue about rationally.

Eventually, the conversation will end in always the same way.

“But I want to believe in these things!”, she cries. “You lead a cold, empty, materialistic life, while mine is spiritual, it is fulfilled!”, she says. “Who cares about whether it’s real or not? It gives my life meaning, it makes me happy, and that’s what matters!”

Who can argue with that? I certainly can’t, because, at that point, that person has thrown reality, has thrown truth out of the window. She is, in a way, admitting that it doesn’t matter whether God / the spirits / the aliens are real or not, that she chooses to believe in them, therefore her life is more fulfilled this way. Nothing - including the original founder of her belief appearing and saying “sorry, it was all a joke, can’t believe you people took it so seriously!” - would change her mind, because the object(s) of her belief have been replaced by the belief itself.

And, as I said, I can’t argue with that. Because, to me, reality is what matters. It’s the only thing that matters.

Is my life “emptier” because I don’t fool myself? I don’t think so. :)

How I’ve become an atheist

Douglas Adams (more info) has been one of my favorite writers for years, but, until I read “The Salmon of Doubt”, a collection of essays and articles collected after his death, I only had had contact with his fiction work. But a particular entry in “Salmon” changed my life.

That entry is here, it was an interview Adams did for the American Atheist magazine.

I had a Christian education (Catholic, in fact), and, until I was about 26 or so, I really believed in it. Why? I tended to be rational in most of my life, but there was a part of it about which I apparently refused to think. It’s as if it was something so fragile, that I didn’t let anything near it - like reason or logic - , because I was afraid it would collapse, that I would “lose” it. If faith couldn’t withstand logic, then I wouldn’t let logic come anywhere near it. Why did I want to keep it? In part, I guess, because I loved the person (now deceased) who was responsible for my belief, and I wanted to respect her memory. And maybe I also felt alone - the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God was something that would keep me company. And there was, too, the promise of “eternal justice” - that the injustices we suffered on Earth were only temporary, that eventually there would be justice, and the good would be rewarded, and the evil would be punished. I wanted it to be true, so much… therefore, I believed it.

Until I read that interview. It certainly got me thinking. And, in a way, Adams had gone through similar experiences, so I could relate. He put into words what I had only felt - that faith and religion, in me, only “survived” because I had a defense mechanism - I refused to think about it, like I thought about anything in the “real world”. But if faith and religion can’t survive a “closer look”… why is that, and, most importantly, what does that tell us about them?

That they are a lie.

Afterwards, I thought a lot about it - what I should have done during all the years before. Is there a God? I don’t think so; reality and the universe can be perfectly explained without one (Occam’s razor), and a God creating the universe in 6 days is no more believable than an Invisible Pink Unicorn or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. But assuming that there is a God… then where is he? Why is there so much suffering? Why do people pray, if it doesn’t work (any scientific test shows it, and there have been some)? Why would a god create a world, then hide all traces of doing it, then stay completely invisible except for some ridiculously minor appearances to a person or two, every couple of centuries? Why would God hide, then damn to eternal suffering everyone who didn’t believe in him?

And the existance of a god is certainly something extraordinary. That, to a scientist, requires extraordinary proof. Where is it? And no, ancient books are not proof. Many people believing in him are not proof either.

I realized that I had been guilty, through most of my life, of two of the worst forms of irrationality: wishful thinking, and refusing to think about something. I had been dishonest with myself. I had put something “above” reality, about the truth. And that is wrong.

But it’s better to open one’s eyes later than never to do it at all.

Rationalism and feelings

Person: “This, and this, and this happened to me… and then he did this to me, but I still loved him afterwards… and then he hurt me again, but I still love him…”
Me: “You know, maybe you should try to be more rational in the future…”
Person: “Oh, no! I could never become cold and unfeeling like that!”

The above is a conversation I’ve had more than ten times in my life, each time with a different “Person”.

Continue reading ‘Rationalism and feelings’

Another way?

(This one is related to this blog’s name. I wrote a little about this in the What’s this? page.)

Maybe it’s just me, but from reading magazine articles, blogs, books, and talking to people, there’s one thing I hear (in some way or other) quite a lot: something to the effect of:

  • “The mind isn’t really important”
  • “Emotions and feelings are what really matter, not mere logic or brain power”
  • “People think way too much. Things would be much better if we just ‘went with the flow’”
  • “An intelligent person (geek, nerd, egghead, etc.) is cold and unfeeling, unable to deal with people”
  • “Reason had its chance and failed; today is the age of feelings”
  • “The mind is fallible; for real enlightenment, you must go into the higher realm of feelings, of emotion”
  • “Your problem is that you think too hard about things”
  • “The really important things can’t be understood, only felt
  • “The heart is superior to the brain”
  • “‘Truth’ isn’t a hard fact, it depends on what we believe or desire”
  • “All of the world’s problems are caused by too much cold logic and too little emotion”

and so on. In short, people complain that everyone “thinks too much”, and that we should let go of that and care more about our emotions. Reason is seen as “outdated”.

Continue reading ‘Another way?’




Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal