Archive for the ‘thinking’ Category

Atheism is necessary, but not sufficient — and not the final goal

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

A recent post on Primordial Blog, Atheist Proselytizing – What Should Our Goal Be?, includes this part:

And that’s why I think that turning people away from religion is not enough. Instead, the primary goal of an atheist movement should be to instill in people the value of rational thinking. I’m worried that, as atheism gains in popularity, we will see a bunch of bandwagon-jumpers climbing on board because it is the thing to do rather than because they have thought critically about the issues. The truth is that most people do not think for themselves – they like to follow the crowd and do what they are told. That is the disease we need to combat in this world.

I couldn’t agree more. I sometimes worry that the success and momentum of the so-called “new atheism” may lead some (eventually many) people to become atheists simply because “it’s in”, or “it’s fashionable”, or “so-and-so is an atheist too”, or simply to annoy others (their parents, society, etc.), as a teenage-like act of rebellion.

Will I say that the above is not “real atheism”? Of course not. If you don’t (really) believe in gods, you’re an atheist.

I’d say, however, that the above reasons are irrational reasons for atheism, and that is a problem.

Saying 2+2=4 because it’s fashionable, or to imitate someone who said that, or to annoy your 2+2=5 believing parents, is irrational and stupid, even if the conclusion is itself correct. Rationally, you’d make the sum — that is, think about it — yourself. Two pebbles, two more pebbles, one, two, three, four pebbles. That’s rational.

Note, by the way, that there’s no way to believe 2+2=5 rationally. That is, you may have been brought up believing that, you may respect and admire someone who believes that, and believing that may be comfortable and make you feel good; however, you can’t ever reach that conclusion rationally, scientifically, by testing reality. By adding two groups of of two pebbles, you will never come up with five of them, and so, to keep believing that 2+2=5, you have to come up with irrational, absurd excuses (“you can’t test God’s addition”, “it’s 5 in a spiritual, non-materialistic sense”, “it looks like 4 to test our faith”, “there’s a higher reality beyond this one where it does add up to 5″, “it’s 5 because it says so in my holy book”, “I don’t need to add the pebbles — my faith is enough for me”, and so on).

In other words, being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re rational, but not being an atheist certainly means you’re irrational — because somehow, somewhere, wishful thinking, dogma, arguments from authority, and unfounded emotions got in the way.

But we (ok, ok, *I*) don’t want atheist sheep, do we? What we want is for people to stop being sheep, to think for themselves, to be rational. The survival of our species may depend on that — and its progress certainly does. Atheism is, ultimately, just a minor (but unavoidable and necessary) consequence of that rationality.

Posted in atheism, reason, thinking | 1 Comment »

Accepting the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument

Friday, December 15th, 2006

On the previous post, I quoted Ebon Musings, and one of the quoted parts was the following:

Consider honestly the possibility that you might be wrong, accept the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument, and then ask yourself: Does the evidence make more sense from this perspective? Is the world I live in the one I would expect to see if this hypothesis is true, or is this the world I would expect under its negation?

I believe that part is so important that it deserves a post of its own. :)

Now, answer me honestly: how often do you do the above? How many times in your life have you stopped to consider an opposing point of view, an opposing theory, hypothesis, or explanation, and actually thought about whether it better explains the universe around you? Whether it is simpler, and you need to come up with fewer rationalizations or exceptions of your own?

Though this is certainly not related just to religion (we could easily apply it to politics, for instance), consider the following example: young earth creationism.

A young earth creationist (YEC), these days, has a lot of explaining to do. He believes in the Bible, literally; to him, it’s, by definition, the absolute truth. Therefore, anything that happens differently, must either be ignored, or explained somehow.

If you know YECs, how many times have you heard “explanations” such as:

  • “God made the fossils appear much older to scientific tests in order to test our faith.”
  • “When God created the stars, he made it so that the light from them was already arriving at the Earth, and so they appear much older.”

… and so on?

Now, do you believe that an YEC has actually, ever, stopped to think about the opposing point of view? And, sincerely, wondered if that other explanation doesn’t fit reality around him much better, and without the need for so many excuses, exceptions, explanations, and so on? Whether – frighteningly enough – “the other side” might actually be on to something?

I doubt it. :(

As I said, this doesn’t apply just to religion. There are many times when we should stop for a minute and consider “the other side”’s position, just to see if it fits with what you see. Stop demonizing your opponent for a moment, and think about his reasons for his viewpoint. You may find out that you’re right… or that you’re wrong. Either way, you learn and improve.

It’s a rare “skill”, though…

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in honesty, logic, reason, religion, thinking | 4 Comments »

Religion and the "virtue" of not thinking

Wednesday, November 8th, 2006

A spirit sped
Through spaces of night;
And as he sped, he called,
“God! God!”
He went through valleys
Of black death-slime,
Ever calling,
“God! God!”
Their echoes
From crevice and cavern
Mocked him:
“God! God! God!”
Fleetly into the plains of space
He went, ever calling,
“God! God!”
Eventually, then, he screamed,
Mad in denial,
“Ah, there is no God!”
A swift hand,
A sword from the sky,
Smote him,
And he was dead.

- Stephen Crane, The Black Riders and Other Lines

I’d like you to read the short poem above, written in 1895. What do you think?

Stephen Crane, as is obvious from reading his works, was mostly a cynic, believing in man as a victim of an uncaring, sometimes malevolent universe. The poem above is quite illustrative of that.

But, though it is a parable, we can look at it literally, too. What happens, actually, in that poem?

A man inquires, investigates, uses his senses, his mind, and his reason, and comes to the natural, quite obvious conclusion. He is then punished for it.

According to most theists, he deserved it, too. Because faith — blind faith — is praised as a good thing. Belief without evidence is good. Doubt — even (and sometimes especially) if it comes from using one’s mind — is condemned. God, according to them, doesn’t have any responsibility to show himself, or the slightest trace of his existence. In fact, if you start to learn a little about the world, everything around you will appear completely natural. It’s as if God created a universe whose purpose is to convince people he doesn’t exist, to lead men away from him.

And yet, he supposedly rewards those who don’t think, and punishes – with eternal suffering – those who do.

The God in that poem, if he existed, would be an evil, immoral god. And yet it’s him — exactly like that, instead of one who rewarded intelligence and honest inquiry — that theists believe in, worship, and think of as “all-good, all-loving”.

Why? Well, an Atlas Shrugged quote by Dr. Floyd Ferris, one of the villains, comes to mind:

You see, Dr. Stadler, people don’t want to think. And the deeper they get into trouble, the less they want to think. But by some sort of instinct, they feel that they ought to and it makes them feel guilty. So they’ll bless and follow anyone who gives them a justification for not thinking.

I think that explains it — how people can turn “not thinking” (not questioning, not doubting, not inquiring, not investigating, not asking) into a virtue. Why many preach it, and why even more follow it.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in atheism, morality, religion, thinking | 21 Comments »

Books "For Dummies"

Wednesday, August 30th, 2006

And now, for something not related to atheism or religion. :)

It’s, instead, a lesson in humility (and it reminds me, I need to write another post about what “humility” should, and shouldn’t, mean).

These days, I work at home, for myself, writing and creating sites. But, for the past 15 years or so, I’ve been a “computer guy”: a systems administrator, mostly. I’ve worked at several places, and I believe I was (and am) an above average tech.

Of course, even if you’re self-taught like I (mostly) am, you need books. Especially back then, before you could find every piece of documentation on the Internet like you can, now. So, I bought and read a lot of books, and I still have shelves full of them. Many are from O’Reilly; you may know those, with a white cover and an animal on the cover. I have (and have read) books about systems administration, operating systems, programming in several languages, web design, and much more.

However, there was a series of books I always refused to buy, to read, even to consider. They’re also quite popular: the “For Dummies” books.

I hated the idea of those books. I found them insulting – basically, they called the reader an idiot. Therefore, anyone who bought those books was, to me, saying “yes, I’m an idiot.” I couldn’t understand how people were capable of doing that. It felt, to me, as if they were admitting that they were too stupid to read books for “normal” people, and had to read books for “dummies” instead.

Well, I was younger then. :) A few days ago, when I was browsing for books about a particular subject, I found myself reading through several pages of one of those “for dummies” books, and, to my surprise, the content was really, really good. Not patronizing at all, not written as if the reader was some neanderthal or something. It was very good.

(Note that I’m not saying that all of them are that good, un-patronizing, and so on. But that one – the first one I actually read something from – was.)

And I had been avoiding those books for a decade, because of my prejudice against them.

I’ve always hated it when people pre-judge something, without any real knowledge about the subject… and I had done exactly that, for years. It was, in a way, a shock.

And why had I done that? Why was so important to me not to read books labeled “for dummies”? Did I fear to turn into one? Was I so insecure that I worried about what people would think about me? Was the opinion of others so important? Or was it my own self-esteem that would be shaken by reading a book that called its reader a “dummy”? Did I actually think that my intelligence, knowledge and skills were affected by the title of a book I read?

I guess it was a combination of those.

Still, this is a lesson: never, ever believe I’m “too good” to do really stupid things like pre-judging. And always be ready to admit my mistakes, correct them, and learn from them.

Tags:
Posted in thinking | 5 Comments »

Some phrases I find quite annoying

Monday, August 14th, 2006
  • “Your problem is that you think about things too much.” No. The “problem” is that you think, period… in a world where what is “normal”, what almost everyone does, is not think at all, and live in a state of permanent apathy, in which you don’t feel anything bad… or good. Living implies thinking, and thinking implies feeling. But people are such cowards that it’s “abnormal” to think, to feel or to live. They just go on, like automatons.
  • “People, these days, are much too individualistic.” Whoever says that is, desperately, in need of being hit with a dictionary on their head – a very heavy and hard one, if possible. Because it only shows that they don’t know what “individualistic”, or “individualist”, mean, at all. If they knew, they wouldn’t see it as a fault (hint: mankind is not mean to live like an ant colony), and, more importantly, would never say that people, these days, are such. Looking around me, I see very little individualism… what I see a lot of, instead, are stupidity, pettiness and smallness. Individualism is heroic, not mediocre… look around you, and tell me which of the two you see more of.
  • “<insert band name>? Ah, I only like <insert song name>.”. Really? Just that one? You know all the others, then? You know any of the others? Ah, so you never actually heard them, right? Then stop saying such idiocies.

Tags: , ,
Posted in individualism, intelligence, thinking | 1 Comment »

Anti-intellectualism

Wednesday, July 26th, 2006

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.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in intelligence, reason, stupidity, thinking | 18 Comments »

The pesky problem of "thinking"

Monday, January 9th, 2006

As a science fiction fan, I’ve recently bought the first 2 seasons of Babylon 5, and have been watching them in sequence. I’m near the end of the first season now, and I’m loving it. Quite different from Star Trek – in Trek, mankind has evolved, in B5 it, well, hasn’t. Technology is much more realistic, the universe is more consistent, and there’s a larger story that was planned from the start, instead of mostly independent episodes like in Trek.

After watching an episode, I love to go read more about it, and, as the series is somewhat old now, there’s a lot about it on the Web. I found, for instance, a site called The Lurker’s Guide to Babylon 5, which has annotations for every single episode. Including comments by J. Michael Straczynski (jms), the series’ creator.

And, when reading the annotations for a 1st season episode, Soul Hunter, in which a race of beings collects “souls” of the dead, which originates a discussion between several characters about whether souls exist or not, and what they are, I found this gem of a comment by jms:

One person at a post production house we’ve used has indicated that he has “theological problems” with working on that episode; not because it’s *against* what he believes — he’s worked on horror movies and stuff with devils and the like — but because it takes a point of view he doesn’t much like…in that he has to sit and defend the whole *context* of his ideas…meaning, it’s making him think. He can just poo-poo the stuff against what he believes, support what he does believe in…but he isn’t quite sure where this show comes down, or where it makes *him* come down.

Interesting, don’t you think? That guy didn’t have any problems with horror stuff, with devils and such, because he already knew he condemned it. But stuff that forced him to think, or at least threatened to do so, gave him “theological problems”.

But I can sympathize. ;) Religion and thinking don’t mix…

Tags: ,
Posted in religion, thinking | 6 Comments »

Logical fallacies

Thursday, November 17th, 2005

If you want to spend some time reading about common logical fallacies, there’s a list of articles in Wikipedia: Logical Fallacies.

It’s impossible to read those and not learn a lot. And if you like to think, you’ll love it. Besides, it’ll make you much more suspicious of politicians. :)

Tags:
Posted in thinking | 3 Comments »

Conversations with “mystics”

Tuesday, August 30th, 2005

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. :)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in honesty, reality, reason, religion, thinking | 21 Comments »

One of the greatest phrases… and also one of the rarest

Wednesday, August 24th, 2005

There is a phrase that many people spend their entire lives without saying, hearing, or both. And it’s a pity, because it’s something that says a lot of good about whoever says it.

It says that he or she (“he” from now on, because I’m lazy, but the gender doesn’t really matter here) is honest, most importantly with himself. That he is not “old and tired”, but still has a young, inquisiting mind, like that of a child. That he is capable of learning – and willing. That he doesn’t confuse beliefs with principles, to be defended even if reality shows them to be wrong.

It shows that he isn’t arrogant, that he doesn’t believe he knows “enough” and doesn’t need to learn anything more. It shows courage – the courage to review one’s opinions, beliefs, way of thinking, even though not doing it would be a lot easier. It shows a healthy respect for reality, instead of replacing it with beliefs – as if believing something would make it true.

Most of all, it shows that his eyes are open.

The phrase? “I’ve been wrong all these years…”

Tags: , , ,
Posted in honesty, reality, thinking, truth | 2 Comments »

Another way?

Friday, July 22nd, 2005

(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”.

(more…)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in intelligence, reason, the mind, thinking | 6 Comments »