When searching for the self, one cannot simultaneously be the hunter and the hunted. - Gilbert Ryle
I have often said that many debates or discussions we atheists get into with the religious *(most likely - Christians so I'll address that specific religion mostly in this blog) are doomed from the start. Some of the most essential things a person must do at the outset in debating someone else representing another point of view is define terms, agree to some ground rules, and make sure you are playing the same language game. The language game part is much more difficult to do than you may think. More times than not we atheists allow Christians too much from the start of a debate. Don't be deceived - we are still stuck at the "is there a God?" question which leads to - "How do we rationally get from deism to Christianity?" or even a step further - "How do we get YOUR specific brand of Christianity among thousands of denominations that all disagree?" *(I'll address later, and hopefully you'll see, we can essentially chalk the "Is there a God/gods" question up as "Nonsense Talk" too; like we can do with "the mind" or "qualia")
I'm guilty. I've often not only granted (for sake of argument) to the New Christians I've debated that 1. There is some realm beyond the "natural world" (AKA the supernatural realm), I also grant them 2. There is a God (some all-knowing Ape-looking "Mind" or whatever), I also grant 3. This god controls and acts in/on the natural world, I also grant them 4. that this God cares about our specific species and gave us eventually a "perfect holy book"(a book I lovingly call: the book that cannot be questioned)
I grant them all these presuppositions when I quote a Bible verse on twitter to simply use their own "Word of God" against them by showing the immoral/moral bipolar behavior/commandments of this Father/Son/Himself God. It's pretty stupid really that I feel the need to do this because the biases when it comes to passages in this book are endless. So Christians and atheists alike, I could ask you both - Which selective bias have you exercised today when picking out your Bible passage to post on social media? Do you like those nice verses or do you prefer the ugly verses? This is childish. It is with all fiber of my being and strength in which I palm my face on this one. It's a lose-lose because anything in any book could be twisted in and out of context to make it say whatever you see fit. This is why the birth of science and skepticism utterly destroy these antiquated ways of thinking. -(that we derive actual answers about the universe from ANY old book!)
Scientists that happen to be religious should know that intuition is something we
constantly have to fight against when making discoveries about the
world. If anyone of you have watched the new PBS series, "The Brain" by neuroscientist David Eagleman you know that we are easily fooled. For starters: Our eyes evolved imperfect with blind spots, but we have cognitive biases, time dilation, hallucinations, and optical illusions give us false pictures of the world "out there". Damaged brains alter reality for the person who's brain is damaged. With drugs we can enhance our receptors and see things that are not there. To be short, we are easily altered apes. Our senses are not often reliable gauges for judging reality. This is a problem for "the observer" doing observations.
Despite these human shortcomings science has pulled us away from false intuitions to give us sound theories about the universe and our world. Just think about things we /know/ about the universe that we have never seen or traveled to to see with our own eyes; all those stars, all those planets, the strange, deep-microscopic world of quantum mechanics. There are things we /know/ that our senses were not evolved to detect - yet we have a very good understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. The discoveries of these laws and how they work and relate to each other very often go against our intuitions but we are very certain they make up the fabric of reality - and can prove it. There is no better game in town of describing the cosmos than science, nothing comes remotely close (at least among known living species, on this planet).
I often hear New Christians prop up this base argument that we humans just /feel/ we need God at our core. Well, there ya go. They say that every human being feels that there just MUST be "something more" to life than the natural world. *(Of course where specifically this "feeling" began in our species is a mystery, since we know evolution of species is on a deep time continuum and there were never just the "first two" of any species, including ours). New Christians have often touted that the majority of human beings that have ever lived or that are on this planet currently have believed in a god/or gods of some sort. *(an argument for deism only here). These-at bottom-are logical fallacies such as argumentum ad populum or appeal to emotion. They are not proofs of anything other than we are apes that have intuition about things. Sometimes these intuitions are false, sometimes they are true. So what? This tells us nothing. It's nonsense talk.
Despite these human shortcomings science has pulled us away from false intuitions to give us sound theories about the universe and our world. Just think about things we /know/ about the universe that we have never seen or traveled to to see with our own eyes; all those stars, all those planets, the strange, deep-microscopic world of quantum mechanics. There are things we /know/ that our senses were not evolved to detect - yet we have a very good understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. The discoveries of these laws and how they work and relate to each other very often go against our intuitions but we are very certain they make up the fabric of reality - and can prove it. There is no better game in town of describing the cosmos than science, nothing comes remotely close (at least among known living species, on this planet).
I often hear New Christians prop up this base argument that we humans just /feel/ we need God at our core. Well, there ya go. They say that every human being feels that there just MUST be "something more" to life than the natural world. *(Of course where specifically this "feeling" began in our species is a mystery, since we know evolution of species is on a deep time continuum and there were never just the "first two" of any species, including ours). New Christians have often touted that the majority of human beings that have ever lived or that are on this planet currently have believed in a god/or gods of some sort. *(an argument for deism only here). These-at bottom-are logical fallacies such as argumentum ad populum or appeal to emotion. They are not proofs of anything other than we are apes that have intuition about things. Sometimes these intuitions are false, sometimes they are true. So what? This tells us nothing. It's nonsense talk.
In fact we should teach the importance of skepticism to our fellow New Christian apes. I like the term - APE, because it unites all humans under one label. I like it because it best describes who we all are at bottom level. When we let everything drop out we can say, well, we know this - we are all apes. Just the other day I was discussing Gilbert Ryle's book "The Concept of Mind" with Gog. I asked him if he labeled himself a postmodernist, a realist, a positivist, a non-reductive physicialist. He just answered back that he avoids formal labels overall these days, and he can because he's not an academic so he has no dog in the fight. He said, "If I had to pick one label I'm happy with, I'd say: Ape. Says everything. No confusion there." He's right.
If you haven't had a chance to take a look at Gilbert Ryle's book "The Concept of Mind" you should do yourself a favor and read it. It was written in 1949. Also, watch the YouTube video I post below on Marvin Minsky speaking about consciousness. I agree with Minsky about qualia and "mind" and these things. Ryle argues that "mind" is "a philosophical illusion hailing chiefly from Rene Decartes and sustained by logical errors and category mistakes which have become habitual". The work has been cited as having "put the final nail in the coffin of Cartesian dualism." (from wiki pg. cited below) Watch this video, soak it in, then watch it again. Set aside all those years of indoctrination from authority figures (Sunday school teachers, pastors, youth leaders, televangelists, friends, family, your interpretation of your "holy book" of choice etc. etc) and just think of it like this:
These things are simply flawed descriptions of what we do not understand YET.
He's right, isn't he?
These days I really do agree with Marvin Minsky. But that's "these days" you know? I could always change my mind. The wonderful thing about being a skeptic is you are not only willing to change your "mind" but you are more than likely to change your "mind" because these things are complicated. It's hard to fight against your senses, against your ape intuitions, your cognitive biases. I've heard recently from Republican friends and family, when I send them a video or article that contradicts their worldview, that they want me to know that they will NEVER change their mind no matter what I send their way. They want to let me know that right off the bat. Why don't you want to change your mind with new information if it's correct? That's sad to me. That's not the way the world should work and it's the opposite of thinking scientifically. Which is at the center to many of our problems (at least in politics). We should change our "minds" often and challenge our own beliefs every day.
This is at core what's wrong with people. We are flawed apes that are too dogmatic in our ape-ways. We have clung to these concepts for a long time: once gods - now God, "minds", "qualia" "souls" "spirits" etc etc. These things are just holes in what we know. We don't know yet enough about the brain to say that these things are something "mystical" or "magical" or "otherworldly" or whatever. So why pretend we do?
No. It's disingenuous. That's lazy thinking and bad philosophy.
If you haven't had a chance to take a look at Gilbert Ryle's book "The Concept of Mind" you should do yourself a favor and read it. It was written in 1949. Also, watch the YouTube video I post below on Marvin Minsky speaking about consciousness. I agree with Minsky about qualia and "mind" and these things. Ryle argues that "mind" is "a philosophical illusion hailing chiefly from Rene Decartes and sustained by logical errors and category mistakes which have become habitual". The work has been cited as having "put the final nail in the coffin of Cartesian dualism." (from wiki pg. cited below) Watch this video, soak it in, then watch it again. Set aside all those years of indoctrination from authority figures (Sunday school teachers, pastors, youth leaders, televangelists, friends, family, your interpretation of your "holy book" of choice etc. etc) and just think of it like this:
These things are simply flawed descriptions of what we do not understand YET.
He's right, isn't he?
These days I really do agree with Marvin Minsky. But that's "these days" you know? I could always change my mind. The wonderful thing about being a skeptic is you are not only willing to change your "mind" but you are more than likely to change your "mind" because these things are complicated. It's hard to fight against your senses, against your ape intuitions, your cognitive biases. I've heard recently from Republican friends and family, when I send them a video or article that contradicts their worldview, that they want me to know that they will NEVER change their mind no matter what I send their way. They want to let me know that right off the bat. Why don't you want to change your mind with new information if it's correct? That's sad to me. That's not the way the world should work and it's the opposite of thinking scientifically. Which is at the center to many of our problems (at least in politics). We should change our "minds" often and challenge our own beliefs every day.
This is at core what's wrong with people. We are flawed apes that are too dogmatic in our ape-ways. We have clung to these concepts for a long time: once gods - now God, "minds", "qualia" "souls" "spirits" etc etc. These things are just holes in what we know. We don't know yet enough about the brain to say that these things are something "mystical" or "magical" or "otherworldly" or whatever. So why pretend we do?
No. It's disingenuous. That's lazy thinking and bad philosophy.
Sites:
Marvin Minsky on Consciousness:
"The Concept of Mind" by Gilbert Ryle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind
PBS: "The Brain w/ David Eagleman":
http://www.pbs.org/show/brain-david-eagleman/
