The famous Canadian science fiction writer Robert J. Sawyer recently wrote an article published in the Ottawa Citizen titled 'Unhealthy Skepticism'. I suggest you read his article before reading my post because my post is a response.
Dear Mr. Sawyer,
In your article 'Unhealthy Skepticism' published in today's Ottawa Citizen, you criticize the modern skepticism movement's treatment of religion. A lot of what you criticize, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Darwin fish for example, are reactions created by the skeptical community to the creationism and intelligent design movement. As Canadians, it is difficult for us to appreciate the struggle that our American friends to the south have to deal with when trying to keep pseudo science out of the classroom. There have been many techniques that have been attempted, and the technique of ridicule (which you obviously distaste) can be valid in many situations. It's fine and dandy for people to have religious beliefs (no matter how silly or wrong) as long as it remains a private affair, but as soon as they try to force it on the public (like in the American science class, or the Pledge of Allegiance), it becomes open to criticism.
Unfortunately, reasonable criticism may not be enough. It is very difficult to reason a person out of a belief when they did not use reason to get into that belief. The best success story that I can think of is described in the book Freakonomics. The Ku Klux Klan was not driven to near extinction by convincing their members that 'racism is wrong' (which any rational person would agree with), but by revealing their secrets on the Adventures of Superman radio show. When the Klan members came home, they saw their kids playing "Superman vs. the Klan", and using their silly secret phrases. Most members were so embarrassed that they stopped attending meetings. Now, thanks to ridicule, the Klan is a joke.
I do not mean to imply that Christians are like the Klan, just that ridicule is sometimes the best method to combat irrational ideas.
I don't blame Skeptics for suddenly viewing religion, in general, as a threat. Books like Sam Harris' 'The End of Faith' make a convincing argument that religion, even moderate religion, is detrimental to modern secular society.
Does religion, in general, jeopardize our ability to conduct scientific research? If so, what is the best method to combat its negative influence? Some choose ridicule, some choose reason, and sometimes a careful combination of the two. Which method is most effective? If ridicule is most effective, is it ethical? Does the end justify the means? It is very difficult to ridicule bad ideas, when those ideas are cherished by many people. I do not think that if an idea is a religious one, it should be protected from ridicule for fear of offending someone. The fear of offence can limit our ability to question reality.
Also, I agree with your distaste for the term 'Brights'. I don't use it personally to describe myself since I think that people view me as arrogant enough already. I can only respond by saying that the 'Bright' movement has lost a lot of steam in the skeptical community. Most skeptics, I find, prefer the term 'Secular Humanism', myself included.
Update: Austin Cline at atheism.about.com gave a great rebuttal to Mr. Sawyer's article, he even quotes me!
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
2007-04-04
2007-02-28
I don't know, and that's 'ok'
Is there a god? Did he create this universe? Did he design humankind? Does he answer prayers? When I die, will I continue to 'exist' in an afterlife? If science can trace back the history of life to single celled organisms some 3.7 billion years ago, how did it come about? If science can trace back the history of the universe to a big bang some 13.7 billion years ago, where did this bang come from?
The only honest answer to all of those important questions is: I do not know.
People love a good mystery, but people do not like loose ends. It's rare for a movie to be very popular unless by the end of it, all the questions raised in the movie have been answered, and all the loose ends have been tied. It can be very disconcerting for people to live in a world for which its origins are mysterious. By the end of my personal movie, where I'm the protagonist, will all of these mysteries be solved?
There are three possible solutions to this problem:
Up until recently, I believed that this world was carefully designed by a superior being commonly referred to as God. This was very satisfying for me since I no longer had to worry about the mysteries that I previously mentioned. Unfortunately, it was only satisfying for me as long as I did not consider its plausibility. At first, this solution was not 'made up' as I now have categorized it. It was told to me by authorities I trusted, such as my parents, grandparents, and teacher. Plus, pretty much every person I had ever met had the same view.
The problem is that people make mistakes.
My parents were not lying to me when they said that god created me, they believed it to be true. Where did they get this creation delusion from? Their parents, and so on. So, where did this myth ultimately come from? Some distant ancestor made it up. Why assume that it was made up? I assume it was made up because there would be no way for an ancestor, without the benefits of modern science, to have been able to determine this conclusion on their own. I admit it could have been possible that the creator spoke to an ancestor, in a dream (Abraham), as a burning bush (Moses), or as human incarnate (Jesus Christ). This is a huge problem if you just give it a moment's thought. While this one person can be convinced that God spoke to them, why should anyone believe them? Even today people still claim that God still speaks to them, but thanks to modern science, we can diagnose these people with mental disorders (victims of a malfunctioning brain), or discount them as attention seekers (liars). Where did all the prophets go? Isn't it convenient that Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not expect any prophets to appear? It seems too convenient that all the prophets, and their miracles, all exist in the past, where they cannot be tested with modern science. Why were the Hebrews skeptical of God, just after he split the Red Sea, and performed the 10 plagues? They were so skeptical that they decided to worship a golden calf. These people supposedly witnessed huge miracles with their own eyes. If that was not enough for them, why should we have faith, when we are merely told that these miracles happened? For these reasons, I could not continue to hold a belief in a supernatural creator, especially the creator of the Bible.
So therefore I must be actively searching for the true answers to these mysteries, right? Some have tried this, and still do it. The best example that comes to my mind is Carl Sagan, the famous American astronomer. He wrote and narrated the fantastic documentary called Cosmos. His film explores the origins of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, Earth, and life. He spent a large part of his exploring these mysteries and educating the public. Carl Sagan definitely falls into this second category. I don't.
Do I not care about the answer? If that were true, I wouldn't be writing this. Do I not have the talent or skill? Maybe, I wouldn't know since I never tried. When I applied to university, I didn't sign up for astronomy or molecular biology. I could have though, and I think I would have done 'ok'.
The reason I'm not an astronomer nor a molecular biologist is a combination of the above reasons. I don't have enough motivation and skill to tackle this problem, there are hundreds of people infinitely more qualified to tackle this problem, and these grand questions don't excite me as much as computer technology or my other areas of interest.
So I guess, by process of elimination, I'm in the third category. I'm 'ok' with that! The world is complex and mysterious, I don't have the answers, but other, more talented people, are searching. I thank them for that. I will eagerly pay attention to any developments that comes from their research. In the mean time, I'll enjoy what this world has to offer, I'll watch movies with friends, and read interesting books, such as A Brief History of Time.
The only honest answer to all of those important questions is: I do not know.
People love a good mystery, but people do not like loose ends. It's rare for a movie to be very popular unless by the end of it, all the questions raised in the movie have been answered, and all the loose ends have been tied. It can be very disconcerting for people to live in a world for which its origins are mysterious. By the end of my personal movie, where I'm the protagonist, will all of these mysteries be solved?
There are three possible solutions to this problem:
- Make up a solution that is satisfying and fits with the way you view the world
- Recognize the mystery and spend time and effort in solving it
- Learn to live with the mystery
Up until recently, I believed that this world was carefully designed by a superior being commonly referred to as God. This was very satisfying for me since I no longer had to worry about the mysteries that I previously mentioned. Unfortunately, it was only satisfying for me as long as I did not consider its plausibility. At first, this solution was not 'made up' as I now have categorized it. It was told to me by authorities I trusted, such as my parents, grandparents, and teacher. Plus, pretty much every person I had ever met had the same view.
The problem is that people make mistakes.
My parents were not lying to me when they said that god created me, they believed it to be true. Where did they get this creation delusion from? Their parents, and so on. So, where did this myth ultimately come from? Some distant ancestor made it up. Why assume that it was made up? I assume it was made up because there would be no way for an ancestor, without the benefits of modern science, to have been able to determine this conclusion on their own. I admit it could have been possible that the creator spoke to an ancestor, in a dream (Abraham), as a burning bush (Moses), or as human incarnate (Jesus Christ). This is a huge problem if you just give it a moment's thought. While this one person can be convinced that God spoke to them, why should anyone believe them? Even today people still claim that God still speaks to them, but thanks to modern science, we can diagnose these people with mental disorders (victims of a malfunctioning brain), or discount them as attention seekers (liars). Where did all the prophets go? Isn't it convenient that Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not expect any prophets to appear? It seems too convenient that all the prophets, and their miracles, all exist in the past, where they cannot be tested with modern science. Why were the Hebrews skeptical of God, just after he split the Red Sea, and performed the 10 plagues? They were so skeptical that they decided to worship a golden calf. These people supposedly witnessed huge miracles with their own eyes. If that was not enough for them, why should we have faith, when we are merely told that these miracles happened? For these reasons, I could not continue to hold a belief in a supernatural creator, especially the creator of the Bible.
So therefore I must be actively searching for the true answers to these mysteries, right? Some have tried this, and still do it. The best example that comes to my mind is Carl Sagan, the famous American astronomer. He wrote and narrated the fantastic documentary called Cosmos. His film explores the origins of the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, Earth, and life. He spent a large part of his exploring these mysteries and educating the public. Carl Sagan definitely falls into this second category. I don't.
Do I not care about the answer? If that were true, I wouldn't be writing this. Do I not have the talent or skill? Maybe, I wouldn't know since I never tried. When I applied to university, I didn't sign up for astronomy or molecular biology. I could have though, and I think I would have done 'ok'.
The reason I'm not an astronomer nor a molecular biologist is a combination of the above reasons. I don't have enough motivation and skill to tackle this problem, there are hundreds of people infinitely more qualified to tackle this problem, and these grand questions don't excite me as much as computer technology or my other areas of interest.
So I guess, by process of elimination, I'm in the third category. I'm 'ok' with that! The world is complex and mysterious, I don't have the answers, but other, more talented people, are searching. I thank them for that. I will eagerly pay attention to any developments that comes from their research. In the mean time, I'll enjoy what this world has to offer, I'll watch movies with friends, and read interesting books, such as A Brief History of Time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
