Just a few brief thoughts about an article that hit my desk recently.
Right off the bat, the title struck me as odd:
Dare you protest against God? Perspectives from a CWRU psychology study
From this atheist's perspective, it seems the question is something of a schizophrenic one. Because 'God' exists in the mind -- at least by an semi-stringent scientific standards we must conclude that -- the question is really about protesting against an imagined entity. Which is kinda crazy.
But sure, from another perspective, we can see the study as an investigation of types of belief and the cognitive response to internal dissonance between ideas.
The survey finding -
The researchers discovered if a person views God as cruel, then protest toward God is seen as more acceptable.
But when people see God as a kind and loving authority figure, then protest seems less acceptable. "In this case, protest could appear disrespectful to a good and fair leader," says Exline.
A couple things. First, isn't this a bit obvious? From a social standpoint, protesting against a loving parenting or village elder or some other authority figure certainly makes less sense than protesting against a cruel one.
Second, the description seems to reflect a focus on the individual removed from his/her social groups. My guess is that there is an integral cultural component to the issue. People don't pull their beliefs about a god out of a magic hat. They generally acquire them from others. Also, one's religious social group likely also influences beliefs about what type of relationship with this god is normative and/or expected.
Finally, as you might expect, my larger issue is reflected in the lead sentence:
Is it OK to protest God's actions—or inactions?
Ah . . . What god? Is this a precisely defined variable? Not only does the sentence assume the existence of a god, but also that this god performs actions, or at least can.
Really?!
In the least, scientists should quit perpetuating the idea that "God" is a neatly circumscribed variable. Why not "a god," "your/their god".... I know, it's more work. But science is work.
Isn't it possible that what the finding basically tells us is that whether or not a person thinks it's okay to protest against their god depends in part on what type of god a person believes? And right here we are back to my major issue. What type of god. Different types of 'god' does not equate to one GOD. Not in my book.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
In a freethought essay by Valerie Tarico, Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 5.5 of 6, I came across a quote that caused me to emit a silent huzzah!
The scientific method has been called, “What we know about how not to fool ourselves.”
No, science is not one belief system among many. In fact, it may just be an antidote to belief. At least bogus belief.
What is science? Too often science is presented solely as the products of a process/enterprise. This strikes me as akin to pointing to a sack of rice and calling it agriculture.
We need more words!
There are the products of science and there is the enterprise or process of doing science.
Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of "science." At least the part I think needs to be emphasized.
Science is a set of thinking and information-gathering strategies developed to reduce error.
What differentiates science from non-science? The types of thinking and information-gathering processes used to come to a conclusion or form a belief.
Some fundamentalists view science with hostility, claiming it leads to atheism. There may be something to this, actually. In a sense, science is the process of subtracting the bogus to arrive at the more real (what we can more confidently know). When you apply scientific thinking to religious claims . . . they tend to fall away. In the area of supernatural belief, the atheist is one who has let fall away ideas unsupported by the best methods and technologies of thought.
The audacity! Dropping to the cutting floor another person's cherished ideas!
Scientists aren't arrogant or close-minded. They are confident that their cognitive tools are a prophylactic against bogus belief. And they are willing to put ideas to the test! And so they continue to advance, in part, by subtraction.
The agnostic seems to me a neutered matador. He or she has no desire to either slay the bull or ride it home. The bull charges, the crowd gasps, "What will the matador do?" The agnostic extends a cape. Printed on the red silk is, "I don't know." The bull slides beneath. The PETA-sponsored matador (People for the Ethical Treatment of Apparitions) evades being gored or doing any goring.
Why the intellectual neutrality? Perhaps the agnostic doesn't want to be branded with the atheist's scarlet letter. The agnostics "A" is a paisley blue. Atheists, at least here in the Bible Belt, have the unstated status of registered pedophiles. While they have the right to live in your neighborhood, damn it all, keep the away from your children. You don't invite an atheist to a birthday party because he's likely to spit on the cake and pop all the balloons.
My wife once told a co-worker she was an atheist. I don't know how the matter came up. I took it as a good sign that my wife was comfortable enough with her co-worker to admit being a vampire. (Did I write vampire? I meant atheist.) The man -- we'll call him "Bruce" --responded by saying he was an agnostic. He added that he thought both believers and atheists were close-minded. My wife had been befuddled into silence. She asked me how I would have responded.
I think I would have tried to explain to Bruce that although some atheists may be dogmatic, clinging to their "belief" simply because that's what they have been told or because that is "just the way things are," the ones I know are not. They have investigated the issue and rendered a judgment. Relevantly, those same atheists are far more knowledgeable about the history of religion and what is actually in the Bible than the believers I know. They continue to read and learn about the topic. How is that close-minded?
And who, I would ask, has greater motive for being close-minded: the theist or the atheist? Who has more to gain? This one's a no-brainer.
Although I do not believe in a god, I fully realize I could be wrong. So why does this not make me an agnostic? Simple. Although it need not be continually stated, any educated thinker understands that knowledge is provisional. In other words, what we know is continually evolving. Some say that rather than providing us with the truth, science provides the current closest approximation to truth.
Anyone with a familiarity with the history of science understands this. That knowledge is provisional, however, absolutely does not mean it is purely relative. Far from it. While the knowledge from one era was powerful enough to launch a hot-air balloon, the knowledge from another put a probe deep into space and beamed back images of a universe never imagined. Nonetheless, our current understanding is provisional. Only an fool would believe that we know everything perfectly and absolutely. Some ideas and theories we currently hold will be completely cast aside, some merely modified, and others will likely persist as is.
Because knowledge is provisional, this doesn't mean you can't confidently work with it. Having 100% confidence might be crazy, but 0% confidence would be likewise crazy. There should always be a dose of doubt counterbalancing over-confidence. Over-confidence. In the scientific community, this goes without saying.
That said, you will find few agnostics about, for instance, Einstein's theories of relativity. Or about the proposed inflationary period which followed the 'Big Bang.' Were you to ask physicists if they believe in the inflationary model of the universe, most, I imagine, would tell you "yes," even though they are not perfectly certain.
Similarly, I believe that prenatal exposure to hormones plays a role in sexual orientation, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. No, I am not certain. But I'll step forward and state my thoughts. And I won't highlight and emphasize that ever-present "don't completely know" element. Why? Because weighing-in on an issue is more helpful to honest discussion and learning. Informed dialogue is the whetstone to the blade of knowledge.
At best, and this would be in defense of agnosticism, god is a metaphysical speculation. Yet how many metaphysical speculations are there? How do you decide which to take seriously, to keep on your list of "unproven, but worthy of serious thought?" Do you keep in the active file the ones that have the least evidence stacked against them? A poorly defined god is a streamlined concoction which conflicts little with what we know.
The god speculation is a favorite and favored by agnostics for a number of reasons. These two are worth mentioning. 1. Because the possibility of a god keeps alive the hope that there is something special going on here; 2. A maybe" worldview is less likely to ruffle the feathers of believers than a "not."
Alas, there is no such thing as a god-detecting machine. This is primarily because most smart people are unwilling to give their god real-universe properties. That would be like saying, "Here's my foot, why don't you shoot it." Many people say that evidence of a generic great-creator god can be found in the beauty of the universe. But maybe the beauty is the work of legion of gay ghosts from a parallel universe who are perpetually giving our cosmos an extreme make-over. One thesis is as testable as the other. Is one more likely than the other? If you think so, please explain why.
Perhaps any type of doubt or disbelief is likely to be viewed as close-minded when it brings down an unwelcome verdict.
Who wants to be perceived as harsh? Not many people. And so the atheist stance is an unpopular one. Meanwhile, people can think of the agnostic position, "There's hope for them yet; there's room for hope in their worldview." And that's not so harsh.
Recent research has declared that Americans move dramatically toward acceptance of homosexuality. That move has largely occurred over the past couple decades. Which is fast, in historic terms.
The change toward acceptance of homosexuality began in the late 1980s after years of remaining relatively constant. In 1973, 70 percent of people felt same-sex relations are "always wrong," and in 1987, 75 percent held that view. By 2000, however, that number dropped to 54 percent and by 2010 was down to 43.5 percent.
What has accounted for the change? The researchers do not speculate. But allow me to.
I see two factors as playing major roles in the greater acceptance of homosexuals.
1) Individuals coming out of the closet--hordes of people admitting, "Yes, I'm gay, deal with it." People we live next door to; people we work with; people in our own families.
Oh, gee. Homosexuals aren't dangerous. They are real people. Just like you and me. I actually know some. And like them.
2) Hollywood. For those not fortunate enough to have out-of-the-closet non-heterosexuals in their lives, we can thank Hollywood for exposing masses of people to not only the harmlessness of homosexuality, but to the creativity and humanity of flesh-and-blood gays and lesbians.
Atheists tend to be reviled as much or even more than homosexuals. Can this change? Will it?
Similarly, I see two things expediting the diminishment of this prejudice.
1) Individual atheists coming out of the closet.
Consider this personal experience: Once, just following a general psychology class I taught, a perceptive and bold student asked me, in private, about my beliefs. Her second question was point-blank: "So . . . you're an atheist." I responded, "Well . . . yes." Her eyes widened and she admitted she had never met one before. Had I been quicker on my feet I would have corrected her--at least not one that she knew of.
When atheists come out of the closet, it helps to dispel the notion that we are sharp-toothed subversives. Put a face on "atheist" and you've got a community member just like any other, with the exception of a belief in a deity.
2) Hollywood. More and more television programs are including religious dissenters and atheists in their cast of characters. Esteemable, likeable characters.
In my opinion, the future looks brighter for those "differently sexed" and those of differing beliefs, or none altogether. But no, it has little to do with erudite discussions of logic and polite discussion in academic settings. Instead, what matters is who we associate with in real life, or in the virtual life on screen.
Weird, but possibly true.
I find it curious that many people can look in a mirror and not see an animal staring back. Not once, not ever. What they see is a human being as not one of a kind, but THE kind.
Like all human beings, I have a tail-bone. This nub of a tail I have bashed and fractured more than once. What is the purpose of this undeniable feature of the human body? To remind us that we didn't evolve from a life-form with a tail? If the tail-bone isn't necessary--and it is much harder to argue for its necessity than to point out that it may be less than necessary--why include it in the design?
Can you claim that there is a supremely intelligent designer and at the same time recognize that many design elements aren't so intelligent? If the human being, to use a single example, were in fact perfectly designed the unemployment office would be crowded with orthodontists--to single out one profession profiting from the imperfectly designed human form. Chiropractors and optometrists would be there as well.
Intelligent design cannot explain why the many kinds of American sparrows (all small, brown birds)--savannah, chipping, marsh, song, house, fox, Lincoln--are each a different species, and yet the beagle, the bulldog, the Shi-Tzu, and the greyhound are all one species. The theory of evolution (i.e., natural selection) answers this problem easily. Dogs have been selectively bred over the past few thousand years and the resulting kinds have not remained isolated populations for enough time, and the necessary selective pressures applied, for them to become distinct species. That is why a one-hundred pound Rottweiler will attempt to mount a ten pound Chihuahua.
In a similar vein, true-believing proponents of intelligent design cannot provide a non-convoluted answer as to why human beings seem willing to drop their pants at so much as a wink from the opposite sex, despite the fact that the god of these believers wants his children to refrain from all but marital procreative sexual activity (and even then, there should be no giggling involved).
When I was a child a number of seriously religious adults taught me that sex is a dirty thing. Why were we designed to want to get dirty? The real answer--we are driven to get our genes into the gene pool; those and their genetic material that aren't driven, disappear. Give 200 points to the theory of evolution. Maybe the creator god will do better in the lightning round.
Any contestant on Jeopardy knows that dinosaurs and human beings did not walk the earth at the same time. If they had, it probably would not have been for long. A large carnivore could easily have snapped off our heads for a between-meal snack. Delicious: hard and crunchy on the outside, warm and noodle-y on the inside. Only after a rogue asteroid (they're all rogue, aren't they?) slammed into our planet, and the slate of megafauna wiped clean, were mammals, and eventually Homo sapiens, able to "populate and subdue the earth."
Human ascendancy to the top o' the heap was contingent upon a god knocking down the number ten pin after having been blindfolded, spun around, the laces on his rental shoes tied together. High five, big guy, a perfect toss! Without the supernatural intervention of a wayward hunk of rock, there would probably be a brontosaurus in the White House. Okay, that's silly. Subtract the asteroid impact and there would be no White House. Maybe there'd be a Yellow House. As much as we may want it to be the glorious case, the human animal did not pull itself up by the bootstraps of some divine inevitability.
Here's the problem: Our self-consciousness provides us with the feeling of importance. This is true for individuals as well as groups. How many times have you, when in line at a supermarket waiting to check out, viewed the other shoppers as being in your way? Those shoppers, however, were on their own way. Individually, we each reside at the center of a universe. As groups, whether they are exclusive and small or inclusive of all human primates, we likewise consider ourselves to be at the center of it all. The pampered poodle being pushed in a cart down the canned-goods aisle? Just a prop for our amusement. The live lobsters in a tank crawling over one another in the seafood section? Nothing more than edible do-dads to be taken or left . . . by humans.
That person who can look in a mirror--preferably the full-length variety while buck-naked--and not see a relatively hairless primate is blind to the essential element of who they are: an animal. Sure, we are fairly intelligent animals, thanks largely to cultural evolution. (We are also the ones who invented and implemented the measuring of "intelligent.") But in the unflattering light of nakedness, ours is a species whose design manifests evolutionary processes much more than intervention by the divinely perfect.
Need I say more than "male nipples"?
Recent Comments