Some weeks ago I argued that it was a human trait to believe without evidence. With the proper stimuli, people can, in the right circumstances, be made to believe practically anything. I also said that if this were not so, belief in God would not exist.
This comment drew a surprising number of responses from people who felt themselves to have had their faith derided and who seemed to feel that it was their duty to assert that I was wrong. They made the usual arguments for the existence of God that we have heard numerous times over the years, with the usual expectation of “educating” the “godless,” and of course the usual results, no meaningful change in anybody’s belief system. This is the essence of “faith”, the human capacity for asserting a belief based on an internal system of logic that cannot be adjusted or effectively challenged. It is this capacity for a kind of mental inertia that makes the COVID-19 project possible by exploiting the human tendency towards “faith,” a belief system that engenders hope in the face of hopelessness.
I decided at the age of ten that there was, quite simply, no evidence for the existence of God. I have never found a good reason to change that belief: I’ve examined it thoroughly and had it challenged albeit indirectly by many voices and sources. Yet, I remain convinced that this basic assertion is correct. I have, over time, struggled with expressions like “atheist,” or “agnostic,” and finally have settled for “humanist,” the epithet I feel most comfortable with. None of this means I think there is anything wrong with believing in God. Some of my friends are devout Christians, or Buddhists. They are incandescently intelligent, often humble people whom I admire beyond measure. Nor would I attempt to convince a believer in God that their “faith” is a mistake. Why should I? Of what possible benefit could this be? All I can do is to assert my own understanding of the universe in its own terms, and my own “faith” in the capacity of humanity to grow beyond the kind of thinking and reasoning that ends up with a cycle of self-referential logic. Quite possibly, the end result of such thinking is only endless questioning. Stephen Hawking, toward the end of his life, was questioning the “Big Bang” theory of the universe which he had supported when younger, as Hoyle’s “Steady State” theory is being re-examined having previously been consigned to the dustbin of scientific history.
It’s often asserted that belief in God has been at the root of atrocities throughout history, such as religious wars or “Islamic terrorism.” I don’t altogether agree with this. I contend that bad people will always find compelling reasons to do and justify doing bad things. It’s also said that “secularism,” a society not founded on religious belief, is harmful and pernicious, denying us our basic humanity. Again, I disagree. A belief system founded on essentially decent values cannot be used as a justification for doing bad things. It is true that “secularism” has, for many of us, forced us to see the world through a confusing lens and to build entire political constructs out of our insecurities, grudges, fears and hatreds. But religious belief permitted the same things. Both religion and secularism can be corrupted for bad ends.
There is a need for faith in all of us, a point at which we no longer feel impelled to provide evidence for our fundamental view of the world. The alternative, endless scepticism, is the privilege only of a few with the discipline to embrace this.
My point is that belief in a religious faith, even one that atheists like myself reject, does not make one a fool. But if the same mental processes lead us to believe absolutely in the goodness of those in power as we are continually programmed to embrace life-destroying measures in the names of “health,” or “the environment,” then I’m afraid, it is time we grew up.
History teaches us, only too well, that powerful people will do bad things and find good reasons for doing them. To ignore this is to embrace mindless reflexes as a way of life. As the evidence becomes overwhelming that the COVID-19 project is a monstrous disaster for which those responsible are continually finding good reasons to justify, we must understand that to find hope, we must challenge ourselves to ask each other some difficult questions. As I’ve tried to explain, it’s only by asking questions that our understanding grows. I cannot understand what it must be like to be someone who thinks that if we all wear masks, get the jab, keep following the rules, everything is somehow going to be all right. Perhaps this makes them happy. I don’t know. But it’s time we claimed, as part of our growing up, the right to be unhappy.
Faith in government is a fallacy proven again and again throughout history. The truth, whether you want to believe it or not, is that the COVID project is something that is being done to us by powerful people, for reasons which are becoming increasingly difficult to understand unless we assume that it’s a “good” reason for bad people to do bad things. If your faith lies in government and the powerful, take the time to question it, just as I questioned my atheism over the years. Many people who believe in God do not seem to believe in the “virus.” This is a good thing, because it means that there is a difference between faith and the capacity to believe without evidence when your own experience tells you something is wrong. Maybe that’s what we should all be thinking about.
This is interesting on many levels. At heart I believe this addresses the issue of Trust. Trust is breaking down throughout the West. Not just trust in government and media, understandable areas of distrust, but also trust in scientists.
ReplyDeleteThere are certain prejudices against open admit to distrust in scientists, but these prejudices are losing their strength.
At their root is intellectual snobbery. You may here some say "you distrust scientists, that means you're unscientific" or some variation of that argument.
The truth is, Scientists want the prestige without the rigor. Their profession is also an image based profession. Many Scientists will not confront unpopular or controversial areas for fear of derision. Science itself is a conformist profession.
The herdlike tendency among scientists results in tendencies to offer the most dire predictions on global warming, or the Pandemic itself, when the actual findings don't add up.
How can this happen? With the right pay or the right motivation you can get a Scientist to say almost anything.
Is this because of Global Warming? You Bet!
Scientists ignore the holes in many popular theories, such as Darwin's theory, or man others, simply because they rely on prestige, but they should not be servants of prestige, they should be servants of the truth.
This piece depends on how much trust one chooses to allocate any particular profession, whether Scientists, Clerics, Academics, Economists or even Politicians.
ReplyDeleteAmong these, the ones that are perhaps the most insulated from distrust are scientists, presumably becuase Scientists are believed to represent "hard" findings, but beyond the surface, this is not so.
Very little of new science is hard. Take Schrodinger's Cat, Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, String Theory to name a few. Plus you have equally bizarre claims such as Memetics by Richard Dawkins or the non-existence of free will (Pinker, Harari for example).
In short, Science is not hard. Science is as debatable as Economics, Sociology or Theology.
Take my field, Economics. Is Economics a Science? It ought to be, but Economists do not behave like Scientists, Economists behave like Dogmatists or Politicians, they ignore evidence that contradicts their findings and fudge findings to suit their agendas.
Scientists are equally guilty of doing the same, they want the prestige without the rigor, they want to be given respect, rathe than earning it.
The nature of the Virus is not "hard". The behaviour of viruses and their spread is as theoretical as anything previously mentioned.
Trust is breaking down, Scientists are not immune.
Touching on the subject of God, have you considered your own paradigm, or do you know what it is. I am assuming that it may be Materialist-Reductionism, because those most opposed to the existence of a deity/deities and/or spirituality tend to fall within this camp as it allows little room for anything non-material.
ReplyDeleteThe question is, to what extent can Materialist-Reductionism make sense of consciousness? Can there be a Universe without consciousness? Some would argue that consciousness exists so the Universe can, and does, observe itself.
Light is not light without anything to perceive it, if a tree falls in a forest, it makes no sound if there is not a receiver of the sound.
Reductionism falls short when it encounters irreducible complexity theory. It runs up against this when dealing with the problem of DNA? Solution? Explain it away by saying that DNA came from out of space. Not a solution at all.
Materialism only makes sense of material or phenomena which can be observed by physical means or the five human senses. However, mankind has a history of perceiving with other senses, with remarkable breakthroughs to show for it. It ought to be remembered that the Ancient Egyptians were aware that Sirius was a 3 star system thousands of years before modern Europeans.
In addition, it is worth examining near death experiences if one is not convinced of the existence of spirituality or non-material phenomena.
There are philosophical questions toward the existence of God, or the existence of God's personality as described by the 3 Abrahamic religions, however, that is a matter for Theologians.
However, the main point of this is that Materialist-Reductionism is a limiting paradigm, which at its heart even denies the possibility of freewill. In its purest form, it reduces all of us to a series of Mathematical Algorithms. Are we more than that? Yes, I know so.
In short, I'm not saying believe in any particular God, just ditch that limiting paradigm of Materialist-Reductionism.