"The Data of Me"
Those of you who have known me a long time must be getting a real kick out of my current obsession with religion and science in this space. If you remember that I'm almost completely unschooled in the hard sciences and often unyielding and fevered in my atheistic declarations, well, memory serves.
The reasons for my renewed interest in the subject, vague as they may be, will hopefully find their way into a longer post some day. For now, I'll just say that the future of the species, to my mind, would seem to depend on the fairly serious cultivation of a Clintonian "third way" between the fundamentalist religious lunacy that would send us back to the caves and the stubborn scientism that fruitlessly aims to snuff out what is clearly a deep-seated (and often beautiful) human need to connect the unreachable lights of the night sky into compelling shapes.
Over the weekend, Slate posted an interview between Robert Wright (a brilliant writer; read Nonzero) and Robert Pollack, a Professor of Biological Sciences at Columbia who's quite the believer in God.
There's a brief film clip of the interview here, and a complete transcript here. But the clip is very brief, and the transcript is faithfully rendered with all kinds of repetitions and other speech inefficiencies, and just having read it, I have a blazing headache. So, I've pulled out three excerpts that I find thought-provoking so that you can skip the longer version unless you feel the need to delve deeper. You owe me two aspirin.
First, Pollack discusses the palpable sensation he has of being cared for by an entity greater than himself:
The reasons for my renewed interest in the subject, vague as they may be, will hopefully find their way into a longer post some day. For now, I'll just say that the future of the species, to my mind, would seem to depend on the fairly serious cultivation of a Clintonian "third way" between the fundamentalist religious lunacy that would send us back to the caves and the stubborn scientism that fruitlessly aims to snuff out what is clearly a deep-seated (and often beautiful) human need to connect the unreachable lights of the night sky into compelling shapes.
Over the weekend, Slate posted an interview between Robert Wright (a brilliant writer; read Nonzero) and Robert Pollack, a Professor of Biological Sciences at Columbia who's quite the believer in God.
There's a brief film clip of the interview here, and a complete transcript here. But the clip is very brief, and the transcript is faithfully rendered with all kinds of repetitions and other speech inefficiencies, and just having read it, I have a blazing headache. So, I've pulled out three excerpts that I find thought-provoking so that you can skip the longer version unless you feel the need to delve deeper. You owe me two aspirin.
First, Pollack discusses the palpable sensation he has of being cared for by an entity greater than himself:
It's not science, but it's not fake so it's data. It's data of me. I'm confronted with the data of me and I don't know what else to do about it but first to describe and second to try and understand it.Then, he discusses the difference between scientific and religious experience:
And then you say to yourself, well let's go back and see how this works. Ok. Now in science you go back and see how this works by designing testable models, testable experiments, seeking the best model for the test...and that's where scientific aesthetics and scientific pace come in finding the simplest, cleanest way to test something bravely so that if you're wrong you know it fast instead of going through the motions of experimentation but never really pushing yourself. In the case of a religious experience a similar bravery is just the opposite, it's to give up the need for proving it and see how it feels to live inside the experience of not understanding, which for a scientist is very radical. But I accept the burden of not understanding something.And finally, he discusses the idea of competing schools of religious truth:
...to say that there is a religion which is better than another is as data-free as to say there is one language which is better than the other. There are more or less complicated and more or less sibilant languages and there are more or less complicated and sibilant religions, but I do not...I'm not bothered by the existence of a multiplicity of religions. And I believe that it the obligation of a serious religious person to, having accepted the mystery of his or her own religion, to seek to understand what is the mystery of another religion, to seek to find the commonality in what is irrationally held to and to respect it...
posted by JMW at 11:31 PM
4 Comments:
I'm not sure how many women decide that abortion is "OK" in order to "feel better" about having one. But then, I don't make ridiculous, reductive claims like that in the middle of discussing something entirely unrelated. But I digress.
An atheist, dezmond, is someone who does not believe in the existence of a deity, including, but not limited to, God, Allah, gods, goddesses, or a supreme being. To believe that something can’t exist because it can’t be explained doesn’t make sense. Something actually has to exist in order to be unexplainable. Atheists don’t say, “Well, since we can’t explain God, he must not exist.” They say, “God doesn’t exist.” Nothing to explain, is there?
The longevity of religion, and the preponderance of theists in the world, seem to lend faith a validity, and so the burden of disproof has fallen on the atheists. This, of course, is an impossible task. How does one disprove a belief? And what person of faith wishes she could prove the existence of her god(s)? Wouldn’t that destroy the whole notion of faith?
Your discomfort with the live-and-let-live model is troublesome. What else do you suggest? That the group that professes the right brand of theism please step forward and fight everyone else to the death to defend it? That’s what’s happening now, and it’s not going so well. (Funny how people can disagree passionately about something as definable and reasonable as blind faith.)
Well, dezmond, the reason I know I'm still more an atheist than not is simple: I can still be staunchly atheist at the drop of a hat, if faced with a staunchly religious person. Faced with a really, really staunch atheist, I try to keep them grounded but don't exactly become religiously devout in my argumentation.
And lfw, I understand the impulse to say "god doesn't exist" in the face of someone who thinks he or she can pick Him out of a police lineup, but where I'm softer now is with people who believe in god but are much less adamant about the details -- not the buffet that Ray describes, but someone who understands that even their chosen religion is mainly a way to put a useful face to something they otherwise might feel more vaguely. It's late. I'm babbling. Bedtime.
Wonderful stuff. Lively banter. I’m days behind but I’ll throw in anyway. A renewed interest in this tangled aspect of human behavior seems like a proper response to the increasing tension religion is adding to life on this planet, so I’m excited! I want to stay as brief as possible, which is tough because I tend to want to bury a point like a fence post. Religion needs re-examination as it continues to dominate headlines and influence our leaders and their policy-making capabilities. I guess that’s the impulse for the increase in talk and books and opinion making. Not a bad thing at all.
The burden of not understanding. Nice. Mr. Pollack acknowledges an acceptance of ‘Mystery’ as part of a healthy world view. What is important to note is that this stance in no way opens the door for religion (or science or Andrew Sullivan) to explain that mystery. What confuses me is that Mr. Pollack seems to embrace mystery while at the same time clothing himself in his religion (which tends to want to explain away mystery). I think that’s one quality that we need to test for as we look at religions and science and other human endeavors. Which ones are most comfortable with mystery? Those will be the healthiest for humanity.
I wish I could let religions off the hook like Mr. Pollack does by equating them to languages, but alas, it’s time we rid ourselves of the comfortable notion that religions are benign and it’s only the users who can become infected. Religions are ideas people. Pure and simple, and we’re all comfortable with the notion of good ideas and bad ideas. Religion is most certainly not just a series of inert symbols, language is. The minute letters and sounds are combined to form ideas they leave the neutral territory Mr. Pollack seeks to describe and become vicious or beautiful or ordinary or boring or good or bad. Religion must be held accountable for the set of ideas that it espouses, and an investigation of the benefit those ideas have, or the harm they cause is long overdue. What’s good or bad: Facing the west when you pray; separating meat from dairy; sacrificing a virgin; fasting; separating men from women; praying out loud; praying in silence; believing in one God; believing in many Gods; and on and on and on.
And if you haven’t guessed it by now—no, religions are not equal. Some are better for human beings than others, some are worse. Finding commonality in religion is perfectly wonderful and relatively easy. But commonly held ideas can turn out to be bad. An important distinction; Good vs. Bad, not Right vs. Wrong! I don’t think we should care if belief in one God is right or wrong (that’s where believers get tripped up. They want to be right![even if they’re not good]) rather, we should look to see if that belief is good or bad. Meaning helpful, healthy, beneficial, calming, nurturing. Does it cause people to act certain ways? Are those ways good or bad? Meaning addictive, mean spirited, bigoted, cautious, paranoid.
Were the crusades Christ’s fault? Was the civil war Democracy’s fault? Because human beings operate imperfectly good ideas can be twisted, so can bad ones. That doesn’t stop us from being able to consider whether there is anything in Christianity that contributes to those episodes of misuse. Perhaps a belief in One God sets up a system where human beings feel superior to those who don’t pray to the “right” God? Perhaps that slowly translates into or reinforces a natural sense of “otherness” in our neighbors? Perhaps that sense of ‘otherness’ allows us to de-humanize them in order to make them easier to kill? Or perhaps other forces are at work. The point is, the investigation is legitimate and an even-handed reading of the findings (if that could ever happen) would indicate which ideas in which religions were the best and which were the worst. Which idea that Christ preached contributed to the crusades (if any) and which idea worked against them (if any). Which democratic ideas contribute to world domination? Which Islamic ideas contribute to martyrdom? Which Hindu ideas contribute to world hunger? Which Buddhist ideas contribute to territorial strife?
There is a right path out there. There is a set of pristine ideas that are nothing but beneficial. That causes mankind to act humanely towards all with boundless compassion. That generates real happiness and acceptance of the human condition and the mystery that surrounds it. That allows one to live each moment, aware and alive. That eradicates the fear of death and comforts us as we remember all those who shared with us the mystery of living.
Why should we settle for less?
I don't make a practice of quoting Slavoj Zizek, but this is somewhat applicable here. From his op ed "Defenders of the Faith" in NYT Sunday March 12: "A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way to show true respect for God is to act morally while ignoring God's existence."
Post a Comment
<< Home