Posted by: Sabio Lantz | November 4, 2009

Faith Defined

Here are the 6 general classes of meanings for the word “faith” with some examples:

1.  Beliefs based on confidence or trust

  • confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing.
  • confidence or trust in a person or thing
  • something that is believed especially with strong conviction

2.  Belief without Evidence

  • belief that does not rest of logical proof or material evidence
  • belief that is not based on proof

3.  A set of principles or beliefs

  • the body of dogma of a religion
  • a system of religious beliefs.

4.  Obedience and Loyalty

  • the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement

5.  No Meaning – Discussing the word itself

  • Example:
    • “When speaking about “faith” ….”

6.  All Meanings – Vague

  • Example:
    • “Faith is very important to me”
    • “Atheists just don’t understand Faith”
  • This use is very common.  It is actually talking about the word itself or talking about all these notions at once.  Such use is very unproductive unless the two people talking already agree on everything.  Number 5 and Number 6 are often blurred together.

———————————————

I tire quickly of word arguments and one of the most common between atheists and religious folks is over the word “faith”.  Come on folks, it is a word.   Words are created by humans to facilitate communication.  Words depend on common concepts.  An important part of discussion is to have common definitions.

I looked at several dictionaries and came up with these general groups so as to facilitate discussions in the future.  Please help me tweek this list if you have suggestions.

You can see by this list that Atheists certainly have faith in the sense of  # 1 and # 3.  I think Theists have all 4 wrapped into their understanding of the word.  By jumping between the meanings, conversations often go nowhere.  I hope this helps.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 29, 2009

Misunderstanding Each Other

gokaiNate, over at “Why Nate Left“, put up this list of ways Christians will misrepresent an Atheist’s Skepticism.  Below Nate’s list I have tried to make a list for Christians, or other believers, explaining how they may feel they are typically misunderstood.  Please suggest other things misunderstanding for either list and I will add them !

Ways Theists will misunderstand your Skepticism

  • You are angry with God
  • Your heart is hardened to the Truth
  • You have been deceived by Satan
  • You gave up your search too early and too easily.
  • You want the freedom that comes from a godless life more than you want god.
  • You are confused or ignorant
  • You are an angry, militant atheist
  • You want to be God

Ways Atheists will misunderstand your Faith

  • Your beliefs are all blind faith
  • You are simple minded
    • You can’t do or don’t know any science
    • You still live with your parents
  • You are blissfully self-deceptive
  • You have a comfortable, unchallenged life
  • You are a recalcitrant bigot
  • You are fearful of the Truth
  • You aren’t imaginative enough to let go of your security blanket

__________
Note:  The pic is of the Japanese Characters for “Misunderstanding”,   Go-Kai – “Mistake-Solution”.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 27, 2009

Sunk-Cost Fallacy

Self in a holeI was listening to an economics lecture and heard about this fallacy.  It one of the many foibles of human reasoning that shows how difficult it is for us to be rational — AKA “bounded rationality“.

Definition:

Hopelessly investing further in a failed/irrational project or venture. No matter how much more is invested, it is clear that all is and will further continue to be lost.  Yet the person caught in the “sunk-cost fallacy” can not seem to stop throwing away their investment. Colloquially called, “throwing good money after bad” or the “Concorde Fallacy” (see below).

The phenomena is thought to exist because the investor feels that the shame , embarrassment or disappointment of owing up to the failure is more painful than the further investments that keep being lost while putting off that negative emotion.  It is as if you just keep digging yourself into a hole.

Examples:

  • Adolf Hitler (WWII) & Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam War) both kept throwing away the lives and resources of their people (and the enemy) even though they knew the war was lost.
  • The Concorde, a supersonic transport jet, failed any market potential after a freak accident that killed 113 people but was not due to design flaw.  The project got a bad name and was doomed.  Yet France and England kept investing deeper and deeper on the grounds that they had already invested a lot of money.
  • Continuing the cost of tennis lessons even though you’ve decided you hate tennis, because you don’t want to see the money wasted.
  • Continuing your major in College though you have no desire to continue in the field because you don’t want to feel you wasted all that tuition money.

Bait and Switch

Bait and Switch is a fraudulent sales technique which capitalizes on the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.  A seller lures a prospective buyer to their establishment with promises of low cost item.  When the customer arrives, the seller informs the buyer that ‘unfortunately’ the item is now out of stock and offers the buy other similar items of a higher cost.  Now, the buyer, after driving all the way to the store, taking time out of her/his day, having visualized obtaining the object and having their hopes up, must face a decision:  buy the higher cost item and at least have something to show for all my efforts or admit that she/he fell for the fraud and just walk out, promising to themselves to be more cautious next time.

Religion can offer the believer all sorts of benefits and though some may actually materialize, some of the biggest promises don’t pan out (for obvious reasons).  The believer, instead, then buys into cheaper items (I will let you think of example).  Then, once even further invested, the cost of leaving the disappointing religion is felt to be too great.  The believer is left standing at the bottom of a big hole they dug for themselves.  Actually, today I read an   Dr. Richard Beck’s excellent site where, as a Christian, he discussed Bait and Switch and offers ways out (within the tradition, of course).  This article, to me, is an example of how religion can be used well — and ironically, to help people duped by their own religion.

My Question for the De-Converted

Before de-converting, did any of you former-believers feel you fell for the Bait & Switch technique or the Sunk-Cost Fallacy?  Could you give us examples.  How long were in this predicament?  Months? years?

________
Notes:

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 26, 2009

The Original Source Mystique

greek-bibleMy first year at Cornell University I studied Greek even though I was in the Engineering school. I did it because, as a newly converted Christian, I was tired of Pastors using the phrase “in the Greek” during their sermons as a way to add validity to their conclusions.  For already, in those days, I was doubting.  But I was impressed with their knowledge of Greek — I really knew no foreign language yet.   “Heck,” I thought, “They know the original language, They have to be closer to God.” But diving into Greek if anything, showed me what a head game I was shooting for.

Since then I have seen Hindu Sadhus (native language being Hindi) do the same with Sanskrit (a dead language) , Zen Japanese Buddhists Priests do the same with Chinese, and Pakastani Muslims (who speak Urdu) do the same with Arabic. The power of claiming to be in touch with the original language is huge. And it often brings the listening audience into a state of admiration and awe, or perhaps befuddlement.

Sure, knowing the original, can help a preacher see the spin put on by which ever translation they are inspecting. But obviously the preacher will then translate and interpret using his/her own perspective.  Translations are tricky things (I once made a living of it with Japanese).   So sure, scholarly speaking, there is something valuable in studying the original text which I will not deny. But what I want to briefly explore here are the dark sides of “Original Source Mystique”.

Even philosophers, in discussing Kant, for instance, may try to add credibility to their aura by quoting Kant in German and then translating for you. This is the “I-am-smarter-than-you” move which gives much power to the “Original Source Mystique”.

Quoting the original also has that quality of “essentialism” that Bruce Hood writes about in his book “Supersense” and which Dawkins writes about in his book “The Greatest Show on Earth”. Essentialism is the belief that a person or thing has an essence. A common accompanying belief is that this essence can be passed on from the original object — a spirit to heaven, karma into objects, etc.  So, for instance, in Martial Arts, and in many oriental practices, a big deal is made of being in the lineage of a famous teacher — as if the essence of that famous teacher somehow is thus more available to any teacher in that direct lineage.

Wrestling with the original text, likewise, gives the image of being there right next to the founder of the religion or philosophy. Quoting original texts gives the feeling of ancient wisdom. This is another cognitive temptation — to feel that if something is ancient, it must be good.

There is so many cognitive tricks that can be tapped into by quoting original texts, it is no wonder it is common.

Alle Sachen, unterliegen der Auslegung je nachdem, welche Interpretation aus einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt auf eine Funktion der Macht und nicht die Wahrheit.
– Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900)

Ooops, sorry, that was in the German, the translation would be, “All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

Smile !

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 24, 2009

My Favorite Type of Christians

st_francisIslam and other false beliefs

In the USA, Europe, and many other countries, people can, without hesitation, articulate what type of Muslim they would prefer not to have as a neighbor –  or put in the positive form: they could tell you what their favorite type of Muslim would be.   Yes, yes, I know, this verges on being politically incorrect, but damn it, you know what I mean, and it serves my point.  The average person evaluating his favorite Muslim will rarely evaluate Islamic theology to any depth, but they could do it in broad strokes.  For we all know that among false beliefs, some are better than others.  Heck, we even know that many false beliefs (think Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause) can actually serve more benefit than harm.

Christian Theologies

In a similar fashion,  I have of my favorite types of Christians.  So to be fair in dialog, let me lay out my atheist theological leanings, if you will.  Here is a table of some of the variety of Christian beliefs and the direction I’d prefer them to move if I were to have any influence on a person’s Christianity.

Christology High –> Low
View of Scripture Inerrant –> Errant
Inspired –> Inspiring
Soteriology Exclusivist –> Inclusivist –> Pluralist –> Universalist
Science Anti-science –> Pro-science
Women Misogynist –> Equal Rights & Respect
Homosexuality Anti-Gay –> Gay-tolerant –> Gay-friendly
Resurrection & Other Miracles Literalists –> Figurativists
Cosmology Young Earth Creationist –>
Gap Creationist –> Old Earth Creationists
–> Evolutionist
Ecclesiology Top down rule –> Local rule
Missionology Salvation First –> Service First
Eschatology Zionist –> Pro-Israel –> Israel-Neutral

good Samaritan

Atheist Theology

So that is why I have interest in Christian Theology.  For example, I am presently exploring Atonement theories, Ethics, Post-Modernism, Narrative Theology and the like.  In the future I will include my stances on these issues here on this chart.  So perhaps you can see why I feel it is sometimes useful for an Atheist to declare their Christian Theology clearly when debating with Christians. It may seem strange to state that an Atheist have theological positions, but in a sense, they do.

Playful Exploration vs. Desperate Searching

I think our dialogues influence each other, albeit usually slowly and unconsciously.  And I have no doubt that skilled theists are influencing me also.  To avoid Christians being tempted to thinking “Ah, but Sabio is still searching.  God is working in his life which we can be see by his special attention to things Christian.”   I must ‘confess’ that I also study the theologies of Buddhism and Hinduism.  Likewise, I study the “theologies” of political platforms and nutrition schemes in a similar way.  Even the variety of philosophies of the martial arts is open to such methodology.  You see, it is more of an exploration than a search.  It is the curious mind, not the desperate mind, that I enjoy that around me.

yingyangI must mention a vital caveat:  Not only are some bad ideas better than others, but even good ideas can be used poorly.  So deciding the truth value of a belief held by someone is not suffice when trying to understand the person.  For what matters is how a person weaves their beliefs into their lives and thus uses them to support their actions and relationships.  Even though a given Christian may hold a theological belief I hold in low regard, they may actually weave that belief into their life in a healthier manner than they would hold better versions of that belief if they changed abruptly.  Ooops, I can tell that is too abstract and may need another post.

Generous Understanding vs Condescension

All of this may sound a bit condescending to believers, but remember, in my world, you aren’t going to hell (which is the epitome of condescending) and I still feel that with inaccurate beliefs you could be a better person than a person with accurate beliefs.  My challenge is to try and understand how you use your beliefs to make your life.  Yes, I may disagree with you on a belief but it does not mean I look down on your life.  I may just be trying to understand how you make your beliefs operate in improving your world and the world of those around you.

______________
Related Posts:

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 23, 2009

Gran Torino (2008): Movie Review

This review is a spoiler, so stop here if you plan to watch it and you don’t want to know the ending.  And by the way, I save a few Atheist specific comments to the end.
gran-torinoThe movie opens at the funeral of Walt Kowalski’s wife.  Walt, a cantankerous, bitter Korean War vet now lives alone in a neighborhood with very few fine White folks like himself.  His bitterness has alienated him from his neighborhood and from his own family.  The only beauty remaining in his world is his own troll embellished neurotically manicured lawn.  Walt’s only remaining past-time after fixin’ up the house is to sit on his porch and drink 8 cans of beer out of a cooler bad mouthing everything his sees.

But the movie is full of redemption when we see the soft-side of this old fart come out as a hero.  I love movies that make folks complex and shows people changing their ways.   My Dad had a lot of Walt’s traits — lots of guys did from that era (my Dad served in WWII).  Like Walt, he had a bigoted word for every race and religion, but like Walt he mingled well enough with all of them and was actually a fine citizen.  The movie slowly shows us Walt’s strong side which blossoms into a savior in the end.  To draw out and nourish Walt’s inner hero we get the help of several characters.  First his dead wife’s wish for her dear stubborn husband’s salvation are brought to Walt’s door by a naive but diligent priest.  Walt shoos away the priest, but the door has been cracked and it isthe words of a sassy, bright, and kind Hmong girl next door which opens the door of Walt’s heart.  Then our renewed Hero helps straighten the life of the trampled Hmong young boy next door.  Everyone redeems everyone else — it is wonderful.  Seriously, I am a sap, I love this stuff.

OK, I didn’t think the acting was the best, but again, I will sacrifice acting for a sappy story line. So, that said, I did want to make a few Atheist specific observations.
Walt
Walt finds out he has fatal lung cancer, but no one else knows — shhhhh !  He has befriended the Hmong neighbors by “helping” them ward of an Asian gang who is recruiting their son to a life of callous sin.  Yet Walt’s help is in the form of violence which only leads to more violence (of course).  And so with Clint Eastwood as Walt, we expect guns to go a blazin’.  But Walt has grown very fond of his Hmong neighbors, he was a hero in the Korean War and is very smart and good at fixing things.  Sure he punches his hand through a few things in anger (hell, he is man), but then he sits down and thinks and comes up with a plan.

He goes to the gang-house by himself, taunts the no-good hoodlums until they all shower him with bullets while the neighborhood watches Walt blasted down to sprawl as an sacrificial ornament on the neighborhood sidewalk.  The gang is hauled off to prison and Dead-Walt saves the lives of the Hmong family by sacrificing his own.

But wait, it ain’t too bad, Walt had Cancer anyway, remember !  This is just like Tommy Lee Jones in another of Eastwood’s films “Space Cowboys” where Jones sacrifices himself to die alone on the moon to save Earth from a nuclear disaster.   The sacrifices are nobel, but hell, we are happy for them because going out with a flame is far better than withering with cancer.  And in a funny way, these Jesus-figures illustrate how really toned down Jesus’ sacrifice really was too.

Jesus was supposedly 100% man and 100% god.  So he knows when he dies he goes back to being a god in heaven — absolute surety (unlike us pathetic, fear-ridden humans who only have the meagerest of hope in life-after-death).  Jesus knows 100% that when he dies, he is leaving future suffering of being a lowly human and runs right back to his homemade paradise.  Wow, some sacrifice.  OK, sure, it is great to help others on the way out, but the director (God, in this case) saves us from shedding too many tears for Jesus, we are just happy for ourselves — the saved.  But come on, why not have a young, family-man Walt with a long life in-front of him sacrifice himself for the Hmong family.  Well, because we’d walk away from that movie real sad and hating the Hmong gang and have all sorts of nasty feelings.
Gran Torino
The movie, instead, left me with good feelings.  Hell, I even liked the priest in this movie — his sincerity and open mindedness were inspiring.  Ooops, are Atheists allowed to like redemptions, priests and forgiveness.  Hell yes !  So if you want a movie to make you feel good, give it a peak.  But if you are a half-way intelligent movie critic (which thank Krishna, I am not), you might give this one a pass.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 23, 2009

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand RussellBertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) from Wales (like my family !).  One of the founders of analytic philosophy, anti-war activist, free trade and anti-imperialism champion.  Oh yes, atheist.  He was the guy quoted in the previous post.

My point: Even classic Atheists can have a complex relationships with religion in general while they still make specific devastating criticisms of the particulars.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 21, 2009

Whose quote is this?

Guess in the Poll Below:

“Acts inspired by religion have some quality of infinity in them: they seem done in obedience to a command, and though they may achieve great ends, yet it is no clear knowledge of these ends that makes them seem imperative. The beliefs which underlie such acts are often so deep and so instinctive as to remain unknown to those whose lives are built upon them. Indeed, it may be not belief but feeling that makes religion: a feeling which, when brought into the sphere of belief, may involve the conviction that this or that is good, but may, if it remains untouched by intellect, be only a feeling and yet be dominant in action. It is the quality of infinity that makes religion, the selfless, untrammelled life in the whole which frees men from the prison-house of eager wishes and little thoughts.”

______________
References:

Answer: I’m going to make you work a bit for this:  “This is probably too much work for most oyou all !”  <– that sentence contains the answer using Francis Beacon’s famous encryption method.  If you are diligent and solve this code, send me an e-mail with the answer !  For the rest of you, I will post the answer (and my point) in my next post.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 21, 2009

Atheists get more dates !

The on-line dating service OkCupid, analyzed >500,00 first contacts on their dating site to see what factors make a reply more probable.  Below are some of the fun facts their data revealed:

This graph illustrates that, on OkCupid, declaring oneself an Atheist is the surest way to get a bite !god-dating-chart

So, what do you think this statistic reveals?

  • Atheists are sexier?
  • Atheists are more prominent on dating sites since they can’t seek out dates in church, synagogue or temple?
  • Good religious people are loathe to visit these sites? (shame on you atheists)
  • All the above ?

Here then is more of their data showing that Atheists and Agnostics get along better with people — with Jews and Buddhists following close. If your a Hindu or Christian, it is probably best to keep it under cover(s).

Numbers on the perimeter of the table are the weighted average match percentage:

Religion_and_Dating

Finally, Astrology has no affect — surprise, surprise !

Match-By-Zodiac
_____________
Notes:  HT to Brandon for the info.  No, I’m not a member.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 19, 2009

Religous Folks aren’t Delusional

insane_man_in_a_strait_jacketWell, I guess it is all relative.  Heck, even atheists can be delusional.   But Tom Rees, reviewing an article at his fine site: Epiphenom,  shows that New Agers are wackier than everyone.    I particularly enjoyed Tom’s speculation that when folks leave their religions because they just can’t seem to fit in, if they are rational they become atheists but if they are nutty, they become New Agers.

So if New Agers are more crazy than Religious Folks, why do the atheists seem to focus most of their attacks on the poor Religious Folks?  After all, Atheists pride themselves in attacking illogical, deluded thinking.

Well, I can think of a few reasons (can you add more?) :

  • New Agers aren’t trying to take over the government
  • New Agers don’t think you are going to Hell
  • New Agers won’t stop their kids from playing with yours
  • New Agers aren’t trying to stop science research.

So come on Atheists, fess up.  It is not the beliefs of Theists that you dislike, it is what they attempt to do with those beliefs.  I actually feel that many religious folks are far from delusional.  I feel they only suspend rationality for a few precious beliefs and then turn on rationality to handle all the rest based on those beliefs.  It is all very complicated.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 18, 2009

Cognitive Mysticism

Rumi

Rumi

A phrase to describe my beliefs popped to mind today — “Cognitive Mysticism“.  Well, being only two common words, and lots of writers out there, I am sure these two words have been put together before so please excuse me if someone has grabbed them and given them their meaning before me, and please indulge me.

Religious mystics are generally despised by the orthodox in their home religion.  The orthodox value creeds, doctrines and right thinking.  The Mystic values relationships and being.  The mystic’s first offense, a social one, is to deny the need the religious specialists or traditions to communicate to their god.  The Mystic’s second offense, a philosophical one, is to hold doctrines as suspect — Mystics questions the power of language to capture that truth of the encounter with the divine.

I too question authority (while understanding it’s usefulness in the lives of others) and hold that beliefs are merely anchors for our web of life with no more substance than the function they serve.   Our webs of belief capture far deeper realities than the words that string them together.   These deeper realities are our relationships — relationships to ourselves, others and the world we live in.

Cognitive mysticism allows me to dialogue with other faiths without, at times, a need to challenge their treasured assumptions.  If I want to help a person change their way of relating to their world I can still look to change their web while still preserving many of their cherished beliefs.  I can take pleasure in just making them a better version of themselves while they do the same to me.
__________
Related Posts:

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 16, 2009

Religious Syndrome: Creating a Model

SweatLodgeThe word “religion” is vague and used in many different ways. I think attempts to generalize about religion and define religion are doomed because the notion is rather artificial. My answer to this is to create a syndrome definition of “religion” and then, instead of discussing religion per se, explore each of the elements of the syndrome in a focused manner.

In medicine, the notion of a “syndrome” is used to capture human disorders which we don’t yet fully understand. Psychiatry, an area of medicine wrought with incomplete knowledge, has most of its diagnoses by syndrome. Let’s take “Panic Attack” a list the DSM-IV definition in syndrome typology:

Panic Attack:

Must have all of these:

  • Intense fear or discomfort
  • Developing Abruptly
  • Peaking within 10 minutes

Must have at least 4 of these:

  • Chest pain or discomfort
  • Chills or hot flushes
  • Derealization (feelings of unreality) or depersonalization (being detached from oneself)
  • Fear of losing control
  • Feeling dizzy, unsteady, lightheaded, or faint
  • Feeling of choking
  • Nausea or abdominal distress
  • Palpitations or tachycardia
  • Paresthesias
  • Sensations of shortness of breath or smothering
  • Sense of impending doom
  • Sweating
  • Trembling or shaking

So you see, for some internal state to qualify as a panic attack it has a few conditions it must meet and then a certain number of other traits.  Thus, two people’s panic attacks could be qualitatively incredibly different experiences and still called “panic attacks”.

Likewise, I think we should be able to build a syndrome for religion which allows for a wide variety of religious experiences but still is not so nebulous as to be meaningless.  Let me start a quick throw-together model below,.  What should I add, or subtract — please help me build this.   Also, perhaps others have done this already — please let me know.  The fun exercise is determining, what is a “must” and how many secondary traits are required.  You can see that if the definition is broad enough, belief in gods does not have to enter.

Religion:

Must have all of these:

  • Offers community bonds or tribal unity
    • Encourages in-group cooperation
    • Offers friends, potential mates, business partners, helpful neighbors
  • Offers way to teach or reinforce morals
    • Threatens penalties for those not obeying rules
    • Sources of authority: Book, Leaders
  • Offers a better afterlife: Heaven/Hell, Reincarnation

Must have three of the below:

  • Offer explanations to ease suffering (meaning and comfort):
    • of life after death
    • of sickness, misfortunes and disasters
  • Discuss spirits and the supernatural
  • Defines taboo and pollution issues
  • Offers explanations for what is felt to be otherwise unknowable information: creation myths, origin histories
  • Offers adherents benefits (in this life or next):
    • Improved health or total healing
    • Status, security, money,  jobs, prosperous family, abilities
    • Improved personality: ability to overcome hardship, to help others, happiness
    • Improved relationships
  • Has specialists who set the definitions of the religion

__________
Notes:
1) Picture: HT: “DirtBrothers“: An Archeology web site

________
Notes:  one of my favorite books on “What is Religion?” is:  “Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought” by Pascal Boyer.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 16, 2009

Telekinesis: My magic power !

Automatic_doorI am an adult and I still feel magic power in me. I put my hand out and open the automatic doors at grocery stores and hospitals. Sure, most of me knows that the doors are automatic and it is not me opening them. But parts of me still likes to pretend that I open them magically with my force of mind. My hand gestures in front of me to open the door. Sure I tell myself that I put my hand out to trigger the motion sensor but another fun part of myself feels the force open the doors and smiles.

Does anyone else feel part of themselves still do that? Heck I have done that since I was a little kid. Or have the rest of you grown up? Or are the rest of you not as schizophrenic as me?

telekinesisNow here is my point — I think it is natural for children and some of us slow learning adults to perceive things like this, but as an adult, the question is, when do we stop believing it.

I do several party tricks and telekinesis parlor tricks are some of my favorite to dazzle people with. What kills me, is that some people actually believe that I can move paper and break pencils with the energy coming from my hand. But heck, walking through automatic doors, it seems like part of me still believes it too. Heck, maybe that is why I can pull off the trick so well at times.


____________
Related Posts:
1) My Supernatural Experiences: explains my emphasis on perception vs belief.
2) Many Selves, No-Self : explains my phrases like: “most of me knows”, and “parts of me”, “part of themselves”, “schizophrenic” .

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 14, 2009

Roadkill Theology

roadkill possumI had a Buddhist friend who was very fond of his Tibetan guru (teacher).  He would brag to me of what a unique opportunity he had to study with this man.  He was convinced that this man was an incarnation of a previous very famous lama (monk).  Then one day, he got news that his master died – smashed by a truck on a chaotic India road.  My friend was distraught with grief.  I felt sorry for him.  However, after two days of grieving he appeared more cheerful.  He told me that he realized that his Master was probably died like this for a reason and would soon re-incarnate and return to teach at a higher level.

In my teens, I lost my dearest friend to accidental carbon monoxide poisoning.  His parents, born-again Christians, were devastated.  His mom took 10 years to recover enough to merge again with society.  But three days after my friend died  I witnessed my friend’s father smiling and shaking hands with people who were trying to comfort him.  The father was reassuring the well-wishers  by saying, “I know my son is in a better place.  Somehow this was in God’s plan.”

I understand how these mechanisms protect us and comfort us — well, some of us.  But I can no longer feel these comforts.  I no longer believe these stories.  Whatever theory of death I have must treat roadkill squirrels, raccoons, deer, mice, worms and humans identically.  The death of a moth smeared thin on my car’s windshield can’t can’t be ruled as an accidental death while that of a human child who wandered into traffic as being part of a divine or karmic plan.

Uncomfortable Truth:  All theories of death
must take treat human and animal roadkill identically.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 10, 2009

Poop Parochialism

Indian toiletI lived for years in countries where wiping after defecating is done very differently than in the USA.  In India, like many countries, we stooped and pooped.  And after relieving ourselves, to clean up we would take some water on our hand from a nearby faucet or little pot and splash it on our anus  several times while wiping until beautifully clean.  Afterward, we’d rinse of our hand in water.  Only the left hand was used for this wiping — thus the Indian custom of only eating their food with their right hand.

To illustrate these methods, I found some instructions for both an Indian toilet and a Japanese toilet teaching foreigners how to use their toilets.

IndianToilet

Japanese Toilet Directions

Inevitably, when my American acquaintances hear of the Indian butt wiping style they are disgusted to think about touching poop directly with their hands.  They make fun of this primitive custom.  In reaction to their parochial disgust, I often rant as follows:

Oh, I see, instead I guess it is far more civilized to take a piece of paper and smear the poop into your butt crack.  You Americans just keep taking swipes and then checking your tissue each time until you decide, “there, that is clean enough”, and seal the deal by pulling up your pants to allowing the remaining bits to evolve into butt hair dingle berries and to scent your office space all day long.  Yuck !  Meanwhile, you let the precious remnants ferment until you eventually do the real cleaning in the shower or not.

Here are some photo-shopped pics of toilet paper with various degrees of wiping.  At what stage do you stop wiping?

first swipe

first swipe

second swipe

second swipe

third swipe

third swipe

Do you find this conversation disgusting?  Of course you do.  The human mind has a taboo area for disgusting and taboo subjects.  The interesting thing is that religion items get stuffed in this part of mind too.  I have seen this mental clumping together of scatology and soteriology when I have visited the mentally ill in several countries.  For when psychosis strikes, out comes both poop-talk and religious-talk !

So, is the Indian method of wiping really all that disgusting once someone points out how actually disgusting your unquestioned method can also be?  Actually, unless you have wiped your butt Indian style for a year or so with others who do the same, it would be hard for you to think objectively about my question.  Parochialism is amplified by the taboo part of the brain.  Alas, how difficult it is for us to really understand each other.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 9, 2009

Beliefs as Circuit Components

friger_schematic
Geiger Counter

Geiger Counter

  • Beliefs are like electronic parts.
  • Each belief can serve several functions depending on relationships.
    (e.g., a capacitor can serve as a filter, blocking DC or it can damp changes in voltage.)
  • Beliefs have relationships to other beliefs and to the outside world (people, activities etc).
  • Using the same beliefs, we get get very different outputs, depending on connections.
    (e.g., imagine a radio and Geiger counter made from similar parts)
  • Using very different beliefs, we can get very similar output/functions. (e.g., a video tape player vs a dvd player)
  • This is how I view beliefs whether those beliefs are the web of beliefs in an atheist or a theist.
  • I care about the output.
  • I care about the relationships and connections
  • I care about the particular belief only secondary to output and relationships, and even then, more in an academic way.
  • As I wrote earlier, beliefs are always linked with emotions, so they play hugely in the mix too.
  • geiger_schematic

    Small Radio

    Small Radio

    Thus, I do not buy into the reductionist model of dissecting each belief and figuring out its individual, unconnected truth value as being meaningful in evaluating a person.  The object is greater than the sum of its parts, because those parts are in relationship.  This view must be common and have a name — can someone help me name it?  I just thought of the analogy tonight.  Before I was using the analogy of beliefs as clothing.  But I like this one better (for now ! smile).

_______
Notes:  Here are some related posts on beliefs:

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 8, 2009

Darwin’s Signature for Sale: $125

darwin's signature

Believing that a person has something inside–an essence–that makes them what they are is called “Essentialism”.   Essentialism is often accompanied by the belief that this “essence” somehow can rub off on things that person touches or where that person lives — that their essence is contagious.  Such essentialist thinking plays a huge role in our superstitious/religious minds.

Many atheists would be excited to purchase a signature of Charles Darwin for the price I listed above.  They may frame the signature in their house or office.  They would love to show it to their friends.  All this because part of their mind buys into “Essentialism”.  Signatures of Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould and many others may be equally exciting.   In a similar way an Atheist may boast of having met and shook hands with Margaret Atwood, Steven Pinker, James Randi, Daniel Dennett, or Lance Armstrong.

Being an atheist, being a free thinker or being an agnostic does not protect you from the many deep seated cognitive illusions in the human brain.  You are inescapably human.   Sure, we can try to discipline our minds to avoid these illusions, but then you could not have as richly enjoyed sharing Darwin’s signature, of attending a lecture by Richard Dawkins, or of meeting Steven Hawking.

————
Notes:
(1)  Bruce Hood’s new book “SuperSense” discusses this phenomena in an excellent chapter called, “Could You Wear a Killer’s Cardigan?”

(2) OK, I photoshopped that framed signature.  I trust that everyone realizes that I am not selling a signature.  Sorry if anyone was tricked to visiting and reading by my pic — OK, I am a fibber, I am not sorry !  Smile.

(3) Word on the street is that Dawkins’ new book talks about Essentialism too.   This concept is essential in understanding our religious minds.  OK, that does it, I am going to Amazon to order now !

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 7, 2009

Cultivating Emotions

Emotions & Thoughts

Emotions need to be cultivated — this wisdom is shared by many cultures.  Healthy emotions are certainly as valuable as, and at times more valuable than, accurate beliefs.  For without a positive culture of emotions, both individuals and societies can wither in self destruction.

The video below illustrates how important it is to nourish our attitudes and how dry facts are rarely suffice.

Buddhist Emotions

One of my favorite books is “Destructive Emotions: How can we Overcome Them” — A Scientific Dialogue the the Dalai Lama, narrated by Daniel Goleman”.   In Tibetan Buddhist Psychology,  the myriad of negative mental afflictions spring from three primal emotions: Anger, Attachment and Ignorance.  Here is the list of the 20 Derivative Mental Afflictions (pg 106):

  • Anger
    • Wrath
    • Resentment
    • Spite
    • Envy/Jealousy
    • Cruelty
  • Attachment
    • Avarice
    • Inflated self-esteem
    • Excitation
    • Concealment of one’s own vices
    • Dullness
  • Ignorance (Delusion)
    • Blind faith (vs. Intelligent Faith)
    • Spirtual slot
    • Forgetfulness
    • Lack of introspective attentiveness
  • Ignorance + Attachment
    • Pretension
    • Deception
    • Shamelessness
    • Inconsideration of others
    • Conscientiousness
    • Distraction

Bodhisattva_CompassionTibetan Buddhism has many methods of nurturing positive emotions and avoiding the above negative emotions.  One method is by trying to obey simple ethical imperatives in their daily lives — not killing, stealing and lying.  Another is wisdom training to see behind the illusion of self which they feel feeds such emotions.  A third method is contemplation of positive emotions.  For example,  the meditator could imagine her love for her children, parents or favorite teacher and then generalizing that love to acquaintances, strangers and finally to enemies.  Tibetan psychology’s main teaching is that best way to fight negative emotions is to cultivate the emotion’s “antidote”.  For each of these negative emotions above is felt to have an opposite–an antidote.   Cultivating the antidote weakens the negative emotion.  “Thus love is a direct antidote of hatred.  In the case of jealousy, on can try to rejoice in others’ qualities.  For pride, we try to appreciate others’ achievements and open our eyes to our own defects to cultivate humility.  … [It is by such methods that] we are no longer enslaved by negative emotions, and we progress toward freedom.”

Tibetan Buddhists may also use imaginary deities in their meditative practice to cultivate positive emotions.  They have many mythical stories surrounding Bodhisattvas that they use to inform their visualizations and contemplations.  In the Hindu traditions, Vaishnivites do similar mental training with their stories of Krishna.

jesus_washing_peter_feetChristian Emotions

Many Christians use the myth of Jesus’ death and resurrection in a similar way to cultivate feelings of gratitude and love.  Like the Tibetan practice, the object used to nurture the feeling is imaginary, but powerful.   I am in the atheist camp that sees the cultivation of emotions as being a positive role that religion can serve which is often missing in many secular cultures.  Likewise, stories of Jesus or his disciples can be used to cultivate patience, diligence, forgiveness, generosity and more.

Conclusion

Again, in summary, positive emotions can be as valuable as, if not much more valuable than, correct ideas.  Hyper-rational people, be they theists or atheists, can forget the importance of the virtues of the emotional life while they try to emphasize correct belief.   For as illustrated above, freedom from negative emotions can be nurtured using imaginary stories.  The video, for example, is fiction — it never happened.  Though negative, divisive emotions and destructive ideas need to be diligently uprooted,  balancing the cultivation of positive emotions while nurturing correct belief can be complex and requires patience.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 4, 2009

Coyne & Armstrong on Evolution

Pileated Woodpecker

My son and I found this hole in a tree behind our house.  The drawing is of the type of pecker that did it !  The sound of his handiwork graces our 3 acres often — busy little fellow.  This find reminded me of a section in Jerry Coyne’s excellent book “Why Evolution is True” (2009).

The woodpecker is a biological jackhammer.  This poses a problem: how can a delicate creature drill through hard wood without hurting itself? (Think of the force it takes to drive a nail into a plank.)  The punishment that a pileated woodpecker’s skull takes is astounding–the bird can strike up to fifteen blows per second when it’s “Drumming” for communication, each blow generating a force equivalent to banging your head into a wall at sixteen miles per hour.  This is a speed that can crumple your car.  there is a real danger of the woodpecker injuring its brain, or even having its eyes pop out of its skull under the extreme force.

To prevent brain damage, the woodpecker’s skull is specially shaped and reinforced with extra bone.  The beak rests on a cushion of cartilage, and the muscles around the beak contract an instant before each impact to divert the force of the blow away from the brain and into the reinforced basd of the skull.  During each strike, the bird’s eyelids close to keep its eyes from popping out.  There is also a fan of delicate feathers covering the nostrils so that the bird doesn’t inhale the sawdust or wood chips when hammering.  It uses a set of very stiff tail feathers to prop itself against the tree, and has an X-shaped, four-toed foot (two forward, two back)) to securely grip the trunk.

Everywhere we look in nature, we see animals that seem beautifully designed to fit their environment, whether that environment be the physical circumstances of life, like temperature and humidity, or the other organisms–competitors, predators, and prey–that every species mus deal with.  It is no surprise that early naturalists believed that animals were the product of celestial design, created by God to do their jobs.

Jerry A. Coyne — “Why Evolution is True”, pg 115

Coyne’s book then reminded me of a good Wall Street Journal article I just read concerning the new books by Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins — both of which I intend to read.  Below is a paragraph from Karen Armstrong.

Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course—at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive. The fossil record reveals a natural history of pain, death and racial extinction, so if there was a divine plan, it was cruel, callously prodigal and wasteful. Human beings were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else, they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making. No wonder so many fundamentalist Christians find their faith shaken to the core.

Karen Armstrong,  Wall Street Journal article

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 3, 2009

Evolution’s Enemy is Evolution

Bulls Locking HornsNaturalists can get frustrated talking with Creationists, emoting as follows:
“They are so uneducated !”
“They are so ignorant !”
“Our education system is so bad !”
“We need more science education !”

It is not just Creationists that outrage Naturalists, but also those who, though they may say they agree with some evolutionary insights, still claim that “Evolution is still just a theory” and “There is no evidence of macro-evolution” or “Man could not evolve from Apes.”

Naturalist have every right to be frustrated and outraged with these ideas. Especially since many of those voices are hurting others, if not in outright twisted practices based on these misunderstandings of nature and knowledge, but by obstructing the progress of science in terms of government policies and money spent on science. Yet in some Naturalists there is an ironic lack of understanding about the real enemy of evolution — the human brain.

HT: Click for Link

HT: Click for Link

The human brain has thousands of different heuristic modules which unconsciously crank out conclusions for us.(1) We are then deluded into thinking that we made these conclusions consciously.(2) These heuristics evolved over millions of years to solve simple daily survival and reproduction issues and only have outputs with accuracies which are better than the heuristics they replaced. Thus, our brain modules are not truth machines, instead our brains produce approximate results which work well enough but may not be accurate. In other words, we live only on approximations or guesses, but sufficient guesses for genetic prosperity over the long run — for now, at least !

So, to acquire better approximations of reality we have ironically used our minds to developed checks on our mind’s simple heuristics — science is one of those methods. But science takes a great deal of discipline and has been slowly built over decades by the cooperation of many and the sharing of information. The discipline and cooperation needed to overcome our own simple, yet often self-deceptive heuristics is daunting.  It is no small task to accurately learn science, math, statistics, research skills, economics and much more.

Mad_scientistNaturalist should not under-estimate the task needed to learn science. Many Naturalists are naturally bright in the analytic sense and really have not had to make much effort to learn this way of thinking. Others have been born in fortunate surroundings and circumstances and have been given much time and resources to learn.  These Naturalists should not take credit for their fortune or assume their own traits to be hard earned virtues.  But some Naturalists have worked hard to build these new modules in their minds.  These un-natural Naturalists are perhaps, more than others, better able to understand the effort needed to learn real science.(3)

Our society needs people with many skills such as in sales, farming, building, service and many others which do not require the same sort of analytic training that science research requires. We should struggle for a society that supports science but realistically remember that real scientific thinking doesn’t happen until after graduate training in most people. And remember that it is not the obligation of everyone to learn science, any more that it is your obligation to learn gardening, woodwork, martial arts, hunting, knitting, cooking, sport trivia or any other countless areas of knowledge.

Ironically, evolution’s worse enemy is evolution. Evolution has given us brains which are unfit to understand evolutionary principles. We must fight and claw for every ounce of science we have.  And hopefully we build a culture that supports those who find this struggle to be their careers or avocations without looking down on those who “just don’t get it.”  The challenge is that some of the folks who “don’t get it” are also our opponents.  But to better fight our enemy it is best to understand our enemy.  And so, we need to remember, Creationists and Naturalists have a common enemy — our own minds.

——-
Notes:

(1) Self-Disclosure: I am assuming Computational and  Connectivism Theories of Mind.

(2) Self-Disclosure: I am assuming a view of consciousness shared by  Wegner in The Illusion of Conscious Will.

(3) When I say “real science”, I contrasting it with two other common uses of the word which are not what I mean by the word:
a) “science” dogma =  the simple body of knowledge now commonly held by the majority who consider themselves allies of science.
b) “science” applications = the practice of applying algorithms and methods established by those who using science dogma.
Sorry if this is too abstract — perhaps more later.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | October 1, 2009

Sobriety Quote War

whirling_dervishMy view of mind, beliefs and life claims that false beliefs can still be used well and serve what people of diverse views agree to be good.  Thus not all religion is bad, not all religious practice is bad and perhaps at any given time a wrong belief does more good than a correct belief.

This simple paragraph seems to split the blogging atheist community into two camps.  On my recent “What are Beliefs” post,  some colleagues argued against my position.  To accent their point, a poignant quote by George Bernard Shaw was put forward.  So I have decided to put together a little quote war below.  The “Sober Camp” are the hyper-rationalists (who believe that wrong beliefs are always bad because they always lead to bad outcomes)  and the “Drunk Camp” emotive-rationalists (my camp, and yes, I made up that word, who belief emotions and beliefs are always linked and that the emotional life is as important as the mental life – perhaps, at times, more important.)  In a later post, I shall enjoy writing more about alcohol.

“Sober Camp”:  Hyper-Rationalists

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one”
-George Bernard Shaw(Irish literary Critic, Playwright and Essayist. 1925 Nobel Prize for Literature, 1856-1950)

Strength of mind rests in sobriety; for this keeps your reason unclouded by passion.”
-Pythagoras (57- 495 BCE)


“Drunk Camp”:  Emotive-Rationalists

“To the sober person adventurous conduct often seems insanity.”
-Aristotle(Ancient Greek Philosopher, Scientist and Physician, 384 BCE-322 BCE)

“Let the lover be disgraceful, crazy, absent-minded. Someone sober will worry about events going badly. Let the lover be.”
-Jalal ad-Din Rumi(Persian Poet and Mystic, 1207-1273)

“The problem with some people is that when they aren’t drunk, they’re sober.”
-William Butler Yeats(Irish prose Writer, Dramatist and Poet. 1865-1939)

“The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour.”
-William James(American Philosopher and Psychologist, leader of the philosophical movement of Pragmatism, 1842-1910)

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 30, 2009

Wow, a god died for me !

wesley_charlesAnd can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

— by Charles Wes­ley,
Psalms and Hymns, 1738.

Wesley, a leader in the early Methodist movement, asked “How can it be, That Thou, my God shouldst die for me?”  And Christians have sung his wonderment on Sundays for centuries.

This is a favorite emotion that Christians try to cultivate — both one of gratitude and a feeling of being loved.  These two emotions are extremely beneficial.  I see other religious practices culturing these two emotions also.  The culturing of supportive emotions can be very useful — hope, love, thankfulness.  I understand the value of these practices.

But I am not here to discuss this good side of religious practice,  I simply want to address Wesley’s question when it is used as a polemic.  For the question is often asked of non-Christians, “How can you NOT be thankful for the sacrifice of Jesus?
Well, here are my thoughts today:

Human’s die for other humans all the time — it is often a huge mark of bravery. (Of course sometimes it is pure misfortune).   But those humans who intentionally sacrifice themselves for others also often die more horrible deaths than being killed on a cross.  Not only that, they are only 100% human.  They aren’t some magical mixture of 100% god and 100% human, so they have all the fears of a human and none of the god cushion.

Jesus and Thomas So if humans can die for each other, why not a god?  Heck, it is even easier for a god if they know they can pop right back and walk around and meet their old friends 3 days later (picture to right).  Heck, they are a god so they are absolutely sure of that because they made the rules.

I say humans are more brave than the gods in these stories.  For certainly they have less confidence of popping back to life than a god would.   And humans often suffer more than gods do when they sacrifice themselves for other humans and end up dieing in prisons or under lengthy torture.

So to marvel of how Jesus could die for your sins is silly.  It would be very easy for a god to do.  It would be much more tough for a human to do.  That is why the story exists, a human wrote it.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 27, 2009

Beliefs: What are they?

From Whence Beliefs

This model captures these ideas:

  • Beliefs are tools to reinforce actions
  • Beliefs are often created by our actions
  • Beliefs are often determined by our dispositions
  • Actions are often belief-independent
  • Emotions inform all beliefs
  • It is usually our desires that form our beliefs and not our beliefs that form our desires.

Below are my other key ideas about beliefs which can’t be seen in this model, but which I illustrated in another model at my “Many-Selves, No-Self” post;

  • Inaccurate beliefs can be useful/good
  • Old beliefs do not disappear – they persist
  • We can hold multiple contradictory beliefs

Beliefs are central to all conversations about religion.  Heck, they are important to politics, science, family — everything.  So I imagine it may be useful to see if we agree on the nature of beliefs before we discuss them.

Here is my recent quick attempt to illustrate how I visualize beliefs.  Now I know that professional psychologists and philosophers have already created models but I am not going to let that stop me from embarrassingly illustrating my crude thoughts — for how else am I going to learn?  But if you do have links to the visual attempts of others, please let me know.
______________________
Related Posts:

The trick in illustrative models is to keep them simple enough metaphors (as all models are metaphors) to capture your main thoughts and avoiding to much of a clutter, yet subtle enough to capture many of the obvious complexities of reality.

I will explain the details later, but was hoping I could get a few comments prior.  And meanwhile, I wanted to test how homemade .jpg shows up on the blog.  Smile !

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 23, 2009

My Spirit Possession

exorcistPlease take the poll at the bottom !   As of Nov 1, 2009:
50% of readers think I was Spirit Possessed

Click this link to see a test to see if you are vulnerable to spirit possession.  Unfortunately the test reveals that I am only at “low risk” for spirit possession — well actually, in particular, demon possession.   I took the test with hopes of proving that I was at high risk for demon possession to support my story below.  I hoped to title this post something like, “No wonder I was spirit possessed”.   But alas, my score was low !   Go ahead, take Pastor Larson’s test.  He is a genuine exorcist.    Anyway, below, in keeping with my promise to share my “supernatural” stories, let me tell my spirit possessed story.

_______________

I landed in Kyoto, Japan after a year in Pakistan and India working on my philosophy/religion Ph.D.   The first three months my American girlfriend and I lived in a gaijin (foreigner’s) ghetto.  The ghettos were run by Japanese who spoke good English and charged high prices for small rooms to those who did not have the language or cultural savvy to sign contracts and secure rented houses or apartments.  Gaijins, by their own laziness, would often stay trapped in these ghettos for years.  They were terrible places to learn about Japan because you were surrounded only by fellow illiterate foreigners.  But fortunately, within three months we had both landed good English-teaching jobs and met a wonderful Japanese friend who helped us to find a place, to negotiate a contract and who signed as our guarantor.

japanese houseOur new home was a classic Japanese house – with sliding shoji doors, tatami floors, a large court yard, a tokonoma and simple, clean woodwork.  The house had a large attached building where the Obaa-san (grandmother) lived downstairs and we lived upstairs.

obaachan

We weren’t there for more than two months when Obaa-san died.   The Japanese funeral was fascinating.   Obaa-san was laid out in her main room on a futon in her funeral kimono for two days.    In the afternoon on the first day, guests lined up in front of the house to sign a guest book, greet the family members with bows and ceremonial greetings, and then to hand over envelopes with money.   That evening was the wake where friends and family remained in Obaa-san’s room and sat around her all night on the floor drinking sake and socializing.  The next morning Obaasan was incinerated and her ashes were interned at the family gravesite.  The house then returned to normal but the downstairs was now abandoned.

We had only met Obaa-san briefly before her passing.  But these meetings were nothing more than ceremonial bows — we never really chatted with her.   Besides neither my girlfriend nor I spoke much more than a few words of Japanese and Obaa-san spoke no English.

The day after her funeral, I woke up in the middle of the night in utter confusion.  I looked around the room and did not know why I was in that room.  I did not recognize my girlfriend.  I was scared.  My girlfriend woke seeing me agitated.  She could hear me speaking but did not understand me.  I was speaking Japanese.  I could hear myself, but did not understand myself and this confused japanese slippersme even more.  I finally realized that I should lay down and sleep and maybe the confusion would leave.   I fell asleep and woke the next morning remembering the whole incident vividly, as did my girlfriend.   On going to our bathroom I was surprised to find the grandmother’s slippers.  We had no clue how her slippers got into our bathroom because they were always kept in her side of the house.  We returned them to the parents next door who thanked us for the slippers and for our patience with the funeral.  We all bowed.

My girlfriend was shocked that I seemed to have spoken in apparently fluent Japanese that night.  To further the mystery, it was oddly coincidental that we found the slippers of the dead Obaa-san in our living quarters.  My girlfriend was sure I had been temporarily possessed by Obaa-san’s wandering spirit which hadn’t yet made its full transition to the next life.  The merging of our spirits, she felt, caused us both our temporary confusion and fear and had me speaking Japanese — a language I had not yet learned.

That is how we understood the incident back then and how I told it for years.  But even when I told the story, I only half believed my own words.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 17, 2009

Theology 101 — Best out there !

This is an amazingly fantastic piece by QualiaSoup. All religous folks who wish to debate their theology should watch this several times, be sure they understand it, then debate this before getting hung up debating any of their scriptural or theological details. Most folks don’t embrace their faith theologically, then I hope they hold that faith lightly and don’t let it divide themselves from others and just use it just as a personal tool. And for those who have a strong intellectual theology, as long as you only use it only to reinforce good emotional and personal habits and don’t use it to hold back science, then fine. But this video may help you as you move your theology closer to reality.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 15, 2009

Dismissing Religion

Alonzo Fyfe runs an excellent blog called “Atheist Ethicist“.   I agree strongly with his recent post which laments that many atheist look down on their fellow atheists saying,

“If you do not share my dismissal of religion, you do not belong in my community.”

Alfonzo shows how such thinking is dangerous.  I would encourage you to read Alonzo’s post and see yet another atheist who disagrees with indiscriminate rejection of anything religious.  We need to persuade the indiscriminate thinking of other atheists.   Please don’t hesitate to speak out when you visit their sites.  Though I am very critical of many aspects of religion, I am discriminately critical.  I have tried to capture this notion with the phrase:  “Sympathetic Atheist“.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 14, 2009

Superstition: An Atheist Touchstone

Lady_in_the_waterI love taxonomy — classifying objects, people, ideas and such into categories.  It is the shameless habit of the empiricist brain.  I realize its limitations, of course, but with those limitations in mind, taxonomies can offer much insight and progress in knowledge.

I recently enjoyed a movie, recommended on another Atheist site, called “Lady in the Water” (2006) by director/writer M. Night Shyamalan who has also done other films I have enjoyed: “The Village” (2004), “Unbreakable” (2000), “The Sixth Sense” (1999).

These are all films with lots of religious and superstitious themes.  Wait, Atheists should deplore this stuff, shouldn’t they?  Well, to hell with such Atheist purity and sanctity.  Superstitious thinking is a huge part of the human mind and either you can deny it, supress it, ignore it or play with it.  Some Atheists may argue that the presence of such films just encourage superstitious thinking to persist in culture.  They may be partly correct here.  But they argue further that any participation in superstitions or religion is a bad thing.  What these atheists miss is that superstitious thinking will persist whether a hyper-rational atheist wants it to or not.  So while we’ve got it, we might as well enjoy it.  Heck, this is probably why my kids love my bed time stories so much — sure, our family is Atheist, but we know how to have fun with magic, dragons, ghosts and the whole cast make-believe land.  Superstition is not our master, but our servant.

For me, superstition has proven a great touchstone to use in my taxonomy of Atheists. “Touchstone” is a fun word meaning a small dark stone (such as slate) used to assay precious metals because they have a finely grained surface on which soft metals leave a visible trace.  Likewise, this film exposes atheist who are suckers for the supernatural.  Oops, did I just call myself a “sucker”.  Darn !

SupersenseSupernatural thinking is with us from birth and persists into childhood.  Bruce Hood’s new book “SuperSense” (which I do recommend), is all about this issue.  My blog stats spiked this weekend after John Loftus mentioned me on his well-trafficked Atheist site, “Debunking Christianity“.  Well, John actually criticized my post on Sympathetic Atheists saying he was NOT a sympathetic atheist — and I think he is right, he is non-sympathetic.  But negative attentions, when it comes to blogs, is better than no attention.  Smile !  Anyway, I then replied on John’s post and told him about Bruce Hood’s book, “SuperSense” to which John surprisingly replied, “No I haven’t read that book Sabino[sic], but I haven’t read most things although I’m sure it would not change my mind in the slightest.” (emphasis mine).   I think John may have been having a bad day, for he later agreed to read Hood’s book after one of his readers apparently sent him a Kindle copy.  Mind you, John may not change his mind.  He may not admit that superstitious thinking is here to stay.  He may not admit that he himself has persistent superstitious thinking.   He writes fantastic book reviews, so we will have to wait and see if his thinking changes in the slightest if he reviews the book.

By the way, “The Lady in the Water” was panned by all sorts of critics as self-indulgent, vapid, arrogant and muddled mythmaking.  So, I am not recommending it.  I am just using the movie as an excuse to write this post.  Indeed, such a film is probably also a great touchstone to test adolescent atheists — those who just like to like things that others don’t.  Ooops, did I just criticize myself again?

Actually, this film may also be a touchstone for those who are indiscriminate idealists.  Guilty !  I am intellectually an empiricist but my heart (which my mind must constantly tame) is very indiscriminate.  But it is that heart which constantly leads me to wonderful pleasures and thus she also tames my overly cautious mind.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 11, 2009

Emergent Gospel : Rob Bell

I’d like to share this particularly with my atheist friends.  As I traipse around the religious internet, I have just starting to learn about a Sect of Christianity called “emergent” Christianity  (it has been around a while, I am just a late comer).   This video is by one of the many new Emergent preachers — Rob Bell (Michigan).  The Emergent crew, largely a “post-boomer spirituality” crowd, comes in many shades and theologies, but they apparently share some traits like:

  • Disinterest in Established Religion: Rethinking  ministry
  • Post-modern philosophy
    • stated aversion to rational, propositional expressions of faith.
    • Narrative Theology
  • Social Activism
    • Community Building
    • Looking for ways to engage the larger culture — often tech friendly
    • “Missional Living”  (Orthopraxis before Orthodoxy)
    • Often Leftist Politically (not my favorite aspect)
  • Pluralism:  Truth can be found in other faiths

Emergent Christianity is considered apostate and heretical by many orthodox Christians — as if I care.  But I find them very interesting.  I just found this video last night — never having heard of Rob Bell.  It reminded me of Peter Rollins, another emergent church leader in Great Britain whose narratives I have enjoyed.

Sure, you don’t have to buy into the stories they have decided to organize their life around, but I find the web of their beliefs – how the tie their values, thoughts and actions together — to be interestingly refreshing.  I’d be curious what my readers think.  To me, this sort of Christianity seems more desirable that the orthodoxy I am familiar with.

A 2007 Christianity Today article comically lists some stereotypes of the Emergents:

  • They drink like Southern Baptists
  • They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words.
  • They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time.
  • They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed.
  • They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side.
  • They deny the truth—meaning they’ve got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.

It is probably some of this bohemian, free-thinking, inventive stuff that draws me much like it did when I was in the Jesus movement back in the 70’s.   Yeah, the Christian mythology doesn’t do it for me, but the movement in general seems very interesting — I am curious to see where they go and their impact on culture.  But those churches that call themselves emergent, come in many flavors.  I am going to borrow from the sermon of Mark Driscoll for the taxonomy below — he comes from my least favorite “stream” of emergents.  What his groups all have in common is their willingness to participate in common culture and not withdraw and to offer creative worship and meetings.  I think only the first group is really Post-Modern — more later.
(1)Emergent Liberals (my favorites)

Emergent Village Group:

Other Emergent Liberals:

This group questions the inerrancy of the Bible,  the virgin birth, the role of Jesus and may take a very figurative interpretation of the resurrection.  They are hard to pin down, it seems.  Heck, they think homosexuality may be OK.

(2)House Church Evangelicals : Don’t like pastors, preachers or big churches.

(3)Emerging Evangelicals:  Orthodox Evangelicals with hip services but they allow women pastors !

  • Dan Kimbell, John Burke, Donald Miller, Rick McKinley

(4)Emergent Reformers (my lease favorite) : very orthodox evangelicals (only male pastors, homosexuality is wrong, hell is real)  also Charismatic

  • Mark Driscoll :  Marshill Church — same name as Rob Bell’s church – very different.
  • Tim Kellers (New York), C.J. Haney, Matt Chanler
  • Theologians/ Thinkers:  Francis Schaeffer (dead), Calvin, Luther, Billy Graham, Ed Stetzer, John Piper, D.A. Carson,

Post-Modern Sources:  (I have a hard time keeping the different emergents and different post-moderns separate in my mind, but here you go)

Anti-Emergent Sites (for those interested in the in-fighting)

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 7, 2009

Changing your beliefs

The Edge.org posed the question:

What have you changed your mind about?  And why?

Self-introspection and confessions of change are very useful.  Before listing some of confessions of the great thinkers at The Edge, let me confess some of my own changes of belief over the years:

  • Marxism is the answer for the world –> NOT
  • Acupuncture is an amazingly powerful medical treatment –> NOT
  • Homeopathy may actually work –> NOT
  • Christianity is the answer and Jesus is the way –> NOT
  • Belief is an all or nothing thing –> NOT (Nick Bostrom agrees)

If you get a chance below, please tell us what you use to believe but don’t now.

Now for the Greats !  Hopefully some will want to go to the site and read the details:

  • Memory is stored once –> Memory is constantly recreated.
    Joseph LeDoux, neuroscientist
  • Analogies can explain anything –> NOT
    Piet Hut, astrophysics
  • Perception is useful to the extent it is veridical –> Perception is useful because it is NOT veridical
    Donald Hoffman, cognitive scientist
  • Cultural relativist –> NOT
    Timothy Taylor, archaeologist
  • Mathematical Platonist –> NOT
    Keith Devlin, mathematician
  • Newborns are blank slates –> NOT;  Sexual Orientation is natural –> NOT
    David G. Myers, social psychologist
  • Adult brain does not make new neurons –> Does too !
    Robert Sapolshy, neuroscientist
  • The machinery that allows humans to learn language is “special” –> NOT
    –  Gary Marucs, psychologist
  • Quantum reality is timeless –> Time is real
    Lee Smolin, physicist
  • Science guaranteed ethical behavior  –> NOT
    Ken Ford, physicist
  • Sex Differences are socially constructed –> True but biology is huge
    Diane Halpern, Psychologist
  • Laws of physics are immutable –> NOT
    Paul Davies, physicist
  • Rational thinking would eventual eradicate irrational thinking and supernatural beliefs –> NOT
    Marco Iacoboni, neuroscientist
  • Skepticism is primarily an intellectual virtue, whose goal was truth –> Nope, it is used as a weapon
    Rupert Sheldrake, biologist
  • I once trusted in the wisdom of Nature  –> Mother Nature is not our Friend
    Sam Harris, neuroscience
  • Scientific literature is respected and builds  –> New scientific ideas can be smothered with silence
    Robart Shapiro, chemist
  • I should trust the consensus of experts in disciplines outside my area of expertise  –> Much of scientific opinion and even more of medical opinion fall into the murky area circumscribed by a lack of adequate knowledge about the processes at hand.
    Paul Ewald, biologist
  • I use to believe and prove the Paranormal  –> Now I prove it false
    Susan Blackmore, psychologist
  • I used to believe that you could find out what is true by finding the smartest people and finding out what they think.  –> However, the most brilliant people keep turning out to be wrong.
    Randolph Nesse, psychiatrist

____________
Note:  This is only a partial list stripped of their interesting essays.  I will let you guess why I chose the folks I did.  Meanwhile, here is a link to the book version if you don’t like reading on-line.  The Edge has also written on other questions — see here.   My previous post lists samples of answers to the question, “What do I believe that I can not prove?”.

Posted by: Sabio Lantz | September 5, 2009

Unprovable Faith

The Edge.org is a site dedicated to skeptical, critical thinking among intellects of very different beliefs.  In a 2005 post (later to become a book) they explored the important question of:

What Do You Believe Is True
Even Though You Cannot Prove It ?

To tease your interests, below I list the unprovable beliefs of just a few of these writers.  I will let you guess why I chose the ones I did.  Please do go to the site to read their full explanations of their ‘confessions’ — they are fascinating.  Presently, I am writing a larger post on “Faith” and I will refer back to these examples as evidence for my conclusions.

  • The universe is infinite.
    Alexander Vilenkin, Physicist
  • That time does not exist.
    Carlo Rovelli, Physicist
  • I believe that intelligent life may presently be unique to our Earth.
    Marin Rees, Cosmologist
  • I believe we are not alone.
    Carolyn Porco , Planetary Scientist
  • The continuum hypothesis is false.  I think human-level artificial intelligence will be achieved.
    John McCarthy, computer scientist
  • Capitalism and other market-driven systems are better than their alternatives.
    Chris Anderson, Editor-in-Chief, Wired
  • We’re living in a draft version of the universe—and there is no final version. The revisions never stop.
    Rudy Rucker, Mathematician, Computer Scientist
  • I believe in science. Unlike mathematical theorems, scientific results can’t be proved.They can only be tested again and again, until only a fool would not believe them.
    Seth Lloyd, Quantum Mechanical Engineer
  • I believe that people are getting better.  In other words, I believe in moral progress.
    W. Daniel Hillis, Physicist, Computer Scientist
  • Progress
    Neil Gershenfeld, Physicist
  • Human Behavior is Unconsciously Controlled
    Robart R. Provine, Psychologist and NeuroScientist.
  • Cockroaches are conscious
    Alun Anderson, Editor-in-Chief, New Scientist
  • Consciousness and its contents are all that exist
    Donald Hoffman, Cognitive Scientist
  • I believe there is an external reality and you are not all figments of my imagination.
    Janna Levin, Physicist
  • I believe nothing to be true (clearly real) if it cannot be proved.
    Maria Spiropulu, Physicist
  • That reality exists and science is the best method for understanding it.
    Michael Schermer, Publisher
  • Quantum Mechanics is not a final theory.
    Lee Smolin, Physicist
  • Most ideas taught in Economics 101 will be proved false eventually.
    Jean Paul Schmetz, Economist
  • That our universe is infinite in size, finite in age, and just one among many.
    John Barrow, Cosmologist
  • There is no God that has existence apart from people’s thoughts of God.
    Scott Atran, Anthropologist
  • There is a God.
    David Myers, Psychologist
  • I believe, first, that all people have the same fundamental concepts, values, concerns, and commitments, despite our diverse languages, religions, social practices, and expressed beliefs.
    Elizabeth Spelke, Psychologist
  • I do not believe that people are capable of rational thought when it comes to making decisions in their own lives.
    Roger Schank,  Psychologist & Computer Scientist
  • Science, like most human activities, is based on a belief, namely the assumption that nature is understandable.
    Piet Hut, Astrophysicist
  • It is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will.
    Susan Blackmore, Psychologist
  • I believe that animals have feelings and other states of consciousness, but neither I, nor anyone else, has been able to prove it.
    Joseph Ledox, Neuroscientist
  • I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery.
    Nicholas Humphrey, Psychologist

Older Posts »

Categories