Showing newest 3 of 6 posts from September 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 3 of 6 posts from September 2009. Show older posts

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Why we ask the biggest questions

For almost the entirety of human existence, we have been asking the "big" questions, such as "how did we get here?" and "what is our purpose?". However, we rarely stop to think why we ask those questions, and especially why we are so prone to leaning towards some answers innately. For example, the majority of people in the U.S. are Christians, and the when asked why they believe in their, one of the most common responses is that "it just couldn't happen by chance. All of this world, our existence, the love we feel, it can't be random." Many theists cite the their belief that the world is "too complex" to have formed from nature, without being "created". 


However, this innate desire to comprehend the world around us as "too complex" is inherently flawed, and I'll show you why:


We attach significance to things that are meaningful to us. For example, my parents are significant to me, because they are meaningful, i.e. I depend on them, I enjoy spending time with them, in fact my existence required them. Therefore, they are very significant to me. Because I see my parents as meaningful, I see them as purposeful, causal, and driven by thought. My parents are not some random, by chance beings that came into existence from nothing. In fact, almost everything we perceive as having "meaning" is because it is not "random" or "by chance". We find faces and shapes in clouds that, to the objective observer, would look like random, blurry shapes. Yet if we realized that they were random, unspecific shapes, we wouldn't find meaning and significance in them. When you happen to meet your old high school friend when you are at a baseball game, you don't see it as random, but you think "what a small world", or "it must be fate". 


So, now that we've established that humanity as a whole finds meaning in things they perceive as purposeful, intended, we can turn our view onto religion's role in this. Perhaps the most meaningful "'thing" in my life is my own existence. Without my existence, I wouldn't exist. Therefore, my own current existence is very important and significant to me. With that in mind, consider how we examine the world as a whole with that perspective. Our friends, our family, our pets, our jobs, our planet, our own existence, all of these things are very, very significant to us. Therefor, they could not have come about randomly or by chance. If that was the case, we would think they aren't meaningful anymore, because they are purposeless (the very notion of which I would strongly argue against.


In an overview of above, my main point is that human beings define certain things as meaningful and significant, things which are important to our existence and our lives. We place such import on these things because we see them as intended, purposeful, caused. We do this because almost all of these things are in fact so. My existence was intended and caused, it was not random and without purpose. A couple's love is meaningful because to each person, the other loves them for a reason, with purpose. They love connection was not drawn out of a hat. So when we look at the world around us, our common connection as human beings, and our experiences, we want to find a cause there. Because if it is uncaused, then we would (incorrectly, I would posit) conclude that our lives are meaningless. 


One of the best analogies I have ever heard was the poker hand analogy. Imagine you are teaching a friend how to play poker, and you are about to deal them their first hand to explain the game. You shuffle the deck, then deal them 5 cards. To your friend's amazement, your friend has a royal flush, the rarest of all poker hands, the odds of which are 1 in 649,740. The first reaction of your friend will be, inevitably, astonishment, but then suspicion. "Did you plant the cards there?" he will ask, because of course, he is looking for a purpose or a cause, because he sees meaning. This is the most important point, so I will say it again. When someone seeings meaning, they automatically look for purpose or cause. In fact, the royal flush is only the best poker hand because there are rules about the game of poker, which make it so. THE ODDS OF GETTING A ROYAL FLUSH IN 5 CARDS ARE THE EXACT SAME AS ANY OTHER 5 CARDS. The difference is, society has already placed significance, or meaning, on that combination of cards. When we see this meaning, we expect it to be caused. 


This is the exact same thing that religious believers are doing when they say "look at the trees, God's hand is everywhere" or "Jesus is love" or "Look at the world. It's so complex and incredible, it can't be random and without purpose". Believers see all this meaning and significance around them, so they automatically expect there to be a creator, a purpose, a cause. They fail to understand that just the meaning and beauty that we see in the world, or in love, or in a newborn child, is there because we've put it there. Society imparts significance into us, along with our own preconceptions. When religious believers claim that the universe is too complex, to unlikely to have come into existence "by chance", they see that as a reason to believe in a higher power.Yet just as with the poker hand analogy, the odds of getting the royal flush are no different from any other 5 card combination, it is only because of the meaning and significance that we already attached to that specific combination that the friend finds it highly unlikely that they actually got dealt that hand, and they suspect planned involvement, purposeful action. In  the same way, the religious believer, who of course finds meaning all around them, misplaces the source of that meaning and asserts that it is meaningful for an external, supernatural purpose, rather than the human reasons why we attach significance to certain aspects of our lives.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Interesting Study, and Belief

Although not related to religion, I found this article on the  web the other day, and thought it was worth sharing:
Swearing can reduce the feeling of pain


Here is a brief overview:

"Scientists have discovered that uttering swear words can help to lessen the feeling of physical pain.

The study by researchers at Keele University found that volunteers were able to withstand pain for longer when they swore compared to when they used words which were not offensive."


"The researchers, whose findings are published in the journal NeuroReport, tested 64 students' tolerance to pain by asking them to submerge their hand in a tub of ice water for as long as they could while repeating a series of swear words of their choice.

They were then asked to carry out the task again while repeating non-offensive words they would use to describe a table. One subject, however, had to be excluded from the trial because they could not suggest any swear words.

They found that volunteers who swore were able to keep their hands submerged in the water for an average of 40 seconds longer. When questioned about their perceived pain they also rated it as being lower."


"Dr Richard Stephens, who conducted the study at the university's school of psychology, believes it may explain why swearing is still common place in languages around the world.

He suggests that swearing could have evolved as a way of raising aggression levels and reducing the feeling of pain to allow our ancestors to flee or fight back when attacked by predators.

He said: "We think it could be part of the flight or fight response. In the volunteers who swore, we also found they had an elevated heart rate, so it could be increasing their aggression levels."


While this study certainly gives us an insight into some of the basic instincts and responses of the human  body, it also demonstrates an important  aspect of evolution. As the human species evolved and developed language, a certain group of words was developed, that, over time, have come to be (biologically) connected to aggression and the fight or flight reflex. This is certainly a useful trait to have, the ability to withstand pain longer to be less sensitive to pain in times of heightened aggression, so one can see why this trait would have gained genetic power over time.

This article often brings to mind another issue, one directly related to religion, and that is the issue of belief and prayer. Just as the human body as evolved to physiologically react to certain swear words, it could have the ability to react to other words or mindsets, such as prayer or other religious believes. For example, in times of stress, I think everyone would agree, it is useful to be able to calm yourself down and relax. Often times, religious people use prayer or other forms of meditation for this purpose. While I fully support meditation and other calming techniques, this example serves to show us that people can be predisposed to the used of certain beliefs or ideas that benefit themselves physically or psychologically. Its a nice thought to think that there is someone out there watching over us, and its  nice to think that things happen for a reason, especially bad things. However, how good some thoughts or ideas may be at helping our bodies and mind has zero affect on  the actual truth and reality of those ideas. Just because human beings are predisposed to believe in a  god does not mean that a god is any more real than if nobody believed in it.

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Belief-O-Matic Quiz

I just took the "Belief-O-Matic" quiz and here are my results:


1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (92%)
3. Nontheist (80%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (74%)
5. Liberal Quakers (72%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (59%)
7. Neo-Pagan (59%)
8. Taoism (48%)
9. Reform Judaism (47%)
10. New Age (46%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (38%)
12. Scientology (35%)
13. New Thought (33%)
14. Orthodox Quaker (26%)
15. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (25%)
16. Sikhism (25%)
17. Baha'i Faith (24%)
18. Jainism (22%)
19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (19%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%)
21. Islam (16%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (16%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (12%)
24. Hinduism (10%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (8%)
26. Roman Catholic (8%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (0%)


First of all, I think the most obvious conclusion that can be made is that the test is fairly accurate, at least at categorizinig non-believers. I think its accurate to describe myself as a Secular Humanist, an also as a "non-theist" (no atheist option?). However, another thing I immediately noticed, and found rather funny, is the fact that my beliefs (or lack thereof) more closely align with Unitarian Universalists than non theism. This is particularly interesting to me, since for the first 6 years of my life I went to a UU church, and some members of my family still consider themselves Unitarian Universalists. I often joke that the UU church really has no specific doctrine, that its members can believe or not believe whatever they choose. Apparently, I fit more closely with this church than with the non-theistic worldview.


Secondly, the nature of the questions that were asked are highly suspect. I don't recommend this entertainment quiz for anyone who is truly trying to discover what they believe, it is interesting and fun to take it and find out where you fit. However, as I just mentioned, the questioning was far from perfect. In fact, it even indicates an anti-atheist bias, which is something high on my list of "Why a secular world would be better". The way the quiz is design clearly indicates that it is better to have some sort of faith or spirituality. I find this claim highly unsupported, and in fact I would posit that faith does much more damage than is does good. But I guess that's for another time. For example, the first question that the  quiz asks 


"What is the number and nature of the deity (God, gods, higher power)"?