A passing thought

[avevale_intelligencer]

Just read this post, following a link from Clement's blog, and was intrigued by the way the writer describes how being exposed to creationism and other pseudo-science at an early age caused him to start thinking and questioning what he'd been told. This parallels my own experience; reading von Daniken caused me to question conventional science, from which I passed as a natural consequence to questioning von Daniken.

And that's one of the things that bothers me about the perennial claim that religion, or creationism, or pseudo-science, causes people's brains to shut down; the people making that claim have obviously encountered these things themselves, and it's had quite the reverse effect, as it had with me and the writer of the article. Either he, and I, and a select few, are examples of a superior race whose enhanced brains are immune to the numbing effect of the opiate of the people so decried by Marx (a suggestion which I view with a certain scepticism)...or ideas are just ideas, and people have control of their own brains, and it's just as easy to choose to be asleep at the wheel whether you believe in Richard Dawkins, YHVH or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing at all. And just as easy to choose to wake up and question. (I should perhaps make clear that this latter is the explanation I favour. I don't have an enhanced brain.)

Comments

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

What caused me to start questioning things (at around 11) was going to a Catholic school, and having the bible promoted from a series of stories I took exactly as seriously as those of any other mythology to something I was expected to actually believe: and believe in conjunction with obviously self-contradictory nonsense. "Oh my god I believe in you because you have said it and your word is true" - what??? Can we spot a circular argument here?

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Well, apart from a circular argument being the opposite of self-contradictory *g* (I would have used the version of the Creed which says the "not one but three and not three but one" etc. as an example of the latter), I agree. Being taught science made me sceptical about reported and taught science, being taught religion made me sceptical about reported and taught religion, and both made me sceptical about "arguments from authority" or any kind (i.e. "X is an important person therefor what they say is correct").

And I agree completely with Zan's thesis that either we (those of 'us' who read this blog, and SF fans, and other "free thinkers") are some special sub-race with really powerful defence against bullshit, or that everyone makes their choices about what and who they prefer to believe. Oh, it's pleasant to indulge in what Gary calls 'tribalism' and think that 'we' are superior beings and better than all of 'them' who don't think for themselves, it makes us feel good about ourselves, but I do rather doubt that it's actualy true...

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know... but I was 11, and that particular one registered with me as "circular", and "nonsense". The latter at least I got right.

I think in fact it's probably true that "we" (a deliberately vague definition of "we") are of above average intelligence, but whether that's cause, effect, or coincidence, I have no idea.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

If there were any objective measurement of 'intelligence' (or even a consistent definition of it) I might agree with you *g*.

The example you gave was indeed a circular definition, you were correct as an 11-year-old. You preceded it however by mentioning self-contradiction. An awful lot of religious dogma does indeed contain examples of both of these, and both may indeed be termed 'nonsense' (I'm pretty sure I've come across one piece of dogma which managed to be both circular and self-contradictory at the same time; it may have been in the same Creed, but was certainly impressive in its nonsensicality).

But as someone pointed out in the comments to the original article, there is no need for theology to be 'nonsense' logically. Everything is based on assumptions and postulates (as was pointed out there, including Euclid's mathematics), and it is quite possible to have a rational (although still just as unprovable) theology, just as it is to have non-rational science (plenty of scientists have made deductions with holes and contradictions and circularities). The important thing, it seems to me, is to be able to handle new information and ways of looking at things when (not if) they appear. Like, for instance, scientists are doing with the LHC, many are now seriously considering that if they don't find that particle they may have to change whole theories of physics (and I commend them for thinking about that).

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I strongly suspect that it's not the exposure to unorthodox material that causes people to question or not; rather, it's the insistence on some authorities' part that their views are unquestionably correct. The authorities who can provide verifiable evidence tend to create both stronger and better impressions on the questioners' minds, and also encourage more questioning of the sort that leads to more solid beliefs.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'd have said that the existence of verifiable evidence leaves no room for questioning of the thing thus justified. Whereas a dogmatic assertion without evidence (like this one) gives you the choice; to accept without question, or not to.

And then again, if there's one thing von Daniken's books are full of, it's verifiable evidence. Everything he adduced to prove his theories is actually there, and can be seen as pointing the way he says it points. In some cases we still haven't (AFAIK) come up with a better explanation. The only way to combat that is to assert dogmatically, without any justification and in the face (as it seems) of his piles of evidence, that "aliens have never visited earth, because that would be silly, and therefore he must be wrong," and having taken that as an unquestioned truth, seek other theories to account for his facts.

But that's just my opinion.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Well, one could say "I do not know of anything else to account for these facts, but that does not mean that a reason that neither I nor von Daineken has thought of does not exist".
His theories are not proof that aliens have visited Earth, only that their having done so remains an intriguing possibiliity. The middle ground. The admission of "I do not know". I have verifiable evidence that it's possible to do this :)

[howeird]

It is not so easy to wake up and question when everyone you know reinforces the religion, myth or pseudo-science. I have a friend who is an astronomer, she says she has been asked by a lot of people this week if it's true that some comet is going to crash into the earth and destroy us all, and when she tells them no, not even close, they refuse to believe her. She thinks the reason they asked was not to get the right answer, but to have an Expert validate the myth which they believe in.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Really? I had the impression that the revolt into atheism was quite frequently achieved in a climate of almost universal belief, and against the strenuous opposition of parental and other authority figures. In other words, it's easier to rebel when there's something solid to rebel against (which is why "what have you got?" is a non-answer; sorry, Marlon), and easier to question when there is a definite dogma to question.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Yes, but which is better: To wait a few generations for one or two lone rebels to spontaneously rise up out of the herd and start a revolution (i.e. start leading the herd in a different direction to the one they were being led before - and not necessarily a better one), or to to make sure that the herd all get taught "intellectual rebellion 101" at a suitable age?

'Cos my experience is, even when you do the latter, less than 10% actually take any notice. But at least then that 10% get to having discussions like "wel, I think the rebellion needs to go in *this* direction", "yeah, but this evdience says we should be going in *that* direction", and thus all the ideas get a chance to be properly evaluated from multiple perspectives, continuously, as we gardually home in on the truth; instead of just one half-baked world view being overturned by another.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I suspect the reason few people take any notice is that you can't actually teach rebellion in the context of the thing rebelled against. I'm reminded of all those earnest young teachers in the days of my youth who tried to "get with the kids".

It may be that I'm just a hopeless romantic, but it seems to me that the energy of rebellion, and the fact that it has to be a genuine rebellion, are both important factors and are closely interlinked. I imagine a class being taught "some say this is true, and some say that's true, and there are lots of schools of thought but you'll have to make up your own mind" (in a Liverpool accent for some reason) and I don't see it inspiring the passion that I've seen in your writing about science and religion, or in Lil's for that matter. In fact, I can see it inspiring cynicism and apathy, of which there are demonstrably increasing amounts nowadays.

So no, I'd encourage rebellion by providing a good stout target (or, as in your case, several) in the form of a dogma, and inciting the young (indirectly, of course) to shoot at it. And, it goes without saying, by making sure the information they need is available when they go looking for something to replace what they've abandoned. And only ten per cent might take any notice, or even fewer, but if that's the way it is then that's the way it is. You can't make people freethink; it defeats the object. Which is where I came in.

[howeird]

Really. Let me give you one small example from my life. I was raised in a conservative Jewish family. My parents encouraged me and my three sisters to read, go to synagogue, and attend services any place where we were invited, and this included Protestant and Catholic churches and the Japanese Buddhist temple. We all read the Torah all the way through every year, and the rest of the Old Testament more than once.

It took me 30 years, but I decided all the religions had it wrong, and I am an atheist.

OTOH My older sister (only 18 months older), after spending a year in Israel after high school on a scholarship, came back to the US, completed her Bachelor of Science in Psych, married an American who also wanted to be more religious, and moved to Israel in the mid 1970s. She is more Orthodox now than anyone we grew up with, as are her 5 children. The main reason for her move was to be among those who believed as strongly as she did (a fringe benefit was the ease of obtaining kosher meat here). One of my nieces visited my apartment and was shocked that I had a Tarot deck - "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", you know.

And then there are the substantial communities in America of Amish, Mormons, Chasidic Jews, and so on, which stay together and maintain their traditional beliefs.

the revolt into atheism was quite frequently achieved in a climate of almost universal belief, and against the strenuous opposition of parental and other authority figures.
Sure, but only a tiny percentage take part in that revolt. The vast majority stick with what they have been taught.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

In other words, you each made your choices. I'm struggling to see something wrong with that. I congratulate you that you gave your decision full and unhurried consideration; in my opinion too many people rush into these things, but that of course is just my opinion and the choice, as it should be, is theirs.

Incidentally, Jan says that "witch" in that quote should really be translated "poisoner", which lets out Tarot readers and the like. I wouldn't know, but I know she's read widely around the subject.

That's why it's a revolt, because only a few do it. If the majority did it, it would be a change of fashion, and have about as much impact. I don't think you're actually disagreeing with me here.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

[NODS] In order to question, you first have to have the *idea* of questioning. That idea occurs to some people spontaneously; many more (I'd say - got no statistics to back me up, though. =:o} ) have it explicitly introduced as part of their education.

As a teenager I got taught the importance of it by my science teachers, history teachers and English teachers at school on weekdays, *and* by my church elders on Sunday and Wednesday evenings, *and* by my choice of reading the rest of the time (entirely SF, some of it with complex socio-political messages).

And yet I also noticed that some of the kids in the same class, being taught the same things by the same people, still didn't seem to bother to question the stuff they were hearing from any direction.

So clearly you also have to be *motivated* to question, to actually bother to do it. And in my case, a lot of the motivation to question came from the fact that I was being told two or more incompatible views of the world, by groups of people who *both*(/all) believed and urged that it was important not to be decieved by any specious arguments thrown out by the other group(s), and who both could givee sound reasoning as to the possible long-term consequences of believing the wrong version. Thus I was forced to disentangle the concepts of "reason", "logic", "sincerity", "evidence" (breaking it down to primary vs secondary, physical versus sitautional, etc.), "authority", "credibility"; "trust", "credence", etc... and learn how to figure out what exactly was going on each time someone presented an argument or statement.

There's a lot to be said for being exposed to multiple world views from an early age.

[howeird]

See my answer to our host above. I think it is more about the individual having the idea of questioning than any other factor.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

What else can it be about? I don't see how you can teach someone to question teaching. It's like Brian shouting "you are all individuals" and the multitude answering in chorus. (And, of course, the lone voice from the back, with whom I strongly identify.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Multiple world views, yes. Conflicting world views, definitely yes. A consensus of "we don't know," not so much.

I'd rather put kids into the midst of an ongoing debate, with all sides arguing their own causes fiercely and intelligently, than show them an empty hall with papers all over the floor, dust hanging in the air and a question mark scrawled on the blackboard.