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).