Causing Humanism

"Stop philosophizing about what a good man is and be one."

Well, that survey wasn't at all what I expected. I think the word 'beating' comes to mind. :) They are probably going to chuck my data anyway, as it's likely that I am an outlier in terms of how long it took me to complete the survey. Yep, I had to stop and calculate the actual probabilities associated with each scenario, which is probably not what the authors intended.

As usual though, it reminded me of a story...

When I was somewhere around the age of 15 years old, I was still regularly attending the church of my upbringing. (I really didn't have much of a choice.) As I had been confirmed already, I no longer had to attend Sunday School, and I was recognized by the church as an 'adult', meaning I could take up certain responsibilities. I became involved in video-taping the services for airing on a local cable station. This placed me right outside the sanctuary, on a platform with a live mic and a video camera. Once the service began, the doors were closed, though the ushers remained outside, near the platform I was using for videotaping.

One Sunday, a person with Downs Syndrome appeared at those doors after the service had already started. This person was unescorted, and not someone I had ever seen before at our church. The ushers refused to admit this person, though people often entered or left the sanctuary during the service if the need arose. Once this particular person had left the building, the ushers began to talk amongst themselves about how this person might have become disruptive during the service. They weren't reasoning from any past experience with this person, but rather from a set of preconceived stereotypes.

This episode troubled me because it cast doubt on so many of the beliefs with which I had grown up. I could identify a wrongness in their action, and it didn't mesh with their status as authorities in the church. I had previously assumed, as I had been taught, that not only would I have to work really hard to be good person in this world (in order to overcome my sinful nature), but that continued exposure to the church and its teaching would put and keep me on the path to being that better person. And yet here were two people who had been on that path for 50+ years, and this single incident highlighted a great division between the ideals of this religion (love and compassion for all) and the actions of those who had spent a lifetime in this faith.

What it highlighted for me was that blindly internalizing a particular doctrine was not a guarantee that I would understand these higher ideals, or become the type of person I needed to be in order to be 'saved'. It would take several more experiences with incongruities between the teachings of this religion and the realities of the world though, before I would 'break' more formally with organized religion.

The survey I mentioned above had sections called 'Causing Atheism' and 'Causing Religious Beliefs' that asked about changes in attitude toward god and religion. In any significant change in attitude, there is usually a catalyst event. I guess you could say that this event was the catalyst that opened me up to the possibility that the Church did not contain the best of all knowledge. Which is not to say that there is nothing of value to be found there, but rather that cross-checking one's sources is a preferable way to operate. ;)

The Summer of Philosophy

"Humans have come into being for the sake of each other; so teach them or learn to bear them."

The Summer of Philosophy reading program isn't going quite as planned. (I am easily distracted by interesting ideas, or interesting book titles. ;)

I had intended to blog in-depth today on my recent digression into Stoicism, in particular The Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius, but my serious-academic alter-ego has been asked to take a 60-minute online survey for a study on 'adult reasoning about the development of religious/non-religious beliefs'. (That should make for some juicy blogging...) So for now you will have to make do with a (very) brief synopsis...

Having recently read The Quantum and the Lotus, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between certain facets of Stoic ideals and certain aspects of Buddhist philosophy. While I have never felt a strong desire to examine Buddhist teachings, I have at times felt an unsought affinity with certain Stoic principles... "The Stoics believed in the certainty of knowledge, which can be attained through the use of reason... Certain and true knowledge (episteme), achievable by the Stoic sage, can be attained only by verifying the conviction with the expertise of one's peers and the collective judgement of humankind."

I'm sure you'll see some quotes from The Meditations appear here in the future, but for now, this one is too good to resist...

"The good and straightforward person should resemble one who stinks of goat, in the sense that whoever comes close will immediately sense him, whether they want to or not."

I need to party with more people who aspire to stink of goat. :D

The Passing of a 'Scientific Nomad'

"What sort of man, with what strengths and weaknesses, what convictions, what doubts, have I been?"

I normally don't read the obituaries. I'll scan the tag lines of those people who have been deemed worthy of a write-up, but rarely will I read the entire write-up. 'Rarely' happened today when the tag line was 'Adventurer worked at the edges of science'. My curiosity was peaked when I realized we were talking about the man who had come up with the now-disproved hundredth monkey theory - Lyall Watson. (I'll link you to a better write-up, which is worth reading in its entirety.)

His 1973 book Supernature had been part of a collection of large collection of books on the paranormal that I inherited some years ago. I like interesting ideas, and this book was full of them. But I had never connected this book with the hundredth monkey theory, nor had I remembered the name of the man responsible for either. Watson's ideas were not synonymous with his name, and perhaps that says something about him, his ideas, or both.

Having recently finished reading The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, by David Quammen (2007), I can't help but compare the two men and think about what aspects of their lives and personalities were the same or different. Both saw large portions of the world. Both were highly educated in their respective times. Both were biologists with diverse interests. Both entertained and published radical, though not entirely unheard of, ideas. Both lived to see their books become best-sellers.

Quantifying their differences is a bit harder. The most obvious one is that Darwin fostered and maintained solid contacts with his academic peers, where Watson acknowledged his role as an 'outsider'. Did Darwin suffered more personal angst because of his closer attachment to the current state of 'orthodox' knowledge? It's tempting to wonder who had a better quality of life. Was one man more driven than the other to make a substantial contribution?

What would each man have thought of the other, if they could have met?

Darwin's Dismay

"As delighted as he was with his discovery, Darwin was equally horrified because he understood the consequences of his theory." - Newsweek, July 7th - 14th 2008.

Sometimes I wish more scientists would blog, if only to offset the boorish, media-whoring behavior of some of the more prominent names in science blogging. (But then, what is blogging if not pandering to an audience to increase readership?)

It takes no particular talent at all (or courage) to wait until one knows how the wind is blowing with regards to a particular controversy, and then offer a 'civilized' perspective. If you don't know what controversy I'm referring to, I'll spare you the details. I'll spare you my 'civilized' perspective on the particulars of said controversy as well.

I will say this... Every time I see one of those fish symbols that have been mutilated to include feet and the name 'Darwin' in the center, I think 'Darwin would be appalled by that.' One hundred and fifty years after he left us his great legacy of observations and thoughts, his name is now attached to things that mock religion. If you think he would have approved of that, then you clearly have never read any biographical material on Darwin.

Some people seem to think that advancing the cause of science is synonymous with denouncing or attacking religion. Science is not a domain governed by atheists, and it would behoove more of those atheists to remember that fact. Atheism is socially acceptable because of science. Science provides the justification for expressing atheist beliefs. Science permits atheism, for better or worse, not the other way around.

If atheism represents nothing positive (and atheism is not synonymous with secular humanism), then it becomes the ugly barnacle that slows science from making progress in educating future generations in a world dominated by religion. Religion is available to the masses; science is only available to those with an education or a curiosity that hasn't been suppressed. Religion will indoctrinate and use social pressure to perpetuate itself; science is not about the power of the few over the many. Scientists (most of them) are not 'in it' for the social prestige or power. If the goal is to advance the progress of science, then science must be able to coexist with religion until such time as religion is not threatened by what science represents, and science must represent something better than religion. (Think about that the next time you wish to vent your personal frustrations in a high-profile forum where you represent not only yourself, but the scientific establishment as well.)

If science becomes synonymous with atheism, science will lose. The reality of the situation is that religion (with its 'unscientific' beliefs) has been around a lot longer, offers more to the individual, and has claim to more of the population than does science. From a simple strategic standpoint, loud-mouthed atheist arrogance is counterproductive, as it 'coverts' only those who fear bullying and ridicule and causes the rest to hunker down in a defensive mindset.

And science stands to lose for a bigger reason. The next 'Darwinian' step in science will give even more fuel to these loud-mouthed atheists, as well as draw a hailstorm of hatred from religious people who feel even more threatened. That's alot to put on one person. Especially one person who will be able to see what Darwin had to go through and what his legacy has become. 'You would do this? In my name?' 'You would incite people to do this? Because of what I tried to share?'

No thanks.

Pick A Problem, Any Problem

"For scientists, intellectual delight comes from discovery."

Here's an open question to scientists...

If you had to choose a problem outside your field to work on, what would it be? (Don't argue with the premise of the question; play along. And, no, skipping from astrophysics to particle physics doesn't count.)

I am already fighting the urge to name any number of other problems related to cognitive neuroscience (my field, more or less), such as Alzheimer's, mental illness, cognitive rehabilitation, comprehensive assessment of neuropharmacological effects...

Would you default to one of the big problems that receive a lot of media attention - global warming, energy crisis, crime/aggression - or do you already have a passion for something besides the problems you are currently working on? I'm curious, in part, to know how much of a scientist's motivation comes from the personal significance of the topic s/he is studying, and how much is curiosity, plain and simple. How far does that curiosity transfer? How much is personal passion relevant for dedicated and productive science?

If someone told me I had to work on the global warming problem, could I get engaged enough in the research to do anything productive?

By the way, I don't have an answer to my own question yet. I keep trying to find ways to justify naming other problems related to cognitive science. ;) I'll add a postscript when I decide on an answer.

The History of God

"Truth can never suffer from the proper activity of human reason and experiment, but only from their improper or unbalanced activity."

Four or five years ago I read a book that, at the time, I thought was fascinating. It was presented as a biography or history of (the Judeo-Christian) God, and it detailed the gradual withdrawal of God from the realm of Man. In the 'beginning', God was having rather 'human' interactions with Man. 'Hey, let's go for a walk in the garden.' 'Hey, your sacrifice really didn't appeal to Me and now I'm angry.' God was more capricious and whimsical - almost Human - in His interactions with Man. But gradually God seemed to withdraw from the realm of Man. You could not longer see God directly, or God was hidden in a burning bush. Then it got even harder to get God directly. You got angels or messengers instead, and gradually even the appearance of these faded away.

Now the skeptical might say that these stories of God's appearance were simply attributing natural phenomena to 'God', and as our understanding of the world evolved, our need to attribute things to 'God' lessened. Perhaps. This didn't diminish my fascination with the book though, which I remember as having speculated about this fact from a 'Did God get bored with His creation and move on to other things?', as well as a 'Was God at one time something else (like an alien)?' angle. (Remember, I love a good speculation. ;)

Unfortunately that book was a library book, and upon its return to the library, I moved on to other things. And promptly forget the name of the book. Every so often I would think about that book, and the other night, while paying homage to the goodness that is a used book store, I found A History of God, by Karen Armstrong (1993). Was that it? Had I found it again? I can't tell by a cursory glance! For two dollars, I figured I'd find out. (And another book finds its way onto the stacks that litter my humble abode.)

Why do I bring this up? If you are a scientist working at or near the edge of our current knowledge, people invariably want to know what you think about God, and/or what your ideas say about God. Some scientists have no problem telling you exactly what they think, sometimes so loudly and rudely that you forget that they are scientists who, presumably, at some point engage in actual science. Others shy away from the discussion on the grounds that science and religion are inherently different realms. Others argue that science has already chipped away at this much of what we needed God for, so it is only a matter of time before we don't need God at all.

We no longer need a god to explain things like a solar eclipse. The believer will say that God is in the beauty of the design of the system that produces a solar eclipse. The non-believer will say that natural law exists for reasons that have nothing to do with God. Eventually the two sides will come to the point where science cannot yet explain the rules or the 'why' of certain things, and there we will see God or an Ultimate Creator inserted into the argument. As long as there are gaps in our knowledge, there will be a psychological yearning for an explanation. God rules the realms that Science has not conquered.

I have, at times, been profoundly moved by the absolute brilliance of certain aspects of Nature/the universe. But for me this only suggests that if there is a 'God', he is so far beyond our understanding that we cannot presume that he thinks or feels or wants in any way that we can understand. This is the fatal flaw I see in religion - the attempt to bring 'God' down to level where we can say we know what he wants. As our understanding of the 'program' of the Universe grows, we must acknowledge that any ultimate Programmer has always been, and is still, beyond our complete understanding. Therefore it seems incredibly presumptuous to claim we know what would please or displease this Being. Exit many of the harmful activities associated with religion.

(Believers may invoke the argument of divine accommodation (Theopedia - who knew?) , which says, essentially, that certains truths have been 'dumbed down' by God for we poor inferior beings. But the minds of we poor inferior beings continue to make inroads into our understanding of the Ultimate nature of things, so our inherent capability to understand is there. It is more likely than that any past misunderstanding of 'the way things are' has been due to our limited knowledge at the time, and not bad intel from God.)

Science today cannot tell you if a God exists. Science can tell you what you don't need God for. Since we progressively need a God to explain fewer and fewer of the aspects of our universe, it is tempting to conclude that one day we will understand it all and 'God' will vanish from our thoughts. Unfortunately, the assumption that the need for a belief in God will one day disappear does not mean that we can now dismiss religion altogether. Religion (not God) is a powerful force in our world now.

But Religion changes with the times. More slowly than we would like, perhaps, but it does catch up with society and science eventually. To hasten this process, continued dialogue is vital. Mind you, I said 'dialogue', not 'condescending, patronizing dismissal of your beliefs'. (The process of your education as a scientist took years. Do not expect the same respect for science to emerge instantly in others who have not been thusly educated.) Similarly, it is difficult to engage someone in a productive dialogue, let alone a persuasive dialogue, if you do not understand where they are coming from. An ambassador of science must understand the language and customs of his hosts. Building a common understanding of language and ideas seems like a worthy goal. If this is not at least one of the goals of a place like the Templeton Foundation, then perhaps it should be.

Well, that's it for this edition of the soapbox. If I hadn't currently been reading The Spiritual Brain, by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (2007), I might have let the temptation to blog on this topic go by. (Non-materialist neuroscience - who knew?) If I hadn't just found A History of God, I might have resisted the urge to add my beans to the pot. But such is the purpose of a blog - to collect and store spontaneous emissions of fecundity. ;) Until next time...