This post will be something of a loose sequel to my previous thoughts, on Joyce Meyer, which generated some interesting conversation.
I've noticed an additional quirk, of Joyce's, that certainly isn't unique to her. She quite frequently speaks of what "God wants" (or desires/commands etc.). Often she'll preface the comment in question by also saying something like "I believe", "I really believe", or "I really believe, with all of my heart"; after which point she proceeds to speak, quite confidently and comfortably, on God's behalf. Are people more likely to buy into what Meyer is saying, if she "really believes" it? What's the point of even mentioning this? Of course you believe what you're about to assert; if you didn't, you wouldn't be saying it in the first place. Then again, perhaps it's true that parishioners more eagerly embrace things that their pastors and, in this case, celebrity speakers "really believe, with all of (their) heart". Somehow it seems "extra" true if the person, delivering the message, feels and believes it deep down in the pits of their soul. Even still, I find that phrasing a little odd, and bordering on the illogical, especially considering how often she employs it. Does "really believing" something make it any more likely to be true? Hardly.
Recently, as these thoughts were still floating around in the back on my mind somewhere, I stumbled into a book called "God Wants You to Be Happy". My first inclination was to dismiss it, as nothing more than a fringe title, perhaps authored by someone who held to some mildly unorthodox Protestant views. But then I noticed an endorsement, on the front cover, from none other than Ruth Graham (the Rev. Billy Graham's daughter). She says, "If you want to know happiness as God intends it, read this book!". (Side note: A few years ago I met and conversed with Ruth and, although she's been through a lot in her life, many Christians I know personally speak highly of her current ministry.) I flipped to the inside cover and, lo and behold, more endorsements from people that I would consider to be very much in the mainstream of evangelical thought (ie. Dr. Kevin Leman & Pete Wilson).
What strikes me about this, once again, is the whole notion of speaking for God. Christians do it routinely. It's another one of those weird dynamics that I didn't pick up on, while I was still a believer, since I guess it just seemed so normal at the time. Some Christians, of course, will disagree with the specific notion that God wants you to be happy and, perhaps, they will even be able to muster up a few Bible verses to "contradict" it. I would have been inclined to do so myself, in fact, only just a few short years ago. But I now think this approach entirely misses the forest for the trees.
Here's the problem...the Bible says all sorts of things and, on occasion, even contradictory things on the exact same topic. So it just doesn't work, when arguing about theology, to use the Bible as though it were a weapon. This is the deeper conundrum that Christians face, without even realizing it, as they continue daily in their misguided attempts to speak "for" God to one another. Years ago, for example, I remember trying to sort through Calvinism & Arminianism. These two doctrines are very clearly at odds, and I really wanted to know which one was correct. Can a believer lose their salvation (as Arminianism would suggest), or can't they (as Calvinism would suggest)? Does everyone have an equal shot at salvation (as Arminianism would suggest) or does God elect (either some or all) believers ahead of time (as Calvinism would suggest)? Believe it or not the conclusion I came to, after much investigation, is that the Bible actually teaches both doctrines. That's right! Both sides can be justified Biblically, and quite amply I might add. At the time I chalked it up to God's ways being mysterious, and I never worried myself with the issue again.
This is just one example. There are hundreds more I could have used. So, believer, before you come against one of your own, who claims to be speaking on God's behalf, just remember that they likely have Biblical justification for what they are saying. And there are probably also Biblical arguments against certain of your Christian beliefs. I'm willing to grant that it's "possible" one of you is simply wrong, and the other right, but I want you to think about this...is that the most likely scenario? Or is it, dare I say it, more likely that the Bible simply contradicts itself? Are you willing to consider that possibility? (I'm not even asking you to assent to it, only to consider it. Will you?) Perhaps the Bible itself is partly to blame for the fact that there are 38, 000 Christian denominations in the world today. As John Loftus says, in chapter 7 of "The Christian Delusion", "What We've Got Here Is a Failure to Communicate" (on God's behalf).
If you're indeed willing to entertain the latter thought, and most Christians won't, let me follow it up by asking you this...supposing it were true that the Bible has legitimate contradictions, in what sense would it then be "the word of God"? Wouldn't genuine contradictions, even one, demonstrate that it wasn't a perfect book? If not, how many real contradictions would be required to demonstrate this? 10? 100? 1000? 10, 000? And, if it's not a perfect book, why do you believe that God had anything to do with it at all? The onus of proof is now firmly on you, as the believer, to demonstrate to the rest of us that the Bible is somehow of divine origin. All signs point in the other direction.
So the next time you hear a preacher say "God wants" this or that I want you to take notice. Stop, and wonder to yourself how it is that they know what God wants. A Bible verse, even one that seems to back up their particular claim, won't cut it. Unless God has ordained the very words of each and every individual Biblical author (as many Christians in fact believe) the whole premise of speaking for God falls totally to pieces. Simply "believing", that you're somehow in the loop on God's desires, is not enough. You have to ground those beliefs with actual evidence.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Monday, 23 April 2012
On Being Ignorant
I've noticed a common theme among de-conversion stories. Well, actually, there are several common themes; but the one I am speaking of here is becoming acutely (and even painfully) aware of your own ignorance. Christianity has a way of making its adherents feel as if they already grasp the really "big stuff". As an unintended result many Christians slowly lose curiosity and, over an extended period of time, become unintentionally ignorant of their own burgeoning ignorance.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm sincerely not trying to throw rocks. This isn't an atheist's way of trash talking believers. It's just that I used to be something of a "go to" Christian myself; believed, by churchgoing friends & associates, to be very well informed. They still think of me this way. And in some ways I was (and am) well informed, on Biblical/theological arguments & issues; y'know, the "big stuff".
However, looking back, I now realize that I used to be remarkably uninformed re: a large number of other areas that are quite relevant to Christian belief; for example, I knew next to nothing about recent findings in biblical criticism, archaeology, evolution, or cosmology. These fields, and many others I haven't named, are inexorably connected, to the claims made by Christianity, yet I knew very little about any of them. I think this is common in Christian circles.
It's a subtle thread of anti-intellectualism that lies essentially hidden, but runs through to the very heart of Christian culture, seeping out in a variety of ways. I've been mentally noting some examples, over these past few months, as they come quite organically to my attention (remember, as an "in the closet" atheist, I am still surrounded by Christians day in and day out in the workplace).
Here is my top 5:
5) "All you need is this book"
Christians believe the Bible is the ultimate guidebook to EVERYTHING. It's not that they don't read other books (although some of them don't); it's just that they assume the Bible speaks more wisely, to every topic it touches, than a "regular" book possibly ever could. If you doubt this, just go to your local Christian bookstore and read the back cover of a few dozen Christian books. It doesn't matter the subject; sex, love, marriage, dating, parenting, you name it...it is simply assumed that the Bible contains greater wisdom, on the issue at hand, than literally any other book on the face of the planet. Why would someone who believes this bother reading a large number of non-Christian books, by so called "experts", on topics the Bible already speaks clearly to? They can't possibly match up.
4) "It's too long to read" (just tell me the conclusion so I can judge it immediately)
I work with a very bright (and talented) Christian girl, in her twenties, who generally refuses to read anything that is more than a few paragraphs long. She frequently deletes e-mails, or even bows out of staff conversations, simply because they would require her to read too much background material. I'm not kidding. At the same time, this girl is extremely confident in her beliefs on spiritual matters. She knows that she knows that she knows that Jesus is the only way, and the Bible is the word of God. I have never seen her display so much as a whiff of doubt re: her Christian beliefs. Has she ever read a skeptical book? Nope. I don't believe so. Does she properly understand the theory of evolution? Absolutely not. But yet she knows she's right! About all of it! How does she "know" this exactly??
You can't learn if you don't read. A lot. For certain personality types reading feels like work, yes, but it's worth the investment. And the more you read the more you learn. Popular culture won't teach you what books can teach you. Sorry.
3) "Just trust"
I've spoken before, about the manner in which Christians conflate the ideas of belief and trust (as if they were precisely the same thing). In fact, I consider it to be one of the most important posts that I've done on this blog to date. So I won't repeat myself. I'll just add that when Christians urge unbelievers to "just trust" they are, in so doing, asking the atheist to dumb things down. It's like saying "those are all really great questions, many of which we can't actually answer, but if you'll 'just trust' it will all be o.k."
And as I've posited previously, on numerous occasions, what sort of God would condemn people to eternal punishment because of honest intellectual doubt?
Only a monster would do such a thing. Please think honestly about that.
2) "I'm offended!"
There has been much talk, in the atheist community, about how to best handle it when believers play the "I am offended!" card; and some of them play it often. My own view is that people should be treated with respect (unless/until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect). Having said that I also agree with the observation, made most notably by Richard Dawkins, that religion has been unfairly accorded a special place in our society. A person's religious beliefs should not be viewed as untouchable, as in free from critique, anymore so than their beliefs on politics or literally any other topic.
I've also noticed that when Christians say "I'm offended!", it's often just their slick way of trying to shut the current conversation down. You can see this, for example, in the q&a section of this debate. Several believers made their way to the microphone, deeply emotional, with the express purpose of registering their offense at Richard Carrier's well thought out ideas. Never mind the evidence he presented. Who cares about that? Doggone it they just wanted him to know how "offended!" they were!
And in so doing it became crystal clear, to the rest of us, that they didn't truly understand the arguments that were being made to begin with. How unfortunate.
1) "We need more humility"
I've also spoken before about how I consider humility to be one of the single greatest virtues. I really do. So why am I throwing an appeal for humility in with a list of things that supposedly promote ignorance? I think it comes down to what is meant by the word humility. What I'm objecting to is the use of the word "humility" as a stand in for "ignorance". For example, I have sometimes heard Christians say things like "well, the truth is none of us know how it all began so I just think we need more humility". What are the implications of this comment? It might as well read, "well, the truth is none of us know how it all began so why bother trying to figure it out." See the problem there? To be perfectly clear I think it's good for us to acknowledge that we haven't figured everything out. Not even close. In fact, there are probably things that we'll never be able to figure out. All scientists realize this. But it shouldn't stop us from pursuing the really tough questions with vigor. What's ironic is that it's Christians themselves who hold the less humble worldview generally (see the Sam Harris quote in the second to last paragraph of this post).
As I said, off the top, my goal in this post is not just to rag on Christians. I'm trying to make a point. And, of course, it goes without saying that there are some believers who are well versed in areas outside of Christian theology. But I believe these Christians are the exception, not the rule, especially in evangelical circles.
By this point I've probably read a few hundred de-conversion stories, and awareness of one's own ignorance is perhaps the single most common theme. I now know how little I know. And I know a whole heck of a lot more than I used to. But I make it a point to learn a little more each day. It's one of the main differences between the man I was, as a Christian, and the person I strive to be today.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. I'm sincerely not trying to throw rocks. This isn't an atheist's way of trash talking believers. It's just that I used to be something of a "go to" Christian myself; believed, by churchgoing friends & associates, to be very well informed. They still think of me this way. And in some ways I was (and am) well informed, on Biblical/theological arguments & issues; y'know, the "big stuff".
However, looking back, I now realize that I used to be remarkably uninformed re: a large number of other areas that are quite relevant to Christian belief; for example, I knew next to nothing about recent findings in biblical criticism, archaeology, evolution, or cosmology. These fields, and many others I haven't named, are inexorably connected, to the claims made by Christianity, yet I knew very little about any of them. I think this is common in Christian circles.
It's a subtle thread of anti-intellectualism that lies essentially hidden, but runs through to the very heart of Christian culture, seeping out in a variety of ways. I've been mentally noting some examples, over these past few months, as they come quite organically to my attention (remember, as an "in the closet" atheist, I am still surrounded by Christians day in and day out in the workplace).
Here is my top 5:
5) "All you need is this book"
Christians believe the Bible is the ultimate guidebook to EVERYTHING. It's not that they don't read other books (although some of them don't); it's just that they assume the Bible speaks more wisely, to every topic it touches, than a "regular" book possibly ever could. If you doubt this, just go to your local Christian bookstore and read the back cover of a few dozen Christian books. It doesn't matter the subject; sex, love, marriage, dating, parenting, you name it...it is simply assumed that the Bible contains greater wisdom, on the issue at hand, than literally any other book on the face of the planet. Why would someone who believes this bother reading a large number of non-Christian books, by so called "experts", on topics the Bible already speaks clearly to? They can't possibly match up.
4) "It's too long to read" (just tell me the conclusion so I can judge it immediately)
I work with a very bright (and talented) Christian girl, in her twenties, who generally refuses to read anything that is more than a few paragraphs long. She frequently deletes e-mails, or even bows out of staff conversations, simply because they would require her to read too much background material. I'm not kidding. At the same time, this girl is extremely confident in her beliefs on spiritual matters. She knows that she knows that she knows that Jesus is the only way, and the Bible is the word of God. I have never seen her display so much as a whiff of doubt re: her Christian beliefs. Has she ever read a skeptical book? Nope. I don't believe so. Does she properly understand the theory of evolution? Absolutely not. But yet she knows she's right! About all of it! How does she "know" this exactly??
You can't learn if you don't read. A lot. For certain personality types reading feels like work, yes, but it's worth the investment. And the more you read the more you learn. Popular culture won't teach you what books can teach you. Sorry.
3) "Just trust"
I've spoken before, about the manner in which Christians conflate the ideas of belief and trust (as if they were precisely the same thing). In fact, I consider it to be one of the most important posts that I've done on this blog to date. So I won't repeat myself. I'll just add that when Christians urge unbelievers to "just trust" they are, in so doing, asking the atheist to dumb things down. It's like saying "those are all really great questions, many of which we can't actually answer, but if you'll 'just trust' it will all be o.k."
And as I've posited previously, on numerous occasions, what sort of God would condemn people to eternal punishment because of honest intellectual doubt?
Only a monster would do such a thing. Please think honestly about that.
2) "I'm offended!"
There has been much talk, in the atheist community, about how to best handle it when believers play the "I am offended!" card; and some of them play it often. My own view is that people should be treated with respect (unless/until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect). Having said that I also agree with the observation, made most notably by Richard Dawkins, that religion has been unfairly accorded a special place in our society. A person's religious beliefs should not be viewed as untouchable, as in free from critique, anymore so than their beliefs on politics or literally any other topic.
I've also noticed that when Christians say "I'm offended!", it's often just their slick way of trying to shut the current conversation down. You can see this, for example, in the q&a section of this debate. Several believers made their way to the microphone, deeply emotional, with the express purpose of registering their offense at Richard Carrier's well thought out ideas. Never mind the evidence he presented. Who cares about that? Doggone it they just wanted him to know how "offended!" they were!
And in so doing it became crystal clear, to the rest of us, that they didn't truly understand the arguments that were being made to begin with. How unfortunate.
1) "We need more humility"
I've also spoken before about how I consider humility to be one of the single greatest virtues. I really do. So why am I throwing an appeal for humility in with a list of things that supposedly promote ignorance? I think it comes down to what is meant by the word humility. What I'm objecting to is the use of the word "humility" as a stand in for "ignorance". For example, I have sometimes heard Christians say things like "well, the truth is none of us know how it all began so I just think we need more humility". What are the implications of this comment? It might as well read, "well, the truth is none of us know how it all began so why bother trying to figure it out." See the problem there? To be perfectly clear I think it's good for us to acknowledge that we haven't figured everything out. Not even close. In fact, there are probably things that we'll never be able to figure out. All scientists realize this. But it shouldn't stop us from pursuing the really tough questions with vigor. What's ironic is that it's Christians themselves who hold the less humble worldview generally (see the Sam Harris quote in the second to last paragraph of this post).
As I said, off the top, my goal in this post is not just to rag on Christians. I'm trying to make a point. And, of course, it goes without saying that there are some believers who are well versed in areas outside of Christian theology. But I believe these Christians are the exception, not the rule, especially in evangelical circles.
By this point I've probably read a few hundred de-conversion stories, and awareness of one's own ignorance is perhaps the single most common theme. I now know how little I know. And I know a whole heck of a lot more than I used to. But I make it a point to learn a little more each day. It's one of the main differences between the man I was, as a Christian, and the person I strive to be today.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
A Bad Weekend For Our Sins
This one woman play tells the story of Julia's own personal quest for truth (she was raised Catholic, but I won't spoil the ending for you). She manages to make numerous piercing insights throughout, all the while maintaining a lighthearted tone. Honestly, I don't know how she does it but, she pulls it off in spades. There is nary so much as a hint of bitterness in Julia's delivery and, for this reason, I would even feel comfortable in recommending the DVD to Christians. In fact my wife was still a strong believer, when we first watched it together, although I was in the early stages of doubt.
Near the beginning, Julia recounts a hilarious "pitch", given by a couple of Mormon boys who came to her home. She follows it up this way...
"I initially felt really superior to these boys...and smug in my more conventional faith...but then the more I thought about it the more I had to be honest with myself...if someone came to my door and I was hearing Catholic theology and dogma for the very first time, and they said, 'we believe that God impregnated a very young girl, without the use of intercourse, and the fact that she was a virgin is maniacally important to us, and she had a baby and that's the son of God', I mean I would think that was equally ridiculous. I'm just so used to to that story."
Even though Julia doesn't buy any of the tales, told by these Mormon boys, she admires their dedication. So, shortly after this visit, she joins a Bible study which ultimately leaves her with more questions than answers. Early on in the play she recalls the experience, describing in remarkable clarity her burgeoning thoughts on everything from the Noah story, to Sodom & Gomorrah, Abraham & Isaac, Jephthah, The Ten Commandments, Jesus' parables, his "family values", the letters of Paul, the book of Revelation, and so on and so on.
Julia recounts her mother's reaction, to all of these nagging questions about the Bible, this way...
"My mother said, 'Julie, I just ignore what I don't like. Why would you do something Honey like go read the Bible cover to cover if you weren't just looking for reasons to get upset. You make your life so much harder than it has to be Honey.'"
This really hit home with me since it was my own attempt to read through the Bible, literally cover to cover, that kickstarted my doubts. Her mother's comments also typify what my wife & I have now termed "the ostrich approach" to faith. Don't bother with the hard questions; just "choose" to believe and then stick your head in the sand when you're presented with information that appears to counter those beliefs.
I won't attempt to provide a full review of Julia's play here. The content is much too varied, and richly presented, so more than anything I really just want you to watch it yourself (you can hear the audio for free, starting right here, or you can purchase it on Amazon).
I find myself reflecting, here at Easter time, on Julia's thoughts surrounding the death of Jesus. By this point in the story she had already begun to have serious doubts about the historicity of some of the Bible's accounts. It is then that she discovers the work of Karen Armstrong, and is introduced to the idea that the Bible may be "psychologically true". Her comments next are excellent...
"So when I went to Mass on Easter Sunday that year, I felt I had this new positive attitude. I knew the correct way to look at the stories. Historical accuracy was not important...what was important was that they triggered us somehow, very deep in our psyche, because they were psychologically true. But as I sat there in Mass I thought...what does that really mean? Psychologically true. I mean, Jesus' death and resurrection; death and re-birth. O.k., I get it, psychologically true enough. But what about other stories on the same theme? I mean, what about Persephone going down into the under world...that's psychologically true too then, I suppose. Or what about stories from the Iliad, or Darth Vader, or the Little Engine That Could...those are 'psychologically true' stories; aren't they??
And what's so psychologically true about atonement? We were taught that Jesus died for our sins, based on this idea of atonement, or that somebody else can pay for the sins of other people. For the first time after going to church, basically my entire life, I considered the idea that God sent his son to earth, to suffer and die for our sins. Why? I mean, first of all, you can say that Jesus suffered but y'know he didn't suffer any more than a lot of people have suffered. I could think of examples in my own family...my brother Mike, who had cancer. He suffered unspeakably for a very long time...eyelids freezing open and his eyes drying up. Canker sores all over his throat and he couldn't swallow. Weeks, and then months, of gut wrenching vomiting and nausea before he finally died."
The first time I heard this presentation I was bowled over by Julia's (very memorable) phrase that Jesus, in effect, had a really "bad weekend" for our sins. That couldn't be true...could it? It had never occurred to me before that perhaps there were people on earth who had actually suffered more than Jesus. Also, if I had been God, and I knew that all of humanity would be condemned to eternal punishment (because their sin had offended my perfection), would I have sent my own son to die for them? YES! I would have; especially if it were "the only way". If any one of us would have done the same, simply as an outgrowth of our compassion, what's the big deal? And why do people need to accept the historicity of this event in order to get to heaven; and on such questionable evidence?!?
These are the sorts of thoughts that were running through my head, at about that time. They only compounded the doubts that I was already having. Of course, later, I would come to believe that Jesus was only a man. He hadn't died for our sins, to begin with, and he wasn't God.
But all of this presents an interesting quandary, for us former Christians, most notably around Easter (and Christmas) time. How can we still feel like participants in the celebration? As Julia points out, the initial temptation is to grab and hold tightly, even as it slips through your very fingers...
"So, I tried to concentrate on what I did like about the church. The stained glass windows are pretty. The light in the church, the religious art. The songs...not the words to the songs exactly...but the melodies are nice..."
Will I be going to church this Easter? No. I suppose I would, if I lived closer to my parents. Or if my wife was still a believer. At the end of the day I think it is that sense of community, even extended church "family", that makes me miss church just a little at times like this. I can no longer bring myself to give intellectual assent, to the creeds that underlie the occasion, but I still understand the appeal on an emotional level. I believe it was Bart Ehrman who pointed out that one of the more uncomfortable aspects, of no longer being a Christian, is having no one to thank.
I can relate to that.
So let's love on those around our own table, this Easter, and remind them how much they mean to us. Soak in those good moments because, unfortunately, they won't last forever. And, to my fellow unbelievers, remember that although there may not be any meaning to life, there is certainly meaning in life." But it's up to us. Let's create some of that meaning, for those and the ones we love this weekend.
Happy Easter everyone.
Friday, 23 March 2012
Agenticity
Let's re-visit the story I told last time about the hominid who hears a rustle in the grass. You'll recall that the pressing question was whether the sound was caused by the wind, or a dangerous predator. This is a crucial distinction, on several levels, but note that there is a key difference present in this scenario that we haven't yet discussed...the wind is inanimate, but a dangerous predator is an intentional agent.
Agenticity="the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency."
"Examples of agenticity abound...Children believe that the sun can think and follows them around, and when asked to draw a picture of the sun they often add a smiley face to give agency to it...A third of transplant patients believe that the donor's personality or essence is transplanted with the organ...most people say they would never wear the sweater of a murderer, showing great disgust at the very thought, as if some of the murderer's evil would rub off in the material of the sweater."
As you can see these two concepts, patternicity and agenticity, are very interesting individually; but together I believe they have huge explanatory power. Coming to understand their prominence, in our thinking, was a major "aha" moment, for me personally, and I have unwittingly witnessed this cognitive combo in action literally hundreds of times (in those around me as well as myself) since then.
"As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a 'theory of mind'--the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others...we often impart the patterns we find with agency and intention, and believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down, instead of bottom-up causal laws and randomness that makes up much of our world. Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspiracists, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Combined with our propensity to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise, patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms and much more...There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them." (bolding mine)
Let me bring this a little closer to home, by using the rest of this post to hone in on a small sampling of ways in which patternicity + agenticity are heavily at work in modern day Christianity. I'll start with a really easy example...let's suppose that there is a terrible hurricane and, in the days that follow, Pat Robertson opines that it is more than likely a sign of God's judgement on the homosexuals, who happen to live in the affected area, and those who so brazenly support them. The logic, in Pat's mind, goes something like this:
Patternicity--There are a lot of homosexuals living in the city where there was just a hurricane; this can't be a coincidence!
Agenticity--The God that I believe in strongly opposes homosexuality; he may have sent this hurricane to warn us to repent and turn from our wicked ways!
In a weird sort of way, this actually makes sense. It's not a non sequitir, if you grant that Robertson's God exists. It is however totally unfalsifiable. There will never come a point where Christians can say, with 100% certainty, that Pat Robertson's hypothesis on hurricanes is incorrect. Most Christians will reject his assertion out of hand however, simply because they don't like the sort of God it implies. But there is a much better reason to reject it, and therein lies the rub. More on that in a minute.
Let's move on to a much more controversial example; answers to prayer. Are they real? Let's break down the logic again:
Patternicity--I prayed about something that was worrying me last night and my situation improved today (this can't be a coincidence)!
Agenticity--My God answers prayers, because he loves me! Prayer works!
First off recall that, as discussed last time, the propensity to find patterns goes up when people feel a lack of control. Christians tend to pray most fervently when they are feeling precisely this way (ie. stressed about something). This means they're perfectly primed, ahead of time, to find what they're already looking for and expecting in faith (plus they count only the hits; ignoring the misses). And here again there is no way to prove, in any sort of absolute sense, that these two items are not indeed connected (the prayer and the improvement in the situation at hand). So why do I think the connection should be rejected? Let's move on to a third example, and then I'll answer the question more directly.
Here are some song lyrics, from popular Christian singer (and former American Idol contestant) Mandisa:
Have you ever heard a love song, that set your spirit free?
Have you ever watched a sunrise and felt you could not breathe?
What if it's Him.
What if it's God speaking.
Have you ever cried a tear that you could not explain?
Have you ever met a stranger who already knew your name?
What if its Him.
What if it's God speaking.
Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?
Get our attention to prove He is enough.
He'll do, and He'll use whatever He wants to.
To tell us, I love You.
Have you ever lost a loved one
Who you thought should still be here?
Do you know what it feels like
to be tangled up in fear?
What if He's somehow involved?
What if He's speaking through it all?
Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?
Get our attention to prove He is enough.
He'll do and He'll use whatever he wants to
To tell us, I love you.
His ways are higher.
His ways are better.
Though sometimes strange.
What could be stranger than God in a manger?
Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?
Get our attention to prove He is enough.
Who knows how He'll get ahold of you?
Get your attention to prove He is enough.
He'll do and He'll use whatever He wants to.
To tell us I love you.
God is speaking, I love you.
(If you must hear it click here.)
Notice how this song is absolutely dripping with patternicity + agenticity. The lyrics even attempt to, in effect, build a cumulative case, for the reality of these patterns. She begins by saying things like "what if" He's involved and working through it all. By the end, the lyrics grow more confident; "God IS speaking" (oh, and just in case you weren't sure what He was saying, it's "I love you."). Remember too that God works in strange ways because, after all, "what could be stranger than God in a manger." False/anecdotal patterns + agenticity = a nearly perfect (and highly emotional) ballad for believers. No doubt many of them have been stirred to tears, while listening to this song, imagining all of the (deceptively "normal") situations that God was probably attempting to speak through in their own lives (if only they'd been paying closer attention!).
Let me wrap up by getting to the real point that I am trying to make here. How do we sort out false patterns from real ones? The best method we have is science. The above patterns should all be rejected because they are ad hoc. There is simply no good reason to believe that an "intentional agent" is involved at all. Because of our strong inclination to make Type I errors (false positives), and then to further ascribe agency to them, it stands to reason that we should approach such matters with a high degree of initial skepticism. Prayer, for example, HAS been scientifically tested...numerous times in fact...and it consistently fails such tests. It didn't have to be this way. God could have made the prayers of Christians more demonstrably effective than the prayers of Muslims. Think of what a powerful testimony that would be! So, unless God is deliberately trying to hide from humankind (and, if so, than how could it be in any way "just" for him to punish unbelievers in an eternal hell?), the conclusion is inescapable...prayer doesn't work. Unfortunately, we did not evolve what Shermer calls a "Baloney Detection Network" in the brain, to distinguish between true and false patterns. This is precisely why science, with it's self-correcting mechanisms (ie. peer review), is so incredibly important.
Keep in mind that each of the above are merely examples, of patternity + agenticity in Christianity...there are many, many more areas I could have analyzed (including belief in the existence of a "Holy Spirit", an invisible agent who supposedly talks to Christians inside their heads).
Belief is natural. Skepticism is difficult. It can be uncomfortable to not believe things. I'll close with what is my favorite paragraph in the entire book; the big takeaway, for me, from "The Believing Brain"...
"...research supports what I call Spinoza's conjecture: belief comes quickly and naturally, skepticism is slow and unnatural, and most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The scientific principle that a claim is untrue unless proven otherwise runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true that which we can comprehend quickly. Thus it is that we should reward skepticism and disbelief, and champion those willing to change their mind in the teeth of new evidence. Instead, most social institutions--most notably those in religion, politics, and economics--reward belief in the doctrines of the faith or party or ideology, punish those who challenge the authority of the leaders, and discourage uncertainty and especially skepticism." (bolding mine)
Agenticity="the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency."
"Examples of agenticity abound...Children believe that the sun can think and follows them around, and when asked to draw a picture of the sun they often add a smiley face to give agency to it...A third of transplant patients believe that the donor's personality or essence is transplanted with the organ...most people say they would never wear the sweater of a murderer, showing great disgust at the very thought, as if some of the murderer's evil would rub off in the material of the sweater."
As you can see these two concepts, patternicity and agenticity, are very interesting individually; but together I believe they have huge explanatory power. Coming to understand their prominence, in our thinking, was a major "aha" moment, for me personally, and I have unwittingly witnessed this cognitive combo in action literally hundreds of times (in those around me as well as myself) since then.
"As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a 'theory of mind'--the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others...we often impart the patterns we find with agency and intention, and believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down, instead of bottom-up causal laws and randomness that makes up much of our world. Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspiracists, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Combined with our propensity to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise, patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms and much more...There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them." (bolding mine)
Let me bring this a little closer to home, by using the rest of this post to hone in on a small sampling of ways in which patternicity + agenticity are heavily at work in modern day Christianity. I'll start with a really easy example...let's suppose that there is a terrible hurricane and, in the days that follow, Pat Robertson opines that it is more than likely a sign of God's judgement on the homosexuals, who happen to live in the affected area, and those who so brazenly support them. The logic, in Pat's mind, goes something like this:
Patternicity--There are a lot of homosexuals living in the city where there was just a hurricane; this can't be a coincidence!
Agenticity--The God that I believe in strongly opposes homosexuality; he may have sent this hurricane to warn us to repent and turn from our wicked ways!
In a weird sort of way, this actually makes sense. It's not a non sequitir, if you grant that Robertson's God exists. It is however totally unfalsifiable. There will never come a point where Christians can say, with 100% certainty, that Pat Robertson's hypothesis on hurricanes is incorrect. Most Christians will reject his assertion out of hand however, simply because they don't like the sort of God it implies. But there is a much better reason to reject it, and therein lies the rub. More on that in a minute.
Let's move on to a much more controversial example; answers to prayer. Are they real? Let's break down the logic again:
Patternicity--I prayed about something that was worrying me last night and my situation improved today (this can't be a coincidence)!
Agenticity--My God answers prayers, because he loves me! Prayer works!
First off recall that, as discussed last time, the propensity to find patterns goes up when people feel a lack of control. Christians tend to pray most fervently when they are feeling precisely this way (ie. stressed about something). This means they're perfectly primed, ahead of time, to find what they're already looking for and expecting in faith (plus they count only the hits; ignoring the misses). And here again there is no way to prove, in any sort of absolute sense, that these two items are not indeed connected (the prayer and the improvement in the situation at hand). So why do I think the connection should be rejected? Let's move on to a third example, and then I'll answer the question more directly.
Here are some song lyrics, from popular Christian singer (and former American Idol contestant) Mandisa:
Have you ever heard a love song, that set your spirit free?
Have you ever watched a sunrise and felt you could not breathe?
What if it's Him.
What if it's God speaking.
Have you ever cried a tear that you could not explain?
Have you ever met a stranger who already knew your name?
What if its Him.
What if it's God speaking.
Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?
Get our attention to prove He is enough.
He'll do, and He'll use whatever He wants to.
To tell us, I love You.
Have you ever lost a loved one
Who you thought should still be here?
Do you know what it feels like
to be tangled up in fear?
What if He's somehow involved?
What if He's speaking through it all?
Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?
Get our attention to prove He is enough.
He'll do and He'll use whatever he wants to
To tell us, I love you.
His ways are higher.
His ways are better.
Though sometimes strange.
What could be stranger than God in a manger?
Who knows how He'll get ahold of us?
Get our attention to prove He is enough.
Who knows how He'll get ahold of you?
Get your attention to prove He is enough.
He'll do and He'll use whatever He wants to.
To tell us I love you.
God is speaking, I love you.
(If you must hear it click here.)
Notice how this song is absolutely dripping with patternicity + agenticity. The lyrics even attempt to, in effect, build a cumulative case, for the reality of these patterns. She begins by saying things like "what if" He's involved and working through it all. By the end, the lyrics grow more confident; "God IS speaking" (oh, and just in case you weren't sure what He was saying, it's "I love you."). Remember too that God works in strange ways because, after all, "what could be stranger than God in a manger." False/anecdotal patterns + agenticity = a nearly perfect (and highly emotional) ballad for believers. No doubt many of them have been stirred to tears, while listening to this song, imagining all of the (deceptively "normal") situations that God was probably attempting to speak through in their own lives (if only they'd been paying closer attention!).
Let me wrap up by getting to the real point that I am trying to make here. How do we sort out false patterns from real ones? The best method we have is science. The above patterns should all be rejected because they are ad hoc. There is simply no good reason to believe that an "intentional agent" is involved at all. Because of our strong inclination to make Type I errors (false positives), and then to further ascribe agency to them, it stands to reason that we should approach such matters with a high degree of initial skepticism. Prayer, for example, HAS been scientifically tested...numerous times in fact...and it consistently fails such tests. It didn't have to be this way. God could have made the prayers of Christians more demonstrably effective than the prayers of Muslims. Think of what a powerful testimony that would be! So, unless God is deliberately trying to hide from humankind (and, if so, than how could it be in any way "just" for him to punish unbelievers in an eternal hell?), the conclusion is inescapable...prayer doesn't work. Unfortunately, we did not evolve what Shermer calls a "Baloney Detection Network" in the brain, to distinguish between true and false patterns. This is precisely why science, with it's self-correcting mechanisms (ie. peer review), is so incredibly important.
Keep in mind that each of the above are merely examples, of patternity + agenticity in Christianity...there are many, many more areas I could have analyzed (including belief in the existence of a "Holy Spirit", an invisible agent who supposedly talks to Christians inside their heads).
Belief is natural. Skepticism is difficult. It can be uncomfortable to not believe things. I'll close with what is my favorite paragraph in the entire book; the big takeaway, for me, from "The Believing Brain"...
"...research supports what I call Spinoza's conjecture: belief comes quickly and naturally, skepticism is slow and unnatural, and most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The scientific principle that a claim is untrue unless proven otherwise runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true that which we can comprehend quickly. Thus it is that we should reward skepticism and disbelief, and champion those willing to change their mind in the teeth of new evidence. Instead, most social institutions--most notably those in religion, politics, and economics--reward belief in the doctrines of the faith or party or ideology, punish those who challenge the authority of the leaders, and discourage uncertainty and especially skepticism." (bolding mine)
Monday, 19 March 2012
Patternicity
Anyway, it's neither here nor there. I will seek to remedy the situation, over these next few posts, by discussing an admittedly tiny fragment of Shermer's work. More specifically, I would like to examine the concepts of "patternicity" & "agenticity". When I am done I will do my best to tie it all together, in terms of how these two ideas have influenced my own thinking on spiritual matters. For simplicities sake, all of my quotes will come from Shermer's excellent book "The Believing Brain" (where he covers patternicity and agenticity in back to back chapters).
Let's begin with a definition: patternicity="the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise".
We are pattern seeking primates; descendants of those who who were most successful at what's sometimes called "association learning". In other words, we see patterns. Lots and lots and lots of patterns. And we see them everywhere. It's just part of how we learn. As Shermer says, "we can no more eliminate superstitious learning than we can eliminate all learning". Not all of these perceived patterns are real, however, and there are two types of related errors:
Type II Error (false negative)--not believing a pattern is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern)
We tend to make a large number of type I errors. Why? The answer lies in evolution. Let's suppose that you are a hominid, taking a walk, a few million years ago. You hear a rustle in the grass. Is it a dangerous predator? It could be. Then again, maybe it's just the wind. If you determine it's a dangerous predator, but it's not, no real harm is done (a type I error). However, if you assume it to be the wind, and it turns out to be a dangerous predator, you're lunch (a type II error). Natural selection has favored strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction. To put it a different way, people believe weird things because of our evolved need to believe non-weird things.
With a sufficient amount of information (or time) we could surely determine more accurately the true cause of that rustle in the grass. Right? True enough. "The problem is that assessing the difference between a Type I and Type II error is highly problematic--especially in the split second timing that often determined the difference between life and death in our ancestral environments--so the default position is to assume that all patterns are real; that is, assume that all rustles in the grass are dangerous predators and not the wind." (bolding mine)
Have you ever noticed that your first gut reaction, to an unexpected sound in the middle of the night, is to think that an intruder has entered your home? It is usually only after you take a moment, to allow your rational brain to kick in, that you realize the chances of it being something else (probably much less scary) are significantly higher. How many people hear weird sounds in the middle of the night, at least from time to time? (Millions.) And how many of those weird sounds actually turn out to be dangerous intruders? (By comparison, only a tiny fragment.) Because of evolution our default setting is to make a type I error (false positive). This is the same reason that children so often see "faces" in their closet (when it's really just the clothes or a shadow). We have evolved to see patterns, many of which are not actually there.
This tendency, in the direction of assuming initially that all perceived patterns are real, has been scientifically demonstrated many times over (in both human and non human subjects). For example, in one experiment, pigeons were taught to peck at two keys to receive grain through a food hopper. The researchers discovered that if they randomly delivered the food reinforcement, whatever the pigeon happened to be doing, just before the delivery of the food, would be repeated the next time. The results, as you can imagine, were rather humorous. Before pecking the key some pigeons would spin around once to the left, others would turn counter-clockwise, or hop side to side, whatever they thought would bring the food. None of this had the slightest impact on the food delivery schedule of course; which was entirely random. These odd behaviors were almost always repeated in the same part of the cage, and they were generally oriented toward some feature of the cage. The birds in this experiment were developing a superstition; or, as Shermer calls it, pigeon patternicity.
Or how about (human) babies? "When an infant observes the cooing happy face of its mother or father, the face acts as a sign stimulus that initiates the innate releasing mechanism in its brain to trigger the fixed action pattern of smiling back, thereby setting up a symphony of parent-child staring and cooing and smiling--and bonding attachment. It need not even be a real face. Two black dots on a cardboard cutout elicit a smile in infants, although one dot does not, indicating that the newborn brain is preconditioned by evolution to look for and find the simplest pattern of a face by two to four data points: two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, which may even be represented as two dots, a vertical line, and a horizontal line. Facial-recognition software was built into our brains by evolution because of the importance of the face in establishing and maintaining relationships, reading emotions, and determining trust in social interactions." (bolding mine)
There are dozens of other examples, such as "...the human enjoyment of artificial sweeteners as well as with our modern problem of obesity. In the natural environment, (A) sweet and rich foods are strongly associated with (B) nutritious and rare. Therefore, we gravitate to any and all foods that are sweet and rich, and because they were once rare we have no satiation network in the brain that tells us to shut off the hunger mechanism, so we eat as much as we can of them. On the other end of the taste spectrum, there is the well-known taste aversion effect--one-trial learning--where the pairing of a food or drink with severe nausea and vomiting often results in a long-term aversion for that food or drink."
I think you get the idea.
It's also worth noting that research demonstrates the propensity to find patterns goes up when people feel a lack of control. Shermer uses a sports analogy to illustrate the point. Why is it that, in baseball, superstitious behaviors & beliefs always seem to exhibit themselves in batters, but never (or rarely) in fielders? Perhaps it is because fielders are successful 90% to 95% of the time, but even the best batters fail 7 out of 10 times. The patternicity (if I wear the same pair of socks every time I go up to bat I will be more successful) is the batter's way of trying to regain control over the situation. "Lacking control is highly aversive, and one fundamental way we can bolster our sense of control is to understand what's going on. So we instinctively seek out patterns to regain control--even if those patterns are illusory."
At this point you might be asking yourself, "what's the point?". "Where is this Respectful Atheist guy going with all of this?" Somewhere, I promise. For now though, I simply want to establish the point that patternicity is real. And it ties in directly with what I will cover next time, "agenticity". As promised, when I am done outlining both concepts, I will connect all of the dots and offer some additional personal reflections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)