Boobquake!

April 26th, 2010

Oh Em Gee, where have I been? Just busy with other things.

I just wanted to mention that today is Boobquake. What started as a joke has turned into a national phenomenon, which is great when it’s funny. Basically, an imam somewhere says that immodest dress causes earthquakes, so a young woman has proposed this be tested by a day of immodest dress. It is a great idea.

The psychology of belief is pretty astounding, and the depths to which a believer will go to connect their personal wishes to their metaphysical beliefs always surprises me. But I have lived a life of scientific thinking, so I have a lot of problems relating to magical thinking (outside of sports superstitions).

My big question is… if Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden, and that was the way God made them… why is he pro-modesty these days? I am pretty familiar with the Bible, but I’m way too lazy to go look up where the worm turned on the fashion issue.

Demystifying and Remystifying

March 22nd, 2010

Recently I realized, as I get older and older, I spend more and more time demystifying things. When someone says they don’t understand how something works or how amazing something is, I jump in to explain it to them – how physics works, how the universe works, how the human body works. I have a personal project, and it is to demystify the world as much as possible.

Mystery is a property of the human experience. “Mystery” isn’t just something that is unknown. Mystery extends into the unknowable, the unbelievable and the incomprehensible. It is the feeling in our guts that something lies beyond us. It’s the feeling that our ancestors used to create all manners of tales about how the world around them worked.

But mystery is worse than that. It is an acceptance of ignorance. It is the label of our reluctance to comprehend.

I spent years studying psychology, for better or worse. I certainly am not a psychologist in the sense that it is not my career. I am certainly a psychologist in how I think and what I know. The same can be said of philosophy – I spent years studying it, but professionally, I am not a philosopher. But conceptually, I don’t think anyone who knows me could describe me for long before “philosophy” became one of the words they used.

Psychology taught me that the human brain is nothing if not lazy. Prejudice is a useful tool, but it causes a lot of error. Mystery is a similar tool. It’s very good that we have a filter which stops us from exploring every single unknown. But much like prejudice and experience lends itself to racism, mystery lends itself to willful ignorance.

I enjoy demystifying things quite a bit. But I have another hobby – remystifying things.

I am taken with how the world is simultaneously starkly credulous and strikingly incredible at the same time. I think everyone lives a bit of this, but they rarely put it together on the same object. A chef might make a delicious steak, but experience complete confusion when they consider for a moment how an mp3 player works. Meanwhile, the computer engineer who made the mp3 player has no clue why the steak he’s eating tastes so good.

But for me, I can speak in boring terms about how life has developed and progressed on Earth as if it doesn’t impress me. In the next breath, however, I can talk poetically about the overwhelming diversity of life, about the arms race of evolution, and about the amazing functionalities of various adaptations of species.

And both of these ideas represent my true feelings. The distinction is not a line of difference, but just a statement of a rotating perspective. If you see one side of a cube, you can’t actually be certain it’s a cube. Rotating it reveals a lot more information, and might confirm some of your suspicions about its shape.

Mystery can be a stance of ignorance. But once we remove that ignorance – once we have some knowledge and understanding of something, and dismiss our fear that it might be unknowable – we can reintroduce the feelings of awe. We can understand how something works but also recognize the sublime brilliance of it.

The real problem is when we see the mysterious as unknowable… and at the same time we see the known as unremarkable.

The God You’d Expect

March 8th, 2010

As I said last time, it’s hard to post, but not because I feel like there’s a lack of things to post about. Part of the problem is that sometimes I feel like I’m just making point most readers will agree with.  Sometimes, I end two sentences in a row with prepositions.

This is a simple point, but an important one in understanding the psychology of a supernatural believer. This is also a point I made in I’m Trying to Think (Episode 29), and I know you all listen to my podcast, so you might find it re-hashed.

Most theists believe in the God they’d expect. God is omnipotent, sure. If you believe that Revelations is divinely-inspired and not just the crazy rantings of John of Patmos, then God is pretty weird sometimes. Despite that strange history, he’s come to be a very modern, sensible guy.

Let’s compare two statements made by a generic Christian person:

Statement A: “I’ve been spending a lot of time alone, and praying for answers. Finally, this week, God spoke to me and told me that it’s time I finally became a writer.”

Statement B: “I’ve been spending a lot of time alone, and praying for answers. Finally, this week, God spoke to me through my toaster oven and told me that it’s time I finally became a writer.”

You, the astute reader, immediately noticed that the statements are the same except for one niggling detail – the bit about the toaster oven. Now, we can all agree that the supposed God could talk through a toaster oven. What would stop him? The question is, what about the phrase makes the second statement sound less credible?

Well, it’s a fairly simple answer. That sounds crazy! Who hears voices from the toaster? We all know that God very quietly and subtly talks to us in our brain. Very, very quietly. God doesn’t need to speak through a toaster, after all! Why would he do that? It’d damage the credibility of your claim. God’s not going to subject you to that.

Except, of course, offering a two-thousand year old text which lacks original source as the supposed proof of his existence. He would do that, but that’s just how he rolls.

It’s this kind of simple conundrum that reinforces my belief that mostly, Christians and other theists don’t really think too hard about what they believe. They believe in religion or God because it is a meme, and a very comforting meme. It is the kind of meme that makes you feel special, that ameliorates the fear of death and that otherwise explains things you don’t want to take the time to wonder about.

In the end, God is the God you’d expect him to be. He’s gone silent for two thousand years. If you expect he’d condemn homosexuality, then he does. If you expect he loves everyone and doesn’t care who they have sex with, then that’s what he does. He fits whatever mold you expect, and has whatever opinion (qua judgment) you think he has.

I have yet to hear anyone say, “I believe in God. He condemns homosexuality, but I disagree with him.” No. People adjust God to meet their expectations and their own personal beliefs.

The more distant you get from any belief in God, the more strange and illusive these kinds of ideas become. For me, at this moment, I can’t even force myself to think this way. I’ve never really believed in God, not as far back as I can remember, but there were points when I could put myself into the right brainspace to make this sort of idea make sense. Not anymore. And that’s what makes this post so weird – why am I bothering to say something so obvious?

Blogs need posts. I’m just feeding this one.

The Word “Spiritual”

March 2nd, 2010

This blog is hard to update, and not because I don’t have things to write about. There are a pile of things for me to write about, but it’s hard to think about where to start and where to go next. Up to this point, I’ve mostly laid my idea out there, but I guess I can always go back and forth between explaining my ideas and discussing other people’s ideas. That will generate more content more quickly!

So, let’s go back to my last post and specifically Donald’s comments about my choice of using the word “spiritual” to describe what he might call “philosophical.” As Donald points out, the word “spiritual” might have a lot of strange connotations that relate to pseudoscience, generic theism, deism, pantheism, panentheism, psychic phenomena, ghosts or any other topic covered in the Time-Life Mysteries of the Unknown series.

But that’s not right. I’m actually not sure why the word “spiritual” has spilled over into those things. Certainly, there is another meaning of the word spirit, such as “evil spirits” or “the holy spirit” or Norman Greenbaum’s “Spirit in the Sky.” There is another meaning of “spirit” which is “alcohol,” but we don’t assume spiritual people are drunks.

Okay, But Why Do You Use “Spiritual”?

I’ve been thinking about this for a week now.

In the first place, I’ve generally used the word “spiritual” because I felt it described me. But does it? That’s a complicated question. I suppose I feel very comfortable being an iconoclast, so let me explain how I feel.

Firstly, “spiritual” by the textbook definition means “of or relating to the spirit, not tangible or material.” I’m intensely interested in the intangible and the immaterial. I’m spiritual.

Further, “spiritual” can mean “relating to the soul.” Now, I want to address this in its own post, but I believe in a “soul.” Again, I love being an iconoclast – my idea of the “soul” is not eternal, nor does it exist in duo with our physical forms. I believe in the soul as a non-existent (in the sense that it exists only as a concept) concept of personhood which is an undeniable and nearly non-nullifiable psychological construct of the human mind. To me, the soul is a transcendental thing not unlike courage or knowledge. It is easy to laugh at dualists and the concept of an eternal soul, but I think it’s a very important concept when we examine modern dilemmas surrounding identity.

So maybe I am using “spiritual” to reclaim it. Or maybe I just think the word is relevant even if the thinking of spirituality is changing or must change to match what we know.

In the end, I really like preserving what “spirituality” is supposed to be doing for us all while ripping out all the nonsensical and unbelievable parts and injecting good old-fashioned reason and rational thinking.

Together, We Can Bring “Spiritual” into the 21st Century

Personally, I don’t think there are a lot of words which describe my thinking on the immaterial and the intangible. Donald suggests that he might use the word “philosophical,” but that is a similarly loaded and difficult word. Philosophy is often called the pursuit of wisdom, or the pursuit of knowledge, or the pursuit of truth, but the very study of that stuff becomes meta when we ask, “What is wisdom, knowledge or truth?”

Really, I don’t mind Donald describing me as philosophical for the same reasons I describe myself as spiritual. I would call myself philosophical and spiritual. The former refers to my examination of questions about the abstract universe, and the latter refers specifically to my feelings about the human experience regarding identity, existential crises and the like. So, I suppose spirituality thereby becomes a subset of philosophy. I don’t mind that.

Many philosophers have talked extensively about the spirit and spirituality – Hegel wrote The Phenomenology of Spirit, which can also be called The Phenomenology of Mind because the German word “Geist” carries both meanings. Am I just talking about the mind when I say spirituality? Possibly. I think the word “mind” carries as many strange intangible connotations as the word “spirit,” but I prefer “spirit” because of the enormous connotation of “identity” that it often carries.

But that’s about it. I’m not overly attached to the word, but it is a good word for me, in my opinion. As is usually the case, I am perfectly happy to change my mind if someone can show me a better word or a clearer term, and a good reason to ditch the word “spiritual.”

I’m a Spiritual Person, and That Means This…

February 23rd, 2010

“So… you’re an atheist and a naturalist… but you call yourself spiritual?”

The short answer is yes. That might seem very odd, and by the end of this you might think I’m not making sense or that I’m abusing vocabulary. I think that’s okay with me.

First, let’s separate this from “Spiritualism,” the religious movement popular around the dawn of the 20th century that purported that the spirits of the dead were all around us. This is what gave rise to the seance, and that’s a whole different thing from what I’m talking about.

So What Are You Talking About?

What I’m talking about when I say “spirituality” will take me a pretty big post to describe… so prepare for a pretty big post.

Spirituality, in general, is probably best defined as the search for meaning or purpose or definition in life, and I consider it a direct response to existential angst. So, uh… what’s existential angst?

Kierkegaard (philosopher, dead Danish dude, you can read about him on the internets) used the word “angst” to describe the fear a human being had because of their responsibility to God. Of course, I don’t believe in God (see second post), but Kierkegaard is one of the first people to realize that the more freedom man gets, the more fear is generated. (This is important,  but I’ll have to talk about it another time.)

Heidegger says… well, it would take me three books to explain what Heidegger says. But he defines Angst as apprehension about (for lack of a better term) the immaterial. “Fear” to Heidegger is the apprehension or stress in response to a real, existent thing whereas Angst is the response to a concept or perhaps a situation.

Hooray, Angst…

I could go on at length about the nature of angst, but I won’t… in this post.

The reason to talk about angst and “existential angst” is that it grips everyone at some point in their life. In fact, if you can imagine intelligent alien life forms that are self-aware, they’re likely to experience existential angst as well, as far as I’m concerned.

If you have ever asked, “Why am I here?” or “What does it all mean?” or “Who am I?” you’ve experienced existential angst. As opposed to Kierkegaard, I don’t think it has to do with your responsibility to God. I think existential angst is the natural response of a being that is self-aware to a world that is not. It is the response of a being which strives for structure and purpose to a universe with no structure nor purpose.

It’s Us Against the World

Quite literally, we are in constant conflict with the world. We have evolved in a specific way to solve puzzles and find patterns. You’d think that would help us deal with the world. Well, it does. This evolutionary advantage is significant and it’s how we have developed science and created technology. It turns out that nature is full of discernible patterns!

But there are two problems. First, our pattern-seeking brain is essentially flawed. It has a really big problem with statistics, so we tend to favor personal experience over general evidence. Let me emphasize this – we are really, really bad at statistics.

The second problem is that we expect everything to think like we do. We treat cats, dogs, cars, toasters and video game characters like they were fellow thinking beings. We plead with our car to start in the morning. We ask the dog why it chewed on the furniture. And finally, we ask the universe why it had to be this day that the dog chewed the furniture and the car won’t start.

Very simply, the universe has never provided us with an answer to “Why?”, and it likely never will.

But This One Time, I Yelled at My Car and It Just Started!

We’re really bad at statistics. And we’re really good at picking out the patterns that match what we expect while dismissing those that don’t confirm our suspicions. It takes a very disciplined mind to pick out the truth, but it’s a talent anyone can learn.

But even if an individual person isn’t good at critical analysis, everyone I have ever met has had those moments where they realize the world around them just doesn’t give two shits about them. And that’s existential angst.

To extend a metaphor from Intelligent Design advocates, once upon a time, we were wandering on a beach and we saw a watch. And we decided that there must be a watchmaker because watches don’t just magically appear on beaches.

But eventually, we approached the watch and realized it was just a shiny clamshell in the sand. Our minds had invented the watch because we preferred a valuable watch to a dull clamshell.

Of course, there are all sorts of problems with that metaphor, but setting that aside, I think we’ve all realized that there is a conflict between what we expect the world should be like and how it is. There is a conflict between our obligations and our desires. There is a conflict between fairness and self-interest. And each of these generate their own variety of existential angst.

Why can’t life just be simple? Why can’t it just be the way I want it to be?

The Spiritual Response

Spirituality is an attempt to discover the answer to those strange questions.

How does spirituality shape my own life? Well, that’s a long answer I’ll probably talk about in future posts. To answer briefly, I believe we must find meaning and answers not only individually, but together as a group. We must not only learn lessons from “teachable moments” in our lives, but more importantly, we must learn when to throw our hands up into a shrug and simply smile.

Our minds work on abstraction. Applying what we want to see or what we would create in human society to the universe as a whole is an abstraction. Religion is often an attempt to assign human values to a nature that clearly rejects them, and (much like I would expect) it’s the equivalent of putting a dress on a cat.

Perhaps spirituality, then, should be an attempt to understand what we are, what our expectations are, and how to adjust our minds to deal with an unforgiving, uncaring world.

I know it sounds really depressing when someone talks about the “uncaring world,” but ask yourself – why are you expecting the world to care? Ask a person to care! That’s practically all they do!

We didn’t ask for this life. We certainly weren’t given any instruction books. But only a human being, with its pattern-obsessed mind, would think that you only get what you ask for.

The instruction book – like every instruction book in your house – has to be written by human beings. And it’ll be a much better instruction book if we write it with some semblance of teamwork.