Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[Dunstan]

What i am talking about is a uniting vision, a purpose that can rally people to a goal. A vision like the one that allowed Ghandi to effectively use peaceful non-cooperation as political means and to inspire generations ( i doubt a scientific exploration of social and psychological factors would have been equally effective ). A vision that is a crucial element of most revolutions in human history.

It is admittedly too the kind of vision that enabled various ideologists to drive their adherents to commit atrocities, so there are a few rather large downsides to it. Nevertheless it seems to be a major force not in the evolutionary development of humanity in a strictly biological sense, but in the social development.

The scientific method hardly can provide this. Working on observations, building hypotheses and collecting evidence supportive or contrary to them, is likely the most effective strategy so far to find out about the actual state of affairs, but with the current degree of specialisation it can only provide exaltation for the dedicated researchers in their field.

What you seem to be saying here is that people are generally motivated by ideas and rhetoric and broad sweeping visions, not by dry, boring technical facts uncovered by folks in white coats in laboratories. To which I say: ok, so what?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone, skeptic or otherwise, who doesn't think that ideas and imagination and soaring speeches and brilliant art don't have their place, that we should throw them all out and just sit around reading scientific journals in our free time.

You're confusing skepticism with some kind of nihilistic cynicism.

Do you as a skeptic or as an observer of skeptics consider this to be a completely separate realm that is outside the scope of science, as well as skepticism?

Can you find a vision, a driving force, a source of exaltation in the skeptic attitude or the scientific approach, that can appeal to not so sophisticated minds like mine, and would therefore offer a replacement?

Others have pointed out the many ways that science and skepticism and rational inquiry can lead to all sorts of exciting and inspiring things. I agree with all of that, but I'd add this: "skeptic" is not a complete description of a person.

I don't claim the title of "skeptic" myself, but even for those who do, skepticism doesn't need to be -- and probably isn't -- the sole source of inspiration, vision, and "exhaltation" as you put it. Skeptics are allowed to appreciate a brilliant speech, a fine glass of wine, and a beautiful sculpture. They're allowed to believe in and fight for causes, not related to skepticism, that they think will make the world a better place to live. They're allowed to love their children and laugh with their friends.

In a sense, asking whether skepticism will provide you with "exhaltation" is like asking whether it will provide you with oxygen. The exhaltation, like the oxygen, is available to skeptics and non-skeptics alike.

If you think that the only possible sources of exhaltation are irrational beliefs on the one hand, and skepticism on the other hand, then I really feel sorry for you.

 

[shadron]

It is all very well to be exalted by a mystery, but when the moment passes, what do you have? Curiosity is about the best I can think of, and if the mystery is embedded in the supernatural your curiosity is going to be frustrated. What's the great thing about that?

To be exalted by science - to see a relationship that has been hidden to your understanding before (whether it is hidden to others is not relevant) is exalting. I often find that when I finally find the bug in my software that has been bugging (pardon the pun) me and my customers for days, and all the reasons and symptoms suddenly fall into place, that is an exaltation as well, and after the exalted feelings pass, I have left - control over the future, to a greater or lesser extent. I can apply what I've learned in other places and leverage the beauty into futher richness. If you do not have that kind of exaltation, then I pity you.

Many here mentioned Carl Sagan, a great example of a person who can expand upon that feeling of wonder, and control that knowedge of truth in the universe provides. I'd encourage you to listen to this talk by a person who seems to be fit to carry on Sagan's vision in his own way: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Listen to what he has to say and see the wonder in it.

 

[articulett]

The link isn't available, shadron... link again...

I think Tyson and Sagan are both more eloquent and inspiring than any preacher in capturing that which exalts me... and it's real... not some magic divine "special truth" that you can only get if you are "chosen" or "faithful" enough or whatever.

How can you listen to these people and doubt that they aren't every bit as inspired and moved as any guru? And their teachings are based on facts and evidence-- stuff that is available to anyone who desires to partake.

 

[badnewsBH]

I think the line should read, "Better the illusions that exalt us, than the illusions that we exalt".

To me, that's what literature can be: the Lord of the Rings style tales of adventure (or at least, the storytelling) that show how great people can become. They demonstrate traits we can all aspire to have in ourselves, like compassion, sacrifice and loyalty to our friends. We understand that the mythical characters are just that; it's the human aspect of the story that can inspire us.

No religious trappings or dogma are required. We realize that the fantastic parts of the tale are meant to be fantastic; the lessons we take away from the story are about us, and what we can accomplish.

 

[Kopji]

Embracing illusions instead of truth has implications that I have difficulty with.

What sacrifices does the illusion require of me? Must some people kill or be killed for it?
Be outcast as heretics? Do I need to put a few people to use as my angels or ostracize them as condemned demons or cursed? Who must suffer so that my belief will flourish? Which few people deserve to be sacrificed so that my illusions can take the place of truth?

And if I am of the few to be so discarded or sacrificed, don't I have a moral obligation to take up my stones of reason and reality, and strike against the Goliath of illusion and irrationality? Why should even one single person die or suffer for your or my illusions?

 

[articulett]

Why should one person be annoyed or put out by someone else's delusion even...

People are free to believe what they want... I think they need to keep it as private as they want me to keep my opinions of their beliefs.

 

[rocketdodger]

I find it absurdly hypocritical that these woo types argue, using telecommunications devices, about the lack of merit in science.

Are they really that stupid? Seriously, are they?

 

[articulett]

Yes. They are blinded to how everything in their lives including their lives itself are better because of science... and yet they pray to and worship gurus and lies and delusions. Shame on them and those who made them trust liars over those who would tell them the truth.

 

[blauregen]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone, skeptic or otherwise, who doesn't think that ideas and imagination and soaring speeches and brilliant art don't have their place, that we should throw them all out and just sit around reading scientific journals in our free time.

You're confusing skepticism with some kind of nihilistic cynicism.

And here I thought I was asking a question. But yes, from the portrayal of atheists in this article,
from the steadfast refusal to acknowledge value in anything but observable facts,rational deduction and the scientific method, from the predominantly deconstructivist attitude, and from the generous use of 'delusion' for any kind of belief not based on the above, i was wondering whether the people on this forum would allow themselves to have a vision and dreams for the future that don't cling to the above and that is beyond the usual elitism and defensiveness for group cohesion.

The answer is apparently yes. I got a few wonderful examples and a few inspired speeches that proved my suspiscion wrong. Thank you all.

Why a vision and not simply a goal? I don't know whether a rational, detached belief that a goal is desirable is enough for you. I think for most people it isn't. They need exaltation and excitement for the idea they need an emotional content, a vision of what ought to be. And this can be conveyed better by dreams and imagination than by collecting evidence and deducing from it.

Martin Luther KIng jr. could have held a dry speech about social benefits of equality or a completely coherent philosophical treatise about the rights of man. He might have convinced his audience rationally. But it was the vision, the appeal to emotions,the images evoked in passages like

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

and

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

that made his dream understandable and subjectively and personally true to his audience. It was a sermon, something most religions use quite often.

If you think that the only possible sources of exhaltation are irrational beliefs on the one hand, and skepticism on the other hand, then I really feel sorry for you.

Your compassion is appreciated. No, I don't think so. I neither generally hold contempt for irrational beliefs. Martin Luther KIng's dream certainly wasn't true when he held his speech, social acceptance of gays wasn't as true as it is today. They were based on dreams, illusions, unfounded beliefs that were made social reality. I don't want to dismiss them. You are of course free to do so.

 

[Lonewulf]

Mainstream religion based on the Abrahamic God-- notably Catholicism, Christianity, and Islam -- do not, in any way, exalt the common man. In all of these forms of belief, they make man lesser. They give something that we should bend knee to, they attempt to convince us that we are pathetic and innately evil from birth, they convince us that we need to beg forgiveness to the Great Entity that so overshadows mankind.

Exaltation? Far from it. To be able to rise above, we need to admit that we are the ones that must rise above, and that we have the capability to. I do not see that option within the religions I am told I should respect and, by some, to follow. Instead, I am told that I am a sinner, that I must pray every day for forgiveness, and that I must accept the word of some book as my truths. I am told to think everyday of heaven, and I would be made to accept that the rewards of paradise are far more important than the ordeals of this life.

Exaltation? Laughable.

Yes, at one point of time a man had a dream. That dream was equality. No, this is not something that can be "deduced" through science. However, I do not think you will find a single atheist that would denigrate the power of the beauty of the written word, that would refuse to understand metaphors without making them literal, or that cannot be moved by the impassioned speech. One man had a dream, and he made a speech; he contested what many others contested for. But tell me: Where in this is the illusion? Where in this is the false idea that is given power because it makes people feel "better", even though it is at it's heart false?

There is no illusion. There is no false belief. Dreams and imagination have their place, and need not be illusions to exist. How many atheists do you think refuses to read or watch fictional material? I don't know of a single one. However, the question is, when truth and imagination compete, which should be declared the victor?

To which I answer, in plain simplicity, truth. That is why science does not work to the fantasy of the dreamer, but instead works to fulfill the criteria of the observable, the independently verifiable.

 

[Dunstan]

And here I thought I was asking a question.

But in asking it, you stated a premise that isn't (in my opinion) true.

Martin Luther KIng jr. could have held a dry speech about social benefits of equality or a completely coherent philosophical treatise about the rights of man. He might have convinced his audience rationally.

I almost cited King's speech as an example in my post, but thought it was long enough already.

But what is irrational about King's speech? Again, you seem to be promoting this false dichotomy that your choices are (1) be irrational; or (2) be some kind of Vulcan with no emotions or any appreciation for anything other than bare facts. What basis do you have for that?

Martin Luther KIng's dream certainly wasn't true when he held his speech, social acceptance of gays wasn't as true as it is today. They were based on dreams, illusions, unfounded beliefs that were made social reality. I don't want to dismiss them. You are of course free to do so.

Oh, nicely done. Yes, obviously the gist of my post is that I don't want society to be a better place. Seriously, you can't see what a cheap shot that is?

The title of King's speech was "I have a dream." But that doesn't make it irrational. He wasn't purporting to describe current reality. The whole point of making his speech was that that dream "certainly wasn't true when he held his speech."

If King felt that his dream was impossible, something that could never come true, then why would he have bothered? Why would he have put so much time and effort and even jeopardize his personal safety if he thought it was a hopeless cause?

There's nothing irrational or unscientific or askeptical about having goals and hopes. How could science have progressed if scientists just said, "well, we can't [prevent smallpox, go to the moon, etc.] right now, so no point in trying"?

The real difference is that irrational, unscientific, askeptical people tend to think that just hoping something is true accomplishes something. MLK took action to make those goals come -- at least partly -- true.

 

[alfaniner]

Vaguely on topic...

I was once leaning on the railing staring off into the distance, shortly after a rainstorm. A friend came by and said "What are you doing?" I said, "Waiting for the rainbow. It should appear right over there." He thought I was crazy, but sure enough, a couple minutes later a rainbow appeared.

It took me a while to explain to him exactly how I predicted it (by using science)>.

 

[dglas]

My point in this regard is, and has been since I started posting here, that these qualities are human qualities, not religious or ideological ones. Religion and ideology use them to push their insidious product (almost invariably to create divisions, whatever their claims) and then try to annex these qualities as somehow theirs, as if we cannot have these qualities without them. It is profoundly ridiculous, along the lines of a car maker putting wheels on a vehicle and then claiming wheels only come with cars. Absolutely ludicrous. Now, imagine if they had the breaks permanently locked. That's original sin. Actually, that's more like absolutist morality.

We need to reclaim our humanity, free of the horrific, irredeemably corrupt detritus tacked onto it. Free of religion/ideology's determination to set us at each others throats in the name of vague metaphysical justifications. Because, when it comes down to it, religion is an exclusion machine.

As Lonewulf quite correctly pointed out three posts up, religion doesn't exalt us; it diminishes us, hobbles us. In my view it is much like someone who is starving groveling at the feet of someone who is rich for subsistence table scrap and offering thanks for being starved. Absolutely grotesque.

 

[Patsy]

Illusions don't exalt humans, living in reality like a mature species does. There is nothing exalting in behaving like small children living in our own made up world and sticking our fingers in our ears singing "nah, nah, nah" to keep the reality out.

If you want to exalt humans, take all the effort, resources, money, and time wasted on the buildings, shamen, offerings, doodads, geegaws and butt kissing sessions used in superstitious efforts to propitiate imaginary supernatural beings and exalt humans by attempting to make it less likely that they will spend their lives in squalor, misery, ignorance and disease, and more likely that we will all thrive and advance as a species.

How exalting the lies have been! How exalted everyone who has ever lived and died in irrational fear they would be punished for imaginary infractions. How exalted every person that has been cast into subservient roles because they were the wrong sex, caste, color, or sect. How exalted evey person that has died from substituting woo for proper medical treatment, every young life sacrificed to arranged marriage, every human life that has been literally or figuratively sacrificed to a hoax. How exalted the hinderance to the gaining of knowledge by those shaman who have objected to the scientific pursuit of knowledge since the beginning of human memory, hell, probably since the first two sticks were rubbed together.

I'll take my reality straight up thank you very much.

 

[-Fran-]

I find it absurdly hypocritical that these woo types argue, using telecommunications devices, about the lack of merit in science.

Are they really that stupid? Seriously, are they?

Yes.. yes they are... And I once read a woo explanation for this that goes something like: "That's technology, not science."

ETA:
Well said everybody!! I have nothing to say that could say it better than what you have done here. I'll just add that I really don't understand this romantization (is that a word?) of living with false illusions.

 

[krazyKemist]

The problem is that the illusion (if we take it as religion) does not seem to grant exaltation, but rather an illusion of exaltation.

Religion tends to make only certain people greater than reality : those at its head, or who create alliances with it. Those people, if they are still alive and in power, generally don't believe in the screed they promote to the masses. The masses are kept downtrodden, "for their own good".

In a similar quote, a prime minister of my province in the 1950s (and who was a staunch ally of the catholic clergy) once said that the masses are much more happy if they are kept blessedly ignorant. At the same time, this "blessed ignorance" allowed him to contract our grand-parents work at low low prices, with him and his cronies making a huge profit. Oh, but we were so hard-working, we would surely deserve to go to heaven when we die.

I'm ashamed to say that the bastid has a statue in front of our parliament.

 

[godless dave]

Gandhi didn't offer any illusions. Your basic premise is flawed.

 

[krazyKemist]

Gandhi didn't offer any illusions. Your basic premise is flawed.

Slightly OT, but many indians will tell you Gandhi rode on the backs of the freedom fighters of India (whom did the actual fighting), and that his pious hinduism is one of the causes of the the creation and secession of an islamic country from India (Pakistan). Others will tell you how he timed his movement to conincide with the end of WWII, when UK was frankly tired of war and definitely not ready to engage long-term in India. Some indians are really outraged by the respect Gandhi and his legacy get in the west.

As an asside, he was assassinated by fundamentalist hindus because he was not pious enough !

[/That's what you get when most of your friends are indians and start talking politics.]

 

[dglas]

You know, there have been three nominations from this thread so far: mine, Lonewulf's and Slingblade's. I'm beginning to suspect this topic may be of some small interest to this community. Perhaps rightfully so.

There have been some attempts by Sagan, Harris, Dawkins and others to try to present a human side to skeptical/scientific thinking, in terms of the very human awe that nature inspires and the possibilities for learning fulfillment that science offers. I have repeatedly put forward the idea of human scientific efficacy as granting both real power to influence reality and to provide a non-illusory cognitive sense of personal efficacy. I really think the next step in the evolution of non-theistic/skeptical thinking is going to be reclaiming our humanity, free of the parasitic nonsense that has been leeching off it.

We are working on it, slowly, but surely, although in stuttering steps. One day we defend nontheistic morality, next love, today hope or confidence (as opposed to faith), or charity or vision or altruism. I really think a detailed shopping list of experience of these, and other, human qualities that religion professes a copyright over needs to be developed and given a nontheistic experiential context. I think that's our next big project.

We are often asked how we provide this or that, but perhaps we should start asking what it is that religion offers that we don't. Now that I stop to think about it, there isn't much that isn't superficial, except perhaps the ability to remain children.

For your consideration...

 

[Dunstan]

I think that threads like this are a good argument for the existence of what is now the "members only" sections of the JREF Forum. Those sections may seem "frivolous" in the sense that they don't directly address the JREF's core mission, but they help humanize the posters here.