that pale blue dot

necessary skepticism

"The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree to master, as most successful used car buyers demonstrate. The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their television commercials.

"But the tools of skepticism are generally unavailable to the citizens of our society. They're hardly ever mentioned in the schools, even in the presentation of science, its most ardent practitioner, although skepticism repeatedly sprouts spontaneously out of the disappointments of everyday life. Our politics, economics, advertising, and religions (New Age and Old) are awash in credulity. Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism."

The Demon-Haunted World, (p. 76-77) --Carl Sagan

reason fails religionists

apologists needed

A religion that employs apologists for its defense must have problems. If truth is not obvious to those sincerely seeking, and an army of apologists are needed for its defense and explanation, is it really worth following?

not to be found

Finding specific scripture passages in order to solve problems was always a problem during my years as a Christian. About five years ago I ended up needing real answers in my life. Going to the Bible was not the direction I took however. It wasn't because I didn't know the Bible. The problem was in getting its words to magically do the work of instruction and healing in my particular case. It hadn't worked over the years, why should it now, was my thinking?

Learning and understanding psychological processes inside me and others helped the most. A person can't really expect ancient Hebrew writers to know much if anything about psychology? It's a fairly new science, about 100 years old. Why would we expect answers from a book that primarily tells you what not to do? At the least it should clearly tell you what to do once you've messed up the first instruction... certainly something more useful than "forgiving and forgetting" would've been nice.

the biased brain in our head

“Arriving at belief in an infallible God by way of an

inerrant Bible requires an unwarranted belief in yourself.”

Valerie Tarico, PhD., Christian Belief

Through the Lens of Cognitive Science

Human cognitive research, which deals with the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment and reasoning, suggests that none of us are fair-minded, neither are we reasonable. Valeria Tarico says from the same writing quoted above that our brain “pits itself against our natural leanings, erects barriers across the openings to rabbit trails, and systematically exposes faulty thinking to public critique. In fact, the scientific method has been called ‘what we know about how not to fool ourselves.'”

Continuing with Tarico, she says, “We distort reality in a host of ways - many of which are extravagantly self-serving. We take undue credit for successes, and blame failures on external circumstances (attribution biases). We even revise history so that, in hindsight, our failures were simply to be expected because of the challenges we faced (retroactive pessimism). We retain memories of when we were kind, funny, personable, and clever, better than memories of when we were boorish and mean. On average, we expect to live ten years longer than average. And virtually all of us who believe in heaven think we are going there. To put it bluntly, each of us is the protagonist in a custom-made Hollywood movie with the best possible camera angles. Our self-serving biases may have a positive function. They may play a role in fending off depression, feeding hope, and getting us to try harder. But they also help to explain why stunningly self-centered religious beliefs don’t trigger any alarms.”

These biases may explain why I spent most of my life believing something I would never have been able to prove if I had tried. The biases I now hold may explain why I’ve taken the direction I have taken lately in leaving religious belief. How can I know for sure that what I’m doing now is the “right“ thing to do? I can’t know for certain. I think the same is true for everyone else too.

Living from a mindset of “not knowing” instead of “knowing that I know” seems like a more honest platform from which to live. Since our brain works to support our biases, it becomes very important to examine why we believe what we believe. Are our biases supported with sufficient reason?

Since religion is all about belief (faith), and the “right“ belief at that, it becomes doubly important to examine those beliefs. Valerie Tarico says, “…Christianity sanctifies belief itself. ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house’ (Acts 16:31)”. True believers will not put themselves in the position to practically examine this verse. For many, because it’s in the Bible, it’s true. This puts the system of Christian belief in an awkward position. The system itself refutes examination. Believers believing in religious doctrines and texts are relegated to live with their blind spots. They have no choice if they are to be “true” believers. A predicament for sure, a strong case of Catch-22. This approach used to be mine, but I can no longer take it.

Religion is not going away anytime soon though. There is a complex mixture of many factors involved. Religions are married to the cultures in which they are found. And culture is very important to groups of people. Our identity and value as human beings is based on our acceptance in the group, which includes its culture and religion. We humans are unlikely to change quickly in one direction or another unless some catastrophe acts on us from the outside. For myself, that's what it took to shake me loose from my moorings of improbable ancient beliefs and superstitions.