Don't Feed the Animals is a blog, written by Andrew Gonsalves, about humans: how we act, how we mate, how we talk and how we live. The term "Don't Feed the Animals" is a vague reference to a page in Chuck Palahniuk's book Choke where the narrator describes how animals in a zoo, stripped of all necessity to use their natural survival instincts, resort to masturbating all day in their cages. As society progresses and technology allows us to take the most basic things for granted, we're left with inventing innumerable ways to occupy ourselves during all the free time we have. We make the cage our home.
I am what you would call a hard atheist. I totally reject the possibility that there is a god, creator, or any supernatural existence. For many people, this subject isn't so important that they need to grade themselves on how firmly they feel about it, but I do not see it any other way. Others see weaknesses or lack of necessity in "choosing a side" while knowing that there is still an infinite amount of new things to be learned about the world. My response to them is, "Why play it so cool?" My lack of belief is a natural state; there is nothing until there is. Belief, given that it is different for everyone, is an interpretation of reality. There is only one true state of reality, but with our thinking minds comes the speculation of what exists beyond the apparent. My point is that no matter how you perceive reality, it does not change, the only variable is your mind. Thus, for the truth, we must look outside of our minds; into a world without the emotions we use to shape our views.
If you look at beliefs throughout history, you will see that people didn't believe in aspects of culture that exist today. The ancient Egyptians weren't Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or Jews. They believed in Ra, Isis, Anubis, and Osiris. The Nordic tribes had Odin, Thor, Hel and Loki. The ancient Greeks had Zeus, Hades, Athena and Apollo. Every culture today dismisses the validity of these old beliefs and the cultures of the future will have their own take on what we believe today. There remains absolutely no reason why any belief at all has any bearing on the truth, which is constant, and this is why I do not myself believe. I am standing at the hard edge of the question that really only has two valid answers and I can only be proved wrong. From a self-deception standpoint, it is far more honest to accept evidence to your contrary than to hunt for confirmations.
Remaining still is the question of a god, beyond religion or culture; a being or creator that is responsible for setting our world in motion. This god may or may not interfere with our everyday lives, it just depends on what you are inclined to believe. My studies on human behavior have lead me to the conclusion that we have yet to escape the neurological traits of our more animalistic ancestors. Many studies about behavioral economics and our analytical minds shine light on our primitive grasp on real logic. I've explained in another article how dopamine can make you more gullible. If the balance of chemicals in our brains can make us more or less vulnerable to deception, there exists a very valid explanation for any belief. If you can fake-throw a ball and have a dog chase it, you can weave a fictional story so a human will believe it. Emotions, traits of our basic instinctual minds, will continue to influence our views of the world far into the future. With hard atheism, I am taking a stand to avoid my instincts when I don't really need them and embrace my unique logic-bearing brain functions.
So many works of fiction canonize our emotions as what makes us truly human. We build logical robots who cannot understand us. Alien races pick us apart to see what makes us tick. The human spirit is what helps us triumph where we cannot see any other animal succeeding. Actually, humans are built for endurance, which is a physical trait that sets us apart from most of nature. Most defense and hunting mechanisms in the animal kingdom rely on short bursts of energy to either capture food or distance prey from predator. Humans, along with the animals we domesticated 65,000 years ago to help us hunt, simply outlast their prey. There is nothing special about our "heart" or our emotions; its how we hunt. We are relentless sons of bitches. Now that civilization has allowed us to relax, we've given new justifications for our traits. Unfortunately, they are also weaknesses in our ability to grasp the reality around us. Instincts are for sports and relationships; logic paves new roads in our society.
What good is reality if it is as bland as I'm claiming it to be? Well, that's up to you to figure out. Many believers have their thumb right on the truth without even knowing it. They wonder why atheists "choose" to not believe when there is a god who loves them, who is waiting to embrace them. If only they could make that last logical step to realize that the reason they believe is because they want that comfort. They need to feel like someone is looking out for them in a logical world that turns a cold shoulder. The more we realize about our world, the more we long for an anchor. The atheist path finds comfort in more human sources. If we can step back into those emotions to feel them for each other and not ourselves, the world will be a better place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 nibbles:
I am not a Christian, nor am I any other type of theist. But you sir (or madame), are a troglodyte. Just because you got an A in high school biology does not make you an expert on evolution. I am a graduate student at Princeton University, doing research in the EEB (Ecological and Evolutionary Biology) department, right now and that entitles me to say your claims about our evolution are idiotic and unfounded. You have no idea at all how evolution works or what it means. You should be ashamded of yourself for misleading any of the gullible people who have the misfortune to read this conjecture. That is what it is, conjecture. You know that evolution exists and then you jump to random, illogical (from a biological standpoint) conclusions. Please take an EEB class before making nonsensical claims.
The Elegant Atheist
Wow. Try reading my other posts on evolution, then tell me I don't know anything about it. For you to judge my knowledge of evolution based on the speculations in this post is more .. err.. troglogdytic than anything. I like your argument from authority though... surely you're right and I'm wrong. I know I can't predict the future, and I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Evolution can take any turn, but I chose to highlight a trend to illustrate an idea. Even my claims in previous posts to nihilism explain my stance on evolution better than this post. Hell, evolution isn't even the topic of this post, so forgive me if I don't treat it like some holy mystery. By the way, do you mind telling me what I got wrong instead of coming on my blog and vomiting your bullshit all over it? Did you really have to write all that out and hit the send button, just so you could use the word "troglodyte?" The Elegant Atheist? Judging from your words, you're about as elegant as a trucker. Either come with intelligence or get the fuck off my blog.
Fellow atheist, your hypothesis is nonsense.
Instincts = (implicit) heuristics. And what about relationships? The way we empathise and relate with fellow humans is paramount to trust. Without trust, there is no communication. Without collaboration, there is no achievement. And with blind trust, individual greed crumbles society.
So, emotions are important for our joint evolution. And the context of our emotions is also important: the evolution of our (locally) shared values (i.e. culture) is built atop of our shared experiences.
Emotions and instincts are powerful abstractions that embodie immense volumes of shared knowledge. Just because you can't dissect how your emotions work (the heuristics are so complex, they're hidden), doesn't mean that a logically pure mankind would be better of.
Science (math, logic, physics, biology, etc.) is not an end, it's a tool.
Speaking of tools, research the difference in Artificial Intelligence on Symbolic and Sub-symbolic intelligence. I believe the later better resembles the instinctive nature of our brains.
If you're trying to turn over borderline agnostics like I try, I'd advise to rethink the association of Atheism with Pure Logic. Counter productive. And a bit Rand-iesque.
Best Regards.
Emotions are a large part of how we assign value to outcomes when we make decisions. If you try to base decisions on pure logic, you'll find many choices more difficult - in many cases, you'd have to replace emotionally-derived value with a random choice instead. You might then discover that random choice doesn't do as well as choice based on some relatively consistent emotional criteria - in which case, you'd need to invent a "logical" replacement for the role of emotion. There's no evolutionary pressure to do that, and humans won't be able to do it any time soon. You're not capable of it yourself.
a devout catholic here just passing by and reading how atheists themselves debate over their non-beliefs and the technicalities of everything... don't worry guys, i won't interfere.
god bless!
If i had known this would spur such disagreement, I would have spent more time on it. So, here I am explaining myself in the comments section. First, my speculation on the future is about as accurate as everyone else's. We simply cannot tell what the future holds and we cannot logically hold our opinions over any other. As far as my "prediction" goes, it was certainly meant to present people with a possibility that was unfathomable to most. I suppose I should have expected more denouncement. In any case, my knowledge of probabilities tells me that anything is possible, until it happens, so don't get all pompous with your version of the future when you know damn well that it is just as good a guess as mine. You can disagree with me, but don't tell me my ideas are nonsense. It's not like I'm shooting from the hip here.
With all that said, the future is not the point. Nor is evolution. The point is that there is no god to guide our future, speciation, or survival, thus no intelligence to how we may turn out.
As far as the role of emotions in human life... I was right in assuming that it is hard to imaging life without them.
I really hate people trying to point out every smallest detail that they don't agree or think it's ILLOGIC and stuff. I just don't read the comments anymore becase of this. I know there will be someone saying "1,5 + 1,5 = 3 only for the set of the Real numbers! you lack rigour so everthing you said after it is nonsense and i dont understand it".
Instead on commenting the idea as a whole. And it's only on this blog that I see this so often.
Also people seem very angry too... oddly angry and agressive.
I have a little trouble personally with the idea of hard atheism because humans as a whole understand so little about the world. Without latching onto any religious ideologies, the fact that the domain of unknown knowledge is so vast logically dictates we cannot totally rule out any possibilities. There could be a higher power, maybe not, maybe the universe is a discarded science project of some infinitely more complex life form -- the point is we simply don't know. However, I do whole-heartedly agree that the uncertainty logically eliminates any practiced religion being followed as truth, it also -- in the same manner -- eliminates atheism as a valid option as well. Any hard-defined credo is fallible since the real answer is that we have no answer. Most people can't live with that level of uncertainty, thus people turn to religion for comfort and purpose.
Also to comment on your take on emotions. I have, throughout my life, tried to separate my logical mind from my emotions during many of the most trying times of my life and have miserably failed. I found that I cannot assign logic to an emotional decision since there is no logic governing the emotion. Attempting to assign logic has resulted in "paralysis-by-analysis" periods of my life where I sit stagnantly flailing for some sort of logical answer.
Love your posts. Always a good intellectual read.
I'm happy for your rampant speculation Andrew, and certainly have no bone to pick with your hard atheism. But what leaped out at me reading this short speculation (or rant if you prefer ;-) is the almost frustratingly Spockian use of the word "logic".
Now granted it's a word, like any other and as such has some breadth of meaning and flexibility, but the manner in which you present it as an alternative to belief I find a little puzzling.
I at least have always accepted logic as a system of inference that makes no value judgments about the premises. It simply provides rules for inferring conclusions from premises and of course in a beautifully Lego like constitutional sense those conclusions become premises for the next step progressing toward rich complex world views.
Now granted there are two broadly at-odds fundamental truth premises I'm aware of:
a) Occam's razor - the simplest of candidates will be considered true.
b) Faith - an arbitrary candidate is chosen as true.
There are others. A plethora of them that compete with a) and use often flawed logic to arrive at b). A simple (and relatively common) example might be:
If there is no God and I conduct my life as if there was one, I have lost nothing.
If there is a God and I conduct my life as if there is none, I may lose much.
The details change in every conversation you'll have with a believer, in their efforts to land on premise b) namely "X is true because I choose it to be".
In any case, my point is that the truth criterion used to formulate premises is outside of logic and has nothing to do with it. It is simply a utilitarian choice.
You make this kind of arbitrary truth statement for example when you write:
"My lack of belief is a natural state; there is nothing until there is"
because while this may be the case, there is evidence to suggest that there is much natural about belief. In short there is reason to doubt the truth of this statement. And as you've not offered a logical argument (from premises) to arrive at this conclusion I infer it's statement of truth and arguably not one based upon a) Occam's razor, but upon b) Faith.
I suggest this because I think the term "natural state" begs more questions than the statement "My lack of belief is a natural state; there is nothing until there is" serves to answer, and so by Occam I would reject it as a truth, and maintain it as a possibility. Given your apparent conviction that it is truth, the criterion seems to be faith related.
Of course that is not an assumption I'm prepared to make. Because further evidence in your replies lends weight to the notion that your choice of words was hasty and not deeply considered (a cynic might argue, emotional) and hence nitpicking about the precise turn of phrase is likely to yield a response like "well what I really meant was ...". I'm not about to tell you what you meant ... or what or why you believe or should believe it. I'm simply reflecting on the all too common (and grating) habit of counterpoising faith with logic. The two are perfectly compatible and a great many theists are excellent logicians and a great many logicians (and scientists and mathematicians) are theists. Because their faith is a truth criterion which provides the premises for subsequent logical analysis.
Now granted, I expect and have witnessed, that scientists who are theists accept as a truth that there is a God, but leave the jury out on the nature of this God. And this is the (in)famous God of Gaps who will always find a place in the reasoning of people who premise his existence.
Occam's razor precludes this as a useful truth because it raises more questions than it solves, but Occam's razor is also not a mandatory truth criterion to conduct science either, it is simply, by convention, a utilitarian one. In short, if science is the quest for knowledge, of what use is it to reduce our total body of knowledge knowingly by raising more questions than we need to as we find answers.
The irony of course is that even by Occam's razor, most interesting scientific discoveries, not least in the field of cosmology, raise many questions and we never run out of questions. Occam simply asks that when choosing among competing hypotheses (truth candidates) we accept as true the one raising the fewest ancillary questions (has the best answer to question ratio perhaps).
Anyhow, sub-blog over ... ;-).
Oh, perhaps finally, the future scenario you pain is interesting, and I wonder what the selection pressures are that you imagine would select in favour of that direction? I suspect many of the complaints come from people above who have trouble imagining what they might be. Myself I'm curious what selection criteria the human race is subject to presently ... I really don't have an answer, am simply ware it's not the same set that pressed upon us millions of years ago ...
Oh I wanted also to say, you are indeed bold to address such questions so hastily. If you venture into theology or politics you ought really expect a shit storm ... not? I'd say you do a better job reporting on the science you review so well.
But I guess you opened, wanting to pick a fight:
"For many people, this subject isn't so important ... Others see weaknesses or lack of necessity in "choosing a side" ... My response to them is, "Why play it so cool?"
I can offer an answer. Many people play it so cool because the shitstorm their familiar with from dinner parties, barrooms, classrooms to public forums is simply not one they want to engage in and their preference to stay clear of polemic is simply to avoid the question and smile. It's a very popular and functional strategy, I employ it a lot ...
Hahah. You guys are great. Honestly, this was a hasty piece. I stand behind everything I say in it, but I was not careful with the words I chose. So, I get it handed back to me, graded with a shitload of red marks.
kraus: The root of my hard stance on atheism is based on a combination of logic and science. There exists enough machinery in the human brain to dream up a god and in fact, every new thing I seem to learn about the human thinking process opens my eyes wider to all the ways in which we lie to ourselves for the sake of a smooth ride. Knowing this, I apply what I know about the world: There is no proof of any god, only the faith that can be explained through chemicals and behavioral psychology. I wont list all of my evidence - that is exhaustive and for another post. There IS so much we don't know, but I am not the type of person to sit on the fence for too long. I invite evidence to the contrary, but I am very confident that it will not come. Is this faith? There is nothing I am ignoring or failing to consider as counter-evidence. The only thing I am doing is staking out a viewpoint that has a hard edge - it is extreme to the point where it can only be proven wrong.
As far as emotions go... I will talk about them again soon.
Bernd: I'm not a Star Trek fan, but I recognized how the Spock references could be made. Gene Roddenberry was an atheist, too, so I wonder if he ever came to the same conclusion I did. Now, logic has always been a weird concept. Despite the fact that you can formulate a curriculum around it, people have always taken wild departures from the algebraic proofs that you learn in a classroom and adapted logic into a "common sense" engine. Part of me disagrees with occam's razor because it is not universal, but I am also happy to use it to explain things. Alas, I cannot lean on it as ultimate proof of god or no god. It is an inference that is too blind to the nuances of the human mind.
First, I do not bother with the "if there is a god" musings because then we start to think for a being that is impossible to understand to begin with. Second, it is hard to explain to someone that their feelings are exactly the problem when it comes to the truth. Humans twist everything they can to turn in their direction; it is the role of "Spockian" logic that helps us see situations for what they really are. Third, belief is only natural as far as emotions are natural. The point I keep repeating is that no matter how you interpret reality, there really is only one true state of its being. Emotions warp reality and this is why I like how Spock approaches things. By "natural state" I mean... if I didn't exist to speculate beyond what I see, there would exist nothing beyond what there is.
Thanks for the responses: they're helping me realize what I really want to say. I'm gonna rewrite this piece a small bit and it might make more sense. I'm going to use what I've just written as part of it.
Oh yeah, and just because it is tasteful to take the middle of the road doesn't make it the right choice. Of course, just because you're correct, doesn't mean proclaiming it is the right choice either. Damn humans.
Ok, I updated the piece. Hope it reads better. In fact, I took out all the evolution crap because some people couldn't see past it for the real point.
> people have ... adapted logic into a "common sense" engine.
Sure. And as a word, like any other it is often used for it allusory and metaphoric potential as its semantic and the two become blurred. But when making the dichotomy between belief and logic, it remains relevant to my mind to denounce logic in this role as a Star Trekian cringe. Belief and logic are perfectly compatible systems and it behooves us to remember this. Belief centres on premises, and logic upon conclusions (from those premises).
It's made a little difficult because the very personality traits that predispose someone to belief happen also to correlate well with a poor understanding and application of logic (never mind contradictory premises). But that is far more common in the lay world than among philosophers of any standing (one of the credentials of "standing" in erudite discourse is a grasp of logic(s)).
> Part of me disagrees with occam's razor because it is not universal,
I wonder what that means? What is universal? And what is not universal about Occam's razor? And what is it to agree or disagree with it? It is just a rule ...
I mean sure it is a criterion for selection among competing hypotheses, and you can choose to apply it or not, you can choose to agree with its applicaiton or not, but occam's razor (unlike God) doesn't really give a toss ;-). It doesn't mean to be universal or otherwise, it simply stands as a utilitarian notion that all things being equal, we will choose the simplest of competing hypotheses as the present truth.
> but I am also happy to use it to explain things.
Perhaps I'm pedantic, but Occam's razor doesn't explain things. At best, the hypotheses you are choosing between aim to explain things, and Occam's razor is one criterion for choosing between them. There are others (not least of which we have reproducibility, and from that predictive reliability).
> Alas, I cannot lean on it as ultimate proof of god or no god.
It never is a proof. I'm confused or detecting confusion or at the least sloppy language. It is just a criterion for selection and one that we may or may not agree us useful. It is not, nor was it ever intedned to be, a proof.
Indeed, the application of Occam's razor is ingenious in this very regard. It takes us away from the hubris of proofs locking horns with subjective criteria and definitions, and takes us into a space of agreed truths. Of course the agreement is not universal, no agreement is, ever. We don't even have universal agreement that the sun will rise tomorrow morning (granted those whod disagree are a firm minority and easily shown up as wrong - or les probably, right - tomorrow morning, we can hold of arguing with them till them).
In an almost recursive sense, we need first to agree what majority of which populations need to express agreement before the adjective "universal" is warranted.
I can almost feel you tempted to lean on the laws of physics as universal truths (a fairly standard shelter for universalists). But if there's one thing we've learned in the era of 21st century quantum physics is that agreement on their universality has taken a very significant blow. And even if we accept them as universal truths, they themselves are in no small part the products of Occam's razor (said another way, any presently accepted model is generally the simplest of competing models - to wit, Newton's equations were simpler than Einsteins, yet Einsteins say the very same things in the realm of observable phenomena in Netwon's time, but we still to this day accept Newton's as thruth for commonplace engineering, and Einstein's never left the realm of hypthesis until particle physics started to produce results they predicted - that is, they have demonstrated predictive power that pull rank over the simplicity criterion).
There is no proof that God does not exist, only that specific versions of God do not exist. Gid is a slippery fish ... but there is widespread agreement that the hypothesis has more baggage than utility (it is complex, open to a plethora of interpretations and has no demonstrated predictive power, moreover it correlates well with social phenomena that are questionable to say the least).
> There is only one true state of reality
I think this was labelled "Objectivism" (Ayn Rand?). But again, ironically, the one significant contribution of quantum and particle physics to modern thinking is to question the limits of that belief. Of course that may be by the by, just as Einstein's equations are for most of us, most of the time ... it's just a useful reminder that "universal" or "one" may not be as "universal" or "one" as we like to think.
Bernd.
Post a Comment