A warm Sunday afternoon; what better time to take your dog for a walk? Though I do not own a dog, nor do I particularly like them, I was fortunate enough to be invited to an Improv Everywhere stunt yesterday in which 2000 other strangers and I walked dogs around a Brooklyn neighborhood. Invisible dogs, that is. We were each given leashes which were essentially ropes that had been woven around a rigid metal wire, looped at one end and connected to a tiny leather dog harness at the other. When the leashes were held outward, with the harness hovering a few inches above the ground, it appeared as if we were walking dogs that could not be seen. This device is not new, in fact is has been around since the 70's, but reactions to it are always novel. Because this, and most all other Improv Everywhere stunts, was intended to invoke reactions from bystanders, I would like to report on a wide range of them. I'll get right into the action.
Walking an invisible dog is strange at first, especially if you're shy like I am. I did not know what I was getting into when I showed up for this stunt, but I had some idea that it would be a large group activity. In a way, this was a group activity, but it encouraged participants to use their individual imaginations. That was intimidating at first. When you learn that you'll be spending the next hour or two not with other conspirators but by yourself, there is a quick evaluation that takes place. The lady standing next to me decided it wasn't worth it and left, but I am glad I stayed. I had somewhere else I could have been, but I got over the initial fear of feeling silly with the anticipation of transformation. It doesn't happen immediately, but as you get used to the feel of the leash in your hand and you become more comfortable with the imaginary image of the dog you're walking, you're no longer a silly person; you're an actor out to convince the world.
My dog's name was Fester. Not having an actual dog of my own, I wasn't able to immediately think of various mannerisms to embody him with, so I pretended to nonchalantly walk him down random residential streets while gazing at my iPhone like any other self-absorbed vanity dog owner. The quirks slowly came to me. When I wanted to pause to write an email, I'd stop for a minute with Fester beside a fire hydrant. When a fellow conspirator passed me by with an invisible dog of their own, Fester would try to play with it, often causing me to pull him away from the distraction. Innocent bystanders gazed on in disbelief. I saw some conspirators playing fetch with their invisible dogs, having let them off the leash. Some stopped by the local veterinary emergency room to the amusement of the nurses. I glanced around to be sure nobody would see me out of character as I took a picture of Fester sitting beside a "Dogs must be on leash at all times" sign.
Along the main streets, things got more interesting. Interacting with bystanders was the hard part, but it only took a few tries to perfect. There was a wide range of emotions that these invisible dogs invoked and they became more novel the further from the gathering point that I walked. Some people exclaimed that all the crazies should be taken off the streets. A few invisible dog owners reported that their pets had been beaten severely and intentionally by umbrellas. I was approached to explain the phenomenon of all these invisible dogs several times and my answers were always consistent. It was a nice day to take your dog for a walk. My dog is a new designer breed. It doesn't shed or poop, which is very advantageous. Someone must have gotten wind of this being the newest designer dog because there sure was a lot of them around. No, I was not petitioning for a new dog park.
When given my explanation, some people were actually quite mad at me. "You're seriously going to give me that answer?" Was there any other answer to give? Yeesh . Occasionally, I would be walking past a group of bemused innocents when Fester would decide to dash into a group of pigeons, dragging me along with him as they scattered. Their laughter was rewarding. Getting children to pet Fester was magical. To see them use their imaginations along with me was warming. On occasion, I would try to enter a store, but was told that no pets were allowed. I graciously apologized and left. You could tell I was totally new to this pet ownership deal. Fester would also try to sniff the butts of dogs that you COULD see, prompting the owners of those dogs to say mean things. They were just jealous of my popular breed.
When it came time to leave, I contemplated keeping the leash for novelty reasons, however I decided to be good and returned Fester to his home. Though it would be fun to repeat this experiment in my own neighborhood without any co-conspirators around, it wouldn't have been right to steal what was lent to me despite the fact that the factory making these got a lot of free publicity at my expense. I was repaid with the amusing memories of having participated in this inventive stunt.
This is a short rant. Short enough so you can read it. I've been told that my blog posts are too long so people don't bother readng them. Now, if you don't want to read them, that's fine. It is just a bit upsetting to hear that the reason is because they are too long. You see, I put a lot of work into my posts, making sure my arguments are as solid as they can be and that means that I have to use over 1000 words sometimes. Believe it or not, I actually leave out some material to make my points more concise. Hah! Ok, now I seem crazy.
Really, I would appreciate it if you took the time to read a post because I work hard to make it worth your time. I'm not going to pare down my posts to suit the ADD kids. I'm an ADD kid myself, so you can imagine the kind of focus it takes. My next piece may be 2000 words or 200, but I would love for it to be evaluated on its quality, not its length. Thank you.
Really, I would appreciate it if you took the time to read a post because I work hard to make it worth your time. I'm not going to pare down my posts to suit the ADD kids. I'm an ADD kid myself, so you can imagine the kind of focus it takes. My next piece may be 2000 words or 200, but I would love for it to be evaluated on its quality, not its length. Thank you.
We are all human and we will inevitably stretch ourselves to our limits. We ask not how far is suitable, but how far is possible. In some walks of life, applying that hypothetical question is admirable and can lead to great accomplishment. In sports, for example, nobody is ever praised for stopping at "enough." In other walks, it can cause unnecessary stress that leads to collapse. In economics, pushing your finances to their limit will often invite disaster. We are living in the aftermath of this realization right now.
During the housing boom from 1999 to 2006, everyone was in the buying mood, assuming real estate value would continue to climb. When visiting the bank for a loan, home buyers were advised on the maximum amount that they could borrow, but that is a different number than the amount that is appropriate. They were told that they should spend 38% of their monthly income which determined what they could borrow, but what that amount fails to address are all the human tendencies and circumstances that tend to impact a person's budget throughout the life of a loan. Enter the interest-only loan, where the buyer could opt to pay only the interest on a loan while still owing the entire principle amount at the end of the term. With interest-only loans, it was thought that buyers would borrow the same amount and enjoy lower payments and the freedom that they afford. Instead, buyers exchanged that freedom to borrow even more money, bringing their payments in line with what they would be paying on a standard loan. Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself.
We're all familiar with how this story played out. It only takes a tiny mistake or an unexpected illness to come up short on a payment and without any wiggle room,the train starts to come off its tracks.
Economic theory relies on humans acting in a rational fashion, making sound decisions at all times. Unfortunately, not everyone is an economist, nor do they understand the discipline that is expected of them once they commit a large portion of their income to a binding contract. Most of the time, we make what we believe to be a rational decision, but we fail to prepare ourselves for the challenges that will test that rationality in different ways thereafter. We also fail to catch ourselves as we grant exceptions to our impulsive behavior. This is called the planning fallacy and it exists because things never turn out the way we expect them. Despite knowing this, we still continue to plan for the best case scenarios.
We spring for the leather seats, noting that they only add another $20 to our monthly car payment. We borrow that extra $5000 beyond our budget, resolving to work extra hard to cover the burden. We set the bill aside when we get it, feeling that we'll run across it again when we're more motivated to write the check. We ignore the angel on our shoulder warning us about the upcoming management change at our workplace because it is unpleasant to consider when a brand new TV screen is shining in our face.
Despite what economists expect of us, humans are not efficient machines. We are fallible and faulty, prone to mishaps and oversights. This is why we must bridge the gap between standard economics and behavioral economics. To continue assuming the best based on our intentions will lead us deeper into debt. Economic advisers and those in positions of authority operate under the assumption that consumers take measures to make the best decisions. They believe in a self-correcting market and their conservative approach to the world of money makes them unwilling to suggest restrictions on what they believe to be a perfect model. Bankers, on the other hand, understand that the flaws in our economy are where the money is really made.
In the world of banking economics, most profits come from those who skate on the edge of poverty and often stumble. If you've ever wondered why checking suddenly became a free service in the last 15 years, it isn't due to advances in check handling or a well-intentioned perk. It is because the penalties collected on checking accounts with low balances effectively subsidize the operational cost. Overdrafts and low-balance fees paid by the poor support the rest. Credit cards and their associated interest rates and penalties also cash in on those of us with the least amount of cash. One missed payment or a strategically executed deduction before a deposit and BAM! That's another chunk of your money that the bank now owns. With all of this in mind, you figure it would take the jaws of life to pry the banking industry's cold, stiff fingers away from the throats of the poor.
As it turned out, leaning on people with low income and no assets is exactly what came back to bite the banks in the ass. We consumers are the first ones to call for blood in this situation as we see the economy shrink around us, making it harder to live. It is, however, important to understand that the banks fell victim to something a little more innocent than despicable greed. Let's recognize it as human nature. One can understand that rationally, a banker will not make investments that can disembowel his entire fortune without being thoroughly misled about them himself. We all tend to find favorites in the things that benefit us the most when we rely on them and that is how a bad idea can turn into a good one. On paper, interest-only and subprime loans spell out more money potential for the banks. When looking at the positives (money) in this case, it is easy to overlook the negatives (risk). From this we can take the advice that it is not a good idea to allow a lender to advise you on the proper type of loan to take from them. That counsel should come from a third party that does not stand to profit from the decision that they led you to.
The question a lot of people now face is whether to trust economists, or for that matter, the financial industry. We felt it before, but now it is in our face; the banks are not our friends. Our economic culture is not based on what is appropriate, but what is possible (or just out of reach). Mortgage calculators do not tell you what is comfortable, but what is the limit of your potential loan. The financial industry does not profit from your discipline, but from your excess. If given the option to offer a credit card that encourages responsible spending, banks will opt to continue pitching to your impulses. The solution is to take control of your finances, spend only after saving first and avoid as much debt as you can. This, of course, is the most rational path, but don't expect any free vacations or cash back. Nobody likes a rational consumer.
During the housing boom from 1999 to 2006, everyone was in the buying mood, assuming real estate value would continue to climb. When visiting the bank for a loan, home buyers were advised on the maximum amount that they could borrow, but that is a different number than the amount that is appropriate. They were told that they should spend 38% of their monthly income which determined what they could borrow, but what that amount fails to address are all the human tendencies and circumstances that tend to impact a person's budget throughout the life of a loan. Enter the interest-only loan, where the buyer could opt to pay only the interest on a loan while still owing the entire principle amount at the end of the term. With interest-only loans, it was thought that buyers would borrow the same amount and enjoy lower payments and the freedom that they afford. Instead, buyers exchanged that freedom to borrow even more money, bringing their payments in line with what they would be paying on a standard loan. Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself.
We're all familiar with how this story played out. It only takes a tiny mistake or an unexpected illness to come up short on a payment and without any wiggle room,the train starts to come off its tracks.
Economic theory relies on humans acting in a rational fashion, making sound decisions at all times. Unfortunately, not everyone is an economist, nor do they understand the discipline that is expected of them once they commit a large portion of their income to a binding contract. Most of the time, we make what we believe to be a rational decision, but we fail to prepare ourselves for the challenges that will test that rationality in different ways thereafter. We also fail to catch ourselves as we grant exceptions to our impulsive behavior. This is called the planning fallacy and it exists because things never turn out the way we expect them. Despite knowing this, we still continue to plan for the best case scenarios.
We spring for the leather seats, noting that they only add another $20 to our monthly car payment. We borrow that extra $5000 beyond our budget, resolving to work extra hard to cover the burden. We set the bill aside when we get it, feeling that we'll run across it again when we're more motivated to write the check. We ignore the angel on our shoulder warning us about the upcoming management change at our workplace because it is unpleasant to consider when a brand new TV screen is shining in our face.
Despite what economists expect of us, humans are not efficient machines. We are fallible and faulty, prone to mishaps and oversights. This is why we must bridge the gap between standard economics and behavioral economics. To continue assuming the best based on our intentions will lead us deeper into debt. Economic advisers and those in positions of authority operate under the assumption that consumers take measures to make the best decisions. They believe in a self-correcting market and their conservative approach to the world of money makes them unwilling to suggest restrictions on what they believe to be a perfect model. Bankers, on the other hand, understand that the flaws in our economy are where the money is really made.
In the world of banking economics, most profits come from those who skate on the edge of poverty and often stumble. If you've ever wondered why checking suddenly became a free service in the last 15 years, it isn't due to advances in check handling or a well-intentioned perk. It is because the penalties collected on checking accounts with low balances effectively subsidize the operational cost. Overdrafts and low-balance fees paid by the poor support the rest. Credit cards and their associated interest rates and penalties also cash in on those of us with the least amount of cash. One missed payment or a strategically executed deduction before a deposit and BAM! That's another chunk of your money that the bank now owns. With all of this in mind, you figure it would take the jaws of life to pry the banking industry's cold, stiff fingers away from the throats of the poor.
As it turned out, leaning on people with low income and no assets is exactly what came back to bite the banks in the ass. We consumers are the first ones to call for blood in this situation as we see the economy shrink around us, making it harder to live. It is, however, important to understand that the banks fell victim to something a little more innocent than despicable greed. Let's recognize it as human nature. One can understand that rationally, a banker will not make investments that can disembowel his entire fortune without being thoroughly misled about them himself. We all tend to find favorites in the things that benefit us the most when we rely on them and that is how a bad idea can turn into a good one. On paper, interest-only and subprime loans spell out more money potential for the banks. When looking at the positives (money) in this case, it is easy to overlook the negatives (risk). From this we can take the advice that it is not a good idea to allow a lender to advise you on the proper type of loan to take from them. That counsel should come from a third party that does not stand to profit from the decision that they led you to.
The question a lot of people now face is whether to trust economists, or for that matter, the financial industry. We felt it before, but now it is in our face; the banks are not our friends. Our economic culture is not based on what is appropriate, but what is possible (or just out of reach). Mortgage calculators do not tell you what is comfortable, but what is the limit of your potential loan. The financial industry does not profit from your discipline, but from your excess. If given the option to offer a credit card that encourages responsible spending, banks will opt to continue pitching to your impulses. The solution is to take control of your finances, spend only after saving first and avoid as much debt as you can. This, of course, is the most rational path, but don't expect any free vacations or cash back. Nobody likes a rational consumer.
Connecting to server...
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: hi
You: Hello
Stranger: how r u?
You: I'm fine
You: Do you believe in god?
Stranger: ok
Stranger: yup
Stranger: u?
You: Why?
You: I don't.
Stranger: no reason i just believe GOD
Stranger: ok i c
You: I wonder why people believe in god
Stranger: aha ok
You: What their reasons are
Stranger: well i dk
Stranger: what do u thinkg of the peole who believe God
You: They're all different...
You: Everyone is, really.
Stranger: right
You: So, you don't know why you believe... you just do?
Stranger: yup
Stranger: in fact i don't have any religion:p
Stranger: religions*
You: That's interesting. I would need some sort of reason to believe something myself.
Stranger: but i just believe there is the GOD i dk why:p
Stranger: oh i c
Stranger: how old r u?
You: If you don't know why, would it make a difference if you didn't believe?
Stranger: if u don't mind telling?
You: I'm 27
Stranger: oh if u r from germany?:O
You: No, I'm from US
Stranger: ok i c
Stranger: in fact i met such a person like u several days ago...his age is 27 and he is from germany so i just ask u
You: I'm sure there are a lot of people just as curious as me
Stranger: oh i c
Stranger: :)
You: My curiosity is what lead me to not believe.
Stranger: oh i c
Stranger: but i think it's kinda hard stuff right?
You: Not really.
You: I'm a normal person, I have a good job, a girlfriend and a lot of friends...
You: I just dont need to explain anything by using god
Stranger: oh i c..
Stranger: :)
Stranger: so u don't have any religions?
You: No, I just live like a decent human. Nobody is threatening to send me to hell, but I like being a nice person.
Stranger: ok i c
You: So I am just curious why, if you have no reason to believe that there is a god, do you still believe.
Stranger: yup but u know what i think i can't explain it to u why i believe god although i don't believe any religions..:(
You: I guess I also figu#CC6666 that if someone believed in god, then they probably have a good reason for it. It's a rather important subject to not have an explanation for.
Stranger: oh really? i c:)
You: Honestly, once people do give a reason for it, it becomes possible to argue against them.
Stranger: oh right
You: I have been doing a lot of research into why people believe and I am trying to validate that research by asking people personally.
Stranger: oh really? interesting
Stranger: i didn't know that
You: Do you know what the placebo effect is?
Stranger: sure
Stranger: :)
You: Most of my research indicates that the concept of god works as a placebo to comfort people in any way they feel the need to use it.
Stranger: wow maybe u r right:O
Stranger: oh that explains it:O
You: Did you know that the placebo effect can be inc#CC6666ibly strong? Some surgeries have been proven to be physically ineffective, but the fact that people had surgery makes them feel better anyways.
You: So if you can fake surgery, why not fake the touch of god?
Stranger: yeah i got it from newspaper:)
Stranger: oh come to think of it u r right
You: Well, I don't know if you're humoring me or not, but thanks for considering what i have to say
Stranger: ok
Stranger: well in fact i don't know what i tell u about that stuff:( cuz i think it's kinda hard to say to people
Stranger: umm u know what i mean?
Stranger: so that's why
Stranger: well but the only thing i can tell u is ur question and thinking is good but it's kinda hard to say
Stranger: ok?
You: That's good. I think everyone should really thing about why they believe.
You: It could be that we're just looking for different things out of life. This leads us to answer the same question differently.
Stranger: right
Stranger: :)
You: But, regardless of what we're looking for or how we answer the question - there is only one truth.
You: And that truth has to be able to accomodate everybody.
Stranger: right
Stranger: wow good words:)
You: Thanks.
Stranger: u r welcome
You: I have to go now.. thanks for the chat.
Stranger: ok have a nice day:)
Stranger: nice talking with u
You: Adios
Stranger: and thanks for telling me that stuff:)
Stranger: bye~
You have disconnected.
I make it a point to observe as much friction between believers and non-believers as possible. My goal is to understand why, with as much that each side has to justify their stance, they can never seem to convince each other. Ultimately, I am an atheist myself, so a religious person's justifications are a curiosity of mine. In this article I hope to explain and understand why people decide to believe what they do, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Viewing belief and non-belief as two dichotomous side of human existence, I feel that if we understand more about the other, we can begin to hold better conversations with less friction and possibly productive outcomes.
Religious faith is the trust in a guiding presence. It is the warmth and reassurance of a community full of like-minded friends. It is the confidence that your soul will be nurtured after the completion of its trials on Earth. It is a deep and fruitful relationship with god. You might be surprised that I'm not more conflicted about rejecting it all completely, so let me help you understand. Religion has been sold to me as a beautiful life, filled with love and security, and it’s not even my skepticism and distrust that makes me shake my head at it all. It is the reason why all the logical arguments in the world cannot sway a believer into thinking otherwise. Atheists and believers do not want the same things out of life, so when someone comes to me promising eternal salvation or the love of a supreme being, they're not playing to my tastes. Similarly, when I provide logical proofs for the lack of any god, I am ignored by the most devout because I am not addressing what religion is about.
As an atheist, my entire view of the world can be summed up fairly easily; you don't need god to explain anything, so why is he necessary? This is Occam's Razor in full effect. When I am "blessed" with fortune, I am able to see all of the factors that combined to provide me with it. Most of the time, I can attribute my good fortune to my own doings. I do not need to involve Jesus or Buddha in the matter. Furthermore, my rejection of their existence does not prevent me from experiencing fulfillment. Then there are spiritual people who do not have a religion but instead believe in forces that defy current scientific logic. People might claim to have experienced supernatural events, but the million dollar prizes for proof of god or proof of the supernatural remain to be awarded. (There is an organization out there that will pay you a million dollars if you can prove it.) It is a simple challenge and all that anyone can contest it with is the assurance that you have to believe in god first in order to feel him. Therein lies all I need to know about religion and spirituality: they contain truths that are only real to the set of people who are interested. The "truths" do not affect me and this fact allows me to deduce that they are neither standard nor comprehensive. The "truths" are different for every religion or spirituality, with each claiming its own universal validity. This means that there can only be one correct belief system or that none of them are right. Trying to flip the stage and use logic against logic, religious people will claim that it is up to atheists to prove that there is no god. The problem is that, logically, you cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist to begin with.
There are believers out there who don't necessarily shun logic. More to the point, they believe that logic is on their side when arguing for the existence of god. Unfortunately, belief and non-belief are two incompatible debates because the logic employed in one uses different rules than the other. I've found myself in numerous discussions with believers and when I begin by stating that God is unnecessary to explain anything, the conversation predictably shifts to the question of our origin. How did the universe come into existence? How do you explain the existence of the matter that made up the Big Bang? Not only is there an illogical leap to assume that this matter had an intelligent creator, there are two more fallacies to starting the "origin" argument. First, if we are in the business of explaining the supposed something-from-nothing, then we also must ask, "Who created god before he created the universe?" Second, even if we concede that the universe must have been "created" by something, it still does not explain anything else. That means that everything that actually matters in life remains within the grasp of rational explanation.
Speaking of rationality, I have one concession to make. Humans are not rational at all. This truth flies in the face of the intellectual believer, who thinks of man as a masterpiece, a superior animal (if animal at all) who uses his dominant, thinking mind to make sound, honorable and moral decisions. One needs only to look as far as Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational to realize that humans are far from perfect and every ideal we think we see in ourselves can be stripped away by the everyday situations we find ourselves in. Demonstrated in the book,Ariely conducts experiments that catch the hidden beast at work within every man; the vulnerable and credulous critter at home behind our noble facades. Every lesson rings out loudly; no matter how chiseled, civilized and rational we believe we are, man's brain contains artifacts of the animals we descended from who had far more pressing priorities than serving any higher power.
My favorite lesson contained in Ariely's book focuses on our decision-making ability when under the influence of sexual arousal. As we can probably predict, our judgment is impaired in most impassioned states: anger, jealousy, desperation. But what happens when we predict how we will feel when we are sexually aroused? The experiment involved asking individuals a series of questions about sexual boundaries ("Can you imagine being attracted to a 12-year-old girl?"), moral boundaries ("Would you keep trying to have sex after your date said 'no'?") and safe sex ("Would you use a condom if you felt your date would change her mind while you went to get it?"). The subjects were first asked the questions while unaroused, but told to predict their answer as if they were actually aroused. The next step of the experiment had the same individuals answering the same questions, but this time they were actually in the heights of passion (masturbating) while doing so. The results were stunning. Without exception, the predictions of sexual boundaries, moral boundaries and adherence to safe sex were way off. Many "immoral" considerations received twice as many approvals during actual arousal than they had been predicted. The example questions that I cited were among those with the highest rates of reconsideration. What does this mean? It is only an example of how flawed humans and their "superior" judgment capabilities are and how little our standards of society matter when we are in the heat of passion. It is also a shining case against "abstinence only" sexual education.
The fact that I can follow a path of logic away from the warm embrace of belief does nothing for me in the way of convincing believers to do the same. The reasons for this are numerous, but all of them have one of two root justifications: either the idea of non-belief paints too uncomfortable a picture or it grates against the most basic of human motivations; the need to be right. As a former believer I met once said, "See yourself traversing a deep, dark chasm, stepping on a bridge illuminated by god's light and steadied by his hand." The notion of abandoning belief is too big of a leap to imagine for someone who has given their religion first priority in all of their life's decisions for so long. "Now turn off that light and remove the hand." One could envision the devastation. This is why churches urge their followers, without trepidation or hashing, to reject logic and let faith be their only guide. It's too scary not to.
It isn't that religious people are staring truth in the face and choosing to ignore it and it isn't because they're unintelligent; they simply cannot (or are not allowed to) fathom such a dramatically different reality for themselves - especially one that is blasphemous. This is the role of dogma in the belief system at work. Dogma is seen by non-religious people as an efficient system through which guilt can be delivered with the purpose of inducing subordination. Conversely, religious people view their dogma as the ultimate source of values and morality. This is why the faithful fear that a world without god would burn down in minutes.
I once met a girl who claimed to be a non-practicing Mormon. When I asked her why she did not leave the church, she replied that the faith provided a good set of morals for her to follow. I, being an Atheist who uses nothing more than his brain to choose how to behave, was spurred by this response to challenge her further. I asked her, "What morals could a church teach you that aren't already taught by secular society and adhered to by our basic human instinct for compassion?" I have yet to receive a response. My own take on her situation is that she probably knows for herself what is right and what is wrong, but the support system that the church community (and the larger "believer" demographic) provides is a powerful tool in recruitment and retention. Social contracts are built upon yet another basic human motivation; the need to belong. Why would someone who does not practice a religion retain a relationship with the church and continue to tithe part of their earnings? The answer lies in the stark truth spoken by another woman, a non-believer. "I'm an atheist, but I find it depressing," laments a 20-year-old test-tube baby. She grew up as a child of two lesbian women in a diverse liberal community; a member of no churches and practitioner of no cultural traditions. She is a human, like the rest of us, but barren of all that we might claim makes up ideal humanity. Still, she is an intelligent, well-adjusted citizen of society with a functioning moral compass, a boyfriend, and a future. Her lack of belonging is sorrowful, but she does not let it stand in the way of her search for truth.
Atheism is more of a discipline than a belief system. There are more basic human traits that draw us toward the warm light of belief than away from it. We all want to believe there is something more fantastic than just existing on this round rock that is hurtling through space. We all want to feel the love of an eternal creator, especially when we know we will eventually be abandoned by our earthly ones. We want magic and we want synchronicity with nature. We want more than what our eyes plainly see. Atheism asks that you only accept what you can justify, observe and accurately predict. The world is fantastic as it is, and we can make it a far better place if we only realized that it is really all we have. You might call this a depressing view, but in it I find so much more fulfillment than the thought of life being some arbitrary trial and transitional state of being. This is all we've got, folks. Let's make the best of it.
(My name is Andrew Gonsalves, I live in New York City, and you can reach me at: develdevil -at- gmail -dot- com)
Religious faith is the trust in a guiding presence. It is the warmth and reassurance of a community full of like-minded friends. It is the confidence that your soul will be nurtured after the completion of its trials on Earth. It is a deep and fruitful relationship with god. You might be surprised that I'm not more conflicted about rejecting it all completely, so let me help you understand. Religion has been sold to me as a beautiful life, filled with love and security, and it’s not even my skepticism and distrust that makes me shake my head at it all. It is the reason why all the logical arguments in the world cannot sway a believer into thinking otherwise. Atheists and believers do not want the same things out of life, so when someone comes to me promising eternal salvation or the love of a supreme being, they're not playing to my tastes. Similarly, when I provide logical proofs for the lack of any god, I am ignored by the most devout because I am not addressing what religion is about.
As an atheist, my entire view of the world can be summed up fairly easily; you don't need god to explain anything, so why is he necessary? This is Occam's Razor in full effect. When I am "blessed" with fortune, I am able to see all of the factors that combined to provide me with it. Most of the time, I can attribute my good fortune to my own doings. I do not need to involve Jesus or Buddha in the matter. Furthermore, my rejection of their existence does not prevent me from experiencing fulfillment. Then there are spiritual people who do not have a religion but instead believe in forces that defy current scientific logic. People might claim to have experienced supernatural events, but the million dollar prizes for proof of god or proof of the supernatural remain to be awarded. (There is an organization out there that will pay you a million dollars if you can prove it.) It is a simple challenge and all that anyone can contest it with is the assurance that you have to believe in god first in order to feel him. Therein lies all I need to know about religion and spirituality: they contain truths that are only real to the set of people who are interested. The "truths" do not affect me and this fact allows me to deduce that they are neither standard nor comprehensive. The "truths" are different for every religion or spirituality, with each claiming its own universal validity. This means that there can only be one correct belief system or that none of them are right. Trying to flip the stage and use logic against logic, religious people will claim that it is up to atheists to prove that there is no god. The problem is that, logically, you cannot disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist to begin with.
There are believers out there who don't necessarily shun logic. More to the point, they believe that logic is on their side when arguing for the existence of god. Unfortunately, belief and non-belief are two incompatible debates because the logic employed in one uses different rules than the other. I've found myself in numerous discussions with believers and when I begin by stating that God is unnecessary to explain anything, the conversation predictably shifts to the question of our origin. How did the universe come into existence? How do you explain the existence of the matter that made up the Big Bang? Not only is there an illogical leap to assume that this matter had an intelligent creator, there are two more fallacies to starting the "origin" argument. First, if we are in the business of explaining the supposed something-from-nothing, then we also must ask, "Who created god before he created the universe?" Second, even if we concede that the universe must have been "created" by something, it still does not explain anything else. That means that everything that actually matters in life remains within the grasp of rational explanation.
Speaking of rationality, I have one concession to make. Humans are not rational at all. This truth flies in the face of the intellectual believer, who thinks of man as a masterpiece, a superior animal (if animal at all) who uses his dominant, thinking mind to make sound, honorable and moral decisions. One needs only to look as far as Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational to realize that humans are far from perfect and every ideal we think we see in ourselves can be stripped away by the everyday situations we find ourselves in. Demonstrated in the book,Ariely conducts experiments that catch the hidden beast at work within every man; the vulnerable and credulous critter at home behind our noble facades. Every lesson rings out loudly; no matter how chiseled, civilized and rational we believe we are, man's brain contains artifacts of the animals we descended from who had far more pressing priorities than serving any higher power.
My favorite lesson contained in Ariely's book focuses on our decision-making ability when under the influence of sexual arousal. As we can probably predict, our judgment is impaired in most impassioned states: anger, jealousy, desperation. But what happens when we predict how we will feel when we are sexually aroused? The experiment involved asking individuals a series of questions about sexual boundaries ("Can you imagine being attracted to a 12-year-old girl?"), moral boundaries ("Would you keep trying to have sex after your date said 'no'?") and safe sex ("Would you use a condom if you felt your date would change her mind while you went to get it?"). The subjects were first asked the questions while unaroused, but told to predict their answer as if they were actually aroused. The next step of the experiment had the same individuals answering the same questions, but this time they were actually in the heights of passion (masturbating) while doing so. The results were stunning. Without exception, the predictions of sexual boundaries, moral boundaries and adherence to safe sex were way off. Many "immoral" considerations received twice as many approvals during actual arousal than they had been predicted. The example questions that I cited were among those with the highest rates of reconsideration. What does this mean? It is only an example of how flawed humans and their "superior" judgment capabilities are and how little our standards of society matter when we are in the heat of passion. It is also a shining case against "abstinence only" sexual education.
The fact that I can follow a path of logic away from the warm embrace of belief does nothing for me in the way of convincing believers to do the same. The reasons for this are numerous, but all of them have one of two root justifications: either the idea of non-belief paints too uncomfortable a picture or it grates against the most basic of human motivations; the need to be right. As a former believer I met once said, "See yourself traversing a deep, dark chasm, stepping on a bridge illuminated by god's light and steadied by his hand." The notion of abandoning belief is too big of a leap to imagine for someone who has given their religion first priority in all of their life's decisions for so long. "Now turn off that light and remove the hand." One could envision the devastation. This is why churches urge their followers, without trepidation or hashing, to reject logic and let faith be their only guide. It's too scary not to.
It isn't that religious people are staring truth in the face and choosing to ignore it and it isn't because they're unintelligent; they simply cannot (or are not allowed to) fathom such a dramatically different reality for themselves - especially one that is blasphemous. This is the role of dogma in the belief system at work. Dogma is seen by non-religious people as an efficient system through which guilt can be delivered with the purpose of inducing subordination. Conversely, religious people view their dogma as the ultimate source of values and morality. This is why the faithful fear that a world without god would burn down in minutes.
I once met a girl who claimed to be a non-practicing Mormon. When I asked her why she did not leave the church, she replied that the faith provided a good set of morals for her to follow. I, being an Atheist who uses nothing more than his brain to choose how to behave, was spurred by this response to challenge her further. I asked her, "What morals could a church teach you that aren't already taught by secular society and adhered to by our basic human instinct for compassion?" I have yet to receive a response. My own take on her situation is that she probably knows for herself what is right and what is wrong, but the support system that the church community (and the larger "believer" demographic) provides is a powerful tool in recruitment and retention. Social contracts are built upon yet another basic human motivation; the need to belong. Why would someone who does not practice a religion retain a relationship with the church and continue to tithe part of their earnings? The answer lies in the stark truth spoken by another woman, a non-believer. "I'm an atheist, but I find it depressing," laments a 20-year-old test-tube baby. She grew up as a child of two lesbian women in a diverse liberal community; a member of no churches and practitioner of no cultural traditions. She is a human, like the rest of us, but barren of all that we might claim makes up ideal humanity. Still, she is an intelligent, well-adjusted citizen of society with a functioning moral compass, a boyfriend, and a future. Her lack of belonging is sorrowful, but she does not let it stand in the way of her search for truth.
Atheism is more of a discipline than a belief system. There are more basic human traits that draw us toward the warm light of belief than away from it. We all want to believe there is something more fantastic than just existing on this round rock that is hurtling through space. We all want to feel the love of an eternal creator, especially when we know we will eventually be abandoned by our earthly ones. We want magic and we want synchronicity with nature. We want more than what our eyes plainly see. Atheism asks that you only accept what you can justify, observe and accurately predict. The world is fantastic as it is, and we can make it a far better place if we only realized that it is really all we have. You might call this a depressing view, but in it I find so much more fulfillment than the thought of life being some arbitrary trial and transitional state of being. This is all we've got, folks. Let's make the best of it.
(My name is Andrew Gonsalves, I live in New York City, and you can reach me at: develdevil -at- gmail -dot- com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)