Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man February 2, 2007
Posted by Nima J. in Uncategorized.trackback
If I claimed to be Spider-Man would you believe me? What if I successfully convinced 98% of the world I could sling web but showed no proof of my abilities. Would you then agree that I am Spider-Man? You would probably require evidence. I tell you to have a little faith.
Galileo questioned why God would give us our senses and reason then want us to abandon their use, by giving us some other means the information that we could gain through them. I know that you feel that somewhere deep down in your heart you believe something must exist to explain for the complexity and beauty of everything around you. Yet at one time, hurricanes were the results of angering the Greek God Poseidon. I know this doesn’t seem like an appropriate analogy, the very fact I make the association may seem to you demeaning. Religious faith, a belief in an omnipotent presence and an afterlife is a rather taboo subject matter. Nevertheless, the double-standard it presents us is in no way subtle.
We require evidence for everything except when it comes to matters of faith. Imagine if the notion that faith in me being Spider-man awarded you eternal bliss, thereby a dependence on reason, observation, and intelligence (that I’m not spider-man) assured everlasting pain. Ingersoll would say this is” too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called faith.” I don’t doubt that faith has gotten people through some hard times or made people do great things. Yet this premise doesn’t soundly confirm God’s existence. It only shows that faith is merely a method or tool for tapping into a potential in ourselves that always existed. Consider the power of self-hypnosis in eliminating unwanted habits. Nothing external of ourselves can be attributed to the potential for courage and altruism we are capable of during harsh times. Faith restricts our potential by constantly placing reliance on an external presence. John Dewey explained how faith limits our advancement towards the ‘good in life,’ by causing us to wait upon some power external to do the work we are responsible for doing. Religion is a relic of history which constantly interferes with the growth of our individuality and civil society.
The major religions do seemingly exhibit a stringent ethical code, however, I don’t need to discuss the byproduct of this stringency throughout history (any semi-informed person can list off a few). Some believers of religious dogma claim that without the ethical code offered by religious scripture the world would become chaotic. I very much hope not…give humanity a little credit. What does this belief in heaven and hell infer? For one, I, your friend, must accept an afterlife of eternal damnation. Are you OK with that? …No seriously! Einstein expressed his dismay for humankind if our behavior had to be ‘restrainted by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death’. Having no belief in an afterlife is in no way depressing let alone detrimental to my sanity. Just because someone you love passes away doesn’t mean you value her life or the memories any less without the belief that she’s on her way to heaven. I know it may seem reassuring and rather satisfying to believe you will die and meet your loved ones in the afterlife but this is simply not so.
Accepting death is accepting an inevitability of every living organism on this planet. One can still be angry, sad, and cry. These are natural mechanisms of dealing and responding to losing someone close. I think we are all capable of dealing with events without relying on fantasies for comfort. Imagine if custom was throwing a wild party after someone dies as a farewell. This seems ridiculous but the possibility of a ritual such as this is not an more unlikely than anything else we’ve already become accustom to. If someone talks to an imaginary friend he is considered crazy, however, if one talks to God it is considered prayer. To believe that a loved one will go to an afterlife is not an intrinsically human characteristic, it is an illusion that may help one deal with the event, but it is no less an illusion. Believing in an afterlife is not an innate characteristic of man, just a current tool we use to deal with the fear of finality. But as Bertrand Russel said, “fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty..To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.” As a child grows and becomes wiser, he realizes the notion of Santa is rather ludicrous. Why? Because he realizes his parents buy the gifts. But till that realization, the concept of Santa is nothing more than a place-holder, a fictitious story to make Xmas fun.
I don’t agree that man needs faith, this is a pompous affirmation. Once we lose our belief that an afterlife exists we will be encouraged to enrich ourselves now. Emerson stated that ‘if death is the end, then living is everything’. In the same regards, Umberto Eco said, ‘when men stop believing in God, it isn’t that they then believe in nothing: they believe in everything.’ The predispositions that arise from religious faith, dogma and creed constrain our creativity. Precedence slows, if not deters, our potential for social advancement. Clari Barton described precedence as a type of tyranny. Religion, according to her, closes the mind. Tradition itself is dangerous in that it encourages us to replay actions, once based on certain premises, which may have very well become expired. B. Hardy explains that, the unchallenged and exercised as habit rapidly becomes ritual. When this occurs, dissent becomes an object of surprise, if not resentment.” This resentment will reinforce a sturdier ignorance and narrower perspective.
I remain skeptical as to whether or not its in our capacity to discern absolute truths if any exist at all. To even consider evaluating a concept we describe as independent of our faculties, such as a belief in God, is naive since we cannot hope to escape the confinement of our vocabulary. Faith is intellectually bankrupt insofar as its implementation negates reason. Therefore, I believe our only responsibility is to re-describe and refine our reality for the betterment and survival of future generations. But since I began reading more about science and religion I have come to denounce faith, I suppose I exude an arrogance that I can’t help be weary of. Nevertheless, unlike the religious who believe they ‘know’ I have reached a point in my life were I can say I don’t ‘know’. This isn’t a plea for religious fanatics to reconsider their Faith because religious moderates are not innocent either. As Umberto Eco said ‘one can reach the point where there is no any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing.’
Faith DENIES scientific reason. Once something can be scientifically reasoned it no longer requires faith. Therefore, for faith to exist, there must be something to believe in that cannot be proved. So is God a possibility? Yes, but not any more then the possibility of any other idea or object your imagination can conceive of, its not any more likely than me claiming to be spider-man. As Nietzsche famously put it, “Faith: not wanting to know what’s true”. Faiths power is undeniable, and as Seneca the Younger noticed, it is something that the common people have always regarded true, the wise false, and the rulers as useful.
As you read this, I know you feel as though I’m asking you to realize you’ve been betrayed, fooled, or ignorant. As though I’m asking you to give something up that belongs to you, your driving force, that which gives you purpose. If we stumbled on proof that life has no purpose would you change your plans? For this reason, I think finding a meaning or purpose to life is a hollow endeavor. What we need to be doing is asking some better questions. To part with the concept of Faith may feel like parting with a limb. But the purpose of this post is only to provoke thought. If I started slinging web and climbing walls, then you have at least the logical motive to hypothesize about my mutant qualities and test its validity. If evidence was discovered tomorrow that God exists, I would give it credit. If evidence was discovered tomorrow that God doesn’t exist, the faithful would consider such evidence erroneous.
[...] read more | digg story [...]
To directly address your second to last paragraphy –
Okay, but doesn’t even belief in science require faith? I cannot recreate complex scientific experiments, and test all scientific explanations for validity. At some level, I must have “faith” in the scientists and the explanations that are presented to me. I cannot rely merely on my senses to perceive the world around me, as Descartes and many others have eloquently argued. At some level, I need to have faith that what I see is not always what I should “believe” and vice versa.
How often is the “common consensus/wisdom” just plain wrong and based on incorrect assumptions or data and consequently widely accepted as fact? How many times have hard scientific findings been simply shown as wrong? I think it requires some hubris to assume that “science” contains all that is true while “religious faith” is largely At some level we are all operating on faith, scientists and televangelists alike. To address your Dewey quote, I am probably taking his full meaning out of context, but this is a personal failing, not religious. People find crutches everywhere, in religion, in government, in family, etc. People fail, and blaming religion for their weaknesses is the opposite side of the same coin.
Is all science based on deceit and lies because we can poke holes in a theory or two? No, but likewise, we should not feel compelled to shelve religion and spirituality either. Both have their place. It is human ignorance and pride that causes problems, not one or the other.
I am not a religious person, but I really object to the holier than thou attitude of many atheists today. I don’t know what is going on in the world, and I doubt they really do either, no matter how much they may protest to the contrary. I do agree that we need to strike at the heart of religious fundamentalism and begin to turn the tide away from blind faith and ignorance. Fundamentalists have far too much sway in the world today, and we need to engage them. But, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if they do not pick my pocket, or break my leg, why should it bother me what they believe?
Thanks for your response Josh! You make some very good points. Nonetheless, I have to respectfully disagree that faith bares any significant role in the scientific method. Science sets out to determine whether its conclusions resemble what is physically happening. In science it is actually encouraged to find fault with scientific laws and findings. I happen to find greater solace in this measure than any religion has to offer. Saying one needs ‘faith’ in what scientist’s determine to be fact, or that one needs ‘faith’ in order to accept scientific ‘beliefs’ isn’t discounting the scientific process as much as it is reflecting that scientists may not be all too reliable. Remember, science is constantly improving. Many theories, such as gravity, are merely place holders. Gravity allows for society to account for something that experiment shows to be there, however still mysterious. We don’t need faith in gravity like we need faith in God, God is irrefutable. If global warming is found to be wrong by ‘common consensus/wisdom’ of scientists and layfolk alike tomarrow, then I will re-think my stance on it. If only religious faith allowed for this room to breath.
Often times, in the spirit of being tolerant, we confuse arguments and allow room for the irrational. Mixing words such as faith in the religious context with any level of the scientific method is contradictory. This form of logic is merely an argumentative tool. If I came across as proclaiming science has the end all answers to everything then I apologize I didn’t mean this. But I do sincerely believe science is our best method of determining anything. Faith is a defense for that which lacks evidence, it is stubborn and ultimately an empty concept. I completely agree that the individual’s psychology is what fails and not necessarily religion or politics, however, the kind of religion which doesn’t affect (infringe) on someone else is a spiritual kind, and I have no issue with a personal, spiritual relationship. Unfortunately, religious institution, one which ascribes to a faith-based dogma, does pick pockets and break legs. The problems of religion are very real, much like the problems of an economic system which suppresses a specific faction/class of people. Sure if everyone helped everyone than any political regime could work, but this is idealistic talk, and better left for a philosophical debate.
Unfortunately, atheism has received a bad rep, often seeming fairly radical itself. I don’t believe it is as much a matter of them ‘feeling holier than thou’ although some may be feel this way..The bad attitude may come across from their frustration manifested through their own propaganda. Most of them are simply asking people to re-think their beliefs literally bestowed to them by their parents in the hopes that rational thinking will turn people away from something so bankrupt as religious ‘faith’. If you believe it, my philosophies have changed significantly since I wrote this post. I don’t agree with everything I have written in the past and I find myself trashing many of the philosophical questions I struggled with. I spent a couple years reading all sides of the matter and frankly I’m tired of it. To be honest, I don’t care much these days about whether god exists or not, it is simply irrelevant for me.
I’d be happy to continue this after class boss when you’re kickin my ass
“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.”
Don Hirschberg