Beyond Belief, But Not Beyond Good and Evil.
By amba | Related entries in Discuss, Ideas, ReligionRobert Anton Wilson, quoted by Commenter “Nick” at Church of the Churchless:
DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING
This remark was made, in these very words, by John Gribbin, physics editor of New Scientist magazine, in a BBC-TV debate with Malcolm Muggeridge, and it provoked incredulity on the part of most viewers. It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must “believe” something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended.
My attitude is identical to that of Dr. Gribbin and the majority of physicists today, and is known in physics as “the Copenhagen Interpretation,” because it was formulated in Copenhagen by Dr. Niels Bohr and his co-workers c. 1926-28. The Copenhagen Interpretation is sometimes called “model agnosticism” and holds that any grid we use to organize our experience of the world is a model of the world and should not be confused with the world itself. Alfred Korzybski, the semanticist, tried to popularize this outside physics with the slogan, “The map is not the territory.” Alan Watts, a talented exegete of Oriental philosophy, restated it more vividly as “The menu is not the meal.”
Belief in the traditional sense, or certitude, or dogma, amounts to the grandiose delusion, “My current model” — or grid, or map, or reality-tunnel — “contains the whole universe and will never need to be revised.” In terms of the history of science and knowledge in general, this appears absurd and arrogant to me, and I am perpetually astonished that so many people still manage to live with such a medieval attitude.
Resonates with this:
One of Universism’s goals is to see if the opposite of faith, uncertainty, can be embraced with the same fervor people have for religious certitudes. If we can replace humankind’s dangerous urge toward blind faith with a commitment to an ongoing quest, or at least a steadfast open-mindedness, the world will be much better off.
People would behave in strikingly different ways if they were not certain of the unproven beliefs that faiths promulgate. People who question look at the world more attentively, and at their fellow searchers more forgivingly.
Resonates with this:
God Without Religion offers a way for individuals to discover and define God on their own rather than accepting the interpretation of a particular religious doctrine. Instead of providing answers about God as organized religions do, the book encourages readers to explore their ideas of God by asking a series of questions that ultimately expand their sense of identity. I call this “worshiping by wondering.” Wonder is the gateway to spiritual knowledge. The more questions we ask about the nature of God, the more profound the answers will be, leading to deeper questions which broaden our perceptions and expand our sense of self. Constantly challenging our conclusions and refining our knowledge of God promotes the deep spiritual growth needed to transcend the violence so prevalent in the world today.
Resonates with this:
“Outsidersâ€Â? have all the same human needs [as traditionalists] — for community, for a conceptual operating system, for metaphysical and not just physical shelter — but they find themselves unable to deny the central fact of our time: that all the old certainties are being destroyed by two great new transforming forces, science and globalization. (Science is now evolving so fast it’s trashing its own certainties.) To defend any crumbling fortress of certainty today is to go to war not only with the defenders of other certainties, but with reality itself. The reality is that we’re being hurled back to square one, to a naked primordial unknowing face to face with the universe that challenges us to rediscover it from the ground up. [ . . . ]
But the same forces that are stripping away the answers are equipping us as never before to live in the open questions. When you swear exclusive allegiance to no one tradition, their multiplicity is no longer a threat but a vast resource: the record of over 10,000 years of research, a grand reference library for the study of reality [ . . . ]
The crucial divide, as this new millennium opens, isn’t “God or Not� [ . . . ] It’s between those who are sure they know the answers (or know the only place to find the answers) and those who are living the questions. This could actually prove to be a matter of life and death. Daring not to know may be the only way humans will survive our nuclear-armed reunion, because it’s ignorance and wonder that unite us. Even two groups of people who are killing each other over their answers have the same questions.
Is it fair to say this — humanity moving, in Elaine Pagels’ words, Beyond Belief — is one of the central emerging memes of our time? However, here is the great danger:
In any situation, moral judgments are the sole responsibility of those involved. Every decision and behavior occurs in the context of unique circumstances and relationships, and should never be subjected to universal religious codes or absolute philosophical principles. “Good or evil” is a false choice that belies the complexity of our universe and the people in it.
Or, as quoted by Robert Anton Wilson, whom this post began with:
Nothing is true. All is permitted.
~ Hasan i Sabbah
NOT.
The central emerging question of our time that shadows this meme is: Can we who enshrine uncertainty and wonder avoid being arrogant in our doubt? Can we dethrone our own personal, convenient, self-permissive interpretation of the “truth” when the objective evidence of experience contradicts it, in replicable experiments repeated countless times down the millennia? Can we have the humility to admit that that objective evidence (which you can obtain for yourself at any time by flapping your arms and falling on your ass) often coincides with the core wisdom, the timeless part of many traditions?
Basically the two halves of the book project I’m working on — the yes-but. From the proposal:
We are at a crossroads between two very different kinds of uncertainty. One is uncertainty as humility in the face of the tough task of figuring out what’s best. The other is uncertainty as carte blanche to “create your own realityâ€Â? and decide what’s best — for you.
I want us to go with humility.
When it comes to metaphysics, we really don’t know. When it comes to morals, we do. Buddhism doesn’t posit a God, yet it’s in agreement with Judeo-Christian tradition that you shouldn’t kill, lie, steal, or screw around, and in agreement with Islam that you shouldn’t get drunk or stoned. There’s a purported Native American story circulating on the Web (as yet unauthenticated) about the “two wolves fighting withinâ€Â? –“the one that wins is the one you feedâ€Â? — that corresponds exactly to the Jewish idea of the yetzer ha-ra and the yetzer ha-tov, the inner inclinations to natural selfishness and spiritual kindness. This suggests that good and evil do express something about the “inherent nature of the universe,â€Â? or at least about our inherent nature and experience.
Throughout the human heritage — our “grand reference library for the study of realityâ€Â? – we find the insight that morality, in its essentials, is objective. It’s not a matter of “should,â€Â? it’s a matter of “is.â€Â? Experience has proven, over and over again, the truth of consequences: “If you do x, you get y.â€Â? And these reproducible experimental results, which have great predictive power, are summed up in the set of axioms called “wisdom.â€Â? Wisdom is the science of the spirit.
For example, just as one of the basic laws of Newtonian physics is “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,â€Â? one of the basic laws of moral physics is “What goes around comes around.â€Â? Or as Martin Luther King put it: “The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” In the East, that’s called the Law of Karma; in the West it’s “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for as ye sow, so shall ye reap.â€Â? Don’t kid yourself: the universe is not a blank slate for your will to write on. You’re perfectly free to try to bend its laws, but it’s you who will break. You could try living “free from universal truthsâ€Â? like the law of gravity, too. Only in dreams and in fantasies like “The Matrixâ€Â? can we fly unaided.
Embedded in the time-dated customs and myths of every tradition is a core of timeless truth about what works and what doesn’t. Spiritual nomads go for that core. They don’t restrict themselves to one tradition any more than scientists will only study science done in one country. The point is to bring together the truest and most lifesaving information about reality. So spiritual nomads deliberately take their moral compass from all points of the compass.
That resonates with this:
Cosmopolitans believe in universal truth, too, though we are less certain that we already have all of it. It is not skepticism about the very idea of truth that guides us; it is realism about how hard the truth is to find. One tenet we hold to, however, is that every human being has obligations to every other. Everybody matters: that is our central idea. And again, it sharply limits the scope of our tolerance.
And with this:
The Open Source Truth Process aims to ensure that the Yoan Community’s core writings and beliefs will evolve over time, as everyoneâ€â€?based on each person’s own direct experience of Realityâ€â€?is invited to provide input and improvements. Through this process, participants will gradually uncover, refine, and document the Truth.
By “Truth” we simply mean the clearest expression of a system of ideas and beliefs that is most consistent with Reality as it is directly experienced. Ours is a truth that you can test and experience directly, with your own senses and mind. Our truth is not based on narrow human authority (dogma, received wisdom, and “imposed truths”). Rather, it is based on the broad authority of the collective, human experience of being-in-the-world, i.e., the human experience of reality. [ . . . ]
Our Truth Process depends on the increasing involvement of many people with diverse life experiences. Only through such diversity will our truths always be improving.
Please discuss.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 21st, 2006 and is filed under Discuss, Ideas, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 21st, 2006 at 9:40 am
Eh, this post is too long, didn’t feel like reading it, what’s the point anyway?
June 21st, 2006 at 10:30 am
Well, those who object to “Don’t believe anything” have a point, if not quite the one they think they are making. For example, regardless of one’s religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I think one must believe the data.
Certain things are facts. What they mean is subject to discussion. What they are believed to mean may change as additional facts come to light. But the facts remain, and any system of belief must account for them.
Consider evolution, just as an example. It is a fact that the earth consists of layers (strata) which differ from each other. It is a fact that dirt piles up and forms new layers over time. It is a fact that skeletons of animals no longer found on earth can be dug up. It is a fact that some characteristics of those remains change slowly as one moves from deeper strata to those closer to the surface. It is a fact that it is possible to breed animals so that some characteristics change (usually done because some people want those new characteristics). All of these things we can go out and look at first hand; they exist.
Most scientists look at those facts and conclude that the earth is millions of years old. Most scientists look at those facts and conclude that life evolves over time. But other people believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that evolution does not happen.
OK, but the facts remain. If you are going to hold the latter beliefs, you have to account for the facts. You can, of course, argue that God made the world, complete with those strata and skeletons; that the skeletons are not from something that ever lived and the strata were simply put in place. (After all, an all-powerful God _could_ have created the universe 15 minutes ago, complete with your memories of what happened earlier in your life.) But one way or another you have to deal with the facts. If you just try to ignore them, you are really saying that you know that your beliefs are nonsense.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:35 am
I like the idea that once we decide to “believe” something, we stop thinking about it. I think a corollary might be that if one is unable to stop thinking about things, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to firmly “believe” in something.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:52 am
My head hurts. Too deep for me….
June 21st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Trusting the data and only the data bespeaks a belief in itself – the belief that the data can be trusted. Let’s assume that particular belief is permitted.
Believing only in the data still leaves you with holes. The “data” dictates that you still must make myriad decisions over your lifetime, and the data simultaneously fails to supply you with sufficient information to make those decisions. Should I take the tunnel, or drive through town? Should I buy fruit here, or will it be cheaper at the market near my house? Should I vote for this guy or that guy?
You can’t postpone decisions all the time. You can’t sit there in the middle of the highway, you can’t not buy fruit for the rest of your life, and you can’t wait until June of 2007 to see if you -really- wanted to vote for the other guy. Eventually, if you have to act on what you have.
Belief is what we use to fill the gaps in our understanding, and prevent ourselves from ceasing to function and then dying out. If the beliefs are complex enough, we call them a religion.
Believe it or not.
June 21st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Paul, I agree that you have to act on belief to some extent when the data are insufficient. All I am saying is that your system of beliefs (if you have a system, of course) should _account_ for the data. Belief in the data, plus a little knowledge of history, will tell you that new data will probably force a revision of conclusions . . . but those new data may be years or centuries in coming. Still, you don’t want to just ignore the data that you do have.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
What if there’s a lot of data, and not yet fully understood?
June 21st, 2006 at 2:26 pm
I’m assuming that you mean that you have data which you don’t understand the implications of, or that does not yet fit into the theories that you have been using. Then you try for the best-fit belief — one that at least does not flatly contradict the data that you have. Or, and this happens regularly in science, you admit that you don’t have a theory which explains all of the data, and are up front about what the data is that does not fit.
The requirement is not omniscience. Just honesty about what the data is and where it does not appear to fit.
June 21st, 2006 at 5:37 pm
I was referring to data that “does not yet fit into the theories that you have been using”, yes.
Okay, next question. Suppose there is additional data indicating that if you admit your theories do not explain all of the non-fitting data, then all of the theories you have been promoting will be brought into question. What shall you do then?
(Full disclosure: I guess I should say that I am being purposefully naive here. :-) )
June 21st, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Oh, if only St. Thomas Aquinas had a blog.
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:11 am
[...] DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHINGDonklephant - 22 hours ago… and over again, the truth of consequences: If you do x, you get y. And these reproducible experimental results, which have great predictive power, are … [...]
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 am
Here’s something I wrote in the second part of an essay on abortion:
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:30 am
Amba, whatever the metaphysical merits of your diatribe, I don’t think this position is really supportable. As evidence, you merely point to the earth resolving around the sun. That scientific truth in fact did not have a unifying effect, but a rather divisive-disintigrative effect. The fact that modern people can now nod their heads in agreement over basic science is hardly supportive of the “unifying” effect of knowledge. Knowledge is power and, in case you haven’t noticed, the power (and wealth) differential is exaggerated in modern (and by definition “scientifically knowledgable”) societies. Please compare this with tribal societies with relatively little scientific knowledge — much more unified and equalitarian. What is the unifying element of such tribal societies, 1) survival and 2) belief. The Aztec mothers would willing sacrifice their children for the harvest gods — now that is the definition of unifying. No great knowledge there.
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:29 am
Paul, I’m not really clear on what you mean by: “Suppose there is additional data indicating that if you admit your theories do not explain all of the non-fitting data, then all of the theories you have been promoting will be brought into question.” ALL of the theories?
Personally, if I have data that don’t fit one of my theories, I have two choices:
1) spend some time trying to come up with a theory that does fit,
2) meanwhile, use the existing theories for those areas where they are “good enough.” An example being Newtonian mechanics — Einstein’s formulation is a better fit for more of the data, but Newton’s is still sufficient for an enormous number of situations (and a LOT easier to use).
But data which don’t fit one theory do not necessarily impact another. When geology finally accepted plate tectonics it made no difference to theories of stellar evolution.
But perhaps you were thinking of a religious doctrine, which is suspect if any part of it doesn’t fit the data. Well, here are some possibilities (if you aren’t going to just ingore the data):
- change religions. OK, a hard choice, but obviously an option for some people.
- change sects. Most religions have both absolute literalist sects and others which take a more figurative view.
- discover that many religious figures spoke with analogies, the references of which were clear to the listeners, have been lost over time. (To take just one example: Did you know that 2000 years ago The Eye of the Needle was the name of a gate into Jeruselum — but a very low one? And a camel _could_ get through it, but only on its knees. Which gives a whole different view of how Jesus thought a rich man might get into heaven.)
If I’ve missed your point, please elucidate.
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:25 am
My point was, that there is data indicating that if your theories are A, B, and C, and a flaw (contradictory data) is found regarding A, then others now consider B and C less strong, with no other support other than:
- you support A, B, C
- A is weaker
- therefore, B and C are weaker.
Invalid reasoning (in my belief), but nevertheless, data indicates that this reasoning is followed frequently. So what do you do? What do you do, especially if A wasn’t really as important to you as B and C? Do you equivocate on A, and admit that A isn’t able to explain everything, and then take the hit on B and C?
Again – and this hits a little on the “religious doctrine” of your last response – what if B and C are -really- important to you?
In slightly more general terms, how do you handle your reasoning in the face of reasoning that is not valid (at least, not in your system)?
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:27 am
Amba: Can you think of any examples of statements you believe in, without proof?
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Paul,
Just because A is weaker does not at all mean that B and C are weaker, unless A is a part of, or has some substantial relation to B and C.
“Invalid reasoning (in my belief), but nevertheless, data indicates that this reasoning is followed frequently.”
Maybe that “data” is wrong, or maybe just because people use extremely flawed reasoning does not make that reasoning legitimate. Also missing from the analysis here is the fact that just because there is contradictory data, it doesn’t mean that your data is wrong, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that A is weaker. There is almost always contradictory data to be found on any given piece of data, unless you’re talking about something that has been accepted as fact, and even then . . . . Therefore, contradictory data just doesn’t have to mean that much anymore. End result – I may make a logical argument for flatly rejecting your data, and I don’t have to give in on A in the first place.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:48 pm
What do you do if someone suggests that, because you appear to be wrong on one thing you must be wrong on everything? Especially if you care more about other things than the one you were wrong on?
First, if the data says that you were wrong, admit it. In addition to being honest, it actually should suggest that you are more likely to be right on the ones you still support.
Second, point out that whether something is correct or not does not depend on who supports it but on the data.
Third, point out that, if there is evidence that contradicts your other positions, those who disagree have an obligation to bring it forward — since you have just demonstrated your willingness to consider new information. AND, if they do not do so, that suggests that there is no such information — since otherwise, why aren’t they bringing it up? Which is not likely to convert them, but may help sway others. ;-)
Admittedly, the “I detest X, so anything X does is, by definition, dispicable” position is all too common. But since it is easy, and avoids the need to actually think, it is likely to remain popular. (I have to wonder if the people who think like this ever stop to think that they are allowing the person they hate to do their thinking for them. Because they obviously are.)
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Meredith: do you think that most people naturally discard reasoning that you would consider invalid? More specifically: do you think that people do not use the argument: “consider the source”?
Meanwhile, I agree: if some data contradicts your data, it does not necessarily follow that your data is wrong. It also does not necessarily follow that your data is right. This implies that nothing quite follows from this contradiction. (Interestingly, in classical logic, all statements follow from contradiction. But this is not that kind of contradiction; the data in question here are not fully descriptive, and are not in actual contradiction; more information is needed to tell what is really true. Which is a windbag way of saying what you said.)
Back to your comment, then: what if your audience has stopped listening to you before you’ve had a chance to defend your theory?
wj: “First, if the data says that you were wrong, admit it. In addition to being honest, it actually should suggest that you are more likely to be right on the ones you still support.” …what if it does not suggest that?
“Second, point out that whether something is correct or not does not depend on who supports it but on the data.” …my question is the same as that to Meredith: what if your audience has stopped listening to you?
Your third point jibes well with points one and two, and so I won’t question it until you’ve had a chance to answer my questions to one and two.
Your last paragraph made me smile. The point about the adversary doing one side’s thinking for it had not yet occurred to me in that form.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:30 am
Dos Peros (does that mean “two buts”?) (sic) –
Aztec society is probably a poor example of a “unified and egalitarian, “tribal” society. They may not have had much scientific knowledge by our standards, but it was a rather advanced and stratified civilization. The priests had a lot of the power, and for all we know they could sacrifice that mother’s child to the gods whether she assented or not.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:38 am
Paul: “There is a conscious, creative, loving intelligence permeating the universe.” Which is what people call God without the Sunday School connotations. But I do fine not believing that, but holding it as my hypothesis, my working assumption. I don’t know for a fact that it’s true. I don’t have proof, but I have evidence, both subjective and objective. I am willing to live as if it’s true, rejoice in the seeming confirmations, wrestle with the seeming contradictions.
By believing I meant pretending to yourself that you know for sure something that can’t be known for sure. Of course people must proceed on assumptions and premises. But I think that ultimate uncertainty is there, and fanaticism is shadow evidence for it: only if you deeply doubt would you need to absolutely believe.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:04 am
Paul, Forgive me if I am wrong. But it sounds like your concern/question is not: What should I do when the data do not support on of my theories/positions? But rather: What do I do to persuade others of my other positions in that case?
And my response to that concern is simply this: If what you believe is informed by the data, then you witness for that belief by acknowledging when new data conflicts with something else that you believe to be true. This is a matter of being true to yourself. It takes priority over persuading others.
And if you desire to persuade others, how you get them to listen to you (or resume listening to you), and how you convince them once you do, are separate questions. Whether you acknowledge data that conflicts or not, you will still have the issue of how you get people to listen. And, I would suggest, refusal to acknowledge conflicting data will not help that effort.
Once you get a hearing, how do you convince someone? I would suggest that starting with the data is a good place to start. Will it work with everyone? No, refusal to look at the data is not the exclusive behavior of any one side of any issue. But the only people you have a realistic chance of convincing are those with at least somewhat open minds. And data has a better chance with those people than simple (especially conflicting) belief — no matter how fervently put forward.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 am
Amba, cannot “believing” mean something less than certainty? I can believe that something is true, based on the information available to date — without being certain that it is ultimately true. For instance, I believe that there is no life on Pluto; but it is entirely possible (albeit extremely unlikely in my opinion) that when we actually go and look we will find something. Belief; but not certainty.
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
amba: Fine answer. Now, is there something you believe in, without proof, and so strongly that you will act on that belief without proof all the while?
wj: what if you quickly fit conflicting data into your theory, but for some reason (lack of time, lack of talent, et al.) you are unable to communicate that understanding? And what if enforcing that understanding, that belief, via communication or coercion, is vital to your survival?
In other news, I suspect you have very little stake in whether or not life exists on Pluto. :-) Which I reckon was partially your point.
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Actually, my point was that I have very little data on whether life exists on Pluto, so when I get more it is likely to present some surprises. Not no data (there is some information on temperatures there, and on what temperatures life as we know it survives/florishes on Earth), but very little.
I’m not real clear on how a particular belief, specifically “enforcing” that belief, would be “vital to your survival.” Lack of imagination on my part, no doubt. Perhaps you could give an example of what you have in mind.
The best I could come up with is global warming. Now if global warming is happening, there will be impacts on humanity. But survival? If the sea levels rise several yards, a lot of low level land becomes uninhabitable (arguably all of Florida, for example) — but there is no obvious reason peole living there could not migrate to the new shoreline. Similarly, climate change would make some current agricultural areas a lot less productive; but also allow agriculture in some areas which are currently too cold. Economic problems, sure, even massive ones. But a survival threat seems over the top.
Not to say that there isn’t a climate change problem, or that no steps should be taken to attempt to address the issue. Just that I don’t see anyone arguing for changes, based on their belief in global warming, who is at risk of death. (And, no doubt, you had a different scenario in mind anyway. :-) )
June 27th, 2006 at 11:47 am
[Sorry for the late response; a weekend happened...]
Yes, I did have a different scenario in mind, but it doesn’t matter. Your illustration is good enough, and I’ll stop with the questions at this point.
The points I am making are these:
First, a one-hand/other-hand seesaw: I believe there is objective truth (that house is white). However, only subjective viewpoints of that objective truth exist (that house looked white to me yesterday). There can be a preponderance of viewpoints that gives us an effective objective truth (thousands of people drive by that house, and say that it’s white), but if enough viewpoints disagree, then I believe the truth is necessarily in question (several hundred actually said it was black).
It can get more complicated. These viewpoints are themselves an objective truth of which we have a limited view (okay, I didn’t really talk to all those thousands of people; I only asked five, who all said it was white). The viewpoints could be of varying certainty (these 100 didn’t really get a good look at the house), detail (some saw a different color for the trim), and credibility (some said it was red, just to spread FUD… we think).
When you put this all together, you find that there’s so much you don’t know, that you -have- to fill in the gaps with something in order to make a decision. That’s where your beliefs come in.
If your decision requires some imposition on other people, then the acceptance of that decision is partially a function of how well your beliefs coincide with theirs.
Finally, right and wrong don’t really have any play here. We can’t say this decision was right, or that one was wrong. I can say I believe this is right and that is wrong, but I can’t know for sure, because I know that I know so little. Someone else can say a different decision is right, and my gut tells me not that they’re wrong, but that they might know something I don’t. Or believe something I don’t.
These are, to me, some of the underpinnings of moderacy.