- Are words like "bright" that some use to describe people with a naturalistic worldview useful?
- Are words like "super" used to describe people with a supernatural worldview useful?
- Are "bright" and "super" worldviews are mutually exclusive (this is the assumption voiced by The Brights organization)?
- Do the assumptions behind the words "bright" and "super" impose a literalism that allows no room figurative understanding?
The positions they [the terms "bright" and "super"] attempt to describe are not either-or, but fall within a varying range. There are "supers" who find truth primarily through empirical means, there are "brights" who do not deny the possible value to others of mystical experience even if they themselves have not found it helpful, there are "supers" who do deny the value of mysticism, there are naturalistic mystics who deny supernaturalism, and so on. Moreover, it sounds as though both "bright" and "super" as defined may allow only for literal understanding and exclude the validity of figurative expression.Personally, I disagree with the assumption that a naturalistic "bright" worldview is somehow incompatible with valuing figurative expression.
Humans are a part of the interdependent web -- the fingerprints of our biological roots that we share with the rest of creation are all over us. For example, the Hox genes in humans show our biological connection with jellyfish and fruit flies -- not to mention all bilaterally symmetrical animals.
If we are a part of the web of creation, then I consider it reasonable to view our behavior and the things we create as natural phenomena (the same way we view the dancing of bees and bee honeycombs as "natural phenomena").
I think the amazing creation that we live is a "WYSIWYG" place - "what you see is what you get." I think that this physical plane of existence is all that we can really can know is and it's wonderful.
Given the amazingness of the natural world, do we need to "gild the lily" by adding a supernatural layer to this world we live in?
The stories and religions that we create are valuable not because they contain "literal truths" or even "figurative truths."
These human-created figurative expressions are natural phenomena and they are valuable because they tell us something about what it means to be human and perhaps lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.
17 comments:
"Given the amazingness of the natural world, do we need to "gild the lily" by adding a supernatural layer to this world we live in?"
You just don't seem to get it. The lily was already gilded when we got there; nothing was added. The world containing a Divinity *IS* my WYSIWYG world. The fact that YOU haven't experienced this is not proof it does not exist.
@Joel
"Given the amazingness of the natural world, do we need to "gild the lily" by adding a supernatural layer to this world we live in?"
Many, many theists express their supernatural belief as a necessary alternative to a world they otherwise see as cold, wonderless, and devoid of meaning. It is to this exceedingly common position that the above sentiment is rightly directed.
P.S. Please avoid phrases like "You just don't seem to get it." It denotes a smug and presumptuous approach to discourse and as often as not says more about the accuser's lack of insight than the accused's.
Does anyone other than self-identified "Brights" accept the "brights" versus "supers" frame? Or is it merely another one-sided attempt to draw an "us" versus "them" type of distinction, that like so many others makes sense only to the inner circle of those who are accepted as "us"?
I ask because if you go to the "The Brights" website, you don't see them talking about "supers" at all, or of any other opposite but equally valid worldview in a yin-and-yang sort of way, but instead seem somewhat self-important and defensive. For example, they say:
The noun form of the term bright refers to a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. (Why is naturalism necessarily incompatible with mysticism? They don't say.)
and:
Persons who have a naturalistic worldview should not be culturally stifled or civically marginalized due to society’s extensive supernaturalism. Rather, they ought to be accepted as fellow citizens and full participants in the cultural and political landscape. (Who suggested otherwise?)
and:
The imagery of brightness speaks to humanity’s impetus toward learning, audacity for open inquiry, and spirit of skepticism that once characterized an optimistic time on earth when science and reason seemed to offer the key to the future. (Did they really mean to suggest that at some point those things proved to be illusory or undesirable?)
They also seem somewhat condescending, clearly implying by their choice of terms and definitions that anyone who is not a fellow Bright is, well, not too bright. All in all, it seems like a rehash of capital-H Humanism, complete with the same definitional negation -- "we are who we are more because of the things we deny, than because of the things we affirm" -- without being as clear as Humanism is about exactly what it does affirm.
Whatever the nomenclature, to return to the original issues that provoked your questions above, I'd like to add the question of whether UUism should be an exclusive community that concentrates on either the natural or the supernatural worldview to the suppression of the other, or whether it should be an inclusive community in which adherents of differing worldviews come together to acknowledge and support one another in their differences. These are three different positions, but sometimes it is difficult for advocates of one exclusive focus to recognize the difference between advocates of the opposite exclusive focus and advocates of finding common ground.
"So what's so wrong with a "WYSIWYG" world?"
My answer to that question would be, "Nothing at all. What's wrong are WYSIWIG and WISIWYG worlds."
I can't help but think about the turkey who gets fed every day by the farmer, who is named by the farmer's kids and who, going on his past experiences and what he sees around him, see humans as trusting friends who will always take care of him and assumes that's what he will get.
Right up until Thanksgiving day.
Now, I recognize that Chicken Run-esque scenarios aside, a turkey who does not trust that what he sees and perceives of the world around him is what he will get, who wonders about a greater purpose to the barn and the food and if some greater power might have plans for him, is no better off.
But I still think I'd rather be that second turkey.
CC
Ps. Just because someone says "A world without God would be cold, wonderless and devoid of meaning" does not mean they are choosing to believe in an imaginary God to please themselves.
I could say "a world without modernn art would be cold, wonderless and devoid of meaning" and that doesn't make Picasso a creature of my imagination.
You don't have to believe in modern art for modern art to exist, after all, and if modern art doesn't enrich your life, that doesn't mean that modern art isn't valuable to some people.
CC
Pps.
You can say "Given the amazingness of the natural world, why do we need to 'gild the Lily' by having an style of art that focuses on finding new truths by looking for new ways of seeing and considering new materials and the nature of art itself?" all you want but:
1. Modern art still exists.
2. It's still a valuable thing that enriches the lives of those who appreciate it.
3. It gives a new perspective and new truths to those who believe in it and understand it.
At the same time, lots of people decide that modern art is a bunch of hooey and don't bother and/or only look at more representational older paintings.
To put that in the "WYSIWYG" framework:
If you don't go see Modern Art, you will never get it. You will get other things that you do see, but you won't get what you decide has no value and not to look for or at.
And that's up to you and fine, until you start saying "I don't see any value in modern art, so modern art must be valueless for everybody else, too."
CC
Joel wrote:
-snip-
"You just don't seem to get it. The lily was already gilded when we got there; nothing was added. The world containing a Divinity *IS* my WYSIWYG world. The fact that YOU haven't experienced this is not proof it does not exist."
Joel,
I find it very puzzling that you're OK with using your direct personal experience but you're all too willing to discount the direct personal experiences of others like me.
Remember, I'm not the one making any claims here. I'm merely asking questions and expressing my doubts about the usefulness of certain religious ideas.
Remember it's not my job here to "disprove" anything here (any more than it was Russell's job to disprove the existence of the celestial teapot).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
What we know so far here is that you have reported direct personal experience something that you consider a divine presence.
This may be evidence for the existence of the divine.
Or there may be naturalistic and non-supernatural explanations for your experiences that we have not discovered yet.
To the best of my knowledge, we have not discovered any external independently verifiable evidence available to be examined by all persons for divinty or supernaturalism yet.
Fausto quoted and commented:
-snip-
"Persons who have a naturalistic worldview should not be culturally stifled or civically marginalized due to society’s extensive supernaturalism. Rather, they ought to be accepted as fellow citizens and full participants in the cultural and political landscape. (Who suggested otherwise?)"
I've asked questions and expressed doubt on my blog and in person.
I've been told that my doubts and questioning are impolite and some have said that I shouldn't be in my congregation because I've expressed these doubts.
Then Fausto quoted and commented:
-snip-
"The imagery of brightness speaks to humanity’s impetus toward learning, audacity for open inquiry, and spirit of skepticism that once characterized an optimistic time on earth when science and reason seemed to offer the key to the future. (Did they really mean to suggest that at some point those things proved to be illusory or undesirable?)"
I don't think the Brights organisation was saying these things were illusory or undesirable from the point of view of the Brights organisation or individuals promoting a naturalistic worldview.
I think they were expressing a concern that non-critical, non-sceptical, supernatural, etc ideas are being embraced uncritically in our country.
Our popular culture isn't totally accepting of naturalistic worldviews based on observation of the natural world.
Examples of this rejection of naturalism are easy to find in the United States:
** Creationism and intelligent design movements that have no evidence supporting them and make no testable claims for researchers to explore.
** Abstinence-only sexuality education programs that are funded by the US and state governments in spite of the fact research shows they are not effective.
** Claims that autism is caused by childhood vaccines in spite of there being no evidence for any causal linkage.
Fausto wrote:
-snip-
"They also seem somewhat condescending, clearly implying by their choice of terms and definitions that anyone who is not a fellow Bright is, well, not too bright."
Fausto,
It may make sense to view the term "bright" as being similar to the term "gay."
Both are positive ways of re-framing what some view as a marginalized identity.
When discussing sexual orientation, the opposite of "gay" isn't "glum" or "unhappy" -- it's "heterosexual" or "straight."
When discussing worldviews, the opposite of "bright" isn't "dim" or "unintellgent" -- it could be "super" (short for supernatural).
But I'll leave this "super" terminology decision up to those with the supernatural worldviews.
CC wrote:
-snip-
I can't help but think about the turkey who gets fed every day by the farmer, who is named by the farmer's kids and who, going on his past experiences and what he sees around him, see humans as trusting friends who will always take care of him and assumes that's what he will get.
Right up until Thanksgiving day.
Now, I recognize that Chicken Run-esque scenarios aside, a turkey who does not trust that what he sees and perceives of the world around him is what he will get, who wonders about a greater purpose to the barn and the food and if some greater power might have plans for him, is no better off."
CC,
Your hypothetical turkeys point out the reason that folks who look for naturalistic answers to explain the world need to be very careful.
(1) Humans are very good at seeing patterns where no patterns exist -- this is why statistical analysis is used to ensure that when we see patterns they really exist in the world and not just in our minds. Skepticism is important for us to make sure that the pattern we're seeing (turkey getting fed every day, etc) is reality and not wishful thinking.
(2) Humans are very good individual self-deception. It's important for observations, theories, etc to be fully open for examination by others. Your hypothetical turkey could have asked others turkey living in the wild for their views. It could have looked at the world outside the farm rather than uncritically accepting the limited personal experiences on the farm. A trip to Target or Wal-Mart in late November would have been very instructive for this turkey.
CC -- your hypothetical turkey example is an excellent argument for more naturalistic exploration of the world - not less.
Finally, it would be useful to ask what benefits the turkey population gains from the uncritical trust that individual turkeys have in captivity for the farmers.
By "outsourcing" the turkey population requirements for food, health care, and protection from predators to turkey farmers, our turkeys are very "clever" from a natural selection perspective ("clever" in quotes because we know that turkeys are not that clever).
But the tradeoff that turkeys make by being the guest of honor at Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners is probably a fair trade for increases in turkey DNA and turkey biomass when compared to their pre-domestication wild state.
[Note - the final section of this reply about turkeys and domestication are not original to me and are based on the comments from Dan Dennett at a recent TED conference. You can watch this talk here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.html]
Steve,
You said, "I find it very puzzling that you're OK with using your direct personal experience but you're all too willing to discount the direct personal experiences of others like me."
But that is EXACTLY what YOUR entire post does- presumes that what you have seen in your life so far is the world as it is. Any reports otherwise are "human-created", "added" to reality, and "gilding the lilly". In other words, only those experiences that confirm your model are valid, and all others are inventions. You're not saying "What you see is what you get", you're saying "What *I* see is all ANYONE gets."
"Remember, I'm not the one making any claims here." Oh? "I think the amazing creation that we live is a "WYSIWYG" place" sounds like a claim to me, as does "I think that this physical plane of existence is all that we can really can know is and it's wonderful." That isn't merely asking questions and expressing doubts; that's staking a claim to a particular model of reality.
Lewis said that it's not possible to say that Jesus was a good man, but not divine, because by his own words he was either God, a liar, or crazy. Of course, he left out the possibility of "misquoted". But many atheists put a considerable portion of mankind in the same situation- hundreds of millions of us are liars, lunatics, or not "bright" enough to tell reality from wishes.
Steve, I know full well that my UPG is not objective evidence. I'm not trying to convince you of anything; I don't proselytize. I don't even have the motivation Christians do; as I don't believe in Hell, I feel no charitable obligation to "save" you. All I'm asking is that you stop declaring that what you see is the touchstone of reality, and what I see is an extraordinary claim requiring proof- and proof delivered in specified terms, at that.
This is why I reacted so strongly to your use of the term "irrational" in a comment on my own blog, even though it wasn't directed at me. When you call any functional member of society "irrational" because of their beliefs, you are attacking everyone of faith. Stating that the clockwork universe is the presumption, and all else is merely a claim is just another version of this.
This is also why you and Greta are going to have a hard time making common cause with liberal theists... it's really difficult to feel good about an ally whom you know believes you to be a liar, a lunatic, or a gullible yokel.
(((But the tradeoff that turkeys make by being the guest of honor at Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners is probably a fair trade for increases in turkey DNA and turkey biomass when compared to their pre-domestication wild state.)))
So... If a cannibal offered to fatten you up, and breed you for greater fatness in exchange for eating you, you would take the deal?
CC
CC wrote:
-snip-
"So... If a cannibal offered to fatten you up, and breed you for greater fatness in exchange for eating you, you would take the deal?"
CC,
Personally I wouldn't take the this deal.
But I'm not a turkey or any other type of domesticated animal.
From a population biology point of view, domesticated turkeys are doing better in strictly quantitative terms as a population in mutualistic partnership with humans. That statement says nothing about the quality of life for individual turkeys nor does it really address the hypothetical desires of individual turkeys. It's a population biology issue and not an individual issue.
Still -- the real lesson in your hypothetical turkey example is that our hypothetical turkeys would be better off doing more (not less) scientific exploration of the world, more collaboration and communication with others (what can the chickens and cows tell us about food production on farms, etc).
I don't see any place in your story where the turkey would be better off just saying that there is a mysterious purpose to life based on some sort of "revealed truth" or due to some "hidden" non-empirical aspects of the world that cannot be discovered through more scientific exploration of the world and more communication with others.
(((It's a population biology issue and not an individual issue.)))
I don't get how you consider the "improvements" in Turkey DNA to be improvements from the turkey's perspective, or even the species' perspective.
In the wild, turkeys can live for several years. Thanksgiving turkeys are usually slaughtered when they are only a few months old. That's why they are so tender.
More importantly the "improvements in biomass" you cite include the fact that we now breed turkeys to get fat so quickly that even if you DON'T kill them, within a year, they get so big their legs can no longer support them.
I don't at all see how this is an improvement from a population biology perspective. If anything, we're setting turkey evolution backwards and their first steps when left alone as a species would be to undo the damage we've done.
After all, having been bred to be more delicious to those higher up the food chain is hardly an evolutionary advantage.
I don't get where you say I'm calling for "less scientific exploration." I was calling for perspective greater than "what you see is what you get" and a recognition that "what you see" isn't always everything that's there or everything you're going to get.
CC
CC wrote:
-snip-
"I don't get how you consider the 'improvements' in Turkey DNA to be improvements from the turkey's perspective, or even the species' perspective."
CC,
This may sound very reductionistic but any organism (turkey, human, rose, etc) is simply the method that the organism's DNA uses to make more copies of the organism's DNA.
Yes -- domesticated turkeys do not live as long as their wild counterparts.
And the selective breeding modifications that humans have imposed on the original wild turkey population have led to excesses (e.g. the 75% white meat - 25% dark meat proportion on domesticated turkeys was decided on the basis of marketing research).
But turkeys in domestication have been "more successful" in making more copies of turkey DNA when compared to their wild cousins (the same is true of cows, chickens, sheep, etc).
From that evolutionary perspective, it looks like it was very "smart" of turkeys (and their DNA) to come up with the adaptive strategy of using farmers.
:^)
Of course, we know that turkeys didn't "select" this evolutionary strategy.
But the fact that this strategy doesn't personally appeal to you or me does not invalidate the observation that it has been very successful in propagating turkey DNA.
Then CC wrote:
-snip-
"I don't at all see how this is an improvement from a population biology perspective. If anything, we're setting turkey evolution backwards and their first steps when left alone as a species would be to undo the damage we've done."
The current state of turkeys is "backwards" if one assumes that wildness is the ideal.
But this may be assuming that turkeys have humanish individual aspirations.
Although Disney and other cultural forces do cultivate an anthropomorphic bias when looking at these situations, it may not be appropriate here.
Turkeys are well-adapted for the domesticated environment but not for the wild. They may have moved from a "facultative symbiosis" to "obligate symbiosis" relationship with humans.
There are a lot of adaptive strategies used in nature that seem just terrible from the individual human perspective. For example, look at what population biologists call "r selection":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_selection#r-selection
Here's the description from Wikipedia:
"In unstable or unpredictable environments r-selection predominates, as the ability to reproduce quickly is crucial, and there is little advantage in adaptations that permit successful competition with other organisms, because the environment is likely to change again. Traits that are thought to be characteristic of r-selection include: high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely. Organisms whose life history is subject to r-selection are often referred to as r-strategists or r-selected. Organisms with r-selected traits range from bacteria and diatoms, through insects and weeds, to various semelparous cephalopods and mammals, especially small rodents."
Basically, this means having lots of offspring because most of them will die (due to radically fluctuating environmental conditions) but a few will live long enough to reproduce and give birth to the next generation.
From a human perspective, r-selection sounds terrible and it's something that most humans wouldn't want to do.
But it's a useful reproductive strategy that is employed successfully by many animals and plants.
Then CC wrote:
-snip-
"I was calling for perspective greater than 'what you see is what you get' and a recognition that 'what you see' isn't always everything that's there or everything you're going to get."
But the big "gotcha" to this searching for hidden patterns beyond what can be empirically verified is the all-to-human knack to see patterns where no patterns exist and the ability to deceive oneself in a good-intentioned and honest way can lead to problems.
For example, there was a recent thread on a UU-themed blog about ghost-hunting and psychic phenomena.
Yes, it would be very cool if these ghosts and psychic phenomena were the "real thing."
But the world isn't governed by our wishful thinking.
External reality can't be totally ignored in favor of individual "gut feelings" or "direct personal experience" in our exploration of the world.
This is one place where we should use critical thinking tools like Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit":
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/horsts/baloney.html
We hear about psychics, therapeutic touch practicioners, and other folks who claim to have a connection to a paranormal world beyond the "WYSIWYG."
But we also know that the cash prize offered by the magician James Randi (now valued at $1 million US dollars) has gone unclaimed since his challenge was first started in 1964.
If this hidden reality beyond the "WYSIWYG" world exists, how come someone like Uri Geller or Caroline Myss hasn't come along to collect the cash prize.
Even if they are not motivated by greed, they could give the money to charity and help improve human knowledge about psychic phenomena by demonstrating them under controlled and well-documented conditions.
Likewise, several studies have been done on the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. So far, we have no conclusive evidence that intercessory prayer is effective.
Of course, this isn't conclusive evidence against a divine force in the world.
But they do raise a lot of questions.
A heady conversation about those who believe in mystical experiences and those who do not, though I admit you lost me a bit when you got into the heavy turkey debate. I like in particular what Fausto said about the place of UUism:
"Whatever the nomenclature, to return to the original issues that provoked your questions above, I'd like to add the question of whether UUism should be an exclusive community that concentrates on either the natural or the supernatural worldview to the suppression of the other, or whether it should be an inclusive community in which adherents of differing worldviews come together to acknowledge and support one another in their differences. These are three different positions, but sometimes it is difficult for advocates of one exclusive focus to recognize the difference between advocates of the opposite exclusive focus and advocates of finding common ground."
As a covenant group facilitator (small group ministry), I think about this question a lot in the midst of a session. I've had groups that seem to fall along the lines of debating one side vs. the other. This year I had an amazing group that really grasped the concept of compassionate listening to all opinions on an issue, to not feeling threatened by alternate opinions, to respecting other points of view as equally as they shared their own. I can't tell you safe, how wonderful, how empowering this felt and how close my group became because of it.
I do think that UUism claims to be the place where all ideas can flourish and be nourished. I don't think it always lives up to this claim. It is an ideal that I hope we attain some day.
Post a Comment