Cold, Hard Truth of Warm, Fuzzy Beliefs
February 20th 2007 16:52
I'm getting ready to make some statements that I'm pretty sure will be unpopular, at least to some people. They are statements that some people will take in stride, and some people will think are pure junk. There are people who will think I am a very bad man. This is all OK. Truth is neither good nor bad, it simply is. How it makes people feel is incidental.
Here's some truth, then: believing in something because you "know it's true", without the benefit of any proof, is wrong. It is intellectually lazy, and it is destructive. Same thing with believing something because "it sounds nice" or "it makes you feel good". Insufficient, misguided, and just plain wrong. Let me give you an example.
Recently, a close friend of mine and I got into a discussion involving the existence and nature of the soul. My contention was that the soul does not exist, and at most can be used as a synonym to describe the neural processes, chemical reactions, life experiences, etc. that makes up a person's consciousness. He countered with an argument indicative of the thought process of so many people today. While he rejected the notion of the Judeo-Christian creator god, he was adamant that he believed in "something". More specifically, he was of the opinion that some component of a person's energy continues to exist after death. When I questioned him as to the nature of this energy (i.e. was he just speaking figuratively?), he asserted that he did mean real, physical energy.
The hole in this argument is big enough to fly a Boeing through. If people left behind real traces of energy that somehow comprised a portion of their essence, it would be measurable. And with people dying everywhere, all the time, throughout history, it should be VERY measurable. To postulate that it's an energy form that we can't detect is to cheat. It's outrageous to assume that our physical bodies, which are comprised of elements that we understand very well, and are subject to natural laws that we also understand, emit some sort of completely unknown and undetectable "energy" after death. A statement such as this is effectively an argument killer. He was unable to try to counter this argument once I pointed it out, as we were interrupted by a friend's arrival. I really regret that, as I wanted to know what his response would be.
One thing he did say, though, was that he "knew" it was true. He felt it. This statement is the bottom-line fall back saying for so many people who hold cherished, if dubious, beliefs. When logic takes a person as far as they can go, and the answers start getting fuzzy, the only recourse is to adopt the "feeling" argument. Don't get me wrong, feelings are great. You can "feel" that you love someone. You can "feel" drawn to a certain profession, like art or music, or business. Feelings help guide us through life. However, feelings are uniquely personal and, at best, are good for individual decisions only. You can't "feel" that the earth is flat and be satisfied with that answer. Subjective arguments (affirmative action, what ice cream is the best, Red Sox vs. Yankees) can work on feelings. There really is no right answer for these. But bigger questions like is God real? Is there a soul? Where did life come from? These questions, while currently not definitively answerable, can at least be said to each have one TRUE answer. As long as that's the case, how you "feel" about it is no longer good enough. You have to divorce yourself from your feelings for a little while and measure these issues against all available evidence. Be merciless. Rip apart the arguments where you find contradiction or inconsistency. Whatever you have leftover when you've finished should be able to stand against your best reasoning. If it's not the answer you hoped for, I am sorry. The saying that "the truth hurts" became a cliché for a reason.
The point is, if you believe something in your heart, without the benefit of any proof whatsoever, you owe it to yourself not to settle for the "because I feel it" answer. The beliefs that need to be challenged and examined the most are the ones we hold most dear. Human nature being what it is, we tend to gravitate towards what sounds right and what is the most pleasing notion. The truth isn't always easy or pleasant. It's all we have, though.
Here's some truth, then: believing in something because you "know it's true", without the benefit of any proof, is wrong. It is intellectually lazy, and it is destructive. Same thing with believing something because "it sounds nice" or "it makes you feel good". Insufficient, misguided, and just plain wrong. Let me give you an example.
Recently, a close friend of mine and I got into a discussion involving the existence and nature of the soul. My contention was that the soul does not exist, and at most can be used as a synonym to describe the neural processes, chemical reactions, life experiences, etc. that makes up a person's consciousness. He countered with an argument indicative of the thought process of so many people today. While he rejected the notion of the Judeo-Christian creator god, he was adamant that he believed in "something". More specifically, he was of the opinion that some component of a person's energy continues to exist after death. When I questioned him as to the nature of this energy (i.e. was he just speaking figuratively?), he asserted that he did mean real, physical energy.
The hole in this argument is big enough to fly a Boeing through. If people left behind real traces of energy that somehow comprised a portion of their essence, it would be measurable. And with people dying everywhere, all the time, throughout history, it should be VERY measurable. To postulate that it's an energy form that we can't detect is to cheat. It's outrageous to assume that our physical bodies, which are comprised of elements that we understand very well, and are subject to natural laws that we also understand, emit some sort of completely unknown and undetectable "energy" after death. A statement such as this is effectively an argument killer. He was unable to try to counter this argument once I pointed it out, as we were interrupted by a friend's arrival. I really regret that, as I wanted to know what his response would be.
One thing he did say, though, was that he "knew" it was true. He felt it. This statement is the bottom-line fall back saying for so many people who hold cherished, if dubious, beliefs. When logic takes a person as far as they can go, and the answers start getting fuzzy, the only recourse is to adopt the "feeling" argument. Don't get me wrong, feelings are great. You can "feel" that you love someone. You can "feel" drawn to a certain profession, like art or music, or business. Feelings help guide us through life. However, feelings are uniquely personal and, at best, are good for individual decisions only. You can't "feel" that the earth is flat and be satisfied with that answer. Subjective arguments (affirmative action, what ice cream is the best, Red Sox vs. Yankees) can work on feelings. There really is no right answer for these. But bigger questions like is God real? Is there a soul? Where did life come from? These questions, while currently not definitively answerable, can at least be said to each have one TRUE answer. As long as that's the case, how you "feel" about it is no longer good enough. You have to divorce yourself from your feelings for a little while and measure these issues against all available evidence. Be merciless. Rip apart the arguments where you find contradiction or inconsistency. Whatever you have leftover when you've finished should be able to stand against your best reasoning. If it's not the answer you hoped for, I am sorry. The saying that "the truth hurts" became a cliché for a reason.
The point is, if you believe something in your heart, without the benefit of any proof whatsoever, you owe it to yourself not to settle for the "because I feel it" answer. The beliefs that need to be challenged and examined the most are the ones we hold most dear. Human nature being what it is, we tend to gravitate towards what sounds right and what is the most pleasing notion. The truth isn't always easy or pleasant. It's all we have, though.
| 25 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Wendi
How does that one quote go... something about "not being able to prove something is not the same as disproving it?" - I know that's not right, but it's close.
There are a lot of things I believe in that I cannot prove to be true (can love be proven?), but I think the difference is that I 1) Do not try to convince others to believe my beliefs as true facts, and 2) always state my beliefs as such - beliefs - not as fact. Possibilities, that's all.
I like to ponder the difficult topics and I LOVE a good debate (not an argument, but a debate). When I explore my own subjects, I usually do so with an open mind and room for discussion. In addition, I'm willing to back down or adjust my perspective if someone is able to "enlighten" me.
I believe (not "know") that science will uncover many hidden truths in the future. Things people once scoffed at will become "common fact" (examples: Earth is round; Earth revolves around the sun). I can't allow a lack of man's ability to measure an energy to serve as proof that an energy doesn't exist. The only thing that's proof of, in my own opinion, is that the proof hasn't been discovered yet.
Fantastic post!
W
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Thanks for reading. Hope to keep your interest going forward!
Comment by Wendi
Obviously, I'm a bit of a mystic. I'm also a non-conformist. This is not new; I've always been this way.
Years ago, an aquaintance tried to convince me of her religious truths. As with anything, I was willing to look with an open mind before making a decision on whether or not it was right for me. She asked if I'd be willing to watch an hour long video explaining insights about her religion. I agreed, but only if she'd return the energy by spending an hour listening to my "ideas" on religious beliefs. She flatly refused. It was a classic example of someone trying to cram their own beliefs down your throat without being willing to even show the courtesy of considering other options. That summed up her religion for me just fine and I knew I wasn't interested. Thanks, but no thanks.
My thought process was, "How can you tell me I'm wrong if you're not even willing to hear what I think?"
The answer: If you don't believe what I believe, then you are wrong.
What a crock!
Closed minds are dangerous.
One of the benefits to living in the boonies is that no one knocks on my door trying to convince me of their truths.... not even politicians during election season! *LOL*
Looking forward to more of your posts. I've already subscribed for email notifications.
W