Hi All,
I found this quote on the internet and just wondered what everyone thought about this man’s view of Skepticism and how it might apply to religion.
From:
I Was Abducted by Aliens at Area 51! by Glenn Campbell,
Chapter Two: Before the Beginning
I became, instead, a Skeptic. UFOs were not real; all religions were false; all psychics were charlatans; and haunted houses didn't frighten me a bit. I believed the pronouncements of C. Sagan, who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If I did not have positive proof for something, then it did not exist. I believed in the scientific method, and I saw myself as completely rational. When I found that other people had irrational beliefs, I tried to enlighten them, figuring that reason would improve their lives. Time after time, this got me into a heap o' trouble. I came to understand that people with irrational beliefs don't like to have their beliefs challenged, and they would rather kill you (or fire you, or accuse you of something you didn't do) than accept any change in themselves. I became, by necessity, a closet Skeptic, scoffing quietly to myself but not daring to speak my views in public.
Before I go on, I must take a moment to apologize for my Skeptical period. It is another of the addictions I am recovering from.
What I failed to understand was that Skepticism itself was a religion, with its own set of sacred tenets taken without proof. One of these assumptions is that the world would be a better place if only the irrational beliefs of the public were debunked. If we could disprove all religion, then reason would take its place; most wars and discrimination would be avoided, and people would begin to live together in harmony. If you believe that, then I have a perpetual motion machine I can sell you. A dedicated Skeptic, like J. Randi, spends his career disproving the claims of psychics, not realizing that for every one he shoots down, there will be ten others to take his place.
Another fallacy of the Skeptics is that you need scientific proof for something before it becomes real or worthy of attention. Life is too short for scientific proof, and if you try to live your life like this, then it is going to be a very rigid and impoverished one. The scientific method is concerned with the testing of ideas, but the Skeptics never talk about where those ideas come from. Sure, you need to test an engineering concept rigorously before building a bridge upon it, but until this need arises, ideas don't need to be proven. To make the scientific method work, somebody has to be creative to begin with. Somebody has to make the conceptual leap that bread mold might kill bacteria before the principle can be tested. To create those breakthrough ideas requires a certain amount of blind faith. You have to be willing to explore, fantasize, wonder and wander for a while without judging. If you scoff at every lamebrained idea that comes along then you are never going to recognize the one lamebrained idea that might work.
Skeptics often refer to something called Occam's Razor when trying to debunk some far-out claim. Occam said that if there are two explanations for some phenomenon, the simplest theory is usually the correct one. When analysing a UFO sighting, given the choice between a complicated alien invasion and deluded human perception, Occam would suggest that human failure is to blame, because that is the simplest explanation. Unfortunately, history has shown that Occam's Razor is baloney (excuse me, bologna) and has lead to many fatal errors. Take the shape of the world. If you talked to an Indian, walking across the desert before the coming of the White Man, and you told him that the earth he was standing on was actually round and suspended in space, he would say you are full of peyote. If the Indian applied Occam's Razor, a round earth would make no sense; it wouldn't be the simplest explanation. We now accept that the world is round (if indeed it is) because we have learned a lot of other concepts to support it, but to the Indian, the earth is solid and flat beneath his feet, and within his universe, that is all he needs to know. To him, Occam's Razor is a convenient rationalization to help him avoid ideas that he just can't handle right now.
Even if you accept that the Earth is round, Occam's Razor doesn't help you explore it. Occam would have never predicted that there was a whole other continent between Europe and Asia. Even Columbus couldn't accept it, because it wasn't the simplest explanation. Throughout human history and our own personal lives, exploration messes us up like that. Just when we think we have everything all worked out, reality throws something unexpected at us, something that doesn't fit into our neat theories. We find, then, that our theories were hopelessly näive and that there is a whole other dimension to the universe that we hadn't considered. This is why it is so dangerous to be an ideologue. If you commit yourself totally to a theory, be it Skepticism or conservatism or social darwinism or any other "ism", then you are not going to be prepared for contradictory information when it comes in. The real world defies all theories. When you visit someplace like Area 51, you can have some ideas to begin with, but then you need to stop, look and listen. You have to lay aside your theories and let the world teach you what is really going on.
So, what think you?
I found this quote on the internet and just wondered what everyone thought about this man’s view of Skepticism and how it might apply to religion.
From:
I Was Abducted by Aliens at Area 51! by Glenn Campbell,
Chapter Two: Before the Beginning
I became, instead, a Skeptic. UFOs were not real; all religions were false; all psychics were charlatans; and haunted houses didn't frighten me a bit. I believed the pronouncements of C. Sagan, who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." If I did not have positive proof for something, then it did not exist. I believed in the scientific method, and I saw myself as completely rational. When I found that other people had irrational beliefs, I tried to enlighten them, figuring that reason would improve their lives. Time after time, this got me into a heap o' trouble. I came to understand that people with irrational beliefs don't like to have their beliefs challenged, and they would rather kill you (or fire you, or accuse you of something you didn't do) than accept any change in themselves. I became, by necessity, a closet Skeptic, scoffing quietly to myself but not daring to speak my views in public.
Before I go on, I must take a moment to apologize for my Skeptical period. It is another of the addictions I am recovering from.
What I failed to understand was that Skepticism itself was a religion, with its own set of sacred tenets taken without proof. One of these assumptions is that the world would be a better place if only the irrational beliefs of the public were debunked. If we could disprove all religion, then reason would take its place; most wars and discrimination would be avoided, and people would begin to live together in harmony. If you believe that, then I have a perpetual motion machine I can sell you. A dedicated Skeptic, like J. Randi, spends his career disproving the claims of psychics, not realizing that for every one he shoots down, there will be ten others to take his place.
Another fallacy of the Skeptics is that you need scientific proof for something before it becomes real or worthy of attention. Life is too short for scientific proof, and if you try to live your life like this, then it is going to be a very rigid and impoverished one. The scientific method is concerned with the testing of ideas, but the Skeptics never talk about where those ideas come from. Sure, you need to test an engineering concept rigorously before building a bridge upon it, but until this need arises, ideas don't need to be proven. To make the scientific method work, somebody has to be creative to begin with. Somebody has to make the conceptual leap that bread mold might kill bacteria before the principle can be tested. To create those breakthrough ideas requires a certain amount of blind faith. You have to be willing to explore, fantasize, wonder and wander for a while without judging. If you scoff at every lamebrained idea that comes along then you are never going to recognize the one lamebrained idea that might work.
Skeptics often refer to something called Occam's Razor when trying to debunk some far-out claim. Occam said that if there are two explanations for some phenomenon, the simplest theory is usually the correct one. When analysing a UFO sighting, given the choice between a complicated alien invasion and deluded human perception, Occam would suggest that human failure is to blame, because that is the simplest explanation. Unfortunately, history has shown that Occam's Razor is baloney (excuse me, bologna) and has lead to many fatal errors. Take the shape of the world. If you talked to an Indian, walking across the desert before the coming of the White Man, and you told him that the earth he was standing on was actually round and suspended in space, he would say you are full of peyote. If the Indian applied Occam's Razor, a round earth would make no sense; it wouldn't be the simplest explanation. We now accept that the world is round (if indeed it is) because we have learned a lot of other concepts to support it, but to the Indian, the earth is solid and flat beneath his feet, and within his universe, that is all he needs to know. To him, Occam's Razor is a convenient rationalization to help him avoid ideas that he just can't handle right now.
Even if you accept that the Earth is round, Occam's Razor doesn't help you explore it. Occam would have never predicted that there was a whole other continent between Europe and Asia. Even Columbus couldn't accept it, because it wasn't the simplest explanation. Throughout human history and our own personal lives, exploration messes us up like that. Just when we think we have everything all worked out, reality throws something unexpected at us, something that doesn't fit into our neat theories. We find, then, that our theories were hopelessly näive and that there is a whole other dimension to the universe that we hadn't considered. This is why it is so dangerous to be an ideologue. If you commit yourself totally to a theory, be it Skepticism or conservatism or social darwinism or any other "ism", then you are not going to be prepared for contradictory information when it comes in. The real world defies all theories. When you visit someplace like Area 51, you can have some ideas to begin with, but then you need to stop, look and listen. You have to lay aside your theories and let the world teach you what is really going on.
So, what think you?
