Article: The Gospel According to Dixon #17: Make-Believe

[Dixon]

by Dixon Wragg
WaccoBB.net

Column #17: Make-Believe

Some years ago, I was at a party celebrating a couple's engagement. The bride-to-be mentioned that, as her fiance was Jewish, she was converting to Judaism. Puzzled, I asked her something like: "What does it mean to say you're converting to Judaism because you're marrying a Jew? Does loving a person somehow magically change your worldview to theirs? Or do you mean by 'converting' that you're going to act as if you share their beliefs in order to fit in, or what?"

You readers will not be surprised to hear that the woman's response was hostile. She seemed distressed by the prospect of scrutinizing what "belief" meant to her. I guess at the time I was a bit naive about the psychological/social realities of belief. My personal experience was that, although far from perfectly rational and honest, I was really trying to figure out what was most likely to be true. To me, beliefs were, and are, representations of what's true as best I can figure it out. I used to assume that's what "belief" means to everyone. Silly me.

As I have gradually realized, most people have at least some beliefs that are not their best logical guesses about what's true; they're stories they tell themselves in order to meet various needs. Feel insecure because of your lack of power? "Believe" in a powerful god who's on your side. Uncomfortable with a random universe? "Believe" in some master plan or a priori meaning of life. Bothered by unknowing and uncertainty? "Believe" in inerrant scriptures or various forms of divination such as astrology, palm-reading, or psychics. Scared to death of death? "Believe" in an afterlife or reincarnation. Struggling with illness? "Believe" in every silly healing fad that comes down the pike. Can't tolerate the nagging suspicion that your society may be unjust and even brutal? "Believe" in the patriotic myths of national righteousness. Too lazy to bother figuring out what's likely to be true? "Believe" whatever your parents believed. Want to fit in with those around you? "Believe" in whatever they seem to believe (much of which they are pretending to believe because they think you expect it of them). Make yourself believe that you believe, and pay no attention to the doubt behind the curtain.(1)

I once had a memorable conversation with a nice lady who was telling me about the comfort she derived from her personal relationship with God. I politely resisted the temptation to point out the numerous fallacies in her thinking, allowing myself just one provocative question at the end: "If this belief of yours were wrong, would you want to know that?" She pondered for a moment, then answered sheepishly "No, if it were untrue, I wouldn't want to know." I appreciated that she was able to muster enough honesty to say that. Most people never do.

For instance, when I put that question to another woman, she responded with "I'm not going to answer that question because you'll use it against me." Apparently "use it against me" meant illuminate the fact that she would rather maintain satisfying delusions than be corrected—a potentially growthful insight that she was manifestly desperate to avoid.

Note the double deception: first kid yourself that the desired belief is true, regardless of the (lack of) evidence, and then kid yourself that you're not kidding yourself. That second deception, the denial that we're deceiving ourselves, is necessary to shore up the desired beliefs. If we admit, even to ourselves, that our beliefs are based on self-deception, it's harder to maintain them. So the denial of deception is a secondary deception that supports the initial one. Self-deceivers must masquerade as truth-seekers to maintain the deception.

How much more pleasant and less frustrating life would be if that weren't the case! Think of all the time and energy we'd save if people would just say "Don't waste your time trying to reason with me. I'll just believe whatever meets my needs regardless of whether it's true." Instead their self-lie that their chosen illusion is really an honest conclusion becomes a lie directed to everyone else through claiming the belief is true. Poor naive suckers like me get involved in discussions on the assumption that the person is really interested in whether their belief is true, only to be subjected to frustrating and sometimes nasty, insulting defense mechanisms until we get tired of painfully banging our heads against their armor and give up.

And make no mistake about it: maintaining wishful-thinking beliefs unfounded in reason requires thick armor and herculean feats of closed-mindedness, dishonesty, and irrationality. For instance, ironically, I've commonly been accused of being closed-minded simply for disagreeing with people who themselves have shown every sign of utter closed-mindedness around the belief I'm questioning.(2) And tellingly, I've been accused of being "in my head too much" when I use my intellect to challenge someone's pet belief, but never when I use it to support their belief! Other hurtful defense mechanisms include being seen as a patriarchal oppressor, as wanting to dominate others, insensitive, arrogant, "venomous" (someone actually called me that!)—all for the crime of pointing out the unbelievability of people's pet beliefs. Such obnoxious defensiveness is a predictable outcome of being addicted to beliefs which are logically indefensible; illogical defenses are the only recourse if opening oneself to change is too scary.

The irrational wishful-thinking believing process is sometimes called "faith". Just to be clear here: I'm not talking about the sort of "faith" that refers to a realistic level of optimism, nor the reasonable faith we have in a friend or in the expertise of our doctor or auto mechanic, nor the sort of empirically-derived faith that we can sit in a chair without it collapsing under us (usually). I'm referring to "faith" as it's used in religious or spiritual contexts—believing in something regardless of evidence or the lack of it, often even in cases wherein the belief has been thoroughly debunked.

A woman I know recounted to me her search for verification of a belief she desperately wanted, the belief in a universal consciousness. Finding it impossible to support this belief through reasoning, and being unwilling to reach the honest conclusion that the belief therefore probably isn't true, she simply made a "leap of faith", accepting it anyway! This is a closed-minded position, as believing something regardless of logic or (lack of) evidence renders us uncorrectable.

Compare that with this quote from a New Age magazine: “[P]ondering whether or not God had died, I longed for the answer to be ‘No’. As secular as my upbringing had been, I still wanted to believe in something. So, along with a large number of others my age, I set out to look for God.”(3) Here we have in a nutshell a crucial difference between truth-seeking and faith. Real truth-seekers follow their investigations wherever they may lead, with no solid presuppositions about what the truth may turn out to be. In contrast, faith involves envisioning the desired belief and then indulging in whatever irrationalities are necessary to arrive at and defend it.

People often say that they believe in something because of faith, as if faith has given them that belief. But that's not true. Faith cannot possibly be a source of information; it's just a decision to believe something. Faith did not lead you to your belief; your arbitrary choice to believe led you to faith, which is simply the decision to hold your desired belief closed-mindedly, uncorrectably—to "keep the faith". As Nietzsche said, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

People seem to feel that calling something "faith" rather than saying "I'm just believing something because I want to, regardless of whether it's likely to be true" somehow dignifies and validates the belief. They're wrong about that, of course. Relating to life through a veil of arbitrarily chosen beliefs is irresponsible. In fact, if we assume a moral responsibility to effectively address, for the sake of our progeny, the huge challenges facing our species, taking things on faith rather than evidence is downright immoral. If we waste our time and energy propitiating the gods rather than addressing our problems realistically, our chances of creating a better world are slim, and our children's children are in for a miserable existence.

Psychological defenses like those mentioned above are supplemented by social ones, such as the agreement not to question people's cherished beliefs—"It's not polite to discuss politics or religion." Really, the agreement is "I won't pop your illusion-bubble if you agree not to pop mine." This dysfunctional norm is especially noticeable in anti-rational subcultures such as "New Age" and religious communities. But some of us, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, refuse to play along. I feel no obligation to collude with you in maintaining your illusions, and in fact feel morally obliged to challenge illusion when I encounter it. Besides, real intimacy and authenticity require saying honestly that you think someone's wrong as well as agreeing with them when you can honestly do so. Anything less is phony and, actually, disrespectful. If your defense mechanisms include outrage or hurt at being disagreed with, that's a problem that accompanies your chosen way of believing, not something I've imposed upon you.

In some circles, lip service is given to "respecting everyone's beliefs". Even if this were possible, it'd be irresponsible—one only has to think of some of the crazy and destructive beliefs out there to realize that. I respect everyone's right to believe what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone, but I do not respect everyone's beliefs; I only respect beliefs that appear to be true. How could respecting fallacy and superstition be a good thing? Any behaviorist could tell you that rewarding people with respect for believing stupid stuff will tend to maintain and increase the behavior being rewarded (in this case, believing stupid stuff). I cannot respect people as reasonable thinkers to the extent that they allow themselves unreasonable beliefs any more than I could respect someone as a chef if their cooking were inedible, and I lose respect for anyone I see embracing superstition or fallacy. So, to those of you who defend your right to believe in things you can't support with good logic: go ahead, but don't expect to be esteemed as reasonable people when your worldview is based on unreason. Here's the trade-off: you can allow yourself the luxury of believing whatever you like and forfeit any claim to being honestly reasonable, or you can submit yourself to the standards and conclusions of reason, however unpleasant they may sometimes be, and wear the mantle of a truth-seeker. Choose one or the other; you can't have your cake and eat it too.

People have actually said to me things like "How can you face life not believing in [fill in the blank with their favorite belief]", as if life would be unlivable if their belief weren't true. This is the attitude of an addict. Most proselytizers apparently feel that we can appropriately have a belief by willing it even in the absence of good proof. Such people see belief as a matter of choosing, like a customer strolling down a store aisle selecting attractive products, rather than a process of discovering what's really true. Real truth-seeking gives us no choice about what to believe; we're stuck with whatever is true, regardless of whether we find it pleasant or horrifying. Reality does not owe it to us to meet our emotional needs. Acceptance of this is a hallmark of maturity and rationality, and maximizes our chances of successfully addressing the problems we face, and ultimately having a more fulfilled life, rooted in wondrous reality rather than the opiate of sweet illusion.

The path to truth is through discovery, not choice. Here are our real choices: Either we can honestly assess the evidence and discover what is most likely to be true, or we can choose beliefs that meet our emotional and social needs and defend them through evasive, fallacious, dishonest strategies. Dear reader, I challenge you to be really, really honest with yourself now—are your beliefs honest judgments, or are some of them just make-believe?

About Dixon: I'm a hopeful monster, committed to laughter, love, and the Golden Rule. I see reason, applied with empathy, as the most important key to making a better world. I'm a lazy slob and a weirdo. I love cats, kids, quilts, fossils, tornadoes, comic books, unusual music, and too much else to mention. I’m a former conservative Christian, then New Ager, now a rationalist, skeptic and atheist. I've won awards for my short fiction, short humor, and poetry (both slam performances and "old school")--as well as this column! Lately I’m a Workshopping Editor at the Omnificent English Dictionary In Limerick Form (That’s right!). I’m job-hunting too, mostly in the Human Services realm. Passions: Too many -- Reading, writing, critical thinking, public speaking, human rights, sex and sensuality, arts and sciences, nature. Oh, and ladies, I’m single ;^D

NOTES

1. For a striking example of my kidding myself into a belief, see my previous column at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...o-the-Hellfire

2. For a deeper look at open- and closed-mindedness, see my previous column at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...u-Open-to-This

3. Elizabeth Lesser, "Wisdom and Folly", New Age Journal, January/February, 1997.

4. For more on truth seeking versus faith-keeping, see my previous column at
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...-Faith-Keeping

[Chris Dec]

Hi, Dixon.

The only thing 'weirdo' about you is that the majority of people are uncomfortable with rational thinking, and so they probably labeled you with that word to establish their normalcy, in their own minds. "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts."

The one thing that turns me off to rational thinking is not that my belief could be exposed as nonsense or someone's belief is better than mine. My ennui with rational thought is that usually there can only be one rational conclusion, and it is this very dualism which negates the truth about anything for me. If I can't allow room for the truth of someone's point of view, then there can be no room for mine.

I think this wonderful gospel writing of yours is fascinating and powerful. Beliefs are powerful. Anger is powerful. But I am telling you, Dixon, I think the most powerful thing you can say to someone about any issue is: I have no opinion on the matter.

When I was a small child, I had a question for the adults.. and the answers were always laden with strange looks, laugher, silence, derision or anger. The question was simply this: if someone wins a game, does it means someone has to lose? I had not yet even heard of Zen.

Later in life, I registered as a Democrat (so that I wouldn't be a Republican). When I then registered with the Green Party, I found out that I was no longer a Democrat, which dismayed me. I never gave up my Democtat membership, but it was assumed I relinquished it. I was considered insane when I asked why I couldn't belong to both parties. As if I had claimed a right to be both male and female. (that's another discussion; read The Left Hand of Darkness). The theory of Binary Opposition had spoken. Around that same time, having just moved from NYC to Silicon Valley, I attended a Yankees versus 'A's game and cheered for both teams. Ya wanna talk about angry looks?

I have come to a point in my life where I don't respond to labels such as atheist, feminist... or any other limiting -ist. After all, there may be one moment of a day when I suddenly, just for a second, embrace a powerful god. I have been judged for not taking a stand, not being loyal to a position, platform, BELIEF. A wishy washy copout. But in my way of seeing it, I simply stopped disbelieving things.... and allow for more and more stuff to be possible.

Are alien abductions real or are they products of our imaginations (and what IS the difference). Can prayer help or is it a silly superstition? Does the soul live on or are we worm food? MY answer to these and other similar questions: YES.

MY weirdo status trumps YOUR weirdo status... so there.

Stay sane, my insane friend.

[Dixon]

Hi, Dixon.

Hi, Chris.

...My ennui with rational thought is that usually there can only be one rational conclusion, and it is this very dualism which negates the truth about anything for me. If I can't allow room for the truth of someone's point of view, then there can be no room for mine.

Chris, get used to the fact that some beliefs are true and others false. Relax into it. Why fight it? It is not oppressive to assert that someone's claim is untrue, as long as we're open to being shown that we're wrong about that.
And dig that there's a big difference between, on the one hand, allowing for the possibility that someone else's position may be true, and on the other hand, accepting that it is true. It may be true or false or some combination thereof, as may yours or mine.

...I think the most powerful thing you can say to someone about any issue is: I have no opinion on the matter.

Okay, but I'm only gonna say that when it's true. Often I do in fact have an opinion on the matter at hand, as do you.

The question was simply this: if someone wins a game, does it means someone has to lose?

In zero-sum games like chess or Scrabble, the answer is yes, someone does have to lose. But of course, if all participants play fair and try their hardest to win, a good time is had by all so it's really a win-win situation. I love competitive games. They involve a special kind of cooperation wherein the participants agree to show respect to their opponents by trying their best to defeat them. There's no problem there unless your ego gets in the way.

I had not yet even heard of Zen.

I don't see what Zen has to do with it.

I have come to a point in my life where I don't respond to labels such as atheist, feminist... or any other limiting -ist.

But no matter what you believe or do, there will be labels that are accurate descriptions of you, even if you change from time to time. There's nothing at all wrong with labels, as long as they're accurate and we're not limited by them.

After all, there may be one moment of a day when I suddenly, just for a second, embrace a powerful god.

Does that mean that you can articulate some good evidence for the existence of such an entity, or does it mean that you like to kid yourself?

I simply stopped disbelieving things....

You stopped disbelieving that pigs fly? That the moon is made of green cheese? That Nazism is a wonderful thing? That you should jump off cliffs or run out into traffic? Be honest, Chris--you disbelieve lots of things and believe lots of other things. It's impossible to function and survive without both believing and disbelieving things. In your post, you express some beliefs and, at least by implication, some disbeliefs too.

...and allow for more and more stuff to be possible.

It's one thing to allow for things to be possible. It's quite a different--and really ridiculous--thing to tell yourself that everything is equally true, or that we have no way of distinguishing the probably-true from the probably-false, or that it's somehow bad to assert that a claim is false.

Are alien abductions real or are they products of our imaginations (and what IS the difference). Can prayer help or is it a silly superstition? Does the soul live on or are we worm food? MY answer to these and other similar questions: YES.

Chris, I'm kindly disposed toward you because of some nice things you've said to me, but you test my patience when you utter this sort of hogwash. To assert that mutually contradictory claims are both true violates the most basic logic that even a child understands. Either prayer is helpful or it isn't. Either there's a soul that survives the death of the body or there isn't. And if you're unclear on the distinction between objective reality and imagination, you may wish to 1. get a prescription for a good antipsychotic medication, and 2. read my column #4, "Reality Is Real--Really!".

It sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with the fact that life is largely limitation. Some things are gonna be true and others false whether we like it or not. Accepting that basic fact is rational, mature, and honest. Denying it is not. If you're telling yourself that you don't disbelieve anything or that mutually contradictory claims can both be true or that it's somehow oppressive to assert that someone could be wrong about something--stop it. Quit BSing yourself and get into the real world; it's not that bad. (I hope that didn't sound too harsh. Try to take it in the spirit intended. )

MY weirdo status trumps YOUR weirdo status... so there.

Uh...congratulations.

[handy]

Wow, Dixon...

Your tolerance for, and patience with, brute foolishness is impressive, though not necessarily admirable.

A mind that is always open is like a wastebasket. People will throw trash in it.

[handy]

Pshaw! Your patience is admirable.

Not necessarily. At some point, we decide that our time and attention are more valuably applied elsewhere.
Beyond that point, the inability or unwillingness to cut our losses and divert ourselves into time better spent begins to look foolish and perhaps even harmful.

And one man's trash is another's food for thought.

Absolutely! Of course, "food for thought" implies something for Mind to "chew on"...
-open-close-open-close-open-close... repeat as necessary.
Sort the food from the trash.
one man's noise is another man's data

[Dixon]

Wow, Dixon...
Your tolerance for, and patience with, brute foolishness is impressive, though not necessarily admirable.

Uh...thank you...I think.

A mind that is always open is like a wastebasket. People will throw trash in it.

But a mind that is closed cannot receive the good stuff. The key is to have an open mind with a good filter made of critical thinking. That's the difference between rational open-mindedness and gullible "open-mindedness".

[Dixon]

...At some point, we decide that our time and attention are more valuably applied elsewhere.
Beyond that point, the inability or unwillingness to cut our losses and divert ourselves into time better spent begins to look foolish and perhaps even harmful.

That's a reasonable concern, and believe me, sometimes I wonder if I'm wasting my time trying to reason with people who are clearly committed to irrationality.

I have been known to give up on people when they're clearly trolling (which is different from just disagreeing with me, and even different from being consistently irrational), or when, after banging my head against their armor for awhile, I decide it's useless.

But I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt (that's a Golden Rule issue), and give them the opportunity to be reasonable rather than assuming they can't be. Anyway, people rarely make major changes in their worldview on the basis of one conversation. I may plant a seed in someone that slowly germinates and flowers beautifully years later, without my even knowing it. And even if I make no headway in convincing someone--and even if I get abuse from them for trying--at least I can model rational behavior. And my arguments as well as my behavior modeling could be influencing bystanders and lurkers without my ever knowing it. So call me naive, but I'm not about to give up on trying to communicate with people I disagree with. Besides, some of those people have important truths to impart to me.

[Smith]

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.


Smith

[Dixon]

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservation.

That depends on what you mean by the word "faith". If you're talking about what I called in the article "...a realistic level of optimism, [or] the reasonable faith we have in a friend or in the expertise of our doctor or auto mechanic, [or] the sort of empirically-derived faith that we can sit in a chair without it collapsing under us (usually)", I agree with you (except maybe the "without reservation" part).

If, on the other hand, you're referring to "faith" as it's typically used in religious or spiritual contexts, as in "I'm of the Christian faith", it is indeed belief without proof--or can you articulate compelling proof for, e.g., the existence of God?

[Dixon]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Smith.

I believe every person has positive and negative elements within them.

I agree that this is true. There are interesting evolutionary reasons for this human duality. Maybe I'll have occasion to discuss them in an upcoming column...

I believe these forces are larger than mankind, but only mankind can tip the scale in the favor of one or another.

I can't respond to this, as it's not clear to me what you mean.

No I am not a Christian, However you seem to center them in your thesis.

I emphasize Christian examples because I'm embedded in a predominantly Christian society and came out of a Christian background myself. Were I writing in, e.g., Japan, I'd be emphasizing Shintoist or Buddhist examples. The principles I'm discussing re: truth, belief and illusion are the same regardless. I hope that's clear in my writing.

Good people are getting better, bad people are getting worse.

I'm not sure about the accuracy or usefulness of labeling people good or bad as opposed to labeling our actions good or bad (or, for that matter, labeling our beliefs right or wrong). And I see no evidence that "good people are getting better, bad people are getting worse" in general.

Positive vrs Negative. Think "car battrie" they are equals...

Positive/negative, left/right, up/down, good/evil--we live in a polaristic, yin/yang universe. I'll be discussing this in a future column.

No, I can not prove this. But I believe it.
I bear no burden of proof...Why should I have to prove my faith to anyone?

It's not about the power trip of you having to prove your belief to me or anyone else, Smith. It's about this fundamental question: Do you want to believe things that are true, or believe what you like even if it's illusory? If the former, there is indeed a burden of proof. Any belief for which you can't articulate a compelling argument is very unlikely to be true (as I will explain in an upcoming column on Occam's Razor). So the burden of proof that seems so onerous to you is not to satisfy me--I'm not important; it's to maximize the chance that you're believing true stuff, not illusions. If pleasant illusion rather than truth is your goal, then you can dispense with any burden of proof and keep doing what you're doing, believing in stuff you can't prove. The choice is yours, and everybody's.

[Smith]

Do you have faith in anything outside of a test tube?

I will maintain my faith, I encourage you to explore.

Life is unexplained.
Would you like to explain it? with proof as you require?

Why is the link missing?

Good conversation, I appreciate it.
With respect

Smith

[Dixon]

Do you have faith in anything outside of a test tube?

This "test tube" comment seems like a rather snarky way of characterizing one who is simply trying to distinguish truth from illusion.

To answer your question: If by "faith" you mean believing in stuff without good evidence or at least a good argument backing it up, haven't I made it clear that I endeavor to avoid that pitfall? Are you encouraging me to go back to that? Been there, done that; it sucks. It's irresponsible, closed-minded, and, in a sense, dishonest. That was pretty much the point of my column we're discussing.

I will maintain my faith...

Can you see that that's an expression of closed-mindedness?

I encourage you to explore.

Uh...what in the world do you think I've been doing?
How about you? Are you prepared to explore the possibility that some belief(s) you've been attached to are illusory?

Life is unexplained.

Partly.

Would you like to explain it? with proof as you require?

Explain what exactly? Explain the existence of living things? The theory of evolution does a good job of that, within the limits of what we can know or reasonably surmise about things of which we have limited evidence available.

Why is the link missing?

If you're talking about an evolutionary "missing link", there are thousands of them in the fossil record, plus many more that existed even though they left no fossil evidence, as most organisms don't die in circumstances conducive to fossil formation.
But, Smith, I don't have the time to give you a course in basic evolutionary theory. Read any good basic book on the subject.

Good conversation, I appreciate it.

Me too. Thanks for your interest.

With respect

Likewise.

[Smith]

Please don't dissect my writings for your response. That is to easy.
A new thought or a holistic response please.


Smith

[Dixon]

Please don,t dissect my writings for your response.

It's not clear what you mean by "dissect" here. Are you saying that, for some reason, you don't want specific responses to specific things you've said, or...?

A new thought or a holistic response please.

Again, not too sure what you mean by "holistic" in this context--maybe general rather than specific? I'll try: Your apparent desire to avoid discussing specifics seems evasive. So far, my hypothesis is that you're rigidly defended around one or more beliefs and would like to keep the discussion general to avoid critique.

Was that satisfactory or am I misunderstanding what you're asking me for?

[Smith]

It's not clear what you mean by "dissect" here. Are you saying that, for some reason, you don't want specific responses to specific things you've said, or...?


Again, not too sure what you mean by "holistic" in this context--maybe general rather than specific? I'll try: Your apparent desire to avoid discussing specifics seems evasive. So far, my hypothesis is that you're rigidly defended around one or more beliefs and would like to keep the discussion general to avoid critique.

Was that satisfactory or am I misunderstanding what you're asking me for?

I call people "hen peck"
others call them trolls
as in you.

Was that satisfactory?


have a good day

your mono log is over

Smith

[Dixon]

I call people "hen peck"
others call them trolls
Was that satisfactory?

Of course not. We started out with a mutually respectful dialogue and it seems to have degenerated to the point of your calling me names, without even specifying what I've done that you object to.

your mono log is over

If this means that you're running away from the dialogue, well, that certainly supports my hypothesis about your apparent evasiveness, doesn't it? It's not too late for us to have a reasonable discussion. If some of what I say is just too scary to allow that, I can only hope you exit the encounter with some new understanding about your defensiveness and what underlies it.

[Smith]

Of course not. We started out with a mutually respectful dialogue and it seems to have degenerated to the point of your calling me names, without even specifying what I've done that you object to.


If this means that you're running away from the dialogue, well, that certainly supports my hypothesis about your apparent evasiveness, doesn't it? It's not too late for us to have a reasonable discussion. If some of what I say is just too scary to allow that, I can only hope you exit the encounter with some new understanding about your defensiveness and what underlies it.

yes you are correct in all ways

note to self/ no spirituality on waccobb

Smith

[Dixon]

yes you are correct in all ways

Sarcasm now?

note to self/ no spirituality on waccobb

If "spirituality" means believing in stuff with no evidence and defending the belief by evading critique and calling people names when they question the belief--well, is that really something worth embracing?

[Sara S]

Hey, Dixon:

Love your reasoning and facility with the language! When you get to this:

"Positive/negative, left/right, up/down, good/evil--we live in a polaristic, yin/yang universe. I'll be discussing this in a future column"

I hope you will include the idea (from Tibetan Buddhism) of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, because I'd love to understand it better myself....

[Dixon]

Love your reasoning and facility with the language!

I hope you will include the idea (from Tibetan Buddhism) of the inseparability of samsara and nirvana...

Well, surely we can't have enlightenment without endarkenment; that's a corollary of the yin/yang principle. But the issue of whether samsara and nirvana as defined by Tibetan Buddhism are actually real is another matter...

[Smith]

Hi Dixon,
I am sorry for the sarcasm, my posts were snarky, I apologize.

Can I submit to you that a lack of evidence for one belief, does not imply proof for another?
Your request for proof / evidence for matters of spirituality got the best of me.

do you believe in karma?
do you believe in reincarnation?
do you believe that the universe will give back to you, what you give into it?

I am interested in your response.

peace

Smith

[Dixon]

Smith, I apologize for having taken so long to get back to you. I've been prioritizing other stuff.

...I am sorry for the sarcasm, my posts were snarky, I apologize.

Appreciated!

Can I submit to you that a lack of evidence for one belief, does not imply proof for another?

That's true as far as it goes, but on the other hand, as I said earlier in this thread, "Any belief for which you can't articulate a compelling argument is very unlikely to be true (as I will explain in an upcoming column on Occam's Razor)".

Your request for proof / evidence for matters of spirituality got the best of me.

To the extent that "spirituality" means claims about the objective universe, such as that some sort of god exists, or that reincarnation or karma is real, it is subject to the same burden of proof as any other claims. Many folks are confused about this because most societies have traditionally allowed spiritual beliefs a privileged position, exempt from proof. Of course, that's a way to maintain entrenched beliefs, not a path to truth.

do you believe in reincarnation?

I'm very, very skeptical about any claim that involves some sort of soul that survives the death of the body, so no, I don't believe in reincarnation. We are reincarnated only in the sense that our constituent compounds and elements go into the grass, the animals that eat the grass, the people who eat the animals, etc.

do you believe in karma?
do you believe that the universe will give back to you, what you give into it?

I grouped these two questions together because they're essentially the same question.
If by "karma" you mean the Hindu notion of working out our karma through successive lifetimes, well, I don't believe any of us has more than one lifetime, so that's out. BTW, do you realize that the Hindu doctrine of karma is a rationalization for the exploitation and mistreatment of lower-caste people? "It's okay for us to grossly mistreat and exploit these untouchables, because they were such horrible people in their previous lives; that's why they're untouchables in this lifetime. Hit him again, harder!"

I do believe in the very loose form of karma I call "hippie karma"--the idea that, in general, "what goes around comes around". Unfortunately, there are way too many exceptions--sweet harmless people who have horrible lives as well as vile scumbags who are rich, powerful and apparently quite happy. This sort of loose karma is not nearly as emotionally satisfying as the stricter kind that the Hindus (and apparently you) posit, but it has the advantage of being real.

I am interested in your response.

Your interest is appreciated.
And I'm interested to see the questions you chose to ask me. It seems like nearly everybody has their favorite "essential" questions to ask others. Some would ask if we have Jesus as our personal savior, others whether we acknowledge Muhammad as the prophet of the one true god, others might ask about the U.S. Constitution, or whether we eat meat, or which day is supposed to be the Sabbath, or [fill in the blank]. Other people's Big Questions often seem silly to us. Once a conservative guy from the Bible Belt said to me "Can I ask you a question?" I invited him to do so, whereupon he asked "Do you agree that it's harmful to show homosexual pornography to children?" When I told him I'd have to see some evidence that it's harmful before I could endorse that notion, he sputtered "That's it, then--I can't talk to you!". That particular question was his litmus test.

FWIW, I guess my question, at least in this context, would be "Is your approach to life trying honestly to figure out what's most likely to be true, or is it maintaining beliefs that meet your emotional needs even if they're illusory?"

peace

And peace to you, Bro!

[Sara S]

Dixon, I just read "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, M.D., which is, as the blurb on the cover says, "A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife" and it's the most compelling argument I've seen.......

To the extent that "spirituality" means claims about the objective universe, such as that some sort of god exists, or that reincarnation or karma is real, it is subject to the same burden of proof as any other claims. ...

I'm very, very skeptical about any claim that involves some sort of soul that survives the death of the body, so no, I don't believe in reincarnation. ...

[Dixon]

Dixon, I just read "Proof of Heaven" by Eben Alexander, M.D., which is, as the blurb on the cover says, "A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife" and it's the most compelling argument I've seen.......

Sara, I just read the Newsweek article in which Dr. Alexander describes his quite striking NDE ("Near Death Experience"). It is a pretty typical NDE, though more complex and more poetically described than most. It makes one wish to have such an experience oneself, doesn't it?! (I've actually had somewhat similar experiences in psychedelic states.)

My question to you: What in his description of the experience leads you to conclude that it was anything other than imaginary? Why do you think it points to some sort of objective reality outside his brain, such as an afterlife? I saw nothing in the account that would support such a conclusion, but maybe I missed something?

NDEs are usually (not always) ecstatic and very often life-changing, but I have never seen in them any evidence for any sort of god, afterlife, etc. Here is an excellent and interesting brief refutation of Alexander's claim. And here is a very brief discussion of how hallucination works in regards to NDEs and, more specifically, Dr. Alexander's NDE.

This is a good example of the importance of exposing oneself to at least two sides of an issue. Especially when we may be emotionally inclined to want to believe something, it behooves us to have a look at what the skeptics say about it.

[Shandi]

Once again Dixon, you are my hero! You, more than anyone I know, explain things in the light of reason and logic, rather than beliefs/superstition/programming/attachments, and you always seem open to learning and sharing new information. I think that's a great combination!

You are always open to being challenged, and not many people really are. I like that your challenges stir things up for people, and although they may not like it, at the time, it may filter in, and take root at a later date.

When I quit the Catholic Church over birth control, at 22, I thought perhaps I might explore other religions. After a short time, I realized that I was looking for a church that would be in alignment with my personal values. For example, I wouldn't choose the Baptist faith because I liked to dance. It didn't take long for me to realize that if adults choose a religion, rather than being born into one, they more than likely will choose one that isn't in conflict with their lifestyle or values. If they do, that would seem irrational.

Ultimately it didn't take very long at all for me to realize that I didn't need anyone to tell me how to live. I know that for many people, church is a social outlet, but I had no need or desire for that. I knew there were plenty of places I could go to find people to connect with, without having to bend my activities to more rules and regulations.

In other words, I trusted myself to make wise decisions. Not that I always have! But I've seen that many people don't trust themselves or are fearful about making important decisions. I have one friend who's highly intelligent, has an MBA, and has lived a wealthy lifestyle at one time. About a year ago, she was "inspired/guided" to move out of the area. She told me that she doesn't decide things anymore...she's led by Spirit! I was speechless.....
because this seemed so irrational, and an obvious lie to herself. But why?

My theory is that if people say they have no control over their lives, or that they don't make decisions, it's really a subconscious ploy to avoid taking responsibility. And a blatant lie.... We're making decisions all the time, and each one of those decisions takes us on a path. But if "Spirit" guides us, we don't have to think too much. I guess it works for many spiritualists.

If I need to make an important decision, and I have time to think about it, I will make a list of "pros and cons", just as I did when I was 19, and wanting to get married. I didn't want my decision to be just from the emotions I was feeling. I wanted to engage my mind, and try to be objective. Getting my thoughts on paper really helped me to see more clearly, as it has throughout my life.

I knew a young woman many years ago who said she wanted to meet a man who would "tell her what to do, and control her." She found that person, and was basically imprisoned in her house, unable to speak to friends or leave without his permission.

Anyway, there are always people willing to tell us how to believe, think, and act. They won't even ask you what you want, but will assume that they know best. I've had people ask me "what's right"? I usually tell them that I can't make that judgement for them. I will instead urge them to consider ways to think about it from their perspective, and come up with a conclusion from themselves.

There are many unknowns for me in the spiritual world, and I accept that. I've had premonitions, and seen things that couldn't be explained, but to me it's just a part of having different capacities, like intelligence in a way. People are on many different levels of abilities, both physical, mental, and spiritual. I want to remain open to learning more along my journey.

Smith, I apologize for having taken so long to get back to you. ....

[Hotspring 44]

RE:

Are alien abductions real or are they products of our imaginations (and what IS the difference).

I suppose it 'may' be possible that some sort of 'mind control' (?) or other sense of 'awareness' (which has yet to be {and may never be} 'proven' to exist) that could, (in theory) be conceived as being a form of “alien abduction” (experience) but as far as I know, so far, 'alien abductions' have not been 'reasonably proven' to me as real but I am not closed-minded to the (remote) possibility it may have happened at some point in human history because of the reality of the fact that I, admittedly, don't know everything, but for now I remain unconvinced of claims of alien abductions being factual.

RE:

...Can prayer help or is it a silly superstition?

“Meditation” “prayer” “relaxation techniques” etc. or whatever label you want to stick to it have been at least somewhat 'proven'... ...but before you reach (if you haven't already) any 'conclusion' on the matter you (just as one example) might read the March 31 2006 New York Times article by Benedict Carey titled “Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer”.... ...BTW, there is quite a bit of evidence of denial within that article (even though the article is not about denial) emanating from the 'people of faith' who were quoted in the article.

That being said, I 'believe' that a person's (the patent's) state of mind going into surgery does have an effect on the their body which does not necessarily guarantee anything particular but still has some (albeit difficult to quantify) effect.

RE:

Does the soul live on or are we worm food? MY answer to these and other similar questions: YES.

1- “Scientifically” speaking there is as of yet no way to 'prove' soul; so that may be a thing to be scientifically unknowable and therefore exuberantly denied by the more purest science-minded individuals who in all likelihood will never have a scientifically acceptable 'tool' to use to 'see' (a) “soul” in the first place so as far as I can tell using a “scientific” method to prove so much as what a “soul is”, not to mention weather or not a “soul” 'lives on' is in either case an exercise in futility....

...

...worm food?

... ...2- Probably not so much if the body is cremated....
...and also:

Chris, I'm kindly disposed toward you because of some nice things you've said to me, but you test my patience when you utter this sort of hogwash. To assert that mutually contradictory claims are both true violates the most basic logic that even a child understands. Either prayer is helpful or it isn't. Either there's a soul that survives the death of the body or there isn't. And if you're unclear on the distinction between objective reality and imagination, you may wish to 1. get a prescription for a good antipsychotic medication, and 2. read my column #4, "Reality Is Real--Really!".

...Anyway, it seems to me that virtually all 'beliefs' are, at least at some point in the past, derived from some sort of (circumstantial) fact/s that were present but the conveyance of what actually was (is) the “fact” ({is} particularly more obscure the further into the past a story is from) and what is now 'believed' to be the 'reason/s' a 'believer' gives for the the why is reasonably open for scrutiny... ..at which point the so-called “fact/s” come into question as to; if imaginary, made-up, misinformation or some combination thereof etc..

[Dixon]

Shandi, thank you for your kind words. As an outspoken loudmouth, I often find myself on the receiving end of people's extremely unpleasant defense mechanisms, so it's nice that a few folks like you get where I'm coming from. You've always been so supportive to me and I appreciate you!

After a short time, I realized that I was looking for a church that would be in alignment with my personal values. For example, I wouldn't choose the Baptist faith because I liked to dance. It didn't take long for me to realize that if adults choose a religion, rather than being born into one, they more than likely will choose one that isn't in conflict with their lifestyle or values. If they do, that would seem irrational.

I would argue that rationality requires looking past the biases of our lifestyle or values in order to see most clearly what's true. Then I may have to change my lifestyle or values in order to fit what's true. Sometimes this means having to believe stuff that's unpleasant. Other times it means not allowing myself to "believe" stuff that would be pleasant. And occasionally, I even get to believe pleasant stuff and disbelieve unpleasant stuff! I'm more interested in what's apparently true than in what matches or doesn't match my lifestyle or values. The universe doesn't owe it to me to agree with me or make me happy. That's the truth-seeking stance.

In other words, I trusted myself to make wise decisions.

This is one of those areas in which we can err in either direction--trusting ourselves insufficiently or trusting ourselves too much. When "trusting myself" means that I think I couldn't possibly be wrong about something, watch out! However, people who have been overly influenced by oppressive "authority" figures would do well to trust themselves more and those others less--or at least find better authority figures!

About a year ago, she was "inspired/guided" to move out of the area. She told me that she doesn't decide things anymore...she's led by Spirit!

I share your scorn for people's attributing their decisions to "Spirit" or whatever. It's always seemed sort of grandiose to me--"It's not me making this decision, it's Spirit, so it has special importance and validity." When people think they have a cosmic daddy or mommy figure to tell them what to do, I just want to say "Grow up!"

I knew a young woman many years ago who said she wanted to meet a man who would "tell her what to do, and control her." She found that person, and was basically imprisoned in her house, unable to speak to friends or leave without his permission.

Sad. Dominance and submission should stay in the bedroom where they belong!

There are many unknowns for me in the spiritual world, and I accept that. I've had premonitions, and seen things that couldn't be explained, but to me it's just a part of having different capacities, like intelligence in a way. People are on many different levels of abilities, both physical, mental, and spiritual. I want to remain open to learning more along my journey.

My bias is that there are probably prosaic explanations for the experiences you interpret as paranormal, but I don't know for sure.

[Valley Oak]

Excellent analysis, Dixon, as always.

[Shandi]

Thank you once again, Dixon, for revealing a path on the journey to truth finding. This write up by Sam Harris is an intelligent and educated response to Dr. Alexander's experience of heaven. Believing without question isn't the best way to discover truth. Or as Wayne Dyer says "believing is seeing". Maybe he means that we see what we want to believe is true?

I believe that perception creates our experience of events or people. Our perception creates the messages we give ourselves. Of course, many of our perceptions are created early on in our lives, before the age of 6, from messages we get, before judgement comes in. But that's another topic:
subconscious messages received in theta state that become our beliefs.

I so appreciate your sharing of this information, and I have posted it to my FB page to spread the wealth of truth. I encourage others to do this.

I knew Terrance McKenna (referenced in the article) from living in Hawaii during the 80's. I've never experienced DMT, but always had a desire to. Reading McKenna's description, makes me wish I could.

Sara, I just read the Newsweek article in which Dr. Alexander describes his quite striking NDE ("Near Death Experience"). ...

[Sara S]

Dixon, dear, I'm not ignoring you.....but can't check your links just yet....

Sara