Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[blauregen]

....than 10.000 truths.

There are of course a few points you could make against Pushkin's statement, such as that Illusions sometimes clash with consentual reality, which can be detrimental, but on the other hand, it points to an aspect of life that the scientific method by definition and the skeptic movement by characteristic seem particularly unfit to provide.

What i am talking about is a uniting vision, a purpose that can rally people to a goal. A vision like the one that allowed Ghandi to effectively use peaceful non-cooperation as political means and to inspire generations ( i doubt a scientific exploration of social and psychological factors would have been equally effective ). A vision that is a crucial element of most revolutions in human history.

It is admittedly too the kind of vision that enabled various ideologists to drive their adherents to commit atrocities, so there are a few rather large downsides to it. Nevertheless it seems to be a major force not in the evolutionary development of humanity in a strictly biological sense, but in the social development.

The scientific method hardly can provide this. Working on observations, building hypotheses and collecting evidence supportive or contrary to them, is likely the most effective strategy so far to find out about the actual state of affairs, but with the current degree of specialisation it can only provide exaltation for the dedicated researchers in their field.

The skeptics movement, judging from JREF is contrary to the whole idea. More a deconstructor of exaltation than a provider, hellbent to drag dreams down and to denigrate their providers. There are a lot of good points to make for this position too, namely the protection of those, who from the skeptic's view are the innocently deceived.

My point however is that ideology and religion provide this kind of exaltation, this kind of unifying vision,the appeal to what often is called higher values like altruism, forgiveness and the like, very effectively.

Since a frequent notion here is that the world would be better off without religion and ideology, i would like to ask your opinion on this topic.

Do you as a skeptic or as an observer of skeptics consider this to be a completely separate realm that is outside the scope of science, as well as skepticism?

Can you find a vision, a driving force, a source of exaltation in the skeptic attitude or the scientific approach, that can appeal to not so sophisticated minds like mine, and would therefore offer a replacement?

Do you think that humanity can live very well without this kind of exaltation and should get some booze if they want to be exalted?

What is your opinion?

 

[Roboramma]

I think it's entirely possible to find hope, wonder, real meaningful dreams and visions for the future, based on things that are true.

I also think that their being true makes them more valuable - why would I want to follow a falsehood? Whatever good might come of following it is because of the aspects of it that are true. Personally I think it's better to whittle away the rest and focus on the real things that are also amazing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think we have a clear example to help in this situation, which may ranckle ire amongst some, and that is the Communist experiment, or, rather, planned economies. Planned economies don't work very well because we are not as smart as we think we are. Whether or not you agree with von Mises or Hayek in all the particulars, I think it is clear that their insight is profound.

Poets are much better equipped to create new stories that can drive us forward than scientists. The role of science is to pare away the bad ideas that poets create and, hopefully, allow the good to thrive.

We cannot, and we should not, try to create the future whole-cloth. We are too dumb or too blind for that task. We should try to improve our lot and allow the market to decide what works and what does not.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

The race to the moon unified people toward a common goal and exalted humanity. The race against global warming could do the same. People everywhere are joined in the fight against cancer and other diseases.

In parting the curtains of ignorance, science unifies people toward common goals. It's perfectly exalting.

 

[dglas]

If one can't find something in the eyes of children that inspires you to want a better, more empowered future (with real human efficacy; not merely comfortable lies) for them, then I cannot help but question one's humanity. Religious "meaning" and "exaltation" are lies (a hijacking of our humanity by dogmas) intended to distract us from what is really important, really meaningful. The future; always the future.

Skepticism, properly understood, is a philosophical shield against these lies; science is the means to real human efficacy, understanding and growth. Together they are pure potential. All else is stagnation and self-justification - a descent into a quagmire of selfishness. Exaltations are blind egotisms.

To say that something is "right" or "good" or "ideal" in a religious/ideological sense is to place a mere philosophy above humanity, completely oblivious that philosophies are tools, not truths. Worse than mere errors, they deliberately hobble humanity by subverting it to lies, turning real living, breathing, loving people into cogs in a dogmatic machine. Ideologies do not "exalt" humanity, they vilify it and necessarily so or they lose their power over us.

You want something worth living for, striving for, dying for? Look to your children. Sacrifice your gods to your children. All else is madness...

One truth and the efficacy it provides is worth 1000 blind egotisms. Every little truth is an investment in a better tomorrow.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The illusions that exalt us can blind us to our flaws. And I can find more than a few points to be made against Pushkin's statement.

 

[Complexity]

He was wrong.

 

[slingblade]

ex·alt·ed (g-zôltd)
adj.
1. Elevated in rank, character, or status.
2. Lofty; sublime; noble: an exalted dedication to liberty.
3. Exaggerated; inflated: He has an exalted sense of his importance to the project.


Why is this necessary to humanity, to the point fantasy is preferable to reality?

What are we supposed to be exalted over? Nature? Animals? Each other? Nature cannot care, the animals can't recognize our exalted status, and when we do it to each other, we cause pain, suffering, and death.

Why are dreams necessary to the future? Why aren't goals enough? Why does life have to be cloaked in fantasy to have any value?

In order to dream, you have to sleep. I'm tired of sleeping. I want to wake up and live in this world the way it is, not the way I want it to be. Dreams can express my ideas, but they can't be my ideas, my reality. Dreaming should be my recreation, not my focus, my center of meaning.

I don't offer anyone a substitute for their fantasies, a replacement for dreams. Dreams are a replacement for the reality that's already here. And I don't necessarily want religion, or rather, the type of social function religion serves, to go away. I think people need something to gather around, to connect and bind them. I'd rather it be something real, though; something we can explore with our senses, something concrete. We have plenty to choose from, and always have had.

I'd like to say I have nothing against religion, per se; that people can have their religion if they want, as long as they don't force me to have it too, or force me to live by its tenents whether they make sense or not. But that's not true.

I think religion, in general, makes you inclined to be dependent. I think it discourages critical, rational thought. I think scientific thought fosters progress, while religious thought fosters regress. And while I think science often provides us the means to hurt each other, such as with guns and atom bombs, I think religion often provides us with the reason.

This whole fight about gay marriage, for instance, is none of your business if you're not gay. It wont hurt you, and it doesn't concern you. The greatest reason most people against gay marriage seem able to come up with is that God doesn't approve. But you can't even prove there is a God to disapprove, so why should anyone listen to that? Why is that a good reason to keep people from expressing love and commitment to each other?

One can't scream about the sanctity of hetero marriage, because the divorce rate puts the lie to that. As the joke goes, gay folks should have every right to the same chance at misery that hetero people have. No one has to worry about gay marriage reducing the rate of childbirth--we're already facing that, and gay marriage is still illegal in most places. Science doesn't forbid gay marriage, doesn't see a danger to the human race entire in the performance of this ritual. Only religion, as used by the religious, does that.

And if science can put the lie to other cherished myths, you'll pardon me if I think it a good thing, in general. I think knowing something about the earth's innnards, and plate tectonics, is a much better explanation for a volcano or an earthquake than "God is angry with us for no discernable reason and wants to kill us!" You can't plan for the caprices of a god, but you can study the earth and plan for volcanic eruptions, and make predictions about earthquakes, thanks to science. You can save lives and maybe even property, by knowing how and where to build, when to evacuate. Or you can pray and hope you guess right, and then blame it on God if you don't. Which method do you really prefer?

Science lets you do something, more often than not. Religion just makes you helpless.

What, you'd prefer to go back to days when we chanted and shook pebble-filled gourds to drive out evil spirits, rather than go to the doctor and get a real cure, found scientifically? You'll pardon me if I'd prefer to, say, treat an infection rather than cut off a putrid limb after gangrene's taken hold, and hope I live through it.

If we debunkers and our science really bother you, then I suggest you give up everything science has brought you. You can't really enjoy the benefits while decrying the source, I'm afraid. Or, you can, but you look like a childish moron for doing so. Be my guest; just stop trying to blame me because you can't eat your cake and have it, too.

If you want something to dream about, dream about humanity, our potential, our intelligence, and our ability to do so much to affect and change the world. We've never needed a god for any of that, Dorothy; we've had it all along. Instead of turning eyes heavenward, we should refocus our gaze down here, to each other; see the value in each other, and what we can do.

Yes, I suppose I would like to see certain aspects of religion go away, and it must be acknowledged that if those aspects are no more, religion itself will largely be no more. I don't think blind faith, blind trust, or blind allegiance are good for us. I don't think taking our morals from a book we wrote, but ascribed to a god, is a good thing. The book never seems to change, but we do. How is that good, how is that progressive? How does that acknowledge our worth as a species?

So yes, I guess I would like to see religion go away, if it comes to that. Religion doesn't seem to want us to grow, to learn, to improve. Science does.

Yes. I prefer science.

 

[Jimbo07]

If one can't find something in the eyes of children that inspires you to want a better, more empowered future (with real human efficacy; not merely comfortable lies) for them,

Nominated.

 

[articulett]

Carl Sagan was exalted by the truth.

I am exalted by people like Carl Sagan... by that wonder... by that truth... by the knowledge that we humans have figured so much out and we can share it with each other.

Illusionary wonder can't beat the truth in my book. I am exalted when I learn how my mind can fool itself... and then learn how to curtail against such illusions.

The real internet is better than what sci-fi books could have projected. I like being a part of humanity understanding its past and building its future. That's way more poignant to me than illusions.

 

[Showmeproof]

"My point however is that ideology and religion provide this kind of exaltation, this kind of unifying vision,the appeal to what often is called higher values like altruism, forgiveness and the like, very effectively."

So, you must be assuming that one cannot have characteristics such as, altruism, forgiveness and the like without being religious?

I see unifying visions among scientists that try to cure diseases, protect the environment, etc.

Sure, a vision or driving force for a scientist would be creating a better place for humans to live.

Being exalted doesn't have to be of a religious basis. You can be exalted by searching for the truth, knowledge, reading a good book or helping out another person.

 

[fuelair]

I think we have a clear example to help in this situation, which may ranckle ire amongst some, .

I, personally, have never had my ire rankled - and I do not intend to start that filthy habit now!!

 

[blauregen]

I also think that their being true makes them more valuable - why would I want to follow a falsehood?

Not necessarily a falsehood, but possibly an arbitrary idea because you agree with it despite a lack of proof.

For example:

....that all men are created equal

is hardly an objective and observable truth. Most medieval nobles would have considered the idea to be ridiculous, so I don't think it follows stringently out of some genetic imperative. Yet it is stated as self-evident, and i think a lot of the people here on this board would embrace it without supporting evidence.

 

[articulett]

I, personally, have never had my ire rankled - and I do not intend to start that filthy habit now!!

Are you judging those of us who regularly have our ire rankled?

People feel exalted when they're high.

Some may believe that what you believe or feel is "better" than a 100000 truths or whatever... but that's an opinion I don't share... it reminds me of the quote about religion being the opiate of the masses.

But I have nothing against people who prefer a comforting fantasy to reality... they just rankle my ire when they expect me to treat their delusions as "worthy" of some sort of respect from me. If it's good and fun and true or whatever, why do I have to be a part of it... that rankles my ire. (but I always thought I was particularly attractive with rankled ire, myself-- no?)

 

[Hokulele]

"All men are created equal" is no truth at all. There are large numbers of ways people are non-equal in the US. Just look at the tax rates for one. "All people are equal under law" is a much better example, although even that falls short too often.


(Don't even get me started on the use of "created".)


ETA: I like sling's answer the best so far.

 

[blauregen]

The race to the moon unified people toward a common goal and exalted humanity.

Yes, this is an example of an exciting goal that came out of scientific discovery. I had forgotten about the awe space travel used to inspire. Thank you for reminding me.

 

[blauregen]

"All men are created equal" is no truth at all. There are large numbers of ways people are non-equal in the US. Just look at the tax rates for one. "All people are equal under law" is a much better example, although even that falls short too often.


(Don't even get me started on the use of "created".)

I wanted to preserve the phrasing from the american declaration of indepence. Embracing the idea was meant in the sense of 'regarding it's truth to be desirable'

ETA: I like sling's answer the best so far.

I like it too, but am still pondering it. Dglas' one rings as coherent too, although i am not yet sure whether I completely agree.

 

[articulett]

Yes, it was very good. Nobody is requiring anyone to be a skeptic or believe a certain way... this is a forum for people who enjoy examining things critically... and for people who want to have their ideas examined by them.

I think skeptics have all the same things that people imagine they get from their beliefs or philosophies, but we don't attribute it to a delusion... we want to know what is real. It is not a skeptics fault that reality doesn't square with what people want to believe... and it's not the skeptic trying to change minds... believers seem to "need" others to believe what they do... otherwise, why wouldn't they just keep it to themselves. They need to convince themselves by convincing others, I suspect.

 

[Robin]

Do you think that humanity can live very well without this kind of exaltation and should get some booze if they want to be exalted?

What is your opinion?

Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on this subject - Unweaving the Rainbow.

His take is that science and skepticism delivers better on things like awe and exaltation than religion ever did.

And also on things like healing.

I saw a documentary about a poor little kid with cancer who underwent a new procedure. At the end his cancer was completely in remission. I felt exalted about that.

As you mention above space travel, pictures of electrical storms on Saturn are pretty exciting.

And you can be a hardline, materialist skeptic and still feel exalted at the birth of a baby, or watching it take it's first steps and so on.

Exaltation, awe, excitement, wonder - all those worthwhile things are all around. It seems pointless inventing stuff that isn't there to get those things.

 

[articulett]

Exactly... it's all part of this false view that scientists are devoid of feeling. And it's based on this other delusion that good stuff comes from god or supernatural mysteries. Understanding the mysteries doesn't make them less... it makes them more... it allows us to refine and hone them and congratulate ourselves for figuring it out. We are the gods we invented. We understand how and why we invented them. How cool is that to understand. There cannot be a hell to fear. I don't see the downside, frankly. Why would you want anybody to be doing rain dances when you could teach them about irrigation and draught resistant crops and useful stuff. Yes, they may feel exalted when it appears to bring rain... but is the lie worth it?

As a person who understands the facts, you are put in a weird position whenever someone celebrates a delusion... do you celebrate with them, smile politely, give them a clue, or leave them be? And why won't they do the same for us? It's easier for me not know about who is a rain dancer... who believes crazy things... because then I'm not put in the uncomfortable position of inadvertently propping up a delusion I want no part of... and I don't want to be made into a bad guy for having the courage to give true information to those who prefer beliefs. I don't think the concept of "original sin" nor hell are healthy beliefs to inflict on people. I feel sorry for those who have had it inflicted on them, and I'd rather not know because I never know what to say or do in response. But then the "abuse"-- the lie... continues.