Belief in Scripture and Belief in Alien Abductions – A Response to grumpypilgrim

I have to admit, when I read grumpypilgrim’s post that the evidence supporting Christianity is on par with the evidence supporting alien abduction, I got nervous.  It sounded so very harsh. I couldn’t help thinking of the many sincerely Christians who would be insulted by such a comparison.  I’m well aware that many Christians (including many of the people who regularly visit this site) are incredibly generous people who give much more back to this world than they take.  I truly admire their good works.  It is not my purpose (and I’m sure it’s not grumpypilgrim’s purpose) to insult them.  I’ve tried to make this clear as part of other posts.

On the other hand, grumpypilgrim’s post reminded me of some of the many questions Daniel Dennett raised in his recent book, Breaking the Spell (2006).  On page 210, for example, Dennett cited Richard Dawkins (from A Devil’s Chaplain):

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in.  Some of us just go one god further.

I have often criticized believers who are so absolutely certain of their own beliefs, all of which are based upon a personal “feeling” and apocryphal writings, that they take political steps to disparage the beliefs and doubts of all other people.  Jimmy Carter has termed such people “fundamentalists,”:

A fundamentalist believes, say, in religious circles, that I am close to God. Everything that I believe is absolutely right. Anyone who disagrees with me, in any case,

Share

Continue ReadingBelief in Scripture and Belief in Alien Abductions – A Response to grumpypilgrim

What Christianity and alien abduction have in common

I just finished reading Michael Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things."  It's very long-winded -- the book could easily be 1/10th its size and still make the same points -- but it did make me realize one thing.  The book discusses alien abduction as an example of a weird…

Continue ReadingWhat Christianity and alien abduction have in common

Laughing at Not Funny Things and the Limits of Introspection

Why do we laugh?  Introspection and common sense tell us that we laugh because someone said or did something funny.  This is usually incorrect, however.  In Laughter (2000), Robert Provine reported the results of his carefully conducted experiments, showing that in social situations, between 80 and 90% of laughing is not a response to jokes or other formal attempts at humor.  Rather, most laughing is in response to innocuous statements such as “I’ll see you guys later.” “I should do that, but I’m too lazy” or “I told you so!”

Provine has found that laughing serves a function similar to small talk:  it facilitates or maintains social bonds.  “Laughing plays a . . . nonlinguistic role in social bonding solidifying friendships and pulling people into the fold.  You can define ‘friends’ and ‘group members’ as those with whom you laugh.”  In The Human Story, Robin Dunbar cites studies finding that laughing is correlated with the release of endorphins and that this release of hormones facilitates bonding.

Unless we’re at a comedy club, then, laughing usually serves a function much different than common sense and introspection suggest.  The research of Provine and Dunbar is but one of many examples where conventional wisdom and introspection fail to explain human behavior. Where one truly wants to understand human cognition, one must turn to the scientific method.

We need to keep this caveat in mind because common sense seduces us with powerful illusions, illusions that look like uncontestable “facts” to those of us who …

Share

Continue ReadingLaughing at Not Funny Things and the Limits of Introspection

The Bible: the greatest book rarely read carefully

Part I: What's really in the Bible? Although I have regularly picked up my King James Bible, I haven't had the stamina to plow all the way through.  Kudos to the authors of the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible."   We know they really made it to the end because they left proof…

Continue ReadingThe Bible: the greatest book rarely read carefully

The dirty little secret about moral rules

Many people feel that to be moral is to follow a set of rules.  But there’s an implicit unwritten preamble to every set of rules or commandments: they don’t apply equally to everyone.

Consider “Do not injure or kill other people,” for example. Assume that two people have fallen off a ship and you’ve only got one lifesaver.  One of the people is a stranger and the other is your mother.  Should you consider throwing the lifesaver to the stranger instead of your mother?  Most people would say no.

A second example:  you might voluntarily put your life in danger to save members of your immediate family, but most of us wouldn’t offer our extra kidneys to people we’ve never met. We walk around simply assuming that having an extra kidney (when someone else desperately needs one) is not a moral act.

Here’s a third example:  You have $100.  You want to spend it on a fancy dinner for yourself and your significant other.  You are aware that if you sent that same $100 to your favorite African relief association you could save the lives of two starving people.  Are you allowed to spend the money on the fancy dinner knowing that doing so will condemn two people to certain deaths?  Most people would say yes. The same dollars that could be used to save human lives can also buy jewelry, souped-up car stereos and expensive tickets to sports events.  If you ever bring up this undeniable fact to a …

Share

Continue ReadingThe dirty little secret about moral rules