“How
can you believe in God and not believe in vampires?” – Tom Nelson,
Intertel ‘Port of Call’, ‘Science and Religion’, June/July 2014, p. 1
Though
written in a facetious vein, Nelson’s question has more than a little bit of
ballast. If you are going to believe in an “infinite” personal entity for which
there isn’t a scintilla of evidence, then you are going to have problems if you
deny belief in possible vampires – because at the end of the day both fall
under the same supernaturalist meme.
Nelson’s
next point also bears careful consideration:
“Theory
and belief are not in competition. They can and usually do abide side by side
in the same minds, each in its own compartment. There is no gain on either side
of the controversy in contending between theory and belief. It doesn’t matter
what truth is, only what works and what doesn’t. In human psychology, belief
has its place, theories serve their purposes.”
But
this needs careful parsing, and I wouldn’t be so bold to adopt it as a
generalization. True, theory and belief can both plausibly occupy some small subset of
minds – namely scientists who are also ardent religionists, i.e. believers. A
case in point I can cite was my thesis supervisor- who while excellent in solar
physics (publishing a number of papers on solar radio emissions) nonetheless believed
the creation account of the bible. How did he manage to do sterling research on
the one hand yet retain a decidedly unscientific view on the other? I warrant
he managed to compartmentalize his ‘theory’ and ‘belief’ sides.
Indeed,
Nelson on the next page of his essay provides one very compelling reason:
“The
purpose of belief is a certain psychological comfort, a means of coping with
the fears and awareness that only human beings possess. We are the only species
of animal that knows it is inevitably going to die.”
He
then goes on to add that “consistent with this Christians believe humans have
souls:”
The
“soul” being the vehicle to ensure post-death survival in some form.
The
takeaway here is that adoption of a religion is more a psychological choice
than anything else. The “search” for a religion that “fits” may then be said to
be an extension or extrapolation of that psychological template. In the end,
just as “exorcism” was invented to parry the belief in devils (not
devils per se), so religion was invented to consolidate overtones of comfort –
via specific beliefs – as related to human life.
Returning to the original claim, it is simply not true to say that belief and
theory abide co-extensively in ALL minds. For example, I can’t say I have any
“beliefs” – which means accepting something as true minus any evidence for it.
I do have loads of theories, but as we know the standard and most accepted
definition of theory is of a hypothesis for which the initial predictions have
already been confirmed. In other words, evidence has been used which
contradicts Nelson’s definition of belief.
Nelson
reinforces this distinction in his next passage:
“The
believer relies on what he calls ‘faith’ to sustain belief. Any questioning of
the religious precepts will be met by the believer’s claim to ‘faith’ as the
force behind his convictions. And what is faith? It is only the belief itself,
the belief in believing….”
Again,
disclosing belief to be a psychological mode, likely retained by evolution in
the OAA (orientation association area) brain centers, to provide
existential comfort to orphaned minds. By extension, taking Nelson’s concepts
to their limit, it matters not what belief mode or religion one professes. They
are all relative since all are formed of this psychological dynamic. (Of
course, the belief systems themselves don’t see it that way, each proclaiming
itself the sole font of truth – even inventing ‘everlasting’ punishments for
those that deny their validity.)
Again,
revealing his dichotomy of mind, perhaps contradiction, Nelson writes:
“So we
arrive at the great definitional divide. Science deals with nature, always
testing to determine how close to unknowable nature is becoming. Belief deals
with the human mind, allaying the distractions of fear and uncertainty and the
dismay of living in a universe so frightfully complicated, while being aware of
its complication, and more painfully aware that while we see the complication
we cannot fully understand it.”
Parts
of the above make sense, but other parts do not. Granted that belief plays a
role in allaying fears and uncertainties of existence – but does the mind so
involved truly perceive the universe is that complicated to be “frightful”? I
would argue that the converse is true and the minds of most humans don’t see
the universe as complicated enough! For
this reason, they tend to treat it like a little play toy of their own minds.
Hence, the absurd conception of a cosmos that’s six thousand years old and which
admits of no Big Bang and no evolution either.
This
kindergarten version of the cosmos is accepted by way too many Americans and
itself becomes part of their comfort-belief system. By allowing their primitive
minds to wallow in uncritical belief they actually mentally perform a reductio
ad absurdum to placate their existential fears.
Nelson’s
next paragraph is also interesting:
“As
science exploits nature, religion exploits mankind. The psychological need to
believe and to alleviate the uncomfortable psychology of uncertainty and
mortality is ever an opportunity for the charlatan. There is always someone to
sell you what you think you need whether he can deliver it or not.”
And,
of course, “salvation” sits at the top of what most religions promise to
deliver…if only you will be a good little Do-be and follow their code to the
letter. Never mind you’re selling out your own will and autonomy to tilt at
supernatural windmills.
Nelson,
thankfully, ends by linking religion and its beliefs to superstition. He also
offers a sound warning that “if prosperity and the illusion of security it
brings fails, superstition will rebound.”
Which in fact we’ve seen through history and as he observes “war,
famine, plague, upheaval are the allies of superstition.”
Adding
that superstition is the last refuge of the vanquished as they “cling doggedly
to it as the only escape from a reality they can no longer bear.”
Which
is precisely why we need ever more science and its “positive results” – and I’d
also add, some way science can help salvage those brains addicted to
superstition!
No comments:
Post a Comment