Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

The Will to Believe (in a secular ideal)

Following up our discussion of secular faith and William James, here's some of what he says in "The Will to Believe" (1896):

...And that delicious enfant terrible Clifford writes; "Belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer,... Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his belief with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away.... If [a] belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence [even though the belief be true, as Clifford on the same page explains] the pleasure is a stolen one.... It is sinful because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind. That duty is to guard ourselves from such beliefs as from a pestilence which may shortly master our own body and then spread to the rest of the town....It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true. Suppose, for instance, that you are climbing a mountain, and have worked yourself into a position from which the only escape is by a terrible leap. Have faith that you can successfully make it, and your feet are nerved to its accomplishment. But mistrust yourself, and think of all the sweet things you have heard the scientists say of maybes, and you will hesitate so long that, at last, all unstrung and trembling, and launching yourself in a moment of despair, you roll in the abyss. In such a case (and it belongs to an enormous class), the part of wisdom as well as of courage is to believe what is in the line of your needs, for only by such belief is the need fulfilled. Refuse to believe, and you shall indeed be right, for you shall irretrievably perish. But believe, and again you shall be right, for you shall save yourself. You make one or the other of two possible universes true by your trust or mistrust,—both universes having been only maybes, in this particular, before you contributed your act.

Now, it appears to me that the question whether life is worth living is subject to conditions logically {60}much like these...

If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight,—as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem; and first of all to redeem our own hearts from atheisms and fears. For such a half-wild, half-saved universe our nature is adapted. The deepest thing in our {62}nature is this Binnenleben (as a German doctor lately has called it), this dumb region of the heart in which we dwell alone with our willingnesses and unwillingnesses, our faiths and fears...

These, then, are my last words to you: Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact. The 'scientific proof' that you are right may not be clear before the day of judgment (or some stage of being which that expression may serve to symbolize) is reached. But the faithful fighters of this hour, or the beings that then and there will represent them, may then turn to the faint-hearted, who here decline to go on, with words like those with which Henry IV. greeted the tardy Crillon after a great victory had been gained: "Hang yourself, brave Crillon! we fought at Arques, and you were not there."

Note the line about redeeming ourselves from atheism. But, I want to ask WJ, what if the object of my faithfulness is the unaided human race, and the notion that we possess the potential to solve our problems (including the problem of democracy and its enemies foreign AND domestic) without divine aid or intercession?

Neil deGrasse Tyson

The god-talk commences at around 4"...


Julia Sweeney

Our conversation on Opening Day reminded me in parts of Julia Sweeney's tour de force stage show...



I especially like the bit about putting on and taking off "the no God glasses"...

91:44 [transcript]

And plus, if I lead my life according to my own deeply held moral principles, what difference did it make if I believed in God? Why would God care if I "believed" in him?

But then I thought, "But I don't know how to not believe in God. I don't know how you do it. How do you get up, how do you get through the day?"

I thought, "Okay, calm down. Let's just try on the not-believing-in-God glasses for a moment, just for a second. Just put on the no-God glasses and take a quick look around and then immediately throw them off. So I put them on and I looked around.

I'm embarrassed to report that I initially felt dizzy. I actually had the thought, "Well, how does the Earth stay up in the sky? You mean, we're just hurtling through space? That's so vulnerable!" I wanted to run out and catch the earth as it fell out of space into my hands.

And then I thought, "Oh yeah, gravity and angular momentum is gonna keep us revolving around the sun for probably a really long time." Then I thought, "What's going to stop me from just, rushing out and murdering people?" And I had to walk myself through it, why are we ethical? Well, because we have to be. We're social animals. We're extremely complex social animals. We evolved a moral sense, like an aversion to wanton murder, in order for communities to exist. Because communities help us survive better in much bigger numbers. And eventually we codified these internal evolved ethics inside of us into laws against things like wanton murder. So... I guess that's why I won't be rushing out and murdering people!

And then suddenly I felt like I'd cheated on God somehow and I went into the house and prayed and asked God, "To please, help me have faith!" But already it felt slightly silly, and vacant and I felt like I was talking to myself.

I thought. "Okay, I'll just not believe in God for one hour a day and see how it goes." So, the next day, I tried it again.

Then I thought, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. What about those people who are like... unjustifiably jailed somewhere horrible, and they are like... in solitary confinement and all they do is pray... this means that I... like, I think they're praying to nobody? Is that possible?" And then I thought, "We gotta do something to get those people outta jail!"

Because no one else is looking out for them but us, no God is hearing their pleas. And I guess that goes for really poor people too or really oppressed people, who I had this vague notion; they had God to comfort them. And an even vaguer idea, that God had orchestrated their lot, for some unknowable grand design.

I wandered around in a daze thinking, "No one is minding the store!" And I wondered how traffic worked, like how we weren't just in chaos all the time. And slowly, I began to see the world completely differently. I had to rethink what I thought about everything. It's like I had to go change the wallpaper of my mind... LGOG

Farewell, Terry Jones...

Who said "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"



DS

Be a catalyst

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Introductions

LISTEN. We begin with an invitation: tell us who you are, and why you're here. We'll introduce ourselves in class and in the "comments" section below. I'll start.

I'm the prof for this course, PHIL 3310, Atheism & Philosophy. I hold degrees from the University of Missouri and Vanderbilt, and I'm here because the question of god continues to perplex and divide people. I'd like for this course to address that perplexity and lessen that division, by exploring the implications of a godless universe and disabusing both believers and non-believers (and "nones") of some of the prejudices and preconceptions that foster mutual mistrust and disrespect. I believe we can, with the right intentions and a willingness to hear one another out, surmount many if not most of our differences.

I've done this course many times, always with mostly-different texts and a different thematic focal point. This time it's "neuroexistentialism," "Darwinian existentialism," meaning and purpose, and the perennial tension/hostility between some exponents of science and others of religion. Can't we all just get along?

I also teach courses on Bioethics, Environmental Ethics, and Happiness, among others. Last summer I did a fun summer course in the Master of Liberal Arts (MALA) program called Identity and Truth, I'm offering one next summer called Evolution in America.

Enough about me, unless you want to look at my slightly longer introduction in the CoPhilosophy (Intro) course.

Who are you? Why are you here? (Bear in mind, as you reply, that this is an open site. There's nothing preventing the world from reading what we post here, except of course the world's own considerable distraction.) Post your introduction below in "comments," and read your classmates' intros.

Thanks, Buchanan