Err… I actually toss around endorsements of “spirituality” in those contexts where doing so seems likely to have positive effects. Naive realism is a supernatural belief system anyway, just a more subtle than average one. I’ll invoke Einstein, Hume and Spinoza as precedents if you wish. Who do you think, by the way, is more likely to convince a theist to sign up for cryonics, a person who says “god is a stupid idea, this is the only way to survive death” or a person who says “I believe in god too, but I also believe in taking advantage of the best available medical technologies”. I’d accept a double blind study showing that the former worked better, but it’s not how I’d bet. More importantly, I think that the canary function is more valuable than any harm caused by moderate Christianity, especially if combined with a possible vaccine function.
Also, Sam Harris DOES talk about spirituality, and Dennett about free will.
Finally, for what it’s worth, we only have one data point for a scientific civilization rising, and it was in the religious West not the relatively secular China. Weak evidence, but still evidence.
Naive realism is a supernatural belief system anyway
What exactly do you mean by “supernatural” in this context? Naive realism doesn’t seem to be anthropomorphizing any ontologically fundamental things, which is what I mean when I say “supernatural”.
Now of course naive realism does make the assumption that certain assumptions about reality which are encoded in our brains from the get go are right, or at least probably right, in short, that we have an epistemic gift. However, that can’t be what you meant by “supernatural”, because any theory that doesn’t make that assumption gives us no way to deduce anything at all about reality.
Now, granted, some interpretations of naive realism may wrongly posit some portion of the gift to be true, when in fact, by means of evidence plus other parts of the gift, we end up pretty sure that it’s wrong. But I don’t think this sort of wrongness makes an idea supernatural. Believing that Newtonian physics is absolutely true, regardless of how fast objects move is a wrong belief, but I wouldn’t call it a supernatural belief.
Incidentally, I agree that using the term “spirituality” is not necessarily bad. Though, I’m careful to try to use it to refer to the general emotion of awe/wonder/curiosity about the universe. To me the word means something quite opposed to religion. I mean the emotion I felt years ago when I watched Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”.… To me religion looks like what happens when spirituality is snuffed out by an answer which isn’t as wonderfully strange and satisfyingly true as it could have been.
It’s a word with positive connotations, and we might want to steal it. It would certainly help counteract the vulcan stereotype.
I question whether awe and wonder about this giant mostly-unstructured human-hostile death trap we call a universe is an appropriate emotion for a rationalist. Morbid fascination, maybe—Lovecraft and Teller, not Sagan.
If we could do this, if we could really do this, in a way that is genuine, and unforced, if we could show people that religion has hijacked their deepest needs and that there are better ways to fill those needs, I really think that could be the opening move to winning this thing. I think that could be what finally gets people to pull their fingers out of their ears, stop screaming “can’t hear you, you can’t make me think!” and maybe, just maybe learn something.
Oh, absolutely. I’d only been an atheist for about a month when you posted Explaining vs. Explaining Away, and I can’t tell you what a relief it was to feel that yes, it was going to be alright.
I was quoting “Bad scientist! No poems for you, gnomekiller!” for days after that =)
My religious friends didn’t find it as funny though, if I recall. I worry that maybe there’s still an activation energy left to deal with—that the comfort of joy in the merely real doesn’t start to become attractive until you’ve already confronted, to some extent, the fact of atheism.
Err… I actually toss around endorsements of “spirituality” in those contexts where doing so seems likely to have positive effects. Naive realism is a supernatural belief system anyway, just a more subtle than average one. I’ll invoke Einstein, Hume and Spinoza as precedents if you wish. Who do you think, by the way, is more likely to convince a theist to sign up for cryonics, a person who says “god is a stupid idea, this is the only way to survive death” or a person who says “I believe in god too, but I also believe in taking advantage of the best available medical technologies”. I’d accept a double blind study showing that the former worked better, but it’s not how I’d bet.
More importantly, I think that the canary function is more valuable than any harm caused by moderate Christianity, especially if combined with a possible vaccine function. Also, Sam Harris DOES talk about spirituality, and Dennett about free will. Finally, for what it’s worth, we only have one data point for a scientific civilization rising, and it was in the religious West not the relatively secular China. Weak evidence, but still evidence.
Michael Vassar said:
What exactly do you mean by “supernatural” in this context? Naive realism doesn’t seem to be anthropomorphizing any ontologically fundamental things, which is what I mean when I say “supernatural”.
Now of course naive realism does make the assumption that certain assumptions about reality which are encoded in our brains from the get go are right, or at least probably right, in short, that we have an epistemic gift. However, that can’t be what you meant by “supernatural”, because any theory that doesn’t make that assumption gives us no way to deduce anything at all about reality.
Now, granted, some interpretations of naive realism may wrongly posit some portion of the gift to be true, when in fact, by means of evidence plus other parts of the gift, we end up pretty sure that it’s wrong. But I don’t think this sort of wrongness makes an idea supernatural. Believing that Newtonian physics is absolutely true, regardless of how fast objects move is a wrong belief, but I wouldn’t call it a supernatural belief.
So, what exactly did you mean?
Incidentally, I agree that using the term “spirituality” is not necessarily bad. Though, I’m careful to try to use it to refer to the general emotion of awe/wonder/curiosity about the universe. To me the word means something quite opposed to religion. I mean the emotion I felt years ago when I watched Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”.… To me religion looks like what happens when spirituality is snuffed out by an answer which isn’t as wonderfully strange and satisfyingly true as it could have been.
It’s a word with positive connotations, and we might want to steal it. It would certainly help counteract the vulcan stereotype.
I question whether awe and wonder about this giant mostly-unstructured human-hostile death trap we call a universe is an appropriate emotion for a rationalist. Morbid fascination, maybe—Lovecraft and Teller, not Sagan.
The place has potential if it were fixed up a bit. That’s what gets me up in the morning.
“Wonder” is the emotion that smells a bit off to me. Can you feel that if you are not enamored of mysterious answers?
Yes. See Sense of Wonder for examples.
If we could do this, if we could really do this, in a way that is genuine, and unforced, if we could show people that religion has hijacked their deepest needs and that there are better ways to fill those needs, I really think that could be the opening move to winning this thing. I think that could be what finally gets people to pull their fingers out of their ears, stop screaming “can’t hear you, you can’t make me think!” and maybe, just maybe learn something.
I can’t think of 100 posts of mine which fit that description, can you? Why yes, this is one of my not-so-hidden agendas.
Oh, absolutely. I’d only been an atheist for about a month when you posted Explaining vs. Explaining Away, and I can’t tell you what a relief it was to feel that yes, it was going to be alright.
I was quoting “Bad scientist! No poems for you, gnomekiller!” for days after that =)
My religious friends didn’t find it as funny though, if I recall. I worry that maybe there’s still an activation energy left to deal with—that the comfort of joy in the merely real doesn’t start to become attractive until you’ve already confronted, to some extent, the fact of atheism.
Dennett’s free will is very much unlike naïve free will.