Letters to the Editor
-
The "Why"...
...is for each individual to figure out, individually. Science can only give us the "who, what, when, and where".
-
Instead of either/or, how about both?
The Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman (which I just read and loved) does a nice job of mapping how to have spiritual experiences within the discipline of your choice, including atheism.
I think that's the third path that's needed, versus all-God or all-reality.
-
Maybe he ought to actually look at the evidence
Someone needs to tell this self-assured gentleman that there HAVE been replications of Sheldrake's telephone telepathy experiment and they produced results that were very significant. Sheldrake had also done e-mail telepathy results that produced incredible results. Those are also in the process of being replicated.
In any case, Wolpert should read the literature before he dismisses psi and other phenomena out of hand. He comes off as another self-satisfied skeptic who doesn't want to hear about things that conflict with his comfortable world view.
-
Retroactive Continuity
You're thinking of someone and suddenly they phone you. You haven't spoken to them for six months and suddenly the phone rings and there they are. OK, I don't have a good explanation for that.
I do.
Our memories, as recent studies have conclusively shown (google "unreliable memories" -- links 2, 4, and 6 are particularly pertinent) are essentially totally unreliable.
Firstly, we "tag" all the times we remember someone and they do call, and we don't tag all the times we remember someone and they don't call. That's well known.
Secondly, and far more controversially, we actually go back into our memories, and edit them out so "cause" comes before "effect". So, with the passage of time, someone calling you out of the blue, having a great old chat, and a warm glow of friendship infusing the rest of the day, becomes "I had this strange feeling all day that X would call and what do you know..."
In film, fans making up explanations after the fact to explain away holes in the plot is called "retroactive continuity" or retcon. That's exactly what's going on when our brains -- cause and effect problem solving engines -- try to reinterpret coincidence to give "meaning" to it.
It's very disconcerting to understand that your "memories" are essentially made up by your brain from fragments and patterns, but that certainly seems on current information to be what's actually going on.
For me, as an atheist, it's even more disconcerting that many people seem to base their life belief systems on what, at the heart of it, are just warm retcon-ed coincidences.
-
Self-Defense
In a way, it is a sad development that such books and such discussions have become important in our culture. The growing threat of theocracy in our own political culture ought to send chills down the spine of any thinking person, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Aggressive religious belief and its historic need to punish non-conformity demands to be confronted on an intellectual level at least. There was a time, not so long ago, when greater wisdom prevailed in our society. In the spirit of our Constitution, there seemed to be fewer religious tests in public life. Still, absurd hostilities among the various protestant sects, between Catholics and Protestants, between Christians and Jews, have been a primary dynamic in much of the history of western civilization. That we have reached the point where similar hostility between belief and non-belief is approaching comparable significance might even be viewed as progress.
I remember discovering my atheism in early adolescence and the attendant zeal with which I felt compelled to proselytize among my classmates. I was fortunately able to find one other who had developed similar insight so that I did not feel absolutely rejected, but it was close.
I learned my lesson and only later developed the understanding that atheism, depending on your prejudices, is either an intellectual gift or a neurological deficit, or maybe both. In my case, I see it as a gift, in that I am comfortable with the insights it provides regarding the value and finality of life. In subjective support of Wolpert's hypothesis, it’s obvious to me that neurologically, I am wired differently than any of my ardently faithful acquaintances. My value as a human being is defined by my behavior, not my beliefs. Loyalty to your deity of choice does not change the rules in your favor. If you also possess the neurological inclinations to generosity and empathy, you will construct a truly satisfying system of values and behaviors that will contribute to your well-being and a similar well-being for your fellow man. But then, if you possess those same inclinations, you probably make a pretty good Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Wican or Human Being) as well. Ultimately, those inclinations toward generosity and empathy are more profound than belief or non-belief.
When I encounter irritating religious certainty now, I simply ask the zealot, “Why did God invent Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Pancreatic Cancer?” If you share my contempt for these people and are not personally dependant on their integrity, try it. It is almost always amusing!
In response to the various posts complaining that Wolpert's arguments are simply a tiresome continuation of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris,...; the recent wave of atheist advocacy appearing in print is simply an act of self-defense. In one sense, these books and articles amount to a recruiting drive, looking for new members of the scientific community. Continued social and technical progress depends upon the continuing cultivation of at least a minority within the population that can step over the barriers of superstition and group-think, (another neurological phenomenon). Science and technology (physics and biology in particular) have reached a level that is intolerant of superstitious impediment.
Our continued progress as a society and some would argue that our survival in an era threatened by nuclear and biological weapons depends upon somehow diminishing our capacity for dehumanizing our fellow man. Given the incredibly powerful role that religious certainty and its attendant moral superiority have played in establishing the tribal identity that seems a prerequisite for war, it is important that an alternative voice be heard. Obviously there are similar problems with nationalism and racial identity that contribute to our impulse to slaughter, but religion has grown again in recent years in its malevolent power over significant and dangerous groups around the globe.