"If I told you that I thought there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard, and you asked me, why do you think that? I say, this belief gives my life meaning, or my family draws a lot of joy from this belief, and we dig for this diamond every Sunday and we have this gigantic pit in our lawn. I would start to sound like a lunatic to you. You can't believe there really is a diamond in your backyard because it gives your life meaning. If that's possible, that's self-deception that nobody wants." ~ Sam Harris
I recently did
a post about how even though faith is often defended by Christians claiming that it gives people hope, that faith is actually a very poor outlet for hope. Afterward, Ben from
War on Error asked me to make a positive case for how hope is better found in reason. Ok. :D (PS - Ben and I are going to do a dual video blog tomorrow on whether or not we should respect beliefs)
Personally, I think this sentiment can be explained in two sentences: It does not matter how good a belief makes us feel, it will not unmake the realities we are trying to escape. However, if we have the courage to be honest about unpleasant things, we can make reality more comforting. However, I'm sure that people will want more elaboration, so here we go.
There is an enormous difference between
false hope, hope that doesn't rely on an accurate assessment of reality (in fact, it exists only by closing our eyes and ignoring reality), and actual hope that if the facts of the universe are not what we want them to be, we can change them. Through the last several thousand years, we have hoped for cures to diseases, technology to take us to the moon, plentiful food, clean water, etc, and through looking at these problems bravely, without trying to shield ourselves from the unpleasant fact that we lacked those things, we were able to turn our hopes into realities. However, first we had to admit that we did not have the things we wanted, and we had to take a long, dispassionate look at our problems.
When we hoped to reach the moon, we did not know how we were going to get there, but we didn't just close our eyes and imagine we had already made it and call it a day: we worked, we thought, and we actually made it happen. But in order to make it happen, we absolutely had to open our eyes and understand the circumstances before us, whether they were comforting or not, as they truly were. Faith merely allows people to ignore the very variables of reality we must acknowledge in order to fix them. It is the panicked shriek of a coward that they cannot bear to look at what frightens them, they cannot bear to face it, and so they just imagine that it's not that way. Such people are never held in high regard elsewhere, but yet we consider such behavior to be noble when applied to the finite nature our very life.
Believing that death is not the end of our ability to experience things will not make it so. But by acknowledging that fact, we can begin to make as much our of our time as we can, rather than sitting around and waiting for the paradise we've dreamed up. We can even join other doctors in dedicating our lives to finding ways to prolong our time on Earth. In short, we can begin to make the universe the way we want it to be, and we can seek the best possible solution as a reality - not merely imagine we've already found it.
In this way, faith - the mere belief in things when reasons fail - is the purest conceivable distillation of false hope. Because it hinges on not acknowledging reality for what it truly is, it is actually antithetical to genuine hope.
So the next time a Christian tries to paint you as a bad person for taking away their hope, remember that false hope can only be benign at best, and can often make your actual circumstances worse. Also, remember that genuine hope is not merely a sentiment of an individual; we have collective hopes as families, as societies, and most importantly, as a species - and false hope is merely going to drive us into ground, which is not at all worth the trade off of flimsy comfort we get by ignoring reality. True hope only comes from having the courage to be honest about unhappy facts and circumstances -
it is the only way we can truly conquer them. Ultimately, we can close our eyes and pretend the train isn't there, or we can admit we're in deep shit and at least try to jump out of the way.
Hope doesn't come easily - you have to have some moxy. Faith offers us false hope that is easy; it's for the lazy and the cowards. You're upset that I'm pointing out that you have false hope but that there's actual hope available? Ok. I can live with that. Maybe it will toughen your skin so that you can survive the brush with reality that genuine hope requires.
Comments (31)
This is much much clearer than your last post on the subject.
Good show. In my post I hope to list many of the problems I see in the world and things I've come across or ideas that make me think there is hope for a better future in regards to them.
Ben
This is an excellent post. You make some very good points. I especially love the line, "True hope only comes from having the courage to be honest about unhappy facts and circumstances - it is the only way we can truly conquer them."
- J. M. 713
I'm not sure I entirely agree. To get everyone to have "genuine hope" (as opposed to "false hope"), you must first get them to agree on the nature of reality... and that's not an easy task. It may be an impossible task.
In addition, I think that some people of reason have "false hope" when they put forth these sorts of ideals. It may be that some people simply don't have the capacity to see reality in the same way as everyone else. We're not all the same, after all. If that's the case, wouldn't the side of reason actually be the ones with "false hope" for hoping that believers will eventually come around and see the folly of their ways?
In this way, faith - the mere belief in things when reasons fail - is
the purest conceivable distillation of false hope. Because it hinges
on not acknowledging reality for what it truly is, it is actually
antithetical to genuine hope.
I know that God can't be proven but how do you know 100% that it's false hope and how do you know 100% that reality is that the spiritual world does not exist? Just because you say so? Why are you making definitive statements like this? Even quantum mechanics show us that things exist in reality that we don't understand and seem to defy logic and reason.
If you want to know why Gilgamesh is pissed at you and Sam Harris just re-read your post.Wait, wai, wait. Maybe it's Poseidon who is pissed. It's some god or other. I can't remmeber. Sorry I mention ... ed.
(PS. Well said!)
this was very well written.
This definitely makes a lot of sense. A lot of the hope that you describe sounds like it is coming straight out of my mom's "The Secret" book. Lol.
The one argument I have against this and I stated it before, what about those who struggle with letting go of a death of a loved one, and are able to move on with their life and live it to the fullest, under the belief that they will see their loved one again? I think I stated it better in the last comment I made, but how exactly does acknowledging that one is absolutely never going to see that person again, a positive thing, if they are not strong enough to accept it, and wallow in grief for longer than is healthy? That person isn't living their life to the fullest, because their acceptance of there being no afterlife has made dealing with the death of a loved one a lot more difficult.
Just a thought.
I know you said that makes a person weak. Well. Yes. It does. But, honestly, it's hard to be strong all the time. I consider myself to be a very strong person. I've been through a lot of shit that most people wouldn't put up with. And while I do believe that it was MYSELF that pulled me through most of it, faith still played in... to an extent. Mostly along the lines of: "If I hadn't gone through this difficult time a few months ago, I wouldn't be strong enough to deal with the one I'm going through now."
But I agree with this statement you've made:
"by acknowledging that fact, we can begin to make as much our of our
time as we can, rather than sitting around and waiting for the paradise
we've dreamed up."
We don't KNOW that there is a paradise. So people who live their lives to reach that paradise, have missed the paradise that is here. So if there ISN'T a paradise, well... that was a useless waste of space and time.
So living our lives to the fullest, ftw!
This was a great followup. I'm glad you decided to elaborate on the question of hope, it's strengthened my case quite a bit.
@musterion99 - The fact that things exist that we do not understand does NOT in any way reinforce the case for a supernatural being. Unexplained things are only unexplained.
While we as atheists make no such claims to assert that a spiritual world does not and cannot exist, we do assert that the evidence against it is overwhelming, and as such it is a lesser option to choose to believe. I am sure you do not believe in the existence of unicorns, and yet you cannot at all assert that they do not exist in any corner of the world. If something were to disappear in front of you, would you think it would be reasonable to assume that it was the work of a unicorn? Maybe a fairy? Of course not. While it is your privilege to believe in unicorns or fairies regardless of the evidence against them, know that you may be ridiculed for your beliefs and your belief in them may hamper your ability to progress mentally as a human being.
Just sayin'.
- John
@The_Aftershock_3650 - The fact that things exist that we do not
understand does NOT in any way reinforce the case for a supernatural
being. Unexplained things are only unexplained.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. Please re-read my comment and what I commented to.
The fact that things exist that we do not
understand does NOT in any way reinforce the case for a supernatural
being. Unexplained things are only unexplained..
That's not what the comment stated as I pointed out.
I am sure you do not believe in the
existence of unicorns, and yet you cannot at all assert that they do
not exist in any corner of the world.
Yeah, yeah, blah, blah... again, nothing to do with my comment.
@LadyLibellule -
"I'm not sure I entirely agree. To get
everyone to have "genuine hope" (as opposed to "false hope"), you must
first get them to agree on the nature of reality... and that's not an
easy task. It may be an impossible task."
Getting them to agree is indeed a sticky wicket. I would argue that this is because of the nature of faith, which makes a virtue of being unreasonable. I assert that I for virtually any question, we can deduce which is most likely the true answer. It's when people disdain that for its initial unpleasantness that we have problems.
In the case of god's existence, I'm willing to hear any reason you have to believe she does.
"In addition, I think that some people of reason have "false hope" when they put forth these sorts of ideals."
We need to put the information forward before we can see how people react, then we can go from there. Same for flying to the moon: Hrm, that idea didn't work, what next. The goal is to get everybody on the same page, as you said, and that's not going to happen while we have faith gumming up the works.
"It may be that some people simply don't have the capacity to see reality in the same way as everyone else."
Got any reason to believe this?
"We're not all the same, after all."
No, we're not. But we all have the capacity for reason, barring the mentally disabled.
"If that's the case, wouldn't the side of
reason actually be the ones with "false hope" for hoping that believers
will eventually come around and see the folly of their ways?"
Seeming more and more false every day - but at least we're not closing our eyes an imagining our goal is achieved, we're still working towards it. That is genuine hope. Will we ever get there? Who knows? But at least we're looking at the problem, assessing it, and trying to fix it.
JT
@musterion99 - You're occupying territory I've never dreamed of entering, sir. You ask why I am making definitive statements when, upon a second reading, I cannot see where I have done so, Perhaps you can excerpt one for me? The quote you did excerpt accuses faith of making a virtue of ignoring the facts of reality. Do you contend this?
I have never said that any idea is 100% certain (I don't think they can be). What I have said is that many ideas/beliefs are more reasonable (to a very high degree). For how I think knowledge works, go here and read the section "The Nature of Knowledge".
"Even quantum mechanics show us that things exist in reality that we don't understand and seem to defy logic and reason."
It's curious...how has our knowledge QM unveiled these things if not by reason and logic? Have some of the discoveries of QM forced us to change our mind about things? Yes, definitely. But I'd be very interested to know how we could have discovered them if not by reason/evidence. Was it by faith? Did we just guess?
I guess here's the challenge to you: can you find one discovery in QM that was not made through objective reasoning, logic, and evidence?
It seems to me that QM has revealed facts of the universe that seem counter-intuitive. This is not the same as unreasonable.
Additionally...what does this have to do with my post at all? :S
JT
@musterion99 - "Even quantum mechanics show us that things exist in reality that we don't understand and seem to defy logic and reason."
That would be what I responded to in your comment with: "The fact that things exist that we do not
understand does NOT in any way reinforce the case for a supernatural
being. Unexplained things are only unexplained."
"how do you know 100% that it's false hope
and how do you know 100% that reality is that the spiritual world does
not exist? Just because you say so?"
I said that nobody is stating certainty of anything, but that it is right to go with the viewpoint of life which holds most likely to be true, i.e. reason, rather than shooting in the dark with faith. I used my analogy with unicorns/fairies to illustrate this point.
I fail to see where I missed you.
- John
@Zerowing21 -[ You ask why I am making definitive statements when, upon a second reading, I cannot see where I have done
so, Perhaps you can excerpt one for me?]
In the statement I quoted, you say - "faith - the mere belief in things when reasons fail - is
the purest conceivable distillation of false hope."
That's
a definitive statement of faith leading to false hope when reasons
fail. According to who? Can you prove that hope in the afterlife is a
false hope?
[Then you go to say - "Because it hinges
on not acknowledging reality for what it truly is, it is actually antithetical to genuine hope."]
Can you prove that the hope of the afterlife is not reality and not genuine hope?
[It's curious...how has our knowledge QM unveiled these things if not by reason and logic?]
We
haven't unveiled the reason and logic in every case. We've only observed what we see
happening which in many instances are not logically explained.
[It seems to me that QM has revealed facts of the universe that seem counter-intuitive. This is not the same as unreasonable.]
Ok, I could say the same thing about there being an intelligent designer. To me it's not unreasonable.
[Additionally...what does this have to do with my post at all?]
Because I commented on what you said in the post.
@The_Aftershock_3650 - I fail to see where I missed you.
You missed the context in which I was making the statement about QM. None of your comments applied to what I was saying, even though they may be true in and of themselves.
@musterion99 - In regards to JT, if you interchanged his statement with "Faith in unicorns/fairies/Obama as the answer to all is the antithesis of hope", would you still attack his statement?
If so, would you consider people who DID believe in those things to be rational and justified in their thinking? I hope not. Belief in faith as a source of hope is flawed because it is an implausible concept. Belief in any concept that has an incredibly small chance to be true and that all evidence points to be false IS antithetical to hope. Even if it happens to be true, the belief was still unjustified and reckless. Just because someone dumps their entire life savings into the lottery on faith and happens to win doesn't make his decision sound.
In regards to my own comment, I gave you a point by point breakdown of how my statement related to yours. QM, if anything, only reveals that some things are unexplained, run counter to our current sets of logic, whatever. You seem to imply that since there are some things logic and reason cannot explain, an afterlife can exist. QM does NOT reveal that an afterlife exists, nor give us any reason to think so.
Can you show me how my comment was unrelated?
- John
@The_Aftershock_3650 -
In regards to JT, if you interchanged his
statement with "Faith in unicorns/fairies/Obama as the answer to all is
the antithesis of hope", would you still attack his statement?
Again, what does that have to do with what I said? Sorry but you're still missing it. What can I say?
QM does NOT reveal that an afterlife exists, nor give us any reason to think so.
You
missed the context in which I used that. I wasn't implying those things
in regards to QM. I'm saying that just because an afterlife might be
hard to comprehend doesn't prove it doesn't or can't exist. That was
the context of my statement which unfortunately, you have yet to grasp.
But thanks for trying to discuss it with me.
@musterion99 - You argue that he is making a statement of false certainty. I proposed an alternative statement very similar to his, and asked if you would refute that similar statement asserting certainty equally, with your reason of "we cannot know either way 100%." If you *would* refute it, I state the necessity of making such claims in order to progress as society. Basing our life on the existence of mythical creatures that we don't know exist but "could" is unhealthy. If you *wouldn't*, well, that really would crumble a good portion of your argument and make this discussion more senseless than it already is.
I believe that it is you that is missing the entire context of the whole situation. I understand your argument. I am refuting your "context" in that even though the afterlife is not impossible, it is highly unlikely, and therefore we as humans must treat the afterlife as non-existent along with other things of equal unlikelihood, which is why I continue to use the analogies of mythical creatures. Just as we should not base our existence on the possibility of unicorn blood being able to cure cancer, we should not base our existence upon attempting to find the conditions to which we may proceed into the afterlife of our choosing (depending upon belief).
But really, you are starting to seem more like a troll than anything else at this point.
- John
@The_Aftershock_3650 - Basing our life on the existence of mythical creatures that we don't know exist but "could" is unhealthy.
There you go again. Unhealthy according to you. There are millions of Christians that are very happy and would consider atheists as unhealthy. You're just proving my original comment.
I believe that it is you that is missing the entire context of the whole situation. I understand your argument.
You think you understand it. You haven't even come close to showing that you do.
I am refuting your "context" in that even
though the afterlife is not impossible, it is highly unlikely, and
therefore we as humans must treat the afterlife as non-existent along
with other things of equal unlikelihood, which is why I continue to use
the analogies of mythical creatures.
lol - you give a rant which again may be true, but once again does not answer what I said.
Just as we should not base our existence on
the possibility of unicorn blood being able to cure cancer, we should
not base our existence upon attempting to find the conditions to which
we may proceed into the afterlife of our choosing (depending upon
belief).
Seriously, this is ridiculous. That has no application to what I said.
But really, you are starting to seem more like a troll than anything else at this point.
?????? - go ahead - have the last word if you want.
@The_Aftershock_3650 - I'll just add this one thing. As far as we have known about the past,
the vast majority of people have always believed in some type of god. So, in my opinion, the attempt at the unicorn and fairies as an analogy, fails. There's no history of the vast majority of people believing in unicorns. So, in comparison, some type of god would be more likely to exist than unicorns. I'm not suggesting that history proves the existence of a god, but what you said is a poor analogy in comparison.
Now JT, you know as well as I that confirmation bias trumps reason.
Good post.
@musterion99 -
"Can you prove that hope in the afterlife is a
false hope?"
Well, had you read the two paragraphs I asked you to read, so that you could be familiar with my take on knowledge (and hence be able to work with it, refute it, or accept it), you would know that I think no idea can be proven. Can I establish that believing in an afterlife is an unreasonable proposition? Yes, and I am happy to waltz on this with you. In fact, let's up the stakes and blogalog about it. My rules for blogalogs can be found here. After all, this would be just the same as discussing it in the comments here, except more eyes will be watching - and we already know you're willing to discuss it.
"Can you prove that the hope of the afterlife is not reality and not genuine hope? "
Read my piece on the nature of knowledge. Nothing wrong with hoping for an afterlife - but when that hope takes the form of believing we have it by shutting our eyes to reality and turning off our critical thinking, then we have problems. Anybody doing that for any other discipline would be seen negatively. And I can I establish that that is what Christians are doing - yes. Again, let's up the stakes.
"We haven't unveiled the reason and logic in every case. We've only observed what we see happening which in many instances are not logically explained."
And we have managed these observations, which require more than just our eyes...how? Prayer? Are you insinuating that the cause of these observed phenomenon (which you admit are unknwon) are supernatural rather than natural? I'm not really getting what point you're trying to make here. I'm a little slow sometimes, so perhaps you could spell it out for me?
"Ok, I could say the same thing about there being an intelligent designer. To me it's not unreasonable."
We overcome counter intuitive things by holding good reasons for what we believe. It is counter intuitive, for instance, to believe that matter is comprised of mostly empty space. Doesn't look that way, does it? But we have such good reasons to believe that this is the case that only a person uninformed of the facts would say otherwise.
I realize you think a creator is reasonable, but my assertion is that you lack a single good reason to believe that. I am open to refutation though.
JT
@Zerowing21 - Can I establish that believing in an afterlife is an unreasonable proposition? Yes, and I am happy to waltz on this with you.
Again, my comment had nothing to do with that.
And we have managed these observations, which require more than just our eyes...how? Prayer?
And again, nothing to do with my comment.
Are you insinuating that the cause of these
observed phenomenon (which you admit are unknown) are supernatural
rather than natural? I'm not really getting what point you're trying
to make here. I'm a little slow sometimes, so perhaps you could spell
it out for me?
Sorry if I didn't make it more clear. I'm saying that you can't rule out the possibility of an afterlife or spiritual world based merely upon what seems reasonable to you. QM shows the possibility of this, not specifically of a spiritual world, but the possibility that it can exist. I realize that alone is not enough evidence. I was using it in the context of you making a definitive statement. I'm not going to argue over the semantics
of what I quoted you on. You seem to be saying that even though it came
across to me as definitive, you didn't intend it that way and I can
accept that.
I realize you think a creator is reasonable,
but my assertion is that you lack a single good reason to believe
that. I am open to refutation though.
I'm not interested in going down that road because it's already been done many times and cannot be proven. Thanks for your replies.
@musterion99 - You continue to use the word "proof" in a way that does not coalesce with my idea of knowledge that I've linked you to. I don't ask that you prove it - I'm asking for a single good reason or piece of evidence.
Please go back and re-read my response. Read the excerpts I quoted from you. Do you really think that my responses had nothing to do with those excerpts? If so, I shall leave that to the judgment of other readers.
JT
@Zerowing21 - You continue to use the word "proof" in a
way that does not coalesce with my idea of knowledge that I've linked
you to. I don't ask that you prove it - I'm asking for a single good
reason or piece of evidence.
I understand that. I'm saying that it's already been done many times by others and I've done it many times, and I'm sure you've already heard the arguments for cosmological and teleological evidence. And my own subjective experiences will not be any more persuasive. I've gone down this road enough times to know that I'm not interested in spending any time on it. Thanks for the offer anyways.
Do you really think that my responses had
nothing to do with those excerpts? If so, I shall leave that to the
judgment of other readers.
Yes I do. For example I wasn't implying anything about our observations of QM the way you were implying I was. It wasn't about the observation but the lack of understanding about what they're observing. And my original comment had nothing to do with unreasonableness, but was a comment on you making a definitive statement. Listen, I've said all I need to say on this. Thanks for clearing up that you weren't intending to make a definitive statement which is all I was commenting on in my original comment. Have a good day.