The Toughest Application of Critical Thinking

Without either falling for another doomsday scenario or assuming that everything will be just fine, it seems hopelessly obvious that we, whether defined as a nation and culture or as humanity globally, have huge challenges that must be faced. That “must” isn’t optional; ignoring these challenges isn’t going to make them go away. Having been personally surrounded by some of the darker side to our behavior in both Lebanon and Rwanda, I feel compelled to help shed some light on certain little-discussed aspects of these challenges. But some of what needs understanding can be viewed as controversial, politically incorrect, or worse. So the question must be asked: Why bother, why ruffle feathers? I hope to persuade you that it has to do with the urgency to facing key challenges in our times.

We won’t delve here into the details of challenges like the national debt, stressed ecosystems, climate change, sustainable economics and agriculture, and conflict of multiple types in numerous locations, but I want to ask you to consider how so many not only don’t engage in discussion of possible solutions, they seem to ignore the very existence of these challenges. Granted, some are so smothered by the struggle to just stay afloat that they don’t have the time, and haven’t developed the capacity to look at the broader picture, but I venture that doesn’t accurately describe you reading here. Many though have — without examination — stayed comfortably reassured that there is a supernatural solution to our problems. Wrapped in that same bundle of religion is the central human tendency to simply believe that which we want to believe. This tendency isn’t by any means exclusively limited to people of religious faith; we all must learn to be on guard against that natural inclination.

That said, religion is a special place where cultivation and reinforcement of this tendency is particularly refined. Growing up, unless we have highly unusual parents, we are simply told what is ‘true.’ It comes from our family and from a modern version of ‘tribe’, our church group. We are not only not taught or encouraged to question, to explore, or, above all, to examine verifiable evidence, but we are encouraged to simply accept, to believe, what our tribe’s holy books say. We are taught, and of course accept without critical analysis, that authority behind any assertion, whether part of our tribe’s text or from a figurehead up the chain in our group, matters infinitely more than any kind of verifiable evidence. These Beliefs of Preference then can and do become habit. Think about it. They spill out of the habituated process that believes things like “Our God is the right God,” and “I can live forever,” and “Those ‘others’ are the bad guys who have the wrong God,” etc., and they permeate other parts of our thinking, our very beliefs.

We stay comfortable… not exploring significant material if it might be troubling, not needing to check and verify facts, or we tell ourselves that everyone ‘selects their facts,’ and so we can too. This, although it comes naturally to us, gets reinforced and developed within religion, and it leads to us not facing uncomfortable realities. These include climate change, the national debt, ridiculous wealth gaps especially when viewed globally, ecological stresses — terrestrial and marine — that scream for attention, and sociologic trends (re-emergence of hate groups; “We’re # 1!” nationalism that leads to modern imperialism, etc.), all of which must be acknowledged first in order to be faced and then solved.

Let’s look at some facts. A person feeling better believing in the God of the Bible, the God idea of the shoes they were raised in, doesn’t make it so. Had any individual been born into any number of different families, in any number of different cultures, in any number of different centuries or millennia, they would have had an overwhelming likelihood of believing in a different God. There are many, many, millions of people out there who are sure their God is the right one. Do we want to be just like them?!

Ask yourself what cavemen, or early civilizations, thought of eclipses or comets, of floods or lightning or droughts, of disease, of birth or death? They gave spirit-world explanations to things they couldn’t possibly understand. Religion slowly formalized in various places, in various forms, out of that beginning. (If some are inclined to think I’m playing loose with history, you can google burial among “early man”, or “primitive people” among many other topics. Read deeply and broadly what archaeology and paleontology have revealed.)

Of the illiterate in outback Afghanistan or deep jungle Congo or our own equivalent, we can’t expect anything different than their adhering to what they were indoctrinated into, what they were raised in. They can’t analyze it, and they can’t see the negative consequences of sociocentric conflict. But does that make a good excuse for us staying stuck there?

Indoctrination is a reality, and it doesn’t come from evil, conniving people. I was indoctrinated by good, loving parents. And almost certainly, so are most around the world. Our parents meant no harm; they intended good. But in an age when so overwhelmingly much in astronomy, in geology, in paleontology, in genetics, in ecology, in sociology, in psychology, in history, and more, has been painstakingly figured out, and put in clear and comprehensible laymen’s terms, what excuse do we have for discarding, without deep, thorough, or honest investigation, the explanations and understandings which put this all together is sensible ways?

Imagine a circle of knowledge, of understanding. At two o’clock on this clock face place the sciences, particularly those which help us grasp our place in time, space, and process: astronomy, geology, paleontology, and the environment’s interaction with genetics. At six o’clock place history, archaeology, and aspects of sociology. At ten o’clock place religion, psychology, and other aspects of sociology. Now imagine a large spoke radiating toward the center of the circle from each of these fields. The hub, the intersection of these spokes where one discipline sheds light and perspective on others, is where great searching, and great honesty, is needed.

Consider a few short quotes and note how they apply here. “The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about, yet refuse to investigate.” — Dr. Wayne Dyer. Let’s substitute the word “little” for “nothing” in this. We must be careful in reassuring ourselves that we know more than nothing, when in truth, we know very little. There is so much to learn. We don’t have to become experts, but we can become well, and fairly deeply, informed. To not venture into the hub of that circle of knowledge is to choose a superficial understanding of life. But to venture without openness to and respect for the best of our painstakingly figured out data and the best and most reasonable interpretations thereof is arrogance and bigoted folly. For just one example, in terms of understanding the evidence and the story of life on earth, we would do well to read substantially on the rapid re-diversification of life forms after each of the five mass extinctions. There is verifiable data, and great consensus.

The next quote — “When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken, or he will cease to be honest.” Reportedly anonymous, so I wish I could claim it. And I believe the next is at least close to a quote from Carl Sagan: “The only sacred cow in science is that there is no sacred cow.” That is to say, everything can and should be questioned and analyzed. Conclusions must be kept open to modification by better, verified, data — by facts that don’t have to fit one’s preferred filter.

The reason to recognize and to take on the phenomena of beliefs of preference, again, is to make us better problem-solvers. This requires honesty, less inclination to fool ourselves. But it’s not easy; parts of the process itself, and advocating for it, can be tough, even unpleasant. A well-meaning friend told me in 2012 to relax, to be happy in my own life. Well, let’s ask ourselves, if the Titanic is headed through iceberg-laden waters, are we fine just “being happy” with the cruise? In a democracy, the “passengers” get to help chart the course; we hire the crew. If happiness depends on being under-informed, on being mostly focused on the state of being happy, what kind of happiness is that? Let’s not personify “ignorance is bliss.”

Among my list of self-evident truths is this: “That we owe a decent, stable, and enjoyable world to future generations.” Every step we make toward fulfilling that obligation gives one a much deeper sense of satisfaction than any shallow, self-centered, reassurance of preferred belief ever can. I contend this should be the drive and focus of a responsible adult’s life.

For purposes of contrast in how and why we live, consider this: “The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, and to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson. And, “The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness.” — Ayn Rand.

Let’s make a few more observations on happiness, on enjoyment. Many of us can no doubt remember a sermon on something like “Don’t fall for the ‘If it feels good, do it’ mentality.” Well, ask yourself, what is the ultimate ‘feel good’ item? Keep in mind that ‘thinking’ something, ‘believing’ something, is every bit as much ‘doing’ something as throwing a ball, or shooting up heroin. What is more ‘feel good’ than clinging to the belief that “I can live forever”?

On first blush, some of us may need to be patient with ourselves and with key ideas; this included me. It can take time. But just like kids get over realizing that key figures in children’s stories, yes even Santa Clause, aren’t real, we can do this. People can get over their sense of loss. Again, the reason it’s important to face reality is that we stand a much better chance at leaving our great-great-grandchildren a quality planet, ecologically and sociologically, if we become better problem-solvers… and that requires undoing our habituation to beliefs of preference. Honesty — over fooling ourselves — is paramount in any and every field.

Back to our cruise ship with dangerous waters ahead, and we passengers electing the crew — Some passengers simply want to listen to their favorite cello solo; others complain about the tea being too hot, or too cold, or late; others obsess about finding a way to upgrade their first class ticket to a luxury suite; some faithfully help deliver extra soup to the steerage passengers once a week, and although they do nothing to help them improve their real conditions or the structure of how things are, these helpers seem to sleep better for it; and nearly everyone ignores the direction and speed of the ship, or simply trusts that stuff like that is all in the hands of the powerful and out-of-reach crew chiefs, or the hands of God, and accepts that whatever will be will be.

In terms of taking a hard second look at some common beliefs of preference, let’s imagine a few things. Say we could end disease, and war, and even accidents, and then end aging. Without older generations moving on, any new births would put ever greater strain on the sustainability of everything. We’d reach a point where before anyone could have kids, their great-grandparents would have to agree to move on.

Also imagine having to sit somewhere for the last 4.6 billion years and watch our solar system and our planet do their thing. If you watched The Green Mile, you may remember the mouse and the old man who were sentenced to never finishing their life cycle.

We can learn to find great purpose, and therefore happiness, in doing a good job of leaving a quality planet to our descendants and to the whole society which will surround them. This brings us to the need to constructively confront not only “believers” who fail to take action because everything is in the hands of their God, but to also confront libertarians who insist that “I am in no way my brother’s keeper,” whose personal freedoms should not be limited in any way, and who have already claimed their personal lifeboat.

I’ve asked people to consider ‘enlightened self-interest’ as opposed to just self-centeredness of the moment. Most people do want the best for their descendants. But if you just want to set your descendants up to compete well, or to withdraw, either one of those doesn’t do anything to try to ensure the basic quality of the society that will surround them… and if you think that won’t matter, please think again. That is a big challenge, but do you really want to give up without trying? Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

In addressing some suggestions of how to constructively ‘confront’, I want to mention some categories of people who I think deserve a pass. The illiterate, the extremely poor, or the significantly slow don’t need their boats rocked. Neither do the very elderly. Another group which I think we should leave in their comfort are those who death touched at a particularly sensitive time in life. A person who lost a parent while they were young; a parent who lost a child who was still a kid. The need to have another run, a forever, can simply be essential to sanity. What about the rest of us? Wouldn’t we do well to ask ourselves how grownup we can be about this?

So, assuming at least some of you buy into the need to constructively confront, allow me to make some suggestions. With simple questions one can often lead people to realize a number of things: That the family and culture and century of birth is by far the greatest determinant of most people’s faith. That none of these faiths are any more verifiable than any other. And therefore that faith is a really lousy excuse for war, but obviously has been and still is used for one. (read “C Street”) That the habit of believing what we simply want to believe is just not honest with the evidence, however common it might be. That the tendency to die for, and kill for, your right God is not only history; it is still with us. That with a global population headed toward 8 billion people, the tendency to fight over basic survival resources (from arable land, to water, to energy, to jobs) can’t be managed once given momentum; it must be preemptively avoided or managed ahead of time. That there is no more room for the “it’s all in God’s hands” failure to face challenges. That there is no more room for the libertarian denial that the broader good can mean imposing itself on an individual’s personal freedoms. That hope and optimism are still possible, but it is going to take a commitment to honest problem-solving, which requires a respect for the best evidence, and thus a willingness to change our minds on issues. (no sacred cows) That on an increasingly crowded planet whose life-sustaining capacity is being stretched, we are all in this together, so while we can’t be doormats, we must be willing and able to cooperate in the interest of the general welfare. That the conservative tendency to hang on to tradition must be replaced with a willingness to change when the evidence demands it. That Republicans in the days of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were the progressives. That if you study deeply that intersection at the center of the circle of knowledge, and have a conscience, you have no choice but to be a progressive.

Keep in mind that in the days of Copernicus, then Bruno, and then Galileo, it took the authorities of the day, and the common man, over two centuries to come around to the evidence. Now a century and a half after Darwin published what he figured out, way too many still live in denial, in chosen ignorance, in tenaciously guarded belief of preference. Today, with our global population, with our tendency to fight over survival resources, to fight for our ‘right’ God, with stretched ecosystems, and strained atmosphere and oceans, do we have that kind of time flexibility? Picture what the next few decades will bring if we don’t get rational, evidence-based, thinking to rule the day. We can problem-solve, but will we?

Consider what the crux issue of today is. What do you think it is? While you mull that over, let’s consider the crux issue in 1860. It was slavery. Those who insist that it was State’s Rights just need to note what State Right they were most committed to fighting for. Note that those who argued and then fought against slavery used a broadened social conscience, further progressed enlightenment thinking, to work at changing things. Those who argued and then fought to justify and keep slavery used — you may or may not have guessed it — scripture. They clung to the traditions they grew up with and knew, the ones that made them feel secure, and kept their privileges.

And so today — Below the various surface arguments of today, there lies this great divide, this crux issue. Some insist on using their cultural tradition, as handed to them in their holy book, interpreted and selected by their family and modern tribe, to maintain their status quo. These are conservatives in the broad sense. If you doubt this, ask yourself where the denial of climate change, and the support for invading Iraq, came from… the secular left or the religious right? Look at how this is being played out by some. Both “sovereign citizens” and “oath keepers” use the Constitution and scripture to bolster their twisted world view… just like those who fought against the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Because inflexible fixity of belief, refusal to be open to changing one’s mind, interferes with good (honest) problem-solving and leads to unnecessary fights, the very real potential for trouble is great if we as a population keep conservatism as a highly influential cultural force. If we fail at problem-solving, or at avoiding unnecessary fights, it will be more than casual trouble.

Others, and I hope it might come to include you, recognize that it’s not all about us, that we are our brother’s keeper, that the Founding Fathers were right to include “to promote the general welfare” in their statement of the very purposes for this new government, that we must keep an open mind in all things and be willing to change our minds in favor of the best verifiable evidence. These are progressives, again, in the broad sense. If we are persistent and wise and strong, we can win the domestic political argument, and we can work with increasing numbers of our fellow humans around the world to leave a decent, stable, and enjoyable planet to future generations. It won’t happen in a day, but it can happen.

If you are inclined to doubt this, ask yourself what possible future scenarios lie out there for us. Considering our global population and our tendencies (to fight over survival resources, to fight for our ‘right’ God, to believe what we want to believe and therefore to deny what we don’t find convenient), do you see the three most obvious futures? 1. Organized competition/conflict. War. Keeping in mind all the modern possibilities, consider whether it is naïve to assume that there would be winners, period; 2. Disorganized competition/conflict. Somalia or Syria on steroids, but not at some safe and ignorable distance; and 3. Cooperation; active, rational, problem-solving.

On this crux issue and its consequences, I once shared Soren Kierkegaard’s observation that “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true. The other is to refuse to accept what is true,” with a religious friend. He enthusiastically embraced it and said “So true!” I then asked him, and I ask us here, “What is our best tool for slowly and painstakingly figuring out what is true?” I’m suggesting that this matters, and, because it directly affects our approach to addressing serious and pressing challenges, that it is urgent to get on with being honest with the evidence, and honest with ourselves.

Now, I am not proposing that everyone must become pure atheists. If some have an overwhelming internal need to have a God and an eternity, I beg of them this. Acknowledge and guard against these three intrinsic risks to faith: 1. Those with unshakable conviction that their God is the right God are significantly quicker to dive headlong into conflict with the belief that God is on their side; 2. Many use the reassurance of a supernatural solution to calm them into not taking problems seriously or urgently; and 3. Many form the habit of settling into ‘beliefs of preference’ rather than carefully evaluating verifiable evidence, and this affects our approach to many challenges. If a person consciously self-monitors against these risks, they may find a way to keep a very untraditional faith, and cause minimal harm because of it.

I do understand hesitation, outright reluctance. For well over a decade after I realized that our various notions of God and formations of religion were almost certainly the product of early man’s search to explain and understand, followed by centuries of various refinements and formalizations, I too made the live-and-let-live choice. I was not remotely on a soapbox; I kept my questions, my exploration, and my uncomfortable conclusions, to myself. I didn’t think there was harm in belief. But watching the history of the last several decades unfold further, this fresh realization became inescapable — even most modern societies fall for ‘God is on our side,’ and for competition for what they perceive to be basic survival resources. There is overwhelming harm in the habit of beliefs of preference, of simply believing what we want to believe. It overlooks or dismisses problems, it imagines magical solutions, it justifies war, and cultural and material imperialism, and it thinks sustainability is irrelevant. This is why we must call out beliefs of preference for what they are, even if some feel picked on. I beg of you to seriously consider what I’ve found too well-founded and too important to dismiss.

This is a tough and real choice. If some choose to stay in their beliefs without consciously guarding against these risks, or simply to live and let live by never challenging others of traditional belief and never pointing out the risks, they aid and abet other believers; they are, in essence, aiding and abetting blind traditionalists today. How is that different than those who aided and abetted tradition almost 160 years ago? Yes, it was slavery then, but it was still the conservatism, the tradition — the refusal to update and look at things anew — of the day.

Let me re-clarify that I’m not pushing atheism per se. I’m promoting active, honest, problem-solving on a broad societal level. As I’ve pointed out, it is the religious right which, in seemingly ideologically bulletproof allegiance to their tradition, continues to deny challenges that are real and urgent. Since that is the case, I’ve come to openly challenging habituation to beliefs of preference and its point of primary reinforcement and refinement. I think some may keep a kind of faith with a conscious grain of salt, with deliberate humility. That’s not the end of the world, and it is the only kind of faith that avoids being part of the problem. I am asking you to not aid and abet today’s blind tradition. You might feel that slavery was clearly wrong, and it was, but I would point out that if slavery hadn’t been ended for another 20, 30, 40, or more years, that would have been tragic for the poor suffering people who continued to live, and many die, under that yoke of bondage, but it wouldn’t have had farther-reaching disastrous sociologic or ecologic consequences affecting hundreds of millions and quite probably billions. So who risks the greater ethical (moral) wrong — the conservative then who defended slavery, or the conservative today who has a mindset still resistant to change, still willing to deny abundant verifiable evidence, perhaps beginning with the fossil and ice core records, but continuing (and not ending) with climate change, and honest looks at societal stability. As stated earlier, there is overwhelming harm in the habit of beliefs of preference, of simply believing what we want to believe.

Some have argued that we must care about what others ‘do,’ but shouldn’t invade what others ‘believe.’ I ask us to note that beliefs are the well-spring of actions, of what we do. Among the things we do — We hire the crew on our ship. Each of us not only has the right to examine, and to challenge, the beliefs of whoever the current crew is, but also those of our fellow passengers. This isn’t about casual disrespect; it is about seeking to “form a more perfect union,” to get ever closer to getting it right, to leaving a decent, stable, and enjoyable planet to future generations.

Interestingly, the fastest growing group in America today are the rational, evidence-respecting, secular humanists. As a whole civilization, we have hope; the question is whether or not we have enough time. You can be part of accelerating this growth, not of inhibiting it with reinforcing the foot-dragging.

Also interesting is that some seem to need to be forced into others’ shoes in order to open their eyes. Dick Cheney is a conservative in every area but one… and he was only shaken into viewing sexual orientation more broadly, progressively, because of his own daughter. Must we all be that intransigent? Can’t we think about things from other perspectives than what we were born and raised in, and with evidence outweighing any tradition?

A Greek proverb says, “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” I’m trying to plant trees; I hope in your own various ways, you will too.