Second Nature

Now, Tell Me What You See Here
We are pattern-seeking animals -- we have to be.  It's what keeps us alive as a species.  Avoiding danger and finding food are our rewards for successful detecting patterns.  Take Pavlov's dogs for instance.  Once they could recognize the bell had a direct correlation to food, they salivated upon hearing the bell.  They, like many sentient beings would, had a reasonable expectation that BELL = FOOD.

We're so good at detecting patterns that we can find one even where none exists.  The more certain among us are called superstitious.  Studies have shown that people tend to be more superstitious when they are in situations where they lack control.  We do what we can to influence the outcome, however trivial it may seem.  The greater the perceived lack of control, the more superstitious people tend to become.  Humans aren't the only animals to experience this, either.  Take for example Skinner's pigeons.  B. F. Skinner ran an experiment in which he placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to them at random intervals.  The birds, however, began to exhibit signs of superstitious behavior.  They appeared to think that they were somehow influencing when the treat would be delivered based on what they were doing right before the previous drop.  The pigeons were soon performing all sorts of "rituals", such as turning two times counter-clockwise, then bobbing their head back and forth and pecking the cage twice.  The birds behaved as if there were a causal relation between their behavior and the presentation of food, although no such a relation existed.  But the pigeons believed it.  I'm sure if they could talk, many would probably stand by their strong convictions even in the face of evidence.  Sounds familiar, huh?

Humans have evolved not only to perceive patterns even if there are none, but we've also evolved a sort of upgraded version of that pattern-seeking software that specializes in faces.  Again, this helps us survive.  If we can detect a face hidden in the bushes, as well as discern the faces of our family (our tribe), we stand a much better chance at survival.  Pareidolia is the phenomenon whereby we see patterns where there aren't any.  How many times have you saw a face in the wood grain of a door, wall, or desk, or seen faces in the clouds?  How many times has the likeness of Jesus or Mary appeared in toast or other places?

Oh, I See What You Did There
Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic Magazine, has coined the term "Patternicity", the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise.  When doing so, two types of errors can result.  Type I errors are false positives, believing a pattern exists when it doesn't. Type II errors are false negatives, not believing a pattern isn't real when it actually is.

We want to believe, it's evolutionarily our default position.  Consider and early hominid hearing a rustle in the grass...is the hominid skeptical and thinks it's just the wind, or are they cautious and believes its a dangerous predator?  We listen when we're told by our parents or elders that, for example, don't swim in the lake because there are snakes.  We automatically listen to and believe what we're told -- we can't afford not to with a risk as high as death.

Shermer has discovered that you'll find meaningful patterns in things when the cost of making a Type II error is less than the cost of making a Type I error.  It's easier to not believe in Bigfoot (especially if you live in the city) than to not believe in Hell, because the perceived cost or personal danger is much higher.  We evolved down a path in which the more cautious survived.  In the earlier example, if the rustle in the grass was indeed only the wind, then the cost to assume it was a dangerous predator is low -- you just move away and be more observant.

It's the Everywhere
We tend to attribute agency in scenarios like this as a result.  The major difference in assuming an unknown sound in the bushes is another animal as apposed to thinking it's harmless wind is that the latter is inanimate, the predator is an intentional agent.  This is why we attribute agency to many unknown things, and why our lives are filled with ghosts, gods, angels, demons, aliens, and even malevolent government conspirators.  Things that confuse us or baffle us by their complexity often get ascribed to an agent.  And it's easy for such a thought to arise -- "She can run faster than me, and he can run faster than her...there must be someone out there that can run faster than all."  Powerful beings beget powerful ideas, and before long you have a being of ultimate speed, might, and power.  And if it's that powerful, then it must be responsible for this currently unexplained phenomenon.

These reasons make it difficult to use skepticism and science, because they're against our nature.  Studies have shown that children start to apply purpose-based meanings to things at about the time they begin to recognize man-made tools that really do serve a purpose, such as cell phones.  But science has proven itself to be the best tool we can use to determine reality.  If we can understand ourselves, if we can recognize the places where we are more prone to these kinds of errors in thinking, then we can start changing for the better.  After all, if we can find patterns so well, finding the patterns in our error-making habits should be...second nature.


-STA

Claus and Christ

It's that time of year again.  We see you-know-who's face plastered up on billboards and posters all over the place, at least here in America.  With his big blue eyes wishing peace and love to the world.  Yep, Jesus is everywhere.  And so is that pagan red devil, Santa Claus.  Coincidence???

Let's look at some similarities of these two fairy-tale personas:

• Jesus (being God) is ever-watchful -- see Psalm 139:1-4
• Santa sees you too -- see "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town"
  
  
• Jesus rewards good behavior (heaven) and punishes bad behavior (hell)
• Santa also rewards good behavior (toys) and punishes bad behavior (coal)
  
  
• Jesus has a list of good people (The Lamb's Book of Life)
• Santa has a list of naughty and nice children
  

It's pretty clear that they both represent attempts in our culture to keep children in line.  Some even view Santa as a way of passing the messages of Christianity onto nonbelievers.  What about their differences?

•  Santa has a physical, tangible existence -- he eats cookies, drinks milk, comes down chimneys, etc.
  
•  Jesus lives in your "heart" and is no longer* a flesh and blood being
  
  
•  Santa rewards you in the here-and-now with material positions
  
•  Jesus's gifts have to wait til you die (except for babbling incoherently and other "gifts of the Spirit")
  
  
• Santa will put you on the naught list as long as you're bad
• Jesus will roast your ass in hell forever if you screw up and forget to say 'Sorry' before you kick the bucket
  
  
• Kids who stop believing in Santa Claus are praised for their cleverness and skills of deduction
  
• Kids who stop believing in Jesus are shunned for immorality and outlandish blasphemy
  

It's also interesting to note how society relates to these two.  Santa is looked upon as fantasy, whereas Jesus is touted as 100% fact (even though Santa is more plausible, baring the "magic" and violations of physics and economics).  The Santa myth is looked upon with fondness as something innocuous that we can look back upon and laugh about.  But the much more bloody and unbelievable myth is put forth in all seriousness.

There isn't many wars fought over which of Santa's ideas are to be followed.  There isn't any Santaquisions or Elf Burnings.  As Stefan Molyneux of FreeDomainRadio.com points out (paraphrased), "Nobody drinks the wine that is supposed to turn into the blood of Santa, and you don't eat bread that turns into Santa's flesh.  Santa doesn't come back from the dead, Santa doesn't heal the sick and so on."

That's why I don't have a problem partaking in the pagan and secular mythologies of Santa Claus.  When the time comes, I won't be lying to my susceptible children about the existence of Santa.  It's indeed just as harmful if you lead a child into thinking they "better watch out" because Santa is watching them, as it is to tell them God is watching them and they'll burn in hell forever if they're not good.  I'll most likely let my children know that it's just a fun story, and I'll pretend with them for as long as they want to.  I see it as an opportunity to show them critical thinking, weighing of evidence, and the parallels with religion.  When a majority of the world can see the universality of myth -- that their creation stories are one in the same, unjustifiable myth -- we'll be a lot better off.

I get asked sometimes why I bother writing about and making videos on religion if I don't believe in it.  The fact is that many, many people do believe in the teaching of their supposed prophets and deities.  These people's beliefs affect the actions they take upon others, and that's the problem.  If there were "Santa Wars" fought daily, I'd be here pointing out the absurdities of flying reindeer, the lack of evidence for elves, and arguing for people to put away their childish notions of a fat guy who lives at a toy workshop at the North-Pole.  Luckily, no one takes Santa seriously enough to jeopardize the fate of the planet, so I'll keep railing against the bigoted religious intolerance that is doing just that.

*Assuming Jesus ever existed in the first place.


-STA

A Hypocritical Atheist?

I was recently asked the absurd question: isn't it hypocritical to enjoy supernatural things if you're an atheist? Of course not! People can like anything, regardless of their position on religious ideas. It's even possible to enjoy religious ideas! Believing in them and liking them aren't the same thing.

Walk Like an Egyptian
Here's a list of things I enjoy, despite my attitudes toward theism:

• I cover the song "Last Kiss"
• I love Collective Soul
• the Sistine Chapel is breathtaking, even in photographs
• Christian radio programs make me laugh
  
• I dabble in close-up magic
  
• I play Magic: The Gathering
• I say "oh my god", "oh god", "god damn it", and sometimes even "bless you"
• Signs scared the shit out of me
  
• some of my favorite people are theists
  
• I read fantasy stories (including the Bible)
  
• I regularly watch TV series like The X-Files, Reaper, and Supernatural
• Amazing Grace, if done well, can move me to tears

I do all kinds of things that might seem hypocritical -- I practice science...WTF am I doing playing "Magic"?! It's only hypocritical if I believe that "magic" is real. Religious art, music, and customs can be appreciated at face value without the need for their belief. I don't have to think the Devil is real to enjoy a bad-ass rendering of him. We can sing "Santa Claus is coming to town" without actually believing it!

But I Got PERSONAL Experience

Nine times out of ten -- after all their arguments are laid bear, torn apart, and scattered on the ground, soaking in the tears of the theist who produced them -- a believer will resort to one of two (or perhaps both) arguments left to defend his beliefs: "I just have faith!" which we've covered here before; or "I have personal experience".

Very Superstitious
The uselessness of that argument should be clear to see because anyone can say anything about anything. We can't just take someone for their word. And calm down; I'm NOT saying you're lying. I think you really believe what you're saying. The issue is that people can be fooled.

It's no surprise that a lot of magicians are atheists. Guys like Penn and Teller or Jamie Ian Swiss or Steve Shaw understand how easy it is to fool our senses; to make people think that experienced something that can't happen. Magicians have intimate knowledge about the tricks and nuances of human perception, and the better ones know how exactly to work them.

So why is it that whenever you see a magic trick and you exclaim "Wow...how did you do that?", you are never satisfied with the answer "It's magic"? Don't won't you accept that as an answer? Probably because you know that magic isn't real...you understand that there must be some explanation for it. Saying "it's just magic" is equivalent to saying "invisible card-changing pixies did it", or "supernatural forces altered your perception of reality", or "God did it".


It's Always Personal If You're A Person
Not only can you not always trust your senses -- especially if your brain is experiencing some kind of trauma -- but other people can't always trust your judgment either. Again, it's not always that you're actively lying. Maybe you saw/heard/felt something you didn't. Maybe your mind was/is in a state that interpreted the actual event unfaithfully. Or maybe you really experienced something.

There's no doubt that experiences can have profound effects on a person's life. Many people have religious experience, and it changes their life. But this doesn't have to mean that the experience was real. Read that sentence again.

It is very possible to have experiences that are not real. Think about this scenario: Sally Sue spends the night in a house that she's told is haunted by evil spirits. She believes in ghosts, but she doesn't know exactly what they are or how they got there, etc. Her personality drives her to seek out strange things like haunted houses, but she's never actually seen a ghost before. She hopes she will tonight. As Sally is creeping around the dark upstairs hallways with her partner (come on, no one in their right mind would stay alone in an old abandoned house!) they exchange stories of the murders, suicides, and tortures that went on in this old house, all the while "building the suspense".

Ever been in a situation like that before? Where you psyche yourself up? Ever notice how fragile and easy-to-spook a mind can get when its in that hairpin-trigger state? Anyway, back to the scenario...

Sally Sue's mind is busy conjuring up images and sounds of these horrible stories, when a sudden "pop" breaks the darkness. Sally and her ghost-hunting partner freeze and look each other in the eyes. Suddenly, Sally feels something brush her arm, and she screams and starts to run. Another loud popping, cracking sound rings out, but Sally is running full-tilt toward the stairs. Other sounds echo from seemingly all around her as she turns back just in time to see her friend disappear through the floor. An instant before she rounds the corner, she swears she sees a face or a figure in the dust through her tears.

Years later, Sally still remembers the night her friend died. They said the rotten floorboard gave way and she fell through, embedding herself on a large piece of wood. Perhaps she could have survived if someone had been there to help her. Sally's life was changed.


Ya Know, I've Learn Something Today...
Look, I don't want to make this some kind of moral lesson, but I do want to convey the way in which our perceptions alter reality FOR US. Let's take an honest look at the story.

Here we have a girl who's hoping to see ghosts. She believes they're real, and wants to have an encounter. So, her emotionally-charged is fueled by ghost-stories (anyone ever had this experience as a kid around a campfire?) and by her friend. We scare easily, but even more-so when we're with someone. We scare each other in a back-and-forth, domino-effect kind of way. When they heard something, they looked at each other -- something common to all humans and a lot of animals. It's how we gauge what's going on when we're clueless about something. We watch each other for signs of how we should act. Should we run? Do you know what it was? Are you afraid? Should I be?

By this time, Sally's nerves are bristling. One touch -- could be an insect, a spider's web, or even just the air moving mites around on her skin -- was enough to start a chain reaction of scare-me-scare-you. Her brain was telling her what she wanted it to; what she had conditioned it to. But what about that face in the dust? Was it the figure of an evil ghost killing her friend? Or was it the way the light played off the dusty hallways and refracted against her tears? Or is it something her mind filled in later, after the fact?

I hope none of you are actually thinking to yourself, "maybe it was a ghost...you don't know". I do know. I made it up. If you're really trying to reason it out to be an actual "ghost attack" you might be too far gone in the realm of fantasy to ever hope to understand the lesson here. That lesson is this: Sally's life was changed. Her experience actually had a real, life-altering effect on her. But her experience wasn't real (not just because the story is fake). She lost a friend and suffered serious emotional trama.

So the next time you claim "You can't say God isn't real because I've had an experience that changed my life!" or something along those lines, think about Sally and think about how I can't take your word about experiences I didn't have. You try telling Sally it wasn't a ghost!


-STA