Could it be that militant atheism, in its religiosity, pure ideology, anger, lack of empathy, and anthropocentric hubris, is simply a new manifestation of the same neurophysiological patterning that leads to fundamentalism of all stripes?
Could it be that militant atheism is a fundamentalist philosophy with characteristics no different, say, than the Middle East movement known as ISIL, which purports to be a religious movement, but is really just a haven for human beings who have damaged their brains and turned themselves into the Four Horsemen of the Dark Psychological Tetrad (Psychopathy, Narcissism, Sadism, and Machiavellianism)?
 |
| Black Beauty T. Rex at Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, Alberta. Photo JAT 2015. Sure, it's unrealistic and unscientific for Creationists to deny the evidence of the fossil record and claim that Planet Earth is only a few thousand years old. No argument there. But it's also unrealistic and unscientific for militant atheists to deny the evidence of the quantum record, which speaks of weird phenomena such as non-locality, the conscious observer, bosons, fermions, and magnetism, not to mention all the dark matter and dark energy we know almost nothing about. From my perspective, the atheist belief that "dumb luck" led to the evolution of the universe requires a much higher degree of sanctimonious denial than the Creationist position could ever muster. Are we humans really so incredibly amazing that the entire universe evolved just so we could have consciousness with all the rights and privileges of the conscious observer effect? Really? We can't even manage our own bank accounts, let alone act as wise custodians of Planet Earth, so why would the universe evolve to give humankind the unique right to mess with the laws of physics? |
The militant atheists I've known (and I've known quite a few) strut and preen in exactly the same harsh way as the spiritual and theological narcissists I've known. They're certain of their rightness, certain of their objective intellect, certain they have all the facts. They're quick to judge and even quicker to punish. They have no empathy (though they rush to claim they live by the laws of empathy's hobbled cousins "compassion" and "mercy"). They rely almost exclusively on the brain's System 2 thinking processes (linear thinking) and pour contempt on the brain's much older and more adaptive System 1 thinking processes (creative and intuitive thinking). They're slow to learn from their mistakes and even slower to admit they made any mistakes in the first place.
Here's something else I've noticed about militant atheists and other fundamentalist philosophers: they're really, really poor at constructing a whole and complete argument. In fact, most of them couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. But don't say this to their face, because they'll go into a rage -- maybe even erupt in a narcissistic rage reaction -- and they'll make you pay BIG for pointing out they're not really as smart as they think they are.
I take issue with militant atheist philosophies on the following fronts:
- They use restricted data sets and then claim they're using a complete data set. One example is an extreme reliance on Materialist cause-and-effect "Law" without regard or deference to the non-Materialist laws that govern most of the universe. Why is it "wrong" for religious leaders to ignore the actual laws of physics but "right" for atheists to do it when it suits them?
- Another example, taken from the field of religious studies, is a tendency for atheists to conflate many different topics into a single "bugaboo" called religion. Sure, religious fundamentalists conflate stuff all the time -- but why is it okay for atheists to fall back on conflation, over-simplification, literalism, and myth-making of their own?
- Atheists, in my experience, rely heavily on "revelation" to an extent that rivals the worst abuses of "religious revelation" from major world religions. Under the category of "revelation" you find "proofs" such as "Because I said so," "Because I'm smarter than you," "Because I cherry-picked one small fact from an entire body of knowledge and used it out of context to show how smart I am," and "I just know it's true."
- Atheism has its own set of gods, though it likes to pretend otherwise. Top on the list of atheism's idols are "The Perfect Human Mind," followed closely by scientism, algorithmic solutions, and variations on the "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my genes made me do it" argument (which is really no different than the ancient religious argument that says "it's not my fault I'm a scumbag because my demons made me do it").
- Atheism is marked by a petulant, narcissistic refusal to examine the enormous and interconnected questions of scale, time, peripheral vision, alternating current, bonding, probability wave currents, and other non-linear, non-Materialist questions related to God and consciousness and Creation. They use their own personal human limits as proof that God can't actually exist! (as if God has ever understood questions of scale, time, etc. in the way a human brain does!)
How are these philosophical approaches any different, characterologically speaking, from those used by religious fundamentalists?
How can you expect to become a happier, healthier person who understands patience and love and forgiveness and calmness and flexibility and healing and scale and time and bonding and breadth of knowledge and self-directed morality when you've made the choice to turn yourself into an "iceberg thinker" who refuses to look at anything except the small percentage of data floating above the surface of your System 2 thinking?
And why do you think it's wrong for religious teachers to do this but okay for you to do exactly the same thing?
In my view, militant atheism is hypocrisy in as pure a form as one can get.
______________________________________
March 2, 2016 addendum: A recent piece by Brian Bethune in Macleans highlights some interesting research by social scientists Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog into the unusual percentage of Islamist terrorists who have engineering degrees: http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/why-do-so-many-jihadis-have-engineering-degrees/. Bethune says: "That takes Hertog and Gambetta to the thorny question of “mindsets for extremists.” Different types of people are attracted to different kinds of extremism—engineers mostly on one side, social scientists and humanities grads on the other—and the authors went in search of traits found in both secular and jihadi extremists as well as among engineers. Three stand out among conservatives in general in recent psychological research: disgust (or the felt need to keep one’s environment pure, which can underpin everything from homophobia to xenophobia); the “need for cognitive closure” (a preference for order and certainty that can support authoritarianism); a very high in-group/out-group distinction."
When I posted this commentary piece on LinkedIn, I was surprised by the number of angry comments I got from atheists. In their comments, they gave no proofs (except for one incomprehensible algorithmic "solution"). Most of them relied on name-calling, emotional abuse, and a kind of mob mentality.
ReplyDeleteI'm posting some of my replies I made in response. As always, the decision about how to respond is up to each individual.
Response #1:
Hello, David. Thanks for taking the time to prove the point I was making. In your comments, you offer no specific points of argument but instead choose to conflate multiple complex issues into oversimplified black and white arguments that run perilously close to ad hominem attacks. Such an approach is not in the spirit of academic research or writing at well-known universities I'm familiar with.
Based on what you've written here, I infer that you believe all religion is "one thing" or "one basic substance," since you've included no information to show you've done even the most basic research into religious systems of thought, religious practices, effects of religious experience on neurophysiological health, or the extreme diversity of personal experience within the very broad category of "religion." Your argument consists basically of "I'm right and I'm clever, and you're stupid and you're delusional." This is exactly the approach I objected to in my post above, under Point #3.
As well, David, as you must surely know, good scientific investigation must always be open to the possibility of error. Falsifiability, as you know, is one of the approaches that keeps scientific researchers honest. So the vehement statement you make that religion is not compatible with science next faces the falsifiability question with regard to the many individuals on Planet Earth who are both scientists and people of faith. Are you willing to set aside your assumptions and prejudices and consider the results of a wide range of tests (as any good scientist should), not just the tests you think will prove your position?
In addition, you simply do not have the right, as one human being, to make judgments about the mental health status of every religious person on the planet. You're not in a position to know what each of these people is thinking, feeling, and doing. Have you seen all their brain scans? Have you seen all their medical histories, including full psychiatric workups? Are you really so sure of your rightness that you don't even have to ask these questions?
I examine theological and spiritual issues -- both historical and current issues -- through the lenses of chemistry, neuroscience, and physics. How about you, David? Have you taken the time to dispassionately study these questions from multiple perspectives with diligent academic inquiry? Or are you just sure you're right?
Response #2:
ReplyDeleteBahman, I haven't said anywhere here that religions are innocent. Every major world religion has harboured individuals who've chosen to act for selfish and hate-filled purposes. But every major world political system and economic system and educational system has the same problem as religion. That problem is how human beings choose to use their free will and how they choose to deal with the terrible afflictions caused by status addiction.
Tragedies such as the disappeared of Latin America stem from status addiction. The harm is real and lasting and grave, but we won't be able to fully address and heal the harm until we understood the motivations that drove these leaders to want to push people out of planes.
Thank you for sharing the Dream of the Disappeared with us.
Response #3:
ReplyDeleteHello Justin. Thanks for your well-reasoned reply.
With regard to the meaning of atheism, I'm not in agreement with you that in today's context the "A" simply means "without" (though from a purely semantic context, I'm sure it does). In today's usage, those who aren't sure about God or faith or soul are agnostic (e.g. people who have a spiritual life but haven't chosen to follow a specific body of doctrines). Those who've decided that God isn't necessary are non-theistic (e.g. most schools of Buddhism). Those who've decided for certain that God doesn't exist are atheists. This is how I understand the terms, in any event.
I was very clear in directing my remarks to the characterological features of militant atheism, which, in their intransigence and lack of empathy, are no different than the "I am right" preachings of religious fundamentalists.
Militant atheism is not a default position. It's a chosen position, just as religious fundamentalism is a chosen position.
The human brain comes pre-wired through our DNA with System 2 thinking processes and also System 1 thinking processes. System 1 thinking processes are much older than System 2, in terms of biological evolution. The position I take in this essay is that both religious fundamentalism and militant atheism rely attempt to rely almost exclusively on System 2 processes.
From a neuroscientific perspective, an exclusive reliance on System 2 logic, rigidity, and linear thinking is imbalanced and may lead down the line to serious dysfunction. (Similarly, an exclusive reliance on System 1 fluidity and creativity can also lead to serious dysfunction, as found in charismatic cults.)
From a practical point of view, it's very hard work to force the brain each day to ignore the impulses and ways of thinking offered by System 1 thinking processes. It can certainly be done. The core teachings of early Buddhism were an attempt to systematize a method to rewire the brain to ignore System 1 impulses and give preference to System 2 processes.
But there's probably a good reason for our brains to take data from both Systems and try to balance and harmonize them to the best of our ability.
Leading an ethical examined life is possible by not trashing either system but by trying to learn from both and live from both with integrity, humour, kindness, and open-mindedness.
Response #4 (In response to a comment that said "Show me God"):
ReplyDeleteShow me the people you communicate with solely by means of electromagnetic spectrum energies.
Show me what love looks like.
Show me how magnetic fields work. And why. And when.
Show me how the dark matter and dark energy work.
Show me how gravity works.
Show me why the periodic table of elements makes such exquisite sense that even human beings, with our limited brain power, can harness its power to create.
Show me what consciousness is.
Show me what placebo effect is.
Show me where art and music and dance and drama and life-altering books arise from.
Show me what wonder is.
Show me what laughter is.
Show me who you are.
When you can answer all these questions, then you have the right to say, "Show me god."
Response #5:
ReplyDeleteBefore you ask where the "all powerful" is, ask where you are.
It takes a lot of courage to think of God as a loving parent who respects our free will and forgives us despite the grievous harm we inflict on each other.
In your comment, you imply that your understanding of God is the dominant and dominating master who forces us to submit to his will and worship him despite all the suffering. In general (not specifically for you, of course), this kind of pessimistic "theory about God" serves to disguise a lack of willingness to ask questions about why humans sometimes behave so badly and what we, as humans, can do about it without projecting our lack of courage onto God.
Your understanding of God is not the only understanding that exists, Michel.
Response #6:
ReplyDeleteSuch a strange thing, the way circumstances change when we least expect them.
I've been writing for years about my experiences as a Christian mystic. I've written many long posts about positive things such as divine love and divine forgiveness and healing and the brain-soul nexus. I don't get replies or comments. In fact, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that what I have to say about love and forgiveness and healing and the soul is of so little interest to most people that perhaps my voice is less than a small grain of sand.
Then I decided to post about militant atheism and suddenly I'm deluged with comments filled with cold, calculating, ruthless logic.
Who are you people? I don't even know who most of you are. Do you have a network or something, where you give each other tips about the latest target you can attack?
Your hearts are closed, your minds are closed, you seem interested only in being right and attacking one person who at least has taken the time to study these questions from multiple perspectives.
Do you feel good about what you're doing? Do you sleep well at night? Do you do this to other people, too?
I leave you to your rightness. I forgive you. You can take full pleasure in knowing that you've made me feel the way you want me to feel.
God bless you, despite your hatred and bitterness.
Response #7 (skipping over a few short comments):
ReplyDeleteI'm going to start by quoting yesterday's post from Dave Dallafior, Senior Managing Partner at DVR National Plus LLC: Jennifer Thomas, Christian Mystic? Atheism? Life is not getting better? *As a, "non-believer," I cannot believe your special powers as a, "Christian mystic." At least dime-a-dozen Reverends do not claim, "supernatural powers." *There is no such thing as, "Atheism." Learn what an, "ism," is before you label one. "So why is your life not getting better?" Did you assume this from your "mystic powers?" Let me interject my, "mystic powers," as a human being. You're a dim-wit that insults the intelligence of anyone that can read. I hope you have no children..."
I wish to state clearly for the record that Dave's post is something far beyond bullying. It's a post filled with hatred and pure contempt for another human being. The purpose of it is to demean and degrade and violate the inner personhood of another human being. It's abuse and it's violence.
Dave's post also happens to offer a small but tidy piece of proof for the point of my much-attacked posts, the point being that the characterological issues of extreme atheism are no different than the characterological issues of religious fundamentalism. Both are manifestations of what the human brain can and does choose to act on when it's driven purely by System 2 thinking processes.
If anyone in the defence or intelligence industries happens to be following this conversation, please take a close look at what you see here. You say (or at least I read in Canadian newspapers) that you don't really have a model for understanding extremism. Well, here you a model in microcosm. Quite handily, it shows you only the characterological issues, while stripping away the confusing layers of religious doctrine. Extremism of any sort looks just like the vicious posts directed here at me over the past few days. It's a group mindset -- a hive mindset, if you will -- that creates an external framework for pure System 2 thinkers to lean against since they can't support a balanced, moderate, empathetic thinking pattern from within the self. They work each other up into a frenzy of hatred that's immune to anything resembling common sense or empathy, so don't waste your time trying to talk them as if they're reasonable human beings. They're not.
Extremist groups such as ISIL are generally thought to be religious groups. But groups such as ISIL are actually militant atheist groups. First they resent God, then they hate God, then they reject God and put their own human brains in charge as the superior force on Planet Earth. They don't believe in God. They believe only in their own power and rightness. Don't be fooled by the frequent quoting of religious texts. No one who has a balanced brain and has a balanced relationship with God could ever spout such abusive hatred.
For the record, I've never met Dave Dallafior and have never crossed paths with him until yesterday. He knows nothing whatsover about me except that I don't agree with or support his personal personal belief system. In his view, this is a great enough injustice to give him permission to avenge his honour and take his pleasure by savaging me.
For further examples of people who believed they had the right to humiliate and violate others simply because they had a loving relationship with God, I refer you to the annals of Nazi thought. For those of you who read what he wrote and were NOT shocked and appalled, shame on you.
Response #8:
ReplyDeleteWhy System 2 Dominance Leads to Hatred:
Here are some general observations on how the human brain operates when System 2 thinking processes are allowed to dominate and suppress input from System 1 processes. Please note that this list refers to brains that are out of balance. When System 2 processes are properly balanced with System 1, they're both crucial for building brains that can think logically, feel empathetically, act effectively, and create intuitively. It should go without saying that balance doesn't come easily or quickly, but when it comes, it's the human experience at its happiest and healthiest.
System 2 dominance comes when problems arise in the dorsomedial default network. (For more information on this network, please see the paper by Catani, Dell'Acqua, and Thiebaut de Schotten at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/depts/fans/sackler-group/Publications/20131/Arevisedlimbicsystemmodelformemory,emotionandbehaviour.pdf). According to Catani et al, major functions of the dorsomedial default network include pain perception, self-knowledge, attention, mentalizing, empathy, response selection and action monitoring, autobiographical memory, and person perception. The authors suggest associations between the following major disorders and abnormalities in the dorsomedial default network: depression; autism; schizophrenia; obsessive compulsive disorder; mild cognitive impairment; early Alzheimer's disease; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and anxiety.
It's always important to note that each individual case is unique and there will always be "exceptions" to the rule. However, some important clues about the functioning of the brain can be gleaned from these general patterns.
Based partly on this research (though not attributing my conclusions to anyone but myself), I believe that further research will demonstrate that adherence to extreme ideologies is an inevitable outcome of System 2 dominance in the brain. The patterns of System 2 dominance include rigidity of thinking, obsessive thinking, obsessive-compulsive thinking, either hypomotivation or hypermotivation, poor sense of time and timing, little ability to learn from mistakes, disjointed interception skills, reduced ability to see "the other" as "the other," susceptibility to sleep disorders and addiction disorders, and impulsive behaviours. This complete package of symptoms is, in fact, what hatred is made of. Hatred is the inevitable outcome of ignoring your own brain's ability to feel empathy for others.
I feel for the people who suffer from this set of symptoms. I have little doubt that from their subjective perspective, IT SEEMS TO THEM AS IF THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL. It must hurt like hell, which is what drives so many people with this general package of symptoms to seek relief through whatever works (including addiction to substances and status).
There's good news and bad news about this. Because we finally understand the principles of neuroplasticity, we know that no one who displays the symptoms of Hatred is untreatable.
The bad news is that those who want to stop living a life of hatred and addiction have to make the choice to want to stop. No one can force you to give up your choice to hate and you're still responsible -- both morally and legally -- for your choices. No "get out jail free" card on this one (unless you've had a spike through the head like Phineas Gage or some other cause beyond your control, such as a car accident with head injury).
Only the one who hates can decide to give up the hate. It's not easy and it's not quick, but it's doable.
. . . Cont'd.
. . . Response #8, Cont'd.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, it's interesting that most major world religions have tried, through various doctrines, to uphold the idea that we all have free will and it's how we use our free will that determines our personal level of health and happiness.
Religions have often failed miserably at trying to find and teach the balance between System 1 and System 2 thinking processes. But at least most of them have tried.
As another note of historical interest, behind every charismatic, messianic cult (where adherents have the opposite problem -- too much System 1 thinking and not enough System 2), you'll find a System 2 Dominant thinker eagerly soaking up the worship of his or her credulous followers.
It would be ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL if someone would please take my theory and try to disprove it through research, debate, and objective analysis.
Please.