A Sceptical Journey

"A person inclined to doubt all accepted opinions." - Oxford English Dictionary

Scepticism: a philosophy, I'm coming to discover, not quite so simple (or nonchalant!) as the dictionary definition implies. 

Having been brought up in a family almost entirely without religion - with the exception of a few, fairly limited, religious education lessons - I knew relatively little about spirituality and even less about what it must be like to have a spiritual experience. While I was perfectly happy inside my bubble I didn't feel like I had anything to compare it to; just because my life experience told me my belief was right, was it really as unshakable as I thought it was? It felt a bit to me like claiming to have a water tight container that I'd never actually allowed anywhere near water. So, in late 2012 I metaphorically submerged myself in the deepest religious waters I could think of: Israel. 

While my first few days there were more concerned with getting my bearings and enjoying the quaint thrill of alien surroundings, I soon travelled to Jerusalem to try and learn about the religions I knew so little of, directly from the people who followed them. 

I feel at this point I should show my hand: I am an atheist and a sceptic. I do not, however, think this set of beliefs should lead me to immediately rebuff any beliefs or phenomena that do not fit into my existing understanding of the world. In essence, I believe in my system and if my system works it should withstand exposure to anything. If, as has happened, I investigate something that does upset my existing philosophy then, providing I have been thorough and objective in my study of the evidence, I must change my system accordingly. Being consistently open-minded and searching for truth can only, in my opinion, lead to bettering ones understanding of the world. We should demand to be proven one way or the other and not just sit comfortably in the assumption we're right just because the opposing side may appear weaker to us. One just has to be careful not to be so open-minded that our brain falls out (which is a silly way of saying not to readily believe everything that presents itself as fact - take the Stanford Institute researchers completely fooled by Uri Geller, for example).  

I was fortunate enough to stay with a muslim family in Hebron, share a hostel room with a Christian woman and spend time with members of the progressive Jewish organisation: Netzer. As well as trying to learn about these people's personal experience of faith, I also spent time at sites of great religious importance to see if I would have any experiences of my own. 

I first spent time with the members of Netzer and I was lucky to find them! They had travelled around Israel many times, were able to speak Hebrew and just generally saved my incompetent ass. I learnt a lot about the Old City from them - the divisions and the history. I was most excited, however, by an invitation to a Shabbat meal and service (please correct me if this is completely the wrong term). There were about 8 of us and we all sat together in their living room for an informal service before the meal. We read inspirational and thoughtful passages that were relevant to the the group and sang several songs. I wasn't expected to join in if I didn't want to but I decided to, both out of respect but also because of the genuine feeling of open friendliness. Afterwards followed more food than was humanly possibly to consume and I sorely wished I could have eaten more; it was lovely - as was the whole evening. 

Having started my journey with a distinctly positive example of religion it was unfortunate that my next experience would be more melancholy. I had already been staying in my room with a few others when we were joined by new lady. She recounted how she had had to move to this room as she needed to extend her stay in Jerusalem. I was concerned to learn that this was because she had not yet received the sign from God she was waiting for and from what I could gather she had already been waiting in Jerusalem for somewhere in the region of twenty days. She was very sweet and very positive but I couldn't help worrying for her. If I were in her position I could imagine myself getting disillusioned, or worse: blaming myself. The sign she was waiting for related to a long term partner having recently decided not to pursue their relationship. She was vulnerable and needed a friend and the friend she had chosen (God) wasn't delivering; and if my personal belief about God is true - he was never going to deliver. I left Jerusalem just over a week later just as she was being kicked out of the Hostel for having reached their maximum stay length. I learned she was not going home but moving to another hostel. I left Jerusalem feeling confused. I had seen religion draw people together in a wonderful way but I had also seen it seriously isolate someone. 

My trip culminated with a few days in Hebron. I was lucky enough to stay with a local family and do a bit of work in one of the traditional ceramic factories, which was wonderful. Again, I saw their religion bringing them together; the admirable devotion to family and the inclusion of people less fortunate than themselves was, frankly, intoxicating. That coupled with the hauntingly beautiful call to prayer every morning made me consider the fact that, had I been raised here, there was absolutely no way I wouldn't believe in Islam despite all the conflict and animosity. From this, I began to realise that the critical thinking which feels so natural to me, is something I had to be taught and exercise. I hypothesised about a sort of blue pill/red pill situation wherein I could have all the family and community fulfilment I wanted at the cost of my atheism and would I do it. I can't say that I would; but in a different situation - perhaps. 

Throughout all of this I had been visiting and learning about some of the most sacred places for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Many of them were very beautiful. Many of them were very sad. But I'm afraid to say none of them evoked anything other than ordinary interest. The most moving experience I had during my whole trip was galloping on horseback across a mountain top overlooking the ancient city of Petra. The overwhelming sense of freedom and adrenaline I felt was absolutely indescribable. For a moment there was nothing else in the world except the wind and the horse. Staggering. 

Finally, I felt some connection with the people I had been seeing this past month: crying, praying, rejoicing. Was this what they were feeling? If so, I can certainly see why they devote themselves to it. I didn't feel alone in the world at that moment and it was wonderful; but as far as I'm concerned that's just part of the human experience. It seemed to me that the euphoria so many were attributing to their God, was in fact being created by the people themselves with their rich culture, social life and communities. I only saw a darker side to the religious experience when I met people who were isolated and lonely. 

I left with new knowledge and a new respect for those who are religious. Did I believe in their God? No. Did I believe in them? Yes; I believe that it was they that were creating the joy and wonder they experienced from their religion. I believe that against incomprehensible odds some bald apes came into existence and made the most extraordinary and unlikely things. There was no plan. No intervention. 

It was just us, and that is the most beautiful thing of all. 

Science and Religion: Frustrated

Frustrated

(Note: The following critique does not apply to one organisation alone, I am simply using an example from personal experience.)

Recently, I have been talking to a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses in an attempt get a basic knowledge of the Bible and, more importantly, understand how people reach and maintain beliefs so different from my own (atheist and sceptic). They have been patient and informative and we have disagreed; but what's wrong with that? In my experience, social disagreement has been taken as a negative in almost every instance I have seen it arise, but I don't see why it need be so reprehensible. In academia, disagreement is treated more like motivation - spurring on further and more in depth study in order to resolve the issue. I don't see why this use of disagreement cannot be applied outside of the classroom.

While I do not share their beliefs, I have been interested to see where in the Bible their ideas come from and consider how much influence interpretation has on their faith. However, there has been one aspect of our talks which I have found consistently troubling and it is, of course, that most provocative of combinations: Science in Religion. My frustration surrounding this subject did not go un-noticed and I was kindly lent one of their personal books, The Bible: God's Word or Man's, which they had said really helped clarify this hotly debated issue for them. The chapter they directed me to was entitled "Science: Has it Proved the Bible Wrong" (chapter 8 if anyone cares to look it up). The title was alarmingly promising but I am sorry to say the optimism did not last long (though possibly not for the reasons you might imagine).

The Bible quotations I was ready for - I knew I wouldn't find them compelling but I was interested to read them all the same - but it was quotations that were purportedly from experts and scientists that really caught my attention. My initial impression was that they may have been taken out of context or were heavily biased but even I was surprised by what I discovered after running a quick namecheck (emphasis on the "quick", this really is not difficult information to find). The first person quoted was Francis Hitching who is described as "an authority" - keep that in mind - and he stated that "living cells duplicate themselves with near total fidelity". Now, this set my GCSE Biology alarm bells ringing as I recalled studying genetic mutation and meiosis (a process wherein cells reproduce with a different genetic combination than the parent cells). Despite my conflict I thought I'd research him further as he, presumably, was much better qualified than me to speak on the subject. Wrong. Hitching is a television scriptwriter/producer and author. The book from which creationists so often quote him, "The Neck of the Giraffe", stated that Hitching was a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute; needless to say he is not. Hitching also claimed to have had help from palaeontologist Stephen Gould and that the book was endorsed by Richard Dawkins. Not only did both of these people deny Hitching's claims and any knowledge of Hitching, but Dawkins also gave the fairly damning statement "his book … is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years". During my research I was sad to discover that Hitching has been cited as an evolutionary scientist in other Jehovah's Witnesses publications. To add insult to injury Hitching's other books focus on dowsing and psychic phenomena, these being the only subjects on which he may be called "an authority". Sciency. 

I was shocked at the flagrant flimsiness of this so called evidence, but I continued none the less. The other key source of non-Biblical quotations came from Michael Denton who I was interested to learn actually does have scientific qualifications (Phd in Biochemistry). Almost immediately I discovered he does NOT support creationism. He believes in natural selection and common descent however he does advocate intelligent design. On further inspection it would seem that it is the passages concerning intelligent design which, out of context, lend themselves to a creationist interpretation. Despite this, I still found quotations from his book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", shaky evidence at best; for example "evolution deals with unique events, the origin of life … unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation". This is true, but, circumstances can be replicated and irrespective of that, this statement doesn't really prove or disprove anything. Moreover, I discovered that Michael Denton's views since writing that book have shifted somewhat and in his most recent publication he defends evolution more strongly. And by the way, by "recent" publication I mean 1998. His original book was published in 1985. Hitching's quotations came from his 1982 book and the book in which they are quoted was published in 1989. Science teachers wouldn't dare use textbooks that were over twenty years old to teach students - I've even read an article wherein a high school teacher bemoaned newly issued textbooks for having taken four years to be written, deeming them not adequately relevant enough to teach from. Even if the quotations had been scientifically viable at the time, they would still need to have been updated. I was shocked at the thorough misrepresentation I had encountered. 

What made me most unhappy about the whole revelation was the thought of believers who read this book, and others like it, in good faith. It is cleverly written (ish) and contains apparently positive reinforcement for beliefs that those reading it will already have. We have all, at one time or another, needed some form of evidence or reassurance for an aspect of our lives - when we find that much needed assurance who can honestly say their first thought would be to subjectively pick it apart and potentially destroy the comfort we had just found; not many of us. Those being deceived are not stupid and they are not to be laughed at. I in no way hold the people who gave me this book responsible for any of its content. Do I think they should have applied more criticism to its content when they read it: yes, but people cannot be expected to pull a desire for critical thinking out of thin air. I believe them to be good people; they spend their personal time trying to save people from eternal damnation which, on the scale of nice, is pretty fucking nice. When's the last time I saved someones soul: NEVER. Just because I do not believe their method will work does not devalue the intention of the act and I cannot hold them culpable for the fact that the tools they have been sent out to do it with are faulty. It is my belief that people will continue to write misleading material, such as this, in relative safety because they know that the mentality people are in while reading them is not one of scepticism. It does not matter that their sources can be debunked from - quite literally - the first google entry about them; they are banking on the readers not checking and sadly it would seem this tactic has paid off. Will my discoveries have any effect on the owners of this book? Did they already know? I don't know, however I sincerely believe that if you cannot prove your point through honest and reliable means, it is better to leave it disproven than undermine it with a poor imitation of truth. 

But don't take my word for it.