Some people think I’m wasting my time, but I would argue that there’s nothing more pressing than being able to distinguish facts from fiction. That’s the importance of scientific skepticism and rational thought in general. It’s not about religion or ghosts or psychics; it’s about the real-world implications of bad thinking processes: racism, discrimination, science denialism, religious intrusion into secular governments, and more. I don’t think there’s anything of value with which critical thinking doesn’t help. Advocating for critical thought and logical reasoning in general is crucial because, by doing so, we can directly combat any number of wrongs and injustices. People thinking reasonably are less likely to be racists, murderers, or sexists because those attitudes and behaviors aren’t reasonable. According to astronomer Phil Plait, “the more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn’t), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly.”
“If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being,” Plait wrote on his Bad Astronomy website.4 “I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces.”
I think it’s important to analyze all information carefully because I recognize that, if you set your standards for evidence low, you could end up believing in just about anything. There are some people, however, who simply don’t care if their beliefs match reality. Not only is this mentality intellectually dishonest, but I think it also forces those people to miss out on the wonderful feeling we get from uncovering new truths. Fortunately for all of us, most people do want their beliefs to be accurate, even if they don’t know (or admit) it. By giving them all the information on a topic, from a variety of perspectives, we allow them to evaluate what makes the most sense and make an informed decision. I think people should absolutely have the right to believe in the supernatural, or in any earthly but similarly unfounded force, entity, or idea. But equally important is my and others’ right to critique and debunk those beliefs—and to hold ourselves to a higher standard of evidence. Some people will continue to believe and others will give up on those ideas, but the flow of information both ways is crucial in a successful society if we want reality to be readily accessible to others.
THE SUPERNATURAL WORLD
There’s so much we still don’t know about this realm, so, in my opinion, creating a paranormal one isn’t necessary. English writer Douglas Adams would likely agree. In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, he wrote, “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” I’ll likely never fully understand why some people prefer to worship that which can’t be shown to exist when they could simply admire the intrinsic beauty of existence itself, but I suppose that’s why it interests me so much.
I’m incredibly intrigued by unexplained phenomena, which is why researching them is so important to me, but disregarding our existing explanations in favor of fantasy discounts the importance of reality. It’s true that humanity doesn’t yet understand many things about the universe, or even the world immediately around us, but that’s what we are working to change every single day when we support scientific skepticism and encourage evidence-based thinking. By doing this, we can discover what’s true—as opposed to settling for falsehoods or merely assuming the real answers are unattainable as if we’ve already been defeated.
There are really only two options when it comes to falsifiable questions in the world: either we, through science, can one day discover the answer—or we already have and it’s being ignored. While many believers are quick to note that science may one day prove that their particular supernatural belief is actually a real force, they too often forget the possibility that the magic things they have experienced are understood by scientific endeavors, and that those understandings are being rejected because of personal biases—or even out of a love of mystery. Science doesn’t yet have all the answers, but it does have many. And it is for that reason that ignoring valid scientific conclusions in favor of mysteries is not only ridiculous, but also counterproductive.
If you believe in the existence of an entity or force that can’t be measured or shown to exist scientifically, then you can’t be (even remotely) sure it’s real. If you can’t be sure it’s real, then what objective basis do you have for believing in it? After all, if I told you that I had access to something that was invisible, undetectable, immeasurable, and unpredictable—and that I only heard about it from ancient rumors or from alleged personal experiences—would you feel compelled to believe in it? Hopefully, the answer is, “No.” This concept, implemented by philosopher Bertrand Russell in his creation of the celestial teapot,5 demonstrates the perils that go along with believing in unfalsifiable assertions merely because they can’t be disproven.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
When discussing the lack of hard evidence for anything outside the natural realm, I often hear the same objection from believers in all sorts of mystical forces: “But, it’s possible!” And yes, I’ll often admit that—because lots of things are possible. Without evidence, however, all you are left with is speculation, which isn’t a good basis for a full-fledged conclusion. The fact that something could be real doesn’t mean it’s likely to be, and it doesn’t change the fact that there isn’t a shred of empirical evidence for any supernatural or paranormal force or claim ever put forth. Likewise, a strong belief doesn’t make something objectively real. Illusionist and mentalist Derren Brown described how that line of thinking devalues the truth.
“One can be a true believer in anything: psychic ability, Christianity or, as Bertrand Russell classically suggested (with irony), in the fact there is a teapot orbiting the earth,” Brown wrote in his book, Tricks of the Mind. “I could believe any of those things with total conviction. But my conviction doesn’t make them true. Indeed, it is something of an insult to the very truth I might hold dear to say that something is true just because I believe it is.”
That’s why I encourage all people to separate their imagination from what they think is real, and distinguish the possible from the probable. I’ve never said the existence of any particular force or entity is necessarily impossible, but I will say that, without evidence, there simply isn’t a reason to believe. For me, acceptance hinges on hard data. Requiring scientific evidence when it comes to the supernatural can help keep us from being fooled because, while it is true that absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, a lack of corroborating data is always a bad reason to believe in something without further verification. In other words, if something can’t be shown to be real, it doesn’t mean it isn’t, but that fact also doesn’t give us any good reason to believe in it, either. I think most people would agree with that basic notion, including philosopher and logician Irving Copi. In a book called Introduction to Logic, he showed that a lack of evidence sometimes is evidence of absence.
“In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators,” Copi wrote. “In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non
-occurrence.”
While a lack of evidence may be a good reason to not believe in something in most cases, a lack of evidence is not always a good reason to proclaim that something definitely does not exist or did not occur. That’s because, of course, some information might come forth in the future to prove any number of ideas that are now considered unlikely. When that happens with something I’ve rejected in the past, I’ll believe in it or—more accurately—accept it as fact. We might find evidence to prove practically anything in the future, but I base what I view as true on the information that is currently available, while leaving room for change.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Whether we are dealing with supernatural claims or those based on the known facts of this world, the best chance we have as a species is to focus our efforts on scientific investigations. This process can help us better understand the reality of the world around us so that we don’t need to rely on faith in supernatural stories that may provide comfortable answers. The emphasis on scientifically sound evidence is crucial for one simple reason: the scientific method is our best process for determining what exists and what does not. However, that doesn’t make the process perfect, nor is it able to test everything. Science deals with falsifiable claims—not vague spiritual or religious platitudes—and it can’t test or measure questions rooted in subjectivity. Bertrand Russell, in his Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays,6 explains the role of science in discovering the unknown.
“Human beings cannot, of course, wholly transcend human nature; something subjective, if only the interest that determines the direction of our attention, must remain in all our thought,” Russell wrote. “But scientific philosophy comes nearer to objectivity than any other human pursuit, and gives us, therefore, the closest constant and the most intimate relation with the outer world that it is possible to achieve.”
If you believe in some nondescript entity or force that doesn’t intervene in the world—and therefore doesn’t have testable attributes—then your belief is solely based on your own feelings or stories told to you by others, and it cannot be tested in any objective way. But we can test some other questions, such as, “Is there a prayer-answering god?” We’ve scientifically tested this claim and, so far, the evidence suggests there is not.7 Can psychics predict the future? No one has been able to demonstrate psychic abilities under a scientific setting so, for now, we can again conclude that the answer is likely, “No.” You can use the scientific method to test a wide variety of claims in everyday life, because that system—and not theology or philosophical posturing—is how we find out what’s real.
One of the most beautiful things about reality is that it’s indifferent. Reality is unchanging and ever-present, whether you believe in it, worship it, or ignore it entirely. Even when something is unknown, the truth is there, and we are constantly working to discover it. It is through scientific endeavors that we are able to distinguish these realities, and to stifle the search with a strict belief (and therefore a premature conclusion) is to kill that all-essential curiosity and halt the pursuit of answers.
STORYTELLING AND EMOTIONAL REASONING
It wasn’t always true that science was the best-known way to learn something. In ancient times, prior to the development of what we know today as the scientific method, our ancestors’ favorite method for discerning reality was often through oral stories handed down from generation to generation—or even tales conveyed through wall and cave paintings. While people who lived long ago didn’t necessarily learn accurate information from the stories they shared, storytelling itself was an important part of our history. Stories continue to be incredibly popular today, too, especially in entertainment and business, because they evoke strong neurological responses. Neuroeconomist Paul Zak, who headed the research team that discovered that oxytocin is a key “it’s safe to approach others” signal in the brain, says more recent studies show “that character-driven stories do consistently cause oxytocin synthesis.”
“We have identified oxytocin as the neurochemical responsible for empathy and narrative transportation,” Zak wrote.8 “My lab pioneered the behavioral study of oxytocin and has proven that when the brain synthesizes oxytocin, people are more trustworthy, generous, charitable, and compassionate.”
Storytelling may serve as a catalyst for changes in brain chemistry, but it is also important as a tool for communication, bonding, and—like science and religion—comfort in the face of the unknown. When we want to know something badly enough, making up a story can feel good. It solves (often wrongly) that riddle by which our pattern-seeking mind was previously confused. Malcolm Gladwell explains that this is a “storytelling problem” that all humans have. He said, “We’re a bit too quick to come up with explanations for things we don’t really have an explanation for.”
Storytelling remains common among all people,9 but science has largely replaced this method as a reliable means to understand the world. Even today, however, many people attempt to use empty arguments instead of real evidence to force their personal beliefs into existence. While philosophical discourse can be fun—and it certainly has its uses—it also has completely different objectives than modern scientific inquiry and it can never be used to establish proof of the supernatural. When it comes to determining what’s real in the world, I’ll stick with empirical evidence over metaphysical musings and stories any day of the week. The scientific method is how we distinguish reality from illusion—how we determine what is predictive and what is not. Words can’t make gods or ghosts, or anything else for that matter, real.
STRONG EMOTIONS
Unfortunately, for some people who are adding up what make sense to form their beliefs, scientific evidence is left out of the equation entirely. I’m often told by believers that supernatural forces do exist, but that logical reasoning won’t help discover them—they must instead be “felt in the heart.”10 Emotions, however, are largely irrelevant when discussing what’s real and what’s illusory because they can throw you off course on the search for facts. It’s critical thinking that will yield the best results because, while emotions do affect what we believe, it’s not usually in a good way. Jonathan C. Smith is one of many experts who argues that strong emotion and motivation “can prompt us to abandon common sense and good everyday thinking.”
“People are ‘blinded by love’ and commit ‘crimes of passion,’” he wrote. “If you have been blessed with a paranormal experience, this extraordinary event would likely stir your feelings—and possibly compromise your capacity for clear, cool-headed thinking.”
This is not to say that emotions have no place in the world—feelings are great if you don’t mistake them for evidence-based conclusions—but that place isn’t distinguishing facts from falsehoods. By setting aside all emotional appeals and reactions and focusing only on evidence and logical arguments, the feelings lose much of their influence and we can more easily get to what’s real. There’ll always be those who allow emotion to prevail over reason in these matters, but we don’t have to be those people. We can strive for something better.
POSSIBLE PITFALLS OF PARADISE
I encourage everyone, believers and skeptics alike, to make a concentrated effort to seek out reality in their own lives, and to avoid being held hostage by false beliefs. By doing this, you may discover (as I did) that skepticism can be more than just a healthy and intellectually honest worldview—a real and intensive search for the truth can also be a process that brings relief and even joy. As Guy P. Harrison writes in his book, 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True, “Some people think of skeptics as cynical, negative people with closed minds. Nothing could be further from the truth. Skepticism is really nothing more than a fancy name for trying to think clearly and thoroughly before making a decision about believing, buying, or joining something. It’s about sorting out reality from lies and misperceptions.”
Not only is it rewarding in itself to learn new information and discover what’s really out there, but allegedly
comforting lies can actually turn out to be much less so when analyzed critically and independently, so getting rid of them may be a “blessing” in disguise. For example, many people would consider various religions’ versions of Heaven, Jannah, and other utopia-centered afterlives to be the ultimate (false) comfort, promising eternal bliss in the clouds post mortem, but that’s just what we see at first glance. When you dig deeper, you see these so-called paradises are good examples of how critical analysis can destroy the illusion of a supposedly comforting myth and reveal a much less palatable one. With a little research, you discover that the happy-go-lucky afterlives proposed by the world’s religions are often accompanied by opposite (and equally absurd) realms of eternal torture, where you or your loved ones could also end up. So, when people get upset with my work, claiming that my writings take “eternal paradise” away from believers, I point out that—if that’s the case—then those same words would also be responsible for taking away the believers’ concept of “eternal suffering.” I would argue that this is a good thing. As English actor Sir Peter Ustinov once wrote, “Unfortunately, a superabundance of dreams is paid for by a growing potential for nightmares.”
Believers might still insist that religions themselves give some people needed solace, independent of their veracity, but that’s often not the whole picture. For example, religions do help with building a sense of community and belonging within a group, but they also help create and foster an Us vs. Them mentality that divides us. In other words, religions are great at uniting people … of the same faith. For outsiders, however, they often do the opposite. In fact, a 2015 study published in Current Anthropology revealed that religion led to social conflict and tension as early as 700 BCE in Oaxaca.11 This research contradicted the earlier assumption that religion helped bring communities together in the region during that time period.
No Sacred Cows Page 19
