Okay, so these atheists put up this billboard to stir up a controversy, what do we make of it?

My first reaction is that I think it’s kind of ironic that they chose the word “celebrate.”  If you look it up, you’ll see that most of the connotations of that word are religious.  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/celebrate   “Celebrate” is connected with “rejoicing” and often involves participating in or observing “rites and ceremonies”.  So atheists often -- despite their own rhetoric -- don’t somehow go beyond religion, they merely substitute their own religion (typically secular humanism) for other religions.  John Calvin said that the heart of man is an idol factory.  Many secular humanists make an idol of (and end up worshipping) either their own minds or mankind as a whole. 

That was fun.  Now we’ve each taken our cheap shots.  They called the story of the incarnation a myth and suggested skipping observing it.   I called them out for being inconsistent hypocrites and making up their own religion where they worship themselves and their “Reason”.  Okay, can we all grow up now?

What’s the real issue here?  I’d say that it’s a battle between Reason and Wisdom.  First let me describe each of these.

Reason starts with certain philosophical assumptions, then makes observations, then follows the rules of logic to make deductions, it then concludes that these deductions are true.  Sometimes Reason is very rigourous and makes reasonable assumptions, carefully gathers reliable evidence and doesn’t go beyond the actual evidence, and uses sound logic.  So anyone who accepts the philosophical assumptions, the validity of the observations, and the logic, will automatically agree with the conclusions.

There are times when those practicing Reason make highly controversial assumptions and then end up “proving” things.  In reality, such proofs beg the questions being asked.

At other times, those practicing Reason claim to see patterns and project those patterns onto reality and then come up with broad sweeping theories – which, while consistent with the current evidence – are actually based upon the faith or belief that all future evidence will follow the pattern that they have supposedly observed.  In regard to rigour, there is little we can be certain of since many things fall into a broad range of uncertainty.  (I’m tempted to go off on a tangent about epistemology and things like Occam’s razor and Gödel’s theorem here, but we’ll save all that for another blog.)  The basic problem with being rigourous is that we can’t really prove everything that we want to prove, so we’re left with the unsatisfying position that there are things that we think are most likely true, that we aren’t sure of, but we’d like to move beyond by assuming or believing  that they are true without having to admit that we have some minor doubts and reservations.  Let’s be concrete: pretend you’re on a jury criminal case and you’re 99% sure that the guy is guilty, but you’re not really, totally positive.  Here you can dismiss the small 1% uncertainty as just being “unreasonable” doubt.  Pretend you get called on another criminal jury and think that there is say a 70% chance the guy is guilty.  However, you can come up with reasonable explanations to question his guilt, such as the witnesses seemed unreliable; the physical evidence was inconclusive although highly suggestive; and so forth.  At this point, you suspect that he’s guilty, but you have some reasonable doubts.  You really wish the investigators and prosecutor would have done a better job, or that the defendant had been sloppier, but those are just wishes.  In the end, you find him “Not guilty.”  You may be reluctant to find him “Not guilty” but you simply haven’t been presented with convincing evidence of his guilt.  However, if a civil case were filed with the same evidence you might have come to the conclusion that he was guilty of something, say negligence -- why?   --  because civil cases have a different standard for proof than criminal cases.

Don’t miss the point here: in many cases Reason is inconclusive.  There were good reasons to suspect the guy was guilty, there were also good reasons to doubt it.  It may have seemed more reasonable to think him guilty, but that did not mean that he was truly guilty, or even in the end that we would declare him guilty.  Ironically, Reason itself may sometimes lead us to accept conclusions which aren’t as reasonable as other conclusions.

Sadly, uncertainty is a fact of life.  We all make questionable assumptions, go beyond the available evidence, and come to conclusions which seem Reasonable, but which also may be totally false.  Some people do this often, others less often.  Why do we do this?  Because we want answers.  We want to resolve matters so we can move on.  Just as we don’t want accused defendants waiting in limbo forever until all doubts have been addressed (if this is even possible), we want other answers without having to work too hard or too long to get those answers.

Okay, so that’s Reason in a nutshell.  It involves assumptions, observations, and deductions.  Sometimes each is subject to only a little uncertainty, sometimes one or more is highly suspect. 

Next up we have Wisdom.  What is Wisdom?  Wisdom is more difficult to articulate.  But in essence it involves insights to understand and apply knowledge to make decisions which are in accord with the greatest good.  If we say that Reason goes from assumptions, to observations, to deductions, to truth (or perhaps just truths), then we could say that Wisdom starts with truth and then works to apply it with craftsmanship to yield a good outcome.  In the first we develop truth itself.  In the second we start with truth and develop our ability to live out or apply that truth.

So, being more concrete, what are the differences?  Well, Wisdom may come across to some as mystical, experiential, or otherwise just plain fuzzy.  It has an abstract quality to it.  Reason may have an overly pragmatic quality to it and may have a narrow focus and miss the big picture.  Reason at times may lead to decisions which seem Reasonable, but later when more evidence is gathered, may appear to have been very short-sighted or narrow-minded.   For example, early on DDT, CFCs, and peaceful uses of atomic weapons were all seen as major scientific advances with great potential – but later on they were all rejected as having been terrible ideas from an environmental perspective.  (Yes, you will find the occasional supporter of each, but they are clearly in the minority of opinion.)

Okay, too much discussion defining terms and making slow steps towards what I actually want to talk about.  I’m getting bored and want to start moving faster.  (Yeah, now I’m letting my desire for getting conclusions get ahead of my desire to rigourously reason things, so what?  We live in the age of sound bites.  We want to jump ahead to the controversial pithy little conclusions, and skip the hard work of actually thinking and developing them carefully.)

Perhaps the easiest approach is to flip the question.  Instead of talking about the desired end, let’s talk about the greatest fears, the worst nightmares, or the dreaded end.

Those who advocate Reason often have great fears of those who have views which they think are inconsistent with Reason sabotaging them.  These unreasonable zealots will allegedly hold people back with unfounded qualms, promote superstition, and slow the advance of science and Reason (the examples change, but a few of the primary current fears are over opposition to embryonic stem cell research and over opposition to teaching evolution and sex education).  Each of these will allegedly prevent progress or directly cause a great deal of suffering.

Those who advocate Wisdom often have great fears of those who have views which they think are inconsistent with Wisdom sabotaging them.  These fools will allegedly rush on for instant, personal gratification, sacrificing their future, the stability of society itself, and leading to decadence on both a personal and corporate scale.  When the whole society inevitably comes tumbling down, all will suffer.

But fear is the mind-killer.  Often phantoms are feared without any cause.  Further, most fear leads to paralysing people into inactivity or into panicked responses which are neither reasonable nor wise.  Solomon – allegedly the wisest man to ever live -- said that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Others have wondered whether after wisdom begins if there is still a need to fear the Lord.   (After all, if we see that He is good, then why should we fear Him?)  Whether or not it is wise for religious people to fear the Lord, most religious people agree that fearing anything but the Lord is not wise.  (That doesn’t mean that they don’t fear other things, just that they know it doesn’t really make sense.  If an all-powerful God is on your side, what sense does it make to fear anything else?)  We could also argue that few non-religious people think that fear is really productive, yet they too have fears.

So what’s my point?  I think most of the fears of both sides are rather silly.  Basically both sides claim that their opponents are light weights who are easily defeated, yet for some strange reason they still have a great deal of anxiousness over the very existence of the opposition.  Further, they wish to blame their opponents for all the past, present, and future problems in the world, so they end up angry with them.  Neither side ends up living up to its image of itself.  Those favouring Reason like to present themselves as engaged in a purely intellectual endeavour.  Those favouring Wisdom put their trust in something beyond/greater than themselves and like to present themselves as graciously being concerned for others and filled with love, peace, patience, and so forth.  Yet both groups often seem filled with passion: loathing and despairing over their opponents.  Now anger and anxiety are not easily discussed purely rationally because they are emotions, and when we try to forget that we end up forgetting the very thing that we are talking about.  Hence to discuss emotions, I’ll turn to a poetic/artistic discussion because it seems more appropriate – we’ll attempt to distill the emotions themselves, instead of distilling the Reason or Truth and losing the emotions.

For a good while my favourite song has probably been “Sober” by Tool.  I’d say that this song is probably the epitome of angst and the ultimate expression of exasperation.  (In simple words, angst is basically a combination of anger and anxiety, and exasperation is basically just frustration on steroids.)

The lyrics are ambiguous and difficult to interpret, but the general sense of the song is quite clear.  The singer has a strong recognition that he is considered guilty, he rejects any religious approach to deal with the matter of guilt, he instead wants to be “sober” and start things over.  He considers escapism from his guilt through drinking.  (I love the ironic tension between wanting to be sober and wanting to be drunk – I perceive the first as sober in a metaphorical sense – and the second merely as a means towards the end of no longer being aware of his problems.)  From here he states his flaws and offers a warning.  (I think Maynard literally means what he says, but I think Aaron Lewis in his cover is merely willing to accept the blame, but doesn’t truly accept the guilt, but comparing the two is a subject for a future blog since I’ve already rambled on long enough today.)  At first the ending may sound like a non-sequitor – why does he shift to talking about what he wants?  But I think that it does follow.  In the end I think that he recognises that his problems are not just the tension between himself and others, but ultimately the problem is internal: he has deep desires which he is unwilling to question and unable to quench.

I’ll include two videos, one with the lyrics, one without the lyrics but with the original “artistic” video – which may or may not have anything to do with the song, as well as a version of the lyrics.

Lyrics to "Sober" by Tool 

There's a shadow just behind me
Shrouding every step I take
Making every promise empty
Pointing every finger at me

Waiting like the stalking butler
Whom upon the finger rests
Murder now the path called "must we"
Just because the Son has come

Jesus, won't you f***ing whistle
Something but what's past and done?
Jesus, won't you f***ing whistle
Something but what's past and done?

Why can't we not be sober?
I just want to start this over
Why can't we drink forever?
I just want to start this over

I am just a worthless liar
I am just an imbecile
I will only complicate you
Trust in me and fall as well

I will find a center in you
I will chew it up and leave
I will work to elevate you
Just enough to bring you down

Mother Mary, won't you whisper
Something but what's past and done?
Mother Mary, won't you whisper
Something but what's past and done?

Why can't we not be sober?
I just want to start this over
Why can't we sleep forever?
I just want to start this over

I am just a worthless liar
I am just an imbecile
I will only complicate you
Trust in me and fall as well
I will find a center in you
I will chew it up and leave

Trust me
Trust me
Trust me
Trust me
Trust me

Why can't we not be sober?
I just want to start this over
Why can't we sleep forever?
I just want to start this over

I want what I want
I want what I want
I want what I want
I want what I want

By now you may be wondering what this song has to do with my train of thought.  Was it a complete non-sequitor?  I don’t think so, but maybe just because I like the song.  No, actually I think it says something about the human condition, and especially the atheist position.  Many people are tired of being confronted with their guilt by those who appear more religious, they just want to get on with their lives, to seek what they want, and to have “peace” (whether through being reasonable, sleeping, drinking, or just starting things over).  They blame the religious for their sense of guilt and for the tension.  They may admit that they are broken, or they may tauntingly say, “So what if I’m broken?”, or they may even take pride that they are not naïve, unlike those who surround them.  But they see no remedy for the brokenness or the guilt, they just don’t want to be reminded of it any more, they just want to go on with their lives and forget about it.  It sounds so Reasonable to concentrate on what we want and make progress. 

But personally this doesn’t sound all that Reasonable or very progressive.  I’d rather gain Wisdom and see that there may be grace to let us escape from our failures and our guilt, to rebuild real relationships so that we too can reflect grace, and thereby make true progress.  Personally, I think we can seek both Reason and Wisdom.  The two do not need to battle.  We can reconcile them.  That is if we are willing to admit that we ourselves are fundamentally flawed – that our wants have blinded us and led us into practicing deceit and folly – that instead of providing us with what we want, we have only found guilt and brokenness.  We are broken – just as Humpty Dumpty was – and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put us back together again.  Only the King Himself can.

If you’re game then read my upcoming series and journey with me as I attempt to reconcile Reason and Wisdom.  My plan is to tie up any lose ends in this introduction, and then move on to an analysis of the so-called Wisdom Literature.  I especially want to compare it with the words of Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails).

My closing thought/prayer:

Sources:

Thanks to http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/atheistbillboardonnativitysceneyouknowitsamyth5979 for the picture of the billboard.

Thanks to http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/tool/sober_20139422.html for the lyrics to Sober.

Other minor variants can also be found at http://toolshed.down.net/lyrics/undertowlyrics.php or http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2540 .

Thanks to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmRDV0a_70&feature=related for showing the lyrics while playing the audio.

Thanks to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxNLZwIIzM&feature=related for the “official artistic” video.

Some time I want to write a blog comparing the original version to the cover of it by Staind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRiuQhOD0i0&feature=related.  I think that they are both very interesting and very different interpretations of the same song.

I just answered this Featured Question; you can answer it too -- unless of course if you are already dead, then you waited too long to answer it!  (Unless of course you left an advanced directive for a proxy to answer it on your behalf.)