The emptiness of science may explain the rise of fundamentalism...

by cognisonance 7 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cognisonance

  Neurophilosopher, Thomas Metzinger says in his Book:

  THE EGO TUNNEL:  THESCIENCE OF THE MIND AND THE MYTH OF THE SELF

  The Ego evolved as an instrument in social cognition, and one of its greatest functional advantages was that it allowed us to read the minds of other animals or conspecifics — and then to deceive them. Or deceive ourselves. Since our inbuilt existential need for full emotional and physical security can never be fulfilled, we have a strong drive toward delusion and bizarre belief systems. Psychological evolution endowed us with the irresistible urge to satisfy our emotional need for stability and emotional meaningfulness by creating metaphysical worlds and invisible persons. Whereas spirituality might be defined as seeing what is — as letting go of the search for emotional security — religious faith can be seen as an attempt to cling to that search by redesigning the Ego Tunnel. Religious belief is an attempt to endow your life with deeper meaning and embed it in a positive metacontext — it is the deeply human attempt to finally feel at home. It is a strategy to outsmart the hedonic treadmill. On an individual level, it seems to be one of the most successful ways to achieve a stable state — as good as or better than any drug so far discovered. Now science seems to be taking all this away from us. The emerging emptiness may be one reason for the current rise of religious fundamentalism, even in secular societies.

  This quote helped me realize why JWs reject evolution so strongly. The stronger the evidence for it, the deeper they reject it. If religious belief in general is this strong, JW beliefs are on steroids.
  
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  The appeal to consequences (if we evolved/there's no god, then my life has no meaning) seems to be pretty effective at keeping people stuck in silly belief systems, or driving them further in when they feel threatened.

  The other day I was bored at the KH and skimmed through the KM.  There was a sample presentation for one of the brochures on how life began or whatever and the presentation essentially followed this formula.  Ask what the HH believes, read a quote about how empty life is for evolutionists and then explain to them that if they'll believe in fairy tales in the face of all evidence they can be happier.
• 

  Viviane

  I view science and full of wonder and new discovery, the opportunity to better ourselves, to rise above and be amazing. I view it as the opposite of empty.
  
• 

  cognisonance

  The emptiness Metzinger is referring to is this as he goes on to say in the next paragraph:

  Yes, the self-model made us intelligent, but it certainly is not an example of intelligent design. It is the seed of subjective suffering. If the process that created the biological Ego Machine had been initiated by a person, that person would have to be described as cruel, maybe even diabolic. We were never asked if we wanted to exist, and we will never be asked whether we want to die or whether we are ready to do so. In particular, we were never asked if we wanted to live with this combination of genes and this type of body. Finally, we were certainly never asked if we wanted to live with this kind of a brain including this specific type of conscious experience. It should be high time for rebellion. But everything we know points to a conclusion that is simple but hard to come to terms with: Evolution simply happened — foresightless, by chance, without goal. There is nobody to despise or rebel against — not even ourselves. And this is not some bizarre form of neurophilosophical nihilism but rather a point of intellectual honesty and great spiritual depth.

  To a religious believer, especially a JW, the idea that we are here by chance, without goal, is empty. Of course meaning in life can come from within even if there is no inherent meaning in the universe.
  
• 

  Viviane

  So, those people never got over teenage angst? Well, what can I suggest? Go listen to Baba O'Riley and get over it.
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Self-awareness is not necessarily awareness of self in any insightful way.

  Awareness of self-want and self-need is really more like it.

  The morality of desire is this: I like it--so--it is good.

  Rather than: It is good--so--I like it.

  Superstition is a pre-echo of selfish awareness.

  Gods need to be bribed. Gods are arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical.

  This is a catalog of human wilfulness.

  What the gods are capable of is no different from that of human gang leaders.

  What is religious ritual but the self, attempting to govern self, by projecting outward

  into the invisible realm of spirits a punishing hand?

  
  

  
  
• 

  freemindfade

  Religious people think science works the same is religion in its stance on things which is not true:

  Science: Always Doubt

  Religion: NO doubt

  Science: Always Question

  Religion: NO Question

  Science: When challenged replies with evidence

  Religion: When challenged becomes hostile

  They are not the same at all, but always avoid someone that says they have all the answers, stick to those always looking for actuall truths (not truth, truths)

  
  
• 

  Vidiot

  cognisonance - "...To a religious believer, especially a JW, the idea that we are here by chance, without goal, is empty..."

  True, but it goes deeper, particularly for JWs.

  The WTS is fundamentally conservative, and a defining axiom of conservatism (religious or secular) is that people are inherently and irrevocably bad (and can't be trusted to do the right thing, so therefore have to be kept on a short leash for theirs and everyone else's own damn good, but I digress)...

  ...problem is, they also view God as "perfect", so how can a "perfect" God create such "imperfect" beings?

  The Eden narrative in Genesis provides that explanation, but it needs to be literal for it to really work properly, not to mention that Jesus' "ransom sacrifice" is directly tied into Adam's Fall into Sin.

  However, if evolution is true, then the Eden narrative can't be literal history, therefore humans don't actually need to be redeemed, therefore what use is Jesus' "ransom sacrifice"?

  ...which, in turn, calls Christianity's (or, at least, the WTS's definition of it) very raison d'etre and legitimacy into question.

  And that is simply unacceptable to them.