Short posts about the Humanist philosophy designed to encourage people to live ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
I recently went on a ghost hunting tour, an activity I genuinely enjoy. These tours are often rich in history, delving into the stories of people left out of the major historical narratives. This particular tour did not disappoint, offering a blend of eerie fun and historical insights.
As part of the tour, we got to play with various ghost hunting equipment, including spirit boxes and EMF detectors. The spirit boxes, in particular, were a highlight for many participants. For those unfamiliar, a spirit box works by scanning through radio frequencies rapidly. As it does so, it picks up fragments of audio from different stations, and occasionally, words or phrases seem to pop out.
Here’s where it gets fascinating – and misleading. Our brains are incredibly adept at seeking patterns. When we hear a word or phrase that seems contextually relevant, our brains latch onto it, creating the illusion that we’re having a conversation with the dead. This phenomenon is a perfect example of confirmation bias. Our brains are eager to confirm our expectations, so when we hear something that fits the narrative, it feels profoundly real.
On this tour, it was astonishing just how much it felt like I was getting intelligent responses through the spirit box. The experience was almost convincing, reinforcing the importance of skepticism. It’s crucial to remember that our brains can easily fool us, especially when we’re eager to believe something.
The evening concluded with us using a FLIR camera, a device that detects heat signatures. While it was fun to experiment with, it didn’t yield anything particularly interesting. Despite the lack of ghostly evidence, the tour was a fascinating exploration of history and a reminder of the need to question our perceptions.
In the end, while the thrill of ghost hunting can be alluring, it’s essential to approach such experiences with a healthy dose of skepticism. Our minds are powerful, but they can also be deceiving.
The topic of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) has long captured the imagination of the masses, and it's become even more prominent with recent events, such as the congressional hearings and documentaries like "Encounters" produced by Amblin Entertainment which is owned by Steven Spielberg who made ET and Close Encounters of the 3rd kind using the head of Project Bluebook as a consultant.
While the existence of UFOs remains a subject of debate, the issue of transparency, and the potential cognitive dissonance it may bring, is equally intriguing. In this blog post, we'll delve into the implications of keeping UFO-related information secret, the potential impact on different worldviews, and why transparency and openness are crucial for scientific progress and the humanistic perspective.
The Secrecy Surrounding UFOs
For decades, the secrecy surrounding UFOs has been a contentious issue. Some argue that this secrecy stems from the high number of false reports compared to genuine sightings. According to experts like the Project Blue Book consultant, only a small fraction of reports were deemed of unknown origin.
Implications for Different Worldviews
However, a deeper, more unsettling allegation suggests that high-ranking military officials in the past were concerned about the implications of non-human intelligence on religion. In the 1950s, many military leaders were devout Christians, and some may have feared that acknowledging these entities as real would challenge religious beliefs, possibly leading to social upheaval.
The existence of UFOs, if proven, poses questions for individuals with varying worldviews. For atheists and skeptics, the revelation may not be as disruptive to their beliefs, given their tendency to debunk paranormal phenomena. However, for those with strong religious convictions, it could challenge their faith. Additionally, the emergence of new religions and belief systems in response to these "encounters" highlights the profound impact such knowledge could have on society's spiritual fabric.
Transparency and Scientific Progress
One of the most critical aspects of the UFO secrecy issue is the potential loss of scientific knowledge and research opportunities. Transparency is vital because it allows scientific collaboration and exploration. By suppressing information on UFOs, our government may have hindered the advancement of knowledge for over 70 years. By keeping this knowledge hidden, we lost a substantial opportunity to learn and expand our understanding of physics and the universe.
When it comes to UFO or UAP phenomenon, naturalism is key. If something happens, there is a natural explanation for it. Supernaturalism is not required ever. This means, if there are objects that can be observed to - teleport (move from 1 place to another without moving physically between them, then that observation tells us - teleportation is physically possible. If objects can move without propulsion systems, it means that is physically possible and that a natural explanation exists and that we can learn what that natural explanation is.
The first step is observation and according to the government whistleblowers, that first step - observation - has occurred. We now need to move on to learning how it happens and how to control it happening.
Failure to be transparent about this decades ago - put our research back - decades.
The Case for Transparency
The lack of transparency surrounding UFOs emphasizes the importance of open, collaborative scientific investigation. It is a tragedy for humanity when information is hoarded rather than shared. Science thrives on collaboration, and none of us knows everything. To advance as a society, we must be open about what is known so that others can build upon existing knowledge. Whistleblowers from national security circles have stepped forward because they recognize the harm caused by the suppression of information.
Reframing the Questions
Instead of asking what UFOs are, we should question who we are as a species. The existence of non-human intelligences in the universe, if true, forces us to confront the essence of humanity and our place in the cosmos. This journey of self-discovery aligns with humanism, which is the applied study of what it means to be human. Acknowledging the existence of other intelligences can stimulate profound self-reflection and exploration of our human nature.
Conclusion
The UFO phenomenon and the associated issues of transparency and cognitive dissonance are complex and far-reaching. Regardless of one's worldview, the need for transparency and collaboration in exploring the unknown cannot be overstated.
As we navigate the uncertain terrain of UFO encounters, we must remember that the pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and self-discovery are intrinsically human endeavors. In the spirit of open-minded skepticism, we should embrace the call for openness and transparency and embark on the journey of exploration, not just of the cosmos but of ourselves as well.
We should not let fear stop us from researching this. We should be open minded skeptics. Search for natural explanations. Don't be so skeptical we ignore the evidence being provided to us.
If you have not watched the government hearings or Encounters - I think you should. It's a scientific and philosophic exploration of what people who claim to have had encounters are experiencing - both at the time and in the decades since their encounters.
A man does not show his greatness by being at one extremity,
but rather by touching both at once." ~ Blaise Pascal
I have several quotes I use to remind myself of philosophic
truths to help me navigate difficult situations. This is one of them. It’s a
reminder to me to see balance. Whenever I find myself drifting into a rigid
ideology, or I find myself arguing with someone thinking I am right and they are
wrong, I think of this quote. It’s a reminder to myself that we both can be
right. The opposite of a great truth is often another great truth.
Holding one truth to the exclusion of other truths doesn’t
help us solve our problems or win friends and influence others. Seeking a
balance between extremes – both of which are true, is a good way to try and
navigate life. That way you are taking advantage of all that is good and
hopefully avoiding the pitfalls that come with being at an extreme.
Here are some opposites that are both good but that need to
be balanced to achieve success.
Skepticism/Optimism
Skepticism is good. It keeps you honest and keeps you from
making mistakes. But taken to an extreme and all things become equal and
relative and it is impossible to make decisions because skepticism devolves
into nihilism. Which isn’t good.
Optimism is also a good quality – in moderation. Taken to an extreme and you
get unrealistic wishful thinking that not only doesn’t help you solve your
problems, the lack of realistic thinking makes it nearly impossible to solve
problems.
Balancing skepticism with optimism helps you be both
skeptical and optimistic at the same time. Helping you to avoid nihilism and
flights of fantasy to tread a more realistic path to your goals.
Responsibility
to self and to others
Responsibility is a good thing. It gives our lives meaning
and purpose.Too much responsibility and
we become overwhelmed and break down.If we only think of ourselves, we are selfish.
If we only think of others, we are self-less, but not in a good way.
In order to thrive we need to balance self-care with care
for others. If we don’t care for
ourselves, we cannot care for others. Balance is needed.
Capitalism/Socialism
I am like aspects of both capitalism and socialism.Capitalism is a pretty decent system for
allowing individuals to work on what they think is important. Laissez faire
capitalism is exploitative and cruel.
Socialism in moderation is also good. It helps us think of our impact on others
and to collaborate for the public good. Socialism taken to an extreme, where
only the community good matters, as with capitalism, also becomes exploitative
and cruel.
The problem in both
cases (extreme capitalism and extreme socialism) is that care and concern for
individuals gets lost in the ideology when taken to extreme. This is
unfortunate because in their moderate versions, they are both systems designed
to promote the welfare of the individual!
Balance helps us remember in our pursuit of happiness
(capitalism) that other people matter too(socialism). Finding the middle ground helps us get the benefits of both
systems without devolving into exploitation of the individual to advance a “greater
good”
Autonomy/Social
Responsibility
This last one also requires balance. We are all autonomous
individuals, but no one is or should be an island. Humans in isolation go
crazy. We are tribal animals and need our tribe to feel secure. Which is why we
need community.
But just as care of others (social responsibility) is a good
thing, too much means the loss of the individual or the subsuming of the
individual to the greater good of the community.
When we seek balance between our need for autonomy and the
need to be socially responsible we realize that by helping the community
thrive, we help ourselves thrive – as individuals. It’s not either or, we only
really thrive when we do both – in balance.
Conclusion:
When you find yourself struggling along some dimension in
your life, or in your work, the problem is probably causedby you valuing one ideal over it’s opposite
ideal and if you remind yourself to balance those competing ideals, you will
probably get a better result.
In honor of International Skeptics Day - I prepared this little presentation on why Humanists are such skeptics. It includes 5 reasons why skepticism is so helpful Humanists consider it an essential life skill.
Enjoy. Oh - forgot to mention. International Skeptics Day is also Make Your Dreams Come True Day! Skepticism can help with that too!
The two go together in most people’s mind. People who are
skeptics are often seen as annoyingly cynical.
No good news can be delivered without the cynic/skeptic throwing a big
pile of doubt into the mix, ruining the good feelings of everyone.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Doubt is a wonderful thing. Don’t get me
wrong. Doubting helps ensure you find out whether what you think you know is
really so. Good skeptics work very hard at figuring out what is true and what
is false. We don’t do this because we
are cynics. We do this because we are optimistic we can figure out what is fact
and what is fiction. In this way, doubt and skepticism are very optimistic
activities.
But doing doubt well takes skill. It
takes hard work. This is why its way
easier to be a cynic. A cynic doubts and
distrusts everything. They get to appear intelligent and smart, but they are
taking a shortcut by doubting everything. What they need to learn to do is to doubt
their doubt. Because while everything
may not be coming up roses, that doesn't mean that everything is going to hell
in a hand basket either. As usual, the
truth lies somewhere in between.
The thing I get the impression most people are cynical about
is other people. At least, that’s what’s expressed to me the most. People don’t
trust other people and so when I tell them they can fix a lot of their
interpersonal conflicts by being compassionate with other people, they are
skeptical. But really, the problem is that they are cynical. They just don’t
think that other people can be trusted. Or, they are afraid of other people.
Either way, they aren't willing to risk extending themselves in compassion to
others.
And that’s a shame, because most people are good people. They
are nice and you actually can trust them. The fact that there are jerks among
us who you can’t trust doesn't mean that everyone can’t be trusted. That’s a
cynic’s shortcut to avoid having to think. Most people can be trusted and there
are plenty of studies that back that up (Here’s one for example: http://www.wallettest.com/Lost_Wallet_Test/Results_Page.html)
So instead of being cynical, why not be skeptical of your “reasons”
for being cynical. Why not give the other person the benefit of the doubt and
see whether they are among the majority who can be trusted instead of assuming
they can’t be trusted just because of you are afraid. (Though clearly,
according to that study – you do need to watch your wallet around young men –
once they grow up though – they become as honest as the rest of us).
Anyway – if the stats don’t convince you to trust your
fellow humans and give them the benefit of the doubt, consider this. How do you
want to be treated? Do you want to be given the benefit of the doubt? I know I
do. So step outside your comfort zone
and take a chance on your fellow humans. After all, isn't that what being a
Humanist is all about?
I like that it provides science to back up what I already
feel which is that being optimistic is better than being pessimistic. And yeah,
I realize that is confirmation bias at work, but I am too much of an optimistic
to care.
Here is a synopsis:
“Though the belief in a better future is often an illusion,
optimism has clear benefits in the present. Hope keeps our minds at ease,
lowers stress, and improves physical health. This is probably the most
surprising benefit of optimism. All else being equal, optimists are healthier
and live longer. It is not just that healthy people are more optimistic, but
optimism can enhance health. Expecting our future to be good reduces stress and
anxiety, which is good for our health. Researchers studying heart attack
patients have found that optimists were more likely than nonoptimistic patients
to take vitamins, eat low-fat diets, and exercise, thereby reducing their
overall coronary risk. A study of cancer patients revealed that pessimistic
patients under the age of 60 were more likely to die within eight months than
nonpessimistic patients of the same initial health, status, and age.”
In other words, optimism may be a bit irrational but that
doesn’t really matter because the optimism helps us cope better with difficulties,
leads us to take better care of ourselves and plan more effectively for the
future. Take that pessimistic skeptics – you know who you are! Of course, the
standard caveat applies – all things in moderation. The pessimistic skeptics
aren’t completely wrong either – as always, it’s about getting the balance
right.
The real question is what are you irrationally optimistic
about and why do you cling to your optimism despite it all?
Came across this graphic the other day. “The only people mad at you for speaking the
truth are those who are living a lie. Keep speaking it.” Being a Humanist and a natural born thinker,
my first thought was yeah, but how do you know if you are speaking the truth or
not. Maybe you are the one who is
speaking a lie and you just think it’s the truth. and the reason everyone else
is mad at you is because you refuse to embrace reality and you are causing all
sorts of problems as a result.
Humanists are naturally skeptical. I realize this graphic is meant to inspire
people to keep pushing when they think they are right. But we Humanists prefer
to actually be right. So, the first thing we do when we encounter opposition to
our ideas is not to assume we are on the right track because people are mad.
But to find out WHY people are mad at us in the first place. Again, don’t
assume you know. You could be wrong.
It is only after a humbling bit of soul searching,
self-reflection of our motives to ensure we aren’t deluding ourselves combined with quite a bit of research to find out if we have our facts straight or not
that we can move forward, assuming that we found out that we were indeed right
all along.
So yes, people do get mad at people who speak the truth. But
before you assume that you are speaking the truth, double check to make sure you aren’t actually repeating a
damaging lie
I got an email from someone over the weekend who had heard me on Skepticality. Which is great. They were very excited to find out that they weren’t the only people who hold the Humanist philosophy and were even more excited to learn that there are Humanist groups all over the country, including where they live.
I bring this up because we Humanists need to do better. If active members of the skeptic movement who consider themselves to be Humanists aren’t aware of the existence of the Humanist movement then we Humanists simply aren’t doing a good enough job of spreading the word. We shouldn’t be assuming that our fellow Humanists, skeptics, freethinkers, Brights and Atheists know we exist or that we have, you know, groups and stuff. Because they don’t and won’t unless we tell them.
We also shouldn’t assume that people in these movements know whether or not they are Humanists. Again, if no one bothers to talk about the philosophy, we can’t expect people to know about it. We need to do better.
I have been helping a friend of mine from Bahrain edit an essay about Humanism. I am loving the essay. It continues to astonish me how people from all over the world manage to reach the same conclusions about life. Anyway, he said I could share some of it with you and the bit I want to share has to do with balancing the competing aspects of the Humanist philosophy. As I agree whole-heartedly I am sharing it here.
He quotes Barry Seidman who is a writer, producer and Humanist who wrote in an essay titled Imagine All the People the following statement.
If we cling to atheism as the basis for our behavior in society, then we may become what I call, "atheist avengers," putting our energies in debunking God while leaving social justice issues behind. If we only focus on science and skepticism we risk the twin evils of elitism and arrogance, finding more strength in attacking religionists or debunking the masses, than in making the world a better place to live. And if we focus only on social justice issues and ignore the problems of supernaturalism and the tool of science, we can find ourselves trapped in the labyrinth of postmodernism, and wind up building our societies on the fallacy that humans have free will. - Barry Seidman
My friend, A.R.M. of Bahrain, sums up the various aspects of Humanism thusly “So humanistic thoughts mostly concentrate on living a peaceful life, doing good, research, critical thinking, social justice, making the world better place to live, free will, and democracy.” Now that’s what I call balance.
