This morning as I did my chores George Harrison's song "Brainwashed" hummed through my earphones coming along with me as I walked my dogs, prepared and served breakfast for my children and later washed them while looking out at the woods that lay beyond the window before me gilded by a warm hue of a sun just risen.
This isn't all that bad, at least in the beginning of our lives. In fact it is essential for our survival. We readily accept and conform to information our authorities have to give us that is critical in assuring our safety. If we were to question or pause or altogether rebel against some of the information we were given in early childhood without simply trusting it was true it would be to our own potential demise. For example, if we were to test the idea that crossing the road without looking both ways was an insignificant and irrelevant rule we would quickly, perhaps permanently, realize how we indeed should have heeded such instruction.
As we get older and our thinking becomes more complex and our participation in this world becomes more involved we have a certain responsibility to not be led around on a proverbial leash guiding us this way and that, hindering us from breaking free and discovering deeper truths on our own. We somehow need to filter the wheat from the chaff, to somehow decipher fact from fiction and move past the herd like mentality that our society endorses.
The need and desire to conform to the ideas around us is incredibly strong for with conforming comes acceptance and everyone wants to be accepted. But at what price? We must dig deeper for the truths no matter at what cost. But how? When the very sources that we might go to for truth and clarification might also have their own biases and objectives that far from revealing actual reality might even be designed to manipulate us into digesting a distorted view of it for their benefit. How do we know what is truth and what is not? Who we can and cannot trust? In a world of dancing illusions how do we find clarity?
This is where Richard Dawkins steps on the stage and helps us out. What does Dawkins and Harrison have in common? They both believe in the reality that the masses have a strong propensity to be brainwashed by the suggestive ideologies they are exposed to. By our teachers, our parents, those in authority. Dawkins is a prominent atheist who speaks strongly against the indoctrination of children and the maligning of truth in order to carry out one objective or another. His criticism is strongly projected outwards towards the religious community, but regardless of your views towards his criticisms directed at religion, Dawkins has a thing or two to teach us all about critical thinking and finding the truth amidst the obscurity of illusion, group mentality and wishful thinking.
In the film that I watched (Faith School Menace?) Dawkins shares with viewers part of a letter that he wrote to his ten year old daughter encouraging her to think critically about all the information that she will receive as she grows older and to not be taken in by deceit but to think for herself. In his letter he tells his daughter one good reason to believe something is true is evidence. Strong evidence. He also shares that there are three bad reasons to believe something is true. I completely agree with him on this one. The bad reasons he shares in his letter are the following (these are his words):
1. Tradition. Believe it because our people have always believed it. It has been handed down over generations. The trouble with tradition is that no matter how long ago a story was made up it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was.
2. Authority. Believe it because your parents do. Believe it because a priest does. Believe it because a teacher does or a holy book does.
3. Revelation. Believe something because it just feels right.
He goes on to write to his daughter, " And next time somebody tells you something is true why not say to them, "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer I hope you will think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
While both Dawkins and Harrison believe in the reality that we are all are vulnerable to indoctrination in one way or another their methods in seeking clarity in truth seem to differ. As we just saw Dawkins relies on strong scientific evidence to determine what is true. Harrison, however, seems to seek truth and clarity from another source. Here are some additional verses from his song "Brainwashed":
"God God God
You are the wisdom that we seek
God God God
The lover that we miss
God God God
Your nature is eternity
God God God
Your are Existence, Knowledge, Bliss...
God God God
Won't you lead us through this mess
God God God
From the places of concrete
God God God
Nothing's worse than ignorance
God God God
I just won't accept defeat..."
One man seeks God as a source for clarity and truth and the other seeks evidence. The question I pose to those that read this is: Could they be one and the same?
Now bear with me...I can almost see or hear some of the reactions at this point! For sure there most likely is no reconciliation between the two depending on the definition one uses of "God". Certainly some versions of God actually add on layers of illusions to one's perceptions of reality. But perhaps there's a whole other version of what God could mean that could help us unravel these illusions, layer by layer, eventually exposing us to a naked core of truth, of reality itself. A conception of God that, far from contradicting with the evidence, is the embodiment of that evidence itself.
Some say religion and science cannot be mixed. They are like oil and water. That is very true for the most part. But spirituality in its most revealing form, I believe, can create a harmonious and beautiful synergy adding depth and richness to both while compromising the integrity of neither.
Thoughts? I'd love to hear them! Please leave them in the comments section. Thank you!
This is where Richard Dawkins steps on the stage and helps us out. What does Dawkins and Harrison have in common? They both believe in the reality that the masses have a strong propensity to be brainwashed by the suggestive ideologies they are exposed to. By our teachers, our parents, those in authority. Dawkins is a prominent atheist who speaks strongly against the indoctrination of children and the maligning of truth in order to carry out one objective or another. His criticism is strongly projected outwards towards the religious community, but regardless of your views towards his criticisms directed at religion, Dawkins has a thing or two to teach us all about critical thinking and finding the truth amidst the obscurity of illusion, group mentality and wishful thinking.
In the film that I watched (Faith School Menace?) Dawkins shares with viewers part of a letter that he wrote to his ten year old daughter encouraging her to think critically about all the information that she will receive as she grows older and to not be taken in by deceit but to think for herself. In his letter he tells his daughter one good reason to believe something is true is evidence. Strong evidence. He also shares that there are three bad reasons to believe something is true. I completely agree with him on this one. The bad reasons he shares in his letter are the following (these are his words):
1. Tradition. Believe it because our people have always believed it. It has been handed down over generations. The trouble with tradition is that no matter how long ago a story was made up it is still exactly as true or untrue as the original story was.
2. Authority. Believe it because your parents do. Believe it because a priest does. Believe it because a teacher does or a holy book does.
3. Revelation. Believe something because it just feels right.
He goes on to write to his daughter, " And next time somebody tells you something is true why not say to them, "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer I hope you will think very carefully before you believe a word they say."
"God God God
You are the wisdom that we seek
God God God
The lover that we miss
God God God
Your nature is eternity
God God God
Your are Existence, Knowledge, Bliss...
God God God
Won't you lead us through this mess
God God God
From the places of concrete
God God God
Nothing's worse than ignorance
God God God
I just won't accept defeat..."
One man seeks God as a source for clarity and truth and the other seeks evidence. The question I pose to those that read this is: Could they be one and the same?
Now bear with me...I can almost see or hear some of the reactions at this point! For sure there most likely is no reconciliation between the two depending on the definition one uses of "God". Certainly some versions of God actually add on layers of illusions to one's perceptions of reality. But perhaps there's a whole other version of what God could mean that could help us unravel these illusions, layer by layer, eventually exposing us to a naked core of truth, of reality itself. A conception of God that, far from contradicting with the evidence, is the embodiment of that evidence itself.
Some say religion and science cannot be mixed. They are like oil and water. That is very true for the most part. But spirituality in its most revealing form, I believe, can create a harmonious and beautiful synergy adding depth and richness to both while compromising the integrity of neither.
Thoughts? I'd love to hear them! Please leave them in the comments section. Thank you!
