Humans Are Not Rational Creatures

Humans are not rational beings.  This is true even for those of us who value reason and logic and evidence.  Scientists, philosophers, lawyers, plumbers, priests and ministers and rabbis and mullahs, accountants, engineers, and on and on.  If you are human you are not, at your core, a rational being. You may have learned how to be rational in some areas of your life, perhaps even many.  But it is not your go to knee jerk response.  By the way let me say that this is neither a bad thing nor a good thing.  It just is. At times it is good. At other times, not so good. 

I had this truth of our non-rational nature brought home to me in a discussion with a group that largely expounds the value of reason and logic, my fellow atheists. Atheists, like every other human group, due to our own motivations that can run “deeper than reason” (“The Varieties of Atheism” by David Newheiser, page 8), can find ourselves prone to certain wrong beliefs. 

 My most recent experience verifying the truth of this is with two beliefs that are popular among some (although I do not think most) atheists.  The first is the belief that a man named Jesus whose life and teachings were the basis for the creation of Christianity did not actually exist and was really nothing more than the concoction, either deliberately or unconsciously, of a particular society at a particular time. In other words, Jesus was totally fictional.  Related to this is a second belief that Nazareth either did not exist or was not inhabited during Jesus’s time.  They believed this despite the fact that the vast majority of historians and biblical scholars say the evidence strongly supports the claim that a man named Jesus existed.  And that Nazareth was inhabited during his time.

To be clear here, what these historians and scholars are saying is that evidence strongly supports that Jesus existed.  He was a man who was an itinerant, likely illiterate, preacher who was charismatic and had unique teachings that touched lives.  He was likely an apocalyptic preacher too. This preacher was found to be a threat to the Romans, as many thousands were, and was crucified and died.  End of his physical story.  But though dead his life and teachings were remembered and then added to so that eventually Jesus Christ came into being.  He, a man, was the kernel at the core of the myth.  

So, even though there is no claim that Jesus actually did miracles, that Jesus raised the dead, that Jesus was the Son of God, or that Jesus died and was resurrected and, instead, that he was merely a man (exceptional, but still man), many Atheists object and deny this evidence. 

Now I am not going to go over why the great majority of historians believe the evidence that Jesus existed is very strong and do not doubt that the man indeed did exist.  Or that Nazareth was inhabited during the time of Jesus.  Instead, I am going to discuss the form of arguments being used to defend the idea that Jesus did not exist and show how they mirror the arguments used by young earth creationists against evolution, climate change deniers, those who claim the 2020 elections were stolen, flat earthers, etc.  In fact, you usually will find variants of these sorts of arguments used by all of those defending irrational beliefs. Which should not be surprising given that if evidence and reason do not support your position then you almost have to go with something else.

• Impugning the motives of these historians and scholars.  When I pointed out that these historians’ personal religious views covered a wide range – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist – and yet they all agreed that Jesus as a man did exist, the responses I often received back was that historians could not be trusted on this due to them needing a paycheck and a career.  This is a very common argument I have seen used by climate change deniers and young earth creationists in regards to scientists. 
• Ignore and deny.  Often this is accompanied by moving on to another point they feel favors them.  As an example, they would ignore the fact that I provided archaeological evidence for Nazareth being populated during Jesus’s time and, instead, added more and more “evidence” of another nature that the person thought proved Nazareth was not.
• Presenting false “facts”, incomplete “facts”, or twisted “facts”.  For example, one said that the gospel of Mark does not call Jesus a Nazarene.  While technically correct in that Mark did not call Jesus a Nazarene, Mark in the first chapter does state that Jesus came from Nazareth.  Or a different person pointing out that Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, ignoring that most towns in that area were not mentioned in the Old Testament.  Towns were mentioned only if something or someone of importance came from that town.  In Nazareth nothing important happened until Jesus was born there.  So, no mention.  
• Not providing sources when asked.  Often/usually I was told that I should be able to find it on my own.  Again, a tactic common among young earth creationists and climate change deniers.
• Requiring unrealistic standards of proof.  For example, them pointing out that Roman records during Jesus’s life do not mention him. If the historians claimed that the Jesus who was a miracle worker with many thousands of followers and who rose from the dead and called himself the Son of God, then possibly they might have a point.  However, that is not what the historians are saying.  They are saying that Jesus was an illiterate, itinerant apocalyptic preacher.  Why would the authorities notice him? They had them by the scores in Palestine and crucified many of them.  It was a routine day in Palestine.  This is as wrong an expectation as that of the young earth creationist who shouts out that if evolution happened then why are there still apes!  Most illiterate poor people are not mentioned at the time.  Or ever for that matter. 
• And finally, the one that really blew my mind a bit.  I am used to occasionally being called a Christian. But I think this was the first time that someone had said that some atheists are engaged in Christian apologetics.  I was told that Bart Ehrmann was a Christian apologist.  That the atheist historian I referenced was one too.  And that I too am a Christian apologist, even though I have been an atheist for 49 years and have it documented on my blog going back to 2009.  

The irrationality of this latter claim, that I and other atheists are Christian apologists for believing and arguing that Jesus exists is made clear when you consider that the Christian religions consists of believing not only that Jesus was a man but that he was also God, is eternal, and died for our sins so that we too can have life after death and that this three in one man performed miracles and raised the dead.  If you deny these aspects of Jesus then you are not a Christian apologist and no Christians would consider you a Christian. Even though you agree that a man named Jesus whose words and teachings became the basis of Christianity existed.  

Acknowledging that there is a man who, by the way, was extremely unlikely to have ever claimed any sort of divinity, and who, though charismatic and with teachings that inspired people, did not perform miracles of any sort and who died, thoroughly and eternally died, after being crucified in no way supports that fundamental basis of Christian belief.  It, in fact undermines it, totally and completely.  To say that just acknowledging this reality is Christian apologetics is akin to saying that since I believe Muhammad existed then I must be a Muslim apologist, or since I believed that Siddhartha Gautama founded Buddhism then I must be a Buddhist apologist, and so on. 

As for why people hold these beliefs against both reasons and evidence, I would imagine there is no one reason, but a varied assortment the specifics of which depend on the person and belief.   I am not  going to explore this in detail here, but let me mention one that that I do know of from past experiences and conversations.

I found in my discussion with young earth creationists that their belief that the earth is young is one of their greatest and most important beliefs.  Likely because it is part of their religious belief in a literal Bible, a belief that provides comfort and makes sense of an often senseless world.  And gives hope. This provides a great deal of emotional motivation to protect that belief and means that all other information and evidence and reasoning is not as important and has to be made to either fit into the young earth idea or explained away, no matter how irrational the reasoning needed to do so.  After all, when all other alternatives have been eliminated then the one left, no matter how outrageous, has to be true.  

The equivalent of this for some atheists is a belief that not only does God not exist but that Christianity is evil and a lie.  This is likely sparked by their own experiences with both religion and Christianity and so has a powerful emotional component.  Such a belief shapes their view and understanding of the world, as the young earth does for the creationist, or the political fear of a big government to many climate change deniers.  All new information, reasoning, and facts have to be worked around that fundamental belief in some way, shape, fashion or form. 

Now, these are not the only motivations or reasons.  As I said, there are many.  But it gives an idea as to what I think is often going on in these conversations. It is not our learned reason but, instead, our core irrational side, our emotions.

In regard to the blog on this subject, evidence and reason show that a man named Jesus existed.  He was born and raised in Nazareth.  His teachings and words were the spark that created Christianity.  However, he was not God.  He did not perform miracles.  He did not believe he was God, or the Messiah in the sense it is meant today, and probably not then either.    That is not Christian apologetics.  It is just reality.  One that is distasteful to most Christians and that they would strongly and fervently disagree with.  A distaste that some atheists also share, although for different reasons. 

Atheists, like all humans, hold irrational beliefs, some of whom will strongly defend them despite their irrationality.  In this case, arguing fervently that Jesus did not exist at all, despite the evidence.  Even more interesting is how they use the same tactics of young earth creationists and climate change deniers to justify this wrong belief.  Thus, showing that they too are merely human, an inherently irrational creature who has learned to reason but cannot always (nor should they) hold all their beliefs rationally. 

Read Full Post »

Celebrating the Irrational

Atheists as a group, myself included, celebrate and praise reason, evidence, and logic (REL) – the elements of rationality.   And with good reason.   It is our ability to use and manipulate REL that distinguishes us from all the other creatures we share this world with.  It is our creation and use of REL that has allowed us to not only learn so much about the universe we live in but to also control those forces governing the universe for our benefit.   And it is our continued use of REL that provides the only true opportunity to overcome many of our current and future challenges.

It is for all of these very good reasons that atheists sing the praises of REL.  So much so that I often think that many atheists forget that while our creation and use of REL distinguishes us from other animals, REL is not what defines as an individual human being:  the irrational does.   We were created with the ability to use rationality, but we were not created to be rational.   That is something many atheists often overlook, or if not overlook then denounce.   I do neither.  Instead, in this blog I celebrate the irrationality that is our humanity by looking at two aspects of our lives – our language and our relationship with animals.

Language

Rationally and logically language was created to communicate.  To achieve that purpose it must be clear and precise and limited in its ability to communicate fuzzily, to mislead, to cause errors in understanding.   Scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals are the epitome of such use of language.

However, the evidence clearly shows that the language we use in everyday living, that we enjoy using the most, that gives us the most pleasure is not this precise language.   Instead it is the irrational use of language; the cloudy, misleading, hazy, unfocused type of language that most delights.

Puns and poems and limericks, oh my!   Tall tales, figures of speech, and parables are the source of enjoyment.   Exaggerations , metaphors, personifications are the stuff of everyday language.

“Well, you’re a pretty sight”, “Look at what the cat dragged in”, “Hotter than hell”, “Raining cats and dogs” and the list goes ever on and one.

Metaphors

I’m a riddle in nine syllables,
An elephant, a ponderous house,
A melon strolling on two tendrils.
O red fruit, ivory, fine timbers!
This loaf’s big with its yeasty rising.
Money’s new-minted in this fat purse.
I’m a means, a stage, a cow in calf.
I’ve eaten a bag of green apples,
Boarded the train there’s no getting off.

Sylvia Plath

 

While the meticulously precise language of science is necessary, it is not what defines us as humans.  Nursery rhymes and limericks, stories of all types – mysteries, fantasies, romances, etc – these uses of language contribute more to a satisfying life than the words in a scientific journal.

Even scientists whose job is to communicate to their fellows in words precise and well defined know this as evidenced by their communication with the public.  Carl Sagan used the imagery of the “Demon Haunted World” and of “Science as a Candle in the Dark” in one of his famous books.   Evidence suggests that to fully satisfy words must reach out beyond the REL.   Otherwise they miss the human.

We delight in fiction which terrifies us causing us to cower in light filled rooms, which makes us cry and mourn the pain or death of a person who was never born, which fills us with love for those who will never know us, causes us to overflow with humor so that it spills out as laughter, or fills us with wonder at worlds that exist only in imagination shared.   Yet, there is no rational basis for such enjoyment.  Yet the human race would not be human without such literature, such films and plays, such words.

Lose the scientific journals and papers and humanity would still be – hurting, shorter lived, ignorant of many things, but still be.  In fact, we were for many thousands of years.

Lose the ability to play with words, to be touched and moved by them, to create puns and limericks, to create mystery and wonder with words and what remains would be knowledgeable but it would no longer be human.

Pets 

Like language, animals have also provided us with many benefits – shepherds and guardian of our flocks, catchers of rats who pilfer our grain, muscle for plows and muscle for speed.   And yet, while these are all the REL reasons for treasuring them, we go far beyond this; irrationally far.

We collect and care for animals that provide us with no benefit – parrots, snakes, gerbils, and on and on and on.   We take animals that are beneficial and then provide them a life of leisure free from all the work that was our original excuse for keeping them.   Even more, we become emotionally attached to these animals, almost and occasionally as much as we do to our own children.  We suffer and grieve over their loss.  And then, although we know that we will outlive them, we find more to love after one has died.

Animals do not have to even live with us for this attachment to form.   Look at how popular some zoo animals become to people, again so much so that people grieve when they die.   Look at how upset and angry people become when some unknown dog is brutalized in a dog fight or mistreated by their owners by being kept out without water or shade during the heat of a summer.   Or at how many teared up at seeing the photo of man holding his dog of almost two decades in the lake to relieve his four legged fried of the pain of arthritis long enough to  sleep.

In fact, in attenuated form, this sort of attachment can even extend to the inanimate – classic cars or favored family car, Star War figures,  old childhood stuffed playmates.

These actions and emotions have no rational basis.   Instead they fill an irrational need, a human need, a need of emotions not reason.   And speaking as a pet lover, I value this irrationality of mine and would never give it up.

These are just two of the many ways that the irrational defines us as human beings.  And is it really so surprising that the irrational should be so important to the definition of human?   After all, we are the product of an irrational process.

Ask any older man suffering from too many frustratingly unproductive trips to the bathroom about the rationality of his prostate’s design.   Or any woman suffering through the pains of childbirth about the rationality of her birth canal’s design.   Or any man or woman suffering from slipped discs the rationality of the design of the back.  They will all tell you, and any engineer will confirm, that the process that designed the human body was not rational.

So, given this, is it any wonder that it is the irrational the gives shape and color and meaning to our lives.  While the irrationality of our meanings and pleasures can and sometimes do share the trait of our physical irrational design of creating many of  humanity’s problems, they also provide us our joy, our pleasure, our meaning.   Rather like our irrational bodies – without our ill designed back we would not be walking upright, without the birth canal we would not have our intelligence, and without our prostrate design…..ok, that one I see no upside on.   However, many of these ill designed features make us who we are as humans.  So too with these other irrational traits.

So, far from condemning all forms of irrationality, I chose instead to celebrate much of it.  For without it we are no longer human.  And, rational or not, I enjoy and value my humanity.  It is this that makes life REAL.     

Read Full Post »