Why we can be rational but not nihilistic

The nihilistic view that there is no objective way to measure the value of anything is definitely unsatisfactory and self-defeatist, so that even extreme atheists do not appeal to rationalism alone.  At some point, most people recognize that while the human experience might not matter to the universe, it matters to humans, and that is a good starting place.

But even if we reject nihilism as a defining world-view, it is still possible to use it to justify the formation of any kind of belief, no matter how unmotivated it may be.  This is, I think, common ammunition against atheists, and against outspoken atheists in particular.  An atheist decries religion as irrational, but an astute theist can easily show, nihilistically, that the atheist's concern for rationality is itself irrational.  "So, you think it is bad for me to be irrational?  OK, then - by what objective standard do you say that irrationality is bad?"  Of course, there is no objective standard, and the atheist is shown to be, to some extent, irrational himself.  The atheist's concern for rationality is thrown right back into his face.

The presumption in this case is that all irrationality is created equal.  Nihilistically, I suppose that is true.¹  After all, if you say that being only a little bit irrational is better than being highly irrational, you are making a non-objective value judgment.  So the atheist cannot respond by saying, "well, I am being less irrational than you, and that is better."  In any event, that kind of playground response does not seem befitting for so deep a question.

There is something unsettling about appealing to nihilism to justify religious belief, if for no other reason than it is a somewhat paradoxical construction - "I am OK with my own irrationality because it is irrational for me to care that I am being irrational."  It is as if nihilism is recognized as the fullest extent of rationalism, and that there is therefore no real reason to care about being irrational, so that somehow, absolute rationalism cannot say anything bad about irrationality itself.  Weird.

The solution to the problem is, I think, to recognize that value judgments are a human invention, and to embrace the fact.  While nothing can be shown to objectively matter to the universe, things can definitely be shown to matter to people, to humanity.  Every possible question that we can ask, scientifically or religiously, is inseparably rooted in the human element - even reason itself is human.  To place rationality in a sphere where human beings are not part of the picture is to render it altogether useless.  Rationality, as a system of human thought, must recognize its human origins to avoid careening off toward nihilistic oblivion.

So, perhaps an atheist might defend his own irrational insistence that rationality has intrinsic value by appealing to the human experience itself.  The value of rationality stems from the human need for it.  This doesn't seem too hypocritical: if rational thought is a human institution (it is), then using the human experience to define value seems rational enough.  That's what I meant to suggest by saying that "the human condition matters to humans."

1. Actually, saying that all irrationality is equal is itself a value judgment that cannot be supported objectively.  It would be more proper to say that no amount of irrationality is demonstrably worse than another.

Rationalism and Nihilism

Over the course of several years, I somehow grew into the idea that rationality is sort of the holy grail when it comes to truth-seeking: it is rigorous and procedural, it takes care to minimize the effect of human emotion, and it is open-minded and self-correcting.  Given all these strengths, it seemed a perfect tool.  I learned to apply it in all particulars of my life, from work and school to relationships and religion.

I was shocked, disappointed, and annoyed when I discovered that religion and rationality don't get along.  There is place for reason in religious circles, but when it comes to belief in deity... there is simply no rational way to arrive at that kind of belief.  There is no evidence.  And the experience that usually leads people toward God is subjective and logically unsound.

There was a sort of crisis of belief, when I contemplated what it might mean to turn my back on the religion in which I was raised.  I didn't feel like I could honestly remain an active church member when everyone around me was saying stuff that I didn't believe in.  It was all so irrational, yet everyone was OK with it.  I sort of hovered in this half-interested state, where I went through the motions to keep the peace and avoid confrontation.

Later, while contemplating the exact nature of rationality, I realized that it, too, has limitations: pursuing rationalism alone leads to an unsatisfactory nihilistic view of the world, where nothing matters because there is no rational basis for establishing a standard to measure good and evil, right and wrong, and better and worse.  Reason alone cannot provide an objective method for determining value, establishing morals, and giving meaning to life.

Nihilism is the end result of my previous posts about assumptions - we make assumptions in order to form our own world-views, but there is nothing to recommend one set of assumptions over another.  As someone pointed out to me, even the idea that we can know anything at all is itself an assumption.  The idea that life has meaning is an assumption.  Unfortunately, these basic assumptions about knowledge and meaning aren't strictly rational.  They are motivated by the human desire to know things and to feel like the human experience somehow matters.  But for all we know, the universe doesn't give a rat's about us, and when we are gone, we are gone.

The implication?  If we want any real meaning in life, if we want to feel like we know anything at all, then we have to be irrational.  Somewhere along the line of reason, we have to take an irrational leap and build our world-views on it.  The only alternative is nihilism.

This realization is at once disconcerting and liberating for me.  It is disconcerting because it puts us poor humans in a position that basically forces either irrationality or despair.  On the other hand, it is liberating because it recognizes that the human experience is subjective to the core - it recognizes that what really matters is what matters to me, to us, not what matters to the universe.  Since the human experience is subjective anyway, we have license to build a world-view that appeals most to our biological brains.  That world-view could either include or exclude God, and the rational universe wouldn't care.  Only people care.

Business Pipelines

Suppose that you are an entrepreneur and you want to start an online retailing company.  You understand at the start that you will need to set up systems to handle order processing and fulfillment, customer support, inventory management, returned merchandise, accounting, etc., etc.  But what if you had started other ventures in the past and already had infrastructure set up to handle those things?

For example, what about inventory management and order processing?  Irrespective of the product that you sell, you will need warehouse space to store inventory (assuming that you aren't doing a drop-ship only operation), you will need systems for tracking inventory, space for filling orders and storing shipping supplies, and not least of all, you will need to have personnel who are trained to take orders, retrieve the merchandise from the warehouse, package it, and ship it to where it needs to go in an efficient and timely manner.

Suppose that, as a serial entrepreneur, you already owned a warehouse and that you had already set up systems to handle shipments and train personnel.  Suddenly, starting a new retailing company isn't as big a task because much of the work is done already.  Your warehousing infrastructure is a like a pipeline into which you can push new business ideas more or less at will.  In fact, if your operation were efficient and automated enough, you could go into business handling inventory and order fulfillment for other companies!  (Incidentally, there are lots of companies that do this if you are willing to pay for it).

The same thinking applies for other aspects of the business, from customer support to marketing to human resources.

Thinking about business in this way makes it much more interesting than it might be otherwise.  An entrepreneur isn't "selling stuff."  Rather, an entrepreneur is building machines and pipelines to automate the money-making process.  I want to start an online retailing company simply so that I can build warehousing and customer support pipelines (making money in the process is, of course, a big plus).

Lessons for Entrepreneurs

Suppose that you want to start your own business.  You have a killer idea for a new product, you already have a prototype, and you think it will sell really well. You just need to build it and start selling it, right?

Wrong.  Unfortunately, there is much more to it than that.  When I started my own company I figured that I would be doing what I loved to do - that is, design and sell inertial and orientation sensors.  I quickly learned, however, that designing the sensor itself is just a small part of the process.  Running a business is a full-time job and if you want to be successful, you have to have a good plan beyond "I'm just going to make these and sell them!"

As a start, I've listed a few things below that you have to think carefully about.

Manufacturing

How are you going to make your product?

If your answer to this question is "Well, I'll just make them myself," then you are already off on the wrong foot.  If your business experiences any appreciable growth, you will quickly be overwhelmed - and not just because you can't make your widgets fast enough.  You will inevitably discover that running your business would be a full-time job even if you didn't have to make everything yourself.

If you are bootstrapping a new company (ie. starting with very little capital) doing manufacturing yourself might seem like a great option because it is cheaper and easier than setting up systems to do it elsewhere.  With a little work, though, you can find ways around it.  If you do end up doing your own manufacturing, then make sure you have a solid plan to stop doing it as soon as possible.  Your business will grow, and you need a plan to make it happen.  Don't be reactive or you'll hate life.

Marketing and Sales

How will you market your product?  How will you accept orders?  Who will handle order fulfillment?

Order fulfillment can be a headache.  Suppose you have a system set up to take orders online.  You make it live and, magically, the orders start streaming in.  What now?  Do you intend to print sales receipts and shipping labels, package, and ship each individual order yourself?  You might get away with it for a while, but if you have any appreciable sales volume, you will find yourself swamped trying to stay caught up.  You will run out of time, guaranteed.

It is easy to dismiss this problem by saying, "well, if order volume gets too high, then I'll just hire someone to do shipping."  That's a good idea, but it's something that needs to be planned carefully and in detail.  Where will your employees work?  How much will it really cost to hire them (after taxes, unemployment insurance, accounting, etc.)?  How will you train them so that you don't have to always be around to make sure that they do a good job?  What kinds of systems will you need to have set up to make sure that employees don't make mistakes when handling orders?  You need to answer these questions in careful detail before starting your company.

Customer Support

No matter how good and well documented your product is, your customers will always have questions.  There will always be returns for defective products.  There will always be lost shipments, incorrect addresses, damaged packages.  How are you going to deal with these problems?

Again, the tendency is to think "I'll do it myself until I hire someone."  But the same problems apply.  You need a plan.  At what sales volume do you expect to have to hire someone to stay caught up?  Can you afford to hire an employee at that point?  What about training? ... etc. etc.

Sales Taxes, Licensing, Accounting, Export Regulations, Legal Problems...

These are the uncomfortable, nitty-gritty necessaries inside any business.  Expect to spend long hours keeping the books straight, making sure you plan for taxes, looking up shipping regulations, and generally lubing the cogs on your little startup to keep it running.

Can you see how you can become quickly overwhelmed if you don't plan carefully?  You can't handle manufacturing, customer support, marketing and sales, order fulfillment, and everything else on your own.  Even if you are "partners" with one or more other people, things can quickly spin out of control if you don't plan ahead (who is responsible for what?  where does the "buck" ultimately stop?)

Incidentally, the same principles apply regardless of the type of business you are starting.  An online retailer may not have to worry about manufacturing directly, but there will be issues with your supply chain, your relationships with manufacturers, etc.  A software company will still have support and potentially shipping problems.  A service-oriented business will have significant personnel management overhead.  There isn't really an easy way out...

Choosing Religious Assumptions

In my last post, I talked a little about assumptions that we have to make to arrive at religious beliefs based on spiritual feelings (I recommend that you read it before reading this one).  In this post, I will talk a little more about that.

As an example of how we make assumptions to arrive at religious belief, consider Mormonism.  In Mormonism, it is believed that God is the source of all truth, and that truth is communicated through the Holy Ghost.  By studying and praying, an individual can learn the truth about why we are here, what roles our families play, what happens after this life, who Jesus Christ was, what He did for us, etc.

The critical assumptions in this case are that:

1. God exists
2. God is interested in us
3. God is capable of teaching us
4. God teaches us through the Holy Ghost
5. The Holy Ghost communicates by giving us feelings of peace and comfort

These are "critical" assumptions because, if you don't make them, you can't find truth using the method prescribed by Mormonism (It is worth noting that the Mormon view of God's role in leading us to truth is not at all unique among Christian sects).

Now, is there anything special about the five assumptions that I listed?  Is there any specific, logical reason to accept these assumptions instead of another set?  For example, suppose that instead I start with a slightly modified set of assumptions:

1. God exists
2. God is interested in us
3. God is unwilling or unable to communicate with us directly
4. God designed us so that we feel good when we pursue constructive beliefs, even if they are false

This second set of assumptions has as much logical backing as the first, and it will lead to an entirely different belief system from that taught by Christian sects.  We could make hundreds of sets of assumptions on which to build religious beliefs, sets which have as much rational footing as any other.  That's why I mentioned in a previous post that beliefs can be seen as arbitrary - there really isn't anything to recommend one set of assumptions over another other than what happens to feel the best or make the most sense.

Does this mean that we shouldn't believe in God?  Not really.  After all, refusing to believe in God simply creates a different set of assumptions - a set in which God does not exist.  I think that the lesson to take from this is that we should be aware that the methods we use to arrive at religious belief aren't exactly well-founded.  We should allow for the possibility that we could be wrong, that there might be other systems of belief that are at least as valid as our own.  We should be unwilling to do things in the name of God or religion that conscience would generally decry as immoral.

There are also implications in terms of how we view people who have "fallen away" from faith.  All other things being equal (ie. no substantial loss of healthy moral standards), how can anyone say that an individual is worse-off because she decided to build a world-view using a different set of arbitrary assumptions?

Spiritualism

For lack of a better term, I'm using the term "spiritualism" to describe a certain way of looking at the world.  I'm guessing that someone else has already developed more or less the same worldview that I will describe in this post, and that it is probably already called by another name.  Maybe there is a whole philosophy built around it, I don't know.  If you happen to know, tell me so I can read about it.

The fundamental idea behind spiritualism is that it recognizes both the existence and the value of transcendental experiences, but it refuses to attach doctrinal significance to those experiences.  Rather, it takes a strictly existential view of them. Spiritualism only concerns itself with the existential interpretation of the transcendental.  Ugh, what a mouthful.

What I mean should become clear if I explain in a little more detail.  A "transcendental experience" is often called a "spiritual" or a "mystical" experience - it is something that falls outside the norm of everyday experience.  In Christian circles, a common transcendental experience might be described as a "burning," as the influence of the Holy Ghost, or even as pure enlightenment and understanding from God.

There is absolutely no question that these kinds of experiences exist: they have been reported by so many people in so many different contexts that there is little room for doubt.  Recent neurological research also shows that these experiences are actually measurable - we can see things happening inside the brain while people have transcendental experiences (see my last couple blog posts for some references).

The question is not whether the experiences exist.  Rather, the question is what we can learn from them.  Generally speaking, a religion might take those feelings and attach doctrinal significance to them - ie. because I feel a certain way when I contemplate God, He must exist.  Because I feel overpowering emotions when I read the Koran, it must be teaching absolute truth.  Because I feel spiritual enlightenment when I hear someone speak, that person must be a divine messenger of sorts.

These kinds of conclusions involve a huge leap of faith and a lot of implicit assumptions - assumptions about how reliable the emotions are, about where they come from, and finally about what they mean.  Each belief system will make different assumptions and arrive at different conclusions based on them.  The simple fact is that on any rational basis, these requisite assumptions are completely unjustified.  They are, in a very real sense, arbitrary.

There isn't anything necessarily wrong with forming beliefs based on incomplete information and assumptions.  It is part of the human condition and we have to do it all the time.  I believe that, in general, active religious belief provides meaning, happiness, and purpose to life.  The effect on society and on individuals is positive.  But some people have a problem with forming life-altering beliefs about the universe using fallacious reasoning and emotions that are clearly suspect.  It is a matter of principle and honesty to some people.

That is where Spiritualism comes in.  There are many benefits to pursuing religion, but Spiritualism holds that those religious benefits can be obtained outside the context of traditional religion.  The life-changing transcendental experiences usually obtained through religious worship can be found in meditative and spiritual practices that are perfectly disassociated with religious doctrine.  In a sense, Spiritualism is religion distilled to remove the fallacious assumptions that so many find disagreeable.

That is what I mean when I say that Spiritualism concerns itself only with the existential analysis of transcendental experiences.  Spiritualism actively pursues the transcendental because of the inherent existential benefits of the pursuit.  But it refuses to move beyond reason.

Neurological Effects of Religion

While writing this post, I found myself having to list detailed definitions along with caveats and careful explanations: the concepts of religion and spirituality are complex and often ill-defined, so if you aren't careful, someone will raise their hand and say "well, what about this obscure point that you didn't address?!"  So over time the post evolved from a concise, clear description of interesting neurological facts to a meandering monstrosity. The need to keep the post short, clear, and interesting is at odds with the need to be procedurally complete.

I decided to err on the side of concise clarity.  If something rubs you the wrong way, we can hash it out in the comments later.

So lets jump right in.  In this post I will describe the neurological effects of religious worship.  Note that I am no expert.  Everything about specific neurological activity comes from the books How God Changes Your Brain by Newburg and Waldman, and Why God Won't Go Away by Newburg et. al.  Everything else is mine.

The neurological effects of worship can be summarized in one sentence: we become like what we worship¹, regardless of whether what we are worshiping is real or imagined.  For example, if we worship an angry, authoritarian, punitive God, we gain a proclivity for anger and we become less capable of being understanding and compassionate.  The amygdala - the part of the brain that produces fear and anger - is strengthened.  Interestingly, when we are angry it becomes physically impossible for us to think rationally.  On this topic, Newburg and Waldman wrote

"Anger interrupts the functioning of your frontal lobes. Not only do you lose the ability to be rational, you lose the awareness that you’re acting in an irrational way. When your frontal lobes shut down, it’s impossible to listen to the other person, let alone feel empathy or compassion. Instead, you are likely to feel self- justified and self- righteous, and when that happens the communication process falls apart. Anger also releases a cascade of neurochemicals that actually destroy those parts of the brain that control emotional reactivity."

It goes without saying that we should avoid worshiping "angry" Gods - the effects are clearly destructive.  In fact, I don't think that many people would admit to following this kind of God.  Rather, I think that people worship the authoritarian, punitive type of God without realizing what they are doing.  I'll talk more about this later, because worshiping the wrong kind of God - knowingly or unknowingly - is unhealthy and destructive.

In contrast, worshiping a compassionate, loving God actively strengthens the frontal lobe and the anterior cingulate.  The frontal lobe is the reasoning center of the brain, and the anterior cingulate is the area of the brain that allows us to suppress fear and feel empathy and compassion.  Worshiping a loving God actually rewires our neural circuits so that we don't respond with anger as quickly or easily.  It also makes us more physically capable of feeling empathy, compassion, and love for others.

To be clear, the "God" that you worship isn't necessarily the same God described by your religion.  Practically speaking, your God may be more accurately defined by what you allow yourself to focus on.  For example, if you tend to focus on the "wicked" state of the world and the impending judgment of God, then you probably worship an angry God.

More generally, your God may be described by the attitude that you generally espouse when you aren't thinking about God at all.  If you are consistently pessimistic, angry, or fearful, it has the same neurological effect as worshiping an angry, authoritarian God.  In contrast, if you actively work on being understanding, compassionate, and optimistic, it has the same neurological effect as contemplating a loving, compassionate God.

The idea that worship and regular daily activity are closely related forms much of the basis for what I called "Spiritual Atheism" in the title of my last post.  The idea suggests that at least some of the neurological benefits of religion can be obtained by consciously adjusting your attitude about life.  That is, perhaps you can get the benefits of religion without using the religion at all.

There are other benefits of religious practice that I haven't talked about - reduced fear of death, deep peace and comfort, powerfully tangible joy, and direction and meaning, not to mention the social benefits of interacting in a religious community.  In my next post, I will discuss why these other benefits can also be obtained outside the context of traditional religion.

1. When I say "worship," I am referring to specific, conscious activity centered around a God figure.  This activity could be religious ritual, deep contemplation, study of religious texts, or meditation.  In this post, I will make the case that worship and daily activity are not necessarily disjoint.  They are, I think, closely connected.  But when I use the "worship" by itself, I refer specifically to God-centered activities.