- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not by Robert A. Burton, MD
“The message at the heart of this book is that thefeelings of knowing, correctness, convictionand certaintyaren’t deliberate conclusions and conscious choices. They are mental sensations that happento us.” He gives a practical exercise to demonstrate the change in our minds between a seemingly random and meaningless list of attributes. It is meaningless at first because our mind has no point of reference. As soon and he identifies the subject being described, however, my mind immediately made the connections and I *knew* what he was talking about, *knew* that it was “right”.
He shows that this ‘feeling’ of knowing you know something is not consciously controlled, not only through this example, but he also cites the occasions when something is known to us but we just can’t recall it. Say, someone at a party asks “What’s the name of that brunette over there?” And you reply “Oh! I know her name, but I just can’t think of it right now!” — You see, you know that you know, but just can’t remember it – thus it is in your mind, and you know it, but the conscious mind can’t access it at the moment. BTW, this happens to me all the time, to my constant frustration. Anyway…
The author differentiates between primary emotions and more complex emotions that must be filtered by experience or cognitive function. He demonstrates that the “sense of knowing” is complex and then show studies that help identify physical brain locations where this seems to occur, or at the very least, contributes to this function of the mind.
He then makes it clear that we have a ‘hidden layer’ within our minds, in which it is provable that some ‘thinking’ takes place, yet we are consciously unaware of it.
“Observations by cognitive scientists like Wilson (Timothy) have thrown modern psychology into an existential crisis. What are we to make of our minds when the vast majority of cognition goes on outside of consciousness?” p.146-147
He then observes that since so much goes on in our minds that we have no conscious control over, much less the ability to monitor, that feeds into our thinking, evaluations, consideration and conclusions, that the bottom line is that we cannot truly ever consider that we are thinking logically or correctly.
“Certainty is not biologically possible.”
IE, we can never really *know* if we are right about something using our minds alone, even if we have a overwhelming sense of that knowledge within ourselves. We can be wrong. Scientists, when wrong, are usually not wrong because of flawed method or instruments, though that does happen, but usually because of personal self-deception and an unjustified sense of knowing.
He then talks about how from this point of view it’s pretty easy to get to the point of the meaninglessness of existence and a major emotional funk. The solution? One must have a purpose in life. He demonstrated with the case of Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken proponents of science and, even moreso, one of the most outspoken critics of faith and religion.
Dawkins acknowledges that he has a purpose in life not borne out by scientific reasoning or examination, but by personal choice: to convince religionists that their belief is damaging to themselves and the world in general.
He then points out that to have a meaning in life is important for psychological health, and discusses this a bit. He brings in the point of the placebo:
“A placebo is a false belief that has real value. To insist that there is no soul or afterlife is the moral equivalent of taking away the placebo effect arising out of an unscientific belief.” Which he states is not a good thing. He thinks that if suffering can be relieved, even by placebo, then it should be done, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone.
My view: Joseph Smith taught that *faith* is not something we consciously develop, but rather it is a “gift from God” given to the faithful/obedient (paraphrasing). I see a compatibility here.
I think that those who really understand the methodology of religion understand these concepts, science or no. And demonstrate it in a practical way in the ordinances and beliefs the religion inculcates in its membership.
Anytime we reduce the human experience to what we can measure and put under a microscope, we miss something very important. Even if we have no spirit, there is no God, we die and all is forever over, nevertheless religion or belief in God can be a powerful “placebo” to make us happy throughout our lives, if we believe. And that’s worth something.
For me, though, I have anecdotal evidence of something much bigger, much more puzzling than anything the author discusses. It could be the function of unknown, unmeasureable biological processes — or it could be “God” — or it could be something else again. I have known measurable, verifiable things about people and events around me, that I could not have known, scientifically speaking. And more.
I appreciate the heartfelt, honest views of this author. The science was carefully explained, the opinions were cautious and clear, the paradox and dilemmas of life were laid out beautifully, the book was fascinating!!
HiJolly
HiJolly I am not sure if I should thank you or start screaming 
🙄 ).Sounds like a great read and very important in understanding a little bit better how our minds do work. I really like Richard Dawkin’s works on evolution but his God Delusion does worry me since he seems almost intent on starting his own version of a “crusade” against religion but that would be another whole topic.
Bill Atkinson wrote:HiJolly I am not sure if I should thank you or start screaming
🙄 ).Well. Good luck with that!
😆 Bill Atkinson wrote:Sounds like a great read and very important in understanding a little bit better how our minds do work. I really like Richard Dawkin’s works on evolution but his God Delusion does worry me since he seems almost intent on starting his own version of a “crusade” against religion but that would be another whole topic.
I read the ‘four horsemen’ last year (less Dennett, alas): Christopher Hitchens’God Is Not Great, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, and of course Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. I thought Dawkins had the weakest writing (and logic) of the three. I actually really liked Harris’ book, but maybe that’s just because I consider myself somewhat of a mystic, and he was fairly kind to the mystics.
😈 HiJolly
Yeah, I’ve been totally unimpressed with Dawkins. Kind of a weasel. But this book sounds excellent. Fits in with lots I’m reading these days about neuropsych.
Also fits in with previous discussions we’ve had here with the wonderful ‘
it’s better to be good than right‘ theme. Thanks for the recommendation.
HiJolly wrote:I read the ‘four horsemen’ last year (less Dennett, alas): Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great, Sam Harris’ The End of Faith, and of course Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.
I’ve contemplating adding these to my list. They might do well for my “dark night of the soul”.
I think I saw Dawkins in some Utube clip with a priest, and he actually came off as reasonable. The priest backed off from literalness for a moment and it reallypiqued Dawkins interest! All of a sudden he was finding common ground he wanted to explore! If I am remembering correctly…
@MisterC: Skip Hitchens “God is not Great”. It’s just a massive diatribe against organized religion. You probably know everything he talks about anyways.
Thanks HiJolly for the post! Super cool concept. I don’t know why but I love the philosophical construct that leaves no meaning in life. It kind of empowers me to find my own meaning, and just live it for me. I guess that’s selfish but it sure feels right!
😳 Plus, I think people spend too much time dwelling on the after-life so hopefully some hopelessness will inspire them to live to the fullest today. Plus, I love playing devil’s advocate and admitting I’m wrong. False humility suits me.😳
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.