Thought for the Night: Crop Circles ... by A. J. Milne

[Ratjaws]

Just a thought concerning the article: Thought for the Night: Crop Circles as an Illustration of Memetic Selection and the Spread of Religion by AJ Milne

Seems to me your trouble is not with religion (or "scientific theories") but in your trust of human nature. As I read through your "two cents worth" I find there are a number of themes beside that of "memetic theory" which are troublesome, but the most problematic I would more generally identify as philosophical skepticism. It's true that atheists and agnostics tend to be skeptical about any and all religious ideas, still I see a fundamental mistrust of the human ability to communicate. I see this idea in your use of the term tradition, which is typical of popular usage today, as though it were a bad word (I bring out this in contradistinction to the vulgar use of Christ's name that seems to be culturally natural in all places today). More to the point you hint that oral tradition is unreliable, as is written ("the printing press where multiple copies of a work contain multiple errors"), and that the "mass of believers" unable to read ("or are not allowed to read") are gullible as they put their trust in interpretations of canonical texts that "occurs within almost allopatrically isolated ecclesiatic branches."

You also have the contemporary notion that we should be free to read all books, which in reality means those with "the less-fantastical explanation" or more precisely the unorthodox religious. This idea that the "parsimonious 'hoax' explanation" should get passed on is what drives the rise of the spread of immorality in our culture as well as other evils against the human person. It does so because it hints that traditional notions should always be suspect because they tend to hinder some personal "freedom." Not to mention anyone "asking for money" or requiring donations for their work in religious vocation are compared in an unfavorable way to "cereal artists" who design crop circles, whom you have clearly chosen to examplify as the fantastical world of "crazies."

This skepticism seems to me to be summed up in statements like "dwelling on the endless gullibility of the human species" and "I went looking for the truth, and had one hell of a time finding it." I would ask where in this brief musing do you compare authentic Christian thinking with the "pages and pages of considerably more credulous works?" You say you "may have just witnessed a phenomenon that shines some light on the birth of the various flavors of religious belief that trade in the miraculous" yet you do not account for over 2000 years of religious tradition and teaching within Christianity. More specifically you don't even touch upon the one Church that has passed on this truth faithfully without change in the substance of doctrine over that period of history. And as a Christian why should I "forgive you" for using Christianity as the example when you can't even get the basic story right? Never has the Church taught that "old Jesu is still with us, in spirit; he's not dead, really" but rather She teaches that Jesus Christ really did die then resurrected from the dead... unlike any other man! I should think that even you should recognize there is no miracle in NOT dying. And of course according to the Church this has been taught from the start. We say at the two millenia old Mass "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again!" So contrary to what others may tell you this is what the apostles preached and passed on to their followers and what they in turn passed on up until this very day. It is seen clearly in our holy Father John Paul II's writings which are available for inspection and critique of even a diehard skeptic.
Nevertheless, as I started out saying this is not where your fundamental problem lies (in understanding verifiable Christian tenets). Rather it's found within the basic premise that human beings can't reliably pass on information or can't know... or at least not until the scientific age. And this idea is a fruit of the so called "Enlightenment" period where reason supposedly usurped faith. In reality the error of rationalism took place of the error of fideism (we thank Martin Luther for his "Reformation" spelled revolt!). On the contrary! The reality is delicately balanced between faith AND reason where supernatural faith builds on a foundation of our natural ability to reason. It's rooted in our intellectual certitude to know each being our mind comes in contact with through the senses. Faith clarifies and lifts this natural ability of ours to know the real world to a level above nature where our spiritual appetite resides. Religion is therefore not a mental fiction, although often called such because of distortions and some adherent's mistaken understanding. Instead religion is a visible reality seen in millions of people. A striving to know our source and teleos. Religious knowledge is as real as religious sentiment and evidence for religious faith has amassed since the dawn of man, which even atheists witness to by their expounding of dubious theories like yours in this public conjecture.
The bottom line is we can and do know this universe around us not only with the scientific method but via philosophical consideration and divine revelation. Since both our natural ability to know and divine insight comes from God it cannot contradict itself if properly used and ordered. This implies revelation whether of nature or super-nature must come to us error free and so we have logical and metaphysical rules to guide our science as well as a Church to guide our theology. Simply put both our science and theology must never violate our rationality or we set ourselves up to suffer the skepticism you manifest here. So while authentic religious faith is above reason it can never violate it and serves only to give us a fuller knowledge of our world. With it we don't fall into the ambiguities found in contemporary scientistic thinking that reduce man's animating principle (his soul) to mere material and thus destroy his infinite dignity and inviolable worth (IE we don't abort or euthanasize our flesh and blood as Hitler once did!). And if we do not succomb to skeptism we will never be found wasting away in the nihilism our culture exhibits today. We only do so by admitting the world is knowable and our mind (our very being) was meant to be in intellectual accord with it. Once accepted we have no need for such "odd thoughts" as you propose here which take us nowhere.
The only thing I do agree with you on is if the truth is repeated enough more and more people start to believe it... but alas! ...if error is repeated... that's what I call memetic!
Oh... and by the way this same Church which guards and teaches divine revelation also tells us Christ is with us not just spiritually at each holy Mass but in "body, blood, soul and divinity!" This is a far cry from the other confused voices who say "no, he wasn't actually here here, but we felt like he was." Still I don't blame you for your confusion since there are confused Christians who refuse to listen to the Church's constant teaching, of whom, are evidently where you gain your understanding from. If you don't believe me why not try the history books for the opinions of men like St. Ignatius (contemporary of St. John the apostle) or Justin Martyr (100-165AD).

Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas!
In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, in all things charity!

[Edited out e-mail address, only. -DM-]

[ajmilne]

Sir:

Thank you for your response to my article. I shall attempt to address your objections to the best of my ability.

Re 'mistrust of human nature' and associated criticism

Regarding your characterizing the observation that human beings have an appetite for the fantastic as 'mistrust of human nature': I would characterize it, in contrast, as a reasonable and supportable observation, given the evidence at hand. And I don't think it particularly implies a general mistrust of anything so broad as 'human nature'. For what it's worth, I'd more characterize myself as reasonably wary, given my experience, of certain facets of that nature.

To expand: while I think it is healthy and wise to have a proper appreciation of this facet of human cognition (and frankly, I also just find the subject quite interesting on its own merits), I wouldn't consider myself particularly cynical about human beings, their potential, or their foibles. Realistic, rather, and also ever hopeful. I do think this tendency to fall for the fantastic can do us injury, but this only means we must learn properly to appreciate it (and note that our ability to appreciate it is also one of our many intellectual capabilities, and thus, also 'human nature', a facet of which for which I have great affection), and to guard against it so injuring us.

I find it actually rather unsurprising, however, that you should so characterize the argument for the following reason in particular: the notion that skeptical treatment of belief in things which are, on their face, clearly fantastic is 'mistrust', and, apparently, unhealthy, is an oft-repeated meme within many religions. It is my observation that we see it wherever independent intellects encounter and challenge fantastical claims.

Having made that contention, let me just leave it to anyone reading this particular encounter to ask themselves: is it in any way unreasonable to be skeptical of such claims? Whether I am (to use your phrase) 'mistrustful', or (to use mine) 'reasonably wary', I'd suggest to anyone reading this: whatever you call it, that's the question you should properly ask: whether it makes sense to respond in such fashion.

Sir, I must also respectfully contend that your general assumption (widespread, I should suspect, within religious culture), that 'mistrust' (and apparently unreasonable mistrust) is at the heart of all such discussion has lead you into error here. In that I think you've quite a case to make to suggest the observation that the evolution in ideas might proceed more rapidly in effectively allopatric conditions in isolated ecclesiastical branches (isolated, again, by illiteracy and the injunction that the canon be read only by certain authorities) has anything whatsoever to do with presumptions of human gullibility. I think sir, if you re-examine it, you really must realize your contention is quite bizarre. Under such circumstances, that mechanism would speed memetic drift quite regardless of any facet of the general populace's gullibility or skepticism; the former has exactly nothing to do with the latter. On the contrary, I think it should be noted that scholastic culture's insistence on preventing the reading of the canon by the general population might easily be interpreted as suggesting that there might well have been much about the intelligence of the general population that made such insulating of the canon from critical inquiry necessary.

The suggestion that my view that oral tradition might do the same thing is in the same boat, I'm afraid. It is not, in any way, 'mistrustful of human nature' to suggest that ideas passed on orally might evolve a bit more rapidly (and anyone so foolhardy as to question the suggestion itself should play 'telephone' at a party sometime, incidentally, but I digress), nor does it imply anything whatsoever about human gullibility. This is just something we know about a particular communications medium. I'd challenge you here, sir, again, to explain yourself, if you really think you have any kind of case that this has anything to do with 'mistrust'.

Re 'the one Church that has passed on this truth faithfully...' and associated objections

Actually, sir, though I found it unnecessary at the time to name names, you may indeed assume I was referring to the record of the Roman Catholic church (as much as of any sect) in aspects of the article regarding the discussion of the evolution of religious belief. For there is ample evidence that both the canon that organization recognizes today and their institutionally standard interpretation of it have undergone evolution through history. As to the canon, you need witness only the clear divergences between the various new testament books apparently relating the same stories as the most infamous example, as quite clearly clinching that at least one account diverges from any actual events that may have inspired it, and, thus, also making reasonable the speculation that all of them might have. As to interpretation, I already provided an example that is relevant to your objection in apparent re-interpretation of the meaning of claims about a second coming. It does seem rather clear, and doesn't, I think, deserve further treatment, really.

As to your dogmatic claim that the church simply never taught that "old Jesu is still with us, in spirit; he's not dead, really": Sir, it was couched as speculation (though, again, I must say, I think it's not an entirely unreasonable one). Yes, it lacks direct evidence. But so does your assertion, I'm afraid. The fact remains we know both the canon and the interpretations evolved -- the canon particularly in the first century at least, the interpretations throughout subsequent history. It is reasonable to suggest, therefore, such a drift in belief could have occurred in the period immediately after the death of a popular preacher. And your very unsupported assertion, I'm afraid, I find somewhat less likely than my speculation, given that context. I'm assuming we both know there are a few decades at least during which this could have occurred in an oral tradition, again, in parallel with the definite evolution of the canon for which we do have direct evidence.

As to your assumption that you (or perhaps you and certain fellow members of your sect) are somehow unique among believers for your particular interpretation (and that it is the right one, and the only right one), and that supposed 'confusion' on my part about what the Christian religion contends is due to my being unaware of the existence of believers of your nature, sorry, sir, no, neither is the case.

As to the latter: I can report I find nothing in your theology particularly new. On the contrary, it seems to me your view of the validity of the Christian mythos is quite orthodox. It is generally what I think of when I think of 'traditional' Christian belief, though yes, I know there are variants within sects with different views. And it was, in fact, very much the orthodox view (that of a literal resurrection, and an unimpeachable divinity) that I had in mind as having evolved from far less fantastic precursors. As it is, of course, one of the clearer illustrations of such a process, as one of the more clearly fantastic of the possible views on the subject. No, sir, it was not believers with more metaphorical, less miraculous views of the Christian mythos who inspire the idea that this mythos is an evolved construct selected for the fantastic. It was believers exactly like you.

And as to the former, sir, no, in all of these respects, and particularly in your assumption that it is you and your sect who somehow hold the unevolved, pure, divine truth on this (and all other Christians, apparently, are rather more 'confused'), I really have to say I find you pretty much as typical as it gets.

Re conceptual muddles on memetics

Your implication that the repeating of 'errors' enforcing the ideas is somehow 'memetic', and, apparently, the repeating of truth is not (or perhaps less so), is, I'm afraid, pretty muddled, to my mind. I'd suggest that in the body of the theory, both are properly the provinces of memetic evolution.

I find it, in fact, sir, quite interesting that you should make such a comment. I do not consider it in and of itself a critical judgement of an idea the proposition that it might have evolved. In fact, the best ideas evolve. I noted above that the church's teachings have themselves evolved over time. While this does, I suppose, present some problems for anyone bound and determined to insist otherwise, I'd suggest it's actually a relatively good thing. As an example: I think it's quite lovely (though perhaps a bit overdue) your pontiff recently got around to apologizing for the treatment of Galileo's endorsement of heliocentrism. And those believers who, despite previous church teaching on the subject take that less literal view of the alleged resurrection and divinity of your saviour, I think, are working their way toward something a bit more sensible, and I applaud them for it.

In fact, to glance back at an earlier issue I just discussed, I really have to comment I find your apparently contrary view on this frankly quite mistrustful of human nature. Insofar as it seems to uphold the idea that no, we can't work things out ourselves, refine ideas, make them better. If we dare change anything, we corrupt, apparently, truths we shouldn't meddle with. Apparently, we lack the competence to work things out ourselves.

Sir, though I'm sure you've heard the view before, let me make this very clear: I think you're very, very wrong here. I think ideas and ethics both arise from human beings. And we can improve upon what we are handed by our ancestors. In fact, I think it is a human responsibility to do so. And not one any objection you might make is likely to convince me to abdicate.

Yes, humans make mistakes. And humans can correct mistakes -- if not hobbled by obscurantist zeal faithfully to preserve every absurdity that ever received the blessing of the allegedly divinely inspired.

Re communications theory and the enlightenment

Finally, sir, I think you've said a mouthful here in description of your apparent conviction that the enlightenment wasn't particularly, a good thing.

Let me be clear: *I* think the enlightenment was a good thing. I do believe human beings can communicate, and quite well, and could before and after the enlightenment, but I also believe ideas do evolve more rapidly in some media than others.

I do think we should be free to read all books. Not so much because all books are equally worth reading, as because I should like to make the judgement which are which for myself. I'm sorry, but I don't find the record of your church's hierarchy particularly inspires any confidence in their judgement, in this regard.

And finally, I do very much think we should entertain odd thoughts. And I think you'd rather be surprised where they can lead.

Regards,

AJ Milne