Religion

Patternicity/Apophenia

Much of apophenia stems from faith in the unknown (God(s), Heaven, Hell, aliens, conspiracies, etc.), human creativity, and the desire to make meaning out of things. Creativity is a trait present in everyone since childhood; depicting clouds as certain shapes, a coat as a person, or a tree branch as a hand. People may have made non-visual depictions and theories since childhood as well; Simply thinking, what if the Sun is actually God, or what if aliens built the pyramids? These depictions are natural and healthy, and those curious enough to pursue their depictions/theories possess a valuable trait–curiosity is the mother of knowledge. However, this creativity, present since childhood, is not yet accompanied by a desire to make meaning out of things until there is a reason for people to desire meaning–why do people look for meaning in seemingly random or chaotic events? My answer; Life’s events and situations set people up to be in a predisposed position to search for meaning. 

My answer is only what I think the most distinguishable reason for apophenia is. I would imagine that there are primordialists who would argue that it is genetics; people with traits that make them open-minded or curious are more prone to apophenia–or people with mental disorders like schizophrenia or narcissism are more prone to apophenia. I do not disagree with these statements, but it is life’s events and situations that are the distinguishable triggers of apophenic thoughts. Taking Elliot Benjamin from the book, “You Are Probability” (Mt Sac Philosophy Group, 2014), by Andrea Diem-Lane and David Christopher Lane, for example–Elliot Benjamin, as pointed out in the book, reveals that he was in an emotional state over an event when finding meaning in the letters ACT. “...while I was agonizing over having recently lost one of my mental health jobs…” (Diem-Lane and Lane, 7). Elliot being in an emotional state made him take up these apophenic thoughts, but what made him become such a firm believer in them, so much to make scientific arguments over them and spread his beliefs to his son and his friends? Is it safe to say that Elliot is borderline schizophrenic? I do not have the answer to these questions as I do not know Elliot Benjamin, but I would say it can likely be explained with the first and fourth laws of human nature, written by Robert Greene in the book “The Laws of Human Nature” (Robert Greene, 2018). The first law states that people act irrational when emotional. The fourth law states that people will inevitably repeat their behavior (Medvedev 1). Whether it is committing crime or finding faith in unlikely theories, people act irrationally when emotional. Perhaps Elliot was emotional when coming up with his license plate theory, and never stopped being emotional, and his license plate theory is just a means for expression, a coping mechanism, as it is easier to feel important and valued by thinking a divine entity is sending signs rather than facing the truth that the opportunity for making any “real money”, as said by Elliot himself, is gone–and of course it is important to note that men often feel valued for their money, so belief in divinity is a good alternative to feeling valued rather than having “real money”. This, of course, may be me projecting my own issues and opinions onto Elliot’s situation, but at the end of the day it is all theories.

I am not against apophenia. I think people can believe and find meaning in whatever they want. I think it provides pros and cons. I myself have faith in God, the idea of an afterlife, and so forth. I do recognize, however, that in times of desperation and high stress I really want there to be meaning in things–I search for meaning in things. For example, If I am not stressed or emotional, I may see a bible verse somewhere and think nothing of it. In times of high stress and depravity, however, I will see a bible verse and believe, or at least want to believe, that it is a message from a higher power. I have personally recorded much of my apophenic thoughts and truthfully, it feels like a high; It feels like when you are sober and looking back at pictures/videos of you when you were under some sort of influence. Some pictures/videos you may look at and say, “what the hell was I thinking?” Some pictures/videos you may look at and say, “maybe I was onto something”. But you, or I at least, never feel the same as I did when I had my apophenic thoughts. It is like it almost requires some sort of instability to create, thus making apophenic thoughts unreliable. 

While I see the reality and science behind it, I must confess that in some ways I have apophenia, so I will also provide support for apophenia, which I believe lies in perspective, not proof. I claim wisdom, to an extent, in the fact that I know close to nothing. In my perspective, I may be like a fish to a higher power; I can be tempted and lured by many things, and I haven’t the smallest clue to what or how I am deceived. It is beyond my understanding or perhaps, yet for me to understand. It is like magic; do I believe in magic? No, but I believe there is much we would perceive as magic. Magic is only what cannot be understood; once it is understood it becomes science. I am sure there are many things that we would perceive as magic or supernatural; interaction with the 4th dimension, interaction with aliens, the creation of the world, the creation of life, etc. These are things that to my knowledge, humans have not been able to accurately decipher. This means that there is space for irrational theories to be true (or somewhat true) and based on how miniscule human knowledge may be in the grand scheme of things, there may be lots of space. To put it more in perspective, humans have yet to discover 95% of the Ocean (Cowan 1), or reach the nearest planet, Mercury–what position are we in to assume the existence of Heaven based on what we know? To put it bluntly, ya’ never know.

I must address Littlewood’s Law of Miracles. I am fascinated by his perspective of basing events’ occurrences so strictly on mathematical probabilities. Where I find space for improvement is clarity as to which populations his law applies to. “Littlewood’s Law of Miracles states that in the course of any normal person’s life, miracles happen at a rate of roughly one per month.” (Diem-Lane and Lane, 12). Who exactly is he referring to as a normal person? Is it an American father of three–of two? Is it an American college student? Or a Chinese sweatshop worker? Which population is “normal?” Surely a member of an ongoing war could experience 10 miracles in a month. Meanwhile a high schooler spending most of his time playing video games may experience one miracle a year–or is the definition of a miracle flexible to one’s situation; maybe someone fighting in Ukraine considers his next meal a miracle while the high school gamer considers unlocking a rare cosmetic for his game a miracle. If by “normal population” Littlewood is referring to the human race entirely, then Littlewood’s Law of Miracles is an exceedingly blunt and rough theory that, while fascinating, could use further testing and research.

Works Cited

Diem-Lane, Andrea and Lane, David Christopher. “You Are Probability Surfing The Matrix” MSAC Philosophy Group, 2014.

Medvedev, Evgany. “The Laws of Human Nature Summary” Medium, 17 March, 2019.

Cowan, Angela M. “Ocean Exploration: Technology” National Geographic, 29 April, 2024.

Understanding Evolution

I think that the vast majority of biologists find natural selection to be more persuasive than creationism because it is simply more reasonable. Considering Malthusian's conception, that population growth results in scarce resources, leading to a reduction in population, it is logical that naturally, people adapt to survive and those who do not, likely fail to reproduce. Otherwise known as “survival of the fittest”, this concept alone provides more reason for natural selection than creationism.

However, the human population has not decreased. Even in history’s most deadly times, it still grew despite mass death. The 13th to 14th century is the only time period in history where the human population has decreased–from approximately 360,000,000 to 350,000,000 (WorldoMeter). This was primarily because of The Black Death; War and famine alone, as prevalent and deadly as they have been throughout history, have not reduced the human population on a centurial scale. So perhaps, Malthusian’s conception is a repeated process but in the grand scheme of things, the human population consistently increases. 

Considering that the human population has only grown throughout history, and that currently, 1 in every 15 people in existence is alive today (Lane and Diem Lane 49), it is hard to imagine that humans have evolved biologically, but circumstantially, as living became easier as time went on, negating the idea of evolution. How do we evolve if circumstances become easier? Wouldn’t that devolve us? Perhaps like Malthusian’s conception, evolution is more small scale than we think, and is a repeated process; A quote from G. Michael Hopf: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times.” (Daniels).

Perhaps the idea in the paragraph above is also too small a scale, as the past couple thousand years is still, only a glimpse of time. If we consider the theory that humans evolved from apes and fish, over the course of millions of years–well Darwin’s natural selection theory makes sense; “Owing to this constant struggle, variations, however slight, and from whatever cause arising, if in any degree profitable to the individual which presents them, will tend to the preservation of the particular organism, and, being on the average inherited by its offspring, will similarly tend to increase and multiply in the world at large.” (Allen 99). To me, this is like ranked matchmaking; I’m not sure if you, Professor Lane, or classmate, play video games, but there is usually a ranked feature that works like this: When you start, you compete with lowly skilled, lowly experienced players, bad players (fish), as you win more, you compete with others who win more (apes), and usually at the highest ranks, there is actually the largest pool of players. We today (1 in 15 people), are in that largest pool of players. If you’re not good at the game, you don’t rank up due to losing–like how if our ancestors failed to survive, we would not be here. So, if we started out as fish, well then surely we’ve progressed from beginners into competitive gamers! 

My analogy might be confusing, especially for someone who doesn’t play video games. I like the analogy made in The Ascent of Charles Darwin; “The baker does not fear the competition of the butcher in the struggle for life: it is the competition of the other bakers that sometimes inexorably crushes him out of existence.” (Allen 100). If we were fish, and at one point in time actually competed for survival with miniscule minded fish, then that means that one day we may compete with a superior species we don’t even know of yet–whether that be aliens, machines, the divine, or something else. And according to Darwin’s analogy, that struggle is chiefly conducted between members of the same species (Allen 100), we would then become or evolve into that superior species. From fish to apes to humans to…robots? A quote from Steven Hawking’s lecture in 1996, known as Life in The Universe: “There is no time to wait for Darwinian evolution to make us more intelligent and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.” (Hawking). My, how far we’ve come and how much further we have yet to reach.

Scientists put their trust in what they know, such as facts, reasonable theories, and statistics. There are minimal facts, reasonable theories, and statistics that support creationism, however there are lots that support natural selection. However, most people are not scientists, and do not only put their trust in what they know, but they have faith, which is putting trust in what you don’t know. Although this does not sound reasonable, faith prevails in America because of how much religion is part of American culture. Faith; putting trust in what you don’t know, is also how many people survive, according to Nietzche’s quote; “To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.” (Lane and Diem Lane 28). To boil down my answer to why creationism is still popular in America; Creationist belief stems from religion, which stems and has a dependent relationship with faith, which is fueled by survival; faith is many people’s meaning in their suffering.

Now with that perspective, consider the theory of natural selection, that we evolved from apes or fish. This is what one may think, ” We were those soulless things? What does that make us?” In Genesis 1:26-28, it says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (openbible.info). Considering this, a Christian would not find evolution by natural selection to be true, considering that the Bible sets us apart significantly, from fish and animals. Christianity is popular in America, thus making creationism popular–my second answer to why creationism is still popular in America. Biologists are scientists; they think with reason and put their trust in what they know, so they tend to find natural selection to be more persuasive.

Works Cited

Allen, Grant. The Ascent of Charles Darwin. MSAC Philosophy Group, 2021. 

Lane, David Christopher and Diem-Lane, Andrea. Why Living Today is Better than Yesterday. David Christopher Lane, 2018. 

Lane, David Christopher. Evolution Trilogy: Natural Selection vs. Intelligent Design. neuralsurfer, 3 May 2010.

Lane, David Christopher. THE INFINITE SHUFFLE: Calvino’s Metaphor and the Scientific Quest. neuralsurfer, 15 Sep 2013.

OpenBible.info https://www.openbible.info/topics/animals

Hawking, Stephen. Life in The Universe. Stephen Hawking Estate, 1996. https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/life-in-the-universe

WorldoMeter. https://www.worldometers.info/#google_vignette

Sirius Publishing. The Art Of War And Other Chinese Military Classics Sun Tzu. Arcturus Holdings Limited, 2021.

Daniels, Ryan. ‘Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times’. Reading Eagle, 10 April 2022. https://www.readingeagle.com/2022/04/10/hard-times-create-strong-men-strong-men-create-good-times-column/#

I find the Japanese Zen approach to Buddhism quite intriguing. It provides the alternative perspective that even the most sacred idols are still idols, and the desire to impress, possess or unify with Buddha may be the most sufferable desire of any. Buddha is not presently here for you; your ancestors are not presently here--these deities are worth worshipping and dedicating your life towards? I can understand agreeing with Buddhist philosophy but I lean towards the Zen approach that Buddha should not be idolized. I also agree with the noble eightfold path and that living "right" will lead to freedom from suffering. However, the first noble truth is that life is suffering. I've heard something similar from Nietzsche; "To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." This is an idea I agree with, but I beg to find an alternative philosophy to life rather than, "life is suffering" which is a quite pessimistic approach to life. I personally have known people who absolutely love life, with all the ups and downs included, and would live forever if it were up to them. These were not people constantly occupied with "reaching enlightenment" or "freeing themselves from this world, or their lives, or suffering in general", but people with strong relationships that loved what they did. It's like the way to achieve happiness is simple, and perhaps religion complicates things, or perhaps it is some lucky or blessed people that do not need 8 steps to achieve happiness, and they are anomalies. 

Again, the first noble truth is that life is suffering. The only other place that I hear "the first step or truth or rule about something is acknowledging the problem" is in healthcare, specifically rehab and behavior treatments, where often the first step in treatment is identifying and acknowledging the problem. As a healthcare worker, there are many flaws in treatment, one of the biggest being when patients are "overly diagnosed", which is common. For example, a child that is perfectly competent and healthy being diagnosed with autism or ADHD and being prescribed all sorts of medication and treatments when all they needed was an outlet; lots of children that either get overly excited over things or learn a bit slower, are diagnosed with severe medications and treatments that psychologically and biologically destroy their confidence and state of mind. These children are constantly reminded in the way they are treated that they have severe problems, when they really don't, and the healthcare/insurance industry does not mind because they profit from as many clients as possible. What does this have to do with Buddhism? Buddhism could be doing the same thing; First, or truth #1, you are suffering--like what the hell? No I'm not. I might have bad days but they are accommodated with good days, and depending on what I do I may get more good days than bad--that's life. I feel like the first rule is a way to attract, or trap people into a religion. I mean, without the first rule, much of Buddhism loses its credibility (kind of like how without the first step, much of healthcare is not needed). Once you are diagnosed with something, you are trapped in treatment, just like how if you truly believe your life is just suffering, you will be trapped in religion. The only thing is, I don't see who or what is profiting from Buddhism, maybe it is the truth, and not a deceitful tactic. Or maybe the intentions behind Buddhism are beyond my scope of competence, and I will never know whether Buddhism is truth or deceit. Or maybe I'm borderline schizophrenic. Or maybe I'm one of the lucky people who don't need 8 steps to achieve happiness and thus do not need or understand Buddhism. Regardless, the idea that life is suffering is very pessimistic and I prefer to find a more half cup full philosophy to life. 

If one created a story so absurd, radical, and seemingly impossible, it would be known especially by the author, that it will conflict with knowledge. For a scientist to accept Christ, and argue the existence of God, he is stepping into a world of what may feel like borderline schizophrenia resulting in unnecessary stress, for science contradicts almost all theist beliefs. The author of Genesis understood this concept very well–that science; knowledge, does not comply with theism, thus resulting in the story that the serpent offered knowledge in exchange for the abandonment of God’s word. It is like the conflict between knowledge and faith has existed long ago, at least since the creation of Genesis. Because Genesis implies that the serpent was bad, being referred to as the devil; deceiver of the whole world; Satan, one could suggest that it was the author of Gensis’s intention to promote ignorance, by encouraging the fear of God. Clarence Darrow’s conclusion, that “the fear of God is the death of wisdom,” (neuralsurfer), is quite reasonable in this sense.

Let me clearly establish the pro of agnosticism; it is knowledge. I would use the word knowledge instead of Darrow’s word, wisdom, in his quote, “the fear of God is the death of wisdom,” because coming from an agnostic perspective, who is one to say that it is wise to reject God, if no one knows for sure of his existence. It is only intellectually freeing to exempt God from philosophical theories, as it allows for knowledge and curiosity to flourish, but to say wise, is simply, unwise. Declare yourself purely atheist if you are to say it is wise to not fear God, and declare yourself agnostic if you say it is knowledgeable to not fear God–and declare yourself a strict theist if you say it is wise to fear God. 

I chose the word scientist in my second sentence of this essay; “For a scientist to accept Christ, …”, and not intellectual, out of respect for those who do not pursue knowledge in any field of science, but still, are intellectuals, such as successful athletes, coaches, artists, musicians, businessmen/women, etc. This is where the cons of the perspective suggested in Clarence Darrow’s speech, Why I Am An Agnostic, begin. How much art, music, athletic or theatrical performances, businesses, ideas, conquering, have been influenced by theism? It is most common to hear/see artists’ theistic perspectives in their work.

I, regardless of my beliefs, try to see the pros and cons of all perspectives and ways of living. I think that even with ignorance, debauchery, arrogance, and all seemingly negative traits–there are pros as well; It may take a pretty arrogant, strictly theistic, narcissistic person to create some of the best art ever. It also may not. A scientist may think, “What has art or music or theistic infused conquests done for the development of the human race?”, and this question is completely valid, as one can argue that theistic inspired conquests have only stunted progression of the human race. The Crusades; what good were they? All this conflict and lives/time wasted for the sake of religion–has surely only stunted progression, as all this time could’ve been invested in something more productive. This is only another example of the conflict between faith and knowledge. 

Clarence Darrow said, “Science is responsible for the building of railroads and bridges, of steamships, of telegraph lines, of cities, towns, large buildings and small, plumbing and sanitation, of the food supply, and the countless thousands of useful things that we now deem necessary to life.” (neuralsurfer). In this way, science, or the abandonment of God’s word, has resulted in many of humanity’s greatest inventions. Or as how you, Professor Lane, put it in The Feynman Imperative, “Indeed, it is when science got divorced from religion that it made its greatest progress.” (Lane 12). This quote summarizes the main pro of agnosticism; knowledge, or more specifically, the leeway to expand knowledge without it being weighed down by unproven stories. All things considered, it is reasonable to be agnostic, but I am hesitant to say if it is wise; one may remain skeptical so long as they live for the sake of knowledge, but I don’t look forward to feeling stupid when I die and find myself before the presence of God. And if I die and there is no continuation of me or my consciousness, well then it didn’t matter now did it?

Works Cited

Darrow, Clarence. Why I Am An Agnostic. neuralsurfer, 28 April 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOK3DxfffSM

Lane, David Christopher. The Feynman Imperative. MSAC Philosophy Group, 2016.