footprints

I've published a lot of entries here about the seismic shift in thinking I went through when I journeyed out of supernatural beliefs. That shift involved confronting a lot of philosophical hairsplitting and arguments—of varying quality. I must admit that some could seem too abstract to matter. But it's still worthwhile to counter the faux-intellectual justifications that people wave around, even as they're committed to their beliefs for different reasons altogether.

Despite what other faults philosophical discussion may have, it's managed to establish one conclusion beyond all doubt: metaphors are fantastic for communicating these ideas. I'll heed this lesson and offer one:

On one glorious mid-morning in summer, the owner of an all-too-costly house on a small hill near the sea decided to take a short walk along the beach. She made her way down by the water. To her surprise she found a set of fresh footprints already there. The trail of footprints started off in the distance from the left and continued to the right as far as the eye could see. She noticed that the footprints were like her own, but she hadn't gone for a walk here for more than a week. This shook her to the core, because she thought of herself as someone who had specifically paid a premium for special access to a secluded private stretch of beach. So...she needed to explain how these footprints could have happened.

The first explanation for the surprise footprints is the one anyone would leap to: another neighborhood resident took their own extended walk earlier in the morning. This explanation is obviously reasonable. But at the same time it might disturb the homeowner in the story, because it challenges her desire for privacy. 

Fortunately for her, people could easily come up with far more explanations. For example:

• The laws of physics have changed over time and diverge between places. Different laws of physics were in effect when the footprints were laid down, and these footprints only survived to the present day because of this. 
• The footprints are a hoax carried out by a frighteningly competent yet invisible conspiracy. This conspiracy is motivated by a scramble for grant money to investigate footprints. Or perhaps the evil corporations in the conspiracy are hoping to provoke people into paying for beach security or upkeep.
• At the time that Earth was created from out of nothing in the blink of an eye, footprints were also simultaneously created on the beach. Perhaps the footprints were included to test the faith of anyone who'd dare to believe that the Earth wasn't created from out of nothing in the blink of an eye.
• The footprints were miraculously formed by a sea-witch, whose goal is to draw people away from the truth. Or perhaps the sea-witch merely touched the soul of the homeowner so that she was blinded to the truth and thought that she saw footprints (or forgot that she made the footprints herself).
• The footprints were made by a spiritual being (albeit with human-like feet) that made a short visit to our mundane plane of existence. Or perhaps there was a visit from an earthly mystery creature unknown to biologists. Or perhaps a creature from far space traveled a tremendous distance for the sole purpose of taking a stroll on exotic Earth.

The point of comparing the first explanation to the alternatives isn't to necessarily claim that any in the group are flatly impossible. It's to underline that, at least to those who aren't trying to drag in their preexisting assumptions or aims, the alternatives deserve far more skepticism than the first. Could someone work hard to defend their preferred alternative as a valid "theory" just like any other? Could they concoct chains of reasoning that make their preferred alternative seem a bit more plausible for other reasons than the footprints themselves ("presuppositions")? 

Well...yes. Regardless, the first explanation continues to be the one that requires the least stretching to fit the plain footsteps that were seen. I came to a similar realization as I changed my perspective about the supernatural beliefs I was raised to follow. All the straightforward observations of reality I learned about were like multiple sets of footprints. Each set was unfabricated and unbiased and pointed in the same direction. Meanwhile the difficult project to integrate these observations into my former beliefs began to seem like outlandish avoidance of the inference that human footprints are usually left by human feet. 

I kept returning to the undeniable truth that I wasn't simply arguing with slick philosophies written by combative loudmouths who hated the viewpoint I identified with; I was in some sense strenuously arguing with the direct implications of the objective data. I was twisting my thoughts to steer clear of what mere footprints were "saying".

Furthermore, I had an ingrained queasiness for the theologically-liberal solution of fully adapting supernatural beliefs to fit reality. In my mindset at that time, following it would've involved dropping and/or rewriting significant chunks of my beliefs. I wasn't ready for that...and I couldn't get past having a lingering distaste for it. As I mentioned in past blog entries, I was taught to wholeheartedly follow beliefs that were accurate, not beliefs that were "inspirational". (Let me note that in the present I'm much less opposed to the liberal solution, although I'm still not interested in putting any energy or time into following it myself.)

The opposite strategy, preserving the beliefs and mentally rewriting the facts, also didn't occur to me. As quaint as it might sound now, I didn't assume that I could easily discard the well-supported facts I disliked. Experience since then has shown that all that's needed is to reframe them as lies told by journalists and societal elites...who are the Enemy of the nation. Or I could do the same by reframing them as lies told by people with socioeconomic power who are either consciously or subconsciously enforcing the oppressive status quo of inequality between classes and/or races and/or sexes. The next step after that would have been to latch onto infamous "alternative facts" instead, which come from sources that are careful to amplify only the bits of dodgy information that can be bent to fit the target's imagination. 

Nope, I was stuck. I accepted the strange notion that findings can be independent of people and their desires, even to the point of justifying a broad change in their thoughts. Eventually, my thoughts did indeed change. The apt metaphor for this phase is another well-known one for de-conversion: I began to understand that I was looking through the "goggles" of belief. The better I became at cautiously removing the goggles and taking a second look at observed reality, the more I had to confess that those beliefs were distorting instead of magnifying what I saw. Or it might have been worse than that. The goggles had misled me to interpret the footprints as the traces of something that had never really been there at all throughout the various scenes of my life.