don's report archive
Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)
Friday April 1, 2005
Since retiring from the daily grind in 2001, my friend Bob Ludlow has been devoting "more than full time" to digital photography and fine-art printing, which he calls "the latest and greatest of my serial passions." Among his earlier endeavors were attaining the rank of chess master in his "misspent youth," winning a number of age-group distance-running championships in his early forties, and racing bicycles on the roads in his fifties. Now in his mid-sixties, Ludlow's varied occupational resume includes college psychology instructor throughout the 1970's, editor and writer for a regional running magazine in the early 1980's, education coordinator for a major diabetes center in the mid-to-late 1980's, and fitness and health editor for a national culinary magazine in the 1990's. (By the way, you can enjoy some of Ludlow's photography at www.photothemes.com andwww.simondai.com/post/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=183.)
DON: Bob, you sent more feedback than anyone else in 2004 to SeekWellness in response to my essays. What single theme about wellness interests you most?
BOB: Well, my personal interests are all over the map, like your own. These days I spend the majority of my time working on my photography, but my interest in wellness, which goes way back, remains strong.
I would have to say that the wellness topic of greatest interest to me is the practical problem of how to make an impact on people's behavior, how to effectively communicate and promote the wellness message. One reason you hear from me as much as you do is because I like your wellness model, particularly your emphasis on the domain of meaning and purpose.
DON: You often seem to be dismayed by religious beliefs, maybe even a little put off by and contemptuous of those who profess to be saved, inspired or otherwise benefited by their enthusiasm for one god or another.
BOB: First, let me be clear that my contempt is not directed at most individual believers but at the belief system itself and many of its purveyors. Ordinary people, including myself, I'm sure, believe all kinds of nonsense, and that's our right. It's just that at this point in time fundamentalist religious beliefs are driving much of our domestic and foreign policy and posing a serious threat to our democratic institutions. If their premises are nonsense, as I maintain, then I don't see how successful governance in a complex world can result from decisions based on those premises. As they say in the computer trade, "garbage in, garbage out." Now I'm ordinarily more than happy to live and let live, but not when forces of superstition and ignorance are undermining just about everything I value about this country.
DON: Well, how about telling us a little more about YOUR belief system. Start with this bit of speculation: Are we alone in the universe, in your opinion?
BOB: I realize that the late, great Carl Sagan, along with many eminent cosmologists and astrophysicists who study such matters, was convinced that there is quite a high probability of life existing elsewhere in the vastness of the universe. I believe it is possible that the universe is teeming with life, which might seem to make our little planet even less significant. It is even possible, a la Star Trek, that the universe is teeming with INTELLIGENT life. On the other hand, maybe the kind of intelligence we humans sometimes manifest (knowledge, understanding, reasoned problem-solving) is unique in all the universe, not because some mythical all-powerful being created us in his or her image, but because it is possible that we are a once-in-a-universe quirk, the result of a confluence of contingent events so unlikely as to never, ever be repeated.
No one is saying anymore that cause and effect means events are completely determined. We know there is an underlying randomness to the physical world and that many complex events are not perfectly predictable. I recall how in "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History", Stephen Jay Gould argued that if we were to rewind the tape of evolution on the earth to a much earlier era and replay it, it would never come out the same twice. Even if you replay it a million times, it's very likely there will be no humans or anything approaching our intellectual capabilities. Remember, it has happened only once among the gazillion species on this planet.
And that's not just Ludlow speculation, but a position argued by some well-respected cosmologists/physicists.
DON: Did I just hear you suggest that we humans SHOULD take ourselves more seriously, contrary to my recent tip for added peace and happiness?
BOB: No.
DON: Care to elaborate on that just a little?
BOB: It's just that I thought you were suggesting we should not take ourselves seriously because we are such a small part of such a huge universe. But let's turn that argument on its head: As small as we are, if we are indeed the only life form anywhere gifted with complex reasoning capabilities, then that unique and awesome ability would seem to be something to be proud of. Consider: If we humans, alone, possess such capabilities, then you and I have greater knowledge and understanding of the universe than all the entities in the universe, with the exception of some of our own kind on planet earth who know more than we do. That sounds like justification to feel important. If it's not, then nothing is.
Mainly I was teasing you. Of course I don't think it's a good idea to take oneself too seriously, if only because it's unproductive. Our abilities are truly amazing. We need to accept that and try to understand it better, and also try to make the best of our short lives.
The better we understand human nature, the better our chances of solving some of our horrendous problems. But we'll never make progress by bringing all inquiry to a halt by imposing the retrograde answer to everything, "God did it." Like in the Dark Ages, that's pretty much the end of the line as far as further understanding goes.
DON: It sounds as if Carl Sagan had a big influence on your thinking along lines of revelation and such claims as typify religious dogma.
BOB: Absolutely. His writing reinforced positions I had held for years and gave me new and better ideas than I had considered.
Sagan said that as long as claims and arguments were couched in very general terms, he was open to all kinds of possibilities--and he was. But when claims became specific, he became the exemplary skeptic, demanding that such claims be subject to the same rules of evidence-the same tests of believability--that apply to everything else. Nothing should be exempt from critical investigation. No one gets a free pass--a "sacredness" exemption--when they claim special access to truth outside the realm of scrutiny. In other words, "revelation" is bunk, an attempt to evade the gauntlet of informed skepticism. And the weight of numbers--i.e., the number of people who profess to believe something--has absolutely no standing at all where truth is concerned. History is replete with examples of the majority believing pernicious nonsense that caused untold misery. Sagan brilliantly documented the almost unimaginable evils of religious intolerance in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
DON: Yet, it seems some people are offended by free and critical inquiry, such as you (and Sagan, et al.) profess.
BOB: The doctrinaire types who wallow in revealed dogma get angry when well-informed thinkers like Sagan ask perfectly sensible questions about their "sacred" beliefs. Questions that would prove highly embarrassing to any rational person only cause them to assert their position-their "faith"--with greater vigor. And when they're in the majority, watch out for them: I call it "the Taliban effect." We've witnessed it throughout history, and I think we're witnessing the beginnings of it here in America at this very moment.
DON: What do you say to believers who claim you are close-minded to their ideas?
BOB: I admit it. But I want it understood that I don't reject their beliefs gratuitously. There was a time when I was more than ready and willing to discuss and debate religious claims, and I once devoted a lot of time and energy to a serious study of religion. Now I admit that my mind is made up on the matter, and I have no interest in debating the subject with people who think the answer to everything is "God did it." The only thing that would alter my thinking at this point would be compelling physical evidence that their claims are true. And I'm convinced that's not going to happen.
Unlike the true believers, I don't purport to have the answers to the big questions of meaning and purpose, and I remain open to all kinds of possibilities. The discoveries in physics in the last century are so mind-boggling that it would be presumptuous to take a firm position on what may or may not exist in the universe, what meaning, if any, it may hold. Just about anything is possible. Certainly it is possible that there are much more highly advanced entities who may or may not be aware of our presence. It is even possible, though unlikely, that highly advanced entities had something to do with our existence. In the light of what we now know--and more importantly, what we don't know--I have to admit that such things are possible. It is even possible that there are other beings so advanced as to have, by our definitions, "god-like" powers. Hey, I watched "Star Trek" for years!
DON: Given that we live in a country governed by a "faith-based" president and Congress and our best-selling books are devoted to such insanity as "the Rapture," you must have a dim outlook for the future of our species. Right?
BOB: Given everything that's going on, it's hard to be optimistic that we'll be able to avert disaster. Still, it is enjoyable to imagine what human beings might be like and might be capable of, say, 5000 years hence if scientific progress is not shackled by yahooism and Talibanism and we don't destroy ourselves first. (A BIG if.) Within 5000 years we will have solved the causes of aging and will live indefinitely; we will almost surely be able to create other intelligent life forms and monitor their activities, with or without their knowledge; humans will probably not exist in their present form, but will have "evolved" into some kind of android-style life form, etc. In other words, our descendants will have god-like powers. There seem to be no good reasons to think otherwise. What I'm saying is simply a commonsense extrapolation of what science has already accomplished in a very short period of time. Such is the power of scientific method. Remember, I'm talking about 5000 years! Actually, I think the kinds of changes I mentioned will occur much sooner than that.
DON: So, you ARE open to possibilities of a positive nature?
BOB: I am definitely open to all kinds of amazing possibilities. But when religious people start getting very specific and talking about six days of creation and Adam and Eve and a world-wide flood and an ark with all the animals on it and a virgin birth and demons and miracles and the son of god coming to earth to die and atone for our sins and an omniscient, omnipotent god who created us in his own image and wants us to worship him and accept his son as our savior so we can go to heaven and avoid the torments of hell and even more preposterous things than that--let me tell you, all that is so obviously an ancient myth that I am CERTAIN it is false.
Christians believe other religions are founded on myths, that their followers are misguided. I agree with them, especially when it comes to beliefs based on the so-called supernatural. It's just that I can't find a reason to accord THEIR supernatural beliefs special status. But I do respect, and fear, their numbers, their power, and their determination to advance their agenda in this country.
The whole idea of supernatural influences has absolutely no empirical support, and it conflicts with everything else about the world and life that I know to be true.
DON: Ye of little faith!
BOB: LITTLE FAITH? Sir, you insult me--I possess not even a scintilla of that stuff!
Doesn't "faith" mean believing totally in something without any evidence? I mean if there's verifiable evidence to support it, then it's not faith, right? Call me hard core, but I prefer to reserve my belief for things that are supported by verifiable evidence and reserve my theorizing for things that have the possibility of being tested and verified. Even the great majority of true believers will say that belief without evidence would be foolhardy in any other context. Where I differ is that I consider it foolhardy in all contexts.
People on the religious right want their beliefs to be considered "sacred" and shielded from criticism, because they supposedly come from godNow get this: They also want those beliefs to be the foundation of our public policy, with consequences for you, me and millions of others. When they enter the political arena, the shield must come down and they must run that gauntlet of informed skepticism. They have to support their case with facts and data just like anyone else. So don't put me in the "little faith" category--I am a proud member of the "no faith" group!
DON: Bob, I have a confession. I hope you won't be shocked. I'm in that group, too. Guess neither one of us is ever going to get elected president in this country, unless we can live a few thousand years--and even then, I don't have much hope for YOUR chances.
Thanks for a great interview. How can those so inclined reach you by E-mail?
BOB: Sirreal@mac.com will work nicely.
(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of applied wellness. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)
(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)
my shopping cart
seekwellness members
not a member yet?
sign up here
 | We comply with the HONcode standard for health trustworthy information: verify here. |
