I grew up in religion, made it my own and still value what that had to offer me but over time what was my own grew stronger until me and religion became unreconcilable. That process in itself wasn't traumatic, nor was it an emotionally big thing, just a steady journey of being aware evidence was changing my beliefs. The end of my time as a believer was casual, there wasn't much left and I watched a news report which simply and logically drew me to what was by then quite a small conclusion. It was what happened after that which both confirmed my beliefs and started me on my own journey.
I went through a process of defensiveness I suppose, never really entire and a little half hearted but I certainly avoided religion and felt a bit threatened by it. At times I was quite combative and felt entering the debate was truly important, even needed. I also became a little 'superior' feeling as though there was something ******** about remaining in the dark ages and I was more enlightened. I threw myself with passion into a lifestyle driven by my own goals, done in my own way.
Then I threw myself into science!! I avoided the vague parts, I think perhaps out of a remaining waryness of faith - of anything less than quantifiable. I disliked long winded theories about life, ignored philosophy and prefered to read what could be measured, assessed with numbers rather than reasoning, proven with something seen rather than argued well.
Along came D! A scattered man of huge equations who taught me the physics for my subsid subject (Energy Studies), but what he taught me he could teach with his hands - drawing patterns in the air, taking objects from around him and I lost count of the small things he set fire to! Quantifiabley sensible, based on the seen, solid, certain. Of course when he rambled about a cat in a box, or cheating in exams by firing protons across the lab it was 'cos he was drunk - obviously. At least I knew my measured enclave of science, my beloved behaviourism, my pleasure in picturing a sticky, squishy real brain with bits that do stuff. At least in my world I didn't need the waffly bits he talked about drunk. At least that was the case before he broke my world!!
A simple explaination from me to him, on my subject, confidently delivered and I was NOT impressed by the fast rejection it recieved. The difference between operant and classical conditioning, well known, well recorded, clearly defined, visible measurable - how the HELL could he call that a circular argument? What the smeg was a circular argument? And I was not stupid - it was well documented operant and classical conditioning are different!!
He broke it! My new faith, he bloody broke it! It took a couple of hours, a trip to the library, lots of web pages, diagrams, examples, but he broke it. Quite simply as information mounted I shifted, I fought like an alley cat at first but patiently he showed me each brick wall and let me try to find an exit and fail!
Long after he'd gone I used what I learned, even longer still my old uni supervisor sent me an article saying he thought I may have been right (when I had passed on my revelation). The article re-ordered things all was at peace now, my faith mended. Science solid again, well sort of solid.
I went on. You can't see loneliness, can't really measure it - in fact hearing so many stories of neglect, packed with emotion, there's a whole world not measured but I lived in it, worked in it and felt it. There's more to behaviour than a functional analysis, there's the consequences and the human beings that experience it and I knew that mattered.
In a developing country on a package holiday, my first time abroad, totally nieve (sp?) I hit head on new revelations.
But I have to go shower now and interupt this self indulgent writing.....
