Given the recent wave of 'New Atheism' as people seem to be calling it, I figured I would start a controversy here.
First off lets give some background literature, but I think most of you are aware of these already. Wired Magazine's The Church of the Non-Believers article, Sam Harris (End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation), and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion).
Depending on your semantics I am either an agnostic or atheist. I personally agree with Dawkins' argument about the improbability of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or any other all-powerful, all-knowing being. Due to natural laws and processes (evolution), intelligence in a system occurs late. Therefore (I'm greatly simplifying his argument) it is unlikely that an intelligent designer caused the universe to begin.
While Dawkins' primary point is that God is very improbable, Sam Harris argues that we should challenge beliefs that have no evidence. By not questioning these beliefs people can undertake bizarre and even harmful behaviors because of them, such as terrorists killing themselves and others because they believe they are going to a better place.
So now to the highly offensive question of the year. If you do believe in a god, why? If not, why?
The second question: Should we challenge other people's beliefs that cannot be backed up by evidence? Is this a good policy for a society?
This is getting to a rather personal question on a rather public and permanent forum. :) That being said, I feel comfortable saying that I personally have found the question to be Undecidable, which I think Ryan will fully understand. I've stopped spending a lot of time contemplating it.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do find religion very interesting culturally and historically. I would argue it would be a worthwhile pursuit if only for the preservation of a link to our ancient past. Although clearly the belief that "I'm Right," (or more importantly "You're Wrong.") leads to more suffering than pretty much any other human creation.
I actually haven't read Mr Harris's book or many of the other references listed. I should do so sometime.
1) Babies
ReplyDeleteThe earfucking babies analogy is now one of my favorite of all time. I owe you a dollar.
Your assault on unjustified belief was compelling, but its juxtaposition with an endorsement of reincarnation struck me as odd, to say the least.
2) Agnosticism and Calcuability
ReplyDeleteEven if we imagine that the logical inconsistencies of a Judeo-Christian God are somehow deficient, agnosticism doesn't seem the proper result to me.
There may well be pixies in my garden that come out and frolic in the moonlight. They would, of course, take special care to hide whenever I am looking. If they are quite skilled and magical, I might never prove nor disprove their existence.
We might then say that I am an agnostic towards pixies. Agnostic towards dryads, unicorns, Count Chocula and honest politicians. It's not that I disbelieve in these things, I just don't have any evidence.
But that's inaccurate, because I simply don't beleive in those creatures.
The implication of agnosticism is that agnostics alone are open to new evidence. But if tomorrow, you show me clear undoctored photographs of pixies frolicking in my garden, or lead one of them in for an introduction, I will not hesitate to endorse their existence. Disbelief does not imply a rejection of all further evidence, disbelief is not conclusiveness, it should not be confused with dogmatism. Since disbelief is not equivalent to dogmatism, creating a special brand of disbelief that's open to new evidence is unnecessary and misleading.
3) Standards of Belief
ReplyDeleteTo close, I don't think there's a computability issue, I think there are logical incoherencies with an all-knowing, all-powerful God that engages in constant deception about the way the world actually works. At the least, it's grossly implausible. Could a God exist that is fighting to hide the true nature of the world from us, expecting us to learn the true nature of the world not by examining our surroundings, but by looking to ancient, awkwardly written and self-contradictory historical records? Further, could such a deity be waiting to reward or punish us based on whether or not we guessed which awkward historical record was accurate? If such a God exists, I'm not sure it is worthy of either our belief or our worship. If that guessing game is the challenge before us, I'm not sure it's worth playing.
In this world, skepticism is an indispensible epistemlogical tool. It's good practice not to hand over all your money when a stranger tells you it's actually on fire, and that they will keep it safe for you. Skepticism leads to better analysis of data, better predictions, and thus more successful action. So if a god created this world, that god created a system of incentives that endorse skepticism. God has thus encouraged skepticism, and shouldn't expect blind credulity. It would be greatly insulting to misapply the lesson as to that same god's existence.
The formulations of god/s I have seen so far in my life are all grossly implausible. But they needn't be grossly implausible for me to reject them. I cannot support an ontology that admits in every plausible construction, or I would be mired in a world profligate with contradictions. To reject God, the belief in God needn't be implausible, it must merely lack sufficient evidence, as it clearly does.
When this life is all you've got, it attains a certain preciousness. The natural implication of reincarnation is that life is comparitively less valuable.
ReplyDeleteMost Christians don't believe in imminent rains of fire. Most Christians are moderates who reject a vindictive God, and may believe in some afterlife, but primarily in an obligation to love all others out of gratitude for the wonders of creation.
If harmful effects were all we were measuring, I might quickly prefer the latter.
A bridge builder can examine all the data and check all his equations, or in lieu of that, could simply rely on hunches. Perhaps his hunches tell him that a design is unsafe, or that the soil in this area can't support any bridges. Such faith would not result in any catastrophe. But we shouldn't need a catastrophic effect to condemn his methods.
I would prefer that the designers of bridges and airplanes, and those who prescribe medicines and guide our national policies were people who always gather evidence and examine all the data before coming to conclusions on important propositions, and are never satisfied by faith. It doesn't matter that certain faiths are benign, faith itself is not.
"It doesn't matter that certain faiths are benign, faith itself is not."
ReplyDeleteI have a new catch phrase, thanks Thomas. Kudos to Josh on the babies comment as well. I'm really enjoying the discussion here.
Here's some thoughts on the comments posted:
Reincarnation - This idea is actually really easy to abuse, look at India's caste structured society. The caste system is in fact embedded in their constitution. It is based on the idea that if someone is born into a poor position it is because they screwed up in an earlier life, so why bother raising their social status (oversimplification, but you get the point). This philosophy carries a lot of baggage and should be evaluated similar to all other faiths.
Agnosticism - This term is inherently vague I would argue. In a realistic sense it is a social nicety. The term atheist is offensive in society currently, agnostic "softens the blow". It sounds less insulting than saying atheist.
Realism aside, philosophically speaking the term is useful for a transition period in between faith and non-faith or vice-versus. Dramatic changes in faith beliefs rarely occur. People resist major belief shifts, I don't have the science to back it up, but I think it exists (ask Walter). Some doubt usually exists when shifting a belief paradigm. Agnosticism can describe this stage. Belief is not a binary value, it requires some fuzzy logic.
I would mention that faiths and beliefs are very personal issues, and while Thomas's argument about a faith-filled bridge builder seems to be a strong argument, its a bit of a straw man.
ReplyDeleteWhen an engineer believes in a god and when an engineer believes they can build a bridge because he/she heard the voice of God are two separate issues. One may or may not have an effect on many people (depending on multiple issues, not just zeal of faith) and the other clearly puts many people's (whether 10 or 10,000) lives at risk.
I therefore think it is appropriate to question people's beliefs/faith only insomuch as it infringes upon your own (a little On Liberty rhetoric for you). If a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door wishing to "bear witness" by all means logically rip them apart.
Especially in the United States, there tends to be a lot of freedom, and while its not quite as palatable, the way our nation was designed (and exploited) politically was to have people group together. Those who weren't puritanical enough for the people of Massachusettes were condemned to the wilderness of Rhode Island where they instituted the concept of separation of church and state.
To summarize:
1. There is a difference in uses and zeal of faiths between people.
2. Question belief and faith only as much as others attempt to proselytize.
3. Power to change U.S. political principles is built in numbers, and then reason (unless you are as charismatic as myself and then you may say whatever you please).
Aack! I don't know which arguement to respond to first. I'll start with Ryan's post.
ReplyDelete"I personally agree with Dawkins' argument about the improbability of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or any other all-powerful, all-knowing being. Due to natural laws and processes (evolution), intelligence in a system occurs late. Therefore (I'm greatly simplifying his argument) it is unlikely that an intelligent designer caused the universe to begin."
Arguements based on the nature of the universe seem weak to me, we have no basis for comparison. I could easily argue that because there are physical laws and constants, and conservation of mass, all of history was determined by the number and velocity of quarks at the big bang. The nature of the universe doesn't tell us if we're in a pond or a petri-dish.
"Sam Harris argues that we should challenge beliefs that have no evidence. By not questioning these beliefs people can undertake bizarre and even harmful behaviors because of them, such as terrorists killing themselves and others because they believe they are going to a better place."
Harris begs the question, what is admissible evidence? His view leaves little room for the breadth and variability of Human experience and mental states. Emotional experiences are inadmissable as evidence. He advocates a lowest common denominator version of reality, one that can be agreed upon by the greatest number of people. He then goes on to argue that anyone who prioritizes their sensory data in a different way and is unable to explain their perceptions within the scope of his data is a child, or "dangerous".
The question for me is, to what degree are our sensory experiences effected/limited by our conditioning? People in non-western societies often claim to see ghosts/little people/devils/etc. Are they crazy? Lying? If they see these things, how do we know that we aren't un-seeing them?
The mind wants to create order in the world, and I think the brain is quite capable of massaging our perceptions to fit the order that we find most accomodating.
The nature of humanity, and the continuum of mental states that we now describe in terms of mental illness and normalcy, makes all knowledge a matter of faith on some level. EX:
I love you.
People are talking about me behind my back.
People are not talking about me behind my back.
I am strong.
I am sad.
"Faith" takes place between the irreduceable self, the ultimate observer, and the vast body of stimuli that our senses feed us. We all practice a leap of faith in choosing to believe anything. Atheism is just another attempt to stitch different stimuli together to hide the nakedness of our ignorance.
To bridge the gulf between the only thing we truely know - that we are - and everything else. For a time science, or atheism, or 'religion' can suffice, providing certitude and the brilliant clarity of new sight. But one day the frabric will tear and the darkness will return.
In response to Matthews' excellent points:
ReplyDeleteAs for Dawkins' argument what he is saying is science doesn't know how the universe began. However, what science can tell us based on evolutionary theory is that intelligence arises late in cosmic history. This is not a firm answer on how things began, but from our current understanding having a first cause be an intelligent designer does not fit with our theories. Most likely we will never know how/why the universe began, but it is improbable that intelligence existed before it started.
As for the Harris point, although it is true that all of reality is eventually a leap of faith we have to put a bar at some point for evidence. We could all just be brains in a jar with electrical impulses telling us we see things, we cannot disprove this. Is that a good reason to believe that you are just a brain in a jar?
I would say not. However, to take the thinking of some fundamentalists to it's logical extreme, it might well be a good reason to believe it. It cannot be proved false, so it must be true. Alternatively, if there is any slight possibility of error in a scientist's data (and in science, nothing is ever 100% proven - scientists publish the known margin of error) then it is safe to assume that the theory is completely wrong (especially if it contradicts the religious facts - which, you will notice, have no margin of error).
We have to draw the line somewhere. If there is a wealth of strong evidence from a variety of different sciences supporting a theory, and little or no solid evidence to refute that theory, then should we accept the theory as being quite close to the mark? Or reject it because we can conceive of any number of far-fetched and impossible-to-prove (i.e. unscientific) hypotheses that would invalidate it were they true? I janked this from here.
The scientific process is currently our only reliable way of validating evidence. It is not perfect and is not capable of handling such issues as emotional experiences, but it is the best thing we have.
The important point Harris brings up is we now live in a world where one individual can kill others on a massive scale with bombs or nuclear weapons. If their faith says they will go to a better place by killing others, then what's to stop them? Due this danger we may have to enforce a lowest common denominator of reality. Since we can't prove that we go to a better place, this may be all we have and therefore should be protected.
On Julia's response:
ReplyDeleteDoor to door evangelists were merely an example meant to illustrate the larger issues you point out. It is absolutely true that the religious right is a power broker that pushes issues that many find unpalatable.
This is why I brought up my third point: Power to change U.S. political principles is built in numbers, and then reason.
I make no distinction between public policy groups and Jehovah's witnesses. Both attempt to impress their religious beliefs upon the public and are therefore open to criticism and scrutiny. Because of this, my points are valid.
I find the argument that an intelligent creator is "unprobable" extremely unconvincing. It may help reinforce atheistic beliefs, but I don't think anyone who believes in the J-C god (including extremely reasonable ones) thinks that He evolved according to the same laws of biology we are subject to. Current science can say very little with any certainty about the first few seconds of the existence of our universe, let alone what may or may not have been before or outside of it.
ReplyDeleteI think a belief in an evolved god fits more closely with the belief in an extra-terrestrial, alien diety, a'la Scientology.
I'll backtrack slightly and acknowledge that Eric and Pat are right that faith and beliefs are sensitive subjects, but it is one of the primary reasons I began this thread. Challenging our beliefs and listening to counter-arguments either makes our beliefs stronger or possibly open up new beliefs. I hope no one is offended by the discussion.
ReplyDeleteCurrently science makes no claims about pre-universe time, while the Big Bang theory addresses the beginning and shortly after there is no evidence to explain the time before. Since there is no evidence, no scientific claims can be made.
The problem with an intelligent designer explanation is that it does not come with any evidence and hence is not disprovable. Not only that, but it also can discourage people from trying to find an evidence-based explanation. If the pre-universe time is attributed to some being outside our known laws, then why continue to search for an answer? It hand waves the argument.
I believe it is reasonable to tell people that we simply do not yet know how the universe began and cannot provide any proof or explanation at this time, but allowing an explanation without proof is unacceptable.
Epistemology: Finding a Threshold of Belief
ReplyDeleteJonathan suggested that Harris's threshold is arbitrarily low, and sets out other examples where faith is tolerated.
(Ryan suggests verifiability. Such a standard is faulty, as all truths are provable or disprovable given the right series of experiences. (Cf. everything by Quine).)
So where do we set a bar on our epistemology?
A first order of business might just be setting a threshold that won't lead to contradiction.
Christianity has a prominent historical tradition, a large number of adherents, a historically rooted text self-claiming to be authoritative, and testimonials from those claiming transcendent religious experiences. If I accept those as persuasive, then I must adopt several incompatible religions.
The scientific paradigm is not arbitrary, as Jonathan suggests, it is just founded on the idea that we cannot admit contradictory statements, and our thresholds for evidence must be consistent.
I invite those defending theism to present a type of evidence for God that cannot be simultaneously used to support a belief in a contradictory notion of God.
To Eric
ReplyDeleteEric's response is unique. It acknowledges the need for evidence in some areas of our lives, but suggests that we have differing standards of belief based on the number of people our beliefs are affecting.
Consider the proposition:
"We should maintain two independent standards of belief."
What level of evidence will we require before adopting such a statement?
Since such a claim, if abused, could allow in many other poorly evidenced claims that would hurt others, we should hold it to our more rigorous standard of evidence.
As there is no evidence whatsoever for such a claim, it must be dismissed.
We must therefore hold all of our beliefs to the strict standard of evidence.
To Thomas:
ReplyDeleteI invite those defending theism to present a type of evidence for God that cannot be simultaneously used to support a belief in a contradictory notion of God.
Sure let me get right on that.
This statement seems antagonistic for such a personal issue. I have to defend my faith now?
To everyone:
I saw the pixie picture. I am sorry if you didn't. I am sorry I cannot reproduce the pixie picture for any of you. But no amount of reasoned argument will make me unsee the picture of the pixie.
I don't ask you to believe in pixies. I don't ask that you allow for the building of bridges made out of pixie sticks. Please, don't outlaw pixie belief or only allow for pixie belief with proper pixie documentation.
Some speak of abuses like religion is the only thing that has been abused. Power, drugs, emotions are abused on a daily basis. I think it would be better to tackle issues of poverty, excess and violence before we tackle thought control.
I do not think that religion is the foremost of our problems.
Respond if you want, but I will discuss this issue no further. I want to see all of you over Christmas break, but I fear if this goes on any longer, that may change. :)
We have arrived at the point I was afraid of when I originally began this post. One of my original thoughts was "is it possible to discuss very personal issues about faith and belief without alienating friends?" Of all topics discussed here (TheoryBloc) can this one be done without giving offense? At this point I don't think it can, which gives me my answer to the second question on the original post.
ReplyDeleteHere are my final thoughts before joining e.p. in ceasing this discussion.
"Please, don't outlaw pixie belief or only allow for pixie belief with proper pixie documentation. " I never had any intention of outlawing pixie belief.
"Some speak of abuses like religion is the only thing that has been abused. Power, drugs, emotions are abused on a daily basis." All of these things are abused, but religion is unique in that it is never questioned. Religion is allowed a free pass in our society because it is a contentious issue (as this thread proves). It is extremely difficult to discuss matters of personal belief without giving/taking offense and that is what really concerns me.
In closing, hopefully no one has been too offended by me bringing up a topic, which is usually avoided in polite society.
I suppose I shouldn't continue this discussion with arguments I find reasonable support the belief in a god or a creator or some sort of supernatural mythos. I'll quite literally be the Devil's advocate if you want to continue this sometime in person.
ReplyDelete