I could quite easily fit my understanding of science into any religious view - God can do anything, so he made the world this way, and even made atheists to challenge my faith. Once I believe in magic I can invent anything. It's all down to the premises; so that a valid argument can be claimed to be a sound argument, or I can simply claim that it's beyond reason and the premises stand alone unchallengable.
I could quite justifiably, by the absolutist religious view, believe that in fact there is a God. But my God isn't omnipotent, though he is omnibenevolent. He spontaneously came into existence about 20 billion years ago, came up with a plan for our universe, and currently we are its latest enhancement. He's really sorry about the crappy mess he's left us in, and has wanted to atone - that's why he created a representation of himself as Jesus, but he hadn't anticipated our design flaws, so we screwed that up for him. He tried again with Mohammed, but that was a real cock-up. Eventually he settled on the Enlightenment. It was always going to be difficult - unlike his future creation Microsoft he decided to avoid any pretence at compatibility with previous versions - it was his Linux, and it had its own flaws, but did have certain benefits in that it wasn't proprietary, it was open source! Anyone could contribute and everyone could benefit. As with all good projects the Enlightenment is an ongoing development, new anti-religious security patches are being contributed by many sources. He hopes to eventually convert all customers. And there's an incentive for existing and upgrading customers alike - a free pass to heaven, where you'll be met by Steve Jobs with some great gifts.
I suppose if I believed the above I could be aspect blind, in that I don't see how my premises upon which it all stands can be at fault. But I'd KNOW I'm not, wouldn't I? Any objections?
Friday, 25 January 2008
Aspect Blindness and Personality
I wanted to note these points here following the reading posts by Ibrahim and Sam on the following blogs:
Sam:
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/01/muscles-metaphors-mysteries-on-grokking.html
http://celticchimp.blogspot.com/2008/01/wittgenstein-and-aspect-blindness.html
Ibrahim:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/01/latest-response-to-ibrahim-lawson.html
The charge that atheists suffer from Aspect Blindness regarding religion can be just as easily, if not more so, directed at the religious.
I think part the absolute commitment to the religious view is part of one's personal makeup, but put more generally it is a consequence of certain personalities.
I have had experience of religion. I was raised a Christian, I had doubts in my teens but wasn't fully aware of the strength of the atheistic alternative (I was agnostic), and eventually came to realise the flaws in the religious view. But, I've been around enough religious people to recognise several types. Some are religious by default, as JustBrowsing describes. Some really are strong unquestioning believers that simply reject any alternative, with some element of fear, either of the spiritual consequences, or simply of the unknown. Many are what I'd class as 'troubled', in that they desperately want to find something spiritual as a source of comfort and guidance because they have some sort of difficulty with the basic physical world and what they see as all its nastiness - such as crime and 'evil', or natural disasters, things that from my point of view I can classify simply and naturalistically as "some people aren't nice to each other" and "shit happens". I'm not troubled by the world and its problems and the fact that I can't fix them all. I'm not saying I'm heartless or fearless - I feel deeply disturbed to witness human and animal suffering, and I'd be as scared as the next person if I were mugged; but I can put these things into context so that I'm not fretting every minute of the day. I don't become depressed with the state of the world or my personal life. I do have a driving need to learn new stuff, but I'm not disturbed by the lack of answers.
In some cases the religious view is one of 'blind faith', the outright unquestioned denial of the possibility of an atheistic view. But in many case I'd describe faith more as 'tunnel vision' or 'aspect blindness', rather than simply 'blind', as a consequence of personality, where critical reasoning is accepted and used, but sufficiently distorted and abused to affirm the religious view.
Maybe I have personality issues that drive me towards a critical questioning and a general scepticism that results in my atheism, and maybe it's difficult for me recognise it in myself. I'm open to analysis, by professionals or amateurs.
It might be said that I'm this way because I haven't had a religious experience, and that if I had I'd know. I can't refute this categorically, but by the same token how am I supposed to know? And how would anyone else know what I have and haven't experienced? Maybe I have similar 'spiritual' experiences, but just as people have different thresholds of pain I have a low threshold of the 'spiritual' experience. Maybe that's all it boils down to, different strengths of 'zap' in the brain, and that the brains of those that perceive a stronger 'zap' interpret it all anthropomorphically as some superior presence. How would you tell the difference between that and a real religious God invoked revalatory event?
Sam:
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.com/2008/01/muscles-metaphors-mysteries-on-grokking.html
http://celticchimp.blogspot.com/2008/01/wittgenstein-and-aspect-blindness.html
Ibrahim:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/01/latest-response-to-ibrahim-lawson.html
The charge that atheists suffer from Aspect Blindness regarding religion can be just as easily, if not more so, directed at the religious.
I think part the absolute commitment to the religious view is part of one's personal makeup, but put more generally it is a consequence of certain personalities.
I have had experience of religion. I was raised a Christian, I had doubts in my teens but wasn't fully aware of the strength of the atheistic alternative (I was agnostic), and eventually came to realise the flaws in the religious view. But, I've been around enough religious people to recognise several types. Some are religious by default, as JustBrowsing describes. Some really are strong unquestioning believers that simply reject any alternative, with some element of fear, either of the spiritual consequences, or simply of the unknown. Many are what I'd class as 'troubled', in that they desperately want to find something spiritual as a source of comfort and guidance because they have some sort of difficulty with the basic physical world and what they see as all its nastiness - such as crime and 'evil', or natural disasters, things that from my point of view I can classify simply and naturalistically as "some people aren't nice to each other" and "shit happens". I'm not troubled by the world and its problems and the fact that I can't fix them all. I'm not saying I'm heartless or fearless - I feel deeply disturbed to witness human and animal suffering, and I'd be as scared as the next person if I were mugged; but I can put these things into context so that I'm not fretting every minute of the day. I don't become depressed with the state of the world or my personal life. I do have a driving need to learn new stuff, but I'm not disturbed by the lack of answers.
In some cases the religious view is one of 'blind faith', the outright unquestioned denial of the possibility of an atheistic view. But in many case I'd describe faith more as 'tunnel vision' or 'aspect blindness', rather than simply 'blind', as a consequence of personality, where critical reasoning is accepted and used, but sufficiently distorted and abused to affirm the religious view.
Maybe I have personality issues that drive me towards a critical questioning and a general scepticism that results in my atheism, and maybe it's difficult for me recognise it in myself. I'm open to analysis, by professionals or amateurs.
It might be said that I'm this way because I haven't had a religious experience, and that if I had I'd know. I can't refute this categorically, but by the same token how am I supposed to know? And how would anyone else know what I have and haven't experienced? Maybe I have similar 'spiritual' experiences, but just as people have different thresholds of pain I have a low threshold of the 'spiritual' experience. Maybe that's all it boils down to, different strengths of 'zap' in the brain, and that the brains of those that perceive a stronger 'zap' interpret it all anthropomorphically as some superior presence. How would you tell the difference between that and a real religious God invoked revalatory event?
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Knowledge
In response to Barefootboom I tried to figure out my take on 'knowledge':
I've been struggling with this for a while. I can't really get a handle on knowledge with regard to truth or justification. My mind tends to work in the concrete rather than the abstract, so maybe that's why.
So, what I can get a handle on, or at least I feel I can, is information (e.g. Shannon). Information is merely laid down in the brain, using the physicalist view, in patterns that vary according to person, time, current brain state, etc., acquired through the combination of genetics, development and sensory input and so on.
Sticking with the physicalist view that consciousness is a manifestation of brain activity that gives an appearance of the 'mind', then the processes of the mind consist of the manipulation and regurgitation of an individual brain's information at any particular time - outwardly, to others, an external representation of the internal information.
So what we call individual 'knowledge' is nothing more than continuously changing pattern of transformed information. Add into the mix other brains all trying to perform the same task, each with their own internal mix of this 'knowledge', then it's no wonder we struggle to find agreement on what we understand any particular piece of knowledge to be. If there is any 'truth' out there beyond human experience then we're unlikely to acquire or agree on any 'true' interpretation of it.
Why do we want to search for a truth of any kind? Why must we agree? I don't know what the biological driving forces might be, other than it could be viewed as yet another manifestation of the consequence of housing selfish genes. But it's pretty clear we are motivated to question, to understand, and to agree on 'truths'.
In this model there is no absolute truth, at least not that we can get at. There is only knowledge as information. What we make of it and how useful it is determines whether or not it is 'justified true belief', though I've never liked that phrase (because I couldn't understand it). And I think this is how such variety in understanding can be explained; how we arrive at such a debatable position about what 'truth' is, what god is, if god exists, what morality is, etc. In some respects this is a utilitarian view, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
If this interpretation is the case then it also explains in some way the success of science and its methods and why we find them useful: the use of repeatability to establish knowledge as a consistent set of information over time, space and environment; the use of logic to establish what we can conclude or at least what we can use as a working model. Science even goes to great lengths to iron out the noise and the vagaries of human fallibility by using double blind tests and performing statistical analysis on the data to make sure, as much as we can, that the results actually represent useful knowledge/information. In other words science helps us to get as good an agreement on any 'truth' as we can reasonably expect.
Beyond this view of knowledge I struggle with much of the philosophical contemplation of it. It seems to me that it's quite easy to analyse yourself until you vanish up your own ass, and I feel that that's what some philosophers do when considering truth and knowledge. Maybe it's just my ignorance of some of the finer points.
I've been struggling with this for a while. I can't really get a handle on knowledge with regard to truth or justification. My mind tends to work in the concrete rather than the abstract, so maybe that's why.
So, what I can get a handle on, or at least I feel I can, is information (e.g. Shannon). Information is merely laid down in the brain, using the physicalist view, in patterns that vary according to person, time, current brain state, etc., acquired through the combination of genetics, development and sensory input and so on.
Sticking with the physicalist view that consciousness is a manifestation of brain activity that gives an appearance of the 'mind', then the processes of the mind consist of the manipulation and regurgitation of an individual brain's information at any particular time - outwardly, to others, an external representation of the internal information.
So what we call individual 'knowledge' is nothing more than continuously changing pattern of transformed information. Add into the mix other brains all trying to perform the same task, each with their own internal mix of this 'knowledge', then it's no wonder we struggle to find agreement on what we understand any particular piece of knowledge to be. If there is any 'truth' out there beyond human experience then we're unlikely to acquire or agree on any 'true' interpretation of it.
Why do we want to search for a truth of any kind? Why must we agree? I don't know what the biological driving forces might be, other than it could be viewed as yet another manifestation of the consequence of housing selfish genes. But it's pretty clear we are motivated to question, to understand, and to agree on 'truths'.
In this model there is no absolute truth, at least not that we can get at. There is only knowledge as information. What we make of it and how useful it is determines whether or not it is 'justified true belief', though I've never liked that phrase (because I couldn't understand it). And I think this is how such variety in understanding can be explained; how we arrive at such a debatable position about what 'truth' is, what god is, if god exists, what morality is, etc. In some respects this is a utilitarian view, but I don't see anything wrong with that.
If this interpretation is the case then it also explains in some way the success of science and its methods and why we find them useful: the use of repeatability to establish knowledge as a consistent set of information over time, space and environment; the use of logic to establish what we can conclude or at least what we can use as a working model. Science even goes to great lengths to iron out the noise and the vagaries of human fallibility by using double blind tests and performing statistical analysis on the data to make sure, as much as we can, that the results actually represent useful knowledge/information. In other words science helps us to get as good an agreement on any 'truth' as we can reasonably expect.
Beyond this view of knowledge I struggle with much of the philosophical contemplation of it. It seems to me that it's quite easy to analyse yourself until you vanish up your own ass, and I feel that that's what some philosophers do when considering truth and knowledge. Maybe it's just my ignorance of some of the finer points.
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Crush on Christ
Read Possum's Essay for the first time today. Very inspiring, and a fine example. Weren't those Baptists weird though - so manu un-Christan Christians around.
On the same blog, a later post got me thinking about crushes. I'm 54 and remember a crush from when I was 5-6 very vividly, except for the girl's face - remember the place, the occasion, even her dress. I don't think of it often, but, as with many deep rooted feelings it is a clear memory - though perhaps it's the feeling that's the lasting memory and not the girl herself.
I can only imagine that religious types have similar deeply embedded feelings for Christ, or whoever, created by all the positive hype and threats of damnation that some churches instill in kids; and that that makes it so difficult to give up the faith and the 'love', against all reason. Especially if it's re-enforced every Sunday. I was Church of England, so it wasn't too strong an indoctrination, but I had a Catholic female cousin of a similar age to me and I remember when we were about 12 she used to admonish me for my evolving doubt and wonder how a couldn't 'love' Christ.
I swear she had a crush on Christ.
On the same blog, a later post got me thinking about crushes. I'm 54 and remember a crush from when I was 5-6 very vividly, except for the girl's face - remember the place, the occasion, even her dress. I don't think of it often, but, as with many deep rooted feelings it is a clear memory - though perhaps it's the feeling that's the lasting memory and not the girl herself.
I can only imagine that religious types have similar deeply embedded feelings for Christ, or whoever, created by all the positive hype and threats of damnation that some churches instill in kids; and that that makes it so difficult to give up the faith and the 'love', against all reason. Especially if it's re-enforced every Sunday. I was Church of England, so it wasn't too strong an indoctrination, but I had a Catholic female cousin of a similar age to me and I remember when we were about 12 she used to admonish me for my evolving doubt and wonder how a couldn't 'love' Christ.
I swear she had a crush on Christ.
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
A Journalist Apologises
It's not often it happens. I suspect many in the UK feel the same way, about Bush and Blair. Link
Monday, 3 December 2007
Is Religion Dangerous?
This is a response to Stephen Law's
"Is Religous Dangerous":
I would agree with William Hawthorne that it is not 'religion' in and of itself that is dangerous, but the following combination (including and paraphrasing some of Stephen's points). The first two conditions might apply to many situations, but it's the third condition that's the clincher for religion:
1) People with an uncritical mind are extremely gullible and open to persuasion by charismatic unscrupulous, or merely misguided, people, or by weight of numbers, about some 'truth' X.
2) People of a critical mind are not completely immune from this persuasion, or may not be able to refute X, for many reasons: they are not as charismatic as some of the proponents; the arguments for X are so tortuous, or rely on fallacies that are difficult to put across to those without the training; the arguments are not even real arguments, but statements that can neither be proved or disproved; there is insufficient data, or the problem is too difficult to refute currently; etc.
Conditions (1) and (2) allows for the propagation of X through whole communities, and it may continue and grow over a period of time. However, given enough effort and time it can be established that X is not a worthwhile 'truth' and can be discarded. Even then some people will continue to belive in X. Crazy 'truths' can sweep the blogosphere in this way.
Condition (2) can result in 'experts' believing X for some time, but later finding flaws in the original reasoning that supported X. This is the case with the early adoption of nuclear energy, where the arguments for it failed to account for the true cost of decommissioning. The war in Iraq might also have been permitted as a consequence of condition (2).
The solution to this problem is more critical reasoning and the promotion and teaching of critical reasoning, as Stephen has suggested.
But, religion comes into its own with condition (3):
3) Faith, and by inference the rejection of critical reasoning. Note that critical reasoning might be used, up to a point, but then only to the extent that it supports X. The main principle here is that if reasoning fails, then faith applies, but if reasoning can be used, no matter how invalid, if you can get away with it use it to bring some apparent credibility to X.
One of the benefits of having faith in your arsenal is that it makes it very easy for those of a non-critical mind, or those struggling with a difficult argument, to simply accept X on faith, and particularly on the word of the leaders of the faith.
4) Hysteria. This isn't absolutely necessary, but it helps. If you can whip up your followers into a frenzy, then it becomes more difficult for followers to reject X. If you've been discarding all reason, chanting and throwing yourself about in the name of X, calling for the death of apostates and non-believers, can you suddenly see yourself turning round and saying "Oops! Sorry folks, I think I may have been mistaken there." Such a sudden change of heart not going to happen is it? It rarely happens in policing, politics and business, so why should we expect it to be likely in religion.
So, religion is dangerous because of the combination of all these conditions; and there may be more.
"Is Religous Dangerous":
I would agree with William Hawthorne that it is not 'religion' in and of itself that is dangerous, but the following combination (including and paraphrasing some of Stephen's points). The first two conditions might apply to many situations, but it's the third condition that's the clincher for religion:
1) People with an uncritical mind are extremely gullible and open to persuasion by charismatic unscrupulous, or merely misguided, people, or by weight of numbers, about some 'truth' X.
2) People of a critical mind are not completely immune from this persuasion, or may not be able to refute X, for many reasons: they are not as charismatic as some of the proponents; the arguments for X are so tortuous, or rely on fallacies that are difficult to put across to those without the training; the arguments are not even real arguments, but statements that can neither be proved or disproved; there is insufficient data, or the problem is too difficult to refute currently; etc.
Conditions (1) and (2) allows for the propagation of X through whole communities, and it may continue and grow over a period of time. However, given enough effort and time it can be established that X is not a worthwhile 'truth' and can be discarded. Even then some people will continue to belive in X. Crazy 'truths' can sweep the blogosphere in this way.
Condition (2) can result in 'experts' believing X for some time, but later finding flaws in the original reasoning that supported X. This is the case with the early adoption of nuclear energy, where the arguments for it failed to account for the true cost of decommissioning. The war in Iraq might also have been permitted as a consequence of condition (2).
The solution to this problem is more critical reasoning and the promotion and teaching of critical reasoning, as Stephen has suggested.
But, religion comes into its own with condition (3):
3) Faith, and by inference the rejection of critical reasoning. Note that critical reasoning might be used, up to a point, but then only to the extent that it supports X. The main principle here is that if reasoning fails, then faith applies, but if reasoning can be used, no matter how invalid, if you can get away with it use it to bring some apparent credibility to X.
One of the benefits of having faith in your arsenal is that it makes it very easy for those of a non-critical mind, or those struggling with a difficult argument, to simply accept X on faith, and particularly on the word of the leaders of the faith.
4) Hysteria. This isn't absolutely necessary, but it helps. If you can whip up your followers into a frenzy, then it becomes more difficult for followers to reject X. If you've been discarding all reason, chanting and throwing yourself about in the name of X, calling for the death of apostates and non-believers, can you suddenly see yourself turning round and saying "Oops! Sorry folks, I think I may have been mistaken there." Such a sudden change of heart not going to happen is it? It rarely happens in policing, politics and business, so why should we expect it to be likely in religion.
So, religion is dangerous because of the combination of all these conditions; and there may be more.
Friday, 23 November 2007
Stephen Law's "Sleight of Hand With Faith" blog
See Sleight of Hand With Faith
Another good blog from Stephen Law. One of the pleasures of his blog is the level of interaction he permits. Some good stuff and good responses. I don't entirely agree with his points of view on some aspects - particularly the use of the 'problem of evil'. It's quite a long post, so my comments here are a bit lengthy too. I've stuck pretty much to Stephen's headings.
Reasonable belief
The tree, Japan, 1066 examples are particularly useful, in that they show there are varying degrees of reasonableness to believe something. The whole of Christian, Jewish and Islamic religious faith is based on ancient scriptures, but these old documents should be considered less reliable than more recent beliefs, such as the existence of a visible tree, the existence of Japan, and the historic records of 1066. And even if we accept that some original ancient document is genuine, there's no reason to give the same weight to its content as to the authenticity of the document itself.
Getting back to the 'faith' position, it's possible that some atheists believe god doesn't exist from a 'faith' position - they have the same degree and quality of faith that the 'stong faith' theist has, the atheist just believes the opposite.
But this isn't the 'science based atheism', or 'empirical atheism', or 'rational atheism' that most proponents of atheism argue for. It may be a position that is strongly believed, but it is borne out of reason and evidence, not pure blind faith. See Problem With Faith for more detail on my point of view on this.
And while we're on the subject of blind faith, I haven't yet been convinced by those theists who say their faith isn't blind faith. The argument goes like this:
A: You have no evidence and reason to suppose God exists.
T: No, we don't need it, we have faith.
A: Ah! Blind faith!
T: No, it's not blind faith. We believe based on scripture, etc.
A: So, you do need evidence. Let's examine that evidence...(atheist examines this evidence and concludes it's very flimsy and lacks any reason)...and so the scriptures aren't very good evidence and so don't provide good reason to believe in god.
T: No, we don't need it, we have faith....
A similar point is made by Stephen, where theists switch meanings of 'faith'.
Arguments for the existence of God
I think Stephen is here far too generous on the reasons for believing God might exist. The arguments are fatally flawed, but then he says...
"By saying that the arguments are fatally flawed, I mean not that, while the arguments do provide good grounds for believing in God, these grounds fall short of being conclusive. Rather, I mean that these arguments actually provide us with very little, if any, reason to suppose that God exists"
The first five points provide no good reason at all, they are so poor: (i) childishly poor; (ii)delusion - no there aren't any miracles - show me some; (iv)Jesus - he is qualified and reliable why?; (v)it only appears to be designed, but that doesn't mean it is.
Only the sixth is reasonable, to the extent that we have no knowledge of why the universe exists at all, and the proposition that there might be a god that created it is one possibility. But then it's a far cry from that basic proposition to conclude that this god has all the religious baggage attached to him, particularly that he has any interest in us, that he occasionally allows or causes miracles, that he allows or has any interest in what we call evil.
This 'source of the universe' proposition could suggest nothing more than some entity, which we might call god, created the universe. One might as well suppose that this god consist of some phenomenon of super-physics, outside our understanding of physics as it applies in our universe. But, again, there is no reason to suppose any of the religious trappings.
The reasonableness of the belief in god is often compared to the reasonableness of the belief in fairies. Pretty convincing to atheists, but apparently not to thesists.
Perhaps another comparison might be more realistic. An entity 'god' as a source of the universe is a reasonable proposition. But then so are many other cosmological theories, such as the cyclical universe, the multiverse, and so on. But how do these other theories impact on our daily lives? I don't worship a multiverse, or expect it to judge me on my death. And all these theories still suffer from the same 'first cause' problem. And, we have no reason to suppose any one of them is a more likely candidate than another. This is the level of reasonableness upon which the existence of god should be assessed. It doesn't provide much ground for religion does it?
The problem of evil
If the theist can conjure up god based on the flimsy reasons already given, then it's not too difficult to rationalise away evil.
If god is so all knowing and we understand him so little, who are we to dispute his reasons for including evil in his plans. This is where faith comes to the rescue again. If as a theist I believe evil exists, then my faith would tell me to accept that and deal with it. As an atheist, if I can't successfully refute or give good reason against the existence of god in his religious form, then I won't be able to refute the existence of evil. Stephen's final paragraph on evil beginning "It seems that, if the universe does have a creator ..." isn't then so powerful an argument.
Direct religious experience of God
Consider Stephen's comment, "...an orange on the table in front of me..." and then "I don’t infer that there orange is there on the basis of evidence".
Of course that's evidence. What does evidence consist of if not human responses via the senses - isn't that empiricism in a nutshell? And so one does infer it exists from that evidence. If I told you there was an orange there but you couldn't see it, you'd certainly ask for evidence that it is there, because the evidence you are receiving through your eyes says it isn't.
"We also have powerful evidence – in the form of the problem of evil ..." No we don't. This is a circular argument: that god does not exist because of the problem of evil, so revelatory evidence doesn't exist, therefore god does not exist.
In fact my preferred argument is as follows.
a) - God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to suppose he does (with the possible exception of some indeterminate god as a consequence of the source of the universe problem).
b) - Without god this leaves evil as a purely human interpretation of events: natural disasters, illnesses, human actions.
c) - Even if you allow for a 'source of the universe' god, that's not sufficient to then propose evil exists.
When a rotting tree in a forest falls and lands on some plants and animals, is that evil? When a rotting tree in a street falls in a storm and kills a driver in a car, is that evil, is the devil at work there, or is god at work? If that driver had recently knocked down and killed a child while drunk driving, is that evil, and is his later death divine retribution? Or is it all coincidence? How may drunk driving killers don't suffer subsequently? Shit happens, and sometimes we cause it ourselves. Dressing it up, as some theists do, in a separation of [disasters = acts of god], and [human inflicted suffering = evil], doesn't work for me. There is no good reason to conclude evil, as portrayed by thesists, exists as a phenomenon.
Direct religious experience of God
My response here is the same as to the problem of evil. If the argument for a religious god is strong enough, then revelation can follow. The significant points are that, first, there is no good reason to suppose god exists and that in our universe natural laws of physics apply; and, second, that any other phenomenon such as 'revelationary experiences', can also be explained by natural physical laws.
A better approach is to simply say there is no evidence that these revelatory experiences are real. In all human experience, and certainly in scientific matters, there have to be multiple repeatable and falsifiable evidence for an phenomenon to be taken seriously. We cannot prove these experiences didn't happen. We can only tar them with the same brush as we do the whole religious god hypothesis.
When an atheist asks for evidence and a theist responds that god doesn't work that way, the correct response is that without evidence it simply isn't worth pursuing; and with the contrary and substantial evidence that we know that some people suffer psychotic delusions and some people lie, there are far more good reasons not to accept the revelatory experiences as being real.
"How, then, can it be reasonable for someone in possession of both..." A theist would argue god and evil do exist, and if he occasionally reveals himself, who are we to argue with that. They are perfectly consistent once you accept a 'religous' god exists.
The theist/atheist belief/disbelief in evil and revelation are consequences of the belief/disbelief in god. An atheist using any one point to support any other is performing the same circular argument as a theist, but for the opposite position.
Attempts to solve the problem of evil
Stephen's points here don't improve the argument either way. Basically, as explained above, if you can accept that god exists with very little evidence, then you can use that alone to propose evil, revelation, or any other flimsy reason to support your original supported god hypothesis.
Some of these attributes of a religious god have strong historical and cultural backing. Suppose historically other poorly evidenced phenomena had been supported. Atheists often use the 'fairies' comparison to illustrate how ridiculous is a belief in god. But things could have been very different.
Suppose that all the historical and cultural religious junk had backed fairies instead of angels: fairies do exist; they are small tokens of godliness put on earth to help children believe in god. It's not too difficult to imagine a whole history of fairy belief as part of a god belief system - all supported by scripture. Then atheists would be arguing the 'problem of fairies'.
To some extent this type of thing has happened. The big three religions differ significantly. A Muslim could argue with a Christian about the 'problem of Jesus' - that he wasn't god but a mere prophet.
As another example, suppose it was discovered in some obscure scripture that the requirement to worship was a test put down by god, and only those who follow his guidance out of free will and without fear and worship were the truly blessed. We would still be left with the real question - does god exist in the first place?
So, it's one thing to point out how ridiculous are phenomena like evil and revelation, but you can't use them as arguments for the non-existence of god. If the weird religious god of scripture exists, then so could these phenomena.
Used as independent points of view they can all provide supportive reasons as to why it's not reasonable to belive any or all of them. But you can't use them in a deductive chain to conclude god does not exist.
Where the onus lies
I agree that "..the onus is on you to provide some decent arguments ..." and that "It’s down there near belief in fairies."
And that's all that is required - to show this through reason.
An extreme form of 'faith' and A more common sort of 'faith'
If faith is absolute and doesn't require reason, that's fine, but then an atheist doesn't require reason to not accept belief in god (though it is generally preferred). But that leads simply to a stand-off: "Is!", "Isn't!", "Is!", "Isn't!",...
Now you might say this is nonsense, and of course that's right. It is a 'none'-'sense' position. It isn't an argument, because an argument requires reason.
It's funny that theists of this kind can glorify god's creation - man, his consciousness, his free-will, his superior intellect above all other beasts, his power of reason; and yet on this one point we have to throw all that capability away. The position is childish, and worthy of derision - as are the church signs posted elsewhere on Stephen's blog which also promote the abandonment of reason:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/another-bible-belt-sign.html
and
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/reason-is-greatest-enemy-that-faith-has.html
Sliding between these two senses of 'faith'
I agree with this section. Theists use reason, until their arguments are destroyed, when they then revert to 'faith'. And they don't always wait until you leave the room. The Dawkins-McGrath debate follows this line: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6609671681098320091
The arguments behind 'faith'
"Arguments (v) and (vi) in particular are extremely seductive." I disagree, as stated earlier, but more specifically:
(iv) - "Jesus tells us that God exists, and we know Jesus to be a reliable source of information. Therefore it’s likely that God exists."
No. If Jesus existed (I'm not disputing that), and if he said the things he is reported to have said, there is still absolutely no reason to suppose he is a reliable source. In fact, based on current knowledge there's every reason to suppose he was one or more of the following: deluded, a megalomaniac, a very savvy political motivator.
(v) - "The universe shows signs of having been designed. So God must exist as its designer."
No. It only appears to be designed. That doesn't mean it is, and so it is useless as a reason for belief in god. Degrees of reasonableness again.
Having faith in other people
The type of faith discussed here is a mere intuitive assessment of probabilities based on experience. The human mind can perform some amazing feats - that's why artificial intelligence is such a difficult problem. One thing it can do is assess, apparently instantly, from experience, the likelihood of a particular outcome, which is expressed in this type of 'faith'.
This type of faith can work quite well. If you have been able to rely on a friend in the past, you could infer it would be reasonable to have 'faith' in him/her the next time you need their help. Comrades in arms rely on this type of faith, and it is this faith that makes this type of bond so strong.
However, it can go wrong. As a counter to Stephen's Beckham example, Beckham has missed a significant penalty when everyone thought he would score. Admittedly there were extenuating circumstances - the turf beneath his standing foot gave way. More incredulously, for those of us who are lucky or careful enough to avoid them, there are plenty of more serious examples: a repeatedly cheated-on spouse thinks that 'this time' the offender will change, or an gambler thinks 'this time' the long-shot will come in.
In this way I think theists are the inveterate gamblers in belief systems. Despite the complete lack of evidence for the case, and in spite of the very strong evidence against, they still have faith in this long shot - that when they die they will be shown to have backed the winner.
Another good blog from Stephen Law. One of the pleasures of his blog is the level of interaction he permits. Some good stuff and good responses. I don't entirely agree with his points of view on some aspects - particularly the use of the 'problem of evil'. It's quite a long post, so my comments here are a bit lengthy too. I've stuck pretty much to Stephen's headings.
Reasonable belief
The tree, Japan, 1066 examples are particularly useful, in that they show there are varying degrees of reasonableness to believe something. The whole of Christian, Jewish and Islamic religious faith is based on ancient scriptures, but these old documents should be considered less reliable than more recent beliefs, such as the existence of a visible tree, the existence of Japan, and the historic records of 1066. And even if we accept that some original ancient document is genuine, there's no reason to give the same weight to its content as to the authenticity of the document itself.
Getting back to the 'faith' position, it's possible that some atheists believe god doesn't exist from a 'faith' position - they have the same degree and quality of faith that the 'stong faith' theist has, the atheist just believes the opposite.
But this isn't the 'science based atheism', or 'empirical atheism', or 'rational atheism' that most proponents of atheism argue for. It may be a position that is strongly believed, but it is borne out of reason and evidence, not pure blind faith. See Problem With Faith for more detail on my point of view on this.
And while we're on the subject of blind faith, I haven't yet been convinced by those theists who say their faith isn't blind faith. The argument goes like this:
A: You have no evidence and reason to suppose God exists.
T: No, we don't need it, we have faith.
A: Ah! Blind faith!
T: No, it's not blind faith. We believe based on scripture, etc.
A: So, you do need evidence. Let's examine that evidence...(atheist examines this evidence and concludes it's very flimsy and lacks any reason)...and so the scriptures aren't very good evidence and so don't provide good reason to believe in god.
T: No, we don't need it, we have faith....
A similar point is made by Stephen, where theists switch meanings of 'faith'.
Arguments for the existence of God
I think Stephen is here far too generous on the reasons for believing God might exist. The arguments are fatally flawed, but then he says...
"By saying that the arguments are fatally flawed, I mean not that, while the arguments do provide good grounds for believing in God, these grounds fall short of being conclusive. Rather, I mean that these arguments actually provide us with very little, if any, reason to suppose that God exists"
The first five points provide no good reason at all, they are so poor: (i) childishly poor; (ii)delusion - no there aren't any miracles - show me some; (iv)Jesus - he is qualified and reliable why?; (v)it only appears to be designed, but that doesn't mean it is.
Only the sixth is reasonable, to the extent that we have no knowledge of why the universe exists at all, and the proposition that there might be a god that created it is one possibility. But then it's a far cry from that basic proposition to conclude that this god has all the religious baggage attached to him, particularly that he has any interest in us, that he occasionally allows or causes miracles, that he allows or has any interest in what we call evil.
This 'source of the universe' proposition could suggest nothing more than some entity, which we might call god, created the universe. One might as well suppose that this god consist of some phenomenon of super-physics, outside our understanding of physics as it applies in our universe. But, again, there is no reason to suppose any of the religious trappings.
The reasonableness of the belief in god is often compared to the reasonableness of the belief in fairies. Pretty convincing to atheists, but apparently not to thesists.
Perhaps another comparison might be more realistic. An entity 'god' as a source of the universe is a reasonable proposition. But then so are many other cosmological theories, such as the cyclical universe, the multiverse, and so on. But how do these other theories impact on our daily lives? I don't worship a multiverse, or expect it to judge me on my death. And all these theories still suffer from the same 'first cause' problem. And, we have no reason to suppose any one of them is a more likely candidate than another. This is the level of reasonableness upon which the existence of god should be assessed. It doesn't provide much ground for religion does it?
The problem of evil
If the theist can conjure up god based on the flimsy reasons already given, then it's not too difficult to rationalise away evil.
If god is so all knowing and we understand him so little, who are we to dispute his reasons for including evil in his plans. This is where faith comes to the rescue again. If as a theist I believe evil exists, then my faith would tell me to accept that and deal with it. As an atheist, if I can't successfully refute or give good reason against the existence of god in his religious form, then I won't be able to refute the existence of evil. Stephen's final paragraph on evil beginning "It seems that, if the universe does have a creator ..." isn't then so powerful an argument.
Direct religious experience of God
Consider Stephen's comment, "...an orange on the table in front of me..." and then "I don’t infer that there orange is there on the basis of evidence".
Of course that's evidence. What does evidence consist of if not human responses via the senses - isn't that empiricism in a nutshell? And so one does infer it exists from that evidence. If I told you there was an orange there but you couldn't see it, you'd certainly ask for evidence that it is there, because the evidence you are receiving through your eyes says it isn't.
"We also have powerful evidence – in the form of the problem of evil ..." No we don't. This is a circular argument: that god does not exist because of the problem of evil, so revelatory evidence doesn't exist, therefore god does not exist.
In fact my preferred argument is as follows.
a) - God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to suppose he does (with the possible exception of some indeterminate god as a consequence of the source of the universe problem).
b) - Without god this leaves evil as a purely human interpretation of events: natural disasters, illnesses, human actions.
c) - Even if you allow for a 'source of the universe' god, that's not sufficient to then propose evil exists.
When a rotting tree in a forest falls and lands on some plants and animals, is that evil? When a rotting tree in a street falls in a storm and kills a driver in a car, is that evil, is the devil at work there, or is god at work? If that driver had recently knocked down and killed a child while drunk driving, is that evil, and is his later death divine retribution? Or is it all coincidence? How may drunk driving killers don't suffer subsequently? Shit happens, and sometimes we cause it ourselves. Dressing it up, as some theists do, in a separation of [disasters = acts of god], and [human inflicted suffering = evil], doesn't work for me. There is no good reason to conclude evil, as portrayed by thesists, exists as a phenomenon.
Direct religious experience of God
My response here is the same as to the problem of evil. If the argument for a religious god is strong enough, then revelation can follow. The significant points are that, first, there is no good reason to suppose god exists and that in our universe natural laws of physics apply; and, second, that any other phenomenon such as 'revelationary experiences', can also be explained by natural physical laws.
A better approach is to simply say there is no evidence that these revelatory experiences are real. In all human experience, and certainly in scientific matters, there have to be multiple repeatable and falsifiable evidence for an phenomenon to be taken seriously. We cannot prove these experiences didn't happen. We can only tar them with the same brush as we do the whole religious god hypothesis.
When an atheist asks for evidence and a theist responds that god doesn't work that way, the correct response is that without evidence it simply isn't worth pursuing; and with the contrary and substantial evidence that we know that some people suffer psychotic delusions and some people lie, there are far more good reasons not to accept the revelatory experiences as being real.
"How, then, can it be reasonable for someone in possession of both..." A theist would argue god and evil do exist, and if he occasionally reveals himself, who are we to argue with that. They are perfectly consistent once you accept a 'religous' god exists.
The theist/atheist belief/disbelief in evil and revelation are consequences of the belief/disbelief in god. An atheist using any one point to support any other is performing the same circular argument as a theist, but for the opposite position.
Attempts to solve the problem of evil
Stephen's points here don't improve the argument either way. Basically, as explained above, if you can accept that god exists with very little evidence, then you can use that alone to propose evil, revelation, or any other flimsy reason to support your original supported god hypothesis.
Some of these attributes of a religious god have strong historical and cultural backing. Suppose historically other poorly evidenced phenomena had been supported. Atheists often use the 'fairies' comparison to illustrate how ridiculous is a belief in god. But things could have been very different.
Suppose that all the historical and cultural religious junk had backed fairies instead of angels: fairies do exist; they are small tokens of godliness put on earth to help children believe in god. It's not too difficult to imagine a whole history of fairy belief as part of a god belief system - all supported by scripture. Then atheists would be arguing the 'problem of fairies'.
To some extent this type of thing has happened. The big three religions differ significantly. A Muslim could argue with a Christian about the 'problem of Jesus' - that he wasn't god but a mere prophet.
As another example, suppose it was discovered in some obscure scripture that the requirement to worship was a test put down by god, and only those who follow his guidance out of free will and without fear and worship were the truly blessed. We would still be left with the real question - does god exist in the first place?
So, it's one thing to point out how ridiculous are phenomena like evil and revelation, but you can't use them as arguments for the non-existence of god. If the weird religious god of scripture exists, then so could these phenomena.
Used as independent points of view they can all provide supportive reasons as to why it's not reasonable to belive any or all of them. But you can't use them in a deductive chain to conclude god does not exist.
Where the onus lies
I agree that "..the onus is on you to provide some decent arguments ..." and that "It’s down there near belief in fairies."
And that's all that is required - to show this through reason.
An extreme form of 'faith' and A more common sort of 'faith'
If faith is absolute and doesn't require reason, that's fine, but then an atheist doesn't require reason to not accept belief in god (though it is generally preferred). But that leads simply to a stand-off: "Is!", "Isn't!", "Is!", "Isn't!",...
Now you might say this is nonsense, and of course that's right. It is a 'none'-'sense' position. It isn't an argument, because an argument requires reason.
It's funny that theists of this kind can glorify god's creation - man, his consciousness, his free-will, his superior intellect above all other beasts, his power of reason; and yet on this one point we have to throw all that capability away. The position is childish, and worthy of derision - as are the church signs posted elsewhere on Stephen's blog which also promote the abandonment of reason:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/another-bible-belt-sign.html
and
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/reason-is-greatest-enemy-that-faith-has.html
Sliding between these two senses of 'faith'
I agree with this section. Theists use reason, until their arguments are destroyed, when they then revert to 'faith'. And they don't always wait until you leave the room. The Dawkins-McGrath debate follows this line: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6609671681098320091
The arguments behind 'faith'
"Arguments (v) and (vi) in particular are extremely seductive." I disagree, as stated earlier, but more specifically:
(iv) - "Jesus tells us that God exists, and we know Jesus to be a reliable source of information. Therefore it’s likely that God exists."
No. If Jesus existed (I'm not disputing that), and if he said the things he is reported to have said, there is still absolutely no reason to suppose he is a reliable source. In fact, based on current knowledge there's every reason to suppose he was one or more of the following: deluded, a megalomaniac, a very savvy political motivator.
(v) - "The universe shows signs of having been designed. So God must exist as its designer."
No. It only appears to be designed. That doesn't mean it is, and so it is useless as a reason for belief in god. Degrees of reasonableness again.
Having faith in other people
The type of faith discussed here is a mere intuitive assessment of probabilities based on experience. The human mind can perform some amazing feats - that's why artificial intelligence is such a difficult problem. One thing it can do is assess, apparently instantly, from experience, the likelihood of a particular outcome, which is expressed in this type of 'faith'.
This type of faith can work quite well. If you have been able to rely on a friend in the past, you could infer it would be reasonable to have 'faith' in him/her the next time you need their help. Comrades in arms rely on this type of faith, and it is this faith that makes this type of bond so strong.
However, it can go wrong. As a counter to Stephen's Beckham example, Beckham has missed a significant penalty when everyone thought he would score. Admittedly there were extenuating circumstances - the turf beneath his standing foot gave way. More incredulously, for those of us who are lucky or careful enough to avoid them, there are plenty of more serious examples: a repeatedly cheated-on spouse thinks that 'this time' the offender will change, or an gambler thinks 'this time' the long-shot will come in.
In this way I think theists are the inveterate gamblers in belief systems. Despite the complete lack of evidence for the case, and in spite of the very strong evidence against, they still have faith in this long shot - that when they die they will be shown to have backed the winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)