Sunday, November 7, 2010

Creating common grounds for (productive) discussion with the entrenched and indoctrinated.


I read a post on the RichardDawkins.net discussion board today entitled "Another Family Destroyed by Religion." I have also personally witnessed two separate incidents of families becoming absolutely broken apart by the JWs. It struck me that it is obvious to we who lack the reality-distorting paradigm of religion that the act of parents disowning and abandoning their children for the mere fact that they reject a single belief is appalling, while to the ones inside the religion it is rationalized into being seen as a just and necessary act--hell, they'll even call it "divinely ordained."

This leads me to wonder how we can bridge this gap with believers and get them to look at their beliefs objectively. We can spend all day creating dialogue, and that is a great way to start, but in my experience, it often doesn't matter in the end what amount of evidence you have, how perfectly you refute their every argument, or how clearly you explain the fallacy of their thinking: a dyed-in-the-wool theist will simply resort to a vague, subjective sense of confidence in their beliefs and say, "I can feel it in my heart, and it doesn't matter what anyone says because I believe it on faith." In other words, the information presented is made arbitrary by the believer's indomitable bias for their beliefs. So how do we get them to realize and acknowledge this bias for what it is?

The more debate and discussion I take part in, the more I come to believe that nearly every argument for the existence of god has become a PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times), so much so that it is almost a waste of time to keep giving our time and attention to specific arguments for god--*there are no good arguments*. The time has come to criticize faith itself. We need to stand up as a community and tell the world why faith is unreasonable, unnecessary and inferior as a means of inquiry. 

I applaud Jerry Coyne for taking a firm stand on the subject in his recent article, "Science and religion aren't friends." EbonMuse has taken the different and directly engaging approach of describing what kind of evidence he would require in order to believe in god and, in return, asking any willing theists to explain what evidence they would need before they gave up their belief. In nine years, he has gotten six takers.

So my question(s) is this:

How do we best state the case against faith in a way that will lead believers to a common, rational grounds for productive discussion while not sounding derogatory or condescending? How do we get them to see faith for the simple unfounded bias that it is? How do we get them to question their belief and think critically?

58 comments:

  1. "Faith should not be respected, but seen for what it is: the act of believing whatever you want on no evidence at all."

    Okay, I see why you are passionate about this subject. I did not watch ALL of both of the videos. I get it.

    First, if you want your points heard, you cannot come across as if you are putting the person down for their beliefs. People will automatically go into irrational defense mode. In order to not sound condescending, you must not be condescending. Do you feel your beliefs are right and theirs are wrong, (generally speaking)? If so, you will come across condescending no matter what words you choose or which tone of voice you choose. This is a bit of a dilemma.

    I also TRY not to think I know more than another; however, I am not always good at that, especially when I am really passionate about something.

    It may not be a great answer to your question, but it is all I have come up with so far.

    Emily

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your thoughts! I hope more skeptics/freethinkers/atheists respond with more ideas =)

    This post, of course, is aimed at others who already share my sentiment. It definitely would sound condescending if it were directed at the faithful, though!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know this post may not be meant for me, bit I think I have an answer to your question.
    I think most theists would argue that atheists assert that there is no god or gods. Now when ou try to argue the issue of faith the arguement could be made that without solid evidence that there is no possibility that a god exists atheists have a BELIEF that here is no god. You could say they have faith in that idea. This puts atheists in a pretty difficult spot because the existence of god is an unfalsifiable claim.

    Basically, speaking as a theist, in order to consider the arguement against faith I would have to hear you as an atheist explain how you yourself do not have faith in an idea.

    In order to be a true skeptic you must be skeptical of yourself as well as others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow. Next time I won't use my phone to post. My apologies for the spelling and grammar.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a matter of the burden of proof: the onus is on theists, the ones asserting the unfalsifiable claim, to provide evidence and reasoning in favor of their claim. To be an atheist simply means that you are, as of yet, not convinced enough to believe that a god/gods exist.

    So atheists are NOT in a tough spot in lacking belief in this claim, just as a-leprachaunists and a-fairyists do not owe us an explanation for lacking belief in those unfalsifiable hypotheses. When a claim is unfalsifiable isn't it generally deemed irrelevant?

    I do agree with the gist of what you're saying on one level. Our sensory faculties, cognitive abilities and so on are imperfect and limited. This is exactly why we should remain skeptical and have some standard of truth to which all assertions are held, especially when it comes to such wild and unfalsifiable claims as those of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ha, didn't really notice the spelling/grammar. Thanks for contributing!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I posted this on richarddawkins.net and it kinda took off into some interesting discussion:

    http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/543906-creating-common-grounds-for-productive-discussion-with-the-entrenched-and-indoctrinated/comments

    ReplyDelete
  8. "In order to be a true skeptic you must be skeptical of yourself as well as others." I agree. So why so confidently jump on the boat with a claim that has not fulfilled its burden of proof?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This is a matter of the burden of proof: the onus is on theists, the ones asserting the unfalsifiable claim, to provide evidence and reasoning in favor of their claim. To be an atheist simply means that you are, as of yet, not convinced enough to believe that a god/gods exist."

    Would this not be agnostic? I thought atheism was not believing in god or the possibility of god.

    I've always considered myself spiritual, (nature), and agnostic, because I believe there is more, but I just don't know for sure if there is a God, and if there is a God, what kind of entity would God be?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Off topic.

    p.s. What kind of entity would God be is not a question for you....just saying..

    Also, why do humans seem to have to believe there is a leader, being God? Maybe there is no leader, yet, there is still a spiritual world that we cannot comprehend because of our limited senses and our ability to receive input or that we just have not figured out yet.

    Also, why must so many think that this spiritual "world" is like a magical/mystical world? I think when we start thinking of the spiritual as mystical than we do not fully appreciate the beauty of what we can actually see right in front of us and the excitement in discovering more scientifically. When something is proven scientifically that was once thought of as impossible or mystical it is awesome, because, Wow, it is really there or really happens in such and such way!

    So, yeah, this is just my ramblings of things I wonder about....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Emily, I agree completely on the excitement of the formerly 'mystical,' or 'impossible' sometimes becoming a known NATURAL phenomena. Just look at the inconceivably counter-intuitive nature of quantum physics with its abstract descriptions of a quantum universe that breaks every mold of reality we know of. Also, historically, natural explanations have always superceded supernatural ones. It's never happened the other way around. Not once.

    It IS cool when science confirms a phenomena that was previously deemed fiction. However, it can be problematic when the 'supernaturalists' again impose their own magical thinking on new discoveries, capitalizing on one vague similarity in order to justify whatever metaphysical realms they wish to call reality. This is obviously bass-ackwards. Just because the mystics had one hit, one thing that roughly corresponded to reality, doesn't mean that any other claims they make should be exempt from our standards of truth.

    I believe, however, that skepticism requires being open to possibilities. Once the preponderance of evidence shifts to oppose what you previously believed, you can't honestly remain a believer in the given claim without engaging in self-delusion...employing ad hoc rationalizations and other fallacies in order to suppress the cognitive dissonance. I should know, I spent the better part of my teenage years doing just that. That said, if new evidence arose which made the existence of a god more probable than its non-existence, I'd be forced by intellectual honesty, after examining the evidence, to shift my position on the subject.

    Faith, magical thinking, supernaturalism, whatever you want to call it, still UTTERLY FAILS as a means of inquiry in comparison to the tools of science.

    This is already TL;DR worthy, so I think I'll answer the atheist/agnostic belief/probability question in a separate post!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Flying Spaghetti Monster is my answer to the arrogance and lack of critical thought some people of faith undertake in assuming that the god that exists is THEIR god, among the tens of thousands created throughout history and virtually infinite possibilities. As Christopher Hitchens has oft repeated, it is one thing to believe in the existence of a cosmic engineer, but it requires incredible arrogance to make the leap to believing that you know this being's mind well enough to say that the most important thing to it is what we do with our genitals, with whom, and in what position.

    ReplyDelete
  13. T-bone,

    "Basically, speaking as a theist, in order to consider the argument against faith I would have to hear you as an atheist explain how you yourself do not have faith in an idea."

    To put it another way, you are implying that it is up to atheists to DISPROVE the existence of god.

    You can base your beliefs on 'faith'--and what exactly does this constitute? I'd seriously like to know--or you can base them on what the majority of the available data supports. Not talking about you specifically, but choosing your desired conclusion (as most believers do) before even looking objectively at the data is dishonest.

    This 'atheists have faith in their disbelief' argument has to stop! It is considered a PRATT argument. FYI, I was an incredibly adamant believer for my entire childhood, and got into every convoluted theological justification for my belief you can imagine up until about age 16. A point came where I honestly opened myself up to the possibility that god isn't real. As soon as I did, I found myself drowning in a deluge of evidence against what I had believed for my whole life, unquestioningly. When I see you say that I "have faith" in an idea, I really don't see an argument in that statement outside of a specious word game. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly? I'm certainly open to the possibility =)

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I believe, however, that skepticism requires being open to possibilities." I agree. I have spoken with many skeptics who -think they know all the answers- which is as far as I am concerned just as bad as fundamental C-word's.

    "Faith, magical thinking, supernaturalism, whatever you want to call it." I call it imagination. Imagination is great fun, but one has to know the difference between imagination and claiming to say whatever is a fact. I like to use my imagination and think off of the wall stuff* all the time, but I do not claim my imaginary thoughts to be facts.

    I am still not quite understanding the difference between being an atheist and being agnostic??? You have quite a bit more knowledge in this regard than I do, so maybe you could try explaining that once again? please!

    I have noticed when chatting with atheists that -- in my definition of spiritual, atheists seem to be VERY spiritual! So, I am left confused.

    By your definitions of atheism, gulp, I might just be one, but I will never say that! haha!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "the most important thing to it is what we do with our genitals, with whom, and in what position." LMAO...If I believed in a cosmic leader-creator mine would definitely care about that!

    ReplyDelete
  16. That is christianity, ma'am. Oh, and that's pretty much a direct quote from Hitchens.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is funny. I had to put a naughty spin on it..sorry..=P

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can respond to the atheism/agnostic point later. I wanna give it adequate attention--I'm actually mega-multitasking right now!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Awesome thanks. One request...don't confuse me more. I just cannot take that. =P

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just could not stand it!

    http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

    "A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."

    I'd have to label myself as agnostic atheist.

    Everyone seems to get hung up on God. GEEZ. ISn't that just one small part of it?!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wow! A lot to comment on....

    It looks like Matt and Emmy (hehe, I'm not sure what narrative perspective to use...) are addressing my main argument.

    I'd agree that your definition of atheism sounds more like my definition of agnosticism.

    If we take agnosticism out of the equation, theists make the claim that god exists and atheists make the claim that no god exists. As far as burden of proof goes, anyone who makes a claim should have to supply it. I am indeed implying that atheists need to disprove that god exists, since they make that claim.

    If one cannot prove that no god exists and continues to believe that there is no god they are exhibiting faith. It seems like the same kind of logic theists exhibit.

    An agnostic could easily use the burden of proof argument with both a theist and an atheist, but I don't see how atheists can use it.

    I know you see this argument as a PRATT, but I have yet to see it refuted. I don't mean to be offensive when I say atheists have faith in their belief that no god exists, although I know it may be.

    If an atheist admits to the possibility of the existence of a god, don't they then have to abandon the claim that no god exists and move to being agnostic?

    I do think you make a good point about making a conclusion and sticking with it without looking objectively at evidence. Many theists do.

    Emmy: I'd have to disagree with about.com. I would say no one knows for sure that god exists or does not exist. At least, I haven't seen an argument that convinces me either way. If you agree on this you'd have to say both theists and atheists have faith that god does/doesn't exist.

    Maybe a more appropriate label would be questioning/skeptical theist or atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "If one cannot prove that no god exists and continues to believe that there is no god they are exhibiting faith. It seems like the same kind of logic theists exhibit."

    This is where I disagree. Try this: plug any unfalsifiable hypothesis into this sentence in place of 'god.'

    "If one cannot prove that invisible unicorns do not exist and continues to believe that there are no invisible unicorns they are exhibiting faith."

    "If one cannot prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster and continues to believe there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster they are exhibiting faith."

    "If one cannot prove that there are exact clones of every person in the world on a planet in the andromeda galaxy and continues to believe that no exact clones of every person in the world on a planet in the andromeda galaxy exist, they are exhibiting faith."

    Get my point! lolol

    ReplyDelete
  23. "If an atheist admits to the possibility of the existence of a god, don't they then have to abandon the claim that no god exists and move to being agnostic?"

    This is nothing but a problem of some hairy terminology! People use different terms in different ways to describe where they lie on a spectrum of beilef. Richard Dawkins probably puts it best in 'the god delusion':

    "The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.

    1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I KNOW.'

    2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

    3. Higher than 50 percent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

    4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

    5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.

    6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

    7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.' "

    Granted that we can't know ANYTHING 100% certainly (any good scientist will agree), we must base our beliefs on what is LIKELY to be true. Personally, when I call myself an atheist, it means that I see it as somewhere around 98% certain that no god/gods exist, and I round it up (live my life as if there is no god).

    Quoting 'god delusion' again:

    "The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing."

    See my silly examples above. Does the impossibility of proving the existence of leprachauns one way or the other make either option equally probable? Of course not!

    Another way of saying it, is that belief describes PROBABILITY as opposed to POSSIBILITY.

    On a side note, atheists often describe themselves (to other atheists) as either 'hard' or 'soft' atheists: hard atheists believe that god is basically impossible, while soft atheists believe that it is incredibly improbable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow, you really did a great job explaining all of that. I would have to say I am a #5, and next time someone asks me about my belief that is what I will say. I am a #5. LOL

    Great point on probability as opposed to possibility.

    Oh, and Travis, my close friends and family call me Emmy or Em, as my personality is more of an Emmy. =) However, people who do not know me well call me Emily.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I can call you Emily if that is what you're getting at. The only info I had was the name in your comments. :)

    You did do a good job of laying out a spectrum. I tend to think of people's beliefs in absolutes so I'll have to consider that.

    Possibility vs Probability. I think that is the core conflict in our discussion.

    I see the point you are making with FSM, but FSM only makes the belief in the existence of something sound highly improbable and silly. It doesn't disprove anything.

    The last few posts did clarify a bit your stance on faith and religion.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you believe that the existence of a god is possible but so improbable it's laughable?

    If so, isn't that an admission of faith?

    I have faith that there is no unicorn or FSM, but I can't prove it. What I need to do is make a case for how IMPROBABLE those things are, but at the same time admit that they are POSSIBLE.

    What you may have to do to make a case against god, religion or Christianity, is to get past the idea of having faith in general as a bad thing and move on to how probable or feasible the ideas or beliefs in these things are. The reason being that everyone has faith in things.

    To do that, your going to have to define exactly what the beliefs the person you are having the discussion with are and make a case against them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That is not what I was getting at. :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. I know this is dumb, because we're sort of just using different terms but meaning the same thing, but I don't see faith as necessary (or justified) at all. You seem to be claiming that holding any beliefs about the world at all requires "faith" since we can't know anything with 100% certainty. I wholly disagree on the necessity of faith. I prefer to use reason.

    I would like to believe as many true things as possible about reality and get rid of as much unnecessary baggage as possible, while keeping my mind open to possibilities. The way to do this is to follow the evidence, not jump to conclusions, and to look at what theories have the greatest explanatory power compared to their parsimony (occam's razor, basically.) Invoking magical beings is not taken seriously by the scientific community because it is unfalsifiable, that is 'it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.' You guys just always respond with, "hey, who are we to say? God could just be really good at hiding." What a cop out. But oops, I forgot, god is invisible. Hmmm...

    If there WERE evidence for god, I would look at how this matches with the hypothesis and evaluate it like any other. Religious beliefs often get special treatment, are assumed to be immune from scrutiny and exempt from the standards of truth to which we hold all other beliefs. I don't understand this. If you want to be honest with yourself, you have to look objectively at what basis, if any, your beliefs have. If there is none, you can't honestly believe them. This is where the old cop-out called "faith" comes into play.

    Here is a definition for faith that popped up in google:

    'Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'

    If there IS no evidence for something, it constitutes an unnecessary and unfounded belief (in my book, and scientifically.) I drop my jaw when you say that you must have faith that the FSM doesn't exist. Why create the belief that this entity is part of reality? It's just one imagined possibility among infinite others. If there is no evidence of something, why not just reserve your belief? Falsifiability is one of the cornerstones of a good hypothesis, and for good reason: it means we can judge whether it's true or not by looking at REALITY. Personally, I like my beliefs to reflect reality. The world around me (that we can actually detect) is my constant reference.

    Just like strict agnosticism, faith would only be justified if one lived in a pure vacuum, cut off from all information about reality. Or perhaps if you were trapped in a life-threatening situation or for some other reason needed to have faith in some reassuring possibility in order to have the hope to carry on, faith would be beneficial/necessary. On the other hand, it could be seen as just a matter of focusing on the positive possibilities and working towards those, as opposed to giving in and not taking your fate into your own hands (on a side note, the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing god sort of negates freewill as he/it would already know every one of your future thoughts and actions.)

    "What I need to do is make a case for how IMPROBABLE those things are, but at the same time admit that they are POSSIBLE."

    YES. This is what led me to atheism. Exploring all available evidence and deciding if it supports the claim that a god/s exist/s.

    "Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you believe that the existence of a god is possible but so improbable it's laughable?"

    Yes. Why bother adding unnecessary beliefs when there is no evidence or good arguments to support them? The answer is often that we would like it to be true, but however cozy a belief makes you feel, it doesn't make it true. This is going to sound mean, but I truthfully believe that faith is nothing more than a psychological security blanket.

    ReplyDelete
  28. O,O, O, I like your use of words! "I wholly disagree on the necessity of faith. I prefer to use reason."

    Faith is a psychological security blanket! I asked a question on FB once, "Do you have to believe in God to be moral." My religious friends said, yes, and my atheist friends said, no. Ha! When I questioned my religious friends I did not get a reason as to why they believed this. However, this is common thought. I do not understand why people think you have to believe in God to be moral?? The only things I could think of were that the people who believed this had some sort of secret desire to be immoral and the only thing stopping them was their, "faith," in god to keep them -in line - or rather their belief that God would punish them with a fiery eternity in hell. Then, that led me to wonder if religious folk were deviants, and they believe that they were saved so that they could now be moral?? Scary!!!!

    I also wrote a poem and others thought it was about being saved by God, which it was not, but I never did say what the poem was about, because if I did, well..ommm...yeahh... Anyway, a few people told their story about how it felt to be saved by Jesus. I asked them what they were doing just before they were, "saved." Both were praying and feeling strong negative emotions. So, I think that when people get convinced of being saved by Jesus and it feeling like a miracle, what they really are experiencing is a natural physiological response in the human body brought on by intense emotion; probably not so different than an orgasm, (seriously).

    Oh and Travis, we have hung out a few times. We went to the casino together before when I was going out with Aaron.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you like my words, go ahead and use them =) I've put some effort into expressing what I've found to be true as accurately and effectively as possible.

    "The only things I could think of were that the people who believed this had some sort of secret desire to be immoral and the only thing stopping them was their, "faith," in god to keep them -in line - or rather their belief that God would punish them with a fiery eternity in hell. Then, that led me to wonder if religious folk were deviants, and they believe that they were saved so that they could now be moral?? Scary!!!! "

    Exactly! Not to mention that the book which they claim is the perfect word of the creator of the universe, the ultimate, pinnacle of all wisdom and morality, contradicts itself repeatedly on almost any given question of morality. The old testament condones slavery, capital punishment for homosexuality, disobedient children, and many other things that society has matured beyond long ago. It also recommends that if a woman is raped, she marry the rapist while he merely pays a fee to her father. It even gives an amount (50 sheckels, I think...lolol, god didn't know about inflation.)

    So the point of that ramble is that xtians cannot get around the fact that, while they claim the bible is the epitome of perfect morality, THEY THEMSELVES, individually, must cherry pick which parts to incorporate into their personal morality. Much of the bible is just primitive, reflective of the time and place in which it was written. The moral zeitgeist has evolved far, far beyond it.

    "So, I think that when people get convinced of being saved by Jesus and it feeling like a miracle, what they really are experiencing is a natural physiological response in the human body brought on by intense emotion; probably not so different than an orgasm, (seriously)."

    Exactly again. A physiologically explainable event that happens in many different religions, not dependent on what particular deity or 'force' you are allegedly communing with. If they would only appreciate it for what it is, powerful feelings, and realize that they themselves are attaching the 'supernatural' meaning to it...I think you could make a religion-substitute out of merely performing made up rituals and stuff in order to elicit transcendent experiences...or is that what art is?

    ReplyDelete
  30. That is what art is! =)

    I am not sure if I will ever understand why others do not question these things. Thanks for the discussion and well thought out replies.

    Hard is the Journey

    Gold vessels of fine wines,
    thousands a gallon,
    Jade dishes of rare meats,
    costing more thousands,

    I lay my chopsticks down,
    no more can banquet,
    I draw my sword and stare
    wildly about me:

    Ice bars my way to cross
    the Yellow River,
    Snows from dark skies to climb
    the T'ai-hang mountains!

    At peace I drop a hook
    into a brooklet,
    At once I'm in a boat
    but sailing sunward...

    (Hard is the journey,
    Hard is the journey,
    So many turnings,
    And now where am I?)

    So when a breeze breaks waves,
    bringing fair weather,
    I set a cloud for sails,
    cross the blue oceans!

    Li Po

    ReplyDelete
  31. Like wise! I love that poem btw =)

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've had an ugly work schedule this weekend. I haven't abandoned he conversation.....

    ReplyDelete
  33. Haha, thanks for the update--I was hoping to hear more of your thoughts =)

    ReplyDelete
  34. That Emily! Thanks for shedding light! I remember. It's funny that every time I get into a deep religious/political conversation in cyberspace your around. :)

    ... and back to our discussion.

    After that last post I can see how our definitions of faith are different. I guess I (and probably most) theists view faith as a necessary part of life.

    I think there are varying degrees of faith. There are things that require very little faith to believe, such as atomic theory. There is a lot of evidence for it, but cannot be proven 100%. I would say that belief that theories like these are true or laws involves an element of faith, albeit a very small amount.

    That being said, faith is a part of life. You can have faith in very sure or proven things or you can faith in things for which there is no evidence and everything in between.

    If you look at it that way, it's very difficult to make a solid case against just having faith. In almost every situation you have to weigh evidence (or reason) for or against your hypothesis and then decide whether you believe your hypothesis is true or false.

    "Here is a definition for faith that popped up in google:
    'Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.'"

    This truly is the definition of faith, but it is a bit deceiving. To believe almost anything is true you need evidence to support your theory, but unless that theory is a law, you can't say it's 100% true without involving faith, or a belief that doesn't rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    If that's true (and tell me if it's not) your best argument against theism would be to examine the evidence against it.

    The amount of evidence is the factor that decides whether or not faith or belief in an idea is warranted.

    You kind of said this same thing here:

    "If there WERE evidence for god, I would look at how this matches with the hypothesis and evaluate it like any other. Religious beliefs often get special treatment, are assumed to be immune from scrutiny and exempt from the standards of truth to which we hold all other beliefs. I don't understand this. If you want to be honest with yourself, you have to look objectively at what basis, if any, your beliefs have. If there is none, you can't honestly believe them. This is where the old cop-out called "faith" comes into play."

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I guess I don't understand why you think religious beliefs are assumed to be immune from scrutiny and exempt from standards of truth or why you think faith is used as a cop-out. I can see where many theists have used it as a cop-out and are uncomfortable having their beliefs held up to scrutiny, but keep in mind, your not talking to any theist and not all of us think that way.

    If you would like to discuss the evidence for or against the existence of god I'd be willing to do that, but keep in mind, we would be discussing evidence and not just the pure simple fact that we have faith that the hypothesis that there is or is no god is a law.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Am I? I really don't chat about politics, but I do find myself talking about religion often enough.

    There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God...any God..so I am not sure how you would even have that kind of discussion??

    Having blind faith in religion is dangerous and has caused much suffering in the world. It is a cop out because when you say, Well, I have faith in this or that, which is not logically based, you stop the thinking process.

    Example: A preacher tells me to go to the edge of a cliff and jump and not to worry that I will fall to my death, but that instead I will fly like a bird. Should I put all my trust into this preacher who claims to have some kind of direct knowledge on what God wants me and others to do? Or should I use my logic, and tell him to kiss my ass?

    ReplyDelete
  38. A few years ago on Myspace I was discussing how bogus the war in Iraq was with a very "patriotic" friend of yours. Maybe she wasn't a friend, but an acquaintance or something. It ended with her calling me a bunch of names and then reporting me for harassment. The admin at Myspace ended up deleting my page. I thought I was totally respectful. Oh well.....

    Obviously blind faith is dangerous and you shouldn't jump off cliffs.

    However we should be clear about what has caused the suffering in the world. MAN (and woman) are what has caused suffering in the world, not faith or religion. That is just used as a means to an end. For examples, some Catholics priests did (and still do) a lot of horrible things to keep themselves in a position of power. Blind faith in religion is only the tool they use to get/justify what they want.

    Maybe I can clarify what I was talking about a bit earlier. Matt has pointed out that we've been playing a little bit of a word game with faith. Most of our discussion has been around what faith is and whether or not it is ok to have.

    I've likened faith to belief or I suppose you can even say guess or assumption.

    The point I have been trying to make is that in every situation you have a certain amount of evidence and then you have to hypothesize (or guess, have faith in, make an assumption about, come up with a belief) about a conclusion. This applies to everything unless it's a proven law.

    If this is true then there are two questions you must answer when you are contemplating the existence of a god;

    Is there evidence for a god?
    Is there evidence that there is no god?

    Having faith in the answer to either one of these questions is not the issue. The issue is whether or not faith in that answer is warranted based on the amount of evidence that is given.

    There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God? That's debatable. Like I said, we can get in to that, but I'd like to finish up this discussion of faith first.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "...there are two questions you must answer when you are contemplating the existence of a god;

    Is there evidence for a god?
    Is there evidence that there is no god?"

    NO! The second question doesn't deserve any thought because the burden of proof is on the THEIST (or possibly DEIST) who is asserting that there IS a god/gods.

    Let me phrase it this way, plug in any other unfalsifiable hypothesis into your two question approach:

    Is there evidence for leprechauns?
    Is there evidence that there are no leprechauns?

    Is there evidence that you have an exact clone living in the andromeda galaxy?
    Is there evidence that you do not?

    Can you PROVE that there isn't a 500 km wide sphere of frozen chocolate in the center of Neptune?

    Well...better turn to faith then... :P

    Am I making sense?

    BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF PROOF BURDEN OF PROOF

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh yeah, I forgot about that Travis. That was a few years ago when I was on my Say No To Socialism Kick or maybe it was before that when I was on my Say No To War kick? Regardless, if I remember correctly she was the only one who was disrespectful. I deleted her after that discussion after she told me basically that I hated my country and blah, blah, blach.

    "Obviously blind faith is dangerous and you shouldn't jump off cliffs." All religious faith is blind faith. It is not just the pedophile priests who give religion a bad name...it is the actual teachings of the religion, and yes- man and woman have caused the suffering in the world...Humans are the only ones practicing this fear based faith called religion.

    Exam of harmful teachings... When I was a kid I got sent to Bible camp, (born again Christians), and I was like 11 or 12 and we all gathered in the church and some guy went up and talked to us all about how if we masterbated we were going to hell. I had no idea what the hell that meant, and so I walked around for a few months thinking I was going to hell if I touched myself. Then, I realized it was a bunch of bullshit and pretty much laughed at the religion. My family said I was a devil child and going to hell. SWEET right. HAHA

    ReplyDelete
  41. Speaking of the unfulfillable requirement for "certainty," Isaac Asimov,

    "When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
    The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
    However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so."

    It's a categorical fallacy, related to false dilemma/dichotomy, and the perfectionist fallacy. To think that because we know nothing for 100% certain we must turn to faith is, I think, absolutely backwards. It's because of these limits to current knowledge that we must repeatedly turn to the critical thinking, including the scientific method, to continue to refine our view of the universe.

    If you want to read the rest of it, here's the link:

    hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. Travis,

    Point of clarification (ignore if it's getting too...personal): are you a THEIST (believe in a specific, personal god) or possibly a DEIST (you believe that the universe was 'set in motion' by a supreme intelligence, but don't claim to know much else about this being)?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Emily, that's an all too common story. My brother once said that they might as well just be up front and just call religion "sexual repression." It's all about a primitive inability to deal with aspects of being human.

    ReplyDelete
  44. ^ ^ ^ I'm only referring to the 'three great' abrahamic monotheisms, here. Not attaching sexual repression to the belief in god itself....yet..

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yeah, that just about nails it. haha!

    ReplyDelete
  46. And next time one of my family members throws the, Your going to hell well wishes my way, I am going to say this in a completely straight face..

    I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  47. The last on faith really clarified your mentality for me...thanks =)

    So, I'm not sure if we're going to get any further on the topic of whether or not faith is a helpful or necessary thing. I think PARSIMONY, in the scientific context, is the key difference between our two views. I can understand the appeal of having a god in your universe (I was a staunch Christian for about 16 years, after all), but I simply don't see how invoking a supernatural being grants you any explanatory power. In other words, choosing to take this belief on board raises more questions than it answers, and I desire to drop as many unnecessary and unhelpful beliefs as possible.

    I'm not going to live my life under the false pretense that the existence of any religion's god or gods has a fixed degree of plausibility, unaffected by the overwhelming LACK of evidence in comparison to the extraordinarily complex and all-encompassing nature of the idea in question. I'm comfortable with uncertainty. I'm comfortable NOT claiming to have all the answers about the universe. I'm comfortable withholding belief until said belief provides the best explanation for the greatest amount of data. This gives us something to investigate and discuss, theorize and hypothesize about, like we're doing now =)

    Among the many inherent cognitive deficits we have as perpetual 'works-in-progress' shaped by evolution is an innate dualistic style of thinking. Religion latches on to this and describes the world as neatly fitting into black and white categories: good and evil, heaven and hell, god and satan, etc, etc. But reality is much more "fuzzy" than that--there is no black and white, only different shades of gray. See the following EXCELLENT presentation if you're interested:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

    So, my overarching point of this whole thing is that we shouldn't REQUIRE ourselves to hold a belief on every single unknown we can think of. I don't personally see any merit in going through the endless religions, myths, fables, folklore, urban legends, rumors, and conspiracy theories and forcing myself to have a firm belief on every one.

    My philosophy is to keep my eyes open, look at all EVIDENCE FIRST, and THEN find the necessary EXPLANATION.

    A god or gods either exist or not. Ba'al, Zeus, Lucifer, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster either exist or not. All we know at the outset is that they are ideas people had. Those who purport that these beings exist are the ones with the burden of proof--the onus is on them to prove that these statements about the universe are indeed true (I'm really confused about whether or not you understand or are with me on this thing called the burden of proof...)

    Science has given us the ability to have this conversation in cyberspace. Reason has led us to create the system of government which protects the freedoms we are exercising. Evidence gives us a standard by which to judge the truth of claims put before us and allows us to determine whether they correspond with reality. Faith affects NONE of this, other than to provide empty justification for people to believe whatever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  48. dammit. I just spent an hour on a comment and then lost it when google gave me an error.....

    I'll have to do it up again tomorrow....

    ReplyDelete
  49. That sucks man. I've had it happen a few times during such lengthy online discussions, so I usually pop open a wordpad and do it in there and then copy paste it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Wordpad it is. I've learned my lesson...

    Time is a bit limited today so I might throw down some little nuggets.

    I think you hit on something with parsimony. It wasn't a concept I was familiar with so I wiki'd it. Here is a snippet of what I read....

    A theory that is compatible with one person’s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Parsimony, in this way, becomes a “mirror of prejudice.”[14]
    It has been suggested that parsimony is a widely accepted example of extraevidential consideration, even though it is entirely a metaphysical assumption. There is little empirical evidence that the world is actually simple or that simple accounts are more likely than complex ones to be true.[16]
    Most of the time, parsimony is a conservative tool, cutting out crazy, complicated constructions and assuring that hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day, thus yielding ‘normal’ science: models of explanation and prediction. There are, however, notable exceptions where Occam’s razor turns a conservative scientist into a reluctant revolutionary. For example, Max Planck interpolated between the Wein and Jeans radiation laws used parsimony to formulate the quantum hypothesis, and even resisting that hypothesis as it became more obvious that it was correct.[4]
    However, on many occasions parsimony has stifled or delayed scientific progress.[14] For example, appeals to simplicity were used to deny the phenomena of meteorites, ball lightning, continental drift, and reverse transcriptase. It originally rejected DNA as the carrier of genetic information in favor of proteins, since proteins provided the simpler explanation. Likewise, at one time Occam's razor rejected the sun-centered model of the solar system in favor of the geocentric model, and it would have certainly viewed Newton's laws as unreasonably complicated had they been offered in Galileo's time. Theories that reach far beyond the available data are rare, but General Relativity provides one example.

    That coupled with our difference in definitions of faith is where our arguments differ. In regards to faith, it seems that I would say faith is a part of everyday life the may or may not be based on evidence. It looks like you and Emily for sure would consider faith to ALWAYS be blind. Is that incorrect?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Interesting points about parsimony. I think it should be balanced by open-mindedness. But the point is that faith still does nothing to help us decide what to believe.

    So I think it would be more accurate to say that I believe faith is UNNECESSARY and unhelpful as a means of inquiry. See the following excellent (and fairly short) article by Jerry Coyne. It deals more with the relationship between science and faith, as opposed to the philosophical implications of faith, but it is still good.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm

    I guess it comes again to differing definitions of faith. When I expect the sun to come up everyday, that is based on experience and scientific knowledge. It is not a 100% certainty, because nothing is, but it has a rational basis. To say that because nothing is 100% certain faith is required everyday is, I think, misleading. But then again, here we are in a bit of a word game again...

    ReplyDelete
  52. There is a difference between faith and hope.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Another thought, Travis...

    We can talk all day about the myriad ways in which reason and the scientific method help us as a means of inquiry, and it just seems that faith is only needed when someone wants to believe something regardless of insufficient evidence.

    There's a difference between faith and 'reasonable assumption.' There's a difference between basing belief on objective analysis of evidence, and basing it on what is the most psychologically comfortable explanation.

    Believing something is not the same as believing that it is a possibility (pretty much anything can be said to be a possibility since nothing can be absolutely 100% certain).

    From what I've heard you say so far, it seems that you are basically trying to conflate faith with reason. "We can determine probabilities and look at evidence, but you still must have faith because nothing is totally certain." This isn't what faith means. You can call the very reasonable and evidence-backed belief that the sun will come up tomorrow 'faith,' but that is, in my mind, stretching the meaning of the word to an absurd degree, and it is misleading to use THIS to justify faith as a means of inquiry. If there is NO rational/evidential basis for a belief whatsoever, THAT is faith. If you have enough data to determine even a rough probability, well, that's a start, and it means you can objectively follow the data as opposed to employing faith in order to justify the belief that would make you feel cozy. But if there is no evidence, no manifestation of a claim in actual reality, then it doesn't deserve further consideration.

    I say just look at the evidence FIRST and don't add anything to it that isn't there. Take in as much reality as possible before injecting magical beings in order to explain things. Mankind used to have a god for pretty much every damn natural phenomena or type of weather. Now we know more about the world. Natural explanations for phenomena ALWAYS supersede supernatural ones, and it has never once happened the other way around.

    These are my thoughts at this sleep-deprived moment.

    ReplyDelete
  54. http://occamsaftershave.com/2010/11/27/argument-87-conflict-between-science-and-religion-1/

    READ THIS!

    (it's short)

    ReplyDelete
  55. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTOffYj5TxU

    ReplyDelete
  56. We've defined the problem in the difference in our point of views. It appears to be definition of faith. Even though our definitions are different at them moment we almost seem to be making the same point. Evidence is what needs to be considered. Then one can decide if a belief is warranted. Belief, faith, conjecture, honestly I do lump them together.

    According to Dawkins, it won't matter anyway, because by the end of his book I'll be an atheist. ;) I picked it up. I'd like to post here more, but my time is limited this time of year and I hate posting if I don't have time to think about what I say.

    For now, I'll pop in from time to time, but I'm going to read through the God Delusion to get a better perspective on this view of faith. I'll let you know what I think.

    Again, thanks for the thoughtful discussion. It's rare people can converse about such topics and stay civil.

    I hope this doesn't sound too much like a good bye because I do plan on posting when I can...

    ReplyDelete
  57. I agree on the civil conversation part =) I also think this discussion has been productive so far.

    I'd give it a 10% chance that you'll remain a theist after reading god delusion. It's the book that started me on my whole kick of exploring my DISbelief and valuing skepticism, reason, the scientific method...

    I do appreciate any participation on this blog. I created it because of the fact that facebook doesn't lend itself to lengthy discussions on defined topics, and it seemed more appropriate for me to air "offensive" views in this format. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete