Reason Makes Demands In Two Directions
Looking back on my development from devout Catholic girl to adamant atheist, I think that it was its bottom-line dogmatism that drove me away from the Church, and indeed, from the very possibility of religious faith. "Faith" presents a paradox: if a doctrine can be defended on rational grounds, then it needn't be taken on faith. But if it cannot be defended on rational grounds, why should you believe it?
I've often heard people quote approvingly the aphorism that "faith is believing where you cannot prove." The idea seems to be that since matters of great importance outstrip the human power to know, we must jump in and simply commit ourselves to certain ideas. The question, though, in which ones? There's very, very little that can literally be proven, this is , shown to be true without any possibility of doubt—only the propositions of logic and mathematics, and some philosophers will dispute even those! Nothing about the world of experience can be demonstrated with complete certainty. The evidence of our senses is partial, and we sometimes make mistakes. We must rely every day on memory and the testimony of others—both fallible &mash;for a great deal of the information we need to make our way in the world. If we had to foreswear all the less-than-perfect sources, we'd know virtually nothing. But the aphorism, when taken as an endorsement of faith, suggests that, once we leave the realm of certainty, no distinctions can be made—that it's as rational to believe in unicorns as it is to believe in bacteria. The occurrence of the Holocaust cannot be proven, in this strict sense; must we therefore take deniers seriously? Lack of proof cannot entitle one to believe, or else anyone would be warranted in believing anything she wanted to.
Now, in truth, few people would explicitly endorse an inference of the form "there's no proof that p; therefore, i am entitled to believe that p." But I've encountered many who accept a related, and equally fallacious, pattern of reasoning: "There's no proof the p is false; therefore it's not irrational to believe the p is true. "So people will say, "Since no one can prove there is no God , I'm not irrational if I believe in Him." But once again, "proof" is a red herring. I cannot prove that aliens have never visited Earth, but given all the considerations against it, I'd be irrational not to reject the proposition. Reason makes demands in two directions.
Comments
The reasons Hitchens is not convincing (aside from the fact that he's a rather mediocre writer) is that he has raised a new orthodoxy, which is frequently as virulent and corrupt and violent as its opposition (need an example? check out this sad story from Pharyngula).
Hitchens is another pathological example of a modestly talented writer being drawn into the right wing PT Barnum fringe and then getting drunk on its delusions. If I were an atheist, I'd be embarrassed to have him in my camp.
"The reasons Hitchens is not convincing... is that he has raised a new orthodoxy, which is frequently as virulent and corrupt and violent as its opposition (need an example? check out this sad story from Pharyngula)."
So the reason Hitchens is unconvincing with respect to topic X is that he has promoted violent ideas with respect to topic Y?
Wow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Dinesh fell into the trap by trying to explain faith through "reason". I could have trotted a 12 year old out there to completely eviscerate the miraculously stupid arguements he makes. Hitchens, time to let someone else take over, someone with new points, and a new approach. Thanks.
Norm, is his post from you or from someone else? There's a reference to "Looking back on my development from devout Catholic girl to adamant atheist"... is Norm female?!
"This is the athiest conception of fairness.. they hog the public square and drive all the religions out".
Dinesh, Fuck off.
I thought it was clear that the the portion after I said the following was from an essay, was not my writing but the essayist. I've made it clearer that that is the case by including her name and putting her words in blockquotes. If it was confusing for one it would have been confusing for others. Thanks for the heads up.
To further elaborate on my swearing at Dinesh:
Athiests don't want to get rid of religion, we do however, want religion to stop infringing on my rights, that's all.
One instance of fowl play on the part of some atheist writers (at least Harris whom was mentioned in the Hitchens vs. D'Souza debate> is that of trying to pin the blame on religion in situations that are non-religious.
D'Souza, though I thought most of his "arguments" were utter bullshit, made at least one apt remark which was Harris' attempt to blame the Tamil Tigers' suicide bombings on religious motivation. Though, he writes, the Tamil Tigers were not explicitly doing it for religious reasons, there were some under-the-radar hints of superstitious adherence that could one could use to safely conclude religion was also a source of their transgressions. Is this not the same as me blaming a bank robber, who, though he said he robbed for the money and gave no indication of a religious motivation, was nevertheless wearing a crucifix around his neck, ergo he also did it because he's a Christian. This is foul play.
Anyone that knows me on this board knows just how much I hold in contempt religion and it's apologists but this is not the way to debate religion. Simply because we can all collectively agree that Hitler was an evil man doesn't mean we should just let any historian attribute characteristics to Hitler that he did not own (e.g. being a pedophile). And I don't think I'm being an apologist when I attack this one point of Harris' writing just as I'm not being an apologist for Nazism because I defend the fact that Hitler was not a pedophile.
This is not the way atheists should argue. Arguments of absolutes--even if not specifically meant to be taken literally--give the high ground to religious bullies (arguments like Hitchens' subtitle 'How Religion Poisons Everything'). Clearly religion does contribute to a hefty proportion of human suffering, but trying to conduct a confirmation bias (which Harris, being a scientist and all, should know to stay away from) is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
It's a damn shame Hitchens wasn't more aggressive with his approach and uses the same old, tired points instead of being on his heals and not allow this charlatan to get away with his dogmatic bullshit. Judging from the thunderous applauses D’Souza was receiving it should’ve been obvious to him that there were more supporters of belief than disbelief and should have used more strength in this points to get his message across.
Excuse the typos but I'm late to lunch.
So Dinesh wants me to believe that it's absolutely plausible that zombies, unicorns, seven headed dragons and Harry Potter are real because they are mentioned alongside a magic man who literally lives ontop a cloud because the Bible says it's all true. I cannot fathom how this could possibly be true.
Yes, Dinesh is right in that this is the reason it's taught to children, because they still engage in magical thinking haven't developed a BS detector so they can buy this nonsense. As for morals, when religious fundamentalists don't have any. Doing good because you fear hell or you want a good spot in heaven is not morality, it's opportunism.
I'm thinking Dinesh has never even read the Bible but that's status quo among Christians.
All right Mr. Dustin, you want to swing your logic sword on me? I'm an old man and have studied more philosophy than most of you kids and your wikipedia surface knowledge can account for. Hitchens is wishing violent death upon innocents because they happen to be deluded enough to pray to some dead prophet. I'm against killing the believers for their mere belief, all right? Is that ad hominem, Mr. Wikilogic?
Now, if you want a good, thoughtful atheist to follow behind, go pick up a copy of Being and Nothingness. After that, try Russell (Bertrand, that is). Hitchens is an Ann Coulteresque bloviator with a drinking problem to boot. I have no patience with "men of ideas" who advocate for slaughter and world war. Sorry if you find that to be an ad hominem argument. I've got a daughter who I'd like to see grow up into a world where there is some remote hope for peace.
Hitchens weakness is his lack of science knowledge. The Christianist's strength is always to talk about the origin of the universe and pretend that these mysteries somehow magically provide evidence for the megalomaniacal Jehovah's existence.
After lying that Einstein was an theist, D'Souza again lied that Jesus introduced the "novel" doctrine of compassion to the world. Nonsense. Buddhism predates Jesus 500 years and the whole thing is about cultivating compassion. Hitchens should have nabbed him on that. I can't understand how big wig mouthpieces can be so misinformed.
Doug,
I think it's only atheists and children who describe God as "a magic man who literally lives on top of a cloud". I think that's a straw-man argument which most "people of faith" are over: it is not persuasive to them, because it isn't what they believe at all.
I came to the conclusion some years ago that God is an abstract concept that emerges in human society, like Justice, that happens to have been anthropomorphized. Justice gets this treatment too: google "justice statue" and you'll see what I mean. We do not dismiss the notion of Justice because of the imagery that Justice is a blind woman with a balance in one hand and a sword in the other. But we can see Justice as an emergent property of organized society which helps keep order. I think of God and religion in exactly this way, that it came into existence to stop people going mad with difficult questions, or running to nihilistic solipsism, and to provide a formal focus for a community and build social cohesion.
We have good answers now to the difficult questions, and structures - universities and laboratories - that support developing better answers. Philosophers have come up with some good ways to think about ourselves and our relationship to the world, without recourse to God, which can keep us from flipping out. As for community, there are many, at all sorts of scales: here we are at the First Church of OneGoodMove, the (indifferently) Reverend Norm presiding. Check your bibles and guns at the door, because you won't need them here.
Hitchens weakness is his lack of science knowledge.
That isn't his only weakness - in fact, even as a scientist I can't expect everyone to have a deep scientific education - and I usually see Hitchens admit that Dawkins and Harris are more qualified to make scientific arguments against religion than he is.
Hitchen's biggest weaknesses are his dogmatism concerning the best way to oppose the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and his refusal to admit he is wrong. His solution: war, war, and more war. He undermines his credibility as a person guided by reason by his refusal to face the results of the last war he advocated. The comments made by P.Z. Meyers in the Pharyngula link provided by Brian D. are pretty much dead-on as far as I'm concerned.
anwaya, your god performs magic and lives in the clouds. That is what your religious text says. So it's your fault for calling yourself a Christian, Jew or Muslim because then you associate yourself with the text. Or perhaps you haven't read your religious literature. Well then, that's your fault and not mine. Don't falsely advertise yourself then.
"All right Mr. Dustin, you want to swing your logic sword on me? I'm an old man and have studied more philosophy than most of you kids and your wikipedia surface knowledge can account for."
Haha. Now you're giving an ad hominem attack on me and defense of yourself. Classic.
Doug,
I think you've misunderstood my meaning. Have another look. That's not the God I'm talking about at all. It's not in or about the religious text: it's in and about the mind of mankind. It's your God that you ridicule when you talk about the magic man who lives in the clouds. I'd like to disabuse you of it.
anwaya, I know you are talking about the god you made up in your head but I'm talking about the concept of god and Christianity that is referred to in scripture. You accuse me of strawmen when my first comment was never about your own personally made up religion.
BTW, the mere fact that you created your own god means it isn't real. Just like how a cereal company created Lucky the lephrechan doesn't make him real either.
anwaya seems to almost be redifing religion outside of existence.
redefining*
Erick,
Could you be more precise?
Doug,
Where does God exist outside of people's heads? Does Justice not exist? What is your test for existence, do you have to be able to kick a thing? Do you say there are no abstract concepts, no mental states? If you think of an elephant, is there no idea of an elephant in your mind? Do you disallow thought from your ontological landscape?
anwaya, justice is an idea so you just equated your god with an idea you created in your head. Congrats, you just debunked your god.
That's where I started, Doug. But my question to you is: do ideas have existence? Do your mental states exist, or not? If they don't, how do you ever have an idea?
Stop insulting our intelligence. You know exactly what we mean when we use the word 'existence'. You are trying to call God the mental abstraction reached in fear of the unknown. One of the prevailing theories of why religion exists is called the 'The Existential Explanation'. No one is arguing this. You are simply arguing with yourself.
anwaya, I can take a PET scan and show my mental processes working. Can you show me evidence of the god you made up existing? I think you just prove the extent of the desperation theists have to go to in making excuses for their childish beliefs. You might as well be arguing that Harry Potter and flying broomsticks exist because Rowling thought them up in her head. Get out of Rush Limbaugh's medicine cabinet and come back to reality.
Doug,
you aren't thinking: you're spouting. You're letting your prejudice direct your words. I have taken a consistent position, and you can't see it yet.
A scan that shows that a brain is functioning does not show ideas: you can't pin them down physically in that way. Do you deny the existence of ideas? Yes or no is just fine.
Erick,
I am not insulting your intelligence or anyone's. I simply don't understand what you mean when you say I seem to be redefining religion outside of existence. I don't know if you mean that you think I am defining it to be outside of existence, or that it's some kind of religion outside of existence that I'm redefining. I don't think either makes sense, because I don't think I'm doing either: I am saying that I think religion exists in, and influences, human society whether or not I hold any religious beliefs at all. I am saying that the belief in God exists and shapes people's thinking, and that this is sufficient to instantiate God at a societal level, just as we instantiate Justice. Neither pre-exists human society; both are emergent products of it.
Do you think there is no such thing as Justice?
anwaya,
No one said there is no such thing as religion, nor is anyone saying that belief in God doesn't infulence people's thinking. Do you think before you write?
anwya, what is difficult to understand about your god being a figment of your imagination? You equate your god with an idea that you simply made up in your mind and you get upset that I'm saying that means your god is as real as Harry Potter, leprechans and the tooth fairy because those are all ideas people made up in their minds as well.
Now you can get a PET scan and it will show that your mental processes are working when you think about your fictional god. All that tells you is that your brain is functioning but it doesn't say that your god is real. Clearly all of this is beyond your ability to comprehend since you still appear to be in that childish magical thinking realm that if you believe hard enough then something is true. One thing I'll never expect you to do, because you'll absolutely refuse because you know it's the truth, is to present something substantial and tangible that your fictional god is real. That'll never happen and you know it. That's why your god is make believe and nothing more than an imaginary friend that a five year old would create in his head.
Norm, yes I do, thank you for asking a simple question so I can reply with a simple answer.
Let me see if I can establish some common ground:
There is not a magic man called God who lives in the clouds.
There is not a supreme being of any gender who created the universe.
When we die, we die. That's it. If we've done well, we may be remembered well, the things we made in life may last, and our children (if any) carry our genes.
The diversity of species has arisen through evolution.
So now, I would like Erick and Doug to put away their pre-judgements that I am a christian, or a person of faith, and attend to what I'm actually saying instead. I'll go out on a limb and add:
Thoughts and ideas exist
Justice exists as an idea and a social construct.
Doug,
Please think again.
By the way Doug, when you say PET scan, I think you mean CAT scan, CAT being short for Computer Aided Tomography. HTH.
OK, Pet scans are Positron Emission Tomography.
anwaya:
Erick:
.
anwaya, the story of your gods living in the clouds comes from the Bible. As you probably aren't familiar with Nimrod shot his arrows into the cloud and they returned to the earth with blood on them. The tower of Babel was constructed so that the armies of men could march into the sky and do battle with the gods.
Now it's completely absurd of you to claim that I'm making a strawman argument about the Christian religion when the religious text tells such a story. Pardon me for being well read and not taking into account the imaginary friend that you created in your head. It's up to you to provide justification that your silly beliefs have merit, I'm just telling you what the best selling story book says.
Doug,
No one believes that "Jehovah" lives on a cloud. Even the literalists see heaven as being purely spiritual. The story of Babel is a simple parable -why pretend it's more than that? Most Christians don't.
I hate Christian fundamentalism as much as the next guy, but why try to put all Christians in the same boat?
You can compare leprechauns, et al. to Jehovah's existence or "Lord" Jesus's, but not to that of a generic creator or creators.
The question of whether there is a creator is not the same as asking whether there is a celestial teapot.
Douglas Adam's puddle analogy is a better argument...
Doug,
"As you probably aren't familiar with Nimrod shot his arrows into the cloud and they returned to the earth with blood on them."
This is such total bullshit. Why don't you pick up a Bible before trying to make arguments about it? (and please work on your sentence structure)
The story's not long, so I'll post it here (sorry Norm, if it's too long just tell me):
Genesis 11:1-9 (King James Version) Genesis 11 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
The Bible has so many better examples of fucked-uptness, why bother with this quaint story?
It looks like God was afraid of the competition to me...
Doug,
Why try to force me into being a Christian? You seem to be a Fundamentalist who wants the Bible to be literally false.
Heavenisinyourmind, are you aware that many Christians believe that their Bible is true? It mentions that there's a god, a Christ, a creation of the universe, and that this god put down a bunch of laws. Christians actually believe this stuff is real. I know this comes as a shock to you but many Christians actually believe this guy named Jesus died and rose from the grave to ascend into the clouds. Shocking isn't it that all of them don't regard the Bible as fiction.
Apparently you and anwaya can't understand the fact that the Christian religion is based upon certain religious texts. I know this is difficult to grasp but it really is. I don't know why this is news to either of you. Apparently the two of you are quite divorced from reality.
Heavenisinyourmind, there is more than one account of the Tower of Babel in the religious texts. Perhaps if you were a bit more well read you would understand more about the story. Don't bother trying to educate me on something you just looked up on google for the first time.
Doug,
You aren't open to debate at all, are you? You have a sweet little closed mind there. When someone tells you that what they think is different from the way you think they think, you tell them they're wrong, that the way you think they think is the way they think. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
You invent a ludicrous God in order to discredit all other notions, and you invent thoughts and notions in other people's heads in order to discredit the thoughts and notions they actually have.
The person living in a made-up fantasy world looks you in the mirror every morning.
Remember when you asked me how I thought you were redefining religion? Well you've answered your own question with this. One one is "inventing" a literal interpretation. Like Reza Aslan has done in many debates, he circumvents the uncomfortable nature of dogmatism by attacking religion opponents in saying that they have it wrong in how they perceive people of faith.
Consider that religion has not produced a single fact about the workings of the universe or the understanding of human nature. Not one! This isn't about us wanting something to be so, it just is. Or do you for one second claim that the Bible is literally true? If so, assuming you don't think ALL claims are literally true, which supernatural claims are true and which are not? And what process did you use to identify metaphores from actual supernatural events?
That should have read, "No one is "inventing" a literal interpretation. Take note of the link provided.
Erick,
You too do not address what I said or meant, but what you want to think I said.
Doug is the one with the literalist interpretaion of the Bible, not me: he raised the Nimrod story. Not me. I don't give two hoots for the stories in the Bible. He, on the other hand, does. It's very important to him to tell me what kind of God I believe in, and what a fool that makes me - even when I asked him and you to put away your pre-judgements that I am a christian, or a person of faith, and attend to what I'm actually saying instead.
You still haven't done so.
Go back, read the thread, see if you can tell me what I believe. Don't repeat Doug's mistake. In your lates remarks, you appear intent on doing so.
I actually never labeled you a fundamentalist, let alone a believer. Contrary to what you said I actually have read the thread. Here you established common ground:
Then you say...
I didn't.
To which I replied:
and Norm said:
I do, however, accuse you of redefining religion out of existence like when you say:
Atheists and children weren't the ones who concocted the notion of a god male figure atop a cloud. You attempt to criticize atheists as caricaturing religion when in fact we are simply criticizing the very views theists claim to believe. You can't possibly be serious and think that you're concept of God is the prevalent view many believers take given the data from polls. Time and again we see theists defending that position. The only persons, thus far, that I’ve seen to be doing that very same thing are Reza and Hedges.
Erick,
Prejudice shows up in your comments like this:
Do I claim anything about any religious text, or anything supposedly - sorry, you said actually - supernatural, anywhere? Why do you assume I think there are any supernatural claims which are true at all?
This is your prejudice. You have confused me with someone else.
You misstate my position:
That's not what the adult theists I know tell me they believe. YMMV - but if you have trouble hearing me, what do the theists you know really believe, and what do you push on them?
You create a straw man:
No, you still don't understand what I've said. I don't think you want to. I think you have a hard time finding out what other people think, even when they start to tell you, because your judgements get in the way, you take the conversation in the direction you want to go in, set them up with absurd arguments they don't make, and won't give them the benefit of an unfettered ear.
Nowhere in your response do you refer to the existence of abstract concepts: nowhere do you consider the idea of God as an abstract concept, emerging out of society as a useful, evolving meme. It's something you can look at as a disinterested anthropoligist, or student of the history of ideas - but no, someone who disagrees with you has to fit in a box, with Reza and Hedges. I don't know who they are and I don't care. I do think that if you throw your weight about as a haughty atheist who engages in a bitter battle with someone who doesn't disagree with you much, you're going to find it much harder when you talk to people who do believe in what Doug calls "a magic man in the clouds". I do, and they listen, and I think I can make more of a difference in their thinking than Doug or you can. But you and Doug can't hear me. Isn't that strange?
For the last fucking time: no. one. is. arguing. this.
Your polemic ramble is tedious and uninteresting. It's like you are arguing with yourself, my goodness! The only thing that could have an ounce of interesting dialogue would be the belief that the notion of God is somehow useful for society. Like Harris has reiterated time and again: 'There's pretty much three ways to argue for the case of God. Either they think that the claims are religion are true, or they submit that God belief is useful, or they render atheism as being another religion.' If we don't seem particularly sensitive to your proposals, it's because these arguments have been made before and we're simply tired of reading and hearing the same idle chatter. If you claim there is usefulness then make your point and give examples. Otherwise don't expect us to retain a focused interest in your comments.
Erick,
Great language. My goodness, eh? There's a euphemism working hard for you. Don't forget to thank goodness, Jiminy Cricket and the Dickens while you're about it. And what's with your boxes? Do you have to have slots for everyone? What's it like being so right in a world full of people who are so wrong, even the ones who mostly agree with you? It must be so frustrating. Unless the intellectual superiority is satisfying enough to you to get you through the day.
Post a comment