The blog post cites a paper written by Ara Norenzayan and others in 2008. The introduction poses an interesting question:
Many have criticized Dawkins and the other atheist spokespeople for providing texts that polarize rather than convince (e.g., Bunting, 2007), especially given theoretical assumptions that religiousness is too stable to be affected by such polemical arguments. The goal of the current study, then, is to gauge the mutability of religious belief in the face of these arguments for disbelief. Put simply, can rational discourse budge faith?
I am very interested in the question of polarisation and blogged on it recently. I am concerned that war is being waged between atheists and theists, I am worried about the level of derision and contempt that I encounter on both sides. I believe there is a need for constant dialogue and understanding, and I see precious little of it.
In particular there is a huge amount of heat that is produced by New Atheists and Creationists. Personally, I have very rarely met a Christian who does not support the science of evolution. However, when I chat to atheists they seem to assume that I am a Creationist. This is obviously influenced by more extremist views in America, but why do we reward these views by highlighting them? I think the answer in part is that they make easy targets to mock on atheist blogs, but does that really make the world a better place?
The video above is one where Pyschasm shows Richard Dawkins to be reasonable, but he comments that elsewhere he can be extremely mocking. As I watch the video, I find myself drawn to trying to understand what values underlie morality for each of us and I wish to strive to make the world a better place by working together, not by trashing each other.
So back to the research:
106 (66 female) undergraduate students from Arizona State University. A randomly assigned 45 participants read an excerpt from a lecture by Richard Dawkins that was reprinted in the Nullifidian (1994) and briefly summarized their feelings about Dawkins’ position on religion; the 61 control participants wrote about their favourite foods. Following the prime, each participant completed a distracter task, the implicit religious belief IAT (IRBIAT), a self-report religiosity measure, and a demographic questionnaire assessing sex, religion, ethnicity and age.
Right – so there are some students and 45 are chosen at random to read a bit of Dawkins where he says that evolutionary processes were quite capable of creating complexity through the simplicity of mutation and differential selection. He also says that the existence of God is unnecessary and highly improbable.
Then they did an “Implicit Association Test” choosing between ‘true’ and ‘false’ when presented with words like god, heaven, angel, devil and soul. True attribute words included actual, true, genuine, real and valid. False attribute words included fake, false, bogus, untrue and phony.
Finally they explicitly expressed their beliefs by answering six questions: “My personal religious beliefs are very important to me”, “My religion or faith is an important part of my identity”, “If someone wanted to understand who I am as a person, my religion or faith would be very important in that”, “I believe strongly in the teachings of my religion or faith”, “I believe in God”, and “I consider myself a religious person”.
The results are below:
On the left is how religious the people say they are, and on the right is how religious the implicit test suggests they are. The dark blocks are those who didn’t read Dawkins before the test and the light ones are those who did read Dawkins.
Obviously, there are questions to be asked about what would have happened if the students had read a text written by a theist, and also questions about how long the influence of reading the text lasts.
Then there are problems with the research because Liberal Christians are unlikely to believe in angels, demons and the like, and they may well answer the explicit questions very differently to more conservative Christians. Also, questions like ‘are you religious’ are meaningless. Better questions are ‘do you find prayer helpful?’ and ‘do you attend religious meetings?’. Also, some religions are much more about making a difference in the world, being part of a community and rituals than they are about belief.. so that is problematic in the research too, in my opinion.
From this we can see from the study that some young people at a university in Arizona with a Christian background are less likely to express extremist dogmatism in their religious belief immediately after reading Dawkins, i.e. as in the video above, Dawkins is not polarising people, but helping persuade them.
I don’t doubt that Dawkins is persuading people, challenging people and indeed teaching people. I think all this is good. However, I think there is certainly a degree of polarising people as well.
I guess I feel that the initial question is facile, “Put simply, can rational discourse budge faith?” Yes of course it can and should. When we are in a mode that is not defensive then we allow our beliefs to be shaped by the wisdom of our elders, the experiences we have as we go through life and by rational argument. This was true for me when I was an atheist and it is true now I am a Christian.
A more important question is “How can our discourse enable greater understanding and a better world?” I would suggest that less mockery and contempt on both sides is critical in this pursuit, and it is just as important as also taking all the scientific evidence into account.
I will finish here with one of Aesop’s fables that Peter Rollins referred to recently:
A dispute once arose between the Wind and the Sun, which was the stronger of the two, and they agreed to settle the point upon the issue – that whichever of the two soonest made a traveller take off his cloak, should be accounted the more powerful.
The Wind began, and blew with all his might and main a blast, cold and fierce as a Thracian storm; but the stronger he blew, the closer the traveller wrapped his cloak around him, and the tighter he grasped it with his hands.
Then broke out the Sun. With his welcome beams he dispersed the vapour and the cold; the traveller felt the genial warmth, and as the Sun shone brighter and brighter, he sat down, quite overcome with the heat, and taking off his cloak, cast it on the ground.
Thus the Sun was declared the conqueror; and it has ever been deemed the persuasion is better than force; and that the sunshine of a kind and gentle manner will sooner lay open a poor man’s heart than all the threatenings and force of blustering authority.
Note – I have only looked at one of the three papers that Psycasm used in his own blog post to look at these questions, the three papers are:
Norenzayan, A., & Lee, A. (2010). It was meant to happen: Explaining cultural variations in fate attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (5), 702-720 DOI: 10.1037/a0019141
Shariff, A., Cohen, A., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). The Devil’s Advocate: Secular Arguments Diminish both Implicit and Explicit Religious Belief Journal of Cognition and Culture
Norenzayan, A., Hansen, I., & Cady, J. (2008). An Angry Volcano? Reminders of Death and Anthropomorphizing Nature Social Cognition, 26 (2), 190-197 DOI: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.190"
69 comments:
The problem with this "rational" discourse is that it often means that atheists set the parameters of the discourse in such a way that anything people of faith can say is dismissed as purely psychological and therefore wrong. Not even "likely to be wrong", but simply "wrong".
I've said it here before, what strikes me about this approach is that it is only ever used when people talk about religion. Experience is permitted in all other aspects of life, even those that science cannot prove, as long as it isn't faith.
No lover will put the flowers he just bought in the bin simply because a scientist could not prove that he was in love.
If by rational debate we mean that both sides have to accept that their belief can neither be proven nor disproven (and for it to be science, one of the two has to apply), and if we can then talk respectfully to each other, I'm all for it.
So what really bugs me is not the views people hold but the contempt in which they hold those who don't share them.
Erika,
"Not even "likely to be wrong", but simply "wrong"" - I think this is more how you are reading it rather than how it is expressed.
The point is usually made very clearly that given that empirical results show that so many flaws, susceptibility to illusions, delusions are common when it comes to attempts to explain the mystical, the spiritual, the limits of known reality that any claim to actual mystical or spiritual content of belief should be treated sceptically.
And, given that science is a serious attempt to overcome these flaws when acquiring knowledge and understanding, and yet is still so very difficult, then any other 'way of knowing' should also be treated sceptically.
Erika,
"...this approach is that it is only ever used when people talk about religion." - Not so. Selective reading. It applies to any aspect of human knowledge acquisition that doesn't use the best of the two pillars of science - the rational and the empirical. It applies to astrology, homeopathy, chiropractice, ESP, ...
Of course, when debating with anyone religious then the predominant subject of debate would be the religion.
Erika,
"No lover will put the flowers he just bought in the bin simply because a scientist could not prove that he was in love."
When the science is up to it, then maybe at that point we should. And I'm sure you're aware of people who repeatably find themselves in harmful relationships. Their friends offer them empirical evidence, the bruises; but the subject ignores the evidence and the advice. Following one's emotions and instincts isn't all it's cracked up to be.
...
...
On another post you put it this way...
"Not a single person I have ever come across lives according to purely rational principles."
I agree. Evolution would suggest that all animal species are essentially empirical foremost. They react to the world around them automatically, which for those with a nervous system is instinctively and emotionally to varying degrees. The rational reflective capacity we have is a late evolutionary add-on, and though it's satisfactory for most day to day problems, it's not that reliable when it comes to dealing with the unusual, or trying to come to terms with aspects of the universe that are strange to us. Religion may be one ancient attempt to do that; but I see science as a better way. Its methodologies have been hard work to develop, but they do compensate, as much as possible, for our human fallibilities.
Erika,
"If by rational debate we mean that both sides have to accept that their belief can neither be proven nor disproven (and for it to be science, one of the two has to apply)..."
This illustrates the problem when debating with some theists. This is where the polarization lies on the theist side.
Another comment of yours from another post: "I accept that to you, proof is of overriding importance."
You are mistaken. If anything, evidence is of overriding importance. Here is a debate between an atheist philosopher and an atheist scientist about this very point; which is one example of science v philosophy on the point of empiricism (see, it's not always about religion).
And you misunderstand 'proof' in the context of science...
...
Another comment from the other post: "So why don't we continue this conversation when you've discovered 100% proof against the existence of God?"
Here's a case in point about how you misunderstand the atheist materialist perspective. It's not about 100% proof. It's about the combination of the methods we can employ to get at the very little access we have to truth about reality. We only have our senses as a primary source, and our intelligence add-on as a secondary means of working with that data. It's about coming to terms with our very limited capabilities and doing the best we can with them in trying to figure out what reality consists of and how we should best deal with it. This is an entirely non-100% inductive process that all humans are stuck with.
Lesley,
I appreciate your desire for communication. And even though your blog is very broad it does attract primarily those with a theistic view. Some are just as comfortable with science as any atheist, seeing their theistic views as expressions of hope, or explanation of what science hasn't yet come to terms with, or personal approaches to life, ... (explanations bounded only by one's imagination).
But others aren't really up for a dialogue - or if they are they want it on theistic terms only. And they're certainly not up for a 'reasoned' debate - since reason appears to be considered a hindrance; and criticism is taken as offence.
One objection, such as Erika's, is that atheists want the debate to be based on empiricism and reason. Well, their all we humans have. Unless of course anyone wants to demonstrate and explain how some 'other way of knowing' actually works reliably. So, yes, the debate will have to be on those terms. Religion doesn't get a free pass when it comes to using our best means of getting at reality and truth.
...
...
The term 'experience' is often used in a religious context, which gives the impression that there's some empirical justification to belief. But that 'experience' is either a purely psychological one - that is, the psychological belief is a real empirical event in a brain, but the content of the belief, God, isn't; or, if it isn't just psychological, then there's no supporting corroborating empirical evidence that would distinguish it from being purely psychological.
...
...
On Creationists: "This is obviously influenced by more extremist views in America, but why do we reward these views by highlighting them?"
You reward them by ignoring them. They have been ignored in many US states, and that has allowed them to attempt to drive real science out of the science classroom.
As irrational as I can be as a flawed human with limited senses and finite and error prone brain, I'm not keen to allow this nonsense, this degree of irrationality, to have its way. That's why so many atheists/scientists are so vocal about Creationism.
...
...
The dislike of being mocked, like the taking of offense, are poor excuses for not engaging. I can only suggest the Christian approach, turn the other cheek. And take care that mockery and offence are not excuses.
By all means continue in the debate with Christian kindness and humility, and maybe your example will turn the minds of atheists in their methods of debate, as they hope to turn those of theists in the use of empiricism and reason.
If we already agreed on both the content of our beliefs and the methods of coming to them, and even on how we debate, then there'd be nothing to debate.
Engage the arguments by, as Lesley is doing, visiting more atheist/science blogs - and make your points there, rather than returning to your cosy world to whine.
At first you may be treated as a theist troll, just as many atheists are that try to engage on theist blogs are accused of trolling (MP take note).
But ignore any mockery or accusations of trolling. Keep returning to your point until it is answered. If you really do get no good response, move on to another blog.
One thing is certain, just hanging out in theistic blogs may be very cosy, but you are not opening your mind to debate and engagement; you're affirming your belief, and any mistakes that are inherent in it.
...
If you think the New Atheists are unreasonable, then go to them and tell them why. Whining about it among the like-minded is just that - whining.
In doing this you'll see that their ruthless streak is just as quickly dished out among themselves. Then perhaps you won't feel quite so persecuted. That is, of course, assuming persecution and suffering isn't one of the joys of religion. (Oops, is that mocking?)
Ron you insist that Religion must be put in the same category as science - to be investigated by empirical methods etc. But just because you assert this every time doesn't make it true or right. I don't want to put music or art or love into this space and I think many others would agree with me.
Hi Lesley,
Now you're talking about your desires - you don't want to address these things in that space. Well, in appreciating them and expressing them there's no need to. I can be moved by a moving movie - even though rationally and empircally I know it's all an act. But in studying them with all our capacities to understand them, there is a need to be rational and empirical.
There's much psychology on art, aesthetics - and mostly, for now, that's the limit of our understanding of them in terms of science. But that isn't an excuse to stop trying to understand art or religion by rational empirical means.
The significance in the context of religion is that serious empirical claims are made on the basis of religious belief. So those of us not party to that faith don't have to use the methods of faith to debate. The empirical and the rational are the only tools we have as human animals. This is what puts the debate in that sphere.
You want debate? You won't get it on religious terms. The only common ground we have is our empirical senses and our reason.
...
I can only refer you to this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28
By all means have your desires. But if that's not how it appears to be...
This is about the desire that QED not be the case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw&NR=1
Yes of course I want to debate... but the desires and sensibilities of what we feel is good and bad comes into that. So when debating ethical issues such as euthanasia I suggest most of us debate on the criteria of rules, values and results. Science can give us great data for results, and it is important, vital even. But values are part of our personality and upbringing and make life meaningful for us... one may value compassion, another money.. in the euthanasia debate science probably won't be able to square these things, and that is good. There is no singular convergent answer. As for rules, I'm not very interested in them.. but other people seem to be.....
Wow- Leslie- this is a great post.
I think for me personally, I don't want to debate the merits of religion or faith with people who have no interest in the subject.
It's not productive.
We all have reasons for believing what we do that can't be judged by someone who hasn't walked in our shoes. What's true for me isn't true for someone else, and that's fine, I think.
I don't think there needs to be an absolute right or wrong when it comes to faith. With science, one answer is true.
But faith is not science. I think this is where things fall apart for some people in separating the two.
It's a difficult discussion because there are so many unknowns when it comes to the supernatural and the spiritual. No one can be absolutely sure they are right. And yet so many people are sure.
The scientist in me is always questioning- everything. And open. So I don't understand people who are so unmovingly positive they are right, whether atheist or religious.
Fantastic post. As the Christian wife of an atheist, finding common ground between atheists and Christians is something that I'm very passionate about.
Being in America, I wish I could say that creationist views were limited to the extreme, but where you have never met a creationist in real life, I can point to only a very few Christians that I know in real life who accept evolution. And I don't think that I run in very extreme circles!
That said, I completely agree that less mockery on both sides would be incredibly beneficial toward understanding one another. I would particularly like to see it from the leaders. The tone of those who are leading has a direct impact on those who are listening and who are doing the main footwork of building the bridges. And as long as these (primarily) men continue to use angry words, we will see that in the discussion.
Jade,
"I think for me personally, I don't want to debate the merits of religion or faith with people who have no interest in the subject." - But they do have interest in the subject. What you appear not to want is to debate people who profoundly disagree with you.
"It's not productive." - What productivity are you after? If you simply want to affirm and bolster up your belief, then I agree, under no circumstances debate with anyone who doesn't see it your way.
"What's true for me isn't true for someone else, and that's fine, I think." - I think not. It's pretty difficult establishing what is true, full stop. But there's no reason to think there are multiple truths. There are clearly multiple opinions and beleifs about what is true - but that's another story.
...
...
"With science, one answer is true." - Not really. There may be one answer that is currently deemed to be true about some specific point, based on current evidence. But in science there are plenty of situations where you'd use different models of a system for quite different purposes. Newton and Einstein again.
"It's a difficult discussion because there are so many unknowns when it comes to the supernatural and the spiritual." - I would go further: there are no knowns with respect to the supernatural and spiritual; it's all indistinguishable from speculation, hope, wishful thinking.
"So I don't understand people who are so unmovingly positive they are right, whether atheist or religious." - I don't know any atheists that are umovingly positive they are right.
Hi Alise,
"That said, I completely agree that less mockery on both sides would be incredibly beneficial toward understanding one another. I would particularly like to see it from the leaders."
Fair point. But I find it odd that offended complaints are often made against new Atheist stridency, when I'm sure as an American you'll appreciate, the damnation served on atheists by religious leaders who sincerely see us all destined for the most unpleasant hell has always flourished In comparison a little mockery from atheists seems small change.
So, as I suggested above, perhaps for the sake of progress Christians should turn the other cheek and get on with the debate.
But I suspect that for many, like Jade, debate isn't what is wanted at all. And for those that want to quietly get on with their religion that's fine - they'll get no end of support for freedom of belief from secular atheists. All the noise that New Atheists make is about religions and the religious that think they have the one true answer to living life and ethics.
Ron
"Here's a case in point about how you misunderstand the atheist materialist perspective. It's not about 100% proof. It's about the combination of the methods we can employ to get at the very little access we have to truth about reality. We only have our senses as a primary source, and our intelligence add-on as a secondary means of working with that data."
Now you're losing me.
I used to think your argument was all about proof and that if there was no scientific proof for my subjective experience, my experience must be discounted.
Now you're saying we only have our senses as a primary source, and I can only agree with you 100%.
That there is an intellectual, philosophical concept (Christianity) that then helps me to make sense of what my senses sense is an added bonus.
As for debate:
Can you define what you would like this debate to achieve?
If it's about convincing each other that our belief is the only right one, then I agree that debate isn't possible. I don't even want to convince you, why should I?
And my faith is so strong that nothing you could say can change that. So if change is what it is about, then no, we have nothing further to say to each other.
But I don't believe that conversation is only about change. It's much more about understanding what the other believe, why, how it enriches their lives, how it influences how they live, whether it helps them to become the people they want to be.
Understanding and a companionable side by side are much more important than an intellectual battle that is neither meaningful nor can be won.
There's one major misconception going on here, and that is, it's all about "ways of knowing". No, it isn't.
It's not only "knowing", which is empirical and subject to rational inquiry, it's also about "choosing". It's about ethics, ways of looking at the world, ways of describing it and oneself. These are not ways of "knowing", but they're jsut as important.
And Ron, if someone consistantly behaves like a troll, contemptuously, then there is no point in talking to them at all. You described talking about the New Atheists as "whining"; no, it isn't. It's talking about them. Get over it; whining is something else. If the New Atheists actually want to be talked to, then they must create the approachable conditions needed.
Some of the Gnus, like Jerry Coyne et al, simply cannot be talked with, since they simply cannto live with anyone expressing a view markedly at difference to theirs. That's that. There's no need and no reason to even try again.
Ron
"I think for me personally, I don't want to debate the merits of religion or faith with people who have no interest in the subject." - But they do have interest in the subject. What you appear not to want is to debate people who profoundly disagree with you.
Surely the issue is that Science deals with the falsifiable (see TheAtlantic.Com), and religion (at least my definition of good religion) is unfalsifiable. If you insist on using science to critique religion then you are abusing science as well as religion.
Whilst I do not agree with it there is nothing science can do to disprove the theory that God created the earth 4004BC with dinosaur fossils in place.
A small quote from the above article: "Another, even more fundamental feature of science—here I invoke the ghost of Karl Popper—is that it must produce falsifiable propositions"
Hi Erika,
"I used to think your argument was all about proof and that if there was no scientific proof for my subjective experience, my experience must be discounted."
I don't think I've ever expressed it that way. What I've said often is the following...
There is plenty of science, and even common every day experiences, where we know our intuitive beliefs are fallible. Science is the attempt to overcome that as much as possible, and given how much work has gone into science, and the many results it produces, it's the best way we have of acquiring knowledge. All our methodologies, our sensing and our thinking, are made as rigorous as possible in science. And even though that remains inadequate itself, that's no reason to abandon it.
The experiences you are describing are not externally verifiable material data, but internal psychological beliefs. And though there is nothing in science that actually refutes the content of many of those beliefs, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the known fallibility of the human mind and its interpretation of its own internal workings is at the very least enough reason to be sceptical about them. There is nothing to distinguish between what you claim to be the case and pure fantasy.
...
...
I'm sure there "...is an intellectual, philosophical concept.." (fairies) that helps some people make sense of what their senses sense. I have family members who are convinced that seances give them access to the spirit world. I know people who are convinced that astrology can guide their lives. My mother still takes homeopathic remedies even though it appears not to have benefitted her health one bit.
...
...
As for debate, I have a number of reasons for it.
One is to first try to understand what drives the many different religious beliefs. I can only do that by putting questions, and given an alternative view.
But there is also a desire for change, that being opposing the privilege of religion and wanting a secular state (which, as a reminder still includes freedom of belief and worship - I've no interest in closing churches and mosques).
...
...
"It's [the debate] much more about understanding what the other believe, why, how it enriches their lives, how it influences how they live, whether it helps them to become the people they want to be."
Then since I started debating on Lesley's blog I've failed to help you understand, for example, that science isn't about 100% proof.
But, is this really your desire?...
...
...
From another post: "Anyway, I'm not sure why we keep coming back to this interminable conversation."
Some of the religious views here are quite varied, from some quite literal ones to others that are far more elusive. Atheists are often accused of stereotyping religious believers - the 'not my belief' objection - so I'm trying to avoid that be trying to understand the various beliefs expressed on here.
As to it being interminable, then I find that an odd expression on two points. First, for those taking part in a conversation from two quite different points of view it does take a lot of going over, putting points again and again, until some understanding has been reached - I've learned a lot about religious belief from Lesley's blog and the many believers who comment. Second, I don't think any of the theological opinions expressed on here are exactly new - this is a conversation that's been going on for millenia, so the whole religious dialogue is 'interminable' in that sense.
I tell you what my desire is, Ron. A debate, or a conversation, in which my view is then not equated to a belief in fairies and pure fantasy.
The recognition that experiences like mine have been shared by people throughout the ages, that this is well documented and that it goes way beyond being overwhelmed by my own silly emotions.
What I really want is respect, the acknowledgement that your view is potentially just as much fantasy. After all, not a single shred of actual evidence for it has yet been found and you're only able to hold on to it because you discard, a priori, anything I might have to contribute to the conversation.
The real problem with this attitude is that a real converasation never even gets off the starting blocks.
I have atheist friends who are intersted in what kind of experience I am talking about. Who are interested in how it shapes who I am. That they don't believe it is neither here nor there, they don't dismiss me in terms that are really quite hurtful and come across as arrogant, whether they're meant like that or not.
As for homeopathy. I agree there is no evidence for it.
I can also tell you that my daughter started homeopathic treatment after a year of chemotherapy. No-one told her what to expect. Within 3 days she stopped being sick 5 times a night and her anti-sickness drugs could be reduced from 5 different types daily to 1.
Unscientific? Absolutely!
Did we therefore disbelieve what was happening and stop the treatment? Absolutely not!
Religion may well be experiential, but if it makes claims that go into the historical and scientific, then these are open to enquiry or the lack of means of enquiry available. So science and history are entitled to come in and examine claims for the nativity and resurrection etc. when those make psuedo-scientific or history-like claims, if only to show that they are not.
And Erika reacts against me enough to know it isn't just about New Atheists or atheism, but that which critically examines any position.
If theology wants to be a critical subject with a place in the university, it cannot simply say, Oh it is firm experience in one's head, or at least if it is experience in one's head how then limited that is for any kind of conversation or analysis.
Gurder,
But the 'knowing' is what is actually claimed by many theists. Granted this is watered down a lot, in terms of "God is love", for example. But it's still a claim knowledge which along with many others knowledge then goes on to inform ethics.
I've no problem with anyone basing their ethics on Mickey Mouse if they choose. But when those claims are used as justification for precedence over secular ethics it matters.
So, with prostitution for example, much of the debate on this site is influenced by religion - fair enough. But that doesn't give it any more weight than secular views on prostitution.
...
...
"If the New Atheists actually want to be talked to, then they must create the approachable conditions needed."
That seems rather defeatest. The US government is currently trying to figure out how to get into (more official) talks with the Taliban. I don't see the Taliban position as exactly approachable.
And the religious of various persuasions have been burnt at the stake for their beliefs, so religion isn't short on guts and determination. If theists think the New Atheists really have it wrong, then tell them.
...
I don't think any of us are immune from being contemptuous towards people we disagree with. You're not short on contempt for Sam Harris, for example.
But, it's a personal joice as to whether to persist or not. I did say above: "If you really do get no good response, move on to another blog."
Adrian
Theology has as much a right to be a critical subject at university as does English literature and Philosophy.
You know very well that I don't believe in the historic claims Christianity makes, that I hold most of it to be myth and metaphor.
The question about literal truth is a modern one that only arose with the Enlightenment. I cannot not read texts that are 2000 years old with the mind of someone who grew up with the idea that human beings ought to be able to verify all truths, otherwise they are not true.
“What does the story mean” is always the more important question, never “did it actually happen like this”.
True faith will not disappear if Jesus’ bones are found.
And while atheists may believe that I’m relying too much on subjective truths that can be dismissed as “psychological” (as if that were in any way, shape or form a scientific dismissal), people of faith will always believe that those who try so hard to denigrate faith are simply shutting themselves off from a huge part of what human life can be about.
Truly rational people meet in the middle, in the place of Maybe, in the place of “so what does your faith/unbelief actually mean for your life”?
I suppose what really wears me out in this debate is the continuing shouts of "you can't prove it". And I keep saying "I know I can't. Faith isn't about proof". And the reply is "you can't prove it"... and we just go round and round and round in circles.
Can we not at least all accept that faith cannot be proven, nor can atheism and move on from there?
Otherwise we'll end up in a perpetual Punch and Judy show. And that, really, is for children.
Erika, I love the "that atheists set the parameters" part. Oh my goodness. Not even any qualification at all. Atheists as one homogenous group. Oh dear me and all that. What was that bit you said about seeing groups again? I love it.
______
Ron, "If you really do get no good response, move on to another blog."
Guess what I said? re the Gnus? Hmmmm?
"That seems rather defeates"
Some people aren't wotth it. I don't waste my time approaching the EDL, for example.
"contempt for Sam Harris"
No, you are dead wrong, and on a very interesting point.
I do not display contempt for Harris as a person. I do trash what he claims. There is a big difference there.
When Dawkins claims so.called "accommodationists" are "Quslings", that's a hsyterical exaggeration and mere name-calling on his part.
When Sam Harris tweeted Sean Carroll was being "stupid" for bringing up Hume and is/ought, then Sam was again merely name-calling.
Of course, the problem is much worse with others. The personal invective used routinely by Jarry Coyne, for example, is really childish and petulant.
And, Ron, if someone behaves like Jerry Coyne, they're simply not worth talking to. The point has been made.
Gudur
I should have qualified it, of course! Apologies!
But I would still say that, broadly speaking, atheists tend to believe that something ought to be verifiable, or at least not purely subjective in order to have a claim to be taken seriously. You only have to look at Ron here, who confidently brackets faith with fantasy.
Whereas religious people tend to believe that their experience is what determines their approach to faith.
To some extent that's only natural. If you haven't had a particular experience you are much more likely to be sceptical about it than people who have had it.
And if you have had it, you find it much harder to be purely rational about it.
So I'm not really criticising the different approaches.
What I would like to see, though, is that much of the public debate was less focused on evidence. Because it's obvious that there isn't any and so people either end up shouting at each other across the divide, or the conversation is shut down from the outset.
Blimey! :)
Ron I want to take issue with a point that you make, and I'm hoping some of this might unravel a bit. I think you are wrong on the following point:
But the 'knowing' is what is actually claimed by many theists. Granted this is watered down a lot, in terms of "God is love", for example. But it's still a claim knowledge which along with many others knowledge then goes on to inform ethics.
Do theists claim to know things?
In our creeds we say "I believe", not "I know".. we say we are "people of faith" not "people of knowledge" and we express ourselves in myth and metaphor not in fact.
I just think there is a category error when you want to apply science to faith.
Gurdur
I just read my first post again, and, actually, I did qualify my statement by saying that atheists "often" set the parameters for the debate.
As the general level of public discourse seems to be one of science vs. religion, where scientific methods are applied to the conversation, I think I'm not being unfair here.
"Do theists claim to know things?"
Those that the New Atheists are talking about most are the ones that do claim to know. If it were only a matter, "I believe, but I accept you don't and that's fine", then there would be no New Atheists.
And several people on here have stated that at least some of the Christian belief is not myth. So, the sories may be a myth. Is God a myth or a metaphor to you?
It would be an error to claim science can determine if there's a God now, because it certainly can't now. But without being clear about which God we're talking about it's just as wrong to say it can't and never will. Science is trying to acquire knowledge about the physical universe. If the particular God talked about is the creator of the universe, then it's open to science.
If you are saying God is a myth, then all science could do is discuss the psychology of myths.
So much good discussion and I apologize, I don't have time to soak it all in right now. I just wanted to reply to the comments by Ron, although I think others have covered what I would say quite well.
"But they do have interest in the subject. What you appear not to want is to debate people who profoundly disagree with you."
No. You don't have interest in a subject that is a closed case for you. Your just the same as the conservative Christians or creationists that you criticize.
We cannot have a discussion when one person thinks they already have all the answers. That's not how scientific discussions work either.
"What productivity are you after?"
Sharing of thoughts, ideas, what ifs, how come this or that, maybe this is what's going on, etc, etc. As I said, you already know everything so no point talking about "maybe" and "what if".
"But there's no reason to think there are multiple truths. There are clearly multiple opinions and beleifs about what is true - but that's another story."
There maybe one single truth, but to try and force an individual to adopt one way of thinking is unfair and unrealistic. What is true for me, is not true for other people. I can assure you of that. I don't need other people to believe what I believe. As long as people act out of love and love other people, then that is the main single universal truth.
"Not really. There may be one answer that is currently deemed to be true about some specific point, based on current evidence. But in science there are plenty of situations where you'd use different models of a system for quite different purposes. Newton and Einstein again."
-Agreed. I was speaking not specifically but generally. You just love to nitpick, don't you?
"I would go further: there are no knowns with respect to the supernatural and spiritual; it's all indistinguishable from speculation, hope, wishful thinking."
Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
"I don't know any atheists that are umovingly positive they are right."
uummmm....you?
Ron
You have been around Christian blogs long enough to know that no 2 people agree on what God is!
I think you’re right, there are many many Christians who will claim that the bible tells us absolute literal truths about God that rival a science book.
But like all things, Christianity is a spectrum. And most Christians I know happily believe in everything science discovers. They just also happen to believe that it is underpinned by God and that this God has, once in history, intervened in human affairs by being incarnated in the form of Jesus in order to redeem the world. Most people of faith can hold those 2 claims in perfect tension.
And then, further along the scale, you have people who believe less and less of the story as absolute physical fact. Many don’t believe in the virgin birth, fewer but still many don’t believe in a physical resurrection etc.
But I think that for all Christians, God himself is not a myth or metaphor, God is the ultimate truth. A truth we can experience and that is given words and images in the stories of the Old and the New Testament.
What is myth and metaphor to one extent or other, is the language and the concepts we have developed to talk about God.
And where you say “If the particular God talked about is the creator of the universe, then it's open to science”, all I can answer is – who says? It would be convenient if he was open to science, but there’s nothing at all that gives us any reason to claim confidently that just because we would like it to be so means that it is so.
Hi Erika,
"But like all things, Christianity is a spectrum ... Most people of faith can hold those 2 claims in perfect tension."
Yes, I get that. And the same applies to atheists, scientists, everyone. Mostly because we don't have complete knowledge of something we make arbitrary decisions - in the sense that if we really drilled down into why we make a specific decision after the fact we often can't explain it rationally. Much of ethics is like this. We don't have all the facts for mundane things either, and so on many occasions the arbitrariness of the decision isn't problematic.
"God himself is not a myth or metaphor, God is the ultimate truth. A truth we can experience and that is given words and images in the stories of the Old and the New Testament."
But this is a claim to knowledge.
How do you know this? Do you think you know it, or is it a hope or a wish? What is this God constituted of? Truth? What is this 'truth'? It's not a truth like 1 + 1 = 2 (which still relies on some assumptions) On the surface this seems like an example of how theists claim they don't make claims, and then go right ahead and make them.
If the creator has an effect on a physical universe, then it's open to science. It may be science we as current humans don't get round to doing. It might require trans-humans to do it. But there's far less reason to exclude it from science than to include it. After all, many religious people seem to know an awful lot about God without any explanation of how their material brains come by that knowledge.
Ron, that God is real is not a claim to knowledge, it's a claim to faith.
My experience of God tells me that he is deepest truth. But I cannot prove it, I can only live it.
I "know" it in the sense that I know I love my children, not in the sense that I know 2 + 2 = 4.
I make the claim that God is truth, but I do it as an act of faith.
Strictly speaking, I should qualify each sentence about God by saying “he who is true for me and for all of us who believe in him, but of whom we do not really know whether he exists.”
I agree that it might be possible to prove or disprove God at some time in the future. But if it really takes trans-humans (what are they?) to do that, then I wonder how relevant the argument can be to our conversation today?
We’re still where we are – we can neither prove nor disprove God.
I think just as you get stuck on the word “truth”, I get stuck on the word “science”. I don’t see the relevance for it at all. Having agreed that science as it stands today cannot get us closer to deciding whether God exists or not, what use is science for the conversation?
Hi Erika,
My next question would then be, what is faith? Is this faith a choice or a rational unavoidable conclusion? What actually happens when you experience or indulge in faith itslef?
What is it that that makes you commit so much of your life to this God, and more specifically, the ancient myths about him? And even more specifically, given that they are myths, what's so special about Jesus? Is it just the myth about Jesus that is attractive, or is it something more profound? Is there some way in which this otherwise mortal man is special, even non-mortal?
Is there a real difference between what you believe and someone who claims the resurrection really happened - that Jesus is in fact one aspect of God?
What is it about multiple conflicting stories (e.g. Christianity v Islam) that makes them so persuasive to adherents? With science, for example, Newton's Laws are accepted by all scientists. With psychology, because it is less well understood, there are many theories about different aspects of the mind, some of which may conflict and some of which may have little empirical evidence to support them, but they may still be used as working models until something better comes along. Is faith like a sparse psychology theory?
Ron
I don’t think I can answer your questions in general terms. I can only answer them for myself and others here will have their own stories.
“Indulge in faith” makes it sound naughty, like having a second chocolate when you’d be better off not. And it implies that it’s something you can take or leave.
But the reality is that, at some point, you are likely to have “had an experience” that means that from that point on, faith is just something you have. It changes over time, it can come and go, some people lose theirs altogether. But by and large, once it has grabbed you it’s no longer an option but something that just IS. A bit like once you’re in love, you just ARE in love. You don’t choose to indulge in being in love, it’s not something you can consciously choose or reject.
For me, this God is an absolute palpable reality. Someone (for want of a better word!), it is possibly to communicate with, who just IS.
For me, the experience came first. Then began years of trying to grapple with what this experience is all about. And I have discovered that the words, the images and the myths of Christianity help me to make sense of it. I dare say that, had I been born in Baghdad, I would have ended up with a living faith in Islam. It just so happened that I was born in Western Europe and raised in the Christian church, so I already had those words and images at my disposal.
To me, Jesus was a man who, for want of a better word, had the same experience about God, but much much more so than I ever will. He was so close to God that he can be said to be a window into everything we can know about God. To that extent, Jesus IS God. That’s my personal view and I know that most Christians will shoot me down for it because it’s not creedal enough, but it’s enough for me.
So if you ask most Christians whether there is a real difference between what I believe and what people who believe in the literal resurrection believe, you will hear a lot of different views, ranging from the “she’s no Christian” to “she’s missing what it’s about”.
If you ask me – no, there is no difference. Because I do believe in the resurrection in the sense that it is a mysterious thing we cannot comprehend but that can be seen in the lives of people.
And the cornerstone of this belief for me is the story of the disciples after Jesus’ death.
As far as we know, the lives of the disciples are historic and the stories are largely true.
So what we have is a rabble of weak men who have never really understood Jesus while he was alive, who all, one by one, have left him when he was crucified, who then all returned to their respective homes, completely dejected and lost, probably ready to take up their previous lives again.
And then something happened, something we call the Resurrection. And all of them, not one, not two, not three, but every single one of them say they “saw the living Jesus” (whatever that means). It changed their lives. They became completely God focused, totally convinced of Jesus’ message. They had their hope back, they had more courage than they ever did while he was alive. All but one died a violent death for their faith. Contrast that with Peter who denied him 3 times after his capture.
To me, the question of whether the resurrection was physical, spiritual or whatever, is completely irrelevant. Relevant is what it did to those people and what it has done to millions since then.
That’s not science, but it’s nevertheless truth.
Is faith sparse psychology theory?
I don’t know about sparse.
But I do believe that Jesus was an outstanding psychologist.
When it comes to it, atheists will usually agree that he was a good man, that his ethics and morals are sound, that his understanding of human beings was deep and true.
And why wouldn’t it be? If God really IS what I believe him to be, then of course our psychology plays as great a part in recognising him and living with him as does our capacity to think logically and scientifically.
Dawkins said something like, 'you have to trawl through vast amounts of the Bible and discard a lot of stuff before you find the good bits.' I'm not a scientist, but I assume that is the scientific method, looking at the data, analysing it, testing it, and discarding the bits that don't work. It's what Dawkings presumably did in biology, and it's what theologians do in theology. I don't think he understands the basics of religion.
Hi Erika,
Thanks for that explanation. As 'true' as it may seem for you, I don't see how this is anything other than a psychological state of mind.
But before you take offense at this suggestion, I also think this is no different than saying the whole of science is constructed through the psychological states if mind of all the contributing scientists. The whole of science is a human mental construction. We build mental models of what we perceive to be reality.
And there are philosophical systems that can just as easily be constructed by imagining that something is the case, so it's not confined to religion, and includes atheist philosophical systems too.
The big difference between science on the one hand, and religious and philosophical systems on the other, is that in science there's an attempt to match what we think is the case with what we find to be the case by empirical means.
...
Samuel Johnson's reputed "I refute it thus." was more than a rhetorical jesture. It really is the only fallback we have to verify that what we think is true is anything like true. So whether our empirical data is every-day data, like kicking a stone and feeling the pain, or a really rigorous scientific experiment replicated over time by many scientists, it all contributes to some degree.
The significance of science is that in using it we recognise that even the metaphorical kicking of a stone isn't always reliable. We can have experiences that feel to us as real as can be, but are still false. Out of body experiences can be induced, and can feel real, as reported by those experiencing them, and yet can be shown to be false.
"If God really IS what I believe him to be..." - That's a big if, with no stone to kick to test it.
We know we can psychologically convince people that they will go to heaven if they blow themselves up, killing other people in the process. The 'truth' of their actual action is empirically observable in the explosion; the 'truth' of their psychological state of mind is observable by what they say and do; but the 'truth' that they will go to heaven is not. If this if is so iffy, doesn't it raise enough scepticism about belief altogether?
Hi Tony,
The difference is the empirical backing. Sure, I could flit through a Simpsons script, rejecting Bart's and Homer's moral codes and selecting Marge's and Lisa's. But then this says more about my choice of morals that happen to match some morals expressed by the script writer. When using the bible a theologian is doing no more than picking bits that match his personal morals, or letting bits inform his personal morals. But those morals were merely the morals of other humans, the authors of the bible.
I'm not discounting the value of the bible as a good and interesting book that has many human wisdoms in it, along with ideas we now find objectionable. But that's to read it in a very human context that has nothing to do with any claims about its divine inspiration. I don't think this view is much different than those of some theists who believe in God, but who see the bible as a human inspired interpretation of the divine rather than a directly divinely inspired book.
Dawkins' criticism is directed at those that see it as directly divinely inspired.
Ron,
empirical backing - well, yes, we're back where we started. I did say there wasn't any and that it doesn't matter because it's not about knowing but about faith.
I think science needs to understand that to us, science is completely irrelevant when it comes to saying anything useful about faith.
On the other hand - the empirical backing that millions of people have the same psychological experiences and come to the same conclusions about them should give you at least pause for thought. Although 1 million lemmings CAN be wrong, they might, just possibly, not be.
And it's not as if any of us was acting irrationally.
If you have not had a faith experience, it would be irrational to believe in a personal God.
If you have had a faith experience, it would be irrational not to do so.
Ron
A final comment from me and then you can all breathe a sigh of relief!
Our houseguest tonight is a retired NASA research scientist whose other interest is the Turin Shroud. He's in Britian to lecture on the possibility that Joseph of Aramathea might have brought the young Jesus to Britain, a popular myth round here in the South West.
Most of us believe in science. We see the evidence of its truth all around us in our daily lives.
Many of us, including eminent scientists, also have a personal faith in the Christian God.
Many others don't.
The two are not exclusive. That is also observable truth.
Hi Erika,
Millions of people have similar psychological experiences, rather than the same. And the similarities are both differentiating and unifying, to the extent that many liberal theists question the rationality of the theism of literalists, but not the rationality of their own theism; yet there is a similarity of the means by which they come by their beliefs, and along with the common content of belief (e.g. wider Christianity in all its varieties) it is unifying.
So, if your faith is rational, then so is that of the suicide bomber, because what might appear to us as an irrational act, by the standards of faith is a rational act, because there is a real 'truth' for them in what they are doing. Similarly, those YE Creationists who are trying to impose the dilution of science in schools in America, and those that teach anti-evolution in the UK, are acting rationally by the standards of faith.
And, any abused wife who really 'experiences' the love of her husband while he is beating her is also coming to a rational belief because she still believes that she experiences the love, really.
...
...
A scientist who is sure his science is correct, but who thinks his empirical result that doesn't confirm it is an anomoly is tempted to tweak the result. If his belief in his science is correct, then it's a rational choice he makes, by the standards of faith.
The Muslim that attacked the Danish cartoonist is acting rationally because the cartoon insults his prophet. Sikhs who demostrated violently outside a theatre and closed a play that is a fictional story are acting rationally. The scientists that killed Terry Pratchett because his books were an abomination to science were acting rationally. OK, that last one isn't going to happen.
Anyone who uses this form of rationalism from faith isn't going to get far using it in discussions with New Atheists (or Gnu atheists, or even many plain old atheists); and so bridges won't be built quite as easily as might be hoped.
...
Hi Erika,
Our comments crossed, so no need to come back on my last ones. I agree that we can hold rational and irrational beliefs at the same time.
People need to want to build bridges for it to be possible. And if complete surrender is what people want, then it's no longer about bridge building.
To insist that something should be done, when even those who support it accept that it cannot be done, is not hugely intelligent.
There is no rational, empirical, scientific argument for God.
That is a fact.
So what?
It proves absolutely nothing.
What we experience is purely "psychological". Well, yes, we are who we are. Everything about us is chemistry, physics, neuroscience, psychology. We have no other means to be who we are.
To point out that we experience psychologically says absolutely nothing about the truth of what we experience. It's neither a support for it nor evidence against it.
We really need to get the conversation off this deadlock. Otherwise we might just as well stop having it.
For me, the aim would be to look at the reality: science and faith can walk side by side, they do not compete with each other.
If you have faith, you do. If you don’t, you don’t.
That’s all there is to it.
If I understand some of my atheists friend correctly, they are afraid that if you “allow” the belief in a supernatural God you open the door to justifying every cruelty on earth in his name. You make it sound rational to kill people because somewhere across the other side of the world a cartoon is drawn. It’s a kind of fear of chaos is you don’t rely on observable fact.
If that’s the case, I can understand it, but I would argue that the answer is not to rubbish all religion but to help religious people to promote good religion.
Every belief system, including all secular ones, can be perverted and have been throughout human history. That does not mean that all belief systems are wrong. It means that good system can be appallingly abused.
Is the task then not to ensure that all of us follow the highest ethical standards, regardless of what belief system we adhere to?
Hi Erika,
Good explanation in last 3 paras. And that's fine. So, where does that leave us?
"There is no rational, empirical, scientific argument for God. That is a fact. So what? It proves absolutely nothing." - From your perspective this may be the 'not my religion' stance. Fine. Your personal faith is not a problem for secular atheists.
From my perspective there are still religious privileges that I object to, and I still think a secular state is better placed to serve all comers. So, in that sense the current state of religion in the UK is not healthy. But to what extent do you think that liberal, or even moderate, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs will speak out loud enough to prevent teaching of anti-evolution in religious schools, to prevent the violence emerging from mosques, to prevent violent religiously offended demonstrations.
The CofE still has issues with homosexuality and sexism which makes it seem that unity of faith is more important than promoting good religion.
...
...
It would be nice if the loudest objections to bad religion were in fact coming from the liberal and moderate religious, but they have tended not to be. Instead, when atheists complain that a particular event is religiously motivated and points out that the religious belief is a personal matter that should carry no political weight, or that it cannot rationally be used to excuse some action, the religious have a greater tendency to unite and only a few lone voices are heard.
And when atheists attack YE Creationism, why is there the assumption that all atheist attacks are against all religion? Form Lesley, "However, when I chat to atheists they seem to assume that I am a Creationist." Well, so what? The response should be to set them straight and get on with the debate. Many theists I talk to think I think science has 100% proof of everything.
There is bound to be lack of understanding. It's no use throwing one's rattle out of the pram. There remains the use of the offence response. So, from my perspective it does seem that the on the whole, present company excepted, there is greater intransigence from the religious.
...
...
And if a few atheists are a little too strident for one's taste, letting them get on with it without being heard, or even by responding in kind, isn't going to change anything.
My earlier suggestion to turn the other cheek was a genuine one. If liberal/moderate theists really think they have niceness on their side, then use it. Keep explaining that though you accept there is no evidence to support your belief, it's a deeply human expression of how you see the world. If you add too that you oppose 'bad' religion, and explain what that is, and ignore the expected response that all religion is bad, then you might find it disarms them.
Remember that much of what New Atheists are against is bad Christianity and Islam. Roman Catholicism has much to be argued against from my point of view, but Richard Dawkins doesn't have a problem sharing a platform with Roman Catholic Ken Miller when opposing ID. If they genuinely don't get your version of religion it might help to enlighten them.
The stridency is often only skin deep. It may be thick skin, accumulated from the callouses of being ranted out about going to hell.
Ron
I think we're agreeing at last.
I would fully support your view that religion should not have a special status in society.
We might have to debate what that means in individual cases, but if you're talking about disestablishment, for example, I am all for it!
I hope liberal people of all faiths will speak out against the trivialisation of science. I can't answer for the whole movement, of course, but I will personally continue to speak out against it.
I will particularly speak out against this idea that religion has to be literally true, because that's not scientific and, I believe, also ultimately destructive what what religion is truly about. So I have a vested interest and a foot in both camps here.
As for religions and human rights, you won't find me on the anti-gay anti-women platform, nor will you truly find many Christians there. The church hierarchy, sadldy, is a different issue and we do still have a battle on our hands!
Thank you Erika,
Your position on all this is a lot clearer to me now. I think I get it more than I have in the past.
Hi Ron
I can't speak for anyone else either but I echo all that Erika says
- I have no interest in religious privilege, in fact it is an affront to me..
- I have no interest in doing anything other than support science.
- I try my best to ensure the church is just and will do my utmost to fight for those who are marginalised.
- I fully support you being an atheist and in no way feel I should impose my views on you.
lesley,
its very interesting that th examples dawkins uses on the ABC Q&A clip are things that Jesus dealt dealt with. It would've been interesting if this had been brought to Dawkin's attention for his comments.
Yes, you are quite right - Jesus was in trouble for going against the religious system.
Thank you, Ron, for bearing with me.
I too feel that I understand your position better than I have done before.
And I do think that, ultimately, that is what this conversation is about. The more we understand each other the less we end up stereotyping each other and the more meaningful our conversation can become.
Jeremy C,
Top marks for Jesus.
But Dawkins is still making fair points, for though many modern Christians may not object to working on the Sabbath, Sunday has always had religiously influenced restrictions in the UK.
And, just as not all Christians are liberal or moderate, not all religious people are Christian. Stoning adulterers, and killing apostates, is still sufficiently believed to be required that these actually happen in some Islamic cultures; some punishments sanctioned by the religious leaders, some merely tolerate.
Post a Comment