Religious Belief and Mental Health
by MikeGeneThe leaders in the New Atheist Movement like to equate religious belief with mental illness. While we can expect such rhetoric from activists, what is troubling is that the same people typically posture as advocates for science. This is troubling because science continues to show that religious belief is actually good for mental health. For example, consider this study that was announced just yesterday:
Research shows that religion and spirituality are linked to positive physical and mental health; however, most studies have focused on people with life threatening diseases. A new study from the University of Missouri-Columbia shows that religion helps many individuals with disabilities adjust to their impairments and gives new meaning to their lives.
According to the study, persons facing impending death may use religion to help them accept their condition, come to terms with unresolved life issues, and prepare for death. However, the study suggests that religion may be an equally, if not more important, coping mechanism for persons with chronic disabilities such as traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke and arthritis.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Does anybody believe this anymore though apart from themselves and the "faithful" in their congregations ?
Most people with even a modicum of clue have figured out that the "new atheists" basically seek to use science like a cheap whore as long as it suits their ends.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 23, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Mike:
But… but… these same activists (or some of them) admit to there being a rather large amount of borderline autism (what's the name for that?) in their group. Maybe someone should do a study on the mental peculiarities of scientists who spend the most productive years of their lives fighting an unwinnable 'culture war' against the vast majority of humans.
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Let me help the New Atheists. Belief in religion is belief in an illusion and people evolved to believe in illusions because the health benefits from doing so enhance reproductive fitness.
Comment by Bradford — October 23, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Actually, I'd like to try and steer the conversation toward a new angle. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Dawkins/Hitchens are right: there is no God and religion is a delusion.
According to this study, somewhere out there are people with serious spinal cord injuries who are able to cope because of their religious faith. So let's make it a simple choice for our argument. Which is better? To maintain the delusion and with it, a certain level of mental health and peace? Or to embrace the truth and with it, a certain level of mental illness and anguish?
Comment by MikeGene — October 23, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Hi Mike.
If we make the assumptions you outline we can think of religion in the same terms as medication that relieves pain even if it has some side effects; in this case inducing delusions that are beneficial to health. Atheists are now free to traverse a straight line to a course of action whose purpose is to maximize good feelings.
Comment by Bradford — October 23, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Mike:
Ah, but this is the crux of that "Dark Night of the Soul," is it not? To face the abyss of not-knowing, and choosing to believe anyway because life is just better that way. One of the reasons I applaud the natural (or deific) wisdom that makes all parents amateurs - they have kids before they really understand the karmic maelstrom involved. Which is good, because if procreation happened after significant experience of life's dark side, nobody would ever procreate. Life's got a good handle on that angle.
Still, I just wrote an email of encouragement to a dear friend sick to the point of despair from her 4th course of chemo for ovarian cancer. She's already survived longer than any doctors gave her, but is getting really, really tired. All I can do is tell her what an inspiration her spirit is to the rest of us who aren't suffering like she is suffering. Not sure it does any good, but the inspiration is as real as the suffering. Maybe more real, since it spreads farther afield.
If it's delusion, it's a glorious one. Fie on those who want everyone to be forced to surrender. That's not a negation of God/gods, it's a negation of the human spirit. Just because they don't believe there is such a thing, it doesn't mean there's no such thing.
Comment by Joy — October 23, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Joy:
But herein lies a problem for atheism. I don't think most serious believers believe because faith comforts them. While faith often provides comfort, quite often on the other hand, it does not. They believe because they have the conviction that the object of their faith is real and faithful himself. Faith is not merely an escape from the doldrums of empty rationalism; it is enthralled in the conviction that goodness wins out over evil. Atheists are often engaged in throwing the problem of evil back in the faces of theists, saying "Aha! How do you deal with that one?" but theists have the upper hand. Atheism does not offer or require any conviction whatsoever. Atheism deals with the problem of evil by not dealing with the problem of evil. Theists who suffer from disease are an inspiration because they continue with the conviction that their suffering is not the end. That's what the atheists call a delusion, but they don't offer an alternative one.
Comment by Randy — October 23, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Watching cartoons makes me feel better. Cartoons are therefore real.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — October 24, 2007 @ 12:51 am
October 24th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Mike wrote:
To rephrase the question more generally: is truth always a good thing?
The answer is, of course, not always. Even Dawkins has said that he would not try to separate a dying person from her faith, if she found it comforting.
But it is not always so clear-cut. Here are some scenarios that illustrate the contours of the problem:
1. When a patient is diagnosed with a fatal illness, should he be told, even if it will cause him great anguish?
2. The Heaven's Gate cult members took great comfort from believing that after committing suicide, they would be transported to an alien spaceship trailing Comet Hale-Bopp. If you had had a chance to talk to one of them before the fateful moment, would it have been right or wrong to try to talk him out of his beliefs?
3. Is it even possible for most people to will themselves into believing something?
4. Is society as a whole better off if we embrace the truth or not? If not, who gets to decide which truths are acceptable?
5. Suppose you are convinced that non-Christians will go to hell. You have a terminally ill friend who believes in a loving God who will bring everyone to heaven after death. She is at peace with her impending death, knowing that she will soon be united with God. You, on the other hand, are certain that she will go to hell if she does not accept Jesus as her savior. What do you do?
6. Let's return to your specific example of a person with a spinal cord injury, who is comforted by his faith.
There are several questions we can ask:
a. Should we bring up the person's beliefs and try to persuade him that they are irrational?
b. If the topic comes up naturally, are we obligated to lie about our own atheism, so as not to disturb his equanimity?
c. If he asks us for a sincere answer to the question of what we believe, and why, should we lie or tell the truth?
My own thoughts on these issues:
1. I'm not sure it's even possible to will yourself into believing something (consciously, at least). At most, I can imagine someone protecting a preexisting belief by avoiding or downplaying challenges to it (think of Bradford's avoidance of evidence challenging the existence of an immaterial soul).
2. I certainly don't want someone else withholding truths from me, based on their judgment that I'll be happier not knowing the truth.
3. Since I willingly put myself into arenas, such as TT, where others challenge my beliefs on an almost daily basis, I don't complain when this happens.
4. In almost all cases, knowing the truth about a situation makes it easier to respond correctly to it. How often can we know, with certainty, that someone is better off not knowing the truth?
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 1:07 am
October 24th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Randy wrote:
For atheists, there is no problem of evil.
Saying that atheists fail to deal with the problem of evil is like saying that people who don't believe in Santa Claus fail to deal with the problem of limited flying reindeer speeds.
Why are atheists obligated to offer a competing delusion?
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 1:08 am
October 24th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Keiths:
No problem of evil until the problem of evil becomes convenient to argue against the existence of God. That's my point. If evil exists, its existence does not trump the existence of God. In fact, it is a strong argument for God's existence.
Comment by Randy — October 24, 2007 @ 1:51 am
October 24th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Rock wrote:
I've yet to become familiar with such comfort.
The one thing you always see in a Catholic church is a crucifix. What's comforting about that? Catholicism spends a lot of time assuring us that we are sinners, and that we will all be repaid according to our works, possibly in eternal hellfire. What's comforting about that? Catholicism says we are obliged under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass every Sunday if possible. What's comforting about that? Catholicism says that jealousy, anger, pride, gluttony, avarice, sloth, and lust are seriously sinful, and that all serious sins should be confessed to a priest on pain of eternal damnation. What's comforting about that? What is comforting about the Catholic Church's teaching on war, capital punishment, social obligations toward the poor and sick, abortion, sex outside marriage, divorce and re-marriage, homosexuality, contraception, the impossibility of female priestly ordination, euthanasia, Biblical fundamentalism, non-Catholic religions, materialism, consumerism, and hedonism?
Comment by stunney — October 24, 2007 @ 3:33 am
October 24th, 2007 at 3:37 am
There's nothing disingenuous about this. You don't have to believe in Santa Claus in order to point out to a believer that reindeer flying speeds are a problem for his worldview.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 3:37 am
October 24th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Actually that isn't true. The second a clown like Dawkins or Hitchens invokes the specter of "evil behavior by theists" they have just appealed to a standard they expect other people to recognize as to what is appropriate behavior.
But as real competent atheist philosophers like Nielsen, Nietzsche and Singer have shown is that ultimately in the atheists worldview something like evil at base is just an expression of personal distaste.
Dawkins and Hitchens and any other atheist who wishes to invoke a version of the problem of evil that requires a reference to the magnitude of evil runs into this problem.
I don't really expect Dawkins or Hitchens to deal with this very real problem though as they are out of their depth when arguing philosophy.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 24, 2007 @ 4:33 am
October 24th, 2007 at 5:00 am
SciPhi,
Your argument doesn't work.
Here's my response to a similar argument made on another blog:
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 5:00 am
October 24th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Why not? For them there is no solution to immorality and wickedness.
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 6:30 am
October 24th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Bradford,
We're talking about this "problem of evil," not the problem we all face of trying to reduce the amount of pain and suffering in the world.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 7:04 am
October 24th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Hey Keiths,
So you admit that there is a "problem of evil" that your world view struggles with. This is the same "problem of evil" that a Christian with a spinal cord injury has found a solution to (his faith).
Isn't that "problem of evil" and not the one you brought up the subject of this thread?
try to focus
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 24, 2007 @ 7:17 am
October 24th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Sure. Who wouldn't prefer a world with less suffering? But that problem is a practical problem, whereas the classic problem of evil is an explanatory problem.
Atheists and theists alike share the problem of reducing the amount of suffering in the world, but only theists have the problem of explaining why so much evil and suffering exist in the world if it is presided over by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
Hardly. Plenty of suffering remains in the world, even if certain injured folks use faith to ease their pain.
I'll let you fight it out with Randy. He's the one who brought it up.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 7:42 am
October 24th, 2007 at 9:18 am
keiths: "The problem of evil remains a problem strictly for the theist."
Don't be surprised that someday, in the face of some great "injustice" (read: evil) being done to you personally, that your cries for help will go unanswered. After all, what does it really matter? In your worldview, you don't matter. Forgive the rest of us if we ultimately agree.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 24, 2007 @ 9:18 am
October 24th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I think there are a few facets to the atheist "problem of evil", but you really don't have to go any further than Dawkins to see one in action for some atheists: On the one hand, insisting that atheists can be moral (In fact, are on the whole far more moral than anyone religious) and that religious people are the cause for so much evil. On the other, when pressed, saying that they aren't quite sure what is moral or evil anyway.
So yes, theists have to wonder why God can and does allow evil (personally, I've found certain replies to this immensely satisfying - others' mileage may vary), while atheists who want to claim that certain things are or are not evil have to explain why that is the case. They can claim there are certain objective moral truths (which obviously introduces some problems) or argue that what is moral/evil is all subjective and meaningless anyway (other problems), but most of the New Atheist leaders seem to prefer a third option: Calling certain things evil or moral, and really, really hoping no one asks them to explain those things in detail.
Comment by nullasalus — October 24, 2007 @ 9:50 am
October 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Boz:
you said
cartoons are actually real. they come on the tv and you sit in front of the tv and watch them. what are you watching if not cartoons?
Comment by dantedanti — October 24, 2007 @ 10:09 am
October 24th, 2007 at 10:15 am
kornbelt888:
Pat Robertson:
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 10:15 am
October 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Faith gives one hope, not comfort. Human beings can live with suffering, they can't live without hope. Where do atheists get hope?
There certainly is a problem of evil for atheists. At least, under the supposition that a good God exists who is the source of the moral distinction between good and evil, the problem is only why does God continue to allow evil to exist? But by answering this problem by naturalizing it — taking God out of the picture — they have simply replaced that problem with an even greater one: whence the moral distinction between good and evil? Our very perception of evil becomes a problem now. If evil is natural, why should anyone care? Why should I not just shrug my shoulders when a tsunami wipes out tens of thousands of people? I mean, it's perfectly natural.
Does keiths really claim that he doesn't ever experience evil, that he never experiences injustice? I doubt it. He says it's a practical problem, we should try to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. But why? Why not try an increase it rather than decrease it? Why should we care one way or the other?
Thats some "solution" to the problem of evil, the naturalists have just made it an even bigger problem. Keith wants to say that he is merely pointing out problems with someone else's worldview, but how does he know what the word "evil" means? If things that happened in the world were not good or evil, if they were simply just "stuff that happened", how would keiths even know what is signified by the term "evil" such that he could point out a problem to theists?
No, if keiths experiences evil, then evil is a problem for atheists.
Comment by Brian Killian — October 24, 2007 @ 10:32 am
October 24th, 2007 at 10:34 am
nullasalus wrote:
Believing that morality is subjective does not render it nebulous. If someone asks me whether it is moral to torture babies for fun, I don't have to ponder the question. I immediately answer no, even though I don't consider this to be an objective moral "fact".
What's wrong with using their moral sense for this (which is what we all do anyway)?
"Subjective" does not equate to "meaningless." Null, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with the word "subjective." Perhaps you should look it up and observe how people use it in practice.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 10:34 am
October 24th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Mike, if your going to make this out as a choice between the red pill, and the blue pill (The Matrix), or in Platonic terms, between the comfort of the cave, and the discomfort of being dragged into the light of the sun, I would have to choose the red pill, I would prefer the light of the sun, rather than the shadows in the cave. Truth trumps comfort.
Comment by Brian Killian — October 24, 2007 @ 10:45 am
October 24th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Brian Killian asks:
Why should belief in God be a prerequisite for hope?
No, atheists don't have this problem because they don't believe in God.
Evolution (biological and cultural) has provided us with our moral sense.
Because our moral sense did not evolve to equate "natural" with "good". And why should it? Death, disease and disaster are all natural, but they don't promote survival.
Of course not.
Because our moral sense tells us that suffering is undesirable, and that we should act to decrease it. We are happier when we pay heed to our moral sense.
It's easy. Theists tend to be quite voluble about what they consider right and wrong. For example, I know that most evangelicals consider sex outside of marriage to be immoral, even if I don't share their view.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 10:53 am
October 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am
C.S. Lewis:
Mere Christianity
Comment by Pez — October 24, 2007 @ 11:26 am
October 24th, 2007 at 11:35 am
I have just gone 15 rounds with Stunney on this theme (it is a different problem from theodicy as Keiths has already made plain). The arguments are thousands of years old. The next move by the atheist/naturalist is to point out that proposing an additional transcendental property "good" or "evil" solves nothing. The problem can be phrased this way:
If I see someone burning a baby why stop them?
The answer for an atheist/naturalist is rather simple. I don't like to see babies suffer and it angers me that someone should inflict that suffering. That's the way I am built. Luckily most people seem to be built the same way.
The answer for a theist is to insert an extra stage. We somehow deduce or learn that burning babies is wrong. We try to stop things that are wrong. This substitutes two questions for one.
1) How do we know that burning babies is wrong?
2) Why do we try to stop what is wrong?
There are lots of variants on these two questions and lots of answers depending on your theological preference. But I have never seen a satisfactory refutation of the naturalist explanation.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 24, 2007 @ 11:35 am
October 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
keiths,
And if you're asked to justify why your view is ultimately more correct than the view of someone who disagrees (Peter Singer can probably provide some interesting examples here), your ultimate recourse has to be to say 'Well, there is no objective standard here, I'm just being consistent with my subjective views.'
When did I say a subjective moral system has to be nebulous? I didn't. It's entirely possible for someone who believes that everything is subjective to construct an intricate, considered system of do's and do-not's and adhere to it. They can even argue, advertise, and convince others of the value of their system. But 'evil' and 'good' are subjective, and specific to the system. They have as much objective force as monopoly rules do.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with using a moral sense. I said there are problems with justification, and it makes the use of objective/theist terms suspect. "Moral sense" in practice (for atheists and theists both) adds up to "acting according to feeling without addressing the philosophical aspects of belief."
Keiths, you obviously haven't given your own system a whole lot of thought. It's understandable though, some atheists have a problem following their assertions to the logical philosophical end.
Yes, an acknowledged subjective system of right and wrong is an acknowledged meaningless one with regards to wrong "really" being evil and right "really" being good. Again, don't take my word for it - go to Dawkins on the subject and watch him flounder. Hell, go to Marx if you like. If you believe there is no objective moral right or wrong, all that's left for you is personal and public persuasion - and talk of 'evil' and 'moral' as if these things are truly wrong and right regardless of an individual's subjective view is just one hell of a bluff.
Comment by nullasalus — October 24, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Null,
On the Watson thread, I said this about objective morality:
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
keiths: "Pat Robertson:…you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because He might not be there."
You're equating me with God (or at least Pat Robertson's God) ?
Wow. Nobody's ever done that before.
At any rate, if your view of reality is correct, you have no value. Well, maybe to dependents and predators. No absolute value, anyway. Since there is no such thing.
What atheism does to "solve" the problem of evil is to simply destroy ultimate value, the ultimate value most people seem to sense. (And who are you to say they are wrong?)
(But the interesting thing to me in all of this is how humans have a notion of "ultimate" and "absolute" value/morals/meaning at all. If nothing is absolute, we shouldn't have such a notion. Sure, it may be an illusion. But an illusion of what?)
But more to the original point: when I find myself operating in your paradigm, there's no reason a guy like me should value you. I am neither dependent nor a predator (yet) of you. You're existence is irrelevant to me. If you die I will not cry. And neither will my friends or relatives. I would not risk my life to saves yours. If there is any absolute, it's that you mean absolutely nothing. And there is no Higher Authority I'm concerned about that would persuade me to want to care.
So when you need help, who will you call? Me, or some chump who thinks God expects him to care about you?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 24, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Keiths,
How do you make sense of Mother Theresa's situation? Alot of people, yourself included, adhere to the idea that one excepts faith or religious belief on the premise that it provides comfort in a world that you seem to view as being cold and indifferent.
But, what if one accepts a particular religious belief system not because of this superficial comfort but rather because it appears to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do? What if it provides them a worldview that is consistent internally (between various individual belief statements that fall under that overarching belief system) and externally.
Could it be the case that someone might accept a religious outlook and not find it comforting for a large part, but they do it because they view it to be a reasonable belief to hold. Maybe they would greatly enjoying engaging in relations with other people while they are married (because at their core they tend to be extremely selfish), but they don't act out on it because of their beliefs. Or they are prone to bigoted attitudes or any of a vast array of negative behaviors and they act against those initial inclinations because of those beliefs.
Keiths, you look at the problem of evil in the world and think that you've got some great fire power to aid you in your fight against religious beliefs - but you don't even concern yourself with the answer that is provided from the Christian tradition: that we live in a fallen world. Probably because you don't view the Bible as any text that yields accurate information about the world…. or if you do, you pick and choose what you feel to be accurate v inaccurate.
So, you argue against the possibility of a God existing because of this evil in the world; however, this state of the world has a Biblical explanation. If one were to read the Bible they should almost expect things to be wrong to some extent because of the Bible's claim that we are living in a fallen world.
But sure, you've got a great argument against God existing. Any God that would have claimed that this life/this world would be free of pain, suffering, inequality and general hardships…. you've got a killer argument against that God.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Nobody has yet mentioned what the immediate "New Atheist" reply to this post would be. Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett have discussed it: Whether a particular belief is useful is a separate issue from whether that belief is true.
The example which comes to mind is the belief that I am the fastest runner in the world. It gives me great comfort and motivation to know this. Each day I wake invigorated, ready to take on the world, armed with the knowledge of this greatness which lies within me.
Comment by Frostman — October 24, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Huh? This is an argument against the validity of religious belief? That you can point to some other claim that you think another delusional person would believe (being the fastest) and then run a mock scenario in your head where that person is just in a tip top mood because of this exaggerated belief? Wow.
1st, just because you can run this mental scenario of yours doesn't in any stretch of the immagination (barring yours) lend itself to being a worthy analogy of religious belief.
2nd, you're caught in this juvenile mindset that people adhere to religious beliefs because they are comforting. What if for a large part they are not comforting…. that people hinder other negative desires particularly because of their religious beliefs. That they accept those beliefs not because of some superficial comfort…. but because they view those beliefs to be reasonable.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Frostman,
Actually, Mike stipulated that we should assume for the sake of argument that God does not exist, and therefore that a belief in God is false:
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Also,
Frostman - how do you view thoughts then? You certainly give thoughts (immaterial - epiphenomena at best) power over the physical (ability to invigorate, make healthier… you name it).
You're an odd type of materialist.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Whoa, Doug. Frostman is simply pointing out that the fact that a belief is comforting or useful is no guarantee of its truth.
As for thoughts: if they are materially based, why should it be surprising that they have material consequences?
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Doug:
No, it illustrates the sentence which preceded it:
Comment by Frostman — October 24, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
kornbelt666 wrote:
kornbelt,
If concerns about a Higher Authority are the only thing that can make you treat strangers with compassion, then I pity you.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Okay, which wasn't saying much to begin with. Again, why do you think your analogy holds? You made the whole scenario up in your head. Also, show me this person…. this person deluded by this thought to such an extent that it makes him healthier, happier…etc.
Have you worked with people that exaggerate their own abilities, that tell themselves, "I'm great at everything I do" There's a personality disorder that envelopes what you're explaining. I can assure you of one thing…. they are nowhere near as confident as they proclaim - and there appears no reason to assume that they are happier and healthier or more comforted by their thoughts. If they were, and if everything was in order with them…. there never would have been the need to label this personality disposition and include it in the DSM.
Also, show me these people that convert to some form of Christianity because it is comforting. There's alot required of a person. Things they need to start doing, things they should avoid. Consequences that occur dependent on decisions that are made. Yeah, really comforting.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Yes. And it was on those assumptions that I critiqued his point. Because it still isn't an argument against the validity of those beliefs. True beliefs can be comforting - comforting beliefs can be true.
He seems to be holding religious minded folk on a different level than he holds himself. He would accept a belief if it appeared reasonable to him; however, religious folk aren't really concerned about the validity of the beliefs or their reasonableness…. they just want to be comforted.
But what about those that accept their beliefs for more fundamental reasons? Reasons that are not founded on the idea, "wow, what a comforting set of beliefs…. I'm going to belief that now!". Or, what about those that maintain those beliefs in the face of uncomfortable circumstances? Going against what they are personally inclined to do (cheat on their wives/husbands, beat those who wrong them, indulge in drugs…etc).
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Mike:
A false dichotomy. If I were a Zen Buddhist, I might say that the willingness to embrace one's anguish is the medicine itself. To face reality head-on with courage, whatever it may bring, immediately engenders a sense of compassion. And with that our anguish subsides a bit, for compassion takes us away from our egocentric way of thinking. I might say that, if I were a Zen Buddhist.
Comment by Frostman — October 24, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
keiths,
Starting from the top, I disagree right here. "Objective morals" doesn't become an oxymoron just because you introduce norms to the discussion. Feel free to flesh it out, this could be fun.
Frostman,
And if sadism ruled, we could argue that people being miserable is a helluva lot more fun than their being happy. And if, and if, and if.
Instead of arguing what zen buddhists think, let's hear what you think. No need to argue by proxy here - and what would the point be of addressing a belief you don't hold anyway, eh?
Comment by nullasalus — October 24, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
You are right; it wasn't much. But it is important. Those two issues are separate, yet they are often conflated.
Comment by Frostman — October 24, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Frostman, it's not a false dichotomy if he's setting it up as his own hypothetical to see how one might respond to such a situation.
Father, "okay, so what do you guys want to do? Go to the beach and risk getting sun burned….. or stay home and not get a chance to swim in the lake?".
Son, "False dichotomy".
Father, "Do you know what you mean when you say that?".
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Why is it important? I think I addressed your concern.
Again, you're the one creating the scenario (fastest runner = happy guy) and you're the one assuming that people adhere to their beliefs mainly because they are comforting.
Comment by Doug — October 24, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Doug wrote:
Doug,
You're tilting at windmills here. Frostman isn't saying that comforting beliefs can't be true, or vice-versa. He's saying that beliefs don't become any truer by virtue of being comforting.
Comment by keiths — October 24, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
nullasalus:
I think it's a false dilemma to choose between reality and comfort. I picked a Zen Buddhist as an example of someone who, besides myself, would (probably) also reject the idea that one must choose between those two options.
Comment by Frostman — October 24, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Stunny:
Who said anything about Catholicism?
Comment by Randy — October 24, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I wrote:
Kieths:
True, but you stated that for the atheist there is no problem of evil. I disagree. There's a big problem of evil, which atheism just seems to ignore. Theism deals with the problem. It might not be how atheists would have a god deal with it, but it is dealt with. This whole issue gets into the "a god wouldn't have done it that way" argument, which is a strawman.
I would like atheists to explain the problem of evil other than by simply denying the problem.
Comment by Randy — October 24, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
No you are mistaken. This only works if you are trying to argue that any evil is incompatible with the existence of certain sorts of gods. Once you accept that some evil is compatible with the existence of a god, then you have moved into the realm of evidential arguments from evil and this does require that the atheist is able to know what counts as sufficiently evil. But to be able to weigh evils in a manner that the argument requires, obligates the atheist to appeal to an external standard, which they are unable, as you apparently admit, to do.
Of course, but this is a strawman and you don't really understand the argument if you think this touches on the evidential argument from evil. You seem unaware that the argument from evil comes in different types (and competent atheist philosophers have concede that that standard logical form of the argument doesn't actually work, J.L Mackie was one of the last to defend it). You are welcome to push the logical argument from evil all you like, we can just sit back and chuckle at your lack of understanding.
But once you try the evidential argument based on the amount of evil in the world, then it is a problem for the atheist to demonstrate how they are able to weigh the different evils like that.
Only in its logical form and those in the know, don't consider it a problem anymore.
If you push an argument from evil that requires that you are able to say that some evil is so bad God could not allow it (as opposed to saying any evil at all in not allowable) then the atheist has a serious problem because they are appealing to a standard they expect to be shared between people and recognized by others.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 24, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
This is false and essentially begs the question by saying that norms define morality. Good luck with that. Also this claim puts you in the incredibly odd position of having to concede that a moral reformer like Martin Luther King Jr, was a deeply immoral person because he challenged cultural norms.
Of course, but this presumes the truth of claim #1. But claim #1 is false so this is just a distraction.
This too is false. You really need to take the time to read even the ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle who knew this line you are pedaling is rubbish. You are simply asserting that the idea of natural law is false but you've done nothing to show this (and I question whether would be able to in a non-question begging fashion).
On what grounds do you claim we have no access to the moral law ?
The simple fact of moral disagreement does not demonstrate this. To claim it does would be as stupid as claiming that there are no right answers in math because little johnny struggles to get his multiplication tables right. Many people are this dumb, I hope you are not one of them.
Though you are welcome to try to flesh this out.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 24, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Actually you have a problem right there. On what grounds do you assume that the reduction of suffering and evil is worth pursuing ? You seem to think we all have an obligation to do that, not just some vague personal preference.
Where does this obligation come from ? And it is too late to back pedal now, you already admit that we "all face" this problem. You need to justify this claim, although you are basically stuffed if you try to, there is nothing in metaphyscial naturalism that can do this for you.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 24, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
The reduction of suffering and evil doctrine is for us what Santa is for Keiths.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
thesciphishow
We all face the problem of too much evil i.e. people doing things we disapprove of. We may have different ideas about what counts as evil.
I just watched a progam on honour killing. Some men believe it is their duty to kill a daughter who has been seeing a man without their permission or a wife who has been unfaithful, and have believed that for centuries. I expect that you, like me, believe that such an act is deeply wrong. But given a chance to talk to such a person how would you set about demonstrating they were wrong? You couldn't refer them to some universal standard - the Bible or the law. They would just say that they think the standard is wrong. You would have to make your case based on human emotions and reactions - the suffering they are causing, the inconsistency of their position.
Luckily there is a vast core of common feeling about what is wrong and right which means countries and cultures can usually (but not always) work something out. Most people want to limit suffering and promote happiness in others - just as most people want to eat, laugh, love and play. That's how we are built.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 24, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
keiths:
If you actually accept this argument, then you are logically compelled to accept the claim that "objective truth" is also an oxymoron, because truth is as normative as morality ("true" and "false" are norms just as much as "good" and "evil"). Any attack on objective morality by way of its normativeness is ipso facto an attack on objective truth.
Comment by Deuce — October 24, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Hear, hear. For any of you science sez types let the meaning of that sink in.
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
keiths: "If concerns about a Higher Authority are the only thing that can make you treat strangers with compassion, then I pity you."
Why?
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 24, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Hey Mike:
This comment got me thinking. Assuming that this were true, that religious belief is delusional and that a mental architecture that produces such delusions is beneficial to people's well-being, it would mean that natural selection selects for mental architectures that produce delusional beliefs.
So far, so good. "Natural selection" after all, is just a metaphor for differential survival and reproduction, culled by whatever environmental factors happen to be in effect at the time. There's no actual entity there literally selecting things towards some goal or purpose. Things aren't "selected" because they are better, or more advanced in any objective sense. And they especially aren't selected for some abstract standard like objective truth. "Beneficial" is simply metaphor-speak for "surviving in relatively greater numbers in a given environment".
Now, given that natural selection has selected the majority of the human race for delusional religious beliefs, how is it that some people (atheists) are able to see through the delusion to the objective truth? The answer they will give is that their beliefs are arrived at by reason, whereas the majority's are not. But then why trust the deliverances of reason, more than the beliefs of the majority of the population? What makes reason a guide to objective truth? The answer that the non-delusionals will give is that natural selection has, over the eons, selected human reason for the ability to discern objective truth, so that if we use our reason to form our beliefs, we will arrive at the truth.
But this requires that natural selection selects our mental architectures for such abstract standards as objective truth after all, which contradicts the idea I laid out above that it's just a metaphor, and that "beneficial" simply means "surviving in relatively greater numbers in the current environment".
I wonder if that doesn't ultimately, though perhaps unconsciously, lie at the heart of the New Atheists' insistence that religious beliefs are maladaptive, forms of mental illness, etc. Allowing that natural selection has selected for delusion is fatal to the only foundation they have for their much vaunted "Reason". To maintain their justification for their adulation of their own reason, they must maintain that any belief they think is false is also maladaptive, actual experimental evidence to the contrary be damned.
And in order to give a justification for their own reason, they are also forced to inflate "natural selection" so that it's no longer just a metaphor for differential survival and reproduction. The Darwinian use of "beneficial" has to be inflated from its metaphorical definition of "surviving with greater frequency in physical environment X" to mean good in an objective, abstract, and absolute sense, such as "striving towards objective truth". Btw, I think this goes back to Fodor's contention that natural selection is conceptually flawed. When viewed as a simple metaphor for differential survival and reproduction, it can't explain what it was intended to, even in principle. When inflated such that "selection" is taken literally, it ceases to be a coherent physical, non-teleological theory.
Comment by Deuce — October 24, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
kornbelt, I think keiths' not-clever re-casting of your moniker is over the line. Obviously he's used up his patience allotment for today. §;o)
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Bradford:
I'm trying real hard. Help me out and please tell me where I can find the objective morals.
Comment by Raevmo — October 24, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Joy,
If I operate under Keith's paradigm, one would think he would feel sorry for my hypothetical victims, not me. Do people typically feel sorry for the lion, or the gazelle? Curious that Keith feels sorry for me-as-predator. I can see no logical or rational reason why that would be so.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 24, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Deuce:
Who is maintaining that? Naming and shaming please. Aren't you aware that adaptive behavior at the individual level can lead to disastrous consequences at the population level? Look up "tragedy of the commons".
Comment by Raevmo — October 24, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
In the first sentence of the OP Mike points out that the 'New Atheist Movement' [NAM] has made a big show of equating religious belief with mental illness, and teaching religious beliefs to children as child abuse. Richard Dawkins, for one (there are others, of course) was even caught late last year signing a petition to criminalize that very thing in Britain.
And while he did remove his name and promotion of the petition on his website once he did get caught, he certainly remains convinced of his position. Instead of all the distractions and sleight of mind from our live-in critics, I'd like to hear what they have to say about the charge that religious belief is mental illness and teaching it to children is abuse.
So, gang. What say you in light of cited research in the OP that falsifies the anti-religious bigotry of the NAM? Is it a reasonable, rational position? Do you support the "public awareness" campaign by the NAM to make people believe anti-scientific lies? Is bigotry in the name of Almighty Science - even if science refutes it roundly - fair in the pursuit of 'culture war'?
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Bradford Says: October 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm Let me help the New Atheists. Belief in religion is belief in an illusion and people evolved to believe in illusions because the health benefits from doing so enhance reproductive fitness.
Belief in the illusion of religion doesn't result in any health benefits. Belief in health benefits does.
Comment by Rock — October 24, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
C'mon Rock, I was trying to help out. Those getting the health benefits believe in God and the object of their belief is real. But if it makes the NAs feel better then let them pretend God is illusory.
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
It's all pretend to me, Bradford.
Comment by Rock — October 24, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I know that Rock. I get the same reaction when I contemplate the no God scenario.
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Joy:
If you really want to know: I wouldn't call religious belief mental illness although it obviously rots the brain to some extent, making people believe all kinds of nonsense. This may not be so harmful to the individual, but it can hurt society. For example, it's what got the disastrous G.W. Bush elected (1 million dead in Iraq and counting). Many people voted for this sociopath addict, thief and coward simply because he declared himself "born again". How gullible can you get?
I also wouldn't call religious indoctrination of children child abuse because the parents simply don't know any better. At most child abuse in the second degree.
But where can I find the official announcements of the NAM?
Comment by Raevmo — October 24, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I live in the USA and do not know anyone who voted for GB because he "declared himself born again."
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Raevmo:
"Obviously?" To whom… you? And what kind of physical process is this "brain rot" anyway? Some sort of necrosis of tissue? Development of large lesions? Does it put holes in brain tissue, turning them to sponges like CJD? Does it liquefy brain tissue like encephalitis? There is quite a bit of knowledge of brain pathology and the horrors that disease can bring. If this "brain rot" you claim were "obvious" there would be physical evidence of it in the annals of medicine and medical research. Religious belief would be a symptom of this dread disease, it would not be the cause.
But that was just fanciful hyperbole, wasn't it? Why do you expect people to take you seriously when you spew this kind of garbage?
Actually, the neocon machine that had spent two decades taking over the Republican Party in this country arranged for Bush-II to gain the Presidency, with the help of the US Supreme Court. Which ordered the State of Florida to stop counting ballots to find out who won Florida's electoral votes in 2000. Al Gore won by just over 50,000 votes, btw. That was confirmed when a consortium of media sued for access to the ballots, and DID count them. Now they use glorified Etch-a-Sketch voting machines with no paper trail to steal elections. It causes less of a Constitutional Crisis.
Diebold (the Neocons' voting machine contractor) threw my state's races into such turmoil in the '04 elections that it was 6 months before we knew who'd won our always-solid Democratic state offices. They were promptly de-certified for not turning over their source code, and now we're back to good ol' paper ballots again. Guess maybe we're smarter than most states, but that's not because we're less religious.
So despite your transparent pretense of being a mind-reader, you don't know why people voted for Bush. Only about a third of eligible citizens here are registered to vote, and if half of those actually cast a ballot in any given election it's considered a "record turnout." Of those who DID vote, a majority DID NOT vote for Bush. Perhaps if more people cared, more would register and vote. Sometimes that motivation comes at high cost.
As someone who has actually dealt with real child abuse I find this sort of garbage despicable. The NAM wants to criminalize religious parents for exercising their parental right to teach their children what they believe. Over on PZ's blog the subject of "re-education camps" has been mentioned a few times. That's courting revolution.
You could browse Richard Dawkins' site, or PZ Myers'. Search on the terms "child abuse," see what comes up. You might find some of the links in this post helpful as well.
Comment by Joy — October 24, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Raevmo
1) You already know what the objective morals are. No mater how hard you try and deny it you can't escape them.
2) If you really wanted to know I would love to point you in the right direction
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — October 24, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Do you mean like haunted houses, psychics, telepathy, channeling and a host of other questionable ideas?
Don't click that link. You might find that G.K. Chesterton was right.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 24, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
angryoldfatman:
You raise a good point. Why don't atheists direct their energies and criticisms against the items you just mentioned? Based on the declarations they make against Christianity and the logic of their declared positions you would think they would attack the aforementioned.
Comment by Bradford — October 24, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
October 24th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Bradford,
I'm sure some of them do. But in the end, Christianity is the brass ring for a number of reasons. Interesting statistic though. Then again, based on my experience, going to a university is not a path towards independent thought any more than going to high school or working for in a large company is.
Comment by nullasalus — October 24, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
October 25th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Mark Frank wrote:
The theme you went 15 rounds on with me (and lost) was different. In that discussion, I started by saying evolutionary naturalism entails moral anti-realism. You (finally) agreed, and agree again in your present remarks. But without a good explanation for why one should not also be an anti-realist about natural entities as well as moral ones (which you failed to provide), evolutionary naturalism is, er, fucked.
Different, but analogous, and in fact worse for the naturalist. The theist could theoretically eliminate the problem by denying the real existence of evil. The atheistic naturalist goes one further, denying not only the real existence of moral evil, but the real existence of moral goodness as well.:lol:
As are the counter-arguments. So?
It 'saves the appearances', to use Aristotle's phrase, both experiential and linguistic.
That's a wonderful answer, but completely irrelevant. You see, the question is not why Mark Frank should not burn babies. It's why anyone should not burn babies, including why people who love burning babies should not burn babies.
The way you are built, according to naturalism, determines that you will do wrong. The same goes for Pol Pot and Jack the Ripper and every baby-burning bastard on the planet.
No, it substitutes the right question for the wrong one.
The refutation is provided by naturalists themselves. It comes in the form of a reductio ad absurdum, namely their claim that there exists no such thing as moral rightness or wrongdoing.
Many naturalists are just too cowardly to admit the implications of their worldview, that's all.
Comment by stunney — October 25, 2007 @ 12:16 am
October 25th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Raevmo wrote:
Help me out and please tell me where I can find the objective other universes, like Linde and Rees and Weinberg and Suuskind and Everett maintain objectively exist.:lol:
Comment by stunney — October 25, 2007 @ 12:22 am
October 25th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Contrary to people who hold that:
1. The phrase "objective morality" is an oxymoron, because morality involves norms, and norms are inherently subjective.
2. To ask whose subjective norms should prevail is itself a normative question, and thus can only be answered subjectively.
3. Suppose you neglect objections #1 and #2 and assume that an objective morality exists. What then? We have no direct access to it, and no means of determining whose subjective morality best approximates it. It might as well not exist, for all practical purposes.
in actuality,
1. The phrase "objective morality" is not an oxymoron, because morality involves norms, and norms are inherently objective.
2. To ask which norms should prevail is itself a normative question, and thus can only be answered under the supposition that there's an objectively correct or true answer.
3. Suppose you assume that an objective scientific truth exists. What then? We have no direct access to it, and no means of determining whose subjective conception of scientific truth best approximates it since given the size of this universe, the possible existence of many other universes, and all potential thought processes in any universe being the result of purposeless forces, the chances that our contemporary conception of rational norms being close to correct are infinitesimally small. Hence, it might be thought that given those conditions, objective scientific truth might as well not exist, for all practical purposes. But this would be a fallacious inference, since the existence of objective truths about anything neither entails nor requires human knowledge, nor potential knowledge, of them. That, indeed, is the very hallmark and meaning of their being objective. Only weakminded anti-Copernican anthropocentrists imagine otherwise.
And see here, especially the quote from Steiner.
Comment by stunney — October 25, 2007 @ 12:42 am
October 25th, 2007 at 1:09 am
[Emphasis added]
Discuss.:smile:
Comment by stunney — October 25, 2007 @ 1:09 am
October 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am
nullasalus wrote:
You got that right.
Here's a brand new relevant article from just this morning.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 25, 2007 @ 9:55 am
October 25th, 2007 at 10:17 am
The atheists don't seem honest to experience. There is a phenomenological content to the experience of evil that is more and different than the phenomenological content of merely experiencing "dislike".
If someone kills your child, your experience is not simply "I really dislike this action", your experience is more like "this is not right, this is not how things should be, this person ought not to be doing this." There is an element of objectivity to it, is it not in the same category of preference, such as in the statement "I don't like vanilla ice-cream".
You could describe the experience of ought not as an experience of the absurd. So my argument is this:
If everything that happens in the world is natural, we should not experience anything as being absurd. But we do experience the absurd, therefore not everything that happens is natural. In other words, the absurd is the experience of an imbalance to an order (moral) that we "perceive".
Comment by Brian Killian — October 25, 2007 @ 10:17 am
October 25th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Brian - I am not saying that my reaction to evil is one simply of dislike. It is stronger than that. I strongly disapprove of those that are being evil and believe that those who do it merit punishment. But I do not react to anything over and above the evil act. I cannot identify something which is the property of evilness over and above the child being tortured or whatever.
If you can identify some moral quality in addition to the act then it raises a couple of points:
* The logical conclusion is that you experience something which atheists do not. Why should we atheists be dishonest and pretend we do not have this experience? What would be the point?
* Why do people do what is good and avoid what is evil? (Not all the time, but they do sometimes)
Cheers
Comment by Mark Frank — October 25, 2007 @ 10:59 am
October 25th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Brian Killian:
Oh, I think you could find lots of atheists who agree that life has absurd elements. You could even find atheists who agree that not everything is natural. Nothing humans do is considered natural, for instance. That's how they can know the Empire State Building is unnatural. It's how they can claim that human intelligence, its products, and all teleological aspects discernible in the world are unnatural.
If everything that happens in the world is natural, then teleology and intelligent design wouldn't scare them so much.
Comment by Joy — October 25, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
October 25th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Brian Killian wrote:
People think it's wrong not just to kill their own child for fun. They think it's wrong to kill anyone's children for fun, including the children of people they strongly dislike, and including children they strongly dislike.
Comment by stunney — October 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
October 25th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Bradford, its just damn silly to attribute to God the consequences of your own beliefs and actions. A person may be cured by "believing in" the sugar pill the doctor gives her, while not believing in transubstantiation!
Healthy people have healthy lifestyels, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Comment by Rock — October 25, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
October 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
stunney: