Sam Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan, Part II
by JoyBeliefnet has posted Part II of the Sam Harris/Andrew Sullivan debate. In this one Sullivan bows out with a single response, while Harris predictably moves to assert his dominance without showing even the tiniest smidgeon of understanding about where Sullivan was coming from throughout.
First off, Harris claims that Sullivan's assertion that humanity is "evolutionarily programmed for faith" makes modern faiths no different from long-abandoned ancient faiths (using the Norse pantheon's approval of raping and pillaging as example). He then goes on to dismiss human perception as a reliable arbiter of reality, effectively negating a full half of the modal assumption that supposedly makes scientism a more reasonable faith than theism [empiricism]. Sullivan doesn't call him on that - I think he's just tired of arguing.
Harris then tackles Sullivan's prior statement about our inability to conceive of our own non-existence as meaning this obviates consciousness survival of death. Sullivan of course denies that this is what he meant, but Harris dismisses his own misrepresentation of Sullivan's position post haste by citing counterfactuals of position in space-time, "dying in parts" and brain damage, then sleep (sans dreams). Basically, living unconsciousness as conclusive evidence of permanent cessation of consciousness at death.
Harris' next argument is to the mutability of various religious doctrines over time, and the assertion that the relative truth or falsity of said doctrines are dismissible in the face of the psychological/social effects of believing in them. This is one I'll agree with Harris on, because my observation of religions has shown that beliefs crafted in one era solely for their intended effect on the behaviors of sheep often fall by the wayside when the intended effect no longer works. A good example of how religions as wannabe mind controllers, wealth gatherers and political power wielders tend to fabricate their doctrinal emphases (by committee) for their own practical earthly purposes according to the relative gullibility of the people they wish to rule during any given period of time.
I have the same problem with the sociopolitical institutions of religion and religious law. Which says nothing whatsoever about the spiritual impulse in human beings, or the hardwiring that enables direct spiritual experience. Things Harris apparently would rather ignore or wave away in deference to the criticisms of his own spiritual experiences from his fellow 'New Atheist' wannabe priesthood.
Then Harris offers a fallacious false choice of what to believe about religious doctrines in the face of evidence that religions abuse their power of doctrinal emphasis. This is cheap and unworthy of address, though Sullivan does address it by adding some choices Harris left out. He doesn't bother berating Harris for his cheap thoughts on each of the 'issues' Harris believes should have been addressed. I think Sullivan should have addressed them, but he's apparently done with the exchange. The salient point may be that there is no salient point.
At which point Harris predictably crows his victory, while expressing dismay that Sullivan wasn't convinced to abandon his faith by such brilliant arguments. Obviously, there is something here that Harris could learn about his chosen enemies, that he's too proud to even see (much less pay attention to). How not surprising.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I recall as a teenager liking the attention I got by criticizing religious, political and other precepts that had been taught to me. It was a rebellious stage I outgrew. I think some EAs are permanently stuck in that adolescant stage.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
From the facts that religious beliefs are diverse, have changed over time, and are often motivated by the psychological/social effects of having them, why should we draw any particular conclusion about whether theism is true?
Beliefs about the physical world as a whole and/or beliefs about specific bits of it are also diverse, have also changed over time, and are also often motivated by the psychological/social effects of having them. Given these facts, why should we draw any particular conclusion about whether beliefs about the physical world as a whole and/or specific bits of it are true?
Comment by stunney — April 25, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Bradford:
I've said that more than once. It's the serious shallow-ness in portraying belief that people as old as Richard Dawkins should surely have outgrown sometime along the way that dooms their criticisms from the start. This is precisely the gist of my criticism of Harris' scarecrows. All of them seem to suffer arrested development.
Now, If someone had presented an 'ism' to me when I was 12 or 13 in a way so dumb as to be immediately recognized by me to be dumb, I might reject it then and forever after be glued to that simplistic argument as representative of the entire genre. This is understandable, and in religion it's generally the age group that does first begin questioning children's stories about it. Unfortunately, the mid-level explanations upon approach to confirmation are often way too childish for teenagers these days. I don't know of a single denomination that's really changed the instruction to reflect current reality and social culture.
I was never content to take any one person's word for any of it. I asked as many people I knew and respected for spiritual depth or tradition about everything. One of those "Why-kids." My Father and my Godfather - from two entirely different traditions - were the only ones who ever treated me like I was smart enough to handle the truth. I didn't choose to go with either one of their traditions, but I did learn a lot.
…and hope my opinions about various traditions aren't so simplistic. Everyone's relationship with their gods/God is personal. Religion has always recognized this quirk of human nature and consciousness, science has always been disdainful of it. Therein is where the strength-of-position lies.
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
stunney:
People are "religious," "irreligious" or "anti-relegious" for a few reasons, the most important of which are:
1. They were born and raised in a religion, had it supported by their culture all their lives, and never seriously questioned it.
2. They choose for themselves the church that best reflects their own experience of the divine. This explains a lot of musical pews out there lately.
3. They gave up on formal religion and went their own way. There is a significant minority who has been disillusioned by organized religion, but who still believes even though they don't do rituals or sacraments.
4. Along the line, usually at the Bar-Mitzvah stage, they decide to go radical and become evangelical atheists just sure their juvenile rejection of faith should apply to everybody.
5. They get disillusioned at puberty, but become mostly agnostic posers. They will likely convert with emotional fervor to fundamentalist religion or evangelical atheism in college or at that age.
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Joy wrote:
You may find this of interest; from today's New York Times:
Comment by stunney — April 25, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Well, there's the "imported influence" category too. I hadn't noticed it's that influential, though we've a large Hispanic presence here. Most are like me - they believe what they believe, don't go to church. You never know if there's a federale or an informant in the pews… §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Science is in the bussiness of constructing models of the physical world and bits of it. These models aren't "true", but the predictions they make about the physical world are becoming more and more accurate. Is there a comparable progress in theistic beliefs? There seems to be no reason to consider Allah more real than Zeus. There can be little doubt that in a thousand years from now the current models of the physical world will be seen as extremely crude. But "advanced" believers use the current models anyway (the fine-tuning argument) to justify their beliefs, even though they know that these models will be rejected sooner or later.
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
A thousand years from now much about what we now believe will still remain credible. We may refine aspects of physical laws but the testing of them indicates that radical revisions are unlikely.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Raevmo:
The models are entirely different, speaking to entirely different experiential realities common to human beings. Why would you wish to assert this red herring? I don't contribute much to the detailed biological threads, because that's not my specialty. But I'm here to tell you that predictive 'accuracy' has a lot less to do with the real adequacy of a theoretic than you'd like to think. RQFT is the most accurately predictive theory science ever invented. Everybody who is anybody knows it's wrong. Have known that for awhile now…
Your opinion doesn't get to decide the issue, does it? Neither does mine. I learned to live with that a long, long time ago.
Any religious person who pins their faith on current scientific theory is a fool. History more than adequately demonstrates that religious-type beliefs survive advances of science, whether or not what science believes today is the same thing it believes tomorrow. Most people out in the real world already know this.
Are you talking about yourself as this "advanced believer?"
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
This is probably pretty shallow, but I find this Harris guy irritating. Not sure why.
Comment by bj — April 25, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
raevmo wrote:
First off, 'Allah' is just the Arabic for 'God'.
Second, you're conceding my point, which is that mutability of beliefs about the physical world is not a sufficient warrant for denying the reality of the physical world. Mutability of beliefs about God is similarly lame as a warrant for denying the reality of God.
Third, you say that scientific models are becoming more and more accurate. Well, you'd have to know the truth about the way the physical world is in order to know whether models of it were increasing in accuracy. So I would rephrase your statement to the claim that they're becoming more predictively successful.
Christian theism actually predicts that science will become more successful, and explains why, as I have already pointed out. It also predicts the enduring nature of morality as a normative constraint on human conduct. It also predicts that human beings will continue to have religious experiences.
Comment by stunney — April 25, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Joy:
Agreed.
I predict that in a thousand years from now most people will be atheists. Might be wishful thinking though. I would give a few years of my life to be able to visit that future, just to see if there still are people as we know them. My guess is that by then we have defeated mortality (the "natural" kind anyway). I'm curious if anybody else around here believes that.
Nope. I'm an atheist.
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Raevmo:
Who do I collect from if you lose?
Sorry. Thousand-year prophesies are a dime a dozen. Yours strike me no different in that respect.
Time travel isn't that hard. You just can't take anything but your consciousness with you, to or fro. We're all time travelers.
Are you a "Post-Humanist?" If not, I wonder what your conception of this immortality will be. Do we clone children who we kill so we can take over their bodies? Talk about Invasion of the Body-Snatchers! Do we invent machines that will host our consciousness? If so, what makes you believe consciousness is separable from bodies? What makes you believe programmed obsolescence won't have you 'deleted' when you're just in the way? Are you expecting to discover the Fountain of Youth? Will it be in Florida? What if Florida sinks due to global warming?
I'm always curious to hear from the Post-Humanist crowd. Some of their stuff is immensely entertaining.
So… who are the "advanced believers?"
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
It seems that Dawkins and Harris adopt a "choose your victims well" strategy. Both Harris and Dawkins apparently aren't interested in debating the most rigorous theological and philosophical minds that are available. Instead they choose to focus on the religious fundamentalists who I have called the "weak sisters" of theology. This seems strange from those who would not even think of debating the lesser minds in science. What makes science a great enterprise is that the best minds go at each other with all the vigor they can muster. The fact that Harris and others don't seem to want to engage others speaks loudly that they are not really after the truth but an ideology.
Comment by Steve Petermann — April 25, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
My guess is that everybody (well, the rich) will hand in some of their own stem-cells at birth, which will later be used to "rejuvenate" their organs, including the brain. That should make humans live for a couple thousand years at least. Later we will be able to copy the structure of our brains sufficiently accurately to transport the essence of our personalities to computers, which will be the end of the organic brain and the beginning of a bizar new world. It will probably be even more bizar than that. By then of course it will look like a perfectly normal thing to do. Or maybe not.
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Raevmo:
Just as I thought. By the way, what makes you think consciousness is separable from the body? IOW, your zombie-twin isn't *you*, so cloning and machine replacement won't be *you*.
This is not to suggest that if we ever quantify the biochemical triggers, we couldn't take any somatic or stem cell and make a new heart or kidney or liver. I don't think human morality will ever allow you to clone whole beings for your exclusive benefit of organs/body. Thank God (or human nature's moral proclivities in a civilized world). If the world isn't civilized in a thousand years, all bets are off. We have the means right now to make ourselves extinct.
I won't be here in a thousand years, neither will you. That's okay with me, it doesn't really matter what you think about it. Nobody in a thousand years is going to care who you were in our collective here and now. That's the dark irony of all those folks who freeze their brains, hoping for new bodies hundreds of years from now. Truth is, beyond some fleeting childhood memories of your great-grandkids, nobody cares. You're still dead meat when they clean out the cryo-chambers.
Comment by Joy — April 25, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Don't be too hard on Sam Harris, it is pretty clear that the guy is something of an idiot.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 25, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
April 25th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Anyone who has been around the Internet for some time could see this coming. That is, this was going to be one of those "last word" debates between two people. As such, the cards were always in the favor of Harris because he was the more zealous of the two. Those who are more zealous for their cause tend to have a greater hunger for that last word.
Anyway, from where I sit, Harris never even got off the ground.
Comment by MikeGene — April 25, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Sam Harris seems to make two statements at the same time (permit me to be vague for a moment):
Religion has changed over time: it cannot be the truth because it has just pandered to our developing understanding/trends,
Religion hasnt changed over time: it is outdated and so inaccurate (unsuccessful pragmatically), and so cannot be the truth.
Harris seems to contend that religions "antidogma" in the past shows that it cannot be true, and yet that its "dogma" now makes it equally as not true. For all ive read and thought, Sam Harris is indirectly saying he is not interested in what is true (though he'll try to argue thats why religion is bad), merely more interested in our survival as a species and in projecting his sacred ideological vision of the future (a form of faith in its hebrew meaning) where religion, if left for the masses, will kill us, if not, we will survive another day. im not sure why he thinks a) dogma is bad b) why anyone else should give a shit about the survival of the human race. (disclaimer: i am not necessarily saying that i believe those two things)
either way, i see it as a bit odd: youve been too adaptive about beliefs/facts, you wont be adaptive enough about beliefs/facts.
Comment by dantedanti — April 26, 2007 @ 10:06 am
April 26th, 2007 at 10:17 am
on another note:
Doesnt it seem that Harris has agreed (on o'rielly and elsewhere), that being able to chose suicide should be legal and is totally up to the individual (of course he says, not people with depression, who are not "thinking right" on the topic of their own choice of suicide. as a person that suffers from severe clinical depression, such a statement is a total complete and offensive joke.) and yet at the same time Harris has made the statement that a religious person should not have the commitment to die for their beliefs if forced to. is he comparing religion to "mental illness", both as equally irrational? from my own experiences with religion and mental illness, both can be very rational. just another observation.
Comment by dantedanti — April 26, 2007 @ 10:17 am
April 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
In Sam Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan II, Harris writes:
Obviously, Harris believes that there an absolute dichotomy between Faith on one hand, and Reason on the other. But is this true?
After reading Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith, I became convinced that he doesn't have a clue what Faith really is. He may be smarter than everyone else but he completely lacks any understanding when it comes to matters of Faith. However, I don't think it's because he's stupid; I think he doesn't understand because he is so prejudiced.
Let me give you an example. Last Sunday (4/22/07) I noticed a group of about 2 dozen blacks milling around near the front of the auditorium. It was curious, not simply because we're a predominantly (though not exclusively) white church, but because they were so emotionally expressive. Some members of our congregation were coming up to these strangers and giving them warm embraces. This was rather unusual behavior for first time visitors. What was going on?
I soon found out that these were people from Mississippi whose lives had been devastated by hurricane Katrina. A couple from our church with our financial backing and blessing had gone down Mississippi to help these people rebuild their homes and lives. Now some of them had decided to make the trip up north to Ohio just to say "thank you" in person.
At last count our congregation had helped build and/or rebuild over 70 homes. I remember hearing one story in particular about a man whose home had just been rebuilt. No sooner had he moved back in then a fire broke and burned the house to the ground. He escaped with little more than the clothes on his back. Now what do you do? YOU BUILD HIM ANOTHER ONE! What else can you do?
James tells us the "faith without works is dead." True Faith, in other words, results in good works, in loving kindness and compassion towards others, including total strangers.
What is so irrational about what I have just described? After all, if it's a result of faith shouldn't it be irrational? Why is it that atheists and other skeptics' never want to answer those questions? Furthermore, why is that they can never tell me stories, from their own life and experience, like the one I've just shared?
To be fair, Harris talks some about compassion in his book. But as I see it, it's little more than lip service.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 26, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Harris writes:
Comment by stunney — April 26, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
John,
What you just described is not faith, but kindness, compassion, generosity, and love. You can have all of the latter without the former.
Suppose, on the Sunday after Katrina hit, that someone had presented your congregation with irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Would you all have turned your backs on the hurricane victims, saying "Why should we bother helping them if there is no God?" Isn't their suffering, by itself, enough of a reason to help them?
Comment by keiths — April 26, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Harris writes:
If it comes to contradictions, it's only fair to point out that materialists have a hard time accounting in their own terms for the central presuppositions of science"“—namely, rational observership, rational inference, and rational agency—in a non-contradictory way. Harris appears to be oblivious to this.
Another major difficulty for materialists is to account for why matter appears to obey 'laws' or behave with regularity, laws and regularities of remarkable mathematical (and hence rationally intelligible) elegance and beauty. How can the matter and radiation now present in the universe control its own future, so to speak"”-especially if we conceive of it as being devoid of teleology? If 'laws' are posited to explain regularities, must not they themselves be immaterial entities that transcend and govern the universe's material entities? And is it not the case that the only plausible candidates for being immaterial entities are only ever encountered as the contents of minds? So it seems we have another contradiction for scientific materialism: matter having to be 'governed' by spacetime-transcending immaterial 'laws'.
It is extremely naive to suggest that while theism is immune from empirical falsification, naturalism isn't. Naturalism is just as immune. For the naturalist can always say, well, we don't yet know exactly how to explain the existence of the universe; or the multiverse; or the origin of laws of nature; or the origin of physical constants; or the initial conditions; or life; or consciousness; or reason; or morality; or the emotional qualia associated with music; or what time is; or the origin of language; or the sense of free-will; or how thought represents the world; or how gravity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled; or what physical facts constitute something's being intelligently designed; and what physical facts constitute something's not being intelligently designed. BUT after we're all dead, our descendants most likely will. AND all possible explanations will be naturalistic ones, regardless of how the concept of 'naturalistic explanation' may have to be revised along the way.
Here's another take which is so to the point that it's worth quoting in full:
The Naturalist's Version of Fides Quaerens Intellectum.
Harris seems to object to theistic religion on moral grounds too. And so I'll throw in one of my old professor's papers on naturalism's inability to account adequately for morality as well, just for good measure.
Comment by stunney — April 26, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
keiths postulates to John a hypothetical on organized sectarian charity:
My goodness, keith. What would such "irrefutable proof" look like?
Comment by Joy — April 26, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
dantedanti wrote:
Harris says that people with untreated depression should not be allowed to commit suicide, and with good reason — most depressed people recover with treatment (and even without it, though it takes longer). He doesn't rule it out for chronic cases where the treatment is unsuccessful.
Regarding dying for your religious beliefs — I've never seen him argue that it should be illegal per se, but only when it harms others (as in an act of suicide bombing).
Comment by keiths — April 26, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Because non-atheists see meaning and purpose to life, while atheists see life as the outcome of meaninglessness and purposelessness, with a nice dash of Darwinism (social and otherwise) to spice up the mix.
It should be no surprise that people who see their lives as fundamentally meaningful are more likely to act meaningfully than those who see themselves as the accidental flotsam and jetsom. And the facts bear this out, as even many atheist social scientists will admit.
Comment by mcromer — April 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
John A. Designer wrote:
John, I think one needs to distinguish the faith referred to in James' statement from the faith your admirable example argues for.
The first is faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, which James insists must express itself in love to be authentic. That faith no doubt was the motive of your congregation's assistance to the victims of the Katrina disaster.
But a Jew or a Hindu or an atheist could have provided similar assistance without being motivated by a lively faith in Christ.
However, to provide that assistance the Jew, Hindu, or atheist would (in the ordinary case) have to have faith in the value of compassionate love toward strangers; faith that morally commendable behavior of that sort was worthwhile in itself, despite the concomitant personal cost or inconvenience; faith that it was a good thing to do, and faith that one ought to do good things to others. And I use the word 'faith' because no scientific experiment or purely logical argument can demonstrate that some behavior is morally valuable, or that we ought to conduct our lives in accordance with morality (or indeed that we ought to do anything in particular, as Hume pointed out regarding the underivability of 'ought' statements from 'is' statements.)
Comment by stunney — April 26, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
kieths
as someone who had "untreated" clinical depression in the past, and now "treated" depression, i can say that clinical depression, both when in its "
"treated" and "untreated", the individual is rational and scientific about their beliefs and choices. yet Harris said on o'rielly that an "untreated" person is not rationally capable of making their decision for suicide, and so should not be allowed to make such a decision. he also states in the end of faith, that the very idea of being able to die for your beliefs, either by your own hand, or by someone elses, is irrational. To go back to the depression, the chemicals in my brain dont stay in the synapses long enough for to feel a particular way, and to think a particular way, from my opinion, the chemicals in harris' brain stay there too long (while he thinks just long enough) resulting in the "absence" of my way of feeling and thinking. If my depression made me irrational and unable to make rational decisions, then the same can be said of harris because he is affected by the fact that his chemicals stay longer. in both situations, the chemicals affect our feelings and ways of thinking, which in term affects our decision making. both situations are equally as rational as each other. perhaps i am just rambling here, and i apologize.
i would also like to say that the word faith, if i remember right, from its hebrew origins, is a word that is defined by rationality and a science approach. BLIND faith, the faith of those americans i have met (i am american), is what harris is talking about, which is not the faith of christ.
also, what if i were to say that i didnt know if there was a god out there or not, but that through the holy spirit (in greek this word is related to wind and breath, as is the hebrew word for soul i believe, "god breathed life into his nostrils"), and not holy GHOST, is an expressive action within one's life. meaning that in a way i dont "know" (nor necissarly believe) god exists out there somehwhere either in or out of the physical world, but that i know that the holy spirit exists within me allowing me to hyjack my own life for a different way of seeing and doing things. since christianity has told me about this holy spirit, and it works, i believe in it, and allow it to order my life and decisions. would sam harris have a problem with this view of christianity? im not claiming i know christ was born a virgin, or if there is a god or not, im saying there is an active expression i chose to call the holy spirit working in/through/whatever me.
as ive said elsewhere, since harris approves of violence in certain situations as a means of affecting the social sphere toward his sacred projected vision of the future, he is, as a violent moderate, shielding violent fundemantlists, such as terrorists, and so providing them cover for their suicide bombings.
sorry, i still am a bit obsessive sometimes.
Comment by dantedanti — April 26, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
mcromer wrote:
I think most atheists would argue that although they see life as the outcome of meaningless and purposeless physical processes, they do not see that view as entailing that human life is meaningless or purposeless. Instead they would claim that meaning and purpose can be and are created by human beings.
However, this claim may be incoherent with the claim that the human species is the outcome of meaningless and purposeless physical processes. A lot depends on whether the atheist holds that human beliefs and desires are reducible to meaningless and purposeless physical processes. If the atheist holds such a view, then I think it is incoherent with holding that humans create meaning and purpose, because ideas of meaning and purpose crucially depend on beliefs and desires not being meaningless, purposeless physical processes.
The next question would be, is it incoherent to hold that meaningless, purposeless physical processes can generate belief and desire states that are irreducible to the physical processes that generate them, or from which they emerge? There is no agreement among atheists about this issue.
But let's just take the case of an atheist who defends some form of the non-reductive view of what belief and desire states are. We can still pose several difficulties:
1) What are the relevant belief and desire states that constitute having a conception of life as meaningful and purposeful about, if what they're about is something other than meaningless, purposeless physical processes?
2) What is the property of aboutness (or intentionality as it's usually referred to in philosophy) anyway; and, whatever it is, how can it arise from meaningless, purposeless physical processes?
3) What should the content of the relevant states be—i.e., what beliefs and desires should people have; and, how can there being any fact about what they should be, arise from meaningless, purposeless physical processes?
My own view, of course, is that none of these difficulties can be adequately resolved by any standard forms of atheism (which is one reason I'm not an atheist). By contrast, if—as I contend they are—reason, meaning, purpose, intentionality, normativity and value are ontologically and explanatorily irreducible to the physical and inherently properties of mind, then their origin and existence is best explained by metaphysical hypotheses that posit mind as being ontologically and explanatorily ultimate.
Comment by stunney — April 26, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I am always led to chuckle a little when I hear atheists say things like this.
Essentially AFAICS they are saying, although in a dressed up fashion, that they can play make believe about purpose if they like and that that is totally reasonable.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 26, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
There is no meaning or purpose to life. Our social behavior is functional in benefiting the survival of kin-groups. It makes us feel good to see relatives and friends do well for the same reason that an orgasm feels nice. You can call it meaning, but it really isn't. I have no problem with that. When we die, we disappear, and that's the end of the story. I have accepted that, am happy, and lead a life as a teacher, a researcher and a family man that I believe has a net positive effect on other humans.That's good enough for me.
Comment by Raevmo — April 26, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
What's the difference between you stating your belief as if it were fact and a religious fundamentalist stating his or her belief the same way?
Comment by mcromer — April 26, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
dantedanti wrote:
dantedanti,
I'm glad you acknowledge that blind faith is so widespread among believers. Most of the faithful on this forum deny that continually.
Which gets us back to the Harris/Sullivan dialogue. It's striking how often believers criticize Dawkins, Harris and other atheists for attacking what they claim is a caricature of faith. "Real faith is not blind faith", they say.
Allow me to present Andrew Sullivan as evidence to the contrary. Some quotes from his exchange with Sam Harris:
Translation: Faith doesn't need to be blind all of the time — just some of the time.
Translation: It feels right. Therefore I believe it.
Translation: It felt true, therefore it is true.
Translation: I was raised believing in Jesus. Therefore it was Jesus.
Yet he claims in this exchange that Jesus is divine, and that Muslims are wrong in denying this. What is that, if not a claim to exclusive truth?
Comment by keiths — April 26, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
dantedanti wrote:
dantedanti,
The novelist William Styron wrote a vivid memoir of depression entitled Darkness Visible. In it he says that
He describes the pain of depression this way:
If you were suffering that intensely, with no hope of relief, then suicide would seem to be a rational option. Styron's belief in the impossibility of recovery is typical of depression, but hardly rational. Peace did come to him, as it does to most victims of depression, despite his certainty that it would not.
Comment by keiths — April 26, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
yo keiths,
from my read of your comments, i find myself mostly agreeing with you (though i may have used a slightly different vocabulary for my goals). when sam harris went at it with sullivan, i was very let down by the conversation. is sullivan a believer? perhaps, and if he is, he has one particular conversation story to give. is that story a bit unsound philosophically? i would say without a doubt. is it a bit unsound "theologically" (if you will)? i would also say, to a good extent. as someone else has said, it often frustrates me who harris chooses to argue with, because he does seem to choose those religious folk that, though upheld in whatever country by whatever group of religious members, are unknowledgeable about philosophy, cultural theory, science, and often times, as i mentioned with the definition of the word faith (which harris does try to get into if only for a very brief moment in the end of faith), they know just as little or just about as vague information on their own religion's history. harris himself points this out by taking parts of the old testament and saying, here some christians cant possibly know this part is here, or really believe this part, or else they would stone someone. though harris seems to argue with, i dont know how to say it, well known theologians (though i dont know shit about whos who in theology, though ive read a book here and there), he appears to me to argue with people that have a very basic theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, and cultural knowledge of their own religion and worldview. someone said elsehwere that perhaps he does this on purpose, i dont know nor do i care about harris' intentions on this point. however, it does make harris' debates with whomever sound like the silly vague outdated shit i listened to in undergraduate classes. as you pointed out about sullivans sillyness, i would say harris is also equally as unknowable about his worldview and others worldviews. he is extremely ignorant of philosophy and cultural theory above the undergraduate level, as is dawkins. i believe mike gene posted an link to the edge's debate that included dawkins and some well known athiests in their respective fields, where one of the anthropologists who has long studied religion, violence, and pragmatism (whom im not going to check his name right now), gives SCIENTIFIC evidence against dawkins, calling dawkins knowledge at best folkknowledge and that theres nothing scientitfic in dawkins the god delusion. as a scholar with a degree in linguistics and literature, i would also like to note that most of us have no idea how language works, in fact we are very misinformed about how it works, how it should work, etc. yet that doesnt stop any of us from speaking in everyday conversation. is this an apology for stupid religious people? no, they drive me nuts. is this supposed to be a good arguement for keeping religion around, or if religion is true or not? not at all. i am simply not convienced that religion moderates shield extremists, nor that religion may stop our survival as a species, nor do i even give a shit if our species survives ten years or another million (which i think harris appears to be dogmatic about his desire for our survival but i could be wrong). but here ive gotten off track all over the place. again, i apologize about the vague rambling that i do to you and anyone else who reads my posts. though i take meds and am fully aware of my "mental illness" i tend to be all over the place still. would i argue with harris? maybe, maybe not. i tend to put people off with my rambling and with my love of playful vague and obessive conversation. am i the perfect believer philosophically, theologically, and culturally? not at all. do most christians have no idea why they believe what they believe, nor what they believe in the first place, nor have any proof for their beliefs, nor can argue for them in the first place, nor have any knowledge of any subject? sure, as do the vast majority of americans i have come across (again i am american), take for example the belief of evolution by most of the people i know: no one i know has any idea why they believe it other than they taught it in school and "science is about what is real". i would say also, judging by dawkins and harris' work, they have vague and inaccurate knowledge of philosophy, cultural theory, and linguistics, all of which are my chosen fields of scholarship (yes they let us nuts be scholars now and again too!). anything we may call that dawkins has written that is hard science, i have no idea, because im a jackass when it comes to science. do i think that harris and dawkins have gotten it "all wrong" about religion? not exactly. but they have hardly been scientific, rigourous, or anything but folkish, inaccurate, and dogmatic in their best selling books.
if anyone read that whole thing ill be surprised. i probably repeated myself a lot. sorry.
Comment by dantedanti — April 26, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
in replay to your second post kieths,
i would say styron's description of depression is a very accurate one. i had not read him and was not aware of his description, but i appreciate it very much, because i often feel as if no one really understands what ive felt, nor do i feel as if i can communicate it very well to others. so i thank you very much.
however, in regards the descriptions youve provided on depression and your observations said description, this is the point where we must now define rationality (which i dont believe harris nor dawkins do in their books, though they shift its meaning several times throughout). im too lazy to log in to the OED, but ill give the marriam websters…
reason
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification b : a rational ground or motive c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
with this definition in mind (take out the one word sanity, because i disagree with the sane/insane bullshit), i would say the account youve given still holds the person as a rational person capable of rationally choosing suicide. i would go into it more, but my meds are slowing me down and making me lazy. sorry.
Comment by dantedanti — April 26, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Keiths,
Your "translations" are wrong. You don't speak the language, don't understand it, and hence aren't able to translate it.
You understand spirituality the same way an eleven year old prepubescent virgin understands sex.
Comment by mcromer — April 26, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 12:43 am
its odd because ive often thought that raising a child "american" is akin to child abuse. pledge the flag, etc, etc. dogma and propaganda. how much violence has been done by american fundmentalists that the american moderates have shielded. and i mean seriously, what sort of evidence can these nuts give for their hardfast belief in "america", other than a certain kind of faith: the trust that the future will be good, that our way is best even though most these people have never studied, let alone lived under another form of govt and society. its amazing that sam harris would, after "seeking the truth", would find his way so good. is it surprising that 80% of americans who believe america is great were raised american? the other 20% just wish we didnt have all the money, but are smart enough to know where to get it, and where to mail it after they get it. in fact, and speaking of which, while we are at it, we shouldnt teach our children english either. i mean think of about it: how much totally stupid shit has been done in the name of the english language? how many totally stupid things have been said in english? you english speaking moderates with your ok statements are shielding the stupidity of english speaking fundementalists by saying that we should tolerate them, that they have a right to speak in the social sphere.
Comment by dantedanti — April 27, 2007 @ 12:43 am
April 27th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Paraphrasing Sullivan-as-atheist:
I have never doubted the existence of the material world. Never. My acceptance of material world's existence"“of a force beyond everything and the source of everything"“goes so far back in my consciousness and memory that I can neither recall "finding" this faith nor being taught it. So when I am asked to justify this belief, as you reasonably do, I am at a loss. At this layer of faith, the first critical layer, the layer that includes all materialists and many who call themselves naturalist rather than materialist, I can offer no justification as such. I have just never experienced the ordeal of consciousness without it. It is the air I have always breathed. I meet non-materialists and am as baffled at their lack of faith - at this level - as you are at my attachment to it. When people ask me how I came to choose this faith, I can only say it chose me. I have no ability to stop believing. Crises in my life - death of loved ones, diagnosis with a fatal illness, emotional loss - have never shaken this faith. In fact, they have all strengthened it. I know of no "proof" that could dissuade me of this, since no "proof" ever persuaded me of it.
Translation: It feels right. Therefore I believe it.
Almost fourteen years ago, it occurred to me not that the material world didn't exist - that never occurred to me - but that the material world might be an idea in my mind"¦ What proof, what argument, what evidence persuaded me that was actually not an idea of mine but real independently of me? Nothing that will or should persuade you. The sense that illusion was the ultimate victor in the universe, that illusion is the fundamental meaning of all of this, that "none of this cares for us," to use Larkin's simple phrase: this sense pervaded me for a few minutes and then somehow, suddenly, unprompted by any specific thought, just lifted. I can no more explain that - or provide a convincing argument that it was anything more than your own moment of calm in Galilee. But I can say that it represented for me a revelation of evolutionary naturalism, the improbable notion that the force behind all of this actually enables us to know it, and even enables me to know it. The calm I felt then; and the voice with no words I heard: this was truer than any proof I have ever conceded, any substance I have ever felt with my hands, any object I have seen with my eyes.
Translation: It felt true, therefore it is true.
Comment by stunney — April 27, 2007 @ 1:32 am
April 27th, 2007 at 3:06 am
mcromer wrote:
Matthew,
I'm a native speaker. It is atheism that is my "second language."
If you're so confident of your translations, why not present them alongside mine and the Sullivan quotes themselves, and then explain why your translations are correct and mine are not?
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 3:06 am
April 27th, 2007 at 3:59 am
stunney,
If Harris is as irrational as Sullivan, you should be able to supply direct quotes from Harris to make your point.
Of course you can't, so you resort to manufacturing lengthy "paraphrases" of Harris out of whole cloth, pretending that they have something to do with what Harris actually believes. While this may satisfy your strawman-bashing instincts, it won't convince anyone else.
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 3:59 am
April 27th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Keiths:
So now you are an authority who can define faith for Christians. James clearly connects faith with acts of kindness and compassion:
You also ask:
I'm actually I'm more concerned about standing before God some day and be asked what I did with my life and have nothing to say.
You still haven't answered my question? What was irrational about what my congregation did (and is still doing) to help the victims of a devastating hurricane?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 27, 2007 @ 7:07 am
April 27th, 2007 at 9:28 am
first let me apologize for thinking that the translation comment was for me.
second, let me apologize for the fact that this post is also me thinking that kieths was talking to me about paraphrasing. ill still leave this post, as it outlines 1) my stupidity and 2) a few comments id like to make anyway
kieths
in these situations i usually choose NOT to argue my position, nor provide direct quotes. Most people usually assume that this is because i CANNOT back myself up (a very silly and even highschoolish assumption given the wide array of goals people have when they communicate). so let me state my goals: i am not here to convince you that harris is bad, and religion is good. im not much here to convince you of anything, nor am i here to do anyones intellectual work. i find you to be a decent chap, so im being direct instead of 100% coy with you, as i usually have been coy with people in the past in "debates". honestly, i did a lot of paraphrasing because ive been on xaxax the past few days, and believe it or not, that stuff can make even an obsessive nut like me a bit lazy, intellectually and otherwise. also, i figure if you disagree with my assertions, than you can do the work of rereading harris' and dawkin's work to see if you can tease out the meanings i have highlighted. i find this sort of way of going about things far more productive for the other individual that i am "debating with", than the normal sort that seems more like trying to win a game than anything else. i dont much care about winning games, and im more interested in allowing you to tease various connections out (even to the extent that derrida did), connections to play with and think about. i find this sort of communication goal far more beneficial for myself and those i "debate". does it often frustrate people and do i often get called ignorant, or incapable of defending my positions? of course. would you imagine someone with depression much caring what other people called them? as you quoted: moving from one pain to another. so in the future, instead of jumping the gun and saying
and
(emphasis added). These are major assumptions about my goals for communicating, and i find them to be incorrect. i may be willing to say that your comments more outline your sort of goals in communicating (proving and conving), which are fine goals, but simply not my own. notice also that i usually dont fix my spelling errors, nor grammer errors (which are both often). this often leads people to attack my assertion that i have an advanced degree in english. think about how silly that is for a moment (i usually find it very funny, because i usually pick up on a vast amount of speaking and writing faux pas that people are hardly even aware they are committing, though i let them pass, because again, i usually dont care much). i think im rambling again.
kieths, i hope i have been helpful in trying to clarify a few things. let me know what you think.
AGAIN LET ME STATE: IM SILLY AND OFTEN THINK EVERY POST IS DIRECTED AT ME, EVEN WHEN THE PERSON ADDRESSES THEIR POST TO SOMEONE ELSE.
(i think we also now know why sam harris would debate me.)
Comment by dantedanti — April 27, 2007 @ 9:28 am
April 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am
But are you a native speaker of conventional religiosity or mysticism?
There have been many descriptions of the stages of personal development that a person goes through. But Scott Peck's are fairly representative:
Comment by mcromer — April 27, 2007 @ 10:29 am
April 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
John,
I think we've been through this before. The word 'faith' has multiple meanings. The kind of faith that Harris and I take issue with is the kind of faith Andrew Sullivan demonstrates in the quotes above, for instance when he admits that he has no argument or even evidence that God is good other than his own feeling that this must be true.
Another example of this kind of faith: Many Christians cite the Bible to justify their positions on various issues. When asked how they know the Bible is the word of God, some of them will, in all apparent earnestness, cite 2 Timothy 3:16:
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 11:36 am
April 27th, 2007 at 11:52 am
mcromer asks:
Rather than arguing over who's a "native speaker", why don't you supply your "translations" of the Sullivan quotes, since you appear to think that mine were unfair?
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 11:52 am
April 27th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Attentive readers will note that Harris is not mentioned or otherwise referred to in this post, notwithstanding strawman-bashers seeking to bash the strawman notion that Harris is referred to.
My point was simple and universal enough: all actual epistemic justification is finite.
For some, the bottom line is predictable sensory observations, even though sensory observations cannot non-circularly justify the belief that sensory observations justify beliefs; far less do they justify the belief that only such observations can justify beliefs. (I leave to one side the difficult additional question of whether beliefs are possible objects of sensory observation—how does one observe, say, an unspoken belief an enclosed nun has about whether there will be a female pope by the year 2200? Or observe aboutness at all?)
At any rate, to some people it just feels right to regard the deliverances of sensory observation as the epistemic cornerstone. For others, it's the inner promptings of the Holy Spirit. For others, it's mathematics. For others it's philosophy. For some it's TV. Or astrology. Or the Internet. But notice that one can't argue in a non-question begging way that sensory observation ought to be one's epistemic cornerstone with someone whose starting conviction, say, is that it's all maya. And likewise with each starting conviction or epistemic paradigm. There is no paradigm-neutral vantage point from which to evaluate epistemic paradigms.
And with that thought in mind, it seems to me likely that Sullivan's belief in God is 'basic' and not thereby irrational, for reasons well explicated by Plantinga. At any rate, it's not irrational by the standards set within the epistemic paradigm constituted by analytic philosophy (though it still might be false or involve some other epistemic failure). (See also this well-known paper by van Inwagen, and my 'Gabriella' example.)
Secondarily, I wished to reiterate that even the notion of a material world external to, and existing completely independently of minds, is a controverted question. And I don't just mean any role consciousness may play in resolving the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. I've quoted Dummett before on this point. Indeed, it's arguably even implied by empiricism if taken to its logical concusion.
Comment by stunney — April 27, 2007 @ 11:55 am
April 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
your comment on the holy spirit's inner prompting (which personally i dont exactly believe in, because my beliefs on what the spirit is differ greatly from most christians, and i choose to describe and define the spirit differently as well) as a "form of feeling right to regard the deliverances of sensory observation as the epistemic cornerstone" is a very interesting observation, especially in relation to the other examples you give. thanks kieths.
Comment by dantedanti — April 27, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
keiths:
No one here needs to "translate" Sullivan's responses, including you. He is obviously tired of the pointless exchange, and has fallen back to the irrefutable position. There's not a thing Harris can say to refute Sullivan's position of belief, all that could be done at that point is descent into ad hominem. Which would only weaken Harris in the eyes of anybody reading. He seems to know that, so finished with the requisite last word (per Mike's observation).
I wonder why you don't recognize the cut-off for what it is.
Comment by Joy — April 27, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
disclaimer: i am only speaking for my age group for my particular area (21-29 years old in the cities of florida, all of various economic, sexual preference, education, and racial backgrounds)
Dawkins and Harris claim that athiests are the "out" crowd right now, that to even say you are one, is to not only get you a lot of shit, but bar you from many oppurtunities, that being an athiest is on par with whatever minority group however long ago.
However, out of my closer circle of friends, of about 20 people, only three are religious in any way shape or form. The others, all 18 of them, are self-identifying athiests. (it is possible that i just run with a crowd that happens to end up athiests, despite that they are all from very different backgrounds)
From my good ol' college experiences, there were many athiests, a good majority of people that just didnt really know exactly yet but sure knew they werent any of the three abrahamic religions, the handful of blind-faith christians that always seemed to annoy the class by hooking christianity up with the republican party, sexism, creationism, objective-Truth, patriotism, etc, and finally, those few mulims and any other religion of the world.
in fact, i would say that in many of the larger social circles i have been in, both "christian" and otherwise, it is far more likely that saying one is a muslim will cause one to be suspect of something, if only the "backwardness and outdatedness of their antidemocratic way of life", all the way to wondering if its possible that this muslim sitting in the same room is thinking about blowing us all up.
again, this is limited to my experience with my close friends, my family, my college, and my travels, and is simply an observation more on my generation than on the larger demographics of americans.
Comment by dantedanti — April 27, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
stunney wrote:
And my reply is also simple: that doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally justified. My belief that the president of the US has a wife named Laura is not on equal footing with my friend's view (when he is off his medication) that he is Jesus, or Sullivan's view that God must be good simply because he (Sullivan) feels it must be true.
And you obviously don't think that all beliefs are equally justified, given that you argue vociferously for the theistic viewpoint.
But we don't accept sensory data blindly, just because it "feels right." We check our sensory observations against each other for consistency; we check our sensory observations against those of other people; we apply logic to our observations to see if they make sense; we study our senses and learn what their limitations are (c.f. Harris's example of Shepard's Tables).
Judging by the same criteria, the experiences you refer to as the "inner promptings" of God are notoriously unreliable.
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Joy wrote:
One wonders why Sullivan accepted the invitation from BeliefNet in the first place if he was always planning to fall back on the "I believe because it feels right" position — a position which rendered the exchange pointless.
A more realistic interpretation is that he saw that he was losing the argument badly and decided to bail before doing even more damage to his cause.
I'd bet that BeliefNet regrets choosing such a lame spokesman for the pro-faith position.
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Actually the mystics of every faith (and no particular faith) tell a very, very consistent story: the universe is apparently disparate but in reality the manifestation of a single underlying reality. "God" is not an external entity in contrast to self-contained individuals. "Self" vs. "other" is an illusion. The assumed individual "me" is not at all what it appears to be. There is a deep underlying organization to everything that unfolds. And all apparently-separate minds are aspects of a single Awareness. You get the same truths from people like Albert Einstein, Ramana Maharshi, Guatama Buddha, Meister Eckhart, Rumi, Ken Wilber, Eckhardt Tolle and a vast number of other mystics and fellow-travellers.
And in fact this story is also extremely consistent what physics has discovered to be the case, and the findings of parapsychology, mind-body healing, and the like.
This is why atheists virtually always focus on fundamentalist religions and the differences in their doctrines — they are quite afraid to closely investigate stage-IV spirituality and always try and lump it with stage II fundamentalism so they can pretend it doesn't exist.
Comment by mcromer — April 27, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Keiths wrote:
I think you and I finally maybe agree on something, namely, that there are several kinds of faith. For example, there is faith in one self. We see this particularly with athletes who train and compete with a specific goal in mind. Second, there is persevering faith. Job in the Bible I think is a good example of this kind of faith. There is also what some people call trusting faith. I think this kind of faith demonstrated in people who undertake some kind of heroic and/or compassionate deed. I've seen this kind of faith in many missionaries I have known. Lastly, though not finally, there is what many theologians describe as intellectual assent: believing in the existence of God, angels or miracles etc. I think this is what you, along with Harris, Dawkins et al., are thinking about when refer to "faith". You are demanding that theists be able to give you some kind of rational proof that God exists.
But, notice that James (2:18,19) gives this kind of faith the lowest priority. "Even the demons believe that and shudder." Angels as un-embodied intelligences apparently have some kind of direct perception or knowledge of God. (Something most humans do not have.) However, this didn't keep some of them, "fallen angels" or "demons," from rebelling and asserting their moral independence. IMO this is the reason why the moral argument has always been the strongest argument, at least among humans.
Notice that this is the way James argues about faith with his fellow Christians: "Show me your faith without deeds, and I'll show you my faith by what I do." IOW, it's not simply enough to intellectually believe, or profess, that God exists. Or, "˜Actions speak louder than words.'
How would James have argued with an atheist? I think he would have argued pretty much the same way I have been trying to argue with you. "˜This is what it means for Christians to live by faith. What is it that you believe about atheism that would make the world a better place and/or my life better?' Isn't that a rational question to ask? I don't think you (or Harris, Dennett or Dawkins) really have an answer. But I'll give you a chance to reply.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 27, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I believe that the sun rises in the east, that a methane molecule consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms, and that the Pacific Ocean is over 35,000 feet deep. I believe these things not because I think that believing them will make the world a better place, but because I think they are true. It is the same with my atheism.
If it were proven to you that Buddhism makes the world a better place than Christianity, would you convert?
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I think this is a rational question, but instead of keiths' tack, I would say that most people believe the way they do because they sincerely think it's true and that sincere belief makes one more intellectually honest - an obvious benefit, since most people don't regard self-deception highly - and that more people being intellectually honest would also benefit the world. I don't think this is solely a Christian or religious phenomenon, however.
Comment by thechristiancynic — April 27, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Keiths,
I think it's a given that you believe atheism to be true. Do you want it to be true?
Comment by mcromer — April 27, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
mcromer wrote:
No. Like many (if not most) people, I'd prefer to be under the care of a perfectly loving God and to be reunited with friends and loved ones in a blissful hereafter.
P.S. I guess you're not going to tell me how you think I misinterpreted Sullivan, are you?
Comment by keiths — April 27, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
A prominent theory in epistemology in recent years, much favored by naturalists (no doubt fearful of how easily subjective experiences can lead us astray), has been reliabilism—-roughly the view that beliefs are justified not merely by experiential states of those holding them; justified beliefs must be caused by an entity, event, or process that typically (not necessarily infallibly) produces reliable beliefs.
But what might typical causes of reliable belief-formation actually include?
Noticing that everyone else in the theater is running screaming towards the exits. Performing controlled laboratory experiments. Paying attention in history class. Reading highly acclaimed chemistry textbooks. Looking out the window and comparing one's observation of the weather with one's spouse's. Watching sports events on live television. Being inwardly prompted by the Holy Spirit….
Notice that one can't easily rule out non-naturalist possibilities for reliable belief-formation, especially as regards scientific beliefs. For, let us suppose mathematical knowledge can only be had by beings possessing a Cartesian soul into which God has infused innate mathematical ideas. (Indeed this was Descartes' own view of the matter; in our own times, Roger Penrose has defended a non-theistic but neo-Platonist version of something similar.) Then, all justified beliefs about or dependent on mathematics would be the result of a reliable non-naturalistic belief-formation process, forever beyond the reach of sense-perception. At the very least, giving a persuasive naturalistic account of how mathematical beliefs are justified is far from easy, which is worth mentioning if only because of how much reliance is placed mathematical beliefs in the methods and practice of the natural sciences.
Comment by stunney — April 27, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Are you genuinely curious, or do you want to play racketball debate with it?
If the former, I'll absolutely be happy to spend the time to answer. If the latter, then I'd rather go groom the horses, muck the stalls, help my kid with a computer question, fix dinner, get one of ten "on hold" blog posts finished, etc.
Comment by mcromer — April 27, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 11:11 pm