Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason

[Severian]

I agree completely, but I think Dawkins’ point is that faith requires the active suspension of both, at least in that particular area of a person’s life.

 

 

If that truely were his point, then he would be talking complete rubbish. Faith does not require one to suspend intelligence or insight - it only requires an intuitive leap to something that cannot be proven.

 

Quite frankly, your statement seems a blatant suspension of intelligence and insight in this thread so far.

[pioneer]

One good example of faith leading to progressive change was the American Revolution. America was the place one could go for religious freedom. The founding fathers based their concept of a progressive form of government, by the people, on the principles of Christian-Judeo. What they had to do was go against a superpower with a bunch of militia. They were prepared for the worse but hoped their sacrifice would lead to a change. They were not only fighting a world super power, but also thousands of years of tradition based on monarch rule. But in the end, their faith turned the tide, leading to the modern era.

 

What is wrong in America today, based on the world view, is not connected to the teachings of religion, but on the power of reason. Smart people use their power of reason to build a cultural personna and that is spreading across the world, threatening the identities of cultures. Don't get me wrong, reason is beneficial to seeing and discovering reality. Just any cultural personna is not entirely rational but is also subjective. To be consistent with Dawkins even cultural identity is a threat to reason. Its benefit is entirely subjective, based on what you define as important.

[iNow]

If Faith does not require one to suspend intelligence or insight - it only requires an intuitive leap to something that cannot be proven.

Aren't these the same thing?!?

 

Quite frankly, your statement seems a blatant suspension of intelligence and insight in this thread so far.

 

This is evidence of how faith can blind one to the reality around them. Glider shared a marvelously well-reasoned, smooth tempered approach to the discussion, and was not attacking anyone. Yet, your response was "your statement seems a blatant suspension of intelligence and insight in this thread so far?"

 

...Which, by the way, isn't even a properly formed sentence, but I'm calling you out on your attacking unecessarily instead of engaging in further conversation like a mature human being.

 

 

If your mother tells you that she is going to wipe feces on her face every Friday because of the magical purple unicorn she has faith in, is it truly the person who tries to convince her otherwise that is blatantly suspending intelligence and insight?

 

 

Pioneer - by the way, you're way off topic again.

[Glider]

If that truely were his point, then he would be talking complete rubbish. Faith does not require one to suspend intelligence or insight - it only requires an intuitive leap to something that cannot be proven.

An intuitive leap is usually from something known, to a logical, albeit so far untested, conclusion. Therefore, intuitive leaps have some basis in evidence, although the conclusion may or may not be correct.

 

Faith requires that a conclusion be based on no evidence at all. If there is any real evidence for it, then there is some justification for that conclusion and thus, by definition, it is not faith.

 

Therefore, to hold such a belief must require that the person does not ask the questions that, in other areas of their life, they would normally ask, such as 'why should I believe this?'

 

For example, if I replied to your post saying "I really don't have time to type a response today, so could you please take it on faith that I have replied, and that my rebuttal is profound and irrefutable", the first question you would ask is "Why should I believe that?", and you would be perfectly justified in doing so. After all, there is no evidence that my rebuttal ever existed, let alone was profound and irrefutable.

 

Quite frankly, your statement seems a blatant suspension of intelligence and insight in this thread so far.

Does it really seem that way to you? Can you say honestly that my post shows no evidence of reasoning or intelligent thought at all?

[Royston]

Glider, thanks for the responses...on retrospect, and re-reading my points, my arguments weren't fully thought through. I guess (although not being religious myself) I've had a pet hate of people interferering with somebodies belief, when their belief has had no consequences on anybody else, and that person has led a perfectly successfull, and rewarding life due to their own intellect et.c, and nothing to do with their belief.

 

I've had first hand experience with people I know, so purely anecdotal, and it's caused problems, (I'll use person X.Y again...to conceal the innocent) Person X and person Y get on swimmingly, and have done for many years, then Person X discovers person Y has faith. Person X can't believe this, and confronts person Y. All the years person X and Y have been getting on really well, are suddenly not even considered...it takes person X and person Y (after a number of arguments) to realize how daft they're being letting this affect their friendship.

 

I know the above probably isn't applicable, it's just where I stand more than anything.

[Glider]

Glider, thanks for the responses...on retrospect, and re-reading my points, my arguments weren't fully thought through. I guess (although not being religious myself) I've had a pet hate of people interferering with somebodies belief, when their belief has had no consequences on anybody else, and that person has led a perfectly successfull, and rewarding life due to their own intellect et.c, and nothing to do with their belief.

I can understand that. It makes perfect sense.

 

I think in those cases where a person's behaviour (based, as you say, on their own intellect) results in a successful and happy life to that person, their family and no problems to others around them, I take your point that there's absolutely no reason for criticism.

 

I think Dawkin's point about faith being harmful is, at that end of the 'faith continuum', more philosophical (insofar as it makes no material difference). At that end of the continuum, I feel the only valid application of Dawkin's point is that it's a shcame that such a person (intelligent, successful and happy), still, even in the 21st century, chooses to suspend his or her intelligence in order to hold to a faith.

 

I agree, Dawkins does get a bit 'evangelical' about it, but in such cases as this example, I really think his argument can only be applied to the principle rather than to the person. The person (and the people around them) clearly has no problems.

 

However, faith does exist on a continuum, and this example is only one end of it.

 

I've had first hand experience with people I know, so purely anecdotal, and it's caused problems, (I'll use person X.Y again...to conceal the innocent) Person X and person Y get on swimmingly, and have done for many years, then Person X discovers person Y has faith. Person X can't believe this, and confronts person Y. All the years person X and Y have been getting on really well, are suddenly not even considered...it takes person X and person Y (after a number of arguments) to realize how daft they're being letting this affect their friendship.

 

I know the above probably isn't applicable, it's just where I stand more than anything.

I can understand that too.

 

I think this is where Dawkins' point gets a bit more confrontational (he's not alone in this either). A principle that has been widely held for a long time is that we should 'respect the beliefs of others'. Now, people (of which Dawkins is just one) are beginning to question this principle.

 

Is it reasonable (they ask) to ask a reasonable individual to respect a ridiculous belief? Why should a reasonable person be expected to respect a baseless belief like the 'memory of water' effect in homeopathy? Could a person be reasonably expected to respect a belief in purple unicorns?

 

Therefore, rather than just blindly accepting and respecting a person's beliefs, however ridiculous, isn't it a duty to question them?

 

I think this is a perfectly reasonable question. Where it becomes tricky and people have to be really, really careful is where the following argument is raised (I should point out that I haven't worked out for myself where I stand on this yet. I'm just summarising it as far as I understand it):

 

If we accept that it is not reasonable to ask a reasonable person to respect a ridiculous belief, then we should at least respect a person's right to hold that belief.

 

Arguably, a person has the right to belive what they choose. However, if that belief is baseless, then it must require an active process of non-thought to hold it, whiich is ridiculous. So, how can you respect the individual who chooses to hold it? Doesn't choosing to hold a ridiculous belief, at least in some way, make that individual ridiculous (thought the process they have to use to hold and defend it)?

 

Then we're back to expecting people to respect the ridiculous.

 

More important, beliefs influence behaviour. Behaviour based on or driven by ridiculous beliefs can only be, at best, ridiculous. At worst, lethal (as has been the case in homeopathy and other 'alternative' approaches).

 

As I say, it's all very tricky. I think these questions do need to be asked, but carefully and with, if not blind respect, then at least some regard for other people's feelings.

 

A person may hold an incorrect belief, but ridiculing them will not change their belief, it will only make them defensive and more resistant.

[1veedo]

I can understand that. It makes perfect sense.

 

I think in those cases where a person's behaviour (based' date=' as you say, on their own intellect) results in a successful and happy life to that person, their family and no problems to others around them, I take your point that there's absolutely no reason for criticism.

 

I think Dawkin's point about faith being harmful is, at that end of the 'faith continuum', more philosophical (insofar as it makes no material difference). At that end of the continuum, I feel the only valid application of Dawkin's point is that it's a shcame that such a person (intelligent, successful and happy), still, even in the 21st century, chooses to suspend his or her intelligence in order to hold to a faith.

 

I agree, Dawkins does get a bit 'evangelical' about it, but in such cases as this example, I really think his argument can only be applied to the principle rather than to the person. The person (and the people around them) clearly has no problems.

 

However, faith does exist on a continuum, and this example is only one end of it.[/quote']Faith / religion does a lot of bad things. But I think most people miss-understand this point, mostly Christians but here I think Snail said he was an atheist.

 

It is a fact, and one you cannot avoid, that religion does indeed cause a lot of the worlds problems. Depending on what "problems" you're talking about these sorts of religions are not the typical "Baptists" or "Catholics" in everyday life. When for example an atheist says religion causes a lot of the world's problems s/he is not saying that, you, personally, as a Baptist or a Catholic are causing all of the worlds problems. It's just a general observation. Likewise there are plenty of problems unassociated with religion.

 

There are more general, abstract principles as well about the benefits of thinking for yourself (known as freethought, eg a person is said to be a "freethinker") etc but suffice to say that for most people their religion is doing very little harm to them, and there may be benefits to having faith, but there are also a lot of drawbacks. I'm not the person to argue this second point but I have read about different issues ranging from psychological effects religion can have on people to the sort of ethical principles that the concept of freethought brings up (leading sheep, paying tithes, having poor reasoning skills etc). It's these sort of general principles that inevitably lead to the larger scale holy war problems I was talking about above, and the effects lie on a continuum. In other words the same reasons someone will blow themselves up for god are the same reasons people do less-ridiculous things like deny evolution or carbon-14 dating for example. And then you can get less extreme all the way down to the daily life of an individual which, although are bad, are far less damaging then the former (blowing yourself up or denying evolution).

[bascule]

Glider, thanks for the responses...on retrospect, and re-reading my points, my arguments weren't fully thought through. I guess (although not being religious myself) I've had a pet hate of people interferering with somebodies belief, when their belief has had no consequences on anybody else, and that person has led a perfectly successfull, and rewarding life due to their own intellect et.c, and nothing to do with their belief.

 

In part 2 of the series Dawkins points out that it's okay if people believe crazy things, but then addresses NHS paying for homeopathic "cures" and how that isn't okay because it's taxpayer dollars funding pseudoscience which can't do any better than a placebo in clinical trials

[Royston]

In part 2 of the series Dawkins points out that it's okay if people believe crazy things, but then addresses NHS paying for homeopathic "cures" and how that isn't okay because it's taxpayer dollars funding pseudoscience which can't do any better than a placebo in clinical trials

 

From post #33

 

I just caught the second episode of 'Enemies of Reason'' date=' and it addressed almost exactly my point earlier. It tackled issues that clearly are a threat to the public view of science, and very importantly public health...I was shocked that UK taxes helped fund a center of Homeopathy, it touched on the MMR scam, and the programme tackled organizations that used 'scientific buzzwords' tenuously thrown in to sell their products, and claims.

 

Also, (close to my heart) it covered the media and science, and how the public are so easily swayed by poor scientific journalism.[/quote']

 

So in short, I completely agree with confronting unproven, unscientific 'beliefs' that are clearly being 'used' to A. influence public opinion, B. risk public health (this is just through being unscientific rather than 'used'), C. to make money, D. to scare, and manipulate people. A.C and D clearly satisfy a personal agenda for whoever is forcing that unscientific belief on whomever.

 

The point I'm trying to stress, is that belief in anything is fine providing it isn't used to satisfy A to D, I'm sure there are other examples. It is possible to use your belief, as a means to help others without forcing that belief onto them, it's also completely legitimate to separate your belief from other intellectual goals.

 

Providing there are these distinctions, then I feel people are allowed to believe whatever the hell they like, it's only when that belief is being used to 'force' a certain ideal, then there's going to be trouble, and that goes for some of Dawkins methods. I'm not saying all his methods, but he does hold an esteemed position, and he needs to be very, very careful how he uses this role. Science should present the facts, it shouldn't be 'used' as a means to confront belief, if that belief is not a threat to science, or displays the threats I mentioned above.

 

I apologize to anyone for not responding further to any of the above, but I hope that's made my argument clear i.e I'm retiring from this thread.

[Severian]

An intuitive leap is usually from something known, to a logical, albeit so far untested, conclusion. Therefore, intuitive leaps have some basis in evidence, although the conclusion may or may not be correct.

 

Faith requires that a conclusion be based on no evidence at all. If there is any real evidence for it, then there is some justification for that conclusion and thus, by definition, it is not faith.

 

You can't just make things up you know. Webster's definition of 'intuition' is "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference". An intuitive leap is not based on evidence any more than faith is.

 

However, we all take things on faith every day. If we have inconclusive data concerning some decision that must be made, we do not (usually) dither about unable to make up our minds what to believe - we make a choice. We put our faith in one possibility being correct and make our decision accordingly. To deny faith is to deny the proper functioning of a human being on a daily basis.

 

Have you never had to do his in your career as a nurse?

 

Does it really seem that way to you? Can you say honestly that my post shows no evidence of reasoning or intelligent thought at all?

Yes it does. How can someone who claims that faith (in general terms) requires an 'active suspension' of intelligence and insight be regarded as having a sane point of view?

[bascule]

Severian, you're raking up some rather nasty smelling philosophical muck, the likes of which some of the foremost philosophers in recent history, including Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein, have no answers to.

 

Consciousness is ontologically distinct from the real world, and therefore the noumena which exist within our first-person ontology should all be regarded as "belief". These are all structures constructed out of sense data. If you're an epiphenomenalist and an empiricist, then you should regard noumena/sense data objects as being ontologically distinct from the real world.

 

One set of noumena that hopefully exist in your head dictate that there exists a mapping between sense data objects and real world objects, that is you assume there is a reality and that the noumena you directly experience correlate to phenomena in the real world.

 

Provided you believe this mapping exists, i.e. you are not a brain in a vat being deceived by some sinister experimenter, then you can start making a different set of claims about phenomena and their verifiability through mutually supporting structures of real-world data.

 

Belief in noumena and belief in phenomena are ontologically distinct. Noumena belong to your first-person ontology and phenomena belong to the realist ontology.

 

In that respect there are two classes of faith which are ontologically distinct. Faith in noumena is completely unverifiable; we are subject to what we perceive which is ontologically distinct from what anyone else can perceive, which is thus unverifiable.

 

Phenomena can be verified by other people, provided you aren't a brain-in-a-vat. In that respect phenomena which belong to the realist ontology is verifiable, whereas noumena are not.

 

Should we regard noumena which map to verifiable phenomena in higher regard than noumena which don't? Well, that's for you to decide. Hume claims it's our only choice, Kant claims it's unknowable, and I don't even want to talk about Wittgenstein as chances are whatever I say is not what he would've intended.

 

I believe Glider's suggesting we should. You seem to be suggesting there is no ontological distinction between faith in noumena and faith in vicarious phenomena-as-noumena which have been methodologically verified. If so, you two are talking about two different types of faith which shouldn't be directly compared. Glider seems to have faith that he's not a brain in a vat and that phenomena are methodologically verifiable in the Cartesian sense. You seem to have faith in neither of these, and put all noumena on an even playing field. Is that the case?

[iNow]

However, we all take things on faith every day. If we have inconclusive data concerning some decision that must be made, we do not (usually) dither about unable to make up our minds what to believe - we make a choice. We put our faith in one possibility being correct and make our decision accordingly. To deny faith is to deny the proper functioning of a human being on a daily basis.

 

It seems that you may have missed Glider's point. Inconclusive data is not "no data." We make logical and intuitive leaps from the evidence at hand, despite the fact that this evidence may be limited.

 

Faith in God is done with zero evidence. There is a difference, at least in my mind.

 

 

Proper functioning of a human being requires faith? Come on, it requires food, water, and air, that's about it.

[Glider]

You can't just make things up you know. Webster's definition of 'intuition' is "the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference". An intuitive leap is not based on evidence any more than faith is.

Then what are you leaping from?

 

The conclusions resulting from an intuitive leap are based on some experience of a thing (qualia) that results in an automatic (preconscious) extension to another thing (conclusion). That the process occurs 'without evident rational thought and inference' simply makes it preconscious and so unknown. The point remains that leaps of intuition cannot be made from nothing at all.

 

However, we all take things on faith every day. If we have inconclusive data concerning some decision that must be made, we do not (usually) dither about unable to make up our minds what to believe - we make a choice. We put our faith in one possibility being correct and make our decision accordingly. To deny faith is to deny the proper functioning of a human being on a daily basis.

iNow's response is a good one: Incoclusive data is not no data'. We sometimes have to make a decision concerning where the greatest weight of evidence lies where the existing evidence is contradictory or inconclusive, but that is still evidence based. A person could still provide a reasoned argument as to why they chose to go one way or the other based on the evidence to hand.

 

Faith is not a requirement of the 'proper functioning' of a human being.

 

Have you never had to do his in your career as a nurse?

Never. But then, I've never been a nurse either. Nonetheless, in my job, I do not work on faith, I work on evidence.

 

Moreover, nurses do not do this either. They work to the evidence at hand. It forms the basis of 'Evidence Based Practice', which is key to good clinical practice and is taught by the Royal Collage of Nursing and medical schools and is strongly and continually reinforced in hospitals.

 

Nurses (and other clinicians/practitioners) are actively discouraged from working on 'leaps of faith'. If anything goes wrong (as they sometimes do) a clinician has to be able to provide some evidence-based rationale for their actions. If they cannot do this, they are open to disciplinary action and "I just felt it was a good idea" is not an acceptable defence.

 

Yes it does.

You may disagree with my reasoning and/or conclusions, but if you are honestly stating that my post (#131) shows no evidence of reasoning or intelligent thought at all, then I can only infer that you do not recognise the process of reasoning. If this is true and you cannot recognise its presence, then how can I trust your estimation of its absence?

 

How can someone who claims that faith (in general terms) requires an 'active suspension' of intelligence and insight be regarded as having a sane point of view?

Because there is some evidence for their claim. The evidence, as I have previously stated, is often found in the active suspension of critical faculties that would normally be employed in other areas of the lives of those that hold a faith. As I have already said "Faith requires that a conclusion be based on no evidence at all. If there is any real evidence for it, then there is some justification for that conclusion and thus, by definition, it is not faith.

 

Therefore, to hold such a belief must require that the person does not ask the questions that, in other areas of their life, they would normally ask, such as 'why should I believe this?'

 

For example, if I replied to your post saying "I really don't have time to type a response today, so could you please take it on faith that I have replied, and that my rebuttal is profound and irrefutable", the first question you would ask is "Why should I believe that?", and you would be perfectly justified in doing so. After all, there is no evidence that my rebuttal ever existed, let alone was profound and irrefutable."

 

Another way of looking at it of course, is 'how can someone who claims that faith (in general terms) requires an 'active suspension' of (more accurately) reason and critical faculties not be regarded as having a sane point of view? What grounds are there to consider that point of veiw anything less than sane?

 

It seems that you may have missed Glider's point. Inconclusive data is not "no data." We make logical and intuitive leaps from the evidence at hand, despite the fact that this evidence may be limited.

Yes, that is my point. Well put.

 

Faith in God is done with zero evidence. There is a difference, at least in my mind.

Yes, there is a difference. Again, well put.

 

 

Proper functioning of a human being requires faith? Come on, it requires food, water, and air, that's about it.

And data. For a human being to function properly (as a human being), we need valid and reliable data.

[Severian]

iNow's response is a good one: Incoclusive data is not no data'. We sometimes have to make a decision concerning where the greatest weight of evidence lies where the existing evidence is contradictory or inconclusive, but that is still evidence based. A person could still provide a reasoned argument as to why they chose to go one way or the other based on the evidence to hand.

 

That is not how evidence works. Your starting point when examining a system is a set of hypotheses that may or may not be correct. You then apply evidence and use that evidence to remove some of the hypotheses.

 

If you are only left with one possibility after applying the evidence you can be pretty sure it is correct. (Assuming you haven't forgotten any possibility.) But as long as you have more than one possibility you cannot say anything definitive about the system - if you are going to act, you have to act on faith that one is correct.

 

Now of course, you could assign probabilities to each hypothesis depending on the evidence and find that some are unlikely. (In actuality, what you are doing is combining your original hypohesis with extra hypotheses to form a larger set. You then eliminate some and the fraction of variants left is your probability.) But as long as you have more than one possibility, then you have no certainty that one hypothesis is correct and are again making a leap of faith.

 

Just because an outcome is improbable does not make it wrong. After all, one outcome must be chosen and that outcome occupies that same volume of 'phase space' as any other. You only think some outcomes are more probable because you lump together different outcomes as being phenomenologically similar.

 

In actuality of course, most people will disagree with the probabilities you set (technically, they are disagreeing with you giving each of your sub-hypotheses equal weight) so what you think of as most probable, someone else may perfectly legitimately disregard. (Often this comes about through a disagreement of the importance or reliability of the evidence.)

 

As Bascule rightly surmised, this applies to all systems, both noumena and phenomena (to use his terms). If you do not believe it does then you are simply fooling yourself into believing that something is 100% backed up by the evidence.

 

(There are of course, some statements which are 100% true, since you can include a dependence on an intial axiom, ie. if X is true then Y. But this isn't a true hypothesis - this is a statement of equivalence.)

 

With regard to the existence of God, God can be included in one (or more) of the hypotheses about how the universe works. You cannot eliminate that hypothesis because it is not in contradiction with any evidence. So taking the position that he does not exist is as much a leap of faith as saying that he does.

 

Science disregards that hypothesis for a completely different reason. It is non-predictive (it makes no predictions we can test) so is not useful on a scientific level. But that does not preclude it as a possibility.

 

You may disagree with my reasoning and/or conclusions' date=' but if you are honestly stating that my post (#131) shows [i']no evidence[/i] of reasoning or intelligent thought at all, then I can only infer that you do not recognise the process of reasoning. If this is true and you cannot recognise its presence, then how can I trust your estimation of its absence?

 

This is a Strawman. If you care to look back, I was criticising your statement that "faith requires the active suspension of both" intelligence and insight. Given my explanation above I hope you now agree that your statement was ridiculous.

 

(And incidentally, do you understand why someone, to whom faith is an important part of their life, would find your comment downright offensive? Was the original statement meant to be a deliberate troll, or was it a lack of empathy?)

[bascule]

As Bascule rightly surmised, this applies to all systems, both noumena and phenomena (to use his terms).

 

Those are actually Kant's terms

[Glider]

That is not how evidence works.

Possibly not, but it is how people (e.g. nurses) work. Viewing what evidence is to hand in whatever (usually short) time they have to make a decision in order to estimate the balance of that evidence to decide a course of action that will most likely lead to the best outcome. Such decisions may be correct, or they may not (people are not perfect), but they are never made on no evidence.

 

If you are only left with one possibility after applying the evidence you can be pretty sure it is correct. (Assuming you haven't forgotten any possibility.) But as long as you have more than one possibility you cannot say anything definitive about the system - if you are going to act, you have to act on faith that one is correct.

You are going to work on your best estimate of the balance of existing evidence that you are aware of (again, different from faith).

 

Now of course, you could assign probabilities to each hypothesis depending on the evidence and find that some are unlikely. (In actuality, what you are doing is combining your original hypohesis with extra hypotheses to form a larger set. You then eliminate some and the fraction of variants left is your probability.) But as long as you have more than one possibility, then you have no certainty that one hypothesis is correct and are again making a leap of faith.

See previous.

 

Just because an outcome is improbable does not make it wrong. After all, one outcome must be chosen and that outcome occupies that same volume of 'phase space' as any other. You only think some outcomes are more probable because you lump together different outcomes as being phenomenologically similar.

It's still an evidence based estimation, whether or not it's correct.

 

in reality of course, most people will disagree with the probabilities you set (technically, they are disagreeing with you giving each of your sub-hypotheses equal weight) so what you think of as most probable, someone else may perfectly legitimately disregard. (Often this comes about through a disagreement of the importance or reliability of the evidence.)

This happens, but when the full weight of evidence is shown, or when new evidence is added, and the result is different from the individual’s estimate, that individual will say 'I was wrong'. This, again, is very different from faith.

 

Basule rightly surmised, this applies to all systems, both noumena and phenomena (to use his terms). If you do not believe it does then you are simply fooling yourself into believing that something is 100% backed up by the evidence.

Very little of what we have to work with in real life is 100% backed up by evidence. As I keep saying, we work to our best estimates of the balance of currently available evidence that we are aware of. That is not faith.

 

(There are of course, some statements which are 100% true, since you can include a dependence on an intial axiom, ie. if X is true then Y. But this isn't a true hypothesis - this is a statement of equivalence.)

That is a given.

 

With regard to the existence of God, God can be included in one (or more) of the hypotheses about how the universe works. You cannot eliminate that hypothesis because it is not in contradiction with any evidence.

Not really.

Anything can be included in these hypotheses; zeus, poseidon, ammon-ra, magic tulips, mystical sperm-whales, invisible, mouse riding elephants (Ganesha). None of these are necessary, so why include them?

 

So taking the position that he does not exist is as much a leap of faith as saying that he does.

Are you proposing that choosing not to believe in a thing for which there is absolutely no evidence requires the same degree of faith as choosing to believe a thing for which there is absolutely no evidence? If so, I would disagree.

 

In any event, I think not believing is simply the most acceptable position in the face of current evidence. H1 = God does exist. H0 = God does not exist. As the alternative hypothesis has, so far, absolutely no evidence in support of it, I accept the null position. I would be making a type I error by doing otherwise. There is simply no reason to accept that hypothesis and it would be unreasonable of me to say “H1 is not supported, but I’m going to accept it anyway.”.

 

Science disregards that hypothesis for a completely different reason. It is non-predictive (it makes no predictions we can test) so is not useful on a scientific level. But that does not preclude it as a possibility.

I think this is more or less equivalent to saying that science rejects this as a hypothesis, because it’s not a hypothesis (which it isn’t as hypotheses are, by definition, predictive statements).The problem is, that hypothesis doesn't preclude anything as a possibility (see the above list).

 

This is a Strawman. If you care to look back, I was criticising your statement that "faith requires the active suspension of both" intelligence and insight.

No, this is a strawman. If you look back, you’ll find that the original statement that ‘faith requires an active process of non-thought’ is Dawkins’ statement, not mine. I was clarifying that statement as I thought that it, among other elements of what Dawkins was saying had been misunderstood earlier in the thread. The statement concerning the active suspension of intelligence, or more accurately, critical faculties, is a paraphrase of Dawkin's statement: ‘the active process of non-thought' required to maintain faith.

 

Given my explanation above I hope you now agree that your statement was ridiculous.

No I don’t. I don't believe Dawkin's statement that faith requires an active process of non-thought to be ridiculous because this process can be observed (see below). Therefore, I don't consider my paraphrase of that statement ridiculous either.

 

(And incidentally, do you understand why someone, to whom faith is an important part of their life, would find your comment downright offensive? Was the original statement meant to be a deliberate troll, or was it a lack of empathy?)

No, I don’t understand this at all.

 

Firstly, it was not my statement. As I pointed out, I was paraphrasing for clarity. More important, Dawkins’ statement that ‘faith requires an active process of non-thought’ is an observation, not a value judgment so, no. I do not understand why you would find it offensive.

 

As an observation, that statement is based in reality. It comes from Dawkin’s observation that, in order to maintain a faith in something that has absolutely no supporting evidence, one must suspend the critical faculties that one would normally use in other areas of life. That is to say, one has to deliberately not ask the questions that a reasonable person would normally ask. One also has (depending on the faith or the degree of faith) to ignore or even deny existing evidence. This is what makes it an ‘active’ process of non-thought.

 

Do you understand why someone to whom reason is an important part of their life might find that process offensive (in effect the enemy of reason)?

 

Another reason that I fail to understand your taking offence is that whilst the statement is a general observation concerning the underlying process involved in maintaining a faith, and thus aimed at nobody specific, it is you who chose to make it personal and aim your responses directly at me in post 126 “Quite frankly, your statement seems a blatant suspension of intelligence and insight in this thread so far.”.

 

I chose not to take offence, but asked whether this was your honest belief (i.e. that my post showed no signs of reasoning or intelligence), to which you responded in post 135 “Yes it does. How can someone who claims that faith (in general terms) requires an 'active suspension' of intelligence and insight be regarded as having a sane point of view?”.

 

You have taken offence at a general observation and responded with two personal attacks, so no, I really don’t understand why you should be offended. You may not agree with the observation. You may not like the observation. But that doesn’t alter the fact and so offence is not an appropriate response.

 

I think this is a growing problem with faiths. There are so many, each clamouring for recognition and it’s own ‘space’ that the amount a person (particularly one who claims no faith) can say without ‘causing offence’ is shrinking.

 

I think this is what forms the basis for Dawkins’ assertion of the increasing polarisation between the religious and the secular. The religious are claiming more special dispensations and the secular are starting to get fed up with it all.

 

A good working example is my own University. Our main building is not big. We have limited space and, it almost goes without saying, limited funds. Nevertheless, recently, we have had to provide specific chapels and prayer rooms on the lower levels (which used to be computer rooms). Also, we have had to provide further rooms and convert them to washing areas where people can wash their feet (this had to be done to stop them using the hand basins in the toilets for that purpose). These took over a part of our gym so other students lose out. The taxpayer pays for this and we lose teaching areas.

 

Further, a recent edict is that tests and exams can no longer be set on Fridays, because people are preparing for Sabbath. By extension, nothing of any significance or that is critical to a module can be taught on Fridays, for the same reason. So, in effect, we have lost one day a week over the academic year (but enjoyed no such reduction in the overall amount that has to be taught).

 

This is a secular institution, and yet it is being made to accommodate faith, giving up to it valuable space and funds that could be better spent on providing for student’s academic requirements.

 

Examinations are coming under pressure as well. We have no dress code, and for the most part, I don’t care. But with an increasing number of half and full niqabs and burqas, I think exam regulations are being compromised, at least in spirit.

 

I don’t really see that much of a difference between awarding full marks to a student for an answer that is probably correct, but that I can’t be certain is correct because I don’t know enough about the topic, and awarding full marks for an answer that I know is correct, but to a student who may probably be the candidate, but I can’t be certain because I can’t see enough of them to identify them (photo ID is completely pointless under these conditions too). If you think some undergraduate students are above trying to get substitutes to take their exams for them, you would be wrong.

 

Do not misunderstand me. I am not targeting Islam or Judaism in particular, but to the expanding range of concessions secular institutions are required to make to accommodate faith based behaviours. Note the term ‘required’. The University[/i[] has no choice in these concessions, even though adherence to a faith and the behaviours it requires is entirely a matter of personal choice.

 

The same principle applies to the NHS as Bascule notes in post 133 “Dawkins points out that it's okay if people believe crazy things, but then addresses NHS paying for homeopathic "cures" and how that isn't okay because it's taxpayer dollars funding pseudoscience which can't do any better than a placebo in clinical trials”.

 

These are just some example of where secular institutions (and people) are making concessions to ‘faith’. Dawkins’ reference to the increasing polarisation between the religious and the secular is, as far as I understand it, due partly to an increasing number of secular people asking ‘why’? Why should we make concessions to people who choose to believe in made-up stuff?

 

Under the increasing pressure of ‘political correctness’ more people are beginning to question faith and its basis (Dawkins et al. are just among loudest). People (like me) who once were quite content to ‘respect the beliefs of others’ are now beginning to question that position (cf post 131). For myself, every time faith requires an adjustment to the real, workaday world in order to accommodate it, I feel more sympathy for Dawkins’ stance, much of which I agreed with from the start, although I still had some reservations. However, these are eroding slowly, due not least to threads like this one.

 

Now I think faith should be questioned. I actually think it is the duty of the holders of faith to question it, but that’s not going to happen due to the ‘active process of non-thought’ required to maintain faith.

 

I don’t believe a person who holds a faith has the right to expect others to accept that faith, ‘on faith’ as it were, so I really don’t think those who hold a faith should be surprised or offended when others question that faith or make observations on the psychological processes required to maintain it. It seems inevitable that people who don’t hold a faith are going to ask these questions and as we’ve seen, Dawkins (among others) actively encourages people to do so more actively.

 

In fact, I would go further. Where people hold a belief in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, I would question their right to take offence to other’s questions or observations, as long as those questions and observations are presented with courtesy and some consideration. After all, holding a faith is a personal choice. If one chooses to believe something in the absence of any evidence for it then, in the face of questions and observations that will inevitably follow, they have only three options: 1) Present some evidence to support their claims. 2) Abandon the belief. 3) Accept that those who do not share that belief are going to come up with questions and observations, and deal with it. As long as there is no personal abuse involved, I see no grounds for taking offence at all.

 

It has been suggested (it may have been by Dawkins, but I can’t remember) that as there are no real grounds for offence at questions and observations that are expressed courteously, the claims of offence that is a common response to such questions and observations are therefore a method of trying to prevent others from asking the questions that the holders of these beliefs should be asking themselves, but won’t.

[JohnB]

It has been suggested (it may have been by Dawkins, but I can’t remember) that as there are no real grounds for offence at questions and observations that are expressed courteously, the claims of offence that is a common response to such questions and observations are therefore a method of trying to prevent others from asking the questions that the holders of these beliefs should be asking themselves, but won’t.

This is certainly true. However I would submit that calling someones's belief "ridiculous" or suggesting that the person has taken leave of their intelligence is far from "courteous".

 

If calling someone laughable and stupid is courteous debate, I need a new dictionary.

 

There is also the point of what exactly is "evidence"? Many people with faith have sufficient evidence for themselves but this doesn't mean they have to tell you or that if they did, you would believe them.

 

I'm not Christian by a long shot but if there is a Christian "God" and he wrote in words of fire across the sky for the whole world to see "I Am The Lord Thy God" exactly how long would it be before the words "Mass Hallucination" were heard?

[iNow]

I'm not Christian by a long shot but if there is a Christian "God" and he wrote in words of fire across the sky for the whole world to see "I Am The Lord Thy God" exactly how long would it be before the words "Mass Hallucination" were heard?

My first inclination would actually be "hoax." I am, after all, a person who approaches the world with a scientific mind, not as an active non-thinker. I would then investigate the phenomenon to clarify it's true origin and cause.

 

I think a lot of the comments regarding the rediculous come from the immediate presumption by those with high religiosity that the answer is "God did it" when looking at said evidence.

 

"Wow... the sun rose today again. That's clear evidence of the work of the lord."

 

It strikes me as childish, and due only to a lack of more information, awareness, and curiosity. In this example, my preference is to instead investigate planetary motion and mechanics, finding both awe and inpsiration in my quest toward better understanding the true mechanisms behind the beauty of our universe. Saying it's the work of some imaginary superpower is boring.

 

 

How come nobody sees Zeus in their potato chips or Hades on tortillas?

[Reaper]

Saying it's the work of some imaginary superpower is boring.

 

 

I was beginning to wonder why everyone around me was so boring .

[JohnB]

My first inclination would actually be "hoax." I am, after all, a person who approaches the world with a scientific mind, not as an active non-thinker. I would then investigate the phenomenon to clarify it's true origin and cause.

The question was phrased that it really was an act of God. How about if he appeared to you personally? I'll bet your first thought would be that you imagined it.

 

From that we could conclude that words of fire aren't accepted as proof and neither is a personal appearance. So it begs the question, what would you regard as "proof"?

 

Part of the problem I believe, is that we all filter all "evidence" through our "belief filter" first. Our belief filter has two parts, what we believe and who we will accept evidence from. Because of this, any evidence that disagrees with our belief construct is rejected or at least considered highly suspect. It is "not real", only evidence that agrees with our belief structure is accepted as "real".

 

A good example here is the "Rogue Wave" phenomenon. All the evidence for hundreds of years as to the existence of these monsters was ignored. It failed the filter firstly because Oceanographers were convinced that such waves would only occur once every 10,000 years or so (Their science said so) and secondly because the witnesses were sailors not Oceanographers and therefore their evidence could be classed as "anecdotal" and safely ignored. They were not "real".

 

Once some Oceanographers looked at the satellite pictures and realised the waves were real and published their findings then the second part of the belief filter overrode the first and others accepted the waves as "real".

 

I'm not sure I've explained my meaning clearly, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

[Glider]

This is certainly true. However I would submit that calling someones's belief "ridiculous" or suggesting that the person has taken leave of their intelligence is far from "courteous".

There are two points here. I’ll answer the lesser first. The phrase "taken leave of their intelligence" was never used. Although that phrase may sound very much like ‘taken leave of their senses’ it is not what was said or implied. The phrase under discussion is: ‘active process of non-thought’ which suggests that people actively choose to suspend intellectual processes that they would otherwise employ. Not that they actually become less intelligent.

 

The other point, that "calling someone’s belief ‘ridiculous' is far from courteous" is more tricky. If a belief is ridiculous, what do you call it to avoid giving offence? Would calling such a belief ‘absurd’ be any better? Why can't people call a ridiculous thing, ridiculous if it is shown to be so?

 

I think this comes down to the tradition of ‘respecting’ people’s beliefs. As I asked in post #131, is it reasonable to expect reasonable people to respect an absurd belief?

 

As Sam Harris has said: “Just consider for a moment, this notion that you should respect other people’s beliefs. Where else in our discourse do we encounter this? When was the last time anyone…was admonished to respect another person’s beliefs about History, or Biology, or Physics? We do not respect people’s beliefs. We evaluate their reasons.”. We like to think that we respect the beliefs of others, but In reality we take those beliefs apart and examine their reasons for those beliefs.

 

This is not done with any hostile intent, or with the intent to cause offence, this is simply what we do. Look at peer review. In fact you don’t need to go so far. Just look at these forums. Look at all such forums. Look at daily life.

 

Say somebody believes that amethyst strengthens the endocrine and immune systems, or that Citrine can help with heart tissue regeneration, and makes these claims in the general medicine forum of SFN. They would immediately be asked to present evidence. Is that considered disrespectful or discourteous?

 

If the person making these claims fails to adequately support them, the argument is rejected and so the acceptance of the argument (i.e. faith in the healing properties of these crystals) would be considered ridiculous. Is that considered disrespectful of discourteous? No. In these cases it is considered a normal part of the critical process of reason by which people evaluate the validity of information, theories and propositions.

 

So, under normal circumstances, we don’t respect the beliefs of others. We always ask them to justify them or provide evidence in support of them. This process of critical evaluation is not only acceptable, it is absolutely necessary. How else are we to progress as a species?

 

However, when you introduce beliefs that are based on religious faith or God, this process has to stop due to this largely political idea of ‘respecting the beliefs of others. Why? What gives these beliefs any special dispensation over any other beliefs?

 

I agree fully with Harris’s argument that the only way forward for humanity is not a tolerance for all manner of absurdity, but a willingness to have our beliefs about reality updated and revised by conversation.

 

If calling someone laughable and stupid is courteous debate, I need a new dictionary.

This simply didn’t happen here (at least, not on my part). So I wouldn’t worry about it.

 

There is also the point of what exactly is "evidence"? Many people with faith have sufficient evidence for themselves but this doesn't mean they have to tell you or that if they did, you would believe them.

I don’t think they have any evidence for themselves. I think the idea of having evidence for a faith is a contradiction in terms. That’s what faith means.

 

However, I would say that if they want me to accept or respect their belief, then they do have to tell me what evidence they have, so I may evaluate it for myself (because I am willing to revise my beliefs about reality through conversation). Isn’t that fair?

 

Why should beliefs based upon religion be exempt from the rules that govern all other human discourse? The position that beliefs concerning the nature of reality should not be discussed, because to do so may cause offence, is intellectually bankrupt and a clear case of special pleading. It halts conversation and discourages further discourse and so encourages unquestioning belief, which is never a good thing.

 

In any event, I suppose in this case, evidence would be a reasoned argument that can withstand the scrutiny of logic and can stand on its own merit in the presence of, or without contradicting, the physical facts and observations concerning the nature of reality.

 

I'm not Christian by a long shot but if there is a Christian "God" and he wrote in words of fire across the sky for the whole world to see "I Am The Lord Thy God" exactly how long would it be before the words "Mass Hallucination" were heard?

I have absolutely no idea. However, as it has not happened, I won’t worry about it too much at this stage. I suppose that if my mother suddenly grew wings, webbed feet and a bill, I would have to conclude either that she had become a duck (or some kind of super duck/mother hybrid), or that I was hallucinating. As to how long it would take me to reach either of those conclusions, I have no idea. But again, it hasn’t happened, so I won’t worry about it.

 

I wouldn’t get too hung up on things that haven’t happened.

[Pangloss]

A good example here is the "Rogue Wave" phenomenon. All the evidence for hundreds of years as to the existence of these monsters was ignored. It failed the filter firstly because Oceanographers were convinced that such waves would only occur once every 10,000 years or so (Their science said so) and secondly because the witnesses were sailors not Oceanographers and therefore their evidence could be classed as "anecdotal" and safely ignored. They were not "real".

 

Once some Oceanographers looked at the satellite pictures and realised the waves were real and published their findings then the second part of the belief filter overrode the first and others accepted the waves as "real".

 

You make it sound like the oceanographers were doing something wrong. Were they supposed to just believe whatever they were told? What about the 5,000 other things they're told on a regular basis that really do turn out to be utter nonsense?

 

I think people make a huge mistake when they use words like "safely ignored" or "not 'real'" and talk about what scientists "believe". Scientists aren't trying to make people look like idiots, they're trying to establish what we know factually and distinguish it from what we don't know factually. That's it. Anything else we ascribe to that action is either our personal extrapolation based on our own emotions, or the mistaken behavior of some individual scientists who misguidedly decide to act like jerks.

[iNow]

Part of the problem I believe, is that we all filter all "evidence" through our "belief filter" first. Our belief filter has two parts, what we believe and who we will accept evidence from. Because of this, any evidence that disagrees with our belief construct is rejected or at least considered highly suspect. It is "not real", only evidence that agrees with our belief structure is accepted as "real".

 

I guess I don't see this as "part of the problem." I consider it our "default position." We have no choice whatsoever other than to process information through our perceptual filters. On a fundamental level, it's impossible to do otherwise.

 

What I argue is that it's much better to make these "perceptual filters" rooted in the need for evidence, and adjustable in the face of conflicting evidence. If you make your "baseline position" that nothing is certain, and only hold to information if it's repeatable and supportable, then you are going to do better on all accounts than someone who holds a "baseline position" such as, "THIS is absolutely true. I don't require evidence."

[Glider]

A very good point.

 

I agree with JohnB in the sense that most people do tend to be more resistant to evidence that challenges what they already accept (say, on the basis of older evidence), but I think if it only makes a person evaluate the new evidence more rigorously, then there's no real problem (nothing wrong with a bit of rigour).

 

However, where it does become a problem is when people become unwilling to review their beliefs in the face of new evidence and begin rejecting new (contradictory) evidence out of hand. So I agree completely that making your baseline position 'nothing is certain' is the best way to prevent that problem from arising in the first place.

[JohnB]

This simply didn’t happen here (at least, not on my part). So I wouldn’t worry about it.

Ridiculous means "laughable". I accept that I could have phrased "taken leave of their intelligence" better.

Say somebody believes that amethyst strengthens the endocrine and immune systems, or that Citrine can help with heart tissue regeneration, and makes these claims in the general medicine forum of SFN. They would immediately be asked to present evidence. Is that considered disrespectful or discourteous?

However, when you introduce beliefs that are based on religious faith or God, this process has to stop due to this largely political idea of ‘respecting the beliefs of others. Why? What gives these beliefs any special dispensation over any other beliefs?

The first is amenable to empirical study the second is not therein lies the difference.

 

As to the concept of "respecting the beliefs of others" especially if the belief is considered to be the result of an "active process of non-thought". Glider you are the psychologist not me but it has been my experience with people over the years that "not respecting the beliefs of others" is a small step from "not respecting the right of others to have differing beliefs". I find this to be true of any extremist, atheist or theist. Any extreme actually, it doesn't matter what topic.

This process of critical evaluation is not only acceptable, it is absolutely necessary. How else are we to progress as a species?

This is your belief and as to the physical sciences, I couldn't agree more. I just believe that there is another, direction(?) as well. The two are not incompatable one is physical and the other is philosophical, they are two distinct areas of thought and modes of thought.

You make it sound like the oceanographers were doing something wrong. Were they supposed to just believe whatever they were told? What about the 5,000 other things they're told on a regular basis that really do turn out to be utter nonsense?

Pangloss, yes they were doing something wrong. They were operating under two false assumptions. Firstly that there mathematical models were an accurate representation of reality regardless of evidence to the contrary and secondly that those who gave contradictory evidence were not reliable witnesses.

 

Strangely enough, when the QE2 comes to harbour with the bridge windows smashed in and the Captain and Officers describing a 95 foot wave doing the damage I would tend to believe them. Or you could go back to the "Michealangelo" in 1966, coming in with the aluminium plates ripped off her superstructure. This was clearly a case of holding on to a wrong theory in the face of contradictory evidence. We aren't talking about weekend sailors claiming they saw a mermaid here, we are talking about highly trained professional people returning to port with damaged vessels. The only way anyone could possibly have held to the old theory for so long is by ignoring the evidence.

 

iNow, I agree we have no choice, but we should be aware of the filters, they colour what we read and hear. In this respect it is the second part of the filter that has the greater and more subtle effect and there is where I see a problem.

 

Pliny the Youngers rather accurate description of the pyroclastic flow that wiped out Herculeaneum was ignored by Vulcanologists because he was a roman, and let's face it, they were just superstitious primitives at heart, weren't they? They had a plethora of Gods, so of course they couldn't accurately describe what they were seeing. It is the second part of the filter that allows us to easily dismiss evidence we don't agree with and provides us with a good excuse to do so.

 

When people hear the word "faith", they only think of one thing and this is unfortunate. For example I have faith that one day mankind will go to the stars. I'm well aware that the Laws of Physics as we curently understand them preclude FTL travel and that I have no factual basis for this belief. I have faith that one day, someone, somewhere, somehow will know enough and want to go enough that they will find a way. It may not be for a thousand years but one day it will happen. The only thing I know is that the way will not be found by a person who is sure it can't be done.

 

Don't write off faith as useless, it somtimes let's us dream of what could be if we have faith in ourselves.