"Faith Seeking Understanding"
Anselm said his was a "faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum). I've said from the beginning that it's not about intelligence, it's not even always about being educated. It's about seeing things differently. It's about control beliefs.
Just like Anselm's Ontological Argument proceeded out of a desire to make sense of a faith he already had, so Christians argue from the same desire. All of your arguments are nothing more than rationally defending something you came to believe initially for less than adequate reasons. Most of you learned to believe before you even heard of any sophisticated argument for God's existence, or could defend the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But when you heard these arguments they confirmed what you needed to believe.
The control beliefs you adopted from that initial conversion experience led you to see all available evidence through the lens of those glasses. Now it's time to grow up and realize that the initial reasons you had for believing in the first place were inadequate.
Many Christians remind me of followers of Zeus who swore by the prophecies that purportedly came from him through the priests. There would be nothing I could say to change their minds...nothing. It's because the control beliefs they adopted from their culture and upbringing made them see the world that way.
Christians would be arguing for Mormonism to this day if they were raised to be a Mormon. Admit it. Be honest.
Christians would be arguing for Islam to this day if they were raised to be a Muslim. Admit it. Be honest.
Therefore the default position is agnosticism ("we don't know"). We must all admit this. Anyone moving off the default position has the burden of proof. The larger the knowledge claim is when moving off that initial position, then the more unlikely that claim becomes. The smaller the knowledge claim is when moving off the default position, then the more likely it becomes.
What's there not to understand about this?
Just like Anselm's Ontological Argument proceeded out of a desire to make sense of a faith he already had, so Christians argue from the same desire. All of your arguments are nothing more than rationally defending something you came to believe initially for less than adequate reasons. Most of you learned to believe before you even heard of any sophisticated argument for God's existence, or could defend the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. But when you heard these arguments they confirmed what you needed to believe.
The control beliefs you adopted from that initial conversion experience led you to see all available evidence through the lens of those glasses. Now it's time to grow up and realize that the initial reasons you had for believing in the first place were inadequate.
Many Christians remind me of followers of Zeus who swore by the prophecies that purportedly came from him through the priests. There would be nothing I could say to change their minds...nothing. It's because the control beliefs they adopted from their culture and upbringing made them see the world that way.
Christians would be arguing for Mormonism to this day if they were raised to be a Mormon. Admit it. Be honest.
Christians would be arguing for Islam to this day if they were raised to be a Muslim. Admit it. Be honest.
Therefore the default position is agnosticism ("we don't know"). We must all admit this. Anyone moving off the default position has the burden of proof. The larger the knowledge claim is when moving off that initial position, then the more unlikely that claim becomes. The smaller the knowledge claim is when moving off the default position, then the more likely it becomes.
What's there not to understand about this?
17 comments:
Very interesting indeed John.
"All of your arguments are nothing more than rationally defending something you came to believe initially for less than adequate reasons."
Does this hold true if you were taught by your parents who had already passed beyond the less than adequate reasons?
I read an article in Scientific American about us being hardwired to believe. While this isn't conclusive it is something that challenges your default position idea. If we are "hardwired" to believe that changes the default position. I think actually your idea about us believing what we do based on when and where we are born is better than agnostic being our default position, but that's my opinion.
"The smaller the knowledge claim is when moving off the default position, then the more likely it becomes.
What's there not to understand about this?"
The fact that it's patently false? I could be missing something, but, for example, if I make the claim, "I know a person named Gavin", it's not a very big claim. I'd say it's very small. But that doesn't have any implication as to whether or not it's true or false. I understand that what you wrote was written in a different context, and was probably intended to be more specifically relating to "knowledge about god", but the way that whole paragraph was worded after the first sentence seemed flawed.
Sorry if I'm just being nit-picky. I certainly agree with the rest of this post.
John, great post. From my experience, and from observing others go through similar gyrations, I would say that the Christian mantra should read "faith seeking justification." Belief definitely comes before reason in most, and reason is used or even exploited as a means to justify the belief. That is why we see so many believers twisting and distorting the reasoning process - so that they can get to the desired outcome, not the logical one. And, I think, it is why we see them resorting to insulting comments and then "well, if you really knew God" type arguments. They claim that our unbelief clouds our understanding. I would say our unbelief removes our need for justification. Again, great post!
K. Szklenski, when I wrote what I said above I knew that it was false in general terms, yes. But when it comes to differences between religious views when there is no mutually agreed upon reliable test to decide between alternatives, I think what I said is definitely true. It depends on the case, and I think this is the case. At the very least, the larger the claim then the harder it is to defend, while the smaller the claim the easier it is to defend. And if this is true in this case then I rest my case.
Rich said...Does this hold true if you were taught by your parents who had already passed beyond the less than adequate reasons?
How would you know as a child that they did?
Brother Crow said...I would say that the Christian mantra should read "faith seeking justification."
Yes. Yes! YES!
What always amazes me about religious people is how you could believe that the unknowable could be known!?
But religious people of course aren't really renowned for coherence, logic and rationality ...
Ha, indeed Bro. Crow. I agree that it was a good post, of course, John. It just seemed misplaced. Not only that, but an apologist once tried to claim that, "There is no god" is a much bigger claim than, "There is a god", so the burden of proof is on anyone who claims there isn't. That bothered me, and I guess your post reminded me of it. I can see what you mean though by the bigger defense, certainly. I agree with that completely.
Last sunday I had the same "epiphany". A neighbor of mine decided to enlist himself on a project initiated by the executive comittee of the owners association. The iniatiative wasn't economically justified and those who enlisted are going to spend a lot of money without any advantage. I told him about my skepticism and seeing he didn't convince me it will be good for him he ended like this: "In the end I can blame the sheep-like mentality. I go where everybody else goes" (and that came from a fairly-intelligent person). People are hard-wired to believe and the truth is not of priority. That is what believer are not willing to accept, the fact that truth is not a priority for them but personal comfort. Every philosophical argument may work for a philosophical god and it doesn't work for the religious gods. The first cause argument for example accounts only for a first cause and not for a first cause that has a son, wrote the bible, send his son to die on a cross, organized the christian church using the help of a holy spirit, answers prayers to some while no the rest. And yet those who believe in the Bible use it to support their delusion. Religion is a bank where you start depositing money from the early age. No-one wants to hear that the bank is bankrupt but that the interest is increasing each year.
John,
Nice post. It goes very well with my previous commentary on belief itself not being a choice, primarily due to what you mention metaphorically - the belief conclusion depends on what type of "glasses" one is wearing when the evidence/information is presented. Our minds are loaded with filters and the like that are developed very early in childhood, and the way our minds "filter" information to "spit out" the resulting belief is involuntary.
Thanks for the post!
AC
There are two strands here that are intriguing to me. The first is: where is the burden of proof? It must lie with those who claim there is a god...for that is a conclusion drawn from something (but not from evidence).
The other strand, and one more interesting to me, is: hard-wired for belief. I agree, but why? Years ago, read a book called "Distance Haze" about the study of the hypothalmus and its effect on the the brains capacity to make intuitive leaps and experience "numinosity." A central idea was that - as infants - we are born as blank slates. Two things happen: we experience a fully formed world that is baffling and unknowable to us (at that moment), and (most of us) experience nurturing "others", i.e., parents.
The result is a template created in our psyche that is "god-shaped." Mystery (awaiting revelation) and the Big Nurturing Other. As we grow, that template is written upon, shapes our interpretation of life, etc.
Our genetic code may be a factor, but our first few moments of life (and perhaps even in utero) are key. Religion is a system of delusion that pours into the template formed as infants.
People are NOT hardwired to 'beleive'. They are hardwired to attempt to explain things. To understand and seek to understand mroe and more. When they cannot explain things by logic and evidence, they are so driven to provide an explanation that they make up 'possible' things to fill in the gaps of explanation. Often the made up explanation includes some higher power, and that is a 'logical' attempt at a source of explanation, because if we can't understand it, it must be the result of something bigger and smarter than us. When our explanaiton includes some higher power, we call it religion and 'beleifs'. And as science explains those things that were previously 'explained' by 'religion', we modify the religion to move it into the realms yet unexplained by science. At some point, we ought to recognize this pattern and give up the need to explain the unexplainable with religion and just keep working to eventually explain it with science. Far better to say "I don't know" that to make up some supernatural explanation that we have to retreat from once science figures it out. But we are hardwired to avoid uncertainty and we are hardwired to seek explanation, so it is difficult to let an unexplaiend thing remain so.
People are NOT hardwired to 'beleive'. They are hardwired to attempt to explain things.
I think you go too far here. As far as I know, we do not yet know if belief had a selective advantage (Dennett has put forth an interesting hypothesis on the value of belief for placebo effect healing), so it may be that we are hardwired to believe in higher controlling intelligences. I certainly don't know, but remain open to the possibility of a previously evolutionarily useful lie.
The fact that it's patently false? I could be missing something, but, for example, if I make the claim, "I know a person named Gavin", it's not a very big claim. I'd say it's very small. But that doesn't have any implication as to whether or not it's true or false.
Actually, John is correct; given no further knowledge, claims that eliminate fewer possible scenarios are inherently more likely to be true than claims within the same category (or set) that are more exclusive. It's standard joint probability--the more uncertain conditions you place, the more improbable the event. If you claim "I know a person named Gavin", then given no other knowledge you are more likely correct than if you claimed "I know a person named Gavin who is a male Australian" which is more likely correct than "I know a male Australian named Gavin who was born in 1982."
Analogous to religion--if I claim that one or more gods exist, I am more likely to be correct than if I claim that exactly one god exists, which is more likely than one tri-omni God exists, which is more likely than one tri-omni and Trinitarian God named Yahweh, with properties A, B, and C.
Shygetz said......given no further knowledge, claims that eliminate fewer possible scenarios are inherently more likely to be true than claims within the same category (or set) that are more exclusive. It's standard joint probability--the more uncertain conditions you place, the more improbable the event.
Thanks Shygetz, very nicely said. I like how your scientific mind thinks and writes.
I read an article in Scientific American about us being hardwired to believe. While this isn't conclusive it is something that challenges your default position idea. If we are "hardwired" to believe that changes the default position. I think actually your idea about us believing what we do based on when and where we are born is better than agnostic being our default position, but that's my opinion.
A funny thing happens to children when they become 2-3 years old. They stop believing their parents are omniscient.
For example: children of various ages were given the following test.
Initially, both the child and their parents were placed in the room with a box of crackers. The box is opened, so both the child and parents see the crackers inside the box, and then closed. Then, one of the parents leaves the room. While the parent is absent, the remaining parent obviously replaces the crackers in the box with some other easily identifiable food, such as cookies or fruit. Then the parent who left returns to the room. Finally, the child is asked what the absent parent though the box of crackers now contains.
Younger children thought that the absent parent somehow knew the true contents of the box, while the older children thought the absent parent would have assumed the box still contained crackers.
As such, it appears that, before a certain age, children think their parents know things they couldn't possibly know. This is because they cannot yet 'project' their own experiences, such as their own limited knowledge, on to others. That is, they lack the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes.
Since children at this age lack complex reasoning skills, this would be very advantageous instinct for humans to exhibit as children would assume their parents were 'omniscient' and would be more likely to trust them. However, once the child grows older, They outgrow this instinct. They can observe how their parents respond in specific situations. They realize they are fallible, mortal beings, with finite knowledge. Just as they are.
But, unlike our parents (or the Greek Gods who lived on Mount Olympus), the Christian God is said to be invisible. He cannot be observed and his will is incomprehensible. This is by design.
Because if God were too well defined, we'd realize he is the product of fallible, mortal beings with finite knowledge. With wants and needs just like ours. And thus become a myth.
A funny thing happens to children when they become 2-3 years old. They stop believing their parents are omniscient.
And by the time they're teens they are omniscient!
Because if God were too well defined, we'd realize he is the product of fallible, mortal beings with finite knowledge. With wants and needs just like ours. And thus become a myth.
To me it seems like it should be the opposite. Although it would then fit nicely into Johns post and be harder to defend as a position. But I think it's easier to put God into the myth category by not defining what God is very well, and that makes God easier to defend because you can't say a whole lot about nothing.
John,
Very interesting blog. I must tell you that I am one of those irritating Christians who have been forced by a pursuit of truth to believe. I will tell you though that I feel a warm brotherhood with your little clan as I sense a real desire for the truth by the bloggers (perhaps an ontological nature of man to seek his Creator but that presupposes a trancendental creative being, sorry). I feel very at home with anyone pursuing the truth. I get more frustrated with Christians (or athiests, etc.)who just follow the party line.
More to the point of this specific blog. Your critism of is basically that man needs God for his psychological well-being therefore God doesn't exist. I will agree that many "use" Christianity for this reason but so does the atheist and agnostic. I think in modern society an intellectual person would be the most comfortable (perhaps that is my psychological bias)with being a staunch agnostic. I think that is is where most alleged Christians are by the way. If it makes you feel any better I don't think the level of true belief is that high today.
To summarize my feeling on these types of discussion I think it is a waste of time to make a statement like:
Historically most (Christians/athiests/agnostics)behaved in a certain manner therefore there position is wrong. One must argue from the philosophical grounding of what can be proven. (Doesn't mean I find fault with you getting together and complaining about the irritating habits of Christians. I would not want to restrict your enjoyment of one of lifes simple pleasures)
Is God physical or spiritual? If the latter than one must accept the limits of science to answer the question of God's existence. This may uncomfortable for the atheist and the theist but it avoids the silliness of using an impossible method to try to reason about the question.
Veritatis Splendor,
Tom Doud
Post a Comment