Even Arguing Against the Outsider Test for Faith Looks Bad

We abhor someone who is supposed to decide between two parties who also has a conflict of interest. That person could be a trustee of an estate, a judge, or a principal. We want a fair and impartial judgment. We want a fair ruling. So arguing against the Outsider Test for Faith is like arguing against a fair and impartial ruling. It is to argue against what is intuitively obvious to everyone else and consequently makes believers look very bad, because we abhor what they try to argue against. That is, even arguing against the OTF tells an outsider there is something badly wrong with the Christian faith. Good luck with that *cough*

59 comments:

brenda said...

Well that assumes that there is such a thing as someone who is fair and impartial about matters of religious faith. The assumption that "I alone am a fair and impartial judge" is itself a false ideology. It is a delusion to think that atheists are impartial and objective observers.

Should I marry my beloved? Is an objective observer really the best judge of whom I should love? Could it be that I am the only one who can judge my own heart?

From a purely fair and objective point of view why would anyone ever love another? Love is irrational, insane even. It can destroy you emotionally, physically, financially, and yet love is the greatest thing of which humans are capable. The outsider test for love destroys love.

What is the outsider test for atheism?

Anonymous said...

Hi Brenda, so, for you the goal of impartiality isn't a good thing?

As for atheists click here.

Brad Haggard said...

I think that you've built up a huge wall around your pet argument with this, John,

Maybe you need to submit the OTF to the Outsider Test for Arguments.

Anonymous said...

So Brad, you want me to be fair about fairness, objective about being objective? Okay. I think I am.

What's the alternative?

brenda said...

"so, for you the goal of impartiality isn't a good thing?"

My argument would be that there are domains where impartiality is inappropriate. Matters of love for example. This suggests to me that perhaps religion also falls into this category.

A good deal of the religious literature equates religious faith to romantic love. The poet Rumi springs to mind but there are Western examples too. Faith is often equated with love, or even the sheer capacity for love.

Perhaps you should read a little Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky and perhaps not on your own since people are rarely able to engage a vast tradition with their own resources.

I still wonder what the outsider test for atheism is. One that is neither theist nor atheist. I think that is the general project that I am engaged in.

Brad Haggard said...

I don't think you're being fair. I think you've built up some of the cognitive biases to responses that you use to construct the original argument. You can't see, of course, because it's part of your "cognitive lens" now.

Brad Haggard said...

Honestly, how can you try to poison the well by asserting that even arguing against the OTF "looks bad"? You honestly don't think that statement reflects back more on your position?

Anonymous said...

Brad, agnosticism is the default position as I've said. Come then and join us atheists and agnostics at our next meeting.

Brad said: Faith is often equated with love, or even the sheer capacity for love.

Yep, that's exactly what a Muslim would say. You don't even see this do you? For you, everything is interpreted by the lens of your faith without realizing how lame such statements are to outsiders like YOU when a Muslim would say the same things!

Anonymous said...

Brad, it DOES look bad. To argue against being fair doesn't make the person who argues this way look good, does it? How can it?

brenda said...

How is fairness or objectivity possible? Everyone has their own biases, their own point of view, from which they view the world. It is impossible *not* to be biased.

The only solution that I'm aware of is you create a system for inquiry. Basically you just talk to other people. Science is a collective effort. The same is true in the humanities though the method is a bit different.

Dialog with those who don't think as you do is critical. One would think that would be obvious but sometimes sides get entrenched. It's important to be open to criticism too.

Brad Haggard said...

John, to be clear, I'm not arguing against striving to be objective (though the kind you promote is unrealistic, and you know it). I'm more concerned with your assertion that you can only be objective if you reject your original position. That is begging the question, which you also already know.

The fact that you try to poison the well for the OTF before any response shows me that you have clear attachments to the argument (for obvious reasons).

brenda said...

"Brad said: Faith is often equated with love, or even the sheer capacity for love."

Actually I said that and I'm not Muslim nor is it exclusively an Islamic thing. A good deal of the Western literature on faith also draws similarities between faith and love.

Nuns wear wedding rings ya know.

Brad Haggard said...

With that said, if I were around and had time, I wouldn't mind meeting anyone in your group. But that's what the interwebs are for, isn't it?

Jim said...

Brenda,

You cling to your faith with too much emotion--thus your attempt to introduce the concept of "love" in a discussion of rationality.

Love is an emotion. It concerns likes and dislikes, wants and aversions. It does NOT concern propositional truths.

You want faith to be like love--something you like and that has yielded wonderful things in your life. Love is neither rational nor irrational, but the use of "love" as a tool to draw comparisons with faith is truly irrational.

By the way, who says love is the "greatest thing of which humans are capable?" You wouldn't be trying to make an even stronger subliminal case that "faith is the greatest thing of which humans are capable?" Would you?

The assumption "I alone am a fair and impartial judge" is absolutely true for those things that concern me. I can't judge what is good evidence for you to believe in any particular god, but when atheists look around and see so many different fervent followers of different gods, we objectively know that the vast majority of you are deluded for the simple fact that you all can't be right.

And as a fair and impartial judge of what I believe in, no one has produced sufficient evidence for any faith system, so far.

Anonymous said...

Okay Brenda, (pardon earlier) you said, "It is impossible *not* to be biased."

I agree of course. That's the whole reason for the OTF.

Why do you kick against the goads?

brenda said...

"The fact that you try to poison the well "

I don't think he's trying to poison the well. I think that in matters of fact one should be objective. I just am not convinced that religion is a question of fact. It's not a scientific question even though atheists and fundamentalists try to make it into one.

I'm agnostic but if I were to be a believer I would be an existentialist Christian. Which is a radically different worldview than most of today's atheists or fundamentalist believers have.

brenda said...

Jim said
"You cling to your faith with too much emotion--thus your attempt to introduce the concept of "love" in a discussion of rationality."

I'm agnostic. Religion is not a scientific question but I do consider that the capacity for love, or for faith, is humanity's greatest gift.

"the use of "love" as a tool to draw comparisons with faith is truly irrational."

You need to argue for that.

"You wouldn't be trying to make an even stronger subliminal case that "faith is the greatest thing of which humans are capable?" Would you?"

I'll make that explicit. The capacity for faith is what separates us from lower animals. I'll also define faith for you: Faith is the capacity to take the lack of evidence for a thing as the very reason that it must be so.

This move isn't even original with me. I've borrowed it from an atheist that I admire (yes, there are those I do admire).

Love is really a kind of faith. It is a leap in the dark.

"we objectively know that the vast majority of you are deluded for the simple fact that you all can't be right."

It's not about getting the facts right. You are asking the wrong questions.

Rhacodactylus said...

Brenda, I just have to say that regardless of the possibility of perfect objectivity or fairness, it seems to me that we should strive for it.

In much the same way I will probably never be the richest man alive, but I continue to go to work.

~Rhaco

ahswan said...

"The assumption "I alone am a fair and impartial judge" is absolutely true for those things that concern me."

Jim,

You are making a case for subjective objectivity? How postmodern can you get?

ildi said...

The capacity for faith is what separates us from lower animals.

No, the ability to intentionally transmit culture and generalize knowledge from the specific instance to that which is teachable, and then intentionally give that knowledge to another person across time and space is what separates us from the 'lower' animals.

Faith is the capacity to take the lack of evidence for a thing as the very reason that it must be so.

lol, I'll bet that atheist meant this as a snarky definition...

Anonymous said...

Brenda: "Religion is not a scientific question."

Correct. Religion is a set of practices. Service and worship. Conformity. A system of beliefs.

So not only is religion not a scientific question, it's not a question at all. It's a description of actions.

Moving ahead with that in mind, the hypothesis that a God exists is a scientific question. Science is about understanding the truth in our existence. If it is true that there is a god, then the search for the god is indeed scientific.

As for the OTF, I do think it's the most fair way I can think of to decide which religion is the most ACCURATE. Which is what we are talking about here. I don't believe John is saying to take the OTF to see if your religion is really the right one for you based off your personal preferences, much like love is.

Brad Haggard said...

Brenda,

I'm using "poison the well" technically to mean that John is trying to ward off any response to his OTF by claiming that merely arguing against it looks bad.

I think perhaps another way to look at this would be to look at how John is defining "objective". In an earlier post John said that in order to "pass" the OTF you had to assume that your faith was false and then see if the evidence still convinces you. That doesn't sound like "objective" to me. I would define objective in relation to an inquiry as being open, thorough, and balanced. If that is the intellectual virtue behind the OTF, then I have no objection to it. But if it requires a prior assumption or unrealistic cognitive leap, then I think it fails as a serious contribution to learning.

Brad Haggard said...

Jim,

You said: The assumption "I alone am a fair and impartial judge" is absolutely true for those things that concern me. I can't judge what is good evidence for you to believe in any particular god, but when atheists look around and see so many different fervent followers of different gods, we objectively know that the vast majority of you are deluded for the simple fact that you all can't be right.

So is your knowledge subjective or objective?

Anonymous said...

So Brad, you want to be objective and fair, eh? Really?

jwhendy said...

While I can see the tendency to simply dismiss even the possibility of being impartial/fair... even being willing to find out that the faith was entirely wrong is a big step.

I honestly don't think there's much of a choice involved. I surely heard at least some of the same arguments that eventually caused my current state of doubt/agnosticism when I was a believer and simply dismissed them, proposed a counter-argument, or deferred to a higher authority.

In none of those actions, however, would I have actually thought I might be wrong.

This is what I encounter almost daily in my circle of friends who are all still believers. I have not encountered even one who wants to know what I've learned from the point of wondering if there's anything to it. Instead they only want to inform me that I'm wrong, the authors I read are wrong, my objections are nonsense, I'm close-minded, etc.

Where I see merit in the OTF is that it encourages a virtue we see as valuable in other domains. We laud the occasion when someone is able to say that they approached a field of study openly, considered both sides, and after heavy research and cross-examination, they came to conclusion X. We at least laud it over someone who says that their defense is all from one side of the argument, or that they've simply "been born into it" and thus they just do what they've been taught to do, or anything like that.

When it comes to religion, however, I see a contradiction: on one hand we still laud those we think of as well researched and versed in the literature who have come out in favor of belief. We don't, however, encourage believers to attempt anything like the OTF, to read atheistic books, to really "simmer" in the heart of doubt to learn about it, etc.

This, at least, is my perspective. No one has encouraged me to read any of the skeptical books on my LIST; I've only been told that I should "have faith seeking understanding" or talk to believer X or read apologetic book Y.

In closing, think of it this way: in theory, believers would value quite highly someone who could boast of having taken the OTF perfectly and discovered that god is real and Jesus is Lord. In practice, however, we dissuade as emphatically as possible anyone from actually doing what would be necessary to embark on the OTF.

One last question: if others agree when I say that the OTF is valued in other (perhaps "secular") areas (people who have performed an unbiased delving-into of a given topic and resulted at a conclusion), why is it so discouraged from being performed in the area of religion? Why the discontinuity?

Steven said...

Brad,

Being charitable, I think you are either misquoting or misinterpreting John's position. John has repeatedly made it clear that the default position should be one of agnosticism. It does not follow from that position that you must assume that your faith is false. The agnostic position does entail that you should step back and presume that your faith could be true or false.

If I were less charitable, I would accuse you of quote mining, because it is pretty clear that you're misrepresenting what the OTF suggests.

Now, if you want to argue about anyone's ability to be truly agnostic, then make that argument. That is not an unreasonable objection (although there are good responses to it), and that seems to be the argument that you really want to make. However, you seem to keep getting sidetracked and attacking strawmen rather than addressing the actual argument. In this sense, the objection you're raising here really does look bad.

To me, you seem to be focused more on avoiding the issues raised by John and shooting the messenger rather than actually engaging any real issues the OTF may have.

Brad Haggard said...

Steven,

So I don't get accused of quote-mining, you can read the quote in context here: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-does-it-mean-to-take-and-pass-otf.html

John,

I don't think you answered Randal's objections very well. You're not arguing for objectivity, you're arguing for a flippant skepticism. Now it is true that many religious believers flippantly reject other faiths, and that is what you are trying to build on, but that certainly isn't an intellectual virtue. It's more of an excuse to not look seriously at the arguments (in detail, not only on the macro-level).

But the other point I'm trying to bring out is that, by this logic, you are not an impartial judge when it comes to defending the OTF. You have a stake in the outcome because this could be your unique contribution to philosophy of religion. So should you recuse yourself for the sake of objectivity? The answer is obviously no.

The answer to gullibility in intellectual pursuit is a commitment to detail and rigor, not to promote skepticism by itself.

Anonymous said...

Brad said, "It's more of an excuse to not look seriously at the arguments (in detail, not only on the macro-level)."

Nice to know you can psycho-analyze me. If that's what it takes to defend your faith I can't stop you. But where did you get your degree, how long have you been practicing, and when did you and I ever sit down for a few sessions? ;-)

Brad again: But the other point I'm trying to bring out is that, by this logic, you are not an impartial judge when it comes to defending the OTF.

Silly Brad, the sciences more than show this is what is needed to come to the truth. I am definitely partial to the sciences because they are the best and only guide to truth give the fact that we're not impartial about anything else.

Steven said...

Brad,

I'm afraid that I have to consider your interpretation of John's words in that context to be misleading. At the end there, John is suggesting one means of taking the OTF, but he did not say that you *have* to outright reject your faith to take the OTF.

The entire posting is a strong argument for being skeptical though and John's final words in that posting are clearly targeted within that context. It is borderline quote mining with the intent to muddy the waters via a red herring.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Steven, you're right. There are so many objections and so little time.

Anonymous said...

All of what Brad has thrown up has confirmed what I wrote that started this discussion.

Lets' say the Christian Faith passed the OTF with flying colors, okay? Then Christians would be pressing that case at every step along the way. You KNOW this is what you'd do. You know it. So they very fact that you object to it is an admission it doesn't even though it should

Chuck said...

I really don't understand the opposition to the OTF. I know when I was a believer I held a set of implicit criteria that made me not a Muslim, Mormon, or Roman Catholic. The test asked me to consider those criteria, make them explicit and see if my faith measured against them. It didn't. Pretty simple. Brenda, your objections indicate you don't understand the OTF. It is not the outsider's judgement of your belief you need to concern yourself with but your operation as an outsider to other cultures. You then become conscious of what defines your outsider status to these other cultures and apply that as at test to your culture. And if you are agnostic as you say then why are you even commenting against the OTF. John considers the agnostic position the default setting with the OTF.

Brad, you've admitted to me that you did apply the OTF and abandoned your prior form of christianity with one that has less cognitive dissonance.

What makes this new form worthy of the assertions christianity demands? Does it pass the test against which you abandoned your prior form?

I don't see it as all that difficult.

brenda said...

ildi said...
"No, the ability to intentionally transmit culture and generalize knowledge from the specific instance to that which is teachable" is what separate humans from other animals.

Not true. Apes and some other primates have culturally transmitted behaviors and a body of knowledge that is taught to succeeding generations. Culture is not unique to humans. Neither is language.

"I'll bet that atheist meant this as a snarky definition..."

No he didn't. That's because he is not a child. He's a respected University professor.

---------
magnumdb said...
"the hypothesis that a God exists is a scientific question."

God is not a hypothesis.

"Science is about understanding the truth in our existence."

Science is about discovering facts. Philosophy and religion are about values. These are two different spheres. Science cannot and never will be able to fix what one's values ought to be. At best science can only tell you what the consequences of doing X will be. Not whether or not one ought to do X.

brenda said...

Hendy said...
"One last question: if others agree when I say that the OTF is valued in other (perhaps "secular") areas (people who have performed an unbiased delving-into of a given topic and resulted at a conclusion), why is it so discouraged from being performed in the area of religion?"

I have not been to one but I imagine in the better seminaries this is exactly what they do. It is also the model for scholarly inquiry. Basically as an academic what one does is to engage the tradition and consider all points of view and participate within a community of other scholars.

Guess what? Not everyone who does so becomes an atheist. Q'uelle suprise.

As I understand it the outside test is "What if you are wrong?" Good question. Would that more atheists also asked themselves that.

Questions that I'd like atheists to ask themselves:

What if my picture of religion isn't accurate?
What if the world isn't divided into belief vs non-belief?
What if the scientific method isn't the only way to justified true belief?
What if neither religion nor atheism are true?

What if most people simply cannot live without some kind of religious faith?

Brad Haggard said...

John,

I don't know why you always think I'm trying to psycho-analyze you. But I do think that "specializing" in "big picture" issues is kind of an oxymoron, and that's what you envision the OTF doing.

Second, when you first posted on the OTF, a number of Christians, myself included agreed with it, saying that we had "passed" the test. You then moved the goalposts of the argument, claiming that we only can say that because we were brainwashed.

(BTW, DM is reeeeaaallllyyy annoying when I'm subscribed to a thread here.)

Steve,

I can hear skeptics now complaining that you are claiming "context" to support your interpretation of John's words.

Brad Haggard said...

Chuck, you're right, and in my post above you can see why I'm annoyed at all of the OTF posts on here lately. Mostly I had to identify what was good and important theology and chuck (no pun intended) the bad stuff.

Brad Haggard said...

BTW, Steven, I think John's words were "assume it is false", not "reject your faith", which is exactly what I was objecting to.

If you already assume something, then it is easy to produce ad-hoc reasons to support that assumption. Which is why the OTF, so formulated, begs the question.

brenda said...

Chuck O'Connor said...
"Brenda, your objections indicate you don't understand the OTF. It is not the outsider's judgement of your belief you need to concern yourself with but your operation as an outsider to other cultures."

I consider myself an outsider to the New Atheist culture and to religious fundamentalist culture. If I had to define myself I would probably most identify with Slavoj Žižek.

Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Thinks About Islam, Christianity, G.K. Chesterton, the Book of Job, and the Limits of Atheist Materialism

"And if you are agnostic as you say then why are you even commenting against the OTF"

I'm not.

Steven said...

Brad,

I can hear skeptics now complaining that you are claiming "context" to support your interpretation of John's words.

Except that John just explicitly agreed that I was right.

Like I said, Brad. I think that somewhere in your postings about the OTF there is a serious argument trying to get out, and I think I know what that argument is (I don't agree with it, but that is a separate issue). You keep focusing on small details that are easily elided away and miss the larger point that the OTF tries to make.

If you already assume something, then it is easy to produce ad-hoc reasons to support that assumption.

Of course, Brad! And those ad-hoc reasons are subject to the same level of skepticism as those that are produced in assuming the opposite position. That's where the evaluative process inherent in the OTF comes into play in the first place! I fail to see how that is circular. All I see it doing is forcing the person employing the OTF to evaluate two (or more) sets of premises and then determining which set make the most probable case.

Steven said...

Ok Brenda, I'll bite.

God is not a hypothesis.

I don't think that statement is entirely defensible, Brenda. Most religions definitely posit the existence of God in such a way that treating it as a hypothesis is entirely warranted. You probably can define God in some fuzzy way to avoid that, but then you are probably engaging in sophistry or pure mysticism at that point.

Science is about discovering facts.

Well, yes, but that's a pretty simplistic definition. There really is a lot more to it than that. The conclusions and implications that arise from those facts and theories range far and wide and have an extremely broad impact. That's like saying religion is only about God and leaving it at that.

Philosophy and religion are about values These are two different spheres.

Uh, no. Philosophy and religion are about a lot more than just values. Superficially, you might make an argument that religion is an attempt to spread and enforce certain values, but it does a poor job of explaining why somethings have value.

Science cannot and never will be able to fix what one's values ought to be. At best science can only tell you what the consequences of doing X will be. Not whether or not one ought to do X.

I'll agree with you there, although I don't think this assertion is as clear-cut as you seem to.

brenda said...

Steven said...
"Most religions definitely posit the existence of God in such a way that treating it as a hypothesis is entirely warranted."

Argument from popularity. I could care less what most religions think.

"The conclusions and implications that arise from those facts and theories range far and wide and have an extremely broad impact."

They only have a broad impact within a narrow range. I am very grateful that I was born in the 20th century but I do at times wonder if I wouldn't have been more fulfilled and alive as a human being in some other time.

Which would you choose, to be one of Na'vi from Avatar, someone fully integrated with their life world, or one of the humans from 22nd century Earth, "a dystopian, overpopulated global urban slum wrecked by corrupt, nature-destroying industrialism"?

Science isn't going to save you from yourselves.

"Superficially, you might make an argument that religion is an attempt to spread and enforce certain values, but it does a poor job of explaining why somethings have value."

What religion, as opposed to philosophy, is about is suppressing one's own desires for a greater good. That is it's power and any religion will crush non belief because they will always have the collective will that you lack.

Heidegger attempted to address the problems of modernity, the alienation from nature, society and ultimately oneself, but I don't don't think his solution was satisfactory. But still, just about anything is preferable to the abject denial that there is a problem that is modern atheism's response.

But.... you don't even know what I'm talking about do you. Most atheists I've met online are just ignorant geeks who think because they can successfully debate creationists living in a trailer in Alabama that that transforms their BA in science into a PhD in the humanities.

Steven said...

And Brenda,

As for your questions:

What if my picture of religion isn't accurate?

What? Religion doesn't even have an accurate picture of itself and it never has. That's precisely the problem I have with it. A billion voices all saying a billion different things, and all of them claiming to be right. Oh wait, now you're going to tell me that religion isn't about being right, even though the vast majority of religions threaten dire consequences if you don't believe in them. I know where you're trying to go with that question Brenda and it's the road to an unjustifiable mysticism.

What if the world isn't divided into belief vs non-belief?

Uh, most of the time, it isn't divided in this way. But we all too often find ourselves in situations where the belief/non-belief gap puts people into conflict (and that's ignoring the often more serious conflicts between different believers).

In the end though, the problem really isn't belief vs. non belief at all, the problem is that belief all too often results in people making bad decisions because their particular belief prevented them from fully assessing the situation they found themselves in. Of course, I'm not saying that non-belief is always going to lead to perfect decisions, that simply isn't true. But you need look no further than the largely falsified dogma promoted by the misnamed tea party movement to see how damaging systematic belief can be.

What if the scientific method isn't the only way to justified true belief?

Well, what is this other way, then? Please elaborate. If you think that we atheists are obsessively sticking to the scientific method without good reason, then you are wrong. A lot of people would certainly welcome such a thing, especially if it could be shown to be more reliable.


What if neither religion nor atheism are true?

You really don't understand atheism if you're asking that question, and you're arrogant as well to believe that we haven't thought about this. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that all religions are false (an evidence based conclusion based on the claims made by the people who practice religion) while also being agnostic about the possibility that there still could be a god of some kind that nobody really knows anything about. Ever hear of deism or pantheism? I think it is highly unlikely, but if there is a god of some sort, the deists or pantheists are the ones that are most likely to be right.

What if most people simply cannot live without some kind of religious faith?

Well, that would be pretty sad, but it doesn't appear to be true. There's pretty good empirical evidence that suggests that the degree to which people are attached to their faith is correlated with education level *and* economic success/stability. The number of people professing faith in northern European countries has been dropping precipitously for years, to the point where most people in those societies aren't religious and unsurprisingly, those societies aren't falling apart as a result. Now, the above facts doesn't necessarily refute the point of your question, but in light of them, I would then ask the counter question, what if most people, once they do reach a certain economic and education level don't need faith anymore?

One of the more amusing anecdotes that speaks to this issue was where Oprah Winfrey went to Denmark (I think) and while talking to a group of women there, Oprah asked them about faith. All the women were kind of surprised by the question, and basically said faith wasn't relevant in their lives, and Oprah kind of freaked out about it. It was pretty funny actually.

Steven said...

Brenda,

Argument from popularity. I could care less what most religions think.

Irony meter pegged. First you ask atheists to consider whether their picture of religion is accurate, and then you say you don't care what other religions say. Maybe you need to answer this question for yourself? If I'm committing an argumentum ad populum fallacy, then your question has to be incoherent from the very start. If I'm trying to develop an accurate picture of religion, should I not turn to religion in the first place to try and develop that picture? Or is your picture of faith the only one that is accurate? Didn't I just say something about billions of voices?

They only have a broad impact within a narrow range.

Care to elaborate on that?

I am very grateful that I was born in the 20th century but I do at times wonder if I wouldn't have been more fulfilled and alive as a human being in some other time.

Ah yes, that's all very romantic, but I think you're just suffering from a case of thinking that the grass is greener elsewhere. My family has kept a pretty thorough history of itself going back over 200 years and it includes both the good and the bad. I can assure you that such pastoral dreams really are more romantic fantasy than reality. Now, I'm not saying that people couldn't lead fulfilling lives, but life was all too often thrust upon them without them having much say in what they did or did not find fulfilling, which isn't all that different from the way things are today in many respects.

Modernism has its problems to be sure, but you don't have to study much history to find plenty of people who toiled away in unfulfilling professions with dysfunctional and oppressive families, even in rural, preindustrial society.

Which would you choose, to be one of Na'vi from Avatar, someone fully integrated with their life world, or one of the humans from 22nd century Earth, "a dystopian, overpopulated global urban slum wrecked by corrupt, nature-destroying industrialism"?

A false dichotomy. I would choose neither. The interconnectedness of the Na'vi society, while very interesting, was also quite brutish. I will grant that they might, hypothetically, be better able to deal with the pain in their lives as a result of their interconnected natures. However, while they would seem to have a greater sense of connectedness between themselves and their world than their antagonists, it is not at all obvious that they had any better sense of who they were, where they came from, or where they were going. And as for the dystopian humans, even you have to admit that things don't have to turn out that way, and we have no idea how future events will affect that outcome.

Science isn't going to save you from yourselves.

Neither will ignorance, arrogance, or an over inflated sense of self.

What religion, as opposed to philosophy, is about is suppressing one's own desires for a greater good.

No, that's ethics. Religion is about telling you what desires you should suppress for the greater good authoritatively without ever considering whether it makes sense within the context that the decision is being made. Now, some of that morality has a measure of collective wisdom embedded within it, but once it turns authoritative, the collective wisdom is lost.

That is it's power and any religion will crush non belief because they will always have the collective will that you lack.

Tell that to the crumbling secular societies in northwestern Europe. Oh, wait, they're not crumbling, and they have a strong collective will to support each other, and it's not faith based! What did you just say again?

Steven said...

and on a final note:

Heidegger attempted to address the problems of modernity, the alienation from nature, society and ultimately oneself, but I don't don't think his solution was satisfactory. But still, just about anything is preferable to the abject denial that there is a problem that is modern atheism's response.

Why even bring up Heidegger in the first place? Just go straight for Coleridge and Wordsworth, that's where you're headed anyway. Oh, but I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about do you? I may be a science geek, but my studies have not been as narrow or insular as you so arrogantly assume. However, I do get the strong impression that your studies have been narrow and insular. Back at you, Brenda, as far as I can tell, you've got yourself some sort of humanities degree and you're turning that into a PhD in critical thinking. You've just made a giant ass of yourself, Brenda.

Steven said...

Ugh, foiled by the comment length limits!

Brenda,

Argument from popularity. I could care less what most religions think.

Irony meter pegged. First you ask atheists to consider whether their picture of religion is accurate, and then you say you don't care what other religions say. Maybe you need to answer this question for yourself? If I'm committing an argumentum ad populum fallacy, then your question has to be incoherent from the very start. If I'm trying to develop an accurate picture of religion, should I not turn to religion in the first place to try and develop that picture? Or is your picture of faith the only one that is accurate? Didn't I just say something about billions of voices?

They only have a broad impact within a narrow range.

Care to elaborate on that?

I am very grateful that I was born in the 20th century but I do at times wonder if I wouldn't have been more fulfilled and alive as a human being in some other time.

Ah yes, that's all very romantic, but I think you're just suffering from a case of thinking that the grass is greener elsewhere. My family has kept a pretty thorough history of itself going back over 200 years and it includes both the good and the bad. I can assure you that such pastoral dreams really are more romantic fantasy than reality. Now, I'm not saying that people couldn't lead fulfilling lives, but life was all too often thrust upon them without them having much say in what they did or did not find fulfilling, which isn't all that different from the way things are today in many respects.

Modernism has its problems to be sure, but you don't have to study much history to find plenty of people who toiled away in unfulfilling professions with dysfunctional and oppressive families, even in rural, preindustrial society.

Steven said...

Which would you choose, to be one of Na'vi from Avatar, someone fully integrated with their life world, or one of the humans from 22nd century Earth, "a dystopian, overpopulated global urban slum wrecked by corrupt, nature-destroying industrialism"?

A false dichotomy. I would choose neither. The interconnectedness of the Na'vi society, while very interesting, was also quite brutish. I will grant that they might, hypothetically, be better able to deal with the pain in their lives as a result of their interconnected natures. However, while they would seem to have a greater sense of connectedness between themselves and their world than their antagonists, it is not at all obvious that they had any better sense of who they were, where they came from, or where they were going. And as for the dystopian humans, even you have to admit that things don't have to turn out that way, and we have no idea how future events will affect that outcome.

Science isn't going to save you from yourselves.

Neither will ignorance, arrogance, or an over inflated sense of self.

What religion, as opposed to philosophy, is about is suppressing one's own desires for a greater good.

No, that's ethics. Religion is about telling you what desires you should suppress for the greater good authoritatively without ever considering whether it makes sense within the context that the decision is being made. Now, some of that morality has a measure of collective wisdom embedded within it, but once it turns authoritative, the collective wisdom is lost.

That is it's power and any religion will crush non belief because they will always have the collective will that you lack.

Tell that to the crumbling secular societies in northwestern Europe. Oh, wait, they're not crumbling, and they have a strong collective will to support each other, and it's not faith based! What did you just say again?

Paul Rinzler said...

Brenda wrote: I'll also define faith for you: Faith is the capacity to take the lack of evidence for a thing as the very reason that it must be so.

Been around homeopathy much?

By your logic, if a thing had a *lot* of evidence for it, we shouldn't believe it was so.

Gasp.

XAtheistX said...

hiya John. I found a blog that did just this. Looking 'bad.' I don't think his arguments are well thought out at all. What is your opinion?

http://christthetao.blogspot.com/2010/09/outsider-test-for-faith-why-john-loftus.html#

brenda said...

Steve said a whole buch of stuff I can't possibly respond to but:
"the problem is that belief all too often results in people making bad decisions because their particular belief prevented them from fully assessing the situation they found themselves in."

Sure but that doesn't always matter that much. Whether or not the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around doesn't affect your ability to survive. The world is very forgiving like that but the important parts, the 'how to get along and form a stable community' part. That *is* important and in that respect I think that religion, broadly conceived, will outlast atheism every time.

The reason is, I believe, because atheism encourages people to be self centered, angry and anti-social. You can't build community with atheism therefore atheism will always be parasitic on whatever community it finds itself in. Or, when atheism does attain some political power, it needs to become totalitarian in order to enforce the social order.

With religion the social order flows bottom up, from individual persons who through their collective intentionality build community. With atheism social order comes from the top down and quickly becomes authoritarian in order to maintain social cohesion.

"The number of people professing faith in northern European countries has been dropping precipitously for years, [...] and unsurprisingly, those societies aren't falling apart as a result."

I bet that you agree with Thomas Jefferson that Unitarianism would soon become the religion of a majority of Americans because of its rational and democratic nature.

The belief that rationalism will lead us all to a secular utopia is a common atheist delusion. The corollary, that the EU is ahead of us on the path to our grand rationalist utopia, is the second great atheist delusion.

Your view of human nature is glib and superficial if you think that.

brenda said...

Paul Rinzler said...
"Been around homeopathy much?

By your logic, if a thing had a *lot* of evidence for it, we shouldn't believe it was so.


Homeopathy, like Christian Science, is a self correcting delusion. It's practitioners tend to die out quickly.

But... I'm not really proposing a "logic" around which all life should be structured. That's the part you're not getting. You think life *should* be ordered through some kind of logic. Input the parameters, turn the crank and output the behavior.

I think that is insanity. "The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

Steven said...

Sure but that doesn't always matter that much. Whether or not the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around doesn't affect your ability to survive. The world is very forgiving like that but the important parts, the 'how to get along and form a stable community' part.

You can always cherry pick areas of science that, on the surface at least, don't seem to matter to our everyday lives. You don't think that understanding that the Earth goes around the sun matters? It will matter big time, when we discover a big asteroid with our name on it. And there is no doubt that this is going to happen eventually.

However, let's bring that down to earth a bit. You know as well as I do that creationism is hindering people's understanding of biology. Which, in turn, is hindering the progress of medical science in much more measurable ways.

The reason is, I believe, because atheism encourages people to be self centered, angry and anti-social. You can't build community with atheism therefore atheism will always be parasitic on whatever community it finds itself in. Or, when atheism does attain some political power, it needs to become totalitarian in order to enforce the social order.

Atheism does nothing of sort! If atheists really are so self centered, (a proposition I strongly dispute), and religion avoids that problem, then why is it that we have religions that are preaching self-centeredness is a virtue (the prosperity gospel). The fact is, religion preaches what people want to hear, and if people are self-centered and anti-social, then you can bet your ass, some brand of religion is going to callously step in and serve that group of people. The problem isn't that atheism promotes some self-centered philosophy (which it doesn't do), the problem is that everyone is self-centered to varying degrees, and that can be quite damaging to yourself and the people around you if you lack the critical thinking skills to see why. Religion is a convenient way of getting around the responsibility of thinking critically, but there is a steep price to be paid for that convenience.


I bet that you agree with Thomas Jefferson that Unitarianism would soon become the religion of a majority of Americans because of its rational and democratic nature.

The belief that rationalism will lead us all to a secular utopia is a common atheist delusion. The corollary, that the EU is ahead of us on the path to our grand rationalist utopia, is the second great atheist delusion.

Your view of human nature is glib and superficial if you think that.


Oh, what utter bullshit, Brenda. Now you're attacking a strawman. Putting words in my mouth, and claiming to know what I think.

Your view of human nature is idiotic because you arrogantly presume that you understand it in the first place. I have made no such claims to that affect, I only contend that viewing the world rationally and making decisions based on things that can be verifiably demonstrated is a better decision making process.

You're the one going around claiming that you know what our existential needs are, and that some sort religious mysticism, (which you refuse to define by the way), is the answer. You also strongly imply that most people are so weak minded as to be unable to handle their lives without some authoritarian controlling influence (although, ironically, you're smart enough to be far enough above the fray to notice this). Let me guess, I bet you're a fan of David Berlinski, aren't you?

The fact that your humanities education was so narrow that you have to resort to appeals to mysticism in order to feel connected to your society and the world around you is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. You are not alone of course, and it isn't really your fault, but your lack of ability to see beyond your status quo humanities training is a serious shortcoming.

Chuck said...

Barb, you said,

"But.... you don't even know what I'm talking about do you. Most atheists I've met online are just ignorant geeks who think because they can successfully debate creationists living in a trailer in Alabama that that transforms their BA in science into a PhD in the humanities."

Does one need a PhD in humanities to enjoy ad hominem?

Chuck said...

I'd like Brenda to provide her alterntive method of knowing. I will consider it if she is willing to share it. Until then, all I read within her comments is defensiveness but, I don't know why. What is your point of view Brenda? Can I know it or do I have to be Brenda to enjoy it?

ildi said...

It's sort of fun to put Brenda's word salad together:

A good deal of the religious literature equates religious faith to romantic love.

I do consider that the capacity for love, or for faith, is humanity's greatest gift.

The capacity for faith is what separates us from lower animals. I'll also define faith for you: Faith is the capacity to take the lack of evidence for a thing as the very reason that it must be so.
[trashes poor atheist professor friend]
Love is really a kind of faith. It is a leap in the dark.


What a mish-mash of ideas! Love = faith because both are based on lack of evidence?

This is what distinguishes us from other animals?

Hate to break it to you, but constant masturbation is what distinguishes us. From One reason why humans are special and unique: We masturbate. A lot

This conjuring ability to create fantasy scenes in our heads that literally bring us to orgasm when conveniently paired with our dexterous appendages is an evolutionary magic trick that I suspect is uniquely human. It requires a cognitive capacity called mental representation (an internal “re-presentation” of a previously experienced image or some other sensory input) that many evolutionary theorists believe is a relatively recent hominid innovation.

But nevertheless by all available accounts, and by contrast with human beings, masturbation to completion is an exceedingly rare phenomenon in other species with capable hands very much like our own. As anybody who has ever been to the zoo knows, there's no question that other primates play with their genitalia; the point is that these diddling episodes so seldom lead to an intentional orgasm.

brenda said...

Stevie said...
You can always cherry pick areas of science that, on the surface at least, don't seem to matter to our everyday lives."

This is not a Team Science vs Team God argument though online atheists do tend to pass every discussion through that filter. I'll repeat myself. Even though I am agnostic I think that religion is a very powerful force for ordering society and that it really doesn't matter that much if the belief system gets some things wrong as long as it gets right those things that really do matter, day to day survival.

It matters a lot that a religion gets dietary laws right, like not eating pork, but it matters very little if god actually exists. You seem to be hung up on the latter whereas I could care less about that.

"You don't think that understanding that the Earth goes around the sun matters?"

No, it doesn't. All religions are intensely agricultural and to that end have developed rites and festivals centered around celestial events. A Ptolemaic model works just fine for that.

"when we discover a big asteroid with our name on it."

The last one was what.... 65 million years ago? Yeah, like I said, unimportant.

"creationism is hindering people's understanding of biology"

Also unimportant to survival in the last 15,000 years. It really doesn't matter what false beliefs you have about the deer you hunt. What does matter is that you are part of a social group and your religion has something to say about how you relate to the other members or your community. *That* is important.

"Atheism does nothing of sort!"

100 million murdered in the genocides of officially atheist nations of the 20th century say otherwise.

"If atheists really are so self centered"

ALL humans are self centered. Without a culture (culture = religion) to regulate naked self interest we become nothing more than animals. Unlike sharks, humans cannot survive without rules for regulating social interaction, also called culture or religion. Libertarians and Objectivists who comprise most atheists online, are deeply deluded in their belief in the innate superiority of the individual. Their "critical thinking skills" fail them socially just as badly as they failed them economically.

"Your view of human nature is idiotic because you arrogantly presume that you understand it in the first place."

Not a valid argument. However, in my experience most atheists strike me as having little or no real knowledge of human nature. The experience of debating most online atheists is little different than fanboi flame wars over XBox vs Playstation.

"You also strongly imply that most people are so weak minded as to be unable to handle their lives without some authoritarian controlling influence (although, ironically, you're smart enough to be far enough above the fray to notice this)."

Yugoslavia, once a rich, tolerant, multicultural nation. When Tito died it all fell apart. It worries me, yes. I would *like* to believe in and to live in the multicultural United States but I worry. That's all.

Steven said...

I am agnostic

Wait, which is it? Earlier in this very thread, you said you were not an agnostic.

I think that religion is a very powerful force for ordering society and that it really doesn't matter that much if the belief system gets some things wrong as long as it gets right those things that really do matter, day to day survival.

And this is where we disagree. Religious belief may get some things right that really do matter for day-to-day survival, but it also gets a whole host of things wrong, and it matters. Do you really feel comfortable with the idea of Islamic terrorists getting their hands on WMD's of any kind? Is that kind of thinking really conducive to day-to-day survival? Furthermore, what checks are there really to prevent the same sort of fanaticism from arising in other religious traditions. Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, they all have the really bad low points... when those cultures have gone off the rails, religion is leading the charge.

The last one was what.... 65 million years ago? Yeah, like I said, unimportant.

Stupid, stupid, stupid. Tell me, what would have happened if the Tunguska air blast had happened over a populated area? And that was barely 100 years ago. Such things are potentially preventable, and such events need not be threats on a global scale to warrant action.

Also unimportant to survival in the last 15,000 years. It really doesn't matter what false beliefs you have about the deer you hunt. What does matter is that you are part of a social group and your religion has something to say about how you relate to the other members or your community. *That* is important.

You clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. The point I'm making isn't about understanding deer biology. The impact of evolutionary theory has both a much broader and narrower scope, a scope that does effect people's "day-to-day" lives in such a way that denial of it is ultimately detrimental to them, unless of course your empathy is limited less to lives of individuals than to the human race itself...which would be a surprising thing coming from someone who supposedly has so much understanding of the human condition.

Steven said...

100 million murdered in the genocides of officially atheist nations of the 20th century say otherwise.

Really? You're going to start the "who's more immoral" pissing match? Once again, for someone who supposedly has such a great understanding of human nature, you continue to show your ignorance of it.

Libertarians and Objectivists who comprise most atheists online, are deeply deluded in their belief in the innate superiority of the individual. Their "critical thinking skills" fail them socially just as badly as they failed them economically.

I am not a libertarian objectivist. Ayn Rand makes you stupid. The circumstances under which libertarian free will is really possible is far narrower than the Ayn Rand cult realizes. But go ahead and keep firing scatter-shot, maybe you'll hit something, but so far, you seem to be shooting yourself in the head at every turn.

Not a valid argument. However, in my experience most atheists strike me as having little or no real knowledge of human nature. The experience of debating most online atheists is little different than fanboi flame wars over XBox vs Playstation.

Well now, that's really quite rich. You seem to be so devoid of self awareness to be able to notice that you have been doing this in all your responses throughout this thread, and that I've only been mocking your insults in kind. Repeatedly. Go ahead and tell yourself that I'm some clueless "video game guy," if it makes you feel superior, but if you really are as smart as you think you are, then you know that these sort of responses only prove that you are full of crap.


Yugoslavia, once a rich, tolerant, multicultural nation. When Tito died it all fell apart. It worries me, yes. I would *like* to believe in and to live in the multicultural United States but I worry. That's all.

You forgot to mention that Hitler was an atheist, you moron. If you're going to make specious arguments, the least you can do is to try to run the complete gamut of fallacies.

Paul Rinzler said...

Brenda wrote:
But... I'm not really proposing a "logic" around which all life should be structured. That's the part you're not getting. You think life *should* be ordered through some kind of logic. Input the parameters, turn the crank and output the behavior.
What a straw man you've created out of, well, certainly a lot more than just the content of my comment.

I'd ask you to deal with the mere content of what I said, rather than reading whatever you think you can refute into it.

All I said was, by your logic, we'd deny ideas that have a lot of evidence for them. I said nothing about how much of my entire life I would live by that rule, and I said nothing about all the rest that you read into it to create your straw man.

I'd appreciate it if you just address what I said.

kilo papa said...

People like Steven are the reason I bother to read the comments section on posts.

It's nice to see arrogance and bullshit exposed.

Great posts, Steven.