The Happy Atheist
My life is my own. There is no one silently pulling strings in the background, controlling my fate and destiny. Because of this I do things because I think they are right, not because I’m supposed to. I help create an ethical world because I wish to live in such a place, not because I fear what will happen to me if I don’t. My morals, and I have
( Read more... )
I'm not sure I'm there quite yet. I think it's important to have a certain level of tolerance for faithful beliefs of ANY kind. So long as that tolerance is not for faithful beliefs in democratic government, which has a duty to synthesize and preserve the private freedom of religious belief at the same time it must operate on strictly rational terms in its public capacities. Freedom of belief - even faithful belief - is, I think, rightfully enshrined in law. It is the freedom of action (or, rather, of consequence through punitive deterrence) that is limited. You can believe Cthulhu is coming all you want, but when you start up with the human sacrifices, your religious freedom is suspended. I think this tolerance is important for generating a memetic diversity that is important to our culture - the more diverse, the more resistant we are to class breaks in our ideas. Some future crisis may well wreck our dominant worldviews. At that point, it will be important to have others at hand to fall back on.
I could also draw a number of parallel analogies between Scientific rationalism and religions. The difficulties become apparent when we start approaching the border between rationalism and faith. Lots of scientists can get dogmatic about scientific theories, adhering to "Scientism" even without admitting it. Why, the first step in the scientific method is to hypothesize, which bears a strong resemblance to faith before experimental data can support or refute it. Many times, even scientists will NEED to treat their pet theories as dogma in order to give their theories a thorough exploration. Scientific opponents can be just as dogmatic against theories, as well. So I think that it is important to tolerate faith even from within scientific practice itself in order to maintain a vibrant and vital pursuit of the truth.
At this point, the most harmful practitioners of religions are on the fringes of their movements. Whether it's Christian fundamentalist theocracies or Islamic fundamentalist theocracies or alleged Zionist conspiracies, we're talking about vocal minorities. It's important from a practical perspective that the rule of law support the peaceful, mainstream rights to faith of the core while deploring and resisting violent or anti-democratic practices of those minorities. Not only will this make it clear that we are acting on a rational and not an anti-dogmatic basis against their faithful beliefs (a hypocritical dogma of its own), but we will also co-opt the faithful in our struggle to resist, marginalize, and disarm the theocrats and jihadists who are causing us so much grief.
Reply
I completely agree, and I hope you don't think I was suggesting anything different! I instead believe children should be taught from a young age to question everything instead of the traditional spoon feeding approach.
When instead people are taught like I, that the act of non-thinking called faith is a great thing ("The more evidence against God that you disregard the stronger your Faith, the closer you become to God!" And I went to a fairly liberal Catholic school...) it's no wonder progress (in the sense of positive social change such as abolition, women's suffrage, and hopefully acceptance of homosexuality soon) occurs so slowly. Can you imagine what the world would be like if from a young age rationalism was taught with the same fervor as religious faith?
Lots of scientists can get dogmatic about scientific theories, adhering to "Scientism" even without admitting it.
I think this is a bit of a case of attacking the straw man in the same way that saying communism is a bad system of government and pointing at China as an example. Scientists who get dogmatic about their theories are no longer scientists and are not adhering to rationalism. It's the job of good scientists (and I think there are more than these than the former) to keep bad scientists in line. Dawkins has a great story about a biologist who spent 15 years practicing one theory that was completely shown to be false by another scientist at a lecture. At the end the man got up, went and shook the lecturer's hand and said "Thank you - I've been wrong all these years!" That is what science is about, looking for the truth. It's just as exciting to be wrong as it is right to a good scientist.
Why, the first step in the scientific method is to hypothesize, which bears a strong resemblance to faith before experimental data can support or refute it. Many times, even scientists will NEED to treat their pet theories as dogma in order to give their theories a thorough exploration...So I think that it is important to tolerate faith even from within scientific practice itself in order to maintain a vibrant and vital pursuit of the truth.
I don't think hypotheses resemble faith in any way shape or form. Faith is belief in something without or in spite of evidence. An inferential, or theoretical hypothesis is an attempt to explain a phenomenon based on logic and reason (string theory is an example. It may be true, but for the time being we cannot devise an experiment to prove or disprove it, but it's probably something worth pursuing) and an empirical, traditional hypothesis is an attempt to show how (or how not) a phenomenon occurs by experiment. The fact that at some point it is nothing more than a thought in a scientist's head does not make it resemble faith in the least.
As for treating pet theories dogmatically, if it's done right it also does not resemble faith. Like I said, the good scientist enjoys being wrong as much as being right. If a particular scientist has a serious hunch about a theory and wants to devote a ton of time to it, even when it appears to be false time and time again, that's their prerogative. Considering that many discoveries were accidental and were considered to be impossible before proven correct, this is nothing more than checksumming, as long as the scientist in question does not go around publishing false journal articles or telling others that his/her unfounded theories are correct. I'd even go so far as to say that this is good science. Digging deeper and deeper despite what appearance and general "common sense" may be is a shining example of rationalism and the scientific method. A "vibrant and vital pursuit of truth" is a damned good way to put it. It's only when the scientist goes from being vigorous to truly dogmatic that we have problems, and as stated earlier they cease to be scientists at that point. But even if some good has at some point come from truly dogmatic "scientists" it's purely accidental by its very nature.
Read on for the second half, I went over the comment character limit again. My apologies for writing so damned much.
Reply
Isn't that another way of saying that the less faithful cause less problems? The troublesome bunch are the kind that unquestioningly believe what they are taught on faith, whether it be that the Earth was created in seven days (less troublesome, especially when it stays out of government) or that all non-Xians must die (more troublesome, especially when enacted at a governmental level.) Moderate religious followers are far less harmful because they have less faith than their fundamentalist counterparts. Reason has slowly eaten away at traditional, orthodox beliefs their ancestors once had to the point that they don't cause much trouble anymore. They are the people that see the bible as a series of parables, some to be considered, some not, while the truly faithful are the ones who take every word literally and bomb abortion clinics or blow up buildings. A common response to that is that those radicals are "misinterpreting" the bible, or are believing the wrong parts since the ten commandments and such say that killing is wrong et al. But the fact is that the bible, the supposed word of God, is full of some very violent and evil stuff, some of which is contradicted later and some of which is not. It's only the faithful that follow it word for word, and the unfaithful that pick and choose the good stuff (don't kill) and leave the bad stuff (stone your wife when she does wrong,) arbitrarily.
These moderates (the kind of religious people you and I tolerate far, far more easily) seem to arise from two possible situations:
1) They were simply taught different beliefs on faith than their counterparts. This almost always (if not always) happens due to reason eating away at faith X on a societal level. These evolved beliefs require less faith and coexist more easily with reason so believers need not be as faithful as their counterparts.
2) They were taught the same crazy faith based beliefs as their counterparts, but on a personal level used reason to throw out some while keeping others.
So what good is faith? How is ever believing something despite a complete lack of evidence or in spite of extreme evidence to the contrary a good thing? What can it provide that rationalism can't? One can say that it gives people hope or comfort but each of these things can be had without inventing God. (I will say though that those who truly have nothing but their faith are not of my concern - I do not wish to rob them of their only possession. I do however think that what they have is not necessarily faith, but hope masquerading as faith due to upbringing, and also that faith out of necessity is a sad thing that should be remedied by other means, like fixing whatever it is that is the root problem if possible, whether it be poverty, sickness, or loneliness.)
When the negative side effects are so vast and numerous, and for the vast majority the positive side effects can be had elsewhere with ease, why bother with faith?
(By the way, I really enjoy these discussions. Keep it coming!)
Reply
I am not propounding the merits of faith, here. I am propounding the merits of //tolerance//.
The reason I think we should tolerate faith, be it scientistic or theistic, is that, as we approach the fuzzy, shifting border between dogmatism and a theoretical intuition, between two good arguments with good data (and ONLY in this case), we should do the RATIONAL, and not the faithful thing, and remain in doubt - inconclusive.
You and I can agree all day on the goods of our particular, well-supported conclusions. But when it comes down to enforcing beliefs in a civic context - do you want a judge deciding what you should believe? Do you want to be that judge? Better that we be skeptical that we are right, and the faithful wrong, than cocksure - ESPECIALLY when it comes to mandating what people should believe. Discerning the truth is hard enough without trying to preach it to them, whether from the pulpit or the gavel.
I want Don Quixote tilting at windmills - not ME.
Reply
It seems that I didn't make myself clear. In no way whatsoever do I want government mandated rationalism. None. Zilch. I'm purely talking about changing people's mindsets. Forcing any kind of belief system (or system of government, or any number of other things that should be freely chosen by "the people" and not infringed upon) is almost always doomed to failure, and even if I could I would not wish it. It would not be rational.
I am not propounding the merits of faith, here. I am propounding the merits of //tolerance//.
Could you better define exactly what you mean by tolerate? I'm still a bit fuzzy on what you mean. Are you suggesting that to even think that faith is something worth ridding ourselves of is intolerant? Assuming you mean more than what I just stated I was against, let me ask you this question: Do you tolerate sexism? I'm not referring to whether or not freedom of speech should be restricted to bar sexist words or any other legal matters, I'm simply speaking generally. Do you not wish sexist people would realize their error? Do you not try and stop sexism in whatever way you can? You and I probably both agree that banning sexist words would be a clear infringement upon freedom of speech, but are we not both intolerant of sexism all the same? [Note: I don't mean to say that anyone who has faith is on par with a sexist, just that we are free to criticize ideas about government, political leanings, etc.. so why is faith on a whole beyond reproach?]
Sexism is a form of faulty thinking, as is faith. And keep in mind that this isn't about God and religion. I just pick on them the most because what else besides religion actually *promotes* non-thinking? What else firmly states that the less you think the better a person you are? Racism and sexism are both forms of faith as well. Believing something (women are inferior to men, black people are inferior to white people, non-Christians are the cause of all the evil in the world and must be destroyed, whatever) without evidence AND with massive amounts of evidence to the contrary can only be summed up in two words that I think should be synonyms: faith and stupidity. Hell, part of the definition of the word stupid is "marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting." What would you define stupidity as?
I'd also like to state that I am not promoting some kind of empirical world view where things that cannot be experimented upon must be abandoned or that the scientific method is the One True Way for finding Truth.
What I am saying is this: Faith is ultimately detrimental to society. The idea that ANYTHING is beyond question and critical thought creates a crack for fascism, racism, bigotry, fear-mongering and all other forms of poor thinking to wedge themselves in. Everything, and I mean everything, must be challenged. If this view was shared by all I'm nearly certain the would would be a much better place. Why is it ok to enslave people of a different color skin? Why are women not allowed to vote? What evidence is there that homosexuals are deviant, sick individuals? Why should we assume that we can do whatever we please to the Earth with no repercussions? We must ask all these questions. Some of these we have answered, some we are answering now. We must all question everything without exception to create the most just, fair, and prosperous world we can.
With homage to Socrates, the unexamined society is one not worth living in.
Reply
I find it difficult to separate your normative views on what's "good for society" from normative views of what government should enforce.
If I thought with certainty that any attitude was detrimental to society, then I WOULD want government to legislate against it. How is it you're certain enough that you feel so strongly about opposing faith in person, but not so certain as government? How can it make sense to be concerned for society, but not engage those concerns within the milieu of the government by which that society constitutes itself and negotiates its consensus?
I don't have any problems with you as a person posing challenges to religious faiths, nor to sexism, racism, or any other. But when it comes to the democratic reconciliation of diverse faithful viewpoints, more caution is warranted.
Do I tolerate sexism? Insofar as I don't actually oppose it - and most other dogmas - in ANY or EVERY way I can (which is an awful lot of ways), I guess I do. I don't CONDONE sexism, although I might condone Christianity.
Faiths are more than just rational error - they are desire. They represent things people want to believe without regard to empirical evidence.
I'm often fond of saying that people who are wrong don't deserve to be corrected. They will simply have to suffer for their error. Mostly, this is a response to my own inability to see how I could possibly succeed at correcting them. I have to have an exceptionally good reason to believe that someone would be receptive to my arguments before I bother. Otherwise, I end up just reinforcing their memetic innoculation against my arguments.
If I expect people who //think//, erroneously or not, that my perspective is erroneous to let me believe as I please, I think I should extend them the same courtesy. It's only when a) they consent to a dialog or debate, or b) they begin making improper incursions into normative political and civic life in violation of our Constitutional scene of rights that I will step up and start resisting religious perspectives.
I do not believe that all faiths are destructive or detrimental to society. In order to be destructive, it has to commit some violence to something - a trait that is not universal. In order to be detrimental, we must identify a specific goal that it undermines - and a society not a thing that has a specific goal in mind. Instead, it is an ongoing negotiation between parties with diverse goals, which they are all entitled to. Beyond some basic motives involving an essential modicum of peace (which is even optional in extraordinary circumstances), societies have no such intrinsic goal which any faith can be construed as detrimental to.
That said, can I take umbrage at Christian or Judaic hatred of homosexuality, even outside of the public sphere. You better believe it. But this is not a quibble with faith in general; it's a disdain for this faith in particular.
Reply
Are you sure about that? I think that's a pretty odd thing to say. I'm sure you think sexism is detrimental to society (meaning women and the rest of us would be better off without it) but does it follow from that statement that sexist words should be banned and punishable by prison time? As I already said, not only would such policing be a) unenforceable but b) useless. Even so I would still not desire the banning of sexist words because that would be a violation of freedom of speech, in my opinion an extremely necessary component for progress that should be protected with great fervor. It seems to me that whenever governments try to tell their citizens what to think trouble arises, to say nothing of the slow, bureaucratic nature of government that does not lend itself well to fast moving progressive social change.
Do I tolerate sexism? Insofar as I don't actually oppose it - and most other dogmas - in ANY or EVERY way I can (which is an awful lot of ways), I guess I do. I don't CONDONE sexism, although I might condone Christianity.
I was using a slightly lighter version of tolerate in the sense that, if you were one of 2 managers looking to hire someone for a coding job you would most definitely intervene if your co-worker said that women can't program and that he will not hire one until hell freezes over. Or if you had a child you would teach them that sexism is wrong and that anyone who says differently is incorrect for reasons X, Y, and Z. Not that you must shoot anyone who is sexist on the spot for their crime or be a full time feminist activist.
In any case, I think you're right that we're barely disagreeing with each other if at all on the matter of governmental interference with freedom of speech and thought. So enough of that! I think our disagreement about whether faith is ultimately detrimental or not is far more interesting.
I do not believe that all faiths are destructive or detrimental to society. In order to be destructive, it has to commit some violence to something - a trait that is not universal. In order to be detrimental, we must identify a specific goal that it undermines - and a society not a thing that has a specific goal in mind. Instead, it is an ongoing negotiation between parties with diverse goals, which they are all entitled to. Beyond some basic motives involving an essential modicum of peace (which is even optional in extraordinary circumstances), societies have no such intrinsic goal which any faith can be construed as detrimental to.
If you recall, I said that "faith is ultimately detrimental to society" not "always detrimental to society." An elderly women who lives in a slum in Haiti and has nothing but the clothes on her back and faith (providing some degree of hope) is not doing anyone harm, and she should not be bothered accordingly. But just because faith can be neutral or even positive in some instances does not mean that on a whole faith is good, or that there aren't far better alternatives that can yield the same or greater amount of net good. Not committing direct "violence" against something does not mean that it is not committing indirect violence by standing in the way of something better, when the net goal of most everyone is a world that is as Good for all concerned parties as possible.
Read on for the rest. My deepest apologies, but brevity does not appear to be my strong suit when it comes to ranting on faith ;-)
Reply
I'm really interested in this because I can think of a few examples where faith provides some benefits whether direct or indirect (none unique, similar to my cancer analogy), some cases where faith is neutral, and about 10,000 where faith has serious, direct negative consequences on society. I would honestly like to believe that faith has at least one single unique, redeeming quality in order to make myself feel better when I consider what mind numbing percentage of the planet thinks faith is a good idea.
Reply
Over the years, I've come to find out that, upon a closer reading of the term "relativist", that I'm not one.
I'm a subjectivist. And "good", as you've used it here, is one of those subjective things.
Goodness is one of those things that people decide, not that they perceive. You can certainly perceive whether something helped you along or not, but only in the context of considering what it helped you at.
The reason you can never argue someone out of a faith is that a faith isn't a conclusion you arrive at - it's a decision about what you want from yourself, from your society, or from your universe.
You can only evaluate any given faith, or the practice of faith in general, based on a goal or goal system derived from what each of us wants from ourselves, our society, or our universe. But you can't assume that that desire is held universally. We can certainly insist that we be disciplined in drawing our conclusions about the facts of our world empirically (as the law does), but that is a value of ours, and not a fact.
So, in summary, the reason that faith in general should be tolerated is that self-determination should be tolerated. A world where I can't choose what I believe without regard to empirical evidence isn't one I prefer, and, thus isn't one I think is good.
Now, I understand that you can cite case after case of why particular faiths have harmed individuals and societies. But it's a vast, vast leap from Christianity or Islam or Hinduism to faith of any kind.
It occurs to me that most of the things we learn about science aren't from conducting experiments; they're based on reports about experiments. We have some degree of faith that the discipline of our academic and scientific institutions have enough safeguards in place to keep us accurately informed. For most people, science comes through hearing - just like faith. But instead of hearing the word of God, it's the word of a few men in white coats doing peer review, duplicating experiments, and verifying results.
Should we then insist that this faith is unfounded and "detrimental to society" until we run every last damn experiment for ourselves?
Every "bad" faith is bad for a reason. The moral and ethical consequences of particular faiths can be evaluated according both to their individual, general content, but also in the particular individual contexts in which detrimental consequences occur.
I would be sympathetic to attempts to resist the particular evils and failings of certain faiths - but dumping out faith in generis seems to me to be painting with too broad a brush, to say nothing of a violation of basic human rights of self-determination.
Reply
...it's a vast, vast leap from Christianity or Islam or Hinduism to faith of any kind.
Perhaps this conversation requires a differentiation of "systems-of-faith" (or whatever) versus a sort of faith-of-assumption. I recall Hume's radical skepticism with which he said "The Sun may not rise tomorrow!" which reveals that we operate on the faith of assuming that things will work according to our working model of physical reality (and social reality -- one has "faith" in society to walk next to traffic safely).
Religious faith is more like systematic legitimation of ignorance/mystification than "working assumption" faith. Strictly speaking, religious faith is quite impractical - though it has social and psychological functions (which I'd argue do not have to be unique to religion).
"The moral and ethical consequences of particular faiths can be evaluated according both to their individual, general content, but also in the particular individual contexts in which detrimental consequences occur."
This brings to my mind that 'dilemma' of whether it is intentions or outcome that counts most. Poor results from good intentions should instigate investigation of said intentions. Good results from bad intentions, while perhaps good this once, may reinforce activity that is generally harmful.
If good may come of religion, it is still based on a non-reality based worldview, which I find pretty damn problematic. Makes it difficult to critique and correct behaviour too, when evidence and results can be dismissed through faith or an appeal to the supernatural. Was it ok for Mother Teresa to not sterilize her needles as long as she baptised everyone who died in her care? (Well, obviously not.)
Reply
I wouldn't say that sexism is detrimental so much as I'd say that you and I both, as having our say as individuals, and as democratically empowered negotiators in the ongoing negotiations of the values of our societies, //prefer// that the errors inherent in sexist attitudes were corrected. It's not so much whether or not sexist or religious attitudes are destructive of or detrimental to all potential societies (they seem to have been compatible with the survival and propagation of many societies prior to ours), but the fact that we WANT to live in a society where the errors inherent in, and harm consequential to, sexist errors and religious faiths are reduced.
By legislation, it's important to understand that we don't have to get crazy jackboot gestapo on our ass. We already have laws to deter and punish sexual discrimination in the marketplace without resorting to jail time or censorship, or dictating what people think in their own private activities. The legal toolbox is considerably subtler and more extensive than that. So by "legislating", we're perfectly authorized to make small, appropriate nudges against such problems, like the ERA, without being forced to resort to draconian measures when they're not really warranted.
Next, I think it's also important that this government you speak of is US. Saying it's bureaucratic and slow doesn't mean we can just wash our hands of it and scapegoat it for all our problems. Democracy is THE method which we all have to collectively solve our disagreements. Any solution to creating the kind of social progress that doesn't involve changing our government doesn't have much chance of working.
So that's my response to the part you didn't want to talk about. Next up: the part you did.
Reply
And I think it's highly problematic to justify tolerance of intolerance in the name of tolerance. And I don't think that the legal argument is as important as the cultural argument. (I suspect legality is only a, ah, matter-of-faith among "polite" society. Oppressed groups know very well that the law isn't on their side, but I shouldn't speak too presumptuously about what they think.)
"The legal toolbox is considerably subtler and more extensive than that. So by "legislating", we're perfectly authorized to make small, appropriate nudges against such problems, like the ERA, without being forced to resort to draconian measures when they're not really warranted."
One is, in opinion and personal behaviour, allowed to do far, far more than advocate legislation! There is a great difference between society de jure and society de facto, see the black civil rights movement! In our personal lives we do not have to pretend to be the US government and restrict ourselves to its supposed protocols. I'd evoke the so-called "culture war" as an example of the important of what de facto society is, but I don't think it describes the situation. Still - society is what we make it in every way in our power to. If we individually tolerate sexism, our society tolerates sexism. Legislation never addresses the concerns of the systematically oppressed unless the alternative is something worse for the legislators - it is this alternative that individuals must choose to make.
(And of course I'm of a position that has little faith in a plutocratic parlimentarianism that has shown itself to break its "inalienable" rules to punish threats to the ruling class, so it may color my argument. Ahem!)
Damn, it's way too late. I hope this made some sense.
Reply
Leave a comment