Cognitive stuff from a cognitive person. If you've got any requests, drop me an email. If it takes me a while to get to it, drop me another one.
Discussion of a paper titled "Respect and Religion," by Simon Blackburn, is making its way through the blogosphere, and sparking some interesting discussion (particularly over at Crooked Timber, but this is a good read too). The key quote from Blackburn's article is this:
We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it--not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, and we am poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them.
This quote seems like a good context within which to revisit some of the discussions we've had about religion here, particularly since much of what we've discussed in the past hinges on the concept of respect. The "New Atheists," for example, feel that they have a justified lack of respect for all things religious, at least qua religious, precisely because they see religious belief as false, and not only false, but absurdly so. I suspect that this is the reason some religious people feel a lack of respect for atheists as well -- atheists, to them, are denying obvious truths. And those of us labeled "appeasers" by the more zealous "New Atheists" are stuck in the middle, potentially disrespected by the religious for our lack of belief, and disrespected by our positivist brethren for showing the religious too much respect. Given the disdain with which "New Atheists" treat religious topics, even going so far as to claim, in some cases, that studying religion from a psychological perspective is pointless, as (many of them seem to believe) is any scholarly study of religion whatsoever, and given the generally derogatory tone of the discussions between Christians, "New Atheists," and we Chamberlains, then, respect seems like one of the more important issues we should be discussing. So I thought I'd say a little bit about my own views on the topic.
Let's start here. Everyone has false beliefs -- a bunch of them, in fact. I'd even venture to guess that if we audited any random individual, atheist, theist, or whatever, we'd find that most of their beliefs are false. Most of us, I assume, would change our beliefs if we could figure out which ones were false and which weren't, but in most cases, it's just not possible to figure out which of our beliefs are false. Either there's not enough information available (the history of science is a good analogy here), or we'll just never come across any good reason to change a false belief, and it simply doesn't matter one way or the other in our lives whether we change the belief. So the truth or falsity of a person's beliefs seems, to me, pretty shaky ground on which to rest respect.
Of course, religious beliefs aren't just any old beliefs, for theists or atheists. Religious beliefs guide lives, cultures, laws, etc., in deeper and broader ways than just about any other set of potentially contested beliefs. But their truth and falsity is, still, hardly certain in any objective sense on either side, no matter how certain particular individuals may feel about their own beliefs. It's not as though most of us can't imagine (at least logically) possible situations in which our beliefs change, and those of us who are being honest with ourselves can also admit that there are rational, even potentially convincing lines of argument that lead to beliefs other than our own. So even with beliefs as important as religious beliefs, perceived truth or falsity seems like a poor basis for assigning or denying respect.
It seems to me, then, that Lindsey of Regardant les Nuages is on the right track when she writes:
That's the type of respect that is important to have. It's about appreciating how a person came to have her set of beliefs, and how she lives out those beliefs. Is she being honest with herself? Is she living out her beliefs with integrity? That is what counts.
Of course, there's a lot that needs to be explained in that quote. What I appreciate about "how a person came to have her set of beliefs, and how she lives out those beliefs," and what others appreciate about those things, can differ pretty widely. For example, it's trivially true that most people arrive at their religious belief -- as most people arrive at most beliefs -- without a great deal of reflection. This may be one place where at least first-generation atheists have a leg up on most theists. We've arrived at our religious beliefs, or our beliefs about religion, through shedding previous beliefs, and that offers at least an easy opportunity for thinking beliefs out a bit. And I have to admit that the religious people I respect the most are people who've spent much of their lives studying their religion. Still, arriving at one's beliefs through careful thought doesn't quite do it for me as a criterion for respect. I can still respect people's religious beliefs even if they haven't attended Bible study once or twice a week for years, for example.
It's important, then, to add some other factor related to the reasons for believing what one believes. The people I respect the most, theists and atheists, are those who promote their beliefs, and criticize the beliefs of others, only to the extent that they've actually thought things through. One of the reasons I have so little respect for most "New Atheists" is because it's quite clear that they haven't thought a whole hell of a lot about religion, but they still spend much of their time attacking it. When they justify their lack of intellectual attention to religion by saying that it's absurd on its face and doesn't warrant careful thought, my respect for them drops even further. And I feel the same way about the "New Atheist's" Christian equivalent, the rabid evangelical who has never considered alternatives. So I suppose my formulation for respect begins, I suppose, with the consistency between how far one takes one's beliefs and how deeply one's reflected on them.
The second part of Lindsey's formula is "how she lives out those beliefs," and I suppose what I've just said touches on that. But there's another part of it. Most people have beliefs that guide their behavior and determine their values. And to be honest, I couldn't care less whether people's behavior and values, at least as they practice them, are consistent with their religious beliefs. Because when I am deciding whether I respect a person, I default to my own values. Do they behave in a way that's consistent with my own core values, things like tolerance, empathy, and equality? Again, this is one of the reasons I have so little respect for "New Atheists" in general -- they tend not to exhibit any of those three things, and their anti-intellectualism, at least with respect to religion, is inconsistent with another of my core values. And it's also why I have so little respect for many religious people -- their intolerance and lack of empathy for women, gays and lesbians, people of other cultures, etc. makes it damn near impossible for me to respect them or their beliefs. In the end, I guess, it's the products of people's beliefs, and not their truth and falsity, that determines whether I respect them. If the products of your belief are fundamentally inconsistent with my values, then I can't and won't respect you, and I won't apologize for that. It seems to me a much better reason to respect someone or not than tentative and elusive things like perceived truth and falsity.
Comments
I guess I would be labelled "New Atheist" by you (although I don't use that "New" part myself). I do not attack religion because it is merely a false belief. As you say, people have lots of false beliefs. My problem with religion is that it always finds its way into politics (at a more profound level than standard false beliefs), and I cannot accept that. If we are suppose to organize ourselves into collectives such as states/countries, then we need some very basic core assumptions which everybody should agree on. One core assumption for me would be that the life we live today is what matters. Then it is problematic if religious influences start propagating the idea that the eternity in afterlife is what matters, because ultimately that may lead to policies which forsake well-being in the present for the hypothetical well-being in some imagined eternity.
I also believe that starting a good argument going once in a while keeps religious statements/memes in check and provides a healthy alternative for susceptible people. These arguments don't get the attention the topic deserves unless you "provoke" to healthy extent. (I don't know what you consider over the top, but I have limits to the religion-bashing as well. Smart arguments win over flaming everyday).
I would have no problem with, say, dividing up the world into opinions/religions/politics and then have people move wherever they feel at home the most. Better than people constantly protesting and voting concerning other people's rights. Too bad its never going to happen.
(Sorry for the grammar - not my first language)
/R, Sweden
Posted by: Rille | March 11, 2008 7:40 PM
Chris, I agree with your assessment of the state of things in terms of the intolerance that is being shown on both sides of this issue. I am religious but I try to totally respect other's in their beliefs. The reality is that both atheists and religious individuals have a set of core beliefs that should be tolerated by both sides. The atheists are basically humanists at their core while those inclined to be religious use a belief system based in tradition as their core. I think that what should be happening in this country is that we all recognize that we can tolerate each other's core but we do not have to try to convert each other. The real issue that we have is how to handle the extremist on each side of the equation.
What bothers me the most is that we are losing our tolerance for each other, something that was very important to our founders! Many have forgotten that the first european settlers that survived in the "new world" were people driven from their home land by intolerance!
Hugh Miller
Posted by: Hugh Miller | March 11, 2008 9:13 PM
". . . even going so far as to claim, in some cases, that studying religion from a psychological perspective is pointless, as (many of them seem to believe) is any scholarly study of religion whatsoever . . . "
Oh, hang on! - I agree with much of what you're saying in the post, but is this bit actually true in a meaningful sense? I mean, I'm sure one can find some cases of (as with virtually anything, esp. online), but how common is this? Especially given all the recent work on the cognitive and evolutionary foundations of religion . . . .
Now, there's certainly the argument that studying theology is utterly pointless, which I'd argue can be based in an incomplete understanding of what theology can be, albeit often also on the part of those complaining that those icky New Atheists don't know nuthin' 'bout theology. (That is, as a source of arguments for the existence of God as part of non-human reality, it's just as useful as as the ancient classical idea of the elements is for understanding modern chemistry. However, as both Philip Ball (in his little book on The Ingredients) and Carl Zimmer (in the wonderful Soul Made Flesh) point out, that concept's immensely important in understanding the history of science as it developed, and (Ball argues) even some of how we think today. Additionally, theology - besides being a human thing, and as such inherently of interest, however academic and obscure - also deals with ethical, social, and personal matters that might, having been reached by using God as a kind of psychological scaffold, turn out to stand on their own and be nontheistically useful without that scaffolding. Etc.)
Posted by: Dan S. | March 11, 2008 11:18 PM
Let's say that Joe Smith writes a book. Joe is strong in his faith. The first chapter describes how Zeus prefers His sacrifices to be presented. The second chapter is all about the proper and improper ways of petitioning Chronos. Followed by a very detailed list of the ways Aphrodite can and cannot assist in your quest to attain happiness.
Unless I misunderstand(entirely possible), you are suggesting that I must not only read the entire book, but also follow all the footnotes, study Joe's previous works and attempt to put it all into context before dismissing it?
I should attempt to understand how Zeus, Chronos and Aphrodite influence Joe's life, and how he lives in accordance to their wishes before dismissing him as a fool?
Posted by: Mitchbert | March 11, 2008 11:22 PM
I always find discussions of belief very strange largely due to this weird assumption that "belief" is and ok thing for human beings to be doing. "Believing" itself seems to be the source of a great deal of misery as well as joy, but so is taking drugs, so it's hard to assume it's a normal thing that people should just "do" without calling into question WHY they are doing it. Not arriving at a belief mind, but the actually action of believing. If you ask people "Why do you believe?" they often assume you are talking about religious beliefs, not about why the "believe" anything at all. That is a significantly more interesting question to me.
Posted by: csbmonkey | March 11, 2008 11:35 PM
What follows is a bit of a rant. I, of course, think it to be highly relevant yet mostly ignored.
One thing that seems to be universally omitted from discussions such as this is the mechanism(s) of belief, at the most fundamental psycho-neurological levels. Which leads to an understanding of why logic and reason are such weak tools when it comes to confronting firmly entrenched belief systems such as the Evangelicals. And the "New Atheist" too. And not just in the arena of religion.
Ever heard the phrase "gut feeling"? Expressive of the sensations in that area associated with "knowing" when something is "wrong" or "right". It is emerging that this is not just a saying, but has actual relevance to what we are discussing. There is an old structure in the brain called the Amygdala. Early evolutionary function seems to be evaluation of chemical signatures and nutritional or poisonous effects once in the body; in other words, it controlled tropisms.. Over the eons it has become embroiled in increasingly higher brain functions, until today when it is also part of the learning/evaluating tryptich, the part that decides on the desirability or correctness of a higher brain statelet. And it retains its connections to the digestive system.
One clear sign of its avoidance evaluation is the pain and nausea felt when ones most prized beliefs are challenged. Have you ever been in love but had your loved one engage in contradictory behavior? Especially painful when that is accompanied by "I love you but .."? Immediate thoughts or cries along the lines of "If you loved me then ..." pour out. What is happening is that ones axiomatic beliefs about love are being challenged - reality is not agreeing with the inner model of what it should be. Such moments are actually really crucial to emotional and mental development - at these times, one has all the needed reward chemicals floating around in the brain to choose a modification to the belief system that will reduce the pain. In the example, either accept reality (well sorry, dude, but we're not that compatible after all) to rejecting reality (she's an evil person who has betrayed me).
Similar actions and reactions accompany challenging of any belief system laid down in early life by repetitive induction or by high emotions or trauma not accompanied by prompt analysis, and it is rare that these unexamined systems include methods for correcting them when they prove inadequate to accommodate reality. Typical of religious communities - typified by catechisms of one sort or another - but also a trap for very bright children who managed internalize the belief that reason is all that is required. When these two face off, the religious get the extreme reaction that their beliefs about reality (being wrong, but then, scripted in such a way that if they stay within their community they will never be challenged) including "God" are challenged by the Atheist or heretic, while the "New Atheist" has similar reactions to the apparent refusal of the religious to accept that Reason will lead them out of Error. Equally religious, in that is is driven by deep beliefs, even though the reality of "God" is denied vs asserted.
Only being forced into a situation where the belief supported by Reason can be the only way out that retains sanity, and that being appallingly clear, can change such deep beliefs. Not arguments. Not dispassionate (or passionate) appeals to Reason. And since all sides feel such aversion to each others' company, the only humane social construct that accepts both involves separation of Church and State, and a societal meme that each is entitled to their own opinions, just don't push it in my face. Focus on the school system and emphasize the tools of realistic thinking rather than the tools of repetition. Then maybe in a couple of generations it will not be an issue any more.
end rant
Rille - sorry for what exactly? The most lucid use of language? lack of typos? Nothing to be sorry for...
Posted by: GrayGaffer | March 12, 2008 12:12 AM
I see that atheists now have to JUSTIFY their atheism to be accepted by the intelligentsia. Blessed are they that disbelieve and yet have no reason to do so. For theirs is the kingdom of freedom. Let me light my lantern and go about the streets seeking an atheist who can JUSTIFY his nonbelief. We of little faith take thy nonrespect and plant it in the place where if the good lord did not make it open or close, we could not stand before ye!
Posted by: King Solomon | March 12, 2008 1:45 AM
Sorry but there is no such thing as an agnostic or even a "Neville Chamberlain atheist".
If you don't see evidence that religious creeds are total nonsense you are entangled in monkeys' paranoia about hidden agency (brought about by evolution quirks, yes, but...)
Look at that trash: Hair prayer ad judged 'offensive'!
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 12, 2008 5:44 AM
Gray, your points won't really get any argument from me. I've argued in the past that one of the reasons I'm not the sort of atheist that "New Athiests" are and would like others to be is because I have a deep sense of the basic fallibility of human reasoning, and realize that few of our beliefs are arrived at through anything like careful reasoning. Instead, our beliefs are arrived at through accident and heuristic, bias and personality, and perhaps most of all, culture. I see no reason to fight over their truth and falsity with everything that can undercut them. Instead, talk about where they lead, and if they lead to values that one can live by and respect, and to actions consistent with those, or actions that further their causes, then I couldn't care less whether the beliefs are true or false, and I won't argue with evangelicals or New Atheists about their truth and falsity, given that.
Posted by: Chris | March 12, 2008 11:48 AM
A couple of thoughts. First, from the quoted part of the paper:
We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Some beliefs are directly harmful ("my religion tells me to stone homosexuals") and some are indirectly harmful (eg, lead to a ignorant society that is incapable of using science to make intelligent collective decisions). I want to see these beliefs suppressed and eventually silenced. A statement like this brings tends to get one labeled as a fascist or anti-free speech, but I don't think that needs to be the case, since the question is about HOW you want them silenced. I want too see them silenced because rational beliefs wins out in the end, through education, formally and informally, and discussion.
Chris goes on to spew a bunch of relativistic, feel-good bullshit and basically ends up equating everything. All of these arguments can be paraphrased the same way: "people seem to disagree, and I don't want to make anyone sad, so let's just decide all of their beliefs are compatible and equally valuable and hold hands and be happy". An example: "The "New Atheists," for example, feel that they have a justified lack of respect for all things religious, at least qua religious, precisely because they see religious belief as false, and not only false, but absurdly so."
Note the language. They "see religious belief as false." Rather than, "they point out that not only is there no evidence that religious belief is not based in falsehood, but all existing religious make empirical claims that are demonstratively false."
This post, which is based on a thousand models before it, wouldn't be complete with this: "Everyone has false beliefs -- a bunch of them, in fact. I'd even venture to guess that if we audited any random individual, atheist, theist, or whatever, we'd find that most of their beliefs are false"
I don't know what false beliefs Chris imagines atheists as holding. Does he think we believe in fairies? Even if we did, would that have the same bearing on the rest of the world as believing the infidel must die? I would say a rational person holds three kinds of beliefs: true, substantiated ones ("the earth revolves around the sun"), and ones conjectured from substantiated ones ("if we look carefully at these energy levels, we might find WIMPS"). These beliefs - and I actually hate to use this word - come with reasoned levels of likelihood. The final kind of belief an atheist might hold is a mistaken belief ("Sally likes me.") The crux is here, though: when Sally issues a cold rejection, the rational person changes the belief.
Summary: first, when did the truth stop mattering? When did all beliefs all of the sudden become equal? And second, what are all these false beliefs atheists hold, that presumably are as significant as, "I believe God's son was murdered by Jews 2000 years ago and wrote a book, and I'm going to live my life by that book".
Posted by: jeffk | March 12, 2008 1:01 PM
Jeff, see, that's the tone I'm talking about. I hope you know, deep down, that dismissing what I've said as relativism (it's not) and an attempt to make everyone feel good (it's quite obviously not) doesn't help your case.
Posted by: Chris | March 12, 2008 1:04 PM
Mitchbert, sorry, missed your comment. No, I wouldn't expect you to take that sort of thing seriously, but I haven't asked you to take any such thing seriously and study it at length. The very analogy, however, demonstrates the attitude I'm talking about. The fact is, there are long cultural histories, philosophical and theological traditions, psychological reality, etc., that need to be studied to comment intelligently on religions specifically and religion in general, because they aren't so simple as anthropomorphic gods running amok.
Posted by: Chris | March 12, 2008 1:17 PM
How is it not relativism? You equate rational beliefs with irrational ones, and make no attempt to assign value (or lack thereof) to any of them. I don't think that you literally think to yourself, "I want to make everyone feel good," but in my experience inability to make judgments about beliefs or opinions stems from an inner fear of offending anyone.
Posted by: jeffk | March 12, 2008 1:34 PM
Chris,
In your reply to Mitchbert, you seem to be saying that one doesn't need to delve deep into theology in order to dismiss someone who believes in an anthromorphic god as a fool. Is that really your position? If so, how does that differ from the position of a new atheist who routinely holds up specific religious opinions or actions for ridicule (e.g., PZ)?
Posted by: gort | March 12, 2008 1:37 PM
In a word, bullshit. The belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago is simply false, as we use that term for other beliefs (such as "there are elephants living in my refrigerator"). The belief that humans did not evolve from other organisms is simply false. The belief that the earth was at one time covered by a huge flood is simply false. Those are truth claims that some religions make, and they are simply false. It is nothing but rank relativism to suggest that their truth is "uncertain" or cannot be evaluated.
I am happy for people to believe whatever the heck they want, however contradictory to modern science and rationality, as long as it doesn't impact on me. But once these beliefs enter the public realm, once they have potential impact on public policy, there is every reason to question their veracity and rationality. Unfortunately, some people seem to think that the mere act of questioning is somehow "disrespectful". That is also simply false.
Posted by: Tulse | March 12, 2008 3:30 PM
Jeff, did I equate them? Can you point me to where I equated "rational" and "irrational" beliefs? The precise sentence or paragraph would be great.
gort, It's different precisely because of the factors I mentioned in my response to Mitchbert.
Tulse, If someone wants to develop scientific hypotheses, such as hypotheses about the age of the earth, then I expect him or her to adhere to the evidentiary standards of science. If they believe in the face of obvious counter-evidence, then it's hard to respect that belief. But in most cases, that's not what happens. In most cases, with respect to religious truth, the evidence is ambiguous and open to interpretation, which is part of why so many smart people disagree.
Posted by: Chris | March 12, 2008 3:35 PM
So you don't respect some of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist Christians? Or fundamentalist Muslims and Hindus? What precisely are you claiming here? As I see it, the reason that this has become such a live issue in the US is precisely because some politically powerful religious groups want to create public policy based on truth claims that are by no means "ambiguous and open to interpretation", but are simply false. Are you referring to something different?
Posted by: Tulse | March 12, 2008 3:42 PM
But in most cases, that's not what happens. In most cases, with respect to religious truth, the evidence is ambiguous and open to interpretation, which is part of why so many smart people disagree.
re: "the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago"?
(etc...)
Chris you are plainly dishonest here, or may be the words you use don't have the "ordinary" meaning every one knows about?
A "religious" meaning may be?
Could you explain?
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 12, 2008 4:04 PM
Kevem, I'm not being dishonest at all. I'm saying that the 6000 years case is a pretty specific one, but doesn't generalize. I don't respect people who are blatantly dishonest, and believing something in the face of overwhelming and unequivocal evidence (e.g., the evidence for an old earth) would qualify. So, of course, would believing that science tells us anything about the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings.
Tulse, I don't respect fundamentalism of pretty much any sort, and that includes the "New Atheists" breed. But it's not so much because of the truth or falsity of their ideas -- in some cases, fundamentalism avoids making factual claims of the sort that young earth creationists make, for example. Instead, it's because fundamentalism requires a level of zealous promotion of one's beliefs that extends well beyond the certainty associated with them.
Posted by: Chris | March 12, 2008 4:17 PM
Science certainly tells us that there is no evidence for such beings, as we generally conceive of evidence.
Oh please -- let's not trot out that canard. You can disagree with the approach, but let's not equate forceful atheism with religious fundamentalism.
Sure, but that isn't generally where the public policy conflicts are -- it is instead over evolution, and global warming, etc. etc. etc.
Again, as I said above, no atheist would care about religious belief, beyond intellectual interest, if said beliefs were not involved in forming public policy. But when they are, and they are demonstrably false, then they are rightfully opposed by those in favour of using rationality to structure our public society. Are you suggesting that such should not be the case?
You've created a straw man. No one "disrespects" the Unitarians, and no "New Atheist" writes vigorous screeds against the Quakers. In other words, although most "New Atheists" might think believing in the supernatural is silly and irrational, it is not just the silliness and irrationality that is the problem. Rather, it is precisely the religions that you say you don't respect, namely fundamentalist brands of Christianity and Islam, that are the focus of most "New Atheist" attention. And since you don't respect them, why should those writers?
Posted by: Tulse | March 12, 2008 4:35 PM
Folks, the word "belief" is as overloaded and unsafe for this discussion as is the word "theory" as used by Creationists. I will enumerate its uses as applied (not necessarily dictionary):
1: == hypothesis, in the Scientific sense, i.e. represents a statement about a personal opinion of the validity of some assertion for which there is not yet factual evidence or operational Theory (again, Scientific sense). Amenable to reason.
2: == conjecture, as in "I do believe the Sun is up".
3: == assertion of faith. Superficially similar to #1, something accessible to conscious cogitation, but not susceptible to inspection as is #1. "I believe in Jesus Christ Our Savior".
4: == underlying subconscious axiomatic organizing principles. Drilled in during childhood (mostly), not easily accessible to conscious cogitation, along the lines of Knowing - this level of belief is automatically and unquestioningly held to be True. A product of evolution, not choice, i.e. we _must_ believe at this level or we cannot function at all. But the details are learned, not inherited. And hence the ray of light is that they can be changed.
The belief that the Earth is 6000 years old is spoken from #3, but even if inside the speaker understands that there is evidence to the contrary, they cannot seriously look at that evidence because their #4 fundamentals both forbid it, and require that they consciously assert 6000, because that is what The Bible says, and The Bible is installed as the expression of their #4 belief layer. Challenging their assertions invokes the physiological distress that accompanies Amygdalic rejection and, if they are allowed to evade the challenge, reinforces their system; if not, they fight. Details differ, but we all, without exception, have to deal with this in some aspect of our lives.
Posted by: GrayGaffer | March 12, 2008 6:15 PM
One thing I know is that I don't know much. BUT I DO know that I live in America and the last time I looked, people were entitled to believe or disbelieve. I was brought up to respect people for their humanity - not for what faith they possess or do not possess. Let me tell you that what this person wrote smacks of religious arrogance. We Jews don't judge people on what they believe but on what they do. Disrespecting people for how they believe is fascism. I know
fundamentalists who live their lives practicing acts of kindness and I know atheists who live their lives as assholes. This is still America. As long as the religious respect me by not forcing their beliefs down my throat; as long as they don't force law-makers to make laws that restrict my freedom, as long as they behave like MENTSCHEN, they have my respect.
Lindsey of Regardant les Nuages represents, not atheists, but the worst kind of elitist intellectual. She wants everyone to think as she does. She comes across as a religious fascist.
Israel is Real!
Posted by: King Solomon | March 12, 2008 6:24 PM
Tulse, only under scientific standards of evidence, which is precisely what I'm talking about.
Also, I'm not calling New Atheists fundamentalists because they're forceful. I think I've outlined the reasons I think they're fundamentalist, and the anti-intellectualism is one of them, as is the black-or-white thinking, positivism, etc.
And since I've already said that if people do things that are practically problematic, respect is a problem, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the public policy stuff.
Posted by: Chris | March 12, 2008 6:32 PM
Because that is the issue! Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett and Harris wouldn't have bothered to write books if religious beliefs weren't intruding on public policy. Very few atheists get worked up about the Quakers or Buddhists or Unitarians. My point is that you and the "New Atheists" actually have a lot of common ground -- you both essentially are worried about, and have a problem respecting, the same people and beliefs. So I'm not sure what your objection actually is.
Posted by: Tulse | March 12, 2008 6:56 PM
Jeff, did I equate them? Can you point me to where I equated "rational" and "irrational" beliefs? The precise sentence or paragraph would be great.
Well, it's pretty much the point of the post (and following comments) so far as I can read them but I'll find examples:
I don't respect fundamentalism of pretty much any sort
Atheism here has been recast as religious fundamentalism.
The entire paragraph about Everyone has false beliefs...So even with beliefs as important as religious beliefs, perceived truth or falsity seems like a poor basis for assigning or denying respect. Here, the about of respect deserved by a flat-earther and someone who has some other common atheist false belief (no examples have been given) are equated.
most people arrive at their religious belief -- as most people arrive at most beliefs -- without a great deal of reflection. This may be one place where at least first-generation atheists have a leg up on most theists.
So that's our only "leg up"? Empiricism and virgin births would be equal except that we've "reflected" on it more?
Then there's this But their truth and falsity is, still, hardly certain in any objective sense on either side, no matter how certain particular individuals may feel about their own beliefs.
How is the truth or falsity of virgin births and talking gods "hardly certain"?
And I feel the same way about the "New Atheist's" Christian equivalent, the rabid evangelical who has never considered alternatives.
Ah, now the dreaded "New Atheists", who simply speak logically and write tame books, are equated with the bible thumping, screaming moron by my bus stop.
Need I go on? Like I said, it's the point of the post. It's all part of this post-modern conspiracy to abandon all judgmental faculties to avoid offense.
Posted by: jeffk | March 12, 2008 7:49 PM
To King Solomon who writes: Lindsey of Regardant les Nuages represents, not atheists, but the worst kind of elitist intellectual. She wants everyone to think as she does. She comes across as a religious fascist.
This made me laugh, of course, because if you knew me at all you'd know I'm neither an elite nor much of an "intellectual" (unless all undergrads can be classified as such). But I'm wondering what on earth you are so upset about? The question is not, and I'll say this as much as I have to, whether you can respect that person (for other reasons, or as a whole). The questions is whether you can respect that belief, or the part of the person that holds that belief. Maybe you don't think individual beliefs warrant respect or disrespect, but I (and I'm not alone in this) think they do. How did it come across that I want everyone to believe what I do if my conclusion was that I can, and often do, respect beliefs that I disagree with? The interesting discussion is whether you can find value in what you disagree with, and more importantly how that value affects your actions. If I value your atheism, for whatever reason, then I will do the respectful act of engaging it and giving it due consideration (regardless of my stance towards it). If you don't respect a belief, then you don't do that. It's not about making others belief what I do, but it is about discussing where we differ and trying to make sense of why we disagree. That is important in that it teaches you to be responsible with your own beliefs, but it also keeps you from easily dismissing opposing beliefs.
You also write: We Jews don't judge people on what they believe but on what they do. Disrespecting people for how they believe is fascism.
Again, I don't necessarily judge the person for that belief, but rather the belief itself and how/why it's held. And it does matter how a belief is lived out. If you say you believe that women and men are equals, but then discriminate women in practice, then I no longer respect your belief because it wasn't consistent with your life. Call it fascism if you will (though I don't know why), but I won't respect a professed belief that you don't actually live by.
Posted by: lindsey | March 13, 2008 9:27 AM
Not clear to me that King Solomon read either Lindsey's post or mine. Its pretty clear if you read what we both wrote that what is at issue is respecting someone's holding a belief that one thinks is false. You may well respect the person, but not respect their holding a particular belief; there's no contradiction there. Do you, King Solomon, respect racists and anti-semites? And if you do, do you respect their holding of their racist and anti-semitic beliefs? I don't, and not doing so hardly amounts to be an intellectual elitist. Lindsey's post is all about being a theist but nevertheless respecting atheists who hold their beliefs in a certain way.
BTW, your practice of calling someone a fascist for writing what Lindsey did is in tension with your principle of respecting people for what they do, not what they believe.
Posted by: harry b | March 13, 2008 10:50 AM
Mitchbert, why shouldn't you?
You've chosen what you clearly believe is an absurd example, and perhaps it is. But merely namedropping Zeus and Aphrodite does not make a rational argument. It's just an appeal to normatives.
Your words: dismissing him as a fool. What's so scientific about that?
Posted by: Chris Schoen (nontheist) | March 13, 2008 11:33 AM
Tulse, that's not the issue. Several people, including Dawkins (I dunno about Hitchens), Myers, and many commenters on ScienceBlogs, have explicitly stated that religion doesn't deserve respect because it's false. That's also Blackburn's point. So it's the one I'm addressing. Since I explicitly state that I judge beliefs by how people get to them (in line with Lindsey's post -- that is, first and foremost, if they're honest with themselves and others), and more importantly, how they act on them (in relation to their certainty, and in relation to my values), then harping on the public policy consequences of a belief as the determinant of respect seems to imply that you actually agree with me. And I don't think you do.
Jeff, you're forgetting, then, the part where I discuss Lindsey's points about how people arrive at their beliefs. To be a flat-earther, for example, you'd have to be blind or blatantly dishonest, and it's hard to respect beliefs arrived at from either of those directions.
As for talk of certainty and the virgin birth, good luck giving me scientific evidence on that one. I won't take induction from normal births as evidence, since we're not talking about a normal birth. I, of course, don't believe in the virgin birth (despite being raised Catholic, I never really did), and subjectively, I'm pretty certain it's a bullshit idea, but I'm not willing to judge someone else's belief in it based on my subjective certainty. Then again, if you've got evidence I haven't seen, feel free to offer it up. Perhaps some eye witnesses? DNA? The same problem exists for most historical claims of religions like Christianity. It's certainly true that we can use science to show that some are false (e.g., the global flood or the formation of the universe in a literal 6 days), but for the most part, these stories are unverifiable. There's no evidence either way bearing on Moses' conversation with a bush that was on fire, or Jesus' creating a bunch of bread and fish out of a little of each. And simply saying that these things are scientifically impossible won't do, because they're supposed to be so. Sure, you and I don't like to believe these sorts of things without evidence, and if I were a betting man, I'd say you're a bit of a verificationist (if you are, I suggest you think about the falsity of the beliefs associated with that failed philosophy), but certain is something we're not about these things. At least not in any objective sense.
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2008 11:42 AM
Unlike Chris, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on whether the virgin birth or burning bush were "true" or not. It's hard for modern rationalists to take in, but these stories are not in the same cognitive category as scientific propositions. Granted, it's been a trend among fundamentalists over the last century to make them so, but for most of the history of religion this conflation does not obtain, and that includes most contemporary religious adherents.
Mythic thinking is an intransigent thing, and not restricted to so-called "faith heads." The whole conceit of rationalist truth squads going around busting everyone else's bubbles of delusion is itself a myth, not a logical fact. Like other foundational myths, it sets its proponents apart as heroes with an important purpose. What it obscures is the profound degree to which the uber-rationalist is prone to his or her own deceptions, interpretations, and fabulations.
What is ultimately respectable about many (by no means all) religious adherents is that they reject the neurotic need to be certain of everything; and quite often they are fully aware that their religious myths are just that. Not facts, subject to verification, but ways of engaging the world meaningfully and morally. Not your cup of tea? Then maybe you should decline dinner invitations on the sabbath.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | March 13, 2008 12:18 PM
Chris Schoen, I don't mean to place too much emphasis on the truth of things like the virgin birth. My point is that the truth of them is too elusive, from any objective standpoint, to be the measure of much of anything, much less respect (where respect determines how you treat a person). In fact, I'm trying to criticize the people on my side of the theistic divide -- atheists, that is -- who do try to treat them as scientific propositions, or at least as propositions that can and should be judged by the evidentiary standards of science. I call them fundamentalists in part because they share that approach with their theistic analogs. Their rationalism is a belief or set of beliefs that I consider blatantly false, to the point that one has to be dishonest, most often in the form of anti-intellectualism that causes them to be unwilling, if not incapable, of actually learning about positions that differ from their own, or about the possibility that there might be rational reasons for adopting those positions, and to actually decry any attempts to learn about different positions.
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2008 12:27 PM
But again, Chris, I think you're missing the context of this entire debate, which is the rise of fundamentalism and its political force in the US. Dawkins et al. wouldn't care enough about religion to not respect it were it not for its impact. Lots of people believe lots of silly, irrational things, and for the most part rationalists don't give a damn. The only reason this is at all an issue is because religion has had a resurgence as a force for determining public policy. You can talk about how "disrespectful" the New Atheists are all you want, but to ignore the context is to miss the entire reason why this is an issue in the first place.
And that sounds precisely like the kind of handwaving relativism that drives rationalists nuts. Surely it is a truth claim as to whether the human being called "Jesus" was conceived without human sperm. I have no idea what you mean by this claim being "elusive" -- it may undecidable, but surely it has a truth value. If not, how should such claims be evaluated? What other, non-religious claims might have a similar "elusive" relationship with truth?
Posted by: Tulse | March 13, 2008 12:43 PM
Chris,
It sounds like we're in agreement, especially on the intellectual dishonesty bit. It's exceedingly sad that what's left of the best minds of our generation are so unequipped to explore the logical ramifications of their own belief systems.
Tulse,
What you write here is false:
Dawkins is quite explicitly uncomfortable with various non-religious "new age" beliefs, to the point of focusing on them almost exclusively in his last TV series.
Many of Dawkins' critics have asked why he doesn't restrict his argument to fundamentalist intolerance, and live in peaceful coexistence with the many millions of theists (and billions of religious nontheists) who don't stand in opposition to science. His response, astoundingly, is that moderate religious adherents lack the courage of their convictions, and anyway they just "give cover" to the extremists.
The only way to pass muster, it seems, is to adopt Dawkins' own brand of atheist rationalism. But this itself is not a factual proposition, but a metaphysical standpoint, requiring its own articles of faith (there's no logical explanation, for example, for the origin of "something from nothing" or the "first cause" that set the laws of nature into being, but we accept them all the same, until we can find a more satisfying way to understand things).
Yes, this drives rationalists "nuts," but not because it is relativism. Relativism implies that we have no basis on which to make judgments, leading one inexorably to existentialism. Any of us is free to come up with a multitude of criteria to make judgments upon: happiness, peace, sustainability, exploration, among others. But to hide behind a chimerical objective "truth" as one's only yardstick is just an abdication of our responsibility as human beings.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | March 13, 2008 1:13 PM
Tulse, I'm not missing the context. I fully understand it, and if Dawkins et al. attacked fundamentalists on the grounds I've mentioned in this discussion, I'd be happy with that. But instead, they've attacked all religion, as if it could all be lumped together, and they've done so while avoiding actually engaging religion intellectually (in some cases, explicitly saying it's not worth engaging). Further, they've done so on grounds that I consider to be blatantly false (blatant scientism in most cases, and at the very least a naive verificationism). The problem is that Dawkins et al. have used the context to attack things well beyond the scope of the motivating context, and well beyond the scope of their knowledge base.
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Can you clarify what you mean by this? And is this just a variant of the Courtier's Reply?
Posted by: Tulse | March 13, 2008 3:18 PM
Tulse, the basic attitude is that religion is not worth studying because it's obvious that it's irrational and absurd (I think I've said this a few dozen times now). A great example from the comments sections on this blog comes from the people who decry studying religion scientifically because already know that it's just a product of irrational thinking (as if that were an explanation). Then there are the people who write long books, even mentioning (and sometimes addressing) theological arguments without actually having researched those arguments enough to know what they actually say. But most of all, it's the people who argue that religion is so obviously wrong that there's no reason to actually think about it, so they don't. Is that the Courtier's reply? I don't think so, but it's a response I hear to my accusations of anti-intellectualism all the time.
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2008 3:21 PM
Chris:
From what I can see, the scientific study of religion is actually becoming quite a hot topic, led largely by the attitude of the New Atheists that religion is essentially no different from any other human behaviour, and can thus have the same tools (e.g., evolutionary theory, neurobiology, sociology, anthropology) applied to it. Dennett has written extensively on the scientific approach to understanding religion, Dawkins has touched on the topic, and there are plenty of folks who offer other accounts. The notion that the New Atheists somehow decry the scientific study of religion is absurd.
I agree that most vocal atheists say that arguing points of theology is often a waste of time, but that is completely different that suggesting they say it should be studied scientifically. And yes, saying one should understand the finer points of theology before one can attack the foundational premises of religion as a whole is the Courtier's Reply, and is itself anti-intellectual, because it refuses to engage the actual arguments made.
Chris Schoen:
Right, and why did he focus on them? Because, for example, the UK government funds, with public money, homeopathic hospitals. In other words, it is the impact these beliefs have on the world at large that is his issue. I agree he thinks that everyone should be rational. But the reason his attacks are so vigorous is not because people have irrational beliefs, but because some of those beliefs actually matter.
Perhaps it is already obvious to you, but I have no idea what the hell that is supposed to mean. Sure, there are values other that "truth" that we can hold and aspire to. But that doesn't mean that truth itself gets dumped out the window when it conflicts with those values. Just because someone values certain religious beliefs doesn't mean that it no longer matters whether the world is 6000 years old or not, or whether humans evolved from other species or not. More to the point, just because someone values those beliefs does not change their truth value. Some beliefs are just empirically wrong. (And can I just say that I find it bizarre that the defenders of religion seem to have retreated to relativism, when the very foundation of religion is a belief in the absolute?)
Posted by: Tulse | March 13, 2008 4:05 PM
Tulse, From what I can tell, and I know a few of the big psychology of religion researchers, this started before Dawkins started going off. And in fact, they've argued that the psychological study of religion undermines some of Dawkins' claims. And I'm not asking anyone to study anything scientifically -- I think science is limited, here. But if you're going to present arguments against the ontological argument, say, it would certainly help to know what the ontological argument actually says (Hitchens doesn't, for example), and what counterarguments have already been addressed (Dawkins doesn't). It might also help not to use parodies as your main counterargument (as Dawkins does). It would also help, in discussing the historical and contemporary behavior of the religious, to actually study the history and contemporary behavior of the religious (e.g., Harris' mistaken belief that there are no Christian terrorist groups, or the claim, made by many "New Atheists," that most wars have had religious origins, which are difficult to defend historically). Then there's the psychology of religion. Almost all "New Atheists" impute motives for religious belief, but even a quick look at the study of the psychology of religion would show the picture to be much more complex. Then, of course, there's the philosophy of religion, and the concepts of evidence and faith, both of which most "New Atheists" conceive in an extremely over-simplistic, or in some cases Straw Man-like way.
Posted by: Chris | March 13, 2008 4:22 PM
I'll attempt to answer Lindsey and Harry.
Having learned something about you, Lindsey, I understand why we come across so differently in our opinions. Probably it's our age difference. Really I'm old enough to be your grandfather. And both you and Harry are right about me using names such as fascist. So accept my apology.
Harry, no I don't respect antisemites, especially ones who act out, and that's because I judge them on their actions.
I think the people who engage in conversations such as this are in the minority so I don't expect a lot of critical thinking from most people. I make this remark based on my experience in dealing with people. Most people are not into thinking about what they believe or don't believe. I became an atheist twice in my life and in both instances, it had nothing to do with sitting down and thinking about it. The first time I became an atheist was after seeing so-called religious people act like pigs, and the second time had to do with a realization that I wanted to create my own meaning in life. So in both cases, it was visceral, not cerebral. I didn't give it much thought. It was only after reaching a conclusion that the world really can't be run the way most people say it is run, that is, by a human god, that I began to read books to backup my own [dis]belief. Nothing in life persists in homeostasis.
The more I moved away from religion, the more I noticed that many religious people act like pigs. My attachment to atheism has in large part to do with people's attempts to use a ridiculous set of myths to impose a pre-modern worldview on America. I don't usually philosophize about my atheism as much as I used to about my religious beliefs.
There is no TALMUD for atheists as far as I know.
However, if a person is decent and yet is a believer, I will respect her. If a person is not a deep thinker yet says she doesn't believe in gods because it just seems like a load of crap, why should I not respect her? Most people are not intellectuals but as Anne Frank said, most people are good, believers or not. The good do not impose their beliefs on others, and they do not need to JUSTIFY their beliefs or lack thereof.
Posted by: King Solomon | March 14, 2008 12:21 AM
jeffk:
Beliefs I have which may be false: We should drink eight glasses of water per day (I don't know what the most recent research says, but there seems to be some dispute, and I'm going to look that up today). There are eight planets and three dwarf planets in the solar system (can be changed by finding more or redefining planets). The Lord of the Rings trilogy was the best single movie ever made (subjective opinion, can't be argued with, although I might change my mind as my tastes change, but could have a truth or falsity value).
Are most atheists empiricists? It would indeed be good if most people were more empirical, but I don't think empiricism can be considered a quality posessed by all atheists or lacked by all religiousists.
What about the truth or falisty that "Eating pork is immoral"? Or the truth or falsity of a statement such as, "A person named Jesus of Nazareth did exist in the beginning of the first century CE, and he did make some progress in morality over that morality propounded in the Old Testament of the Bible"?
And you're equating all religiousists with the screaming moron by your bus stop. A number of religious people can be quite sensical (in areas not related to their religious beliefs) and empirical, because of the marvelous human ability to compartmentalize.
Posted by: SDyuaa | March 14, 2008 10:53 AM
Tules writes:
If this is the case, then his proper target should be government subsidies, not the practitioners themselves. Public policy is an appropriate place to debate where the energies of a society should be directed. But this is not the way Dawkins makes the case. He asserts there are right and wrong ways to think and believe, based not on any argument, but on his own moral preference for certainty. He presents this, of course, as self-evident, but it is not. For rationalism to be valued over other modes of thought, one must set the virtues of certainty, knowledge, and mastery above all others. Certainty, knowledge and mastery have their place, but it is a matter for debate whether they should be placed above, below, or alongside other virtues. Dawkins will not engage this debate (which is, again, part of why he gets branded a fundamentalist.)
This is one hazard of a scientist without philosophical training engaging in a debate whose scope exceeds his understanding, for Dawkins, like most "realist" scientists, cannot see the suppositions which underlie his thinking, and thus can't defend them.
It means, firstly, that objective truth is a fantasy. A superstition, if you will, though surely a comforting one.
Secondly, it means that by asserting truth as the master virtue, we get to pretend that the way things are is just "the way things are" rather than something we can change our perspective on. Again, I'm not making a relativist argument here. That the universe is 6,000 years old, and that it is 12 billion years old are not interchangeable statements. I can't imagine an argument that would persuade me I should accept the former. But the point is that they are both evaluable; they both arrive in our consciousnesses with a lot of semantic baggage from which they are inseparable.
Here's a more subtle field of debate than the age of the earth. Does the world consist of things, or of interactions between things? It's not just an idle philosophical musing, but rather a metaphysical question with important social policy implications. We humans are part of the universe, after all, and subject to whatever side of this argument we come down on. If we think of ourselves primarily as objects, our language, psychology, statecraft, and science will reflect this with emphases on separation, division, alienation, otherness, and the like. Indeed we can see this in language like Steven Weinberg's when he talks of a "pointless" universe.
Alternatively we can see ourselves in our connections to other selves, organisms, and objects in the universe, which immediately brings ramifications to mind we might not otherwise consider. For example, it changes the nature of the argument for animal experimentation.
I'm not trying to make the case here for one side of this debate over the other. I just want to show that even "truth" is a matter of perspective, and one of the glories of being such a highly developed species is being able to participate in what that perspective might be, rather than passive obsequiousness to the the worldviews of generations past.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | March 14, 2008 2:04 PM
Tulse, I forgot to respond to one more of your statements:
I still hold out hope that some of the "New Atheists" will one day trouble themselves to actually read some history of religious thought. Absolutism is a feature of a lot of religious thought, but by no means a majority, and by no means was it the "foundation" of religion.
Posted by: Chris Schoen | March 14, 2008 2:25 PM
Well, in the case of homeopathy, he says there are beliefs that will help keep you healthy based on empirical evidence -- you can argue that he's wrong to say those beliefs are "right, but that doesn't change the facts. You can choose to be all warm and fuzzy about beliefs in homeopathy, but if you do that when you have cancer (or a gunshot wound), you're far more likely to be dead, because the actual universe doesn't give a damn about "other modes of thought".
And, just to flag an issue here that also comes up below, I am presuming from your tone that you thing Dawkins is actually objectively wrong to think and believe that there are right and wrong ways to think and believe, no? How is that not self-refuting?
Advocating rationalism does not mean believing that it is the only value or virtue to hold -- all it suggests is that claims about the world should, when possible, be evaluated by reason and evidence. It does not claim that social relations do not involve other, non-scientific values, or that cultures do not assert claims that cannot be evaluated by rational means.
You seem awfully "certain" of that statement. What is the truth value of that objective claim? You're being rather dismissive of those who hold worldviews in which there is objective truth -- do you not respect such views? Just as with Dawkins, you seem certain that there is no certainty, that it is objectively true that there is no objective truth.
See, that's the problem with asserting relativism -- it eats itself.
What utter nonsense. The physical world is the way it is -- no amount of "changing your perspective" when falling off a skyscraper is going to keep you from splattering on the pavement. Science has certainly changed its perspective about the nature of the physical quite often, and many times that change in perspective have been profound (Galileo, Freud, Einstein, to name a few on the standard list of perspective-changers). But the physical universe itself didn't change, merely our understanding of it (if you want to talk about the socio-cultural domain, that is an entirely different kettle of fish). Changing perspective is a psychological feature that has no relation to the actual physics/metaphysics of the world.
Of course both statements are evaluable, and one is simply wrong, based on the evidence we currently have. Speaking of "inseparable semantic baggage" is simply bafflegab -- I'm sure one could wax poetic about the cultural embeddedness of the claim that elephants live in my refrigerator, but no amount of "semantic baggage" will change the truth value of the statement itself and suddenly make pachyderms trod in the butter.
First off, that question is silly -- the universe is made of what it is made of (generally speaking, "things" at various levels that "interact" in various ways, including to make other "things"), and no amount of metaphysical speculation will change that (although I do note that you seem to think there is an absolute answer to that statement...). Second, the metaphysics of the physical world has absolutely no implications about social policy, any more than the truth of evolution demands Social Darwinism. You seem to be endorsing the Naturalistic (or should it be "Metaphysical") Fallacy, and that's just silly.
Again, completely and utter bollocks. In the specific case you mention, what changes the nature of the argument for animal experimentation is an understanding that humans are evolved from other animals, that there is no inherent and fundamental divide between us and other creatures, that the same qualities we value in humans (arguably, the ability to experience) are also present in non-humans to varying degrees. In other words, what changes the nature of the argument is understanding the nature of the physical world and our history in it. (As an existence proof, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons.)
Your metaphysics won't get you anywhere in terms of ethics. I am more "connected" in many real ways with the chair I'm sitting on that I am with my retriever, but I'm only willing to put the former in a fire. Without specifying what "connections" count in advance, just saying t