Pharyngula

I found his post descriptive, not prescriptive, i.e., an effort to understand why people believe (so we can perhaps figure out how to treat the condition). Now, on second read, I kinda also like his older post, the one that he links to in the first sentence: Today the soul, not the body, reigns supreme - the two go welll together.

Posted by: coturnix | April 25, 2006 7:37 AM

It's also true that your average Norwegian bachelor farmer does smell a bit, but it's impolite to tell him to take a bath.

Posted by: David Wilford | April 25, 2006 7:47 AM

I have a concern about the logic of your post. First, while ignorance may be a near-universal human condition, belief in the principle or value of ignorance is not, not intentionally. That's why it was important for you to include "supernatural belief" in the quotes of your second paragraph rather than just "supernatural/spirituality/religion" for which "ingorance" would be substitute. I think there is a subtle but important distinction.

So, to take it in reverse, I may have sympathy for someone who is ignorant (under certain circumstances), but I would not have sympathy for someone who promotes ignorance. I may have sympathy for someone who believes in the supernatural, but not as much for someone who promotes belief the supernatural.

Posted by: myrddin | April 25, 2006 7:49 AM

It is only a choice if a person gets religion as an adult. If one is, as usually happens, inculcated as a child, and, as many a born-again atheist attests, losing religion is a difficult and painful process, then I would not say that religiosu belief for most people is a choice and a moral failing. The argument that it is presumes that a little child is a rational animal, and we know that adults are not that good either. Religiosity chould be treated as a developmental disorder, not a moral failing. The irrationality/religiosity is a pathology, serious pathology, that parents give to their children, and which we need to study in order to learn how to treat it.

Posted by: coturnix | April 25, 2006 7:51 AM

Re: Caledonian

"People actively choose to accept these strange dogmas because they find them soothing."

That is one possibility, or one contributing factor. Another factor is that without the proper intellectual and emotional tools, it is not particulalry difficult to see how people actually believe in the supernatural. Without the necessary underlying framework to incorporate the logical, rational or scientific understanding of a phenomena, it is not that much of a jump to say "something else must be out there". That person's subjective experience of an event may be very powerful to them, and reinforced over time. To dismiss all of that as "Bull" I think is a bit much, IMO.

Posted by: myrddin | April 25, 2006 7:58 AM

Another factor is that without the proper intellectual and emotional tools, it is not particulalry difficult to see how people actually believe in the supernatural.

You can make sophisticated tools with more primitive tools. A mind would have to be deprived indeed to be rendered incapable of process of thought.

The real issue is that the vast majority of people don't care about truth or rationality -- when culture says that they *should* care, they give the concepts lip service. Ultimately those considerations simply don't enter into their decisions of what should be done and how we should do it.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 25, 2006 8:02 AM

I call bullsh-t on anyone proclaiming full, intellectually honest recognition of and adoption of atheism and the rejection of the supernatural at age six.

Argument from incredulity. It happened whether you find it plausible or not. Deal.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 25, 2006 8:05 AM

No, you have sacrificed your own credibility with your puffed-up claims. I suggest going and hanging out with some six-year-olds before making that same claim again.

Posted by: myrddin | April 25, 2006 8:08 AM

^^^Ego getting in the way of honesty.

Posted by: myrddin | April 25, 2006 8:14 AM

"It's also true that your average Norwegian bachelor farmer does smell a bit, but it's impolite to tell him to take a bath."

True, but if he's advocating that his stink should be accepted by everybody and goes out of his way to infringe on making you stink because of determined goal he has in order to achieve some kind of unprovable status in the afterlife, then he must be slapped down.

Posted by: Zbu | April 25, 2006 8:23 AM

Yes, we should have no sympathies with the promoters of ignorance. That includes all the cases where the criticism that the blog-entry makes does not fit. :-)

Posted by: Arun Gupta | April 25, 2006 8:25 AM

I agree it is possible for a rare 6-year old to conclude there is no God, but that does not mean that this 6-year old has a coherent atheistic worldview and is immune from other silly beliefs and superstitions.

I have yet to see evidence indicating that any atheist, of any age, is immune from silly beliefs and superstitions. This is not a matter of being without flaws, this is a matter of being able to recognize and discard a specific type of mental flaw.

In my experience, people hold on to incorrect beliefs despite abundant evidence and reasoning to the contrary not because of deficiencies in their processing abilities, but deficiencies in their desires. It's not that they can't think, it's that they don't wish to and do not choose to do so. A person who will not open their eyes is nearly as blind as a person without eyes, and it requires profound flaws in vision before someone with open eyes is rendered as incapable of perception as someone who keeps them closed. So to speak.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 25, 2006 8:31 AM

Several years ago I sat on an airplane next to an engineer (from Texas, naturally) who turned out to be super-religious. It was about that time that I had decided to come out of the closet about being an atheist. I used to say I was a non-believer, or some wishwash like that, but this time I just called myself an atheist.

He looked at me like I had horns sprouting from my head, but in the conversation that ensued he came to view me with more respect. Note that we did *not* have a debate about god; we just talked about our lives. We shared a lot of values, including kindness and compassion. I have had several foster children (war orphans) who were being religiously and racially persecuted in their own country (they are Christian), and he admitted at one point i was actually doing more good works than the vast numbers of "godly" people he hangs around with in his church.

I know he exited the conversation with an improved, more tolerant view of atheism.

Question: how do you think he would have exited if I had judged him or insulted him or his beliefs?

The moral is, you can sit around glorying in your own smug superiority, or you can go out and influence people and change the world for the better. If you choose the latter course it pretty much mandates, on a humane *and* a strategic level, that you choose kindness, compassion and understanding. A tiny bit of it, in fact, goes a long way.

It helps, btw, if you distinguish between the craven opportunitists - Falwell, etc. - who use religion as a means of personal aggrandisement and enrichment - from the ordinary folks who are very much like us but just happen to be religious. Ignore the former; cherish the latter.

Dawn

Posted by: Dawn O'Day | April 25, 2006 8:39 AM

We need to determine what psychological processes generate supernatural beliefs to determine what, exactly, a person who wants to fully embrace the human animal must respect. Is he required to respect religion and folk beliefs or just the primal drives that give birth to these? In other words: Are supernatural beliefs themselves animal drives which we are obliged to respect, or are they the product of several more fundamental animal drives?

We also need to determine what biological processes generate body odor to determine what, exactly, a person who wants to fully embrace the human animal must respect. Is he required to respect ethnicity and radio humor or just the primal drives that give birth to these? In other words: Are personal hygiene beliefs themselves animal drives which we are obliged to respect, or are they the product of several more fundamental psychological processes?

Posted by: David Wilford | April 25, 2006 8:41 AM

Question: how do you think he would have exited if I had judged him or insulted him or his beliefs?

The moral is, you can sit around glorying in your own smug superiority, or you can go out and influence people and change the world for the better.

Translation: we can't stop the credulous from being credulous, but we can induce them to change their beliefs to be more favorable to our position.

Thank you, but that's not what we need.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 25, 2006 8:43 AM

Hatred
"Yet I don't feel any desire to make excuses for ignorance, and I certainly don't have sympathies for the promoters of ignorance."

Hubris
"I was raised an atheist and I was still not fully rational, not to mention capable of serious critical thinking until I was about 13 or so."

delusion
"I realized my parents had no idea what they were talking about on the subject of religion when I was six, and I've been an atheist ever since."

All before 8:00 in the morning! If nothing else it must be acknowledged that this is quite a productive group.

Such industry!

Posted by: klystron | April 25, 2006 8:46 AM

I don't believe you convince people to change their beliefs by belittling them and calling them stupid. You've raised the stakes: in order to change their mind now, the person also has to admit they were stupid, not merely mistaken. You've also identified yourself as an arrogant jerk who's viewpoint need not be taken seriously.

A person who rejects a position not because of its merits, but because of the incidentals of the way it was presented, is not thinking on a level more sophisticated than raw association. Pandering to that kind of "reasoning" reinforces it.

Intellectual honesty, which is a condition very few people can sustain for more than a brief time and a short list of topics, frequently requires that we acknowledge that we've been stupid, and will be stupid again. If you reject an argument merely because the person making it says you've been stupid, that person might not have been right about your post, but he's right about your present.

Posted by: Caledonian | April 25, 2006 8:48 AM

It's one thing to say that you find an assertion made by another so improbable that you must disbelieve it until evidence for it is presented. It is quite another to say that the assertion must be false because you don't think it can be true.

There's that pesky inability to reason, again...

Posted by: Caledonian | April 25, 2006 8:54 AM

Also, the linked article says nothing about "being nice to believers". That is just not a topic touched on by that article. It is about understanding (as in studying and comprehending) the underlying biology of belief. It is not about "being understanding (as in 'nice', or 'charitable') toward" believers.

Posted by: coturnix | April 25, 2006 8:56 AM

klystron:
Bull
Such industry!

As long as we're telling everyone what they shouldn't be doing. I never knew that lacking sympathy for promoting ignorance == hate. I always thought it was more of a != situation.

Posted by: JoeB | April 25, 2006 9:01 AM

Irrationality is not a choice. It is a psychopathology. It can be treated with patience and care.

Posted by: coturnix | April 25, 2006 9:05 AM

To Edwin and others arguing for kindness or even simple politeness - you're completely on target.

To Caladonian -

re your comment:
Translation: we can't stop the credulous from being credulous, but we can induce them to change their beliefs to be more favorable to our position. Thank you but that's not what we need.

First, thank *you* for reading and considering my post. :-)

Second, if what you mean by "credulous" is to believe things we can't prove, then we are all credulous in one way or another. If you find this point incredible, read Hume. Better than anyone else, he points out the limits of our knowledge and how we routinely go beyond these limits. We have absolutely no knowledge of the future, for instance, but we all routinely and confidently state things about it that we can't prove.

btw, I'm a vegan for ethical and health reasons. I happen to think anyone who eats meat and dairy (esp. non-organic) is being incredibly credulous in falling for the (dangerous) propaganda of the meat industries. Read The China Study by Cornell professor or nutritional biochemistry T. Colin Campbell. It's the largest epidemiological study of nutrition to date, and in it he states that there is no nutrient (except B12) that you can't get better from plant than animal sources.

The intro to the book (by another author) says, "The inescapable fact is that certain people are making an awful lot of money today selling foods that are unhealthy. They want you to keep eating the foods they sell, even though doing so makes you fat, depletes your vitality and shortens and degrades your life. They want you docile, compliant and ignorant. They do not want you informed, active and passionately alive."

Sounds like the religious demagogues, doesn't it? Do you eat meat/dairy Cal? If so, how can you be so credulous?

Dawn

Posted by: Dawn O'Day | April 25, 2006 9:12 AM

it's interesting that the author mentions Nietzche.
I think there is a difference between atheists heavily influenced by Nietzche, vs atheists who use science to describe almost everything in life.

I find Nietzche compelling because he stands outside of natural science, on the side of poetry, in assessing vital topics such as morality and art.

These days, science is touted as the solution in areas it actually cannot help, especially with regards to how to live and deal with people. In other words, the sketchy field of clinical psychology has replaced religion. I believe a much better replacement would have been something related to the now extinct field of philosophy, which Foucault described as the study of "how to live".

Posted by: saltyC | April 25, 2006 9:22 AM

The thread Nick at Back To The Woom spins from his first post breaks in the second.

The first post was excellent - it made me think new and different on morality vs society and on the vagaries of the soul/body dualism at the core of many religions. It was an epiphany, or in Caledonians word I had to acknowledge that I've been stupid, and will be stupid again.

But while the second post picks up the thread nicely, Nick soon stretches it until it breaks. He forgets that we have more psychological processes going on - I am especially thinking of the sense of wonder his first article gave me. It is also a part of the psychology of the human animal, the feeling of figuring or experiencing something new out.

But there is a conflict here. The willful and lazy ignorance of supernatural explanations prohibits many enlightened sense of wonder experiences from knowledge or new situations. In Nick's own terms, one can't simultaneously poop and eat. (Well, maybe one can, but I'm not going to.)

So we have to choose which urges we follow. Contrary to what Nick says, we can't embrace the bodily drives that generate supernatural beliefs wholeheartedly. Assuming willful ignorance is bad and knowledge/new experiences good, we do best as we fight them as much as possible.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | April 25, 2006 9:40 AM

I think it's ignorance to equate religious belief with ignorance. While frequently make the same argument myself, hearing it from others always tends to put me off for some reason; I can't even imagine how the argument plays to those we should worry about most.

I tend to side with Dennet on the importance of focusing more on breaking the taboo of studying religion as a natural phenomenon. I'd be much more inclined to agree with the argument of the author you linked to had he instead replaced the bulk of his argument with Dennet's argument of the underlying evolutionary imperatives that made religion such a universal phenomenon in the first place, even in the most disparate locations.

Perhaps, PZ, that would make his argument of understanding more logical, and maybe more palatable?

Posted by: Josh Smith | April 25, 2006 10:32 AM

I don't believe you convince people to change their beliefs by belittling them and calling them stupid. You've raised the stakes: in order to change their mind now, the person also has to admit they were stupid, not merely mistaken. You've also identified yourself as an arrogant jerk who's viewpoint need not be taken seriously.

A person who rejects a position not because of its merits, but because of the incidentals of the way it was presented, is not thinking on a level more sophisticated than raw association. Pandering to that kind of "reasoning" reinforces it.

First off, you're mistaken. You're overstating your case, and setting yourself up, as you often do.

The kinds of bad reasoning people typically fall prey to usually are at a level quite a bit above raw association, and much more interesting. The heuristics that make people reasonably smart in most situations have failure modes that make them stupid in others. (And religion exploits that.)

If you just say people are "stupid," you're generally not going to get anywhere. Rightly or wrongly, they're going to guess that they're not stupid, or not quite stupid enough to justify your being an asshole about it, and that you are rather stupid to toss the word "stupid" around quite so freely.

Even if they're wrong, it'll be a good guess on their part that you're not as smart as you think, so they'll tend to tune you out as a blustering asshole.

And I think they're partly right about that. People are smarter than you think, being smart is harder than you think, and you're not as smart as you think you are.

One thing that usually works better than calling people stupid is explaining that you understand why they'd come to the conclusion they'd come to---what heuristic they're using, and why it's often right but wrong in the case in question.

It often helps to acknowledge that somebody is right up to a point, but pushing their point too far. That helps them see their mistake clearly, rather than just seeing an argument pro and an argument con, without seeing exactly why one argument actually beats the other in the final analysis.

It's usually not helpful to tell somebody they're "just stupid," even if it's true, for several reasons.

One is that if they're actually stupid, it's just beating them up and likely making them too defensive to carry on a rational discussion. It's like whipping a dog that's too "stupid" to understand what you're telling it to do.

Another is that it changes the topic, and puts much more burden of proof on you---to "win" the argument, you now have to show that they are not merely wrong, but stupidly wrong---so stupidly wrong that your behavior is justified. They don't have to prove they're right---just that they have some reason for their view that isn't stupid, or isn't quite as completely stupid as you imply.

If they can do that, you look stupid for raising the bar, and switching from an argument that maybe you could have won to one that you lose, or don't win decisively.

It also makes you vulnerable to counterattacks. Once the issue of who's stupid comes up, they are justified in arguing that no, you're the stupid one, and attacking anything you have said whether it bears on the original point or not. If they can show you've said some stupid things, you lose. Even if they can't, it turns the discussion into an unmanageable flame war, because you've given them license to drag all sorts of things in and muddy the waters.

If you're interested in winning an argument rather than provoking an unwinnable flame war, it's usually best to focus on that argument rather than berating and insulting people in an over-the-top way. Changing the topic from whether somebody is mistaken to whether they're "stupid," an "idiot,"---or even (quoting you) "a waste of protein"---is setting yourself up to fail.

And if they come back and beat you on the original point, you'll look very stupid indeed, for setting yourself up to lose multiple arguments, including the one about who's stupid.

Intellectual honesty, which is a condition very few people can sustain for more than a brief time and a short list of topics, frequently requires that we acknowledge that we've been stupid, and will be stupid again. If you reject an argument merely because the person making it says you've been stupid, that person might not have been right about your post, but he's right about your present.

When you start acknowledging that you've been stupid, I'll take your pontificating more seriously. But I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: Paul W. | April 25, 2006 10:53 AM

coturnix:

It's not 8am everywhere in the world, klystron

Sure it is. Once each day.
:-)

Posted by: blogista | April 25, 2006 11:22 AM

Personally, I slam religion in general and sometimes in particular when

A) it produces ridiculously violent results or
B) the slam is simply to funny to pass up.

HOPEFULLY, from my POV, I am also generally respectful of my silly fellow folk who thrive on the dang thang. I understand needin' hope where none is readily apparent. As you suggest though, PZ, ignorance is only an excuse in the abstract. It doesn't pay to rely upon it for very long. It's hard to find sympathy for someone who could know better and does "it" anyhow under the guise of ignorance.

Posted by: Michael Bains | April 25, 2006 11:32 AM

Some have pointed out that a lot of theistic belief is imprinted early in a child's mind, before many have a chance to think through the implications.

It's effective because at some level, people realize - especially children - that going along to get along is a smart survival strategy, at least in the short term. It's not wise, for example, to express interest in converting to Christianity if you're a Muslim in Afghanistan.

People grow up and sink roots in a theistic culture, and when that's done, extricating yourself from theism and realizing that you're setting yourself apart from the vast majority of your people - friends, family, employers, etc. - can be a scary bit of business. Pointing out the emperor has no clothes when everyone is committed to pretending can entail ugly consequences.

I have a lot of respect for those who have made that journey, and I suspect that there's an iceberg effect too - for every open, outspoken atheist, there are 10 more who have come to realize that religion is bunk, but are too deeply embedded in their culture to be outspoken about it.

It can't always be evident who these people are, but we can at least be warm and welcoming enough to encourage them. The intellectual foundation of atheism isn't enough by itself, not if social change is the goal. Social skills matter too.

Posted by: DeafScribe | April 25, 2006 11:47 AM

I just saw the movie "Grizzly Man," and will admit that at one point in my life I was seduced by the "children of the universe" argument (though certainly not to the point of Timothy Treadwell's loopiness!) of reverting back to our so-called animal natures (which are more based on 18th-Century Romanticism than modern science). I will admit that Nick's argument also flitted across my mind. For an instant. It's like all the New Age talk about "body knowledge," and me having to admit that when the local church carrion plays, I still know all of the words. (I was in the church choir for probably eleven years, and quite frankly, I love religious music--just not the popular, modern slop.) But is this a "basic need" or is it early imprinting?

I don't agree that we should get in touch with every aspect of our animal nature. What, after all, is our "nature?" One may as well argue for political dictatorship, since it is more prevalent in human history (and seemingly more "natural") than democracy. One may as well argue for unchecked promiscuity or male dominance, eating one's young, human sacrifice, etc.

Our nature is that we are not passive hostages to "nature." Richard Dawkins has reiterated that tirelessly, Carl Sagan said it, and so did Bronowski I believe. Do we even have a nature and what does that mean? "Nature," as opposed to what is really out there, seems to be largely a social construct, fabricated to support this or that ideology. One must observe nature without veering into complacency in quick conclusions.

Posted by: Kristine | April 25, 2006 11:56 AM