Fear of the godless

The older I get, the more I find the wisdom of never talking about either politics or religion in public to be the better part of valor.

Besides the politics of power that permeate organized religion, I've always suspected that "reason" (read: rational thought) makes the faithful uncomfortable because it tends to remove handy little "pat answers" from the table.

Suddenly, when we observe a phenomenon, it's no longer "God's Will" that explains it away, but it becomes a question - "why did that happen?".

Unknowns tend to make a lot of people uncomfortable.

I believe in the celestial teapot! How dare Dawkins insult my faith!?

Seriously now, I admire his self control. I might already be in jail for assault if I had been told to my face what some of his interviewees told him. But of course, that's because I'm an atheist and have no god-given moral code to curb my violent instincts.

One small wish: that in his next reenactment of the climb of Mount Improbable, he might take a side route and pretend to be a nautilus... that would make my day. Mount Improbable was one of my earliest influences; I saw his BBC Christmas lecture on evolution when I was a little kid, and years later, voilà, I'm getting a PhD in Biology (or trying to anyway).

Hm. Doesn't a blanket statement like "reason erodes faith" strike you as just a tad arrogant? I'll certainly grant that it can, when faith is ill-conceived and poorly applied. Yet it seems that one could name a fair few historical figures who are generally acknowledged as good thinkers who nevertheless were religious.

"Faith" can sneak up on a person in odd ways too, sometimes disguised as reason.

PZ- thanks for the link, hooray! My daughter and I will enjoy watching together.

PZ is onto something I've been thinking about for a long time. As long as believers don't threaten to impinge on my freedom of unbelief, I find their delusions merely sad. So it does indeed seem odd, and revealing, that so many believers act so threatened by the mere existence of unbelief.

The older I get, the more I find the wisdom of never talking about either politics or religion in public to be the better part of valor.

This is part of the problem. No one talks about things that are important. Triviality is fine in conversation, but oh no, can't discuss things that actually shape and affect peoples' lives. The really important things must be kept to oneself, dealt with in private, where there is a vanishingly small chance of being exposed to differing views or having your ideas challenged. Keep it all in an echo chamber. Eschew change.

It's high time to challenge this hoary old concept of "polite society". It isn't healthy for a democracy and reinforces ignorance.

The older I get, the more I find the wisdom of never talking about either politics or religion in public to be the better part of valor.

That's not wisdom. It's pragmatism at best and cowardice at worst, depending on how much your livelihood and friendships depend on not angering particular Christians.

One reason so many people have such stupid views about politics and religion is that not enough people are willing to speak up and talk sense into them. There is far too much respect for neutrality in our society. Being half-way between right and wrong is not right. Standing and politely watching as stupidity ravages our country is not right.

This is part of the problem. No one talks about things that are important. Triviality is fine in conversation, but oh no, can't discuss things that actually shape and affect peoples' lives. The really important things must be kept to oneself, dealt with in private, where there is a vanishingly small chance of being exposed to differing views or having your ideas challenged.

True, but also consider the words of John Stuart Mill:

"So natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realized, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale." -- On Liberty (1859)

I tend to be cowardly in meatspace, but I suppose it's understandable, given that the guy in the office next to me sometimes gets into big shouting and stomping matches over work. Don't want to know how far he can go when his magical sky daddy is thrown in.

My dad and I did once stop him cold in a right-wing diatribe, though. He claimed the wall of separation between church and state didn't exist, I quoted the First Amendment from memory, and my dad pinned him down in his hypocritical favoritism.

We devoted a good half hour to talking about Ann Coulter this weekend on our Podcast show, "The Non-Prophets." (You can download the audio at http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/audio/ if you're interested.) We came up with an interesting perspective on her motives.

The Democratic party is made up of a highly diverse coalition of people and interests. Something like 80% of atheists vote Democratic. But of course, most Democrats are godful. In addition to this, Democrats also get a lot of the wacky new agers and unusual religions; not to mention gay rights advocates, pro-choicers, environmentalists, pro-science people, anti-war people, and so on. Democrats have varying individual agendas and tend not to move in lockstep.

This is as contrasted with the Republican party, which by and large demands complete loyalty on all issues. Sure, they have "enrich the rich" big money guys and the very poor rural theocrats. But the poor rural theocrats have also been persuaded to believe in enriching the rich at their own expense; while the big money guys regularly use theocratic language to woo the rural theocrats. In short, Republicans have a kind of cohesion that Democrats don't have.

What Ann Coulter's nasty routine does is try and drive a wedge into the already tenuous alliance among Democrats. Liberal Christian Democrats are driven to say "We're not Godless, you mean lady! Look how much we love God!" And then they try to find ways to make the Democrats a more overtly religious party.

Then what happens? It alienates the atheists, of course. We atheists -- who make up a not insignificant fraction of the party's base -- see that the Democrats are starting to pander to the religious left, and they get discouraged, and the votes start to fall off.

THIS, folks, is what Coulter and her ilk are really after. Internal rifts in the Democratic party. With the last two elections being won by less than five points, a chunk of 10-20% of Democrats becoming convinced that there's no difference between the parties could ensure Republican victories for a long time to come.

Not that this is likely to happen, the Democrats' reaction SHOULD be one of unambiguous solidariy with atheists. They can say, "You know, most of us are not godless, but we gladly accept people of all religions and no religion. We understand that there are differences, but we celebrate those differences." The people who find "godless" an automatic insult will avoid the Democratic party, but they already do that anyway.

Kazim:

Liberal Christian Democrats are driven to say "We're not Godless, you mean lady! Look how much we love God!"

Would it be too much to expect a response like: "We have people of faith and atheists in our party all working towards shared goals."? This only drives a wedge if we let it.

At least here in cyberspace, I have some protection.

"One small wish: that in his [Dawkins'] next reenactment of the climb of Mount Improbable, he might take a side route and pretend to be a nautilus..."

I wish that I knew what mountain on which he was walking in that segment. Does anyone know?

P.S. "Root of All Evil?" wasn't long enough. It should have been a weekly series. There's plenty of material, and the show could not go sufficiently in depth on the subject in two episodes.

Dawkins' series, The Root of All Evil?

Thanks for the links, since I have only seen clips of the show before.

The visit to the megachurch about halfway through the first episode is painful to watch. While I thought the Nazi comparison by Dawkins was inappropriate, the sheer arrogance of the pastor during the interview is, for lack of a better word, amazing. Didn't the pastor know who he was being interviewed by (and what his field of expertise was)? Didn't the pastor realize his words showed that he was exactly the arrogant sort he seemed to dislike so much?

Ow, my head.

Kristine

He's just outside of Colorado Springs Colorado. I recognized the Garden of the Gods and Pike's Peak in the background.

Also a few of his interviews happen in Colorado Springs.

Check it out here:

http://www.gardenofgods.com/

Oh, cool. Thanks, Siamang.

I didn't think that the Nazi comparison by Dawkins was inappropriate. People forget that, before it brought gas chambers and concentration camps, National Socialism was a popular force that claimed to be wholesome and optimistic. It rejuvenated the economy. People from all over the world (and especially from America) flocked to Germany during the 1930s to see the "German miracle," and tourism flourished.

National Socialism responded to people's craving for ceremony and ritual participation as much as to their fear and helplessness. It established youth camps that claimed to unify Germans from all regions and classes. Consider the blechy music served up by these megachurches--it's just updated Nazi pablum--and think about what kind of art these born-again types probably want to see at our museums. One can guess that it would not be modernist or surrealist art. Hitler, a frustrated artist himself, loved to stage cultural shows with crappy symphonic Wagnerian rip-offs and mediocre, "healthy" paintings and sculptures. I thought of Hitler's little art openings right away when I saw that scene from Ted Haggard's megachurch.

The Nazis appealed to people's mawkish sentimentality, not just to their hatred. Hitler was a friggin' rock star--women wrote love poems to him! ("My dearest, you are such a man," etc.--I'm not making this up). People were making fools of themselves over Hitler and Nazism the way that Haggard's flock abandons all dignity in that dungeon. ("We are called to--what?" "Obedience!") Gaa. I think Dawkins' analogy is way appropriate. I think that not only would "Dr. Goebbels be proud," he would be taking notes, saying "Why didn't I think of this!"

"The older I get, the more I find the wisdom of never talking about either politics or religion in public to be the better part of valor.
That's not wisdom. It's pragmatism at best and cowardice at worst, depending on how much your livelihood and friendships depend on not angering particular Christians."

AND muslims - don't forget those who kill to protect the sacred "prophet" (may pigs b*gg*r him)

BTW - there's a new specifically anti-religion book out by Dawkins, later this year, isn't there?

I think you need to change the title of this post to "Fear of the religious," because that is, after all, what you and your faithfu... er... faithless followers here suffer from. This whole "religious [read: Christian] people fear reason" bit is a load of horse droppings. I know several religious people who are far more adept at using their intelligence, reason and logic than any of you.

But a lot of what I've read is on the money. You *are* quite afraid of expressing your opinions in public. Can't imagine why that would be... Couldn't be the fear of having your own beliefs challenged, could it? Nah.

Now, quick! Someone label me a troll so none of you have to face the truth about yourselves!

That's funny, Jason. No, I for one am not the slightest bit afraid of you- you're just a pathetic laughingstock. (Nor am I the least bit reluctant to make it plain in "meatspace", to anyone who may inquire, that I am an unbeliever.) But you're insecure enough in your beliefs to want to troll here because you apparently find us thretening. Verrrry interesting.

Only reason I'm afraid in meatspace is because of physical violence. That is the classic religious retort to the sorts of things I say online.

Oh, and, of course, faith has nothing to do with science. We do science here.

I have always disliked the proscription on meaningful discussion, i.e., religion and politics. (And increasingly, science, since it impinges on the other two)

Though recently someone in my office was on about why we needed to torture AlQueda prisoners at Gitmo. The person was a Christianist and I'd had enough. Finally I asked; "Who would Jesus torture? I mean, really, enough! Who?!"

I know several religious people who are far more adept at using their intelligence, reason and logic than any of you.

Wasn't it you trolling on some other thread who complained about using a 'broad brush' to paint ones whom you disagree with?

So please tell us about your advanced reason and logic and where these folks are going wrong. Don't just act like a troll engage the discussion.

I think you need to change the title of this post to "Fear of the religious," because that is, after all, what you and your faithfu... er... faithless followers here suffer from. This whole "religious [read: Christian] people fear reason" bit is a load of horse droppings. I know several religious people who are far more adept at using their intelligence, reason and logic than any of you.

I have some fear of the religious because of the irrational, oppresive and sometimes violent ways that they react to anyone who might not agree with the, as BronzeDog puts it, big mean "Sky Daddy" and his contradictory book of rules. And now that they are the party of power in all three branches of our government, I think we all have an understandable right to be fearful of the dangerous backwards moving legislation and actions that we've been subjected to during the current administration.

I know several religious people who are far more adept at using their intelligence, reason and logic than any of you.

If you are the arbiter of what is reason and logic, I'll take that as a compliment.

Kazim,

You're exactly right. Ann Coulter is playing the religious liberals against the atheist liberals, in the same way that Hitler played the Social Democrats against the Communists.

I didn't think that the Nazi comparison by Dawkins was inappropriate. People forget that, before it brought gas chambers and concentration camps, National Socialism was a popular force that claimed to be wholesome and optimistic.

Perhaps "inappropriate" is the wrong choice of words. While you can certainly make a comparison between these religious "rockstars" and the Nazi equivalent, the comparison Dawkins made struck me more like flamebait - almost like Dawkins was simply trying to piss the pastor off.

Oddly, the comparison didn't seem to faze the pastor - but the talk about evolution got the pastor up onto his high horse!

I'll have to finish the programs tonight. It's torture posting those links early in the day when I have classes to teach and afternoon meetings to go to!

One thing I thought was interesting was that the panel raised C.S. Lewis' answer to the mythicist hypothesis, namely, "We should expect some anticipatory themes and motifs in the religions of man."

Lol, talk about projecting one's religious beliefs onto everybody else. Next they'll be claiming that Josh McDowell (the other famous intellectual elite apologist) found the famous long lost "Noah's Ark". Lol, those guys are so predictable.

I suspect that Dawkins allowd himself that Nuremberg comparison in the heat of the moment because he was genuinely shocked and disgusted by the bizarre atmosphere and mindless leader-worship he observed at that church- remember he's a Brit and this stuff isn't as old-hat for him as it is for Americans. Perhaps it's good for us to have someone from outside our culture remind us of just how pathological a phenomenon this is.

This whole "religious [read: Christian] people fear reason" bit is a load of horse droppings. I know several religious people who are far more adept at using their intelligence, reason and logic than any of you.

It really is a thankless task feeding the trolls because they never show any gratitude. Although Jason is eminently worth ignoring since he has so little to say, I did notice that he takes pains to rewrite what PZ says. That's very naughty, Jason, and verges on bearing false witness. Despite what you think, people here are not fixated on Christians. There are more of them in this country than representatives of any other superstitious sect, so naturally their fair share commands a majority of the attention, but religious zealots of any stripe are fair game when they seek to elevate dogma over scientific inquiry. (Perhaps you missed the entry on Harun Yahya, which gave him a well-deserved thumb in the eye.)

By the way, I too am eager to hear from Jason's brilliant theistic friends. There are such people, of course. Since Jason can't carry their water for them, perhaps some of them might be prevailed upon to raise the level of the argument to something more interesting and challenging.

Paul S:

Hm. Doesn't a blanket statement like "reason erodes faith" strike you as just a tad arrogant?

Whether or not it's "arrogant" is entirely irrelevant. Reason and faith are, by definition, directly contradictory. One involves thinking, the other doesn't.

I'll certainly grant that it can, when faith is ill-conceived and poorly applied. Yet it seems that one could name a fair few historical figures who are generally acknowledged as good thinkers who nevertheless were religious.

Which, I think you'll find, are universally the ones who don't discuss religious issues at all. Religious philosophers are, one and all, working off their unquestioned faith-based assumptions, and thus cannot rightly be said to be exercising reason.

"Faith" can sneak up on a person in odd ways too, sometimes disguised as reason.

Generally, when faith masquerades as reason, people get killed. Lots of people.

It's a bit like when a serial killer sneaks up on a person disguised as a cop.

Whether or not it's "arrogant" is entirely irrelevant. Reason and faith are, by definition, directly contradictory. One involves thinking, the other doesn't.

Unfortunately it is relevant, Dan. Arrogance is "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims." It's more than just bad manners. It's taking on onself authority that one doesn't deserve.

Take your assertions above, for example. There is nothing inherent in faith that makes it thoughtless. Nor is there anything in thought that makes it inherently superior to not thinking. It depends on the purposes one is addressing, in both cases.

Which, I think you'll find, are universally the ones who don't discuss religious issues at all. Religious philosophers are, one and all, working off their unquestioned faith-based assumptions, and thus cannot rightly be said to be exercising reason.

You are sadly (and arrogantly) mistaken. Several "religious philosophers" are among the people historically recognized as paragons of reason. Some names for you...

Immanuel Kant
Alfred North Whitehead
Baruch Spinoza
Thomas Aquinas
Rene Descartes
Sir Issac Newton
Gottfried Leibniz

All of these are widely respected, and their works widely taught, for the quality and importance of their thinking. All were also religious, and wrote on religious topics.

Generally, when faith masquerades as reason, people get killed. Lots of people.

Not necessarily. For example, how does an atheist who believes that God does not exist know that?

On a more personal level, do you have someone who loves you? How do you know?

You know, I'll bet everyone on that list was aware that the argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy...

"On a more personal level, do you have someone who loves you? How do you know?"

Observation. Educated hypothesis. You can't ever know for sure. However, it doesn't matter. It's better if you value a person who benefits you rather than hurts you. There's no reason to "believe" that my husband loves me. I see him every day, and benefit from his affection, his attention and his actions enormously.

People are funny about love. It's an emotion. I can't control the emotions of others. But a person can demonstrate to you that he is honest. Then whether or not you want to "believe" him is up to you.

Faith is "believing" him even if he hurts you and shows time and time again that he does not care. That's faith. Faith is loving a being that supposedly will have you tortured if you don't. Why support cruelty like that?

Love, though fuzzily defined, still has observable effects. If you watch a person's reactions and behaviors, you can determine whether or not he loves someone. We may not be able to do it with the sort of accuracy we'd like in other endeavors, but we can do it.

Of course, it doesn't matter who supports religion. Religions have a collection of claims. They need evidence to back them up. Faith isn't terribly helpful.

Whether or not it's "arrogant" is entirely irrelevant. Reason and faith are, by definition, directly contradictory. One involves thinking, the other doesn't.

Unfortunately it is relevant, Dan. Arrogance is "a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims." It's more than just bad manners. It's taking on onself authority that one doesn't deserve.

I think you're confusing arrogance with pomposity.

Reason, by definition, erodes faith, because the rational mind will reject as a matter of course unquestioned assumptions (i.e., "faith") in favor of those that have withstood intense questioning (i.e., the process of exercising reason). When faith is coupled with stupidity and tribalism, however, it is nearly impervious to reason.

Take your assertions above, for example. There is nothing inherent in faith that makes it thoughtless.

Faith is, by definition, believing things without questioning or thinking about them. Sure, you can "think" about your unquestioned presuppositions all you like. That doesn't make you thoughtful, it just means your synapses are chemically capable of firing.

Nor is there anything in thought that makes it inherently superior to not thinking. It depends on the purposes one is addressing, in both cases.

Can you cite any examples of situations in which not thinking is objectively better than thinking?

Which, I think you'll find, are universally the ones who don't discuss religious issues at all. Religious philosophers are, one and all, working off their unquestioned faith-based assumptions, and thus cannot rightly be said to be exercising reason.

You are sadly (and arrogantly) mistaken. Several "religious philosophers" are among the people historically recognized as paragons of reason. Some names for you...

Immanuel Kant
Alfred North Whitehead
Baruch Spinoza
Thomas Aquinas
Rene Descartes
Sir Issac Newton
Gottfried Leibniz

All of these are widely respected, and their works widely taught, for the quality and importance of their thinking. All were also religious, and wrote on religious topics.

Steve already nailed you on that one. Popularity and respect don't equate to authority. It certainly doesn't mean that those men somehow weren't working off of unquestioned faith-based presuppositions.

Making arguments based on unquestioned or flawed principles ("God is omnibenevolent" or "this is the best of all possible worlds") can't rightly be called reason, at least not in any meaningful sense. That's just going through the motions. To say otherwise is like saying that shadow boxing is the same as sparring with a live opponent.

Generally, when faith masquerades as reason, people get killed. Lots of people.

Not necessarily. For example, how does an atheist who believes that God does not exist know that?

By sifting through the historical record, observing people's words and concomitant actions, and noting that when faith masquerades as reason, people tend to get killed in large numbers.

Making an evidence-based claim about the nature of reality isn't anywhere near as difficult or fraught with metaphysical dangers as you're trying to make it out to be.

On a more personal level, do you have someone who loves you? How do you know?

Love is a condition with observable indicators and consequences. If you have to rely on faith to "know" that someone loves you, they probably don't love you.

Hm. Doesn't a blanket statement like "reason erodes faith" strike you as just a tad arrogant?

Don't snide suggestions that a person is arrogant for stating a simple truth strike you as just a tad arrogant?

I'll certainly grant that it can, when faith is ill-conceived and poorly applied. Yet it seems that one could name a fair few historical figures who are generally acknowledged as good thinkers who nevertheless were religious.

Yeah, like Rene Descartes, whose brilliant application of logic to the world of mathematics transferred over perfectly to his justifications for religious faith. Lots of good thinkers!

Nocturne: A colleague of mine and I are slowly writing a book whose theme is basically that - we intend to discuss things everyone has opinions on but thinks that they shouldn't talk about because they are weird, rude, etc. Of course, that's what philosophers do anyway, so it is fine by me. :) But even there, the idea of building a philosophical system is regarded as dead by most, and I think that's a shame, since all of the classical world views (religious, Marxist, capitalist, etc.) are IMO dead (in the sense we can recognize they are doomed to run out of steam, anyway).

Kazim: As an outsider, I regard your issue as the largest difference between the two parties. I call them the plutocratic party and the theocratic plutocratic party. Of course, IMO, nobody should want a plutocratic party, except for perhaps the unjustly rich, but ...

Kristine: Even Hitler's male admirers went nuts for him - (this story is slightly mangled, but the gist is correct, as is the punchline) Someone asked Heidegger why he was following such a nut, and whether or not he thought Hitler would be bad for Germany. Heidegger said something like "Who cares? Look at his hands!"

Paul S: And a lot of those religious thinkers were extremely heretical. No, none of them were atheists or areligious, but that was difficult for much of the relevant time period. Newton was an Arian. Leibniz thought of his mission as one to reunify Protestants and Catholics. Descartes was probably not even a Christian - as an adult he only once attended church, and then only to acknowledge (as was the custom in the Netherlands) a child he had fathered. Kant led the processions of students to church as he had to, but never entered. Spinoza??? Spinoza was excommunicated. I'll give you Aquinas. Whitehead was a theist, yes. But he even says god changes, so that's a bit heretical there ... (There's a lot more on each here - read any good book on these, not the phil 101 crap.)

This is on top of the badness of the argument. So there were geniuses who were theists or religious. So what? There are pulmologists and cardiologists who smoke.

I'll give you Aquinas.

Aquinas, for his embrace of Ariostotle and his attempt to base much of Christan dogma on natural reason, was regarded as a dangerous heretic in many quarters, and his writings were formally condemned by the universities of Paris and Oxford (interestingly, there seems to be no record that the Oxford ban was ever formally lifted!)

"Aristotle", that is. Though a blend of Ariosto and Aristotle sounds intriguing, albeit a little hard to imagine...

Reason, by definition, erodes faith, because the rational mind will reject as a matter of course unquestioned assumptions (i.e., "faith") in favor of those that have withstood intense questioning (i.e., the process of exercising reason).

Dan, can you define "axiom" for me, and discuss its applicability to reason?

Faith is, by definition, believing things without questioning or thinking about them.

You are accepting that definition without questioning or thinking about it, Dan. Look it up in a good dictionary. Read the whole definition.

Can you cite any examples of situations in which not thinking is objectively better than thinking?

Certainly: meditation, artistic inspiration, any situation in which one must act immediately to preserve life or limb. There are many more in which thinking is useful up to a point, but after that becomes an impediment to necessary action, such as any situation in which one must act on incomplete information.

Steve already nailed you on that one. Popularity and respect don't equate to authority. It certainly doesn't mean that those men somehow weren't working off of unquestioned faith-based presuppositions.

In this case, Steve was misapplying a fallacy. Argumentum ad verecundiam, or "appeal to authority," is an argument that says "It's true because Aristotle said it was true." That's not what I'm doing.

Your hypothesis was "faith erodes reason." Your corrolary was that a good thinker who was religious could be considered a good thinker only if he "never discussed religion at all." Any good hypothesis is falsifiable, and I falsified that one by listing several people acknowledged as excellent thinkers who included religious discussion in their body of public work.

I'm not saying "Faith is good because these men used it." I'm saying "Your hypothesis that faith erodes reason is disproven by these excellent thinkers who nevertheless talked about God." Or to put it another way, "These guys did pretty well, considering that they were mentally handicapped."

Now, how can an atheist be certain that God does not exist?

By sifting through the historical record, observing people's words and concomitant actions, and noting that when faith masquerades as reason, people tend to get killed in large numbers.

I'm afraid not. None of that proves that God does not exist. At the very best it proves that some people have been misguided, and that faith can be misused. Please, cite me actual, empirical evidence that proves the hypothesis "God does not exist."

Love is a condition with observable indicators and consequences.

No, it is not. The only thing that is observable about human behavior is the behavior itself. Motivations remain invisible. You can say, "If someone loves me, this is how they will behave." But you can also say, "If someone wants me to believe that they love me, this is how they will behave."

Ultimately though, all you can say is "If I love someone, this is how I behave," and then assume that someone else who behaves that way is also motivated by love. People get in trouble all the time by making such assumptions mistakenly. But, unfortunately, faith is ultimately all we have to go on in matters of love. And on the whole it works out well enough.

PaulS it seems to me:

A. your asking people to prove a negative without realizing atheism is a default position. Asking someone to prove God doesn't exist is like asking you to provethe FSM doesn't exist. It's not good logic. But I'll bet you don't think the FSM exists.

B. Faith does make good, intelligent people accept bizarre ideas they wouldn't accept otherwise. This list is so long an seems to me unarguable if your really being honest.

C. Your wrong about love. It's not faith. There are alot of behaviours, indicators, and lanquage that confer legitimacy to the idea. What your doing is confusing how people accept and respond with love with how different people actually express it and then making an argument that you need faith to 'know it'. No, what you need is to understand another human.

Hellbound,

Observation. Educated hypothesis. You can't ever know for sure.

That's right. And faith is choosing to believe something for which there is no conclusive, objective proof.

Faith is "believing" him even if he hurts you and shows time and time again that he does not care. That's faith.

It's not that simple, in either direction. On the one hand, if a person deliberately, clearly, and maliciously acts against your best interests, then believing that this person loves you isn't faith. It's foolishness: believing something even when there is solid evidence against it.

On the other hand, a person who consistently hurts someone out of carelessness or weakness may still love that someone. If you don't believe me, ask any alcoholic. Love can even cause someone to harm you deliberately, out of the mistaken belief that it will serve your best interests "in the long run," or because that person was acting on bad information. So the belief that such a person loves you may in fact be correct, but there are other factors affecting the situation.

Faith is loving a being that supposedly will have you tortured if you don't. Why support cruelty like that?

I actually agree with you here. I think that is faith misapplied. However it doesn't dispose of all faith, any more than crashing into a telephone pole means that driving is bad. Driving badly is bad, and not everyone holds the Cosmic Thunderer as their image of the Divine.

Chance,

A. your asking people to prove a negative without realizing atheism is a default position.

No. Agnosticism is the default position. In the absence of conclusive evidence the only purely rational response is to come to no conclusion.

Any definite statement about God, even the definite statement that God does not exist, is a statement of faith. It is the affirmation of an idea that cannot be objectively proven.

B. Faith does make good, intelligent people accept bizarre ideas they wouldn't accept otherwise. This list is so long an seems to me unarguable if your really being honest.

You're using loaded language. You're also overgeneralizing. An idea can be said to be "bizarre" if it's outside the mainstream (which religion certainly is not), or if it goes against objective evidence in ways that can't be explained. Neither of these proves that the "bizarre" idea is actually wrong, although it may be grounds to withhold belief until you understand the idea better.

Now, I will grant you that faith does lead people to ideas that I find incomprehensible. It leads people to believe that someone is "channeling" the spirit of a princess from lost Atlantis. It leads people to suppose that they can prove God does or does not exist. I say you're overgeneralizing though because it does not always or necessarily lead to these things. Like most things, faith can be misused.

C. Your wrong about love. It's not faith. There are alot of behaviours, indicators, and lanquage that confer legitimacy to the idea. What your doing is confusing how people accept and respond with love with how different people actually express it and then making an argument that you need faith to 'know it'. No, what you need is to understand another human.

Ultimately, it is not possible to understand another human with certainty. We can make extrapolations by mapping our own internal landscape onto our own actions, then assuming that other people's actions map to their internal reality in the same way. But this is an assumption. It is an act of faith. And it is why we have actors and con-men. Both are experts at presenting outward behaviors that do not reflect internal reality.

No, atheism should be the default. Shrugging your shoulders and saying you don't know is not the equivalent of the null hypothesis, and is a dead-end attitude to take.

Wake me up when someone has intersubjectively testable evidence for "their image of the divine", whatever it may be. Because your defintion simply won't do: human knowledge, typified by science, deals in critical testing of beliefs and weighing of probabilities, "conclusive, objective proof" being a monopoly of the mathematicians. Faith is believing propositions for which there is no good evidence. I am not here concerned to discuss whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but what it definitely isn't is a rational thing.

PaulS:

An idea can be said to be "bizarre" if it's outside the mainstream (which religion certainly is not), or if it goes against objective evidence in ways that can't be explained.

Your idea of bizarre is rather odd. I always thought bizarre meant something outside of reality. I guess if I was a rascist in a rascist town since I am mainstream non rascist folks are bizzare. And your religion aspect is a false dicotomy, your excusing the facts that there are 1000's of religions. I guess you think they are all 'normal'.

Neither of these proves that the "bizarre" idea is actually wrong, although it may be grounds to withhold belief until you understand the idea better.

So then you accept that the FSM may control everything. How about teapots going around the sun? unicorns? bigfoot? Yeti? Or are you just 'agnostic' about these?

,blockquote>Now, I will grant you that faith does lead people to ideas that I find incomprehensible. It leads people to believe that someone is "channeling" the spirit of a princess from lost Atlantis. It leads people to suppose that they can prove God does or does not exist.

Or believe they can be possessed by demons. Heal people by touching them or water. Ascend into unseen realsm and such. You mean that kind of thing?

And again you don't need to prove God doesn't exist, you have to prove he does.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I think it's more fair to say that people with the religious tendency are discomfited, sometimes to the point of existential terror, not simply by reason itself, but more accurately by reason unburdened by the constraints of religious faith.

This is why, I think, you find so many religious believers insisting that reason doesn't erode faith. Of course, reason erodes faith-- everywhere it's applied. This is a matter of defining our terms, for crying out loud, and deep in the soft parts of their grey matter, they know it. What they're worried about is the idea that reason might be able to erode all faith, in anything and everything. Combined with the common faith in the virtue of keeping religious faith, the idea of reason as a universal solvent is a deeply disturbing idea.

PZ:

No, atheism should be the default. Shrugging your shoulders and saying you don't know is not the equivalent of the null hypothesis, and is a dead-end attitude to take.

A rational position is based on evidence, is it not? The less your evidence, the less reasoned your position can be. Therefore, in order to rationally conclude that God does not exist, you must have evidence. What is it?

Chance:

I always thought bizarre meant something outside of reality.

I'm happy to be of service then. Here's what it actually means, per Webster: "strikingly out of the ordinary: as (a) odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode (b) involving sensational contrasts or incongruities." Nothing there that mandates that it be "outside of reality."

So yes, if you lived in the deep south in the 1960s and some Yankee came in talking about "civil rights" you would regard such a person as bizarre. In fact, people did exactly that.

And your religion aspect is a false dicotomy, your excusing the facts that there are 1000's of religions. I guess you think they are all 'normal'.

Yes, I do, and by the most direct standard possible: globally and historically, more people are and have been religious than not. The fact that there is a multitude of religions is no more relevant than the fact that there is a multitude of clothing styles. It doesn't change the fact that wearing clothing of some sort is "normal."

And here again we see the difference between "normal" and either "superior" or "true."

So then you accept that the FSM may control everything. How about teapots going around the sun? unicorns? bigfoot? Yeti? Or are you just 'agnostic' about these?

Did I say anything about accepting ideas, Chance? Read me again. I said that the fact that an idea is unusual does not prove that it is wrong, but that it may be grounds for not accepting it until you've checked it out.

You want to use "false" and "bizarre" as synonyms. They simply aren't.

As for teapots orbiting the sun, they do. At least, mine does, and frankly I prefer it that way. I tried a couple that didn't, but they have a regrettable tendency to fly through my walls before I even get the teabags out.

And again you don't need to prove God doesn't exist, you have to prove he does.

If you prize reason, Chance, then you have to prove anything that you believe. Faith is belief without proof, remember? Ergo, if you state "God does not exist" without being able to prove it, you are making a statement of faith.

Note to Steve: Faith is NOT "belief without evidence." It is belief without PROOF. Check your dictionary. And the "evidence" needs to be intersubjective only if you expect someone else to believe the same things that you do.

Basically, faith is what you use every single time that you step across the gap between the things that you can prove conclusively and the things that you choose to believe.

Steve, I thought you deserved a fuller answer than I gave above.

Wake me up when someone has intersubjectively testable evidence for "their image of the divine", whatever it may be.

Hopefully at about the same time someone will devise an objective experiment that could theoretically falsify the hypothesis "God does not exist." Because a hypothesis that can't be falsified cannot be called "scientific."

human knowledge, typified by science, deals in critical testing of beliefs and weighing of probabilities, "conclusive, objective proof" being a monopoly of the mathematicians.

There are nuggets of truth in that sentence, but not the whole thing. First off, defining science and "human knowledge" as equivalent is purely your own preference. It's not a bad working position, but it's no more than that. I certainly wouldn't want to build a house on that foundation.

You are correct that mathematics is the most purely rational of the sciences (no pun intended). And you are correct that science deals with weighing probabilities. But there's the rub: Science deals in probabilities. It does not deal in certainties except on very rare occasions. If you are speaking as a scientist (and I actually am one), then except for actual physical observations you can very seldom say "This is a fact." You can say "This seems enormously likely," or "This is the best model currently available." But that is not certainty.

A scientist who wishes to discuss what he knows - actually knows - can talk about his experiments and the experiments of others as they report them to him. The rest is interpretation, probability, and deciding how much uncertainty you can live with. Which is not to say it's weak - it actually works quite well that way. But certainty is the death of inquiry, which is what science is all about.

Faith is believing propositions for which there is no good evidence. I am not here concerned to discuss whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but what it definitely isn't is a rational thing.

As I noted above, faith is belief without proof. I believe any good dictionary will back me up on that. Outside of mathematics, proof is elusive, as you rightly observed. Actual material evidence can carry us a certain way, but where the evidence stops, faith begins. Call it educated guesswork. Call it intuition. Call it a notional leap. Whatever the language it means stepping past where your evidence can carry you and trusting in your ability to make the truly correct choice in that step.

And you're right: it is not rational. I never said it is. I said that it isn't intrinsically antithetical to reason, and it isn't. Faith and reason do different things. They come to conflict (and very often to tragedy) only when someone tries to make either one do what the other rightly should.

Well, Paul, that sounds to me like a version of what Martin Gardner has called "fideism". I will readily allow that it sounds to me considerably less potentially harmful than more full-blooded and aggressive forms of religious faith. But I have a lot of trouble seeing any positive value in it, and worry about its potential to cultivate the bad mental habit of credulity. That's something on which we evidently will have to agree to disagree.

First off, defining science and "human knowledge" as equivalent is purely your own preference. It's not a bad working position, but it's no more than that. I certainly wouldn't want to build a house on that foundation.

I don't know about you, but my house is literally built on that foundation.

I said that it [faith] isn't intrinsically antithetical to reason, and it isn't. Faith and reason do different things. They come to conflict (and very often to tragedy) only when someone tries to make either one do what the other rightly should.

That pointless conflict why I prefer to just leave faith out of everything.

If you prize reason, Chance, then you have to prove anything that you believe. Faith is belief without proof, remember? Ergo, if you state "God does not exist" without being able to prove it, you are making a statement of faith.

Perhaps but it would at the least be a rational faith whereas one who believes in unicorns and other unproven entities could be seen at best having an irrational faith.

And you're right: it is not rational. I never said it is. I said that it isn't intrinsically antithetical to reason, and it isn't.

It IS. They are totalistic approaches to the world -- they cannot be combined with each other or with any other worldview. Follow one and you impede your following of the other.