Tania Lombrozo is an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley who has begun writing for “cosmos & culture“, the National Public Radio’s (NPR’s) website for “commentary of science and society”. And she is gunning for a spot on Professor Ceiling Cat’s List of “Most Annoying Accommodationists,” as she notes in her piece.
I must confess that I’m puzzled and annoyed by NPR’s constant pandering towards faith. Their religion correspondent, who regularly osculates the rump of faith, is Barbara Bradley Hagerty, author of Fingerprints of God: What Science is Learning about the Brain and Spiritual Experience, and a self-described “serious mainstream Christian.” NPR also has the odious Krista Tippett, always wheedling her guests, scientists or otherwise, to confess their “spiritual” leanings. And now we have Tania Lombrozo, who’s writing a series of pieces for NPR’s cosmos & culture site that can be construed as nothing else but a defense of religion. To my mind, a radio network with a reputation for liberal and incisive reporting simply has no business stroking the faithful over and over again as if they were Persian cats.
I don’t listen much to NPR, but if they have an atheist correspondent, or discuss disbelief with the same frequency as belief, I don’t know about it. In the next two days I want to highlight two of Lombrozo’s pieces, taking up the first, “Science vs. religion: a heated debate fueled by disrespect,” this morning. The piece I’ll discuss tomorrow, about why faith can be rational, is more problematic.
The “heated debate” piece is basically a call for comity between believers and atheists, but is written in such a way that it manages to not just ask for civil discourse, but to give credibility to faith. In that sense it’s very clever.
Lombrozo’s essay was motivated in part by the strong reaction against journalist Virginia Heffernan’s declaration that she was a creationist. (One reaction that Lombrozo implies was out of line is that Heffernan’s piece was “intellectually vapid.” This distressed her, although I can’t imagine why. It’s easy to understand why there would be a strong backlash against a popular technology writer who suddenly declares belief in the literalism of a fairy tale because the Bible is a better story than evolution.
To be fair, Lombrozo also notes America’s widespread disapprobation of atheism. But then, Gould-like, she calls for the concordat:
Issues about science and religion have become so politicized and polarizing that it’s hard to find public forums in which people with different commitments can meaningfully engage in discussion and debate. You know, respectful conversations, ones in which we interpret each other charitably and don’t simply assume that those who disagree with us are foolish, immoral or just plain stupid.
I’m not arguing for a middle ground in which we all compromise. The best position isn’t necessarily the one in the middle, or the one that wins by majority vote. But I do think we need a “charitable ground,” if you will — some shared territory in which we recognize that other people’s religious and scientific commitments can be as deeply felt
and deeply reasonedas our own, and that there’s value in understanding why others believe what they do.
I crossed out the problematic part.
I have no quarrel with any of this except for two things: the possibility that there can be a meaningful dialogue between science and religion, and the idea that religious commitments can be “as deeply reasoned” as scientific ones.
Science has only two things to contribute to religion: an analysis of the evolutionary, cultural, and psychological basis for believing things that aren’t true, and a scientific disproof of some of faith’s claims (e.g., Adam and Eve, the Great Flood). Religion has nothing to contribute to science, and science is best off staying as far away from faith as possible. The “constructive dialogue” between science and faith is, in reality, a destructive monlogue, with science making all the good points, tearing down religion in the process.
Second, what on earth does Lombrozo mean adherence to religion being “deeply reasoned”? That may be true in the sense of someone saying, “Well, I’d be a mess without Jesus, so I’d better accept him as savior,” but that’s not “reason” in the scientific sense.
I suppose I’d better mention Lombrozo’s shout-out to this site:
On the other side, a comment at Jerry Coyne’s blog, Why Evolution Is True, suggested that — in light of the article — I should be added to Coyne’s list of “Most Annoying Accommodationists (Female Category).” The main target of Coyne’s original post was Tanya Luhrmann, an anthropologist who has studied and written about supernatural beliefs. Highlighting a major offense, Coyne wrote of Luhrmann:
“What’s most annoying is that she keeps her own beliefs under wraps, trying to cater to believers of all stripes while not alienating any of them.”
Is it so terrible to try to be accessible to a broad audience with diverse beliefs, and to prefer not to alienate people? Is it terribly naïve of me to think that we can have real discussion about difficult issues without being dismissive of alternative positions or those who hold them?
My view was that Luhrmann, who has been notoriously cagey about her own beliefs while constantly telling us why religion is good, has an obligation to share her own beliefs because she participated in some of the activities of the churches on which she reported. Was that merely an anthropological experience, or did she share some of these beliefs? While telling us that prayer is good, she refuses to tell us whether she thinks belief in God is true. That seems to me not the objective stance of an anthropologist, but a form of intellectual cowardice. And really, what is the downside here? Lombrozo gives away the game by noting that if Luhrmann said what she really believed, she would “alienate people.” Well, you don’t have to do that when it’s not appropriate (I don’t mention atheism in WEIT), but such a confession is certainly relevant to Luhrmann’s many writings and op-eds on religion. Why should anybody refuse to confess what they believe if it’s relevant? I have no compunction in telling people, when I talk about religion and science, that I’m an atheist. I don’t care if that makes them alienated, for I accomplish nothing by hiding what I think.
Anyway, Lombrozo then gives a list of four things she isn’t saying when she calls for an amiable discussion (these points are indented):
All perspectives are equally valid. They certainly are not. We may not have everything figured out yet, but some perspectives are better supported by evidence and arguments than others.
Indeed, and here science has a clear advantages, for we have the evidence. So why not just say that? I’ve always argued that, à la Peter Boghossian, while people deserve respect, ideas don’t. There is nothing wrong with strongly attacking ideas, or even making fun of them when they’re ludicrous (e.g., pot and sodomy as causes of the Colorado floods). Too, when a group of people becomes literally deranged by faith, as with those Muslims who went on murderous rampages when the Danish anti-Mohammed cartoons were published, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that those people have been driven mad by religion, and are dangerous.
It’s perfectly OK for people to believe whatever they want. Most beliefs are fine. Some lead people to do unfortunate things, whether it’s support female genital mutilation or dismiss climate change. Part of me thinks there’s nothing wrong with any beliefs, only with particular actions. The problem is that actions and beliefs often go hand in hand.
And who among us atheists has said otherwise? The problem with religion is that, because it combines the idea of absolute truth with that of a God-approved morality (a toxic combination), it is almost certain to lead to actions.
Well, on second thought, there is something wrong with unsubstantiated belief even if it doesn’t lead to action. That’s because it softens the mind and makes it possible to have other unsubstantiated beliefs. In other words, it enables faith. This is why moderate religionists give cover to their more extreme brethren: they know that, at bottom, they all believe in stuff that can’t be proven, and so see themselves in the same boat. Now I suppose you could call that “cover” a form of action, but it involves words rather than deeds.
You shouldn’t try to change someone’s mind when it comes to scientific or religious beliefs. When you’re trying to enjoy a nice family meal with your conservative Christian in-laws and your card-carrying Skeptics Society cousins, maybe you shouldn’t. It’s up to you. But as far as I’m concerned, there are some contexts in which it is appropriate to aim for persuasion, provided you do so respectfully and not dogmatically.
No disagreement here, save for a failure of Lombrozo to explain what she means by “respectfully and not dogmatically.” Remember that many religious people consider any criticism of their faith as disrespectful. I’ve had very liberal religious friends get extremely touchy when I ask the mildest questions about their faith. And as for dogmatism, is it dogmatic to ask people, “Where’s your evidence?” How can one be dogmatic about a failure to provide convincing evidence?
We shouldn’t engage in serious debate about personal or sensitive issues. Of course we should. But serious, constructive debate is not only consistent with a charitable and respectful attitude toward your conversant, it may require it.
Again, these are words that sound good, and certainly one shouldn’t engage in ad hominems, but I find it hard to be “charitable” towards those who see homosexuality as a sin or want to kill apostates or those who give the wrong name to teddy bears. As for “constructive” debate, Lombrozo ain’t gonna get it. Atheism and religion are implacably opposed, and there simply isn’t any middle ground where their ideas are concerned.
Finally, Lombrozo tells us what she wants:
We should engage in respectful debate and discussion. We should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply, genuinely and reflectively. People rarely believe what they do because they are stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed. Let’s find some charitable ground.
Now this again sounds good, but apply this prescription to other beliefs, say in homeopathy, spiritual healing, UFO abduction, or, indeed, racism—for racists often have deep beliefs in the inferiority of other races, and can even, like theologians, quote bogus “evidence” for their beliefs. And racists aren’t always stupid or heartless. Why must we accord special respect to beliefs that are, in the end, as silly as those of, say, Catholicism or Islam?
I agree with Lombrozo that religious people don’t often believe because they’re immoral or heartless or elitist. But, yes, many of them have been brainwashed, having absorbed religion when they’re young and impressionable. Has Lombrozo heard about madrasas or Catholic schools? That is brainwashing, pure and simple, and that form of inculcation often remains with people into adulthood—though they manage to find high-sounding ways to rationalize it later.
If all Lombrozo is saying is “let’s not call our opponents names,” then I’m largely on board with her, though name-calling in the form of sarcasm can sometimes be remarkably effective (viz., George Carlin). Her big error is assuming that “respectful debate and discussion” between believers and nonbelievers will actually accomplish something. The only thing it accomplishes is polarization—except for those few people, like Jerry DeWitt or some of my correspondents, who give up their faith because they realized that science is on the right side. But that is usually accomplished via reading and reflection, not discussion.
What we have in Lombrozo’s essay is simply a “why can’t we all get along?” kind of pablum. Well, one could have said the same thing to segregationists in the early Sixties. Why can’t racists and civil rights activists have had respectful discussions? Lombrozo will bridle here, saying, “It’s not fair to compare believers to racists.” But in many respects the comparison is apt, for religious belief (even without action) often marginalizes people, including gays, women, and those of other faiths. It’s divisive by its very nature. I don’t want to sit down and have a respectful discussion with an extremist Muslim, a devout Catholic, or a faithful Mormon. What is to be accomplished by such a chat? I’d rather talk to and write for those who are on the fence than talk to those who are in the asylum.
It is this kind of feel-good “NOMAism” that is endemic to venues like National Public Radio. But in the end it says nothing except “be nice.” It’s just high-class tone trolling. Faith has real dangers in this world, and those won’t go away by having “respectful dialogue” with the faithful. They will go away with books like The God Delusion, Religion Poisons Everything, The End of Faith, and Breaking the Spell.
As for that debate with religionists, well, it looks good on their c.v. but not so good on mine.
___________
A final note: as I suspected, Lombrozo’s research (on cognition) is funded by The Templeton Foundation.
The never-fail test of whether a faith position is “deeply reasoned”: would you say the same if it were being used to describe any other line of unsupported bullshit? Astrology? Norse mythology? Homeopathy?
…or any other religion.
More like “deeply rationalized”.
You take down her piece very well. Can I add one more example of her weaselly misuse of words: the description of beliefs as ‘deeply held’ or ‘deeply felt’.
‘Deeply’ is surely the opposite of the truth. Most believers imbibe their particular Cool-Aid from their parents (or peer group, or communities) without even thinking. ‘Uncritically-held’ would be closer to the mark. However, this more accurate term would point up the empty-headedness of the average believer, as well as the nullity of her whole argument.
I am a frequent NPR listener. But I stop paying attention when the usual suspects come on. I’m not aware of any atheist correspondent who deals with religion. My guess would be that a lot of their other coverage (non-religious topics) is handled by atheist correspondents who manage to keep their religious views under cover.
In relative terms, there is not of the air time spent on faithiness, though perhaps it is worse on Sundays (when I rarely tune in).
I’ve been in some areas where the Public Radio station was almost completely devoted to christianity. They would select the more christian portions of NPR and then fill the remaining time with local christian blather.
I’ve only been in one community where the executive director of the Public Radio station was against using the station as a christian breeding ground. I’ve changed from being a full time listener and supporter of NPR in that community to not even bothering to tune in anymore due to the likelihood that it will just be a disgusting bombardment of christian drivel.
Thank Ceiling Cat that I don’t live or listen in a part of the Midwest where the NPR member stations broadcast overtly religious programming cheek-by-jowl with NPR fare. Instead, and depending on where and how far I drive, the signal from the NPR stations (generally at the “low” end of the FM spectrum) gets drowned out by the Christian radio stations that also tend to broadcast at the low end of the FM spectrum.
I’ve been listening to NPR since about 1977, and no, there is no “atheism” correspondent. I generally turn off any report by Barbara Bradley Hagerty. But I do vaguely recall one and only one report by her in which her Templeton fellowship was not showing (much). I’m not sure if it was this one http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith or some other investigative report.
Due to over coverage of papal doings, I have written NPR to complain and suggest fair and balanced in secular/atheist activities. NA or a canned answer. There are some interesting and scientific items on NPR, I do listen and I don’t understand its genuflection before religious “news”. Cowardice?.
As for “odious” Tippett EVERY Sunday AM – yes, I can turn it off but that is yet another example of NPR giving so much air time to religion. harumphf. grrrrrrrr. Hissss.
I am glad that some religious and very faithful people have gotten to a point where they think that notions like “respectful discussion” and “everybody’s ideas are equal” are things to be proud of. It makes the planet a lot safer for everybody. However, that’s fine as far as inter-faith discussions go.
However; while I would like to think that any discourse would try to aim for civility; I still don’t see why religion (a very imprecise and unwieldy term for such a broad subject) feels it has anything useful at all to say on the subject of science.
My 4-year-old sometimes exhorts her playmates to share…because she wants all of whatever it is.
Too often, “be respectful” really means “STFU”.
And at least your 4-year-old will eventually know better.
“if they have an atheist correspondent, or discuss disbelief with the same frequency as belief”
Nope. It’s all-Krista all the time.
But it’s still my main news source. I tune off when the rump-osculation begins (usually; though sometimes it’s kind of interesting to listen to the B.S. pile up. Really! Would you let that pass unquestioned if this were a straight news story?!)
For me, this is oh so sad. I have a dear friend whose ethos is quite similar to that of Lambrozo. My friend and I can no longer talk about philosophical reality: my scientism and her Christianity don’t mix, of course, and she has increasingly become defensive over her beliefs. I should add that she is smart-smart and holds a PhD in literary studies. Yet our friendship now requires that we wall off all talk about the nature of reality. She insists that she believes what she believes and, more radically, ‘knows’ the truth of her ‘spirituality.’ The ‘different way of knowing’ claim serves her fine, she maintains, even though she won’t discuss how she knows she knows.
So we talk about literature and the weather.
In honour of Jim Parsons getting yet another Emmy –
Amy: Well then, prepare to be terrified. If your friends are unconvincing, this year’s donations might go to, say, the Geology department.
Sheldon: Oh no! Not the dirt people!
Amy: Or, worse still, it could go to the liberal arts.
Sheldon: No!
Amy: Millions of dollars being showered on poets, literary theorists and students of gender studies.
Sheldon: Oh, the Humanities!
I hope that was a reference to the Herbert Morrison commentary on the Hindenburg disaster. It certainly made me laugh out loud.
Please keep in mind the RWNJ’s (right wing nut jobs) here in America want badly to defund NPR and pull the plug on any non-Fox “news” outlets.
They can not stand the public getting accurate truthful news that shines the light on the real underpennings and agenda of the rwnj’s.
NPR does exactly that, I’m thinking that by tossing some rwnj beloved myth stories into the mix , they might find it harder to defund NPR. Lets hope our nation outgrows its myth addiction.
This resonates with my impression. I am a long time listener of NPR, and I have felt that the pro-religion and pro-spirituality interviews and commentary has skyrocketed over the past couple years.
Maybe this shift in programming came after the grotesque ambush a couple years ago when an NPR executive was caught on tape bashing the republican party.
I think I detected a shift of focus (rightward pandering) about 10 years ago, during Bush Jr’s first term. Congressional hearings re: pulling the plug on Big Bird were the rage, along with a “r u 4-us or agin’ us?” sentiment as we were invading Iraq. By 2004 it became the Ronald Reagan station with round-the-clock cathedral coverage. The pandering waxes and wanes depending on events, but it seems to me there was a distinct rise right about then.
I suspect the RWNJs hate the sort of liberal religious commentary that Tippett provides more than readers of this website do. I suspect further that Tippet is the most religiously radical that NPR thinks they can get without releasing the hell hounds. Perhaps, because she’s so vaporous, NPR mgmt. figures no one can understand her message clearly enough to claim that she’s questioning some untouchable doctrine.
Sub
The word respectfully should be replaced with the word humanely regarding engagement in the dialectic process. Aretha Franklinesque pleading should be kept away from the realm of epistemology.
“Well, on second thought, there is something wrong with unsubstantiated belief even if it doesn’t lead to action. ”
Further…
Unsubstantiated belief is toxic because such believers indoctrinate their children.
All children are born atheist. One generation absent this programming would save the world.
Also, religion (for obvious reasons) pushes a practice of selective facts. It teaches people to turn off their reasoning when it doesn’t help their cause. As a result I suspect people are more willing to do the same with real-world issues that can be approached scientifically. The old addage “you don’t get to choose your facts” unfortunately doesn’t hold. People are quite willing to ignore evidence/facts and abandon/mis-use their reasoning skills on things like Climate Science, tax cuts raising revenue etc. It’s been shown that our brains have a tough time operating clearly when we are in the terrain of passionate beliefs (like the recent study about counting difficulties people have when discussing highly politicized topics.) Teaching children every Sunday that they can just opt-out of reality whenever they like seems like it would only make them even more likely to do the same when the topic is Global Warming and they don’t like the scientific consensus.
Sunday school is the least of the problem. The indoctrination occurs on a 24/7 basis when a child grows up with parents operating under the metaphysical axiom “God is.”
Agreed. It’s not that religion teaches such a policy of selective facts overtly, it’s just more left out there by example for children to adopt unknowingly and carry with them into adulthood. A neat little trick.
Just a quibble; religion can be a source of hypotheses to test…because for science, anything can be a source of hypotheses. Dreams. Sitting in the bathtub. Apples falling on one’s head (Yeah, I know these stories are aprocryphal, but they make the point quite well – which is that, in science, the source of an hypothesis is irrelevant to its validity).
I think its more correct to say that religion has nothing special to contribute to science. It can contribute positively to science in the same way that a daydream or indigestion can, but there is nothing about religion per se that makes it’s contribution different or more significant than other hypothesis-generating engines.
Could you give me one or more examples of hypothesis that science tested BECAUSE RELIGION SUGGESTED THEM?
Well, how about that intercessory prayer thing?
Or that famous scientific hypothesis: “the Earth is 6000 years old.”
The question is, were there ever any that were tested successfully, 🙂
that have actually added something to our current body of knowledge…
Many early notions in natural history came out of religious views. I don’t think anyone in Europe in the early 19th century would have thought there had been a universal flood without the Biblical account. The notion was of course tested, and decisively rejected, most famously by Buckland, who used the occasion of his “recantation” to decry the influence of preconceived notions and confirmation bias on the interpretation of data. (Most of the “flood” phenomena turned out to be glacial phenomena.) There are other examples from Christian belief (e.g. special creation of species). Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, believed in the plenitude of nature and thus rejected global extinction. As part of the natural history survey aspect of Lewis and Clark’s expedition to the Louisiana Territory, he thus expected them to discover living giant lions. (They didn’t: Jefferson had misidentified ground sloth claws found in the East as lion claws, and ground sloths are extinct). But most or all of these “religious hypotheses” come from an early formative stage of natural history, while the process of adopting a distinctively scientific style of investigation was still ongoing, and I don’t know that there are any examples since the mid 19th century.
Flood Geology, Astrophysics.
There’s been plenty suggested, they’ve just all failed. A lot of early science was to detail the glories of god. Didn’t work out so well.
Most of the stuff belongs in history of science. Modern science? Not so much.
Does the name Hiram Bingham ring a bell?
Much of 20th century amerindian archaeology was funded and performed by the mormon church and mormons. AFAIK the mormon church is still a big private funder of this work.
This is not to say that nobody would have investigated mayan, azetc, etc. cultures if mormonism hadn’t existed. Sure they would’ve. But the church’s obsession with their wierd origins story has resulted in them pouring money and resources into this scientific research area. The church’s decision to go out and test their religious hypothesis via standard science has resulted in an increase in scientific undertanding.
Of course, their hypothesis is wrong and they’ve never uncovered any evidence supporting it. But along the way, they’re hypothesis testing has uncovered a lot of other interesting things.
Religion is special all right. It is the source of especially stupid hypotheses. The great flood is less plausible than Bartholomew and the Oobleck, but because the “flood hypothesis” is imbedded in religion it never dies no matter how thoroughly it is refuted. Sources of hypotheses like that we definitely don’t need.
Well said. People’s primal desire to see their loved ones after they die will keep religion alive possibly forever.
Which I find weird. I mean I like my family, I really do, but anything “forever” is a disturbing thought. I don’t think that anyone who looks forward to this has actually thought it through very well.
Oblivion please!
“Is it so terrible to try to be accessible to a broad audience with diverse beliefs, and to prefer not to alienate people? Is it terribly naïve of me to think that we can have real discussion about difficult issues without being dismissive of alternative positions or those who hold them?”
Lombrozo is apparently commenting on a subject which she has not adequately researched, otherwise she would know that Jerry has had similar criticisms for Neil deGrasse Tyson and his caginess in avoiding identifying as an atheist. It has nothing to do with being dismissive of an alternative position.
To be fair Theology will only receive 250K out of the 3.56 Million
source:
http://www.varietiesofunderstanding.com/researchGrants.html
“Science vs. religion: a heated debate fueled by disrespect”
“Varieties of Understanding”: Accommodationist propaganda fueled by Big Bucks.
If we’re lucky, that’s all it is. But the cynic in me says that these calls for respect are used by (some) theists to shut down some discussions entirely.
At least for some Christians, they don’t want to have a polite discussion about (for example) the fact that a ressurecting man is at odds with all of modern science; they want to not have that discussion at all. And so they use the ‘disrespect’ label carve out an ideological area where criticism is socially unacceptable.
If it were only tone, I’d probably agree with the ‘charitable ground’ idea. But I fear that it’s not just about charity in tone, its about charity in content – not discussing beliefs that the believer community decides nonbelievers ought not discuss. And that’s unacceptable
I suspect you are right about this. They just want us to stop talking about their nonsense altogether. They want only the deluded to be discussing their delusions, otherwise some reality might sneak in.
“[T]here is something wrong with unsubstantiated belief even if it doesn’t lead to action. That’s because it softens the mind and makes it possible to have other unsubstantiated beliefs. In other words, it enables faith. This is why moderate religionists give cover to their more extreme brethren: they know that, at bottom, they all believe in stuff that can’t be proven, and so see themselves in the same boat.”
It seems to me that we *all* have lots of unsubstantiated beliefs and *all* believe lots of things that aren’t proven. In fact, most of the really important stuff tends to fall into those categories. For example, the stock political views — roughly speaking — of the typical poster here — roughly speaking.
I am sure that *most* of the typical posters here agree with your general point, and in fact consider it to be generally understood. The interesting question is why did you mention this? What are you implying here?
Is your intent to imply that because everyone holds unevidenced beliefs of some kind we shouldn’t criticize others for doing so? Do you mean to say that distinctions between various types or categories of unevidenced belief are not relevant?
Do you mean to say that you believe that having a commitment to basing acceptance, or belief, on your best understanding of the available evidence, even if applied inconstantly or imperfectly, is not significantly enough better for society than a celebrated habit of basing belief on faith to justify criticizing faith?
“I am sure that *most* of the typical posters here agree with your general point, and in fact consider it to be generally understood.”
If so, there is a lot of sloppy writing here.
“The interesting question is why did you mention this? What are you implying here?”
It isn’t nearly good enough to claim that something is unevidenced or unproven and then move on as if the case is made. It seems to me that doing so is sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.
“Do you mean to say that distinctions between various types or categories of unevidenced belief are not relevant?”
No. That is precisely the discussion that needs to be had. It just does not offer nearly as good a soundbite.
“Do you mean to say that you believe that having a commitment to basing acceptance, or belief, on your best understanding of the available evidence, even if applied inconstantly or imperfectly, is not significantly enough better for society than a celebrated habit of basing belief on faith to justify criticizing faith?”
You have not established the premise of the question. I suspect that most religionists — to the extent they have thought about it — think that their beliefs and commitments comport with the evidence as they understand it. It’s easy to portray religionists as inferior, delusional nutjobs. But doing so ignores both the clear evidence that most people don’t fit the stereotype, at least generally, as well as the clear evidence (ironically) that all of us suffer from major irrationalities of various sorts all the time. Part of that irrationality is our general ability to see irrationality in others while missing it in ourselves (consider Kahneman’s research generally and bias blindness more particularly).
Really? Most religionists don’t fit the stereotype of ignoring evidence? Are you aware that about 70% of Americans believe in hell, heaven, angels and an afterlife,despite the complete absence of evidence. And where’s the evidence that Jesus was divine, besides in a manmade book. And don’t get me started on Muslims.
So I have just established the premise of the question. Most religious people do fit the stereotype.
We’re talking about atheism vs. religion here, too, and one doesn’t need evidence that there is no god; one needs evidence in support of a God. Otherwise one suspends belief.
“Really? Most religionists don’t fit the stereotype of ignoring evidence?”
Read more carefully. Most religionists don’t generally fit the stereotype of being irrational, delusional nutjobs. As you go about your daily life, can you pick out the religionists from the atheists without being tipped off somehow (a berka is a pretty good giveaway most of the time)? I can’t.
Religionists also rarely think they are ignoring evidence — our psycholgy militates against it. Thus simply proclaiming opponents’ inferiority and moving on makes the in-group feel better about themselves but isn’t very helpful.
On the other hand, we are *all* seriously delusional at various points and with respect to various and irrational matters. For example, one study found that 94 percent of a university faculty thought that they are above average teachers.
http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_06_02.pdf
We all suffer from confirmation bias, bias blindness and more such that we think we’re better, smarter and more rational than our opponents and often even our peers. And even though we sometimes are, we all fit the stereotype of ignoring evidence often. You fit the stereotype. *I* fit the stereotype. Just some more than others.
Sorry, Mr. Seawright, but I showed that religious people are more delusional than others because they have an extra set of delusions. So yes, the religious are, on average, more delusional and ignore evidence more often. And that’s the point. It’s almost as if you’re trying to justify cheating because, after all, everyone cheats (and lies), just some more than others.
This is what you said to justify the fact that everyone is equal:
So bloody what? What point are you trying to make here? And, I might add, since you seem to be new, try to avoid the very kind of superior attitude that you’re decrying.
“I showed that religious people are more delusional than others because they have an extra set of delusions.”
At best, you showed that they have a *different* set of delusions. You have shown nothing about how delusional they are as compared with atheists in the aggregate. If religious people were *more* delusional there should be evidence such that you could pick them out without being tipped off somehow. Can you?
“[T]ry to avoid the very kind of superior attitude that you’re decrying.”
I apologize if you object to my tone, but most of us tend to confuse a contrary argument with a claim of superiority. Being right about one thing says nothing necessarily about being right about something else. A stopped clock is right twice a day. I am as prone to irrationality and delusion as everybody else.
“What point are you trying to make here?”
I am as prone to irrationality and delusion as everybody else.
Bob Seawright wrote:
Crank magnetism.
Bad habits of thought tend to encourage bad conclusions all over the board. This is particularly true I think when it comes to conspiracy-style thinking and supernatural-style thinking. The normal rules of evidence and reason aren’t supposed to apply in those territories — and skeptics are inherently deemed to lack insider information: there are special hidden forces manipulating the world behind the scenes. Religion then couples the supernatural with conspiracy concepts. A bad mix.
Again, there is also a huge problem with the addition of Faith to the mix. It’s an immunizing strategy which confuses factual conclusions with ethical commitments. It turns changing your mind into a moral failure. This is the opposite of a self-correcting mechanism.
Bob Seawright, you’re certainly irrational and delusional if you think you are making good arguments.
“At best, you showed that they have a *different* set of delusions.”
This is plain wrong. He showed that they have a set of delusions that atheists don’t have. To support your claim, *you* would need to demonstrate some set of delusions that atheists have but theists don’t.
“If religious people were *more* delusional there should be evidence such that you could pick them out without being tipped off somehow. Can you?”
This is complete and utter nonsense. We can pick them out simply by getting them to talk about the subjects mentioned … of course we can’t pick them out just by, say, looking at them, or analyzing their blood. To call your argument that atheists must have alternate delusions to those of religious people because we can’t “pick out” religious people fallacious would be overly charitable.
“… most of us tend to confuse a contrary argument with a claim of superiority …”
I agree with everything from here on. But on the subject at hand, you have failed miserably. I suggest that you read Chris Mooney’s “The Republican Brain”, which lays out the evidence that, while we are all prone to the irrationalities identified by Kahnemann and Tversky, we aren’t all *equally* prone to them.
Yeah, I can usually pick out a christian fairly quickly in casual conversation when meeting them. However, most of the people I meet have the christian so the real contrast comes when I realize the person I’ve met isn’t afflicted with the christian mental disorder.
Surprisingly, Jerry actually understates the premise of his question. Not only do religious people continue to believe ridiculous things despite “the complete absence of evidence”, they continue to hold their beliefs in the face of mountains of contrary evidence. The ignoring of evidence by religionists is willful, and for most of them the willfulness of their ignorance applies most strongly to religious beliefs.
It is not only willful, it is considered the very height of virtue. The stronger the evidence one ignores the better the faith and, thus, virtue of the believer.
Religious faith is truly epistemologically antithetical to science.
Exactly. Faith is not a virtue, it is an insidious vice – probably more dangerous and harmful than many other vices out there. “I am a person of faith” means “I believe things in the absence of evidence.” Wow, what a virtue. But I do understand the temptation – to be seen as good with little to no effort at actually being good. Very catchy.
Bob Seawright wrote:
I’d agree with that: most religious people think their beliefs are well supported and reasonable.
But most religious people also think their beliefs are a matter of “faith.” They’ve reached over the common world of consensus and leapt out into irrational territory beyond evidence and argument — and positively glory in it. Hallelujah! My belief is neither well supported nor reasonable but I’m humble enough to not need such things!
This is a contradiction.
It is also an element missing from your claim that “we *all* have lots of unsubstantiated beliefs and *all* believe lots of things that aren’t proven.” Yes — but *we* all do not defend our unsubstantiated, unproven ideas with appeals to faith when the going gets tough. We can’t.
The biggest problem with religion is the belief in the value of faith.
“But most religious people also think their beliefs are a matter of ‘faith.’ They’ve reached over the common world of consensus and leapt out into irrational territory beyond evidence and argument — and positively glory in it.”
I have never met anybody (of faith or otherwise) who glories in being irrational. They may (even probably) exist, but I have sought them out in vain.
“Yes — but *we* all do not defend our unsubstantiated, unproven ideas with appeals to faith when the going gets tough. We can’t.”
I disagree. For example, most of what passes for political argument here in the USA is predicated upon moral values. During his two presidential campaigns, President Obama was much better at framing his positions in these terms than his opponents were, which largely explains his success in my view. Moral values needn’t be based upon faith in the religious sense, but we can only confirm our own and oppose someone else’s based upon what values we believe to be important. We can’t begin to prove them to be true or even better. Their rightness depends upon what one values.
They usually place “other ways of knowing” as a reasonable counterpart to reason itself. My experience is that religious people will gladly admit to being irrational by the standards of the world. But God/Spirit is a higher standard and they measure themselves by that.
You are mixing up facts and values. Atheists do not cop out of rational disagreement by insisting that the correct factual conclusion can only be discovered with the eyes of faith — which our opponent lacks because they do not “choose” to believe.
Religious faith involves a commitment to stand by a conclusion as if one was standing by a friend. As you point out, such dogmatic and intractable attachments can also be a hazard of politics. But in a worldly forum having that sort of emotional commitment is usually denied as a vice. Religion fetishes it as a virtue.
I agree that “[b]ad habits of thought tend to encourage bad conclusions all over the board.” But that strikes me as a human problem rather than a religion problem per se. Indeed, if you follow the “Crank magnetism” example link (from your post above) to “Tax protestors,” you’ll see that the tax protestor “goons” are distinguished from the good guy tax protestors (like John Brown and Emma Goldman) simply by being deemed right. That hardly makes your case.
“It’s an immunizing strategy which confuses factual conclusions with ethical commitments.”
We’re all prone to that. We are routinely eager to claim that our opponents are not just wrong, but inferior somehow – morally, intellectually or otherwise. The one thing shared by Fox News and MSNBC is sneering condescension toward the other side.
“It turns changing your mind into a moral failure.”
The religious have not cornered the market on this problem. We all tend to be ideological through-and-through. That’s the way confirmation bias and bias blindness work.
http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/assume-a-spherical-cow/
Sadly, these problems exist everywhere – even in science.
http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/the-semmelweis-reflex/
http://rpseawright.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/motivated-reasoning/
That science has a self-correction mechanism as part of its process is fantastic and crucial to its overall (incredible) success. But it isn’t failsafe, unfortunately. That said, a culture of self-correction and a commitment to objective analysis (hard as it sometimes is to achieve) means that science and scientific thinking have an inherent advantage over other approaches. Unfortunately, its application is limited (on account of the is/ought distinction) and not as certain as its most forceful evangelists suggest.
“My experience is that religious people will gladly admit to being irrational by the standards of the world.”
Sure. But they tend to mean it like “The world thinks ‘greed is good’ but that’s wrong.” Even the young earth creationists I’ve met think the evidence *really* shows that the earth is 6,000 years old (but that those of us who think otherwise are blinded by other convictions).
“Religious faith involves a commitment to stand by a conclusion as if one was standing by a friend.”
We *all* like to think that our outlooks and decision-making are rationally based processes — that we examine the evidence and only after careful evaluation come to reasoned conclusions as to what the evidence suggests or shows. But we don’t. Rather, we spend our time searching for that which we can exploit to support our pre-conceived commitments (to ideas, people or our careers), which act as pre-packaged means of interpreting the world. We like to think we’re judges of a sort, carefully weighing the alternatives and possibilities before reaching a just and true verdict. Instead, we’re much more like lawyers, looking for anything – true or not – that we think might help to make our case and looking for ways to suppress that which hurts it.
It is obvious that, as Sastra said, you are mixing up facts and values.
Jerry and so on are discussing knowledge, and how being halfway to crazy town (accommodationism) or fully there (religious) is softening the mind to take more unwarranted belief in to the detriment of fact.*
Your examples are based on this mixing. It is that simple.
*In fact, a common problem for these groups are that they want to mix fact and belief.
Indeed, questioning beliefs in religion are for the most part discouraged. If you do so, you are considered a sinner, a heretic or dangerous.
If you become an apostate based on questioning you do anyway, it is common to be told you never really believed in the first place.
To me, this is indeed “glorying in being irrational” and even worse, social reinforcing the value of irrationality.
I think you are making a category error here.
“It is obvious that, as Sastra said, you are mixing up facts and values.”
“I think you are making a category error here.”
It’s easier to feel superior when those who disagree aren’t just wrong but are *obviously* wrong. It’s easier to pay them no nevermind.
But this distinction is not as bright-line as you would have it. Science is necessarily provisional — meaning that there is no absolute certainty as to facts (even granting that this — a-hem — *fact* allows for misuse by the anti-science crowd, as in “it’s only a theory”). Moreover, some factual claims turn out to be wrong (or at least incomplete) while other items theoretically in the “fact” category remain unknown and perhaps unknowable. That the scientific method provides a potential means for resolving such questions doesn’t mean we’ll be able to. We’re all far more irrational than we’d like and than we’d like to admit.
Perhaps most fundamentally, the problem with this claim is that facts without interpretation are useless. There is always plenty of room to dispute an interpretation. In other words, information is cheap but meaning is expensive. And ascertaining meaning requires the we make subjective value judgments.
I’m not making some post-modern claim that there is no objective truth. I’m suggesting that it’s a lot harder to ascertain what’s true than we commonly believe. It’s fine to play the probabilities. All other things being equal, that’s the way to bet. But the probabilities don’t always turn up. That makes life more complex and uncertain than we’d like and makes it harder to demonize the great unwashed who see things differently. Yet I think it’s more interesting too. Your mileage may vary.
“It is obvious that, as Sastra said, you are mixing up facts and values.”
“I think you are making a category error here.”
It’s easier to feel superior when those who disagree aren’t just wrong but are *obviously* wrong. It’s easier to pay them no nevermind.
That’s quite the fallacious ad hominem argument you’ve made there, Bob.
Here’s something that resembles an ad hominem but isn’t actually one:
You’re not worth the effort to respond to.
I have never met anybody (of faith or otherwise) who glories in being irrational. They may (even probably) exist, but I have sought them out in vain.
Now you’re simply prevaricating … you haven’t sought them out at all, because they are trivial to find.
As for
I suspect that most religionists — to the extent they have thought about it — think that their beliefs and commitments comport with the evidence as they understand it.
Your suspicion is not only baseless, it is severely at odds with the evidence … the more theists dwell on the evidentiary support for their beliefs, the more likely they are to explicitly compartmentalize faith and reason. But then there’s that giant gaping caveat — “to the extent they have thought about it”. The vast majority of theists haven’t thought about whether their beliefs comport with the evidence, and when they talk or think about evidence at all they take their holy books as the only thing that counts as evidence. To accept that as in any way equivalent to what atheists do is like excusing racism and Naziism with a bogus appeal to moral relativism.
“Yes — but *we* all do not defend our unsubstantiated, unproven ideas with appeals to faith when the going gets tough. We can’t.”
I disagree. For example, most of what passes for political argument here in the USA is predicated upon moral values.
Your disagreement is invalid because you haven’t noted any error in what you quote … in fact you’re rhetorically cheating here. Moral values and faith aren’t equivalents of any sort; one deals with issues of “ought” and the other deals with issues of “is”.
During his two presidential campaigns, President Obama was much better at framing his positions in these terms than his opponents were, which largely explains his success in my view.
If that’s your view, then your view is worthless.
“[Y]ou’re certainly irrational and delusional if you think you are making good arguments.”
I guess that settles things then.
“He showed that they have a set of delusions that atheists don’t have. To support your claim, *you* would need to demonstrate some set of delusions that atheists have but theists don’t.”
That’s just nonsense. We all have delusions of various sorts on account of behavioral biases, cognitive biases and heuristics that end up giving us faulty conclusions. Those delusions manifest themselves in different ways in different people. The fact that person A may have resisted delusional tendencies in a given situation or with respect to a certain matter while person B succumbed says absolutely nothing about whether A is more rational than B in the aggregate.
“We can pick them out simply by getting them to talk about the subjects mentioned.”
So they’re delusional because they’re wrong and the way you can tell they’re delusional is by their telling us what they believe. Silly me. I thought that if someone were truly delusional it would manifest itself in some demonstrable way. I can readily see the evidence for the apparent delusions of the unfortunate homeless man on the street corner. If religionists were truly delusional in any meaningful, general sense, I would expect clear evidence of that. I guess you don’t think evidence is important in this instance (since you’re so sure and all).
“[W]hile we are all prone to the irrationalities identified by Kahnemann [sic] and Tversky, we aren’t all *equally* prone to them.”
If you had read my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I said as much.
“You’re not worth the effort to respond to.”
Nice response.
“Now you’re simply prevaricating … you haven’t sought them out at all, because they are trivial to find.”
I suggest you have some evidence before calling someone a liar. I know lots of religious people. None claims to be irrational and proud of it. You may have a different set of friends.
“Your suspicion is not only baseless, it is severely at odds with the evidence … the more theists dwell on the evidentiary support for their beliefs, the more likely they are to explicitly compartmentalize faith and reason.”
I don’t think you have a realistic view about how most people actually live. In my experience, if people’s beliefs – about religion, politics, economics, football etc. – generally “work” for them as a practical matter, they don’t tend to analyze the evidential support for those beliefs. And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. It certainly doesn’t make them irrational or delusional.
“Moral values and faith aren’t equivalents of any sort; one deals with issues of ‘ought’ and the other deals with issues of ‘is.’”
The important stuff is almost always a mixture of “is” and “ought.” And when we’re comfortable with the “ought” we tend not to focus too much on the “is.” For example, neither Fox News nor MSNBC spend much time talking about the factual underpinnings of various policies (unless they offer a “gotcha’). The focus is primarily on the alleged moral imperative.
“If that’s your view [about President Obama and moral framing], then your view is worthless.”
It might help if you had a bit of background knowledge before embarrassing yourself by making such a readily demonstrable and glaring error. For example, Berkeley’s George Lakoff discusses moral framing in a progressive context here:
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/12401-george-lakoff-progressives-need-to-use-language-that-reflects-moral-values
“The question presupposes a classical view of ‘rational argument,’ namely the use of classical logic (e.g., mathematical logic) in the service of self-interest.
“But that is not how real rationality works. Political argument starts with moral framing – what is assumed to be right, not wrong or morally irrelevant. Conservatives and liberals differ on what is right. Real rational argument uses the logic of frames and metaphors, as well as the use of emotion in setting goals. For example, poor conservatives may care more about their moral identity as conservatives than about their financial self-interest. This is not ‘irrational;’ it is a matter of what is most important to a given individual — moral identity or financial self-interest.”
I don’t really agree with the points you are trying to make but, even if I did it doesn’t solve any of the real dispute between atheists generally and christians generally. The position you are stating doesn’t address what happens when christians force their delusions into laws that are applied to those that disagree with them. Atheists don’t favor laws that would force christians to have abortions. Atheists don’t deny the basic facts that are revealed and generalized by the theory of evolution, then try to stop public schools from teaching those facts. Atheists don’t force acknowledgement of supernatural rituals into governmental proceedings.
You think you are providing some revolutionary guideline to force atheists to stop criticizing christianity when in reality you haven’t even opened the door yet.
Bob:
See the Wikipedia article on Credo quia absurdum. Yes, the interpretation is slightly different than the simple and simplistic “I believe it because it is absurd,” but only slightly, and the full-frontal irrationality it barely conceals has been on display in the church ever since.
I recently was, well, I guess you’d call it arguing with an evangelical pastor. When I stated that “there is no magic in the universe” he just shrugged his shoulders. When I pointed out that yes, at the periphery things considered to scientific facts change, but that there is a core which is not likely to be overthrown (I was referring to evolution and an old earth) he just said that there was nothing in that core.
This was not some half-witted snake-handling clown from the hills of (fill in your favorite whipping-boy red state here) who has memorized a dozen verses and holds the bible upside down when he preaches. This is a guy with a Ph. D. (albeit in a ministerial field), pastor of a decent-sized middle-class church in suburban Los Angeles. If he isn’t glorying in irrationality, well, I could easily introduce you to many, many others who do. Sure, they call belief in, say, the trinity a “mystery,” but that is just another way of glorying in irrationality.
There’s a *reason* that the bible opposes “faith” to “sight” in 2 Cor. 5.7.
“See the Wikipedia article on Credo quia absurdum. Yes, the interpretation is slightly different than the simple and simplistic “I believe it because it is absurd,” but only slightly, and the full-frontal irrationality it barely conceals has been on display in the church ever since.”
Since Tertullian never said it and since Christianity (in each of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant varieties) has consistently rejected fideism, “slightly” doesn’t begin to cover it. It’s a common internet atheist talking point, but nothing significant.
“When I pointed out that yes, at the periphery things considered to scientific facts change, but that there is a core which is not likely to be overthrown (I was referring to evolution and an old earth) he just said that there was nothing in that core.”
Since the evidence is so strong, I would suggest to your pastor friend that his God is much too small. No God worth our worship would be so deceptive.
“Sure, they call belief in, say, the trinity a ‘mystery,’ but that is just another way of glorying in irrationality.”
I don’t see “I don’t understand” as anything like glorying in irrationality.
“There’s a ‘reason’ that the bible opposes ‘faith’ to ‘sight’ in 2 Cor. 5.7.”
I think that’s a misreading similar to Jerry’s misreading of Heb. 11, suggesting that faith is blind. That verse is followed immediately by a parade of faithful heroes, all of whom were said to have had direct interaction with God. That’s hardly walking blind. A better rendition: “The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see.” And of 2 Cor. 5:7: “It’s what we trust in but don’t yet see that keeps us going.” Both quotes are from The Message.
@Bob Seawright:
“The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see.” And of 2 Cor. 5:7: “It’s what we trust in but don’t yet see that keeps us going.”
Thank you for admitting the point that a number of us with whom you’ve been speaking have been trying to establish–that faith is belief (or trust, or confidence) without evidence (or, at the very least, without sufficient evidence). I doubt I could have shown that in as few words as you did. Bravo!
Now, what evidence that would be accepted by a fair and rational mind, do you have to show that any of the religious statements you’ve made and/or defended are true, rather than simply being made up out of whole cloth (whether or not they keep the believer going)? And what do you say to a devout muslim whose faith that he will be rewarded by allah in the afterlife keeps him going?
“Thank you for admitting the point that a number of us with whom you’ve been speaking have been trying to establish–that faith is belief (or trust, or confidence) without evidence (or, at the very least, without sufficient evidence).”
That you come to the above conclusion based upon the quoted section establishes that we do not have sufficient common understanding to communicate effectively. I regret that such is the case.
Bob:
Please repost your last posting; it was cut off after your first paragraph, and so we were unable to see what evidence you supplied to support various religious beliefs on which people base their lives, or your response to those who choose to follow, as that which “keeps them going,” wicca, islam, or pastafarianism. I would be interested in seeing what you have to say. TIA.
You have made several claims about what people here believe based on very little evidence. Instead of asking questions to find out, you assume. Notice how I asked you questions? I did that so that I could find out what you meant.
The only premise my question assumed is that there are differences between faith derived beliefs and evidence derived beliefs. It doesn’t even require the premise that one is better than the other. What about that rather simple question makes you want to prevaricate?
Do you think one is better, in general, for society than the other? Which one? Or do you think there is no significant difference? Or do you think that while there are differences they are not significant enough to warrant criticism?
If your problem is with criticism of other people’s belief systems then I wonder what you are doing wasting your time chastising people here for criticizing faith when we are outnumbered many times over by those criticizing “scientism.”
“It isn’t nearly good enough to claim that something is unevidenced or unproven and then move on as if the case is made.”
So you reject Euclidean math? Because that’s exactly what happens – you accept five axioms and then move on as if the case is made. Not nearly good enough for you.
Part of the problem is that although, as you note, NPR has “reputation for liberal and incisive reporting,” it is really neither. I think it is used to be pretty good, but now it is just bland and primarily focused on personalities. There is very little actual journalism happening on NPR.
As a matter of principle, I agree. With that said though, I often find it hard to be charitable towards a person that genuinely believes that I deservingly will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.
I find it difficult to just brush that aside and continue with a conversation about their beliefs.
People who believe in eternal torment for nonbelievers may do so deeply and genuinely, but I cannot for a moment believe that they do so reflectively.
I doubt many of them have spent much time on thinking it through, but nonetheless they still know and accept that that is what non-believers and followers of other religions can expect.
They’ve reflected upon it about as much as they will about things that are delegated to their god ideas.
About muslims: “Kill ’em all and let god sort it out.”
About mass killings in the United States: “There needs to be more guns not fewer guns.”
About abortion: “No abortions; not even if the mother could be saved when otherwise both mother and child will die, not even in cases of rape or incest, not even if the child will suffer a short and pain filled life.”
About their faith that atheists will burn forever: They are untroubled by that, “you had your chance”.
About forcing their faith into public events, laws, and governmental procedures: “If you don’t like it leave.”
If you think those are shallow responses, will, that appears to be as far as a typical christian ever gets, they let their god ideas sort it out. How Tania Lombrozo thinks we are to have a meaningful discussion with those that abrogate their decisions to a delusion isn’t within my understanding of meaningful discussion.
NPR has done about a dozen stories about atheism in the past 3 years judging by their archives.
http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=135435596
While all these stories have been fairly atheism-friendly (they were quite sympathetic to the idea of atheist chaplains), NPR has done many many more stories on religion.
NPR seems pretty much in the school of thought that if bad religion is the source of the problem than good religion is the source of the cure. Thus their reporting focuses on those schools of religion that are outside of fundamentalism and making reasonably positive contributions to art and culture. The focus is on what (atheist sex advice columnist and anti-gay bullying activist) Dan Savage calls “nalt [Not All Like That] Christians”. A problem here is that often folks’ criteria for what is humane vs. toxic religion comes from…secular sources, not to mention many people who lead healthy lives without religion.
NPR wants to show that religion is more complicated than much of the rest of the media portrays it (not in the sense of advocating sophisticated theology but in the sense of advocating sophisticated history and sociology of religion!!). Krista Tippett, insofar as she has tried to show there are lots more layers to religion than most media report, is doing something OK. Nonetheless, I find Tippett to be fawning or ingratiating in the same sense that the host of “Inside the Actors Studio”, James Lipton, is over-flattering of the actors who appear as guests on his show. I enjoyed her interview with Lawrence Krauss and some of her stuff on medical research (presented secularly), but she’s quite often !*too*! earnest in trying to show the human face of religion- to the point of a sentimentalism I don’t quite care for. (But I’ll take a conversation with her over William Lane Craig any day.)
‘Atheism and religion are implacably opposed, and there simply isn’t any middle ground where their ideas are concerned.’
Interesting comment. You appear to be redefining atheism away from simply a lack of belief to being science based anti-theism. Might make sense for American politics, but doesn’t make full sense for overall truth. How many atheists are there around the world that spend their lives having no thoughts about religion (or their lack of belief in it) at all because they are too wrapped up in drinking a six pack and watching the game on TV or similar? They are just as much atheists as you, yet do not share the anti-theist politics.
I don’t know. I have no idea if the OP was using the term “Atheism” as you say. But, if you parse that quoted sentence using the strict simple definition of “Atheism” that you allude to (I prefer that myself), then the sentence seems even more accurate, not less. The definition of the word clearly and directly requires that it is implacably opposed to religion.
Muu, are you suggesting that one can believe in half a god?
A demigod?
I did not suggest what you are alluding to.
My point is that not all atheists engage in debate or politics. There is no opposition when there is no thought about the subject at all. No debate or friction when the atheist in question is busy doing something else entirely and gives no time for it.
What happens to an apathetic, otherwise occupied, non-philosophical atheist whose family, friends, neighbours, elected representatives and media – including public radio – insist on religious belief and practice being criteria of citizenship, community and safety, heaping atheists with abuse, threats and sometimes actual violence?
I expect they just try to blend in. So there’s no conflict, right?
Maybe in the USA John, but not necessarily so for the rest of the world.
Try this version, what happens to a Chinese atheist, otherwise occupied, whose neighbours, friends, neighbours, elected representatives, and media don’t give him/her any reason to be bothered about religion? You get my drift? For many atheists around the world the anti-theist politics which might be necessary in the USA are not relevant. They have other fish to fry. 😉
“It’s perfectly OK for people to believe whatever they want.”
I do not think that is so. If someone is wrong then we should not be afraid to say so.
Tania Lombroso’s essay is I think unintentionally confusing because she highlights the statements which she claims she doesn’t believe. I think the reader’s usual tendency is to assume a numbered list in bold is supposed to indicate positive take-away points — unless each sentence is immediately condemned in no uncertain terms (which Lombroso doesn’t really do.)
So Lombroso would apparently agree with you. Tedchnically, she’s endorsing the gnu atheist position instead of Accomodationism.
It’s just hard to tell what she means by “respectful” dialogue — as the OP points out. Dawkins is all for respectful dialogue; so is Jerry. It’s just that the dialogue here is going to involve the kind of respect you give to a colleague with a really bad idea. Civil, but words will not be minced.
It’s no good confusing ‘respect’ with ‘forbearance.’
Why can’t we have respectful discussions?
She’d do well to ask the question just of the religious. If THEY could, we wouldn’t have thousands of different sects, the result of one subset having gone off in a huff and started a new one.
I once had someone tell me with some pride that he/she (forget which) was a member of some sect (forget which) that was not the result of any division in [some number over 100] years. I had to point out that that just meant that everyone else had split off from them. The reaction seemed to be that that thought had not been entertained before.
Like when Howard Stern asked Joe Walsh (circa 1993) why Walsh had left the Eagles, and Walsh replied that the other members of the band had quit, and that he was the lone Eagle left.
Not sure why you are surprised, Jerry. First, NPR needs an audience just like any other media business. More than that, though, there is a Christian Left, as well as a big tent for “Sprituality.” (Would you expect to hear a story on NPR attacking Wicca as foolishness? Hardly.) Combine that with a Liberal tendency towards non-confrontation in the guise of tolerance, and you have religious accomodationism.
Actually, if you are going to get into a debate/argument/discussion then you do have to apply what’s generally called the Principle of Charity to homeopaths, spiritual healers, UFO abductees and even racists — as the folks in the skeptical movement will be quick to assure you. Lambroso is not necessarily demanding special treatment for religion. Try discussing ESP with an advocate: you will get nowhere if you simply tell them they’re nuts.
Otherwise ordinary, nice-enough people can and do hold some of the most bizarre (or wicked) beliefs. What we liked to call “woo” has evidence, testimony, history, and elaborate apologetics behind them which rival traditional religions … and the thought processes are pretty much the same (“you ought to try to believe because doing so is to your moral credit.”) To change their minds you have to try to meet them on common turf.
Even stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist, and brainwashed people seldom have those characteristics all the way down.
Where Lombroso goes wrong I think is in failing to recognize that the atheists who really do think religious believers are “stupid, heartless, immoral, elitist or brainwashed” are usually the loudest voices against having any kind of debate, discussion, or dialogue. They think The God Delusion was a colossal waste of time (as is WEIT) because people of faith are a lost cause. “The religious will never change: don’t bother with rational arguments. Give them a cookie and pat them on the head or use force against those who use force.”
“we should assume, as a default, that others hold their religious and scientific beliefs deeply….”
She seems to sneak in a false equivalency hear and in so doing, implies that acceptance of scientific facts are equivalent to religious beliefs. It hardly needs to be said here that accepting science is not deeply held but is only provisional and can be rejected or updated based on evidence. Religion is not so flexible.
I also agree that it is not necessarily ok to believe whatever you want – bad thinking tends to spread and I think minimizing terrorism and faulty beliefs as “unfortunate” is not giving the gravitas this issue deserves.
and I can’t spell: “here” (stupid multi-tasking).
“You shouldn’t try to change someone’s mind when it comes to scientific …. beliefs.”
I can’t accept this. It sounds nice, but it contradicts how science works. If one scientist says A and a colleague says B the typical procedure is to set up some experiment that decides in favour of one or the other – ie changes the minde of the other or the one.
“there simply isn’t any middle ground where their ideas are concerned.”
Mwah, as long as eg religious ideas on morals are the same as my humanist ones I’m perfectly fine.
Then you agree with her; Lombroso’s list is of comments she thinks are wrong. See also Sastra’s reply to #21.
Prof. Ceiling-cat: //Well, on second thought, there is something wrong with unsubstantiated belief even if it doesn’t lead to action. That’s because it softens the mind and makes it possible to have other unsubstantiated beliefs.//
The key word there is “unsubstantiated.” A cardinal rule of critical thinking is that one must not identify with one’s beliefs, only with how he or she came by them. If I do the latter, I know whether or not the basis for my believing something is justified empirically or whether it is a rationalization for holding an irrational belief.
Also, the state of identifying with one’s beliefs could explain why some persons are offended when you question their beliefs!
She says, in the second paragraph of this essay
“Only in my exotic academic enclave, I thought to myself, would two Americans have a conversation in which the Christian theist “came out” to the atheist Jew.”
I think that makes clear that she does not believe in god. Of course, her beliefs regarding prayer and other religious activities are still unknown but it’s possible to belief that the act of praying is good for human beings without also holding to the belief that a supernatural creator god exists.
What evidence do you have to support the assertion that religious belief ‘softens the mind’ and increases the likelihood of other unsubstantiated beliefs?
If you don’t have objective and unequivocal evidence for this statement, I don’t see why anyone else should agree with it rather than classifying it as an unsubstantiated belief that you hold?
She says, in the second paragraph of this essay
Read more carefully .. Jerry was referring to Luhrmann, not Lombrozo.
If you don’t have objective and unequivocal evidence for this statement, I don’t see why anyone else should agree with it rather than classifying it as an unsubstantiated belief that you hold?
Your premise is false.
Try reading more carefully. As the reader above says, I’m referring to Luhrmann and not Lombrozo. As for religious belief softening the mind, that’s self evident given the beliefs it promotes. And there are few defenders of religion like the religious. Go ahead and classify that as an unsubstantiated belief if you want; I don’t care.
Sorry about the confusion between the Luhrmann and Lombrozo.
I do classify your statement that religious belief softens the mind as an unsubstantiated belief. I do not consider it self-evident.
If you don’t care that others consider your belief unsubstantiated, that’s fine. I feel that you are entitled to your beliefs just as everyone else is, including religious believers. But then, I don’t consider holding unsubstantiated beliefs to be inherently harmful.
I think everyone holds some such beliefs and it is the content and context of those beliefs, not the act of simply believing, that determines whether an unsubstantiated belief should be considered harmful. I will readily admit that this is an unsubstantiated belief of my own. 😉
Hopefully you understand why I do not consider your response to be a convincing argument for persuading me that your belief is correct. Your response was, IMO, indicative of a unsubstantiated belief rather than a verifiable fact.
My own opinion is that such a claim makes for a circular thinking process. Either you have evidence supporting that statement or you should stop believing it because it is unsubstantiated and therefore harmful to believe it.
If you had evidence, I think you would have used it to justify your belief rather than claiming it was ‘self-evident’ and indicating you didn’t care if others agreed or not.
If you lack evidence for the belief, then according to the belief itself, you should discard it as unsubstantiated. If you discard the belief, then you no longer need assume that unsubstantiated beliefs are inherently harmful and can take that belief up again. Repeat until evidence is obtained or the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable.
Myself, I find the opposite belief – that the act of holding an unsubstantiated belief is not inherently harmful – to be less problematic. If evidence if presented, I can easily change my mind about it but holding that particular belief without evidence does not lead me to circular thinking patterns or cognitive dissonance the way holding your belief would.
Based on what I read from Jerry’s piece, Lombrozo has not considered how people make decisions in life and how closely matched the choice of those decisions is linked to their faith. During daily life, most religious people in America, i.e., the ~70% who believe in angels, etc., are largely indistinguishable from atheist. If they are lucky they might think about god once a week, maybe every day and usually privately, but most of their actions tend to be the same as atheists. Where they differ most notably is in small decisions: what to eat, when to eat, what to wear, who to hang out with, who to vote for (I consider that a small decision), with further restrictions on maybe who to like, etc.
One major decision religious people make, though subtle and misunderstood by people like Lombrozo, is the decision to impart religion to the lives of children who are not given a choice. This is a constraint that no one can march away from…faith comes to us from geography and culture, not by choice.
Beliefs do play a major role on how all people make all decisions all the time. The hard part for people like Lombrozo is that she does not fully appreciate that actions are secular by definition. Actions are physical, empirical, measurable…wired to the universe, but that does not imply that actions are necessarily good. She, like most accommodationists, confuses beliefs with actions and how religious beliefs can cause other beliefs and those can cause a great deal of harm, not least of which is ignorance.
Again, accommodationists miss our concerns – we don’t care so much about belief – it’s voting records that matter. It’s applying those beliefs to school board rulings on textbook selection. It’s on applying those views to whether two people in love meet some bronze-age litmus test. It’s discounting evidence-based science for fairy stories. It’s substituting arguments from authority for critical analysis. If these beliefs didn’t constantly find political expression, we wouldn’t care. But they do. Once they leave the pulpit on the way to the ballot box, they are fair game.
Exactly… Many theists feel its their “duty” to push “gods will” onto those that do not think of feel the way they do and by any means available.
Politicians have learned how to harvest these peoples votes even if doing so is against their own self interest. I’ve always said we must ridicule the ridiculous and religion is the best place to start… Letting the ridiculous pass unabashed is the same as condoning it…
Indeed, the non religious ask for neutrality in the secular state and facts in the schools. Religions have decided to battle against both these things. It is not that atheists and the like expect that everyone should give up their religion but that they should respect scientific facts and abstain from forcing their religion on others.
I would like to be notified if there comes an answer from Tania Lombroso to this. But I do not expect it. What could she say?
She could ignore the difficult points and talk in circles about how we are all blind and irrational whether we are followers of Science or Religion.
If you can’t think of anything she could say then you don’t know much about debate, rhetoric, philosophy, etc.
Jesus, bkr… lighten up a little. This isn’t Pharyngula.
I’m awed. Another top piece. Good analysis, spot on the stealth credibility.
In that sense it is Lombrozo and her accommodationism that is “fueled by disrespect”. She disrespects science and religion both.
Lombrozo disrespects science because she claims religion is as “deeply reasoned” as all the hard work science has done to arrive at knowledge.
And religion is given her disrespect since she coddles the religious with the idea that their failure to provide evidence counts as a credible way to arrive at knowledge.
This has been said many times, by Jerry, Ben, PZ (IIRC) et cetera. Yet Lombrozo disallow that accommodationism is more disrespectful than atheism that openly criticize religious ideas.
Openly criticizing ideas is what we do in healthy, secular societies. If we don’t, we will get problems.
I think Lombrozo knows this. But she isn’t able to make her accommodationist position connect with what is necessary.
Indeed. It is Why Atheism Is True.
“…Why Atheism Is True.”
Huh! I wonder if that’s the title of Jerry’s new book?
That is a brilliant title!
“Why Atheism Is True”
It is pleasant just to think it.
Actually, Jerry, you can have a lot of success in discussions with some believers. I usually skip the science and go straight to apologetics. I like to start with the first commandment, “no other…”.
Indeed. Very few believers, at least Christians, realise that Judaism was originally henotheistic.
/@
Actually monolatric.
Why can’t the god botherers go bother Wall Street for a while? How long since a CNBC viewer or Wall Street Journal reader had been exposed to the theological implications of hostile takeovers and mortgage derivatives?
What else shall we call religious people if not brainwashed? Brainwashed is exactly the term for their condition. It’s not an insult. But it is why we naturalists shouldn’t roll over and
STFU“be respectful”. We have to try to undo the brainwashing.I prefer “indoctrinated”. “Brainwashing” suggests taking something (like dirt)out. When children are indoctrinated at an early age their brains aren’t already in need of washing. “Brainwashing” might apply when someone is converted from one religion to another.
lol.
I would like to know what exactly is a “serious mainstream Christian”.
Notagod: “You think you are providing some revolutionary guideline to force atheists to stop criticizing christianity when in reality you haven’t even opened the door yet.”
As you point out, ideas have consequences. So do actions. The Tea Party thinks the President’s positions are illegimate. Thus it doesn’t make sense for them to cooperate or compromise with him in any way. Anti-accomodationism takes a similar view with respect to religious belief. Putting aside technical correctness at least for a moment, I don’t see that illegitimacy claims made toward an overwhelming majority make a lot of practical sense unless you like tilting at windmills. Do you?
It isn’t tilting at windmills. Some assessments are wrong (B. Obama’s presidency is illegitimate) and some are right (religion is incompatible with science) – maybe I have those reversed but we must all draw our own conclusions and do what seems right.
The possibility of being wrong doesn’t mean we should not decide and not act. And the argument that a lot of people are doing it so there must be something to it is… lame.
We are all bad thinkers and it’s hard to nail down the truth, so there is no truth? Aren’t some methods of arriving at truth less bad than others? How are religious faith and science compatible? What kinds of progress do you see coming from a dialog between the two?
The christian gods aren’t real but the people that worship those delusions are real. When I find something that is doing harm I tend to speak up and voice my concern, it doesn’t bother me even if I am the only one that perceives the danger or the enlightenment. Christianity has dangerous consequences and I will do what I can to object to the strangle hold it has on many societies.
Now, I see that Dr. Coyne has challenged you to reveal your intentions, should you accept that challenge then, I would challenge you afterward to address the substance of my comment above that you seem to be responding to while avoiding the substance.
NPR has a constant squabble with the right, religious or otherwise, and especially the tea party types in congress which wants to cut all federal funding to PBS. NPR probably allows some religious sops to be aired trying to cool off the rabid. JC
Well, the PBS News Hour is getting into the act tonight with an interview of Reza Aslan. From the News Hour web site:
Jerry:
Great post!
Two slight additions:
1) there is something wrong with unsubstantiated belief even if it doesn’t lead to action. That’s because it softens the mind and makes it possible to have other unsubstantiated beliefs. In other words, it enables faith.
I’m guessing you were reaching for the statement by W. K. Clifford; here it is:
“If I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.” (from The Scientific Basis of Morals (1884))
Also, the title of Hitchens’ book is “God is Not Great” (the subtitle is “How Religion Poisons Everything”); you may want to change that in your post.
Your comment on what science has to contribute to religion is one I will be stealing early and often!
FYI. The other blog I get weekly.