|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 21:45:11 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Are you using 'proof' in the sense of 'sufficient evidence'? |
Yes. | If so then any belief that has evidence in it's favor meets some level of proof. |
Eh, don't think I can agree with that when the evidence is purely subjective, such as personal religious experiences.
| I disagree that the scientist has faith in his hypothesis. There may be suspension of disbelief or intuition or something similar going on but if a scientist fails to doubt their hypothesis then they have lost objectivity. |
Yes, and I would say that religious faith works the same way except that the believer knows they will never in this life get proof to confirm their claim. I would also say that a person with faith who fails to doubt that faith has also lost objectivity. Faith untempered by doubt is what causes self-righteousness – in any subject. This is why I think that faith and reason can reside perfectly soundly in a person. The two concepts are not enemies – they compliment each other.
| I would say the mistake, and the beginnings of faith, often occurs when one forgets that a guess is just a guess. |
I would say that the differences in literal content here is marginal (to-mae-toes, to-ma-toes), but the attitudes are totally different. I am holding certain types of faith in esteem, while you seem to be disparaging all faith.
| Well your logic is a bit sketchy, it's like saying that a computer program cannot manipulate data since it is data, but you may have a point that faith is seldom used to establish beliefs from scratch. Faith is probably more often invoked as a means of defending pre-existing beliefs. |
Ah, I see what you're saying. Good point about my logic there.
| Well I only hope that this type of faith is as mainstream as your experience has led you to believe. |
Yeah, me too.
Actually, I often tend to think that the main religious problem in modern society isn't too much faith, but rather, too much bad faith and not enough good faith. The people with bad faith are obvious – they are the people we tend to criticize a lot on SFN. But then there are people who don't seem to value much beyond material things, what seems convenient, gives them a superficial feelings of importance, or gives them a quick, easy fix. Of course I'm speculating, but I'm speculating from a great deal of stuff out there: so many best selling self-help books, so little engagement with politics and community, so much conspicuous consumption. And it seems to extend to higher culture. I go into the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and I want to throw up. In my mind it came off as a temple to nihilism. Seems to me that more people could really use some faith in the sense of cathartically feeling one with everything and respecting life as sacred. Then maybe instead of buying a big fat car, or having a kid they don't really want, or joining a gang, or any of the other stupid things people do to feel good about themselves, they'd maybe gain a genuine sense of joy and peace from compassionate actions and simple pleasures.
| More likely a knock on nihilists I guess. |
I'm so glad you typed that. After I posted it I almost went back to edit it to add exactly this statement.
Guess that means we're on the same page again. I hope.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2007 : 09:29:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
In further response to my discussion with Humbert, I had a thought that might help explain my position on respect and value for peoples' beliefs. The way I think about that is rather similar to how I think about other valued aspects of peoples' quality of life. For example, often divorce cases that involve a rich person and their non-working spouse are settled by giving the non-working spouse a settlement which allows them to keep "the standard of life they've grown accustomed to" or close to that. This seems fair to many if not most people because most people will acknowledge that the quality of life for an individual is largely dependent on one's habits, hobbies, and day to day lifestyle. One of the reasons I oppose the outright banning of guns in the USA is not because I own guns, but because I have many friends who own guns and put a strong - hmmmm, let's romantic, perhaps? - value on being able to own those guns. ONce people get it into their heads that something is an important part of their cultural or individual identity, taking that away feels like an assault on ourselves, and casually insulting that on moral or intellectual grounds cuts us to the core. I think this is why when someone makes casually insulting statements about atheism, I feel enraged - my atheism has become intermingled with my very identity. This is why we have special exceptions to our laws for letting Native Americans use peyote, and letting Amish live in separated, isolated communities, even thought he majority of Americans think those beliefs are silly.
We say different things and in different tones of voice, depending on the company we are in. My atheist husband and I might viciously bash religion in the comfort of our own home, but to do so in front of religious people would be wrong, in my view, because it doesn't take into account how the words and tone of voice will be taken by those individuals. When I bash religious beliefs among my atheist friends, I am often having a cathartic experience, getting a release after practicing so much mindful tolerance in public. From a more objective view, I don't actually think horrible things about people with faith. So when I speak to people of faith about beliefs, I need to put my thoughts through a filter - as we must always do when we communicate with others - so that they fully understand the meaning. Likewise, if I press most people after they say things I find insulting about atheism, I find that they really didn't mean to belittle the character of myself and other atheists, and that I often take their words more harshly than they are intending them. (I'm talking about my liberal religious friends, not self-righteous believers who really do often belief ridiculously harsh and ignorant things about atheists.)
Anyway, I hope these thoughts help clarify my position. I'm always trying to find the words to clarify all this shit that's in my mind on this topic.
|
Hmm. So you seem to think tolerating irrationality is a good thing. Why do you call yourself a skeptic again?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 09:45:35 [Permalink]
|
| Hmm. So you seem to think tolerating irrationality is a good thing. |
No. You have missed my point. Obviously I have failed at clarifying my position to you. I don't think it is worth the effort anymore, so I give up. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 10:19:36 [Permalink]
|
So by your standard HH we should be actively trying to crush peoples beliefs? I'm afraid they are far more likely to crush us than the other way around.
How exactly should we go about being totally intolerant of "irrationality", force? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 11:19:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
So by your standard HH we should be actively trying to crush peoples beliefs? I'm afraid they are far more likely to crush us than the other way around. |
I think we should go around discouraging irrationality and encouraging clear thinking at all times, yes. Do I expect to change every single person's mind? Of course not, but just because it's an impossible task doesn't mean that it shouldn't be the goal.
People deserve respect. Bad ideas do not. If you are so afraid of hurting someone's feelings that you can't criticize their ideas or beliefs, then you really don't respect them as thinking people.
| How exactly should we go about being totally intolerant of "irrationality", force? |
Why are you trying to spin this as a call for violence? No one introduced the words "force" or "crush" into this discussion but you. How about simple sticking to values you supposedly accept as a skeptic: "[P]romote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact."
Notice how there isn't anything in there about rolling over as soon as you're outnumbered or about stopping the promotion of skepticism as soon as someone's feelings get hurt.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/28/2007 11:42:01 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 11:38:00 [Permalink]
|
Well not convincing someone of 'the golden path' and leaving it at that sure sounds like tolerating to me.
| Of course not, but just because it's an impossible task doesn't mean that it shouldn't be the goal. |
Quite an irrational position if I do say so myself. JK, I agree with your statements for the most part but am not as optimistic.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 13:45:22 [Permalink]
|
(Edited to add: I changed my mind about giving up after a few hours of mulling it over.)
Humbert wrote: | If you are so afraid of hurting someone's feelings that you can't criticize their ideas or beliefs, then you really don't respect them as thinking people. |
Hurting peoples' feelings is not my concern. I am interested in promoting religious tolerance and pluralism, as well as skepticism. I hold these values because it is very possible there will come a day when freethinkers are a self-aware majority, and if we do not plant the seeds of religious tolerance and pluralism now, and make them an integrated part of the freethinking lifestance, freethinkers are destine to become future oppressors.
Consider the examples I gave in my response to you. Do you agree that the Amish should be able to continue the lifestyle and position they currently hold in American society? Or do you think they should lose their privileges won by precedent and tradition? Would you boycott their products since giving them money helps promote their irrational society and worldview? How about the Native Americans and peyote... was it wrong to make an exception in the law for the sake of their religious practice? I think such exceptions are fine so long as they considered on a case by case basis, which is what happened in both of these cases, and it hasn't caused any social problems.
| "[P]romote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact." |
Certainly, but not all religious ideas are claims of fact, and certainly the ritualistic and emotional aspects of religion are not claims of fact. Also, skepticism is one value, not a whole worldview. One can be a skeptic, as it is defined here, and also value and promote other things. And as is the case with any value system, sometimes the interests of more than one personal value will be in conflict, and a person is forced to decide which should supercede the other. You seem to be arguing that it is dishonest to call oneself a "skeptic" if their skepticism isn't their highest value.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/28/2007 13:46:06 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Pope & Evolution
