Comments on: The many faces of Christianity http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:24:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Karl http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23594 Karl Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:25:28 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23594 grumpypilgrim stated: "Being an atheist myself, I would say it is not, as Karl asserts, the belief in something it can’t prove; rather, it is the disbelief in things that are unproven." Then one should be a skeptic willing to question all beliefs, including those with a lack of proof. grumpypilgrim stated:

“Being an atheist myself, I would say it is not, as Karl asserts, the belief in something it can’t prove; rather, it is the disbelief in things that are unproven.”

Then one should be a skeptic willing to question all beliefs, including those with a lack of proof.

]]> By: Susan http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23581 Susan Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:57:02 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23581 I have some sympathy for the view that values are not determined by rational thought, or even could be. I am an actuary so I make my living being rational and analytical but I think my values have a different source and are not necessarily amenable to the same sort of analysis. For example, it seems wrong (as opposed to irrational) to me to be wasteful, but a retailer might argue on rational grounds that it is good for me to be wasteful - economic growth, alleviating Chinese poverty etc relies on me being wasteful. I can find some countervailing rational arguments to support my view but that is an afterthought, not the basis for my values or what drives my behaviour. I try to question my values or biases; often, however, I come up against the limitations of my knowledge - GM foods feel creepy to me (and I can recognise that's a feeling not a thinking), but on an issue where there are clearly people involved in the debate who have very strong vested interests, I don't have the time or expertise to fully research the issue and, in any case, it may well be the very long term that turns out to be important, I can't reach a rational conclusion. Instead, I rely on my 'irrational' response propped up by the precautionary principle. Popper's thesis about falsifiability is also relevant - we can never prove that GM foods are safe, only that they haven't been proven to be unsafe to date - so 'rationally' it becomes a question of weighing up the risks. However, it is obvious individuals have very different risk appetites and this resists objective rational analysis. (On the other hand, the generally poor understanding of risks might be improved by application of some rational thinking.) A view about GM foods may be a bit different from a life guiding value but introspection suggests to me that the processes involved may not be that different. I have some sympathy for the view that values are not determined by rational thought, or even could be. I am an actuary so I make my living being rational and analytical but I think my values have a different source and are not necessarily amenable to the same sort of analysis. For example, it seems wrong (as opposed to irrational) to me to be wasteful, but a retailer might argue on rational grounds that it is good for me to be wasteful - economic growth, alleviating Chinese poverty etc relies on me being wasteful. I can find some countervailing rational arguments to support my view but that is an afterthought, not the basis for my values or what drives my behaviour. I try to question my values or biases; often, however, I come up against the limitations of my knowledge - GM foods feel creepy to me (and I can recognise that’s a feeling not a thinking), but on an issue where there are clearly people involved in the debate who have very strong vested interests, I don’t have the time or expertise to fully research the issue and, in any case, it may well be the very long term that turns out to be important, I can’t reach a rational conclusion. Instead, I rely on my ‘irrational’ response propped up by the precautionary principle. Popper’s thesis about falsifiability is also relevant - we can never prove that GM foods are safe, only that they haven’t been proven to be unsafe to date - so ‘rationally’ it becomes a question of weighing up the risks. However, it is obvious individuals have very different risk appetites and this resists objective rational analysis. (On the other hand, the generally poor understanding of risks might be improved by application of some rational thinking.) A view about GM foods may be a bit different from a life guiding value but introspection suggests to me that the processes involved may not be that different.

]]> By: Karl http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23566 Karl Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:09:01 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23566 You are correct, I can not speak on behalf atheists. I can only state what I would need to consciously choose to deny my current beliefs. To me, unless a person is a total skeptic they are going to believe in something about life in general. Those beliefs is general are a belief in something nonetheless, no matter if a person tries to state otherwise. In my opinion, agnostics are better at the null hypothesis concept. In my opinion, atheists have a full blown vested interest in finding truth that intentionally discounts the possibility of God. Therefore the construction of a closely knit, interconnected solurce of reasoned "scientific" perspective that can not be observationally proven or disproven either way suites as the best methodology. I do not claim to speak for atheists, I speak as one who tries to consciously reason what I would have to do to adjust my thought process to become one. You are correct, I can not speak on behalf atheists.

I can only state what I would need to consciously choose to deny my current beliefs. To me, unless a person is a total skeptic they are going to believe in something about life in general. Those beliefs is general are a belief in something nonetheless, no matter if a person tries to state otherwise.

In my opinion, agnostics are better at the null hypothesis concept. In my opinion, atheists have a full blown vested interest in finding truth that intentionally discounts the possibility of God.

Therefore the construction of a closely knit, interconnected solurce of reasoned “scientific” perspective that can not be observationally proven or disproven either way suites as the best methodology.

I do not claim to speak for atheists, I speak as one who tries to consciously reason what I would have to do to adjust my thought process to become one.

]]> By: Vicki Baker http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23560 Vicki Baker Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:59:59 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23560 Language is a funny thing. We can use the same word, believe, to refer to casual assumptions like, " I believe high tide is at 5 o'clock today" or to deeply held convictions like, "I believe God created the heavens and the earth." We can also use "believe" to talk about our values, as in "I believe in hard work" or "I believe in non-violence." So saying atheists don't believe in anything can be a back-handed way to say atheists have no values. Some people who honestly believe (that word again) that values come from God will actually say this outright. Fortunately, our society values freedom of conscience so we are free to have our own value systems as long as we don't use them to justify behavior that interferes with others' rights. Sorting out the rights and responsibilities of citizens, based on shared values, and codifying them into law is a consensus process in a democratic society. In a democracy, it's never OK to try to impose our values on others solely by appeals to divine authority. Language is a funny thing. We can use the same word, believe, to refer to casual assumptions like, ” I believe high tide is at 5 o’clock today” or to deeply held convictions like, “I believe God created the heavens and the earth.”

We can also use “believe” to talk about our values, as in “I believe in hard work” or “I believe in non-violence.”

So saying atheists don’t believe in anything can be a back-handed way to say atheists have no values. Some people who honestly believe (that word again) that values come from God will actually say this outright.

Fortunately, our society values freedom of conscience so we are free to have our own value systems as long as we don’t use them to justify behavior that interferes with others’ rights. Sorting out the rights and responsibilities of citizens, based on shared values, and codifying them into law is a consensus process in a democratic society. In a democracy, it’s never OK to try to impose our values on others solely by appeals to divine authority.

]]> By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23534 grumpypilgrim Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:56:55 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23534 Karl writes: "One could make the case that being atheistic is actually antagonistic to belief in general because it believes something it can’t prove yet claims to not believe in anything, that is besides naturalism." Unless Karl is an atheist, he should not speak for them. Being an atheist myself, I would say it is not, as Karl asserts, the belief in something it can't prove; rather, it is the disbelief in things that are unproven. Karl writes: “One could make the case that being atheistic is actually antagonistic to belief in general because it believes something it can’t prove yet claims to not believe in anything, that is besides naturalism.”

Unless Karl is an atheist, he should not speak for them.

Being an atheist myself, I would say it is not, as Karl asserts, the belief in something it can’t prove; rather, it is the disbelief in things that are unproven.

]]> By: Karl http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23522 Karl Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:45:04 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23522 I agree that it is very common to remain agnostic regarding matters of faith, simply because of the way the scientific process operates. Even one of Jesus' own disciples wouldn't take the word or the other disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Seeing, touching, feeling and experiencing for himself were required by the skeptic Thomas. Being agnostic should never be seen as facing in a wrong direction. One could make the case that being atheistic is actually antagonistic to belief in general because it believes something it can't prove yet claims to not believe in anything, that is besides naturalism. I agree that it is very common to remain agnostic regarding matters of faith, simply because of the way the scientific process operates.

Even one of Jesus’ own disciples wouldn’t take the word or the other disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. Seeing, touching, feeling and experiencing for himself were required by the skeptic Thomas.

Being agnostic should never be seen as facing in a wrong direction.

One could make the case that being atheistic is actually antagonistic to belief in general because it believes something it can’t prove yet claims to not believe in anything, that is besides naturalism.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23518 Erich Vieth Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:25:57 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23518 Susan: Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful comment. A few months ago, I purchased Burton's book, "On Being Certain," but I haven't yet gotten to it--it remains on the floor next to my bed, along with dozens of other books I fully intend to read. I noticed that there is a lot of information about Burton available on the Internet. For example, here's an <a href="http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2008/05/five_minutes_with_ro.html" rel="nofollow">interview of Burton</a> and here are some comments about "On Being Certain" <a href="http://www.rburton.com/work1.htm" rel="nofollow">from Burton's own website.</a> Susan: Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful comment. A few months ago, I purchased Burton’s book, “On Being Certain,” but I haven’t yet gotten to it–it remains on the floor next to my bed, along with dozens of other books I fully intend to read.

I noticed that there is a lot of information about Burton available on the Internet. For example, here’s an interview of Burton and here are some comments about “On Being Certain” from Burton’s own website.

]]> By: Susan http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23515 Susan Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:57:50 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23515 I've recently read a book which added a great deal to my understanding of these issues - On Being Certain. I guess I'd describe myself as a cultural Christian, brought up in the church, very much appreciating the music and art that has been produced as a result of religious convictions (Bach's religious works are beyond compare) and feeling that we cannot understand much of what has gone before us without a grounding in the belief systems that governed thinking BUT on the central issues of faith finding it incomprehensible that anyone could be other than agnostic. The author, Robert Burton, mounts a very convincing argument that individuals may have a predisposition for faith/certainty (many athiests are just as dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians) as opposed to scepticism/tolerance for uncertainty. Being certain about things, in his view, is in most cases an emotional state rather than the product of rational thought, and it is a state which had evolutionary advantages. Furthermore, our brain chemistry is probably responsible for experiences which we interpret as mystical - such experiences can be produced by direct stimulation of particular areas of the brain. Fascinating book. I’ve recently read a book which added a great deal to my understanding of these issues - On Being Certain. I guess I’d describe myself as a cultural Christian, brought up in the church, very much appreciating the music and art that has been produced as a result of religious convictions (Bach’s religious works are beyond compare) and feeling that we cannot understand much of what has gone before us without a grounding in the belief systems that governed thinking BUT on the central issues of faith finding it incomprehensible that anyone could be other than agnostic. The author, Robert Burton, mounts a very convincing argument that individuals may have a predisposition for faith/certainty (many athiests are just as dogmatic as fundamentalist Christians) as opposed to scepticism/tolerance for uncertainty. Being certain about things, in his view, is in most cases an emotional state rather than the product of rational thought, and it is a state which had evolutionary advantages. Furthermore, our brain chemistry is probably responsible for experiences which we interpret as mystical - such experiences can be produced by direct stimulation of particular areas of the brain. Fascinating book.

]]> By: Karl http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23501 Karl Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:05:38 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23501 That's all well and good for the here and now. If eternity is not set in the heart and minds of some people then I wish them all the self-realization they can acheive. That’s all well and good for the here and now. If eternity is not set in the heart and minds of some people then I wish them all the self-realization they can acheive.

]]> By: Vicki Baker http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/29/the-many-faces-of-christianity/#comment-23500 Vicki Baker Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:09:51 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=195#comment-23500 Karl, sorry if you felt that I expressed any judgment on your philosophical predispositions or commitments without revealing my own. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to give you a hard and fast answer on that, as I am somewhat commitment-phobic about philosophy. I can't claim to understand what the real philosophy-wallahs are talking about most of the time anyway. My opinions are not exactly a secret around here though and you can research them by clicking on my name under the Authors heading in the left column of the home page. Karl, sorry if you felt that I expressed any judgment on your philosophical predispositions or commitments without revealing my own. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to give you a hard and fast answer on that, as I am somewhat commitment-phobic about philosophy. I can’t claim to understand what the real philosophy-wallahs are talking about most of the time anyway. My opinions are not exactly a secret around here though and you can research them by clicking on my name under the Authors heading in the left column of the home page.

]]>