Most religious adherents would be aghast if one suggested that they, or their religion, were fundamentally and consistently dishonest. However I believe that is indeed the case.
I read a comment on a recent blog post by Ed Brayton (honesty vs intellectually honest).
Ed’s post argued about the distinction between honesty and intellectual honesty, and noted that intellectual honesty must recognize not only the arguments in support of a position, but also any evidence or arguments against that position.
One of the commenters (Sastra) then made the following case that faith was fundamentally intellectually dishonest:
[…] An intellectually dishonest person blurs the distinction [between being intellectually honest, and being emotionally honest], and seems to confuse fact claims with meaning or value claims. To a person who places emphasis on emotional honesty, strength of conviction is evidence. An attack on an idea, then, is an attack on the person who holds it. The idea is true because it’s emotionally fulfilling: intentions and sincerity matter the most. Therefore, you don’t question, search, or respect dissent. A person who is trying to change your mind, is trying to change you.
For example, I consider religious faith […] to be intellectually dishonest. It is, however, sincerely emotionally honest.
[…] “Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of what is not seen.” There’s a huge emotional component to it, so that one chooses to keep faith in X, the way one might remain loyal to a friend. You defend him with ingenuity and love, finding reasons to explain or excuse evidence against him. He cannot fail: you, however, can fail him, by allowing yourself to be lead into doubt.
Being able to spin any result into support then is a sign of good will, loyalty, reliability, and the ability to stand fast. The focus isn’t on establishing what’s true, but on establishing that you can be “true.” This emotional honesty may or may not be rewarded: the real point, I think, is to value it for its own sake, as a fulfillment of a perceived duty.
This is exactly the case with religion, and religious adherents.
Their faith in their god is entirely emotional, and no amount of material evidence will alter their belief.
They may be entirely honest in their belief, and may be entirely honest in their objection to evidence (cf Karl, Rabel, Walter, et al) but in doing so are being intellectually dishonest, because they refuse to recognize valid and entirely relevant evidence – they conflate with great consistency and verve fact claims with value claims, and deny any difference between them stating it’s all ‘interpretation’.
No, it isn’t all interpretation.
It’s dishonesty.
And most people who follow a religion would likely agree with you with regard to every religion other than their own religion.
It appears Tony and (Sastra) are trying to separate human honesty into two types emotional honesty and intellectual honesty.
What is the basis of each? One is "value" laden and therefore inferior. The other is of a higher category because it is based upon just the true correct facts.
It appears both Tony and Sastra have a unique knowledge of human cognition that seems to be what each is searching for to provide the answers they are looking for.
Apparently "gut feelings" are to be put aside when someone else tells you they have the intelligence to answer your questions.
I have found that emotional honesty and intellectual honesty stem from answers to only one set of questions – the "why" questions.
Remember when you were a child and you discovered you could drive an adult crazy by asking "why" repeatedly.
Inquiring minds do want to know the answer to that ubiquitous little question – "why?"
The manor by which we select or approve of the answers to the "why" questions lead us in directions that will shape our entire world view.
Kids can tell when an adult has too high of an opinion of themselves. Some adults say the "why" answers aren't important "aka … stop bugging me." Some give a snow job that explains nothing. Others either knowingly or unknowingly try to answer a "why" question with a "who" or a "how" answer and this is an major dishonesty. However, the result often fools many people because of the complexity of what they describe as the answer to the "how" question. Tell the lie often enough and people may actually believe you have answered a "why" question to their satisfaction.
Whatever is chosen as an answer to these "why" questions leads any human being searching for honesty to have to admit that they have placed faith in what ever they have chosen to be a satisfactory answer to these "why" questions. What ever makes the "why" question stop nagging them is where they have placed their faith.
At this point the struggle for the answer to the "why" question is resolved by whatever we have chosen that we think satisfactorily meets the criteria for the best answer. Evidence of all sorts then is evaluated in light of what we have selected as the answer to the "why" questions even when as a human being we really know that the "why" question hasn't actually been answered.
So we replace a "why" answer with much lesser answers because we figure these are the best we will ever get in this world.
People in this world are therefore of two main varieties in terms of what the settle upon for why answers. There are those who look for what their mind can conceive of (ie. answers to the “who, what, where, when and how” questions) as a sufficient answer to the "why" questions. This is intellectual dishonesty.
Then there are those who recognize that their mind alone can not conceive in itself of a sufficient answer to the "why" questions without a personal relationship to a "who" of some discernable character. That is emotional honesty.
At some point every human will arrive at a point where their understanding will reach its limit when it comes to asking those major "why" questions of life.
Attempting to arrive at answers to those major "why" questions only makes us into liars when we claim we know an answer to those ultimate "why" questions of life when in fact all we have done is to settle for the use of answers to the who, what, where, when and how type questions as a substitution for an actual honest to goodness "why" answer.
Put a name on your God/belief and you have answered the "why" with a "who" done it.
Put a bunch of regulations in place and you have answered the "why" with a "what" to do list.
Attach a significance to a holy place and you have answered the "why" with a "where" it was revealed.
Put a date on it in and you have replaced the "why" with a "when" enlightenment began.
Best yet, describe a means of accomplishing something and you have replaced the "why" with a "how" to do it manual.
I willingly state my faith is in things not seen. I admit that some of the answers to the "whys" that I have chosen answers for, relate to the character of the "Who" I trust in – these are relational and emotional connections that resonate within me.
To me the "what, where, when and how" answers can never answer a "why" question sufficiently. This is why I reject impersonal evolution outright.
Evolution does bring together potential answers to the what, where, when, and even how questions. But when it tries to connect the four into a grand mosaic that claims to be a substitute for a "why" answer I draw the limit.
To me the answer to a "who" done it question can never substitute for a "why" unless there is a discernable volitional character to the "who" under consideration.
It takes faith to believe that any single who, what, where, when, or how answer can ever be substituted as an answer to a "why" question.
It also takes faith to believe that any combination of what, where, when, or how answers can ever be substituted as an answer to a "why" question.
Emotional honesty is faith that accepts that to find answers to "why" questions it will clearly involve a personal volitional choice connected to the discernable character of a "who" or worse yet an impersonal "what."
Evolution states that the "who" or "what" is the physical world itself and the answer to the "why" question is substituted by the answer of a "how" methodology called natural selection. The "who" or "what" being described is an impersonal world doing nothing for any reason other than random happenstance that is certain of only one thing – more change.
I agree that any religion that tries to substitute their preferred answers to the who, what, where, and how questions for an actual "why" question is barking up the wrong tree.
Many state their confidence is in the evidence of answers to the "what," "where," "when," and even "how" questions, but the "why" questions really don't matter to them.
Of course, if there is no need to find an honest answer to those major "why" questions of life I guess religion wouldn't exist – and probably knowledge itself wouldn't exist for us to be debating the dishonesty of anything. Let the biggest nastiest brute kill off the competition and lets move on to the next level of evolution.
Emotional honesty simply throws a huge monkey wrench into this marvel of nature called natural selection.
I do wonder often what will eventually replace mankind.
Will the new species be more like Jesus or Barabbas?
Barrabas probably made perfect emotional and intellectual sense to those who would follow him.
Barrabas types would be the perfect match for evolution and natural selection.
So where would that put Jesus?
Why do so many people want to be like Jesus and not Barabbas?
Go figure!
Hey Tony, you write……….
"Their faith in their god is entirely emotional, and no amount of material evidence will alter their belief."
So, if you saw or experienced a miracle you would cease to be an athiest? Or, would you ignore the evidence in favor of another religion, namely science? How much faith does it take to believe in evolution, without a single skeletal piece of evidence? What about the faith that it takes to believe in the big bang theory? Or perhaps the faith that it takes to dismiss the notion that even if you did believe in the big bang theory, one could not possibly know the origins of the substances that collided to create said big bang. If one is a scientist, one would have to accept that at some point in their time-line, something sprung out of nothing, which is more faith based than any religion. Are we to believe that certain substances have always existed and have no origin? That sounds a lot like God 🙂 No, the very foundations of athiest scientists is faith, because they will never be able to replicate the origins of our existance, unless they can create matter out of nothing. So, when one would stack up the faith of science against the faith of God, God wins hands down 🙂
One last point. I am sure that you agree that we humans are multi-faceted. We are at least body, soul and mind, perhaps you would say body and mind. If one requires ears to hear a symphony and eyes to see a sunset, can we agree that God would not be discerned by the intellect? If you were to say, for instance, that you would have to understand God before you acknowleged Him, would you not be equating yourself with God? There was a a tribe of men who had never saw the white man before. When discovered, through interpretation, things about the white man was explained to them. When told about a jumbo jet, they laughed , to the point of scorn, at the men who told them such outlandish tales. Yet, their disbelief in such a machine did not mean that such a machine did not exist, it merely meant that they themsleves had not seen nor experienced such a machine. So, would it not be safer for the athiest to be agnostic? Would that not be a more intellectually honest and humble postion? To acknowledge the possibility of a supreme being that they, as of now, know nothing about who defies the laws of science and the intellect of men.
Karl writes: "Of course, if there is no need to find an honest answer to those major “why” questions of life I guess religion wouldn’t exist…"
I'll give you that one Karl. But you seem to imply that the "major" questions are with regards to God. Science doesn't exist to ponder the un provable nor to make incoherent arguments for the same. But science does certainly exist as it is in man's nature to understand the why's of our existence, nature and place in this world. Without the "why" questions and the pursuit of the answers to them, of course there would be no knowledge. I think the point Tony is making is that science uses intellectual honesty where religion leans on the crutch of emotional honesty.
The difference between science and religion is that science makes attempts to answer the "whys" through empirical evidence (intellectual honesty). Science itself guards itself from the emotion of any individual/group of researchers by requiring extensive peer review of any new findings found in the search for the answers to the "whys". The "facts" as science knows them at any given time may change, usually by the discovery of new evidence that will effect the laws and/or theories of the previous ones, turning certain arguments upside down, but they are in effect self correcting through time, research and the pursuit of intellectual honesty.
As regards scientific "faith", is there such a thing. I think not. Where science has not found the irrefutable answers to "why", they will at least have plausible theories each of which is based on known data, that will lend themselves to a multiple of possibilities. Until then, the scientific body will readily admit that they don't know the answer to any given "why" but given known data the possible answers may be in theories A, B or C. Further research and a search for "intellectual truth" often leads to an answer. A verifiable one within the context of known data.
The self correcting attributes of science and their presentation of the "whys" as we now understand them are proof of "intellectual honesty".
On the other, those that practice religion of any sort are in fact practicing the art of emotional honesty.
The Bible/Koran/Torah, (________) …fill-in the blank are themselves filled with myriads of contradictions. (Lets not even get into the "morality" of the laws to be found in these same texts). With-in the religious realm you will find hundreds of "explanations" of these contradictions, given the interpretations of this theological scholar or that. The interpretations given by different scholars will in fact not even mesh with each other given the laws of their own denominational affiliations.
So, if your looking for an "emotional" brand of truth, do find the brand that best correlates to your own wishes of what the truth "should be", i.e., what feels emotionally "right" to you. There are upwards of 38,000 denominations with-in Christianity itself for you to choose from, if that be the main brand your leaning towards. Surely you'll find one that makes you feel warm and cozy. But, when those nagging "why" questions start getting to you, do look to a scholar that is of the same "faith" as your own religious denomination lest you receive a faulty "truth" from one other the other denominations.
Where is the intellectual honesty here, when the answer to any "why" is only to be reinterpreted, twisted, stretched or manipulated to fit nicely with-in someone's comfort zone, be that a person, denomination, or the whole population of a given religious belief.
Having said that, for those who may be wondering. I believe in a God of sorts in that I believe in an entity that gave creation to all of this…the Universe. It's a gut feeling to be sure….maybe wishful thinking. My principles of morality, right or wrong come from with-in me. If I followed the laws, creeds or so called morality of many of the "Holy" texts I would be a lesser person for them, therefore I do not lend credence to them. As to religion I am an atheist. As to God, I am a believer. I'll allow myself this one "emotional honesty", a belief that is currently unable to be proved. But at least I recognize it as such.
As to the rest of the "whys". Science and "intellectual honesty" serve me well.
Thanks Tony! Good article!
Mike: Thank you for this extraordinary comment. I do think your personally experienced distinction (emotional theist but self-critical intellectual atheist) is a fruitful one. And thanks to Tony also for raising this critically important topic. I suspect that much of the current debate between those who believe and those who don't stems from a reluctance to consider that there is a lot going on in the mind that is not conscious, but might well be driving us, sometimes inexorably.
To think this topic through, I believe that we need to be "scuba divers." Not that it's going to be easy; the subconscious, including the emotional unconscious, is messy and not subject to accurate introspection. http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/04/26/laugh…
BTW, you have shared some other thoughts with me regarding your "path." I'll be posting those soon. The time seems right.
Frank writes:—"So, if you saw or experienced a miracle you would cease to be an athiest?"
Define "miracle." Is it something that could not possibly occur any other way or is it only something which defies immediate explanation?
Frank asks
Well, duh! If I had seen evidence I would be pretty stupid not to believe or trust my observation.
However – I must ask. Is the evidence external, observable to anyone, or is it internal, knowable truly only to me.
In the latter case, I would have absolutely no way to corroborate or validate my 'miracle', and we have plenty of evidence of people 'seeing' or 'hearing' or believing things that are patently untrue.
So I'd need to qualify my response with an additional caveat – it must also be observable to others (surely not outwith the abilities of a god who made everything there is). Otherwise I would have very good reason to distrust my senses, and to believe myself insane (because only crazy people see or hear things that no-one else can).
Regarding creating matter out of nothing. It happens every second of every day (variously called "quantum foam", "zero-point energy" and many other things). Spontaneous generation (positron/electron pairs creation, among other pair formation) has been observed in cloud chambers, and in large scale high-energy physics experiments. It already happens.
You also say
You obviously need to read up on cosmology – what actual scientists say, not what has been misreported and rehashed multiple times in a journalistic game of chinese whispers. There was no collision! No 'substances' were involved. Some theories postulate that our current 'universe' is merely a resonance in a larger cyclic multiverse (brane theory). Others postulate more indescribable things – but none require or demand anything as simplistic as 'material collision'. Most hypotheses regard the evidence of spontaneous particle generation (see above) sufficient evidence to allow for our universe to truly come from 'nothing' (see Hawking's latest book – based largely on M Theory).
No one in science claims permanence for anything (even fundamental particles have a postulated half-life!)
That claim lies firmly in the religious camp.
You close with
Safer? You would consider the socially 'safe' position to be more intellectually honest than the position actually dictated by the evidence? If so, we have a very different definition of what intellectual honesty is.
In my view it is accepting the cards where they fall. Being willing to face up to the evidence and trust in that, not what one wishes it to be.
Agnosticism is a meally-mouthed response to the lack of evidence for god (of any description). It says "there is no evidence, yet, but you never know… some might come along, so I'll reserve my judgement".
The atheist looks at the same evidence, and states "there is no evidence, so I'll hold the position there is no god. If evidence turns up that proves me wrong, I'll happily change my position".
The first is equivocation. The second is honest.
Mike
Thank you for your honest candor. If I were to categorize you from your writing, I'd say you were a weak deist, in the same vein as Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. That's good company to keep.
Personally I recognize the 'desire' for there to be 'something' as simply that – a desire. But wishing it were so does not make it so. I therefore hang my hat on the side of evidence, and accept, fully and without equivocation, what that evidence (or rather, lack of evidence) demands in terms of the positions I hold.
I am, in every way, a strong atheist. But then I'm certain Karl, and Frank (above) and Walter and Rabel (other common posters) are all strong atheists with regard to the Hindu pantheon, never mind those of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and every other faith to which they do not subscribe.
I just take the evidence to its logical conclusion. They choose, in accordance with their emotional truth, to stop short.
Mike states
As to religion I am an atheist
As to God, I am a believer.
Does that make you an agnostic wanna be?
I can see how walking a tight rope of contradiction is an honest statement because science can eventually self-correct. When it does perhaps you will say as to science or religion I am an agnostic, as to God I am a believer.
I want to make it clear again that I do not find any "why" answers from science satisfactory as they are all merely attempts to describe what exists and one can not derive a cause and effect relationship from existence that is significant enough to provide an ultimate "why" answer apart from a relationship with someone whose character is trusted and respected.
Though I've never met you, if someone asked you how it is that your car "goes," you would "explain" it in terms of the internal combustion engine. That would be a "why" answer and it would rely on cause and effect reasoning. I would also propose that you use similar reasoning dozens of times every day.
I find that your "ultimate" questions are too vague to approach scientifically. It is my belief that if you would be willing to do the work to reframe those "ultimate" questions in understandable ways, science would be able to gnaw away at them (and science might already be gnawing away at them).
But I'm frustrated dealing with these issues in the abstract.
Tony: To categorize me as a weak deist I think would be right on the mark. For me, a belief in God (and I use the term loosely) is an intuitive feeling, something that has always been with me. True, this could be the residuals of my Christian upbringing, or as you state, a desire. That's not something that I can readily deny. But this "intuition" is certainly not something that I respect out of fear, like so many of those who follow their God's with-in the framework of their respective religions.
In my own personal search for understanding I have come to have the utmost respect for the ground the Atheist stands on. Yours is a foundation of rock solid reasoning to the extent that that can be attained.
Karl: A wanna be agnostic? No, a weak deist suits me fine, thanks.
As to your statement: "I want to make it clear again that I do not find any “why” answers from science satisfactory…" Well, where do you go from there?
With all due respect Karl, I suspect that if ever you are in dire need of the services of a medical doctor you will readily commit yourself to his/her care. You no doubt will also have the prayers of your local Priest, Minister, Imam, Mullah, Guru or Witch Doctor at hand. Then in the event the initiatives of science saved your life it wasn't the knowledge of science that did it, it was God's will. Now that's a win, win situation. At least you've got all your bases covered. So who's the real agnostic?
I am going to state up from that I am an agnostic in the purest sense. Do I believe in the possibility of some supernatural intelligence? Not at all.
Since we're discussing honesty here, I consider honesty to be a personal attribute. Belief systems are neither honest or dishonest. They simply are what they are, however, the people who hold the beliefs can be honest in holding those beliefs, but certainly not all of them are.
I believe it is most honest to separate knowledge from belief. I have found that most religious faiths profess knowledge of things that, by their own definitions, are unknowable.
When asked those philosophical "why" questions concerning the unknown, I am honest enough to answer "I don't know."
Science, like religion is neither honest nor dishonest. Science employs a disciplined methodology to study and discover the details of how nature works.
Is science a religion? To some people it can be. This occurs when people blindly accepts scientific findings without investing time in understanding the underlying knowledge on which the science is based.
When people treat science as a faith, they open themselves to pseudo science and the shysters who sell the pseudo science.
Niklaus
I think you would agree, that the strict definition of agnostic (which is one to which I too would subscribe) is one which had been devalued by the religious in our midst. They see agnostics as being 'closer to god' than atheists – which to me is a very strange perspective. The only difference is that agnostics are willing to simply say "I don't know", rather than "Null question" to the question "Is there a god".
Atheist, in current terms, states clearly that no evidence (yet) exists. In the absence of evidence, no claim can be made, so no claim will be made. There is no god (ditto pink unicorns, etc), not because there is no god, but because god is a null concept.
That is entirely equivalent to agnostic, in the sense that adherents are open to further persuasion, and simply require new (or just 'some') evidence. In the case of atheists, the evidence would need to define the concept 'god' as well as provide evidence for the existence of that concept. The same proof is required to convince agnostics.
BTW – I agree with your statements about science as religion. Many people are intellectually lazy, and will simply replace one 'authority' for another, without investing any effort in understanding. That science is not an authority in the traditional sense is something that simply flies over their heads.
Tony,
I've found over the years that agnosticism is misunderstood by most non-agnostics.
Many believers seem to think they can "turn" me to their faith. Alternately, I've known some atheists who see agnosticism as a noncommittal, wishy-washy- fence-sitting position, but for the most part, it seems agnosticism is non-threatening to theists and atheists.
While there are a few religious agnostics, I'm not one of them. I've never actually been able to understand the idea of the supernatural.I don't believe in ghosts, predestination, or most "psychic" phenomena.
As a child, my mother insisted that I attend church, which always seem to me to be a waste of time. I was sent along with the neighbors, my mother rarely attended church, and I can't recall that my father ever attended church.
It never "took". So technically, I'm an agnostic atheist. Philosophically, I'm an existentialist which is a complete different can of worms.
Niklaus
You use the term agnostic correctly. Unfortunately, as you allude, most people who 'care' about agnosticism as a position either purposefully or through ignorance mistate the position.
Therefore — I am agnostic with regards to the existence of gods (also with regards to dragons, unicorns, and other fantasms).
Due to the misunderstanding that invokes in the audience, for clarity I state more clearly that from their perspective I am firmly atheist.
"Well, duh! If I had seen evidence I would be pretty stupid not to believe or trust my observation"
Hmmm, so your just a man waiting on an supernatural experience that, by its very nature, could never be examined by the natural. Interesting. Might I add as an aside, that no one did more miracles than Jesus, and look what the crowd did to him. Its not the miracles that the crowd had a problem with, its the fact that He demands that we bow our knee to Him. Most men want to be captain of their own souls. Having said all that, I am glad that your just one miracle away from ackowledging God and submitting to Him 🙂
Frank
it's not the reporting of miracles – it's being able to observe them through full use of our critical faculties.
Second and third hand reporting (as all biblical gospel is, at best) is not a reliable sourcve of evidence. First hand eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, so why should we uncritically accept secnd and third hand reports from people who have a vested interest in the outcome?
I'm not challenging god (I have no evidence that she exists) but would most definitely accept her existance were it demonstrated through observable 'miracles'.
As for 'bowing the knee'? I find it strange that such a superior being, so powerful and so all knowing, would demand and expect such obeisance from such humble creatures as ourselves. I do not expect such devotion from my dog. Only bullies demand such fawning behavior from their toadies.
Tony writes………
'Agnosticism is a meally-mouthed response to the lack of evidence for god (of any description). It says “there is no evidence, yet, but you never know… some might come along, so I’ll reserve my judgement”.
The atheist looks at the same evidence, and states “there is no evidence, so I’ll hold the position there is no god. If evidence turns up that proves me wrong, I’ll happily change my position”.
Maybe this is above my pay grade Tony, but I see no difference between the two above statements. Perhaps if I could quote a Scripture here ' much learning has made you mad." 🙂
Frank
The difference is subtle but it lies in the semantic associations. In an ideal world, we could truly state our agnosticism, since "I don't know" is the correct answer when presented with a question with insufficient evidence to determine a response. However. with regards to fantabulist questions (god, unicorns, dragon, and fairies) agnostic seems to be insufficient, since religionists have robbed "I don't know" of any power.
Every true rationalist is agnostic, but agnostic has been subverted by religion and culture…
In today's semantics, the agnostic is the person who can never commit – their only certainty, despite lack of any evidence to the contrary, is that something better might exist just around the corner. They are never satisfied with their decisions – indeed they never commit to any decisions.
The atheist is more pragmatically realistic. The evidence is what it is. Based on the evidence to hand, the atheist will make a decision and be happy with it. If additional or contrary evidence is presented, they won't get all upset about how "bad" their previous decision was – they'll accept that decisions are ALWAYS conditional, based on available knowledge.
There is no perfect marketplace. Decisions are always conditional, and decision-making can always be improved by the addition of more knowledge.
The agnostic agonizes and dithers… the atheist just gets on with life.
Tony: Are you aware that in The God Delusion Richard Dawkins placed himself at a "6" on his 7-point scale ranging from "Strong Theist" to "Strong atheist"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic…
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Ho…
I consider myself to be a agnostic (in theory) but an atheist (practically speaking). I hear some new atheists giving grief to "agnostics," yet I don't hear any of them attacking Dawkins for giving himself that "6."
Erich
I'm very aware of Prof. Dawkins position. Certitude is an impossible quest. The only people who are certain of anything are dimwits and fools.
See my (edited for clarity, I hope) response to Frank on Atheist/Agnostic.
I am agnostic (truly) in regards to every question where insufficient evidence exists to make a determination. I may take a position – on balance. But when I do so, I trust I have the intellectual honesty to admit that my position is on balance.
Regarding god, I have seen zero evidence in favor, and bountiful evidence showing "no divine hand" in the genesis or evolution of our universe. The balance is tipped exceedingly heavily in favor of absolute "no" with regards to "Is there a god". Can I be certain? Of course not. The only thing I am certain of is me, and even that is a chancy proposition at times.
Still, I truly "don't know" and in formal terms should, perhaps, be agnostic. However, (as Niklaus said) taking that position implies to dimwit religiots that I am amenable to persuasion.
No. No. No.
I am amenable to evidence. So far there is none.
So atheist, is what I declare.
For agnostics – there are two kinds. Niklaus is the 'honest' agnostic – formally so. He clearly states his response is "I don't know" based on lack of evidence. In practical terms, you, he and I are equivalent. All things being equal, I'd happily use the term to describe myself. but…
The other agnostic is equally convinced regarding the evidence, but remains agnostic for a number of reasons – social acceptance (I don't know is easier to defend than there is no god), wishful thinking (there's no evidence, but what if there was….), and simple prevarication (I can't decide, someone tell me what to do!). Religiots seem to think every agnostic is a potential (easy) convert., and the weak agnostics have debased the term – so I refuse to use a term so poorly understood and so open to wrong interpretation. I'd rather not need to caveat every statement of who I am with a ten paragraph statement regarding evidence and proof. Using the term 'atheist' permits that shortcut, and is true into the bargain.
(still not absolutely certain, just extremely, almost completely, with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, pretty damn sure. I think that Dawkin's statement aligns pretty closely with my own.).
Tony: Thanks for the clarification. For the record, I would say I'm a "6" too.
So how does one declare a degree of agnosticism in their profuse defense of atheism and evolution and still call that honesty? Seems like this is more pragmatism than honesty . . . "convenience" truly may be the mother of invention.
Where are you on Dawkins' 7-point scale, Karl?
Karl
Yes, it is pragmatism (as I said). It is also simply intellectual honesty. The two terms are not dichotomous.
I cannot help that religionists have so debased the language that I cannot use the word 'agnostic' without it being seen , automatically, as weak. My pragmatism recognizes this reality and directs me to use the more loaded, but also accurate (although less nuanced) word 'atheist' – as if that described who I am.
Convenience is more often leveraged on the side of religion (Pascal's Wager comes to mind) — it is no great inconvenience to believe, and it does no great harm, so why not believe… Because to do so would be dishonest (in every sense).
I prefer honesty over convenience.
You, however, are still confused – and you still conflate evolution and atheism. Perhaps you need to go read some more. Evolution is entirely and utterly silent with regards to religion.
Tony, there is a part of pragmatism that goes beyond simply "what is scientific, and what works for me."
It combines the two through the use acceptable denotations and connotations of the language used to communicate a worldview by the use of both inductive and deductive logic. Inductive logic establishes the theoretical framework and then deductive logic puts together the rungs that keep the framework from falling apart under closer or more rigorous examination.
This is a quote from William James concerning pragmatism:
"Riding now on the front of this wave of scientific logic Messrs. Schiller and Dewey appear with their pragmatist account of what truth everywhere signifies. Even where, these teachers say, ‘truth’ in our ideas and beliefs means the same thing that it means in science. It means, they say, nothing but this, that ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience."
Source: What is Pragmatism (1904), from series of eight lectures dedicated to the memory of John Stuart Mill.
I have said this in several ways but have not heard any clear statement that you recognize this or even agree with the concept. I only seem to get statements such as this is a forgone scientific fact and you need to read more to understand it before you can have any credibility.
Then I return and say something like "understanding the science behind something does not mean you need to believe it is true," and then Erich or someone clearly points to some fictional or hypothetical situation or character which is used to justify the nature of anything not solely naturally or materialistically based.
You seem to claim the only people who have a logical clue about what is or is not a valid experience that can be used as a reference of comparison must first match the same worldview as you, i.e. a non-spiritual viewpoint of existence.
Wonder is a sense of awe experience by people in relation to what they value in the world around them. There are at least two ways of experiencing wonder, but unless the worldview of someone matches your worldview, honest discussion is of little value to you.
Karl
Pragmatism has absolutely nothing to do with science, nor has it anything to do with my acceptance of science. The preponderance of evidence does that perfectly well without requiring any prevarication.
With regards to my sense of wonder, and your sense of wonder – I think pragmatism is a poor decider.
The problem between us is that you infuse everything with god, and therefore imbue everything with that same, god-endowed sense of wonder.
I don't. I still have an immense sense of wonder, but I don't stop at 'godditit' as the answer… I recognize (pragmatically) that I am limited by the acuity of my senses, and by my brain's ability to understand what my senses convey (supported greatly by being able to stand on the shoulders of giants who have done much of the heavy lifting).
My pragmatic recognition of those limits drives me to understand as much as I can through science, since religion – it seems to me – is a cop-out. It's an admission that 'here I cannot go'. That there are absolute limits to my understanding, and more importantly, that some people (religionists) seem to think they know where those limits already lie!
Honest discussion is of huge value to me. It is how I expand my understanding. I am as open as I can be, because to do otherwise would be to say that "I am a self-satisfied clod who believes there is nothing more to learn".
You, Karl, are locked into your own perspective, and you are blind to the beauty and majesty of reality that is all around you. That you need to imbue that reality with an unsubstantial and impossible to define creator is, to me, a sad reflection of your embedded desire to hide from reality as it is. Without that creator, the naked universe is simply too scary for you.
The fact that you are merely an insignificant blob of protoplasm on a minor planet orbiting a little sun in a rather sparse galactic neighborhood – which is itself a very very small and insignificant part of the universe that we can observe – is scary to you. There is no afterlife. All you are, and all you can ever be, is what you are during your short tenure on this planet. Your only real legacy is what lives on memetically in those you touch while alive.
There are no choirs of angels.
There are no pearly gates.
There is simply us. Hominids with an extremely fertile imagination and a huge desire to understand and to tell stories that help us understand.
I can understand that dissolution scares you.
I can understand that you want there to be more.
There isn't a second helping of life. This is it. You get one shot at the buffet, and then you're done.
Pragmatic or not, make the most of your life.
I have no problem with 'spirituality'. I just don't mistake it for factual evidence.
Many people say that I am spiritual (truly), because I give a damn about people. I'm not. I just give a damn.
But spirituality (in your terms) is an argument used when there is no argument to be made. It's a lazy response when the evidence is hard to amass. It means absolutely everything there is about being human, or it means absolutely nothing, and everything in between.
Define it for me rigorously, and I'll believe it really exists. Otherwise it's just another bag of woo used by lazy minds who can't be bothered to actually think or examine cause and effect.
Outstanding response Tony!
Isn't the argument on the existence of god a moot one though? What is god when it's not wrapped neatly within the tenants of ones religion? Outside of religious mythology, there is no proof of god is there? And mythology is not proof.
Karl, would you not agree that all religions but your own are false and mythologically based? If so, then take the next step and take a critical look at your own. It's obvious that you have never attempted that. If you did you would find that the holy book you follow is filled with inaccuracies, contradictions, fabrications, absurdities, and impossibilities.
Who or what would your god be, if not for the religion that it is based on? Your god would be a mystery, even to you. As he/she/it is with any athiest or agnostic.
Doesn't this bring us full circle….back to intellectual honesty?
BTW, I give myself a 5.5 on the scale…but it's a mystery to me as to why.
Erich,
To answer your question concerning Dawkins proposed scale I will not and cannot place my self in his categorizations unless I consider intellectual honesty and emotional honesty into the descriptions.
As far as intellectual honesty goes, I would rate myself as a
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
If I state other than a 4 intellectually – I acknowledge that the evidence I look for will tend to send me in one direction or the other.
If I state an intellectual bias either way I admit I will intentionally look for all manner of explanations or answers to the ultimate questions about life that are based upon my desire to use the evidence in a manipulated manner.
As far as emotional honesty goes, I would rate myself as a
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God.
Dawkins defines this as similar to the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
I must qualify this in my own faith journey as more than an intellectual mental construct. To me I would say 'I do not (just) believe but seek to know and to know better through an ongoing personal experiential relationship.
Mike,
There are obviously many religions that contain both pathos and mythos. Followers of any specific worldview or "religion" will have some proper conceptions and some improper conceptions in their system of beliefs. Even the God of the Bible is greatly misrepresented by those who claim to believe in Moses, the Prophets and especially Jesus.
I do not find much value in the "who, what, where, when or how" of any of them including my own. Especially if I think I really "know" the God I purport to believe in. The greatest wonder I have is why a God of Justice and Mercy is dissected to pieces by those who think they know better.
There is often great value in the principles and teaching based aspects of most religions that enable man to know more about themselves. But unless the principles and teachings actually elevate the spirit of man above his naturalistic physical urges there is little lasting value to any of it.
To me 'religion' is not a static thing because it is only of any lasting value in an onging relationship.
Let me explain.
Back in Genesis there were four major time frames.
From creation to the fall of mankind, from the fall of mankind to the great flood, the flood itself, and the post flood world. During each of these time frame the relationship of the covenant keeping God to the people changed, but God himself did not change.
God's designs and plans were as expected from God's perspective, but mankind's relationship to God was not a static one.
Many would say that God changed his modus operandi and therefore he wasn't the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Consider this.
God created and set up one rule for the people to have to trust him about. The rule was broken and the consequences were introduced. Allowing rule breaking without consequences would be intellectually dishonest. However, not espressing mercy and compassion in the midst of judgement would be emotionally dishonest. A redeemer to bring mankind back into proper relationship with God is promised.
Shortly later, Cain slays Abel but God in his mercy puts a mark upon Cain protecting him from the people who would perhaps seek revenge. Cain is allowed to further trample the mercy of God, highlighting God's plan to permit every human the choice to remain estranged from God.
Within many generations the world is in a condition that did not surprise God. God decides it is time to re-instate his sovereignty in spite of man's free will. However, the promise of a redemmer is not forgotten.
By the time of the flood, the imaginations of man's minds were continually wicked this might also have included Noah, but God had given Adam and Eve a promise of a redeemer. This was one promise or imagination of the heart that was still alive in Noah. Noah is declared righteous in his generation, just as anyman can be declared righteous through faith in the one promised who is also able to accomplish their promise.
The destruction would not be nearly entire, but after the flood which is one huge consequence of sin, Man is now told that he will have a role in keeping other men in line so there will not be the need for another flood type destruction ever again.
After the flood we see the development of numerous civil codes and regulations that are actually approved by God to enable justice and mercy to fall like rain. Since that time, it is obvious that one religion or another has emphsized either justice or mercy, but few have been able to balance the two when they lose sight of their own need for a personal redeemer to keep them in proper relatonship with both God and their fellowman.
If all of this were mythology, the God I would serve would most likely be based upon evolutionary principles that claims it knows through intellectual honesty that a personal God of justice, mercy and grace doesn't exist.
Tony would like a definition of spirituality.
Others apparently describe Tony as spiiritual but it appears he wants nothing to do with their perspective.
He'd rather just give a damn about people. Plain and simple – nothing outside of his own thoughts and motivations. As long as other individual can recognize spirituality to some degree why must it be defined and scrutinized for its scientific merits?
I'm not so sure I shouldn't just say go do some study and report back with your findings.
We will obviously have only a little in common to discuss here because there are enough definitions that can basically accommodate almost anyone's experiences and anyone's beliefs into the realm of the spirit.
You can drink some strong alcohol as well, but that is not spirituality.
The one thing I know for sure is that it has something to do with the whole of a living being, being greater than the sum of its parts.
This can not be studied scientifically through syllogistic logic if one only believes in the supremacy of the physical world to account for everything in it. It has a degree of emotional knowing that is unexplainable by physical observations alone.
It is that portion of any living thing that makes the body and energy within flow and function as a harmonious cohesive unit.
For human beings a portion of this comes from a sense and awareness that they have a value and a purpose found in relationship to both internal beliefs and values as well as to the external beliefs and values that they accept as providing sufficient ethos for them personally.
What ever you accept as your source of authority is also the source from which your view of spirituality is derived.
Your conception of spirituality will also tie in to whatever enables you to keep a cohesive worldview in the midst of what others would call inaccuracies, contradictions, fabrications, absurdities, and impossibilities.
In short, spirituality is one's relationship to the source of life itself. Extend the concept of relationship to whatever you consider to be the source of life itself and then you have an initial grasp of what spirituality is.
Relationship with God and others, these do not cease when your physical body loses its ability to breath any longer. You have said so yourself on the human level. What is so hard then to consider that these same types of legacies might live on mimetically on a level of universal consciousness as well?
Hope this is somewhat clear.
Karl
You keep using the terms "authority" and "god".
I do not "accept" any authority on the basis of their simply saying so. I depend on consensual authority – which is what science provides. It is not one person or one "authority" but the entire corpus, any and all of which is amenable to independent study, debate and change. It is not authority is the same sense you use it.
Your ultimate authority (god) is something that may not be questioned (such is even impossible to contemplate). It is, in your mind, the foundation and source of everything you deem worthy of consideration. Don't you find it terribly self-limiting to completely and utterly announce your obedience to a purported authority that is ultimately (so far as we can tell) purely the invention of men? One that demands unquestioning loyalty, and that considers deviance from its demands to be apostasy, heresy, or worse.
You also are hung up on spirituality – which I tried to explain to you before, so won't reiterate.
Spirituality is a word that people have used variously to describe that which they find within themselves that they cannot otherwise describe. It is becoming, like your concept of god, smaller and more insignificant as we discover more about how our brain actually works, and how the emergent system we call 'mind' operates as a composite atop all these evolutionarily-designed systems.
Spirituality is a word with as much relevance to reality as ether, phlogiston, or caloric. All words used to define our ideas of how things worked…. until we learned the truth about how things worked through science. God and spirituality are headed the same way.
Enjoy your time with the buggy-whips Karl – life and learning are passing you by.
(One last passing thought – don't you find it interesting that you have succumbed to using that great heresy of Jung's – the collective unconscious – to support your god?)
Tony,
Read more carefully and search out the context. I was not describing or supporting "God" by the use of the phrase universal consciousness, but rather what spirituality could be considered to be for someone like yourself that considers nothing besides the physical world and manifestations of the mind to be interdependent aspects of reality.
It appears that for you, the whole is not really greater than the sum of its physical parts, but that physical parts can become greater reproducible wholes without the need for anything but the parts interacting with each other over extremely long time periods.
So sorry to say that you will never live to see what you believe is true – a new species rising by random chance out of the last vestiges of humanity.
I also said I cannot find myself using Dawkin's descriptive terms as he uses them to describe his particular concept of ethos for which others have to sign on to or risk intellectual ineptitude.
Dawkins sloppily presents his views on human intelligence by disparaging spirituality by the manner that he blurs intellectual honesty with emotional honesty by appeals to ethos. He seems to wrap his version of logos with peer endorsed ethos in an attempt to claim no pathos. This is an impossible epistemology for humans. Just because a person tries to claim "objectivity," claiming it does not make it so.
Objectivity is only possible when there is no underlying motivation to interpret evidence one way or the other.
Dawkins can try as he might but human "logos" as he tries to present it is still driven by one's individual experience (pathos) interacting with the ethos of "who" or "what" you believe to be true.
When inductive premises must be "qualified" by ethos to become respected by some people even though others still do not respect the premises as valid one can not say that the matter is only objective.
You prefer to put the self constructed worldview of "rational" scientists as the ethos that appeals to you. However you fail to consider the veracity of their inductive premises as being open to valid questions and criticism.
You believe that the physical world is sufficient to account for itself and all of the processes you see in operation, I do not see it the same way.
I can generally identify the logos, pathos and ethos in what I what I describe as my mental constructs.
I find it a healthy exercise in self examination.
I know the premise, God is real, is not physically provable at the present time and under the present set of circumstances. It is an inductive faith statement.
I could just as easily state the premise, evolution is real, and consider it proven at the present time and under the present set of circumstances. This is also an inductive faith statement.
I have decided long ago that trust (ethos) is the major factor in any decision where contradictory inductive faith statements are pitted against each other.
You can trust in whom you will, so can I.
Karl
Regarding your evaluation of me… thanks (I think) for saying I've mellowed out of late, but I am only intolerant of continued bull-headed stupidity. Ignorance or lack of knowledge are tolerable (but I refuse to 'debate' until some balance of knowledge is reached). Willful ignorance is, and continues to be, intolerable.
Perhaps if you "read for the context" you'll find that I am being exactly who I say I am, and that I'm being as consistent as a notoriously inconsistent human animal can be. Automaton, I'm not. You'll also find a lot of tolerance – but not at the expense of being walked upon by false premises, false evidence, or simple falsehoods.
Such as the following…
Sorry, no. You can try to caveat the heck out of your statements, but you cannot pretend that they belong to the same category of 'proof'.
Evolution is as proven as we can get, with reams of evidence from every field contributing to a rich and compelling theory that is both predictive (in population terms) as it is descriptive.
It is no more "faith" than the belief that gravity will continue on the morrow.
Lastly:
Indeed, and no-one refutes that right, nor does anyone here try to abridge it in any way. The only difference, we will point out forever and anon, is that we put our trust in people, and in empirical knowledge.
You put your trust in a phantasm, and "received wisdom".