Exploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

If you are interested in hearing well-considered podcasts putting religious claims under the microscope, here's a good source: Reasonable Doubts. The site is a labor of love by the following three individuals:

JEREMY BEAHAN is an Adjunct Professor teaching classes on: Philosophy, World Religions, Biblical Literature, Aesthetics, and Critical Thinking through FSU. LUKE GALEN is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. He teaches classes on: the Psychology of Religion, Controversial Issues in Psychology, and Human Sexuality. DAVID FLETCHER is the founder and former chair of CFI Aquinas College. He is an English and Speech teacher as well as an adjunct professor of Mythology.
What distinguishes this site from many other skeptic/freethinker sites is that the authors offer dozens of carefully-reasoned podcasts putting specific religious claims under the microscope. There is no ranting or bloviating here; the tone is academic and the presentations are clear. Listeners will come away with thorough understandings of the topics addressed:
What distinguishes us from many other skeptical podcasts is our special focus on counter-apologetics. We provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. We also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture.
For example, in the podcast titled "Which Jesus?" (a presentation originally given at CFI), Jeremy Beahan discusses the many contradictions within the Gospel narratives. The lecture includes a powerpoint (see a sample slide below, setting out difference in the Christmas narrative): I also listened to a second podcast discussing Ernest Becker's work, leading to the modern theory of "terror management theory" (TMT) (this is a topic that fascinates me). Becker's general idea is that we are electric meat with large brains that can project into the future by generating "what if" hypotheticals. This makes us self-aware, but also tends to create a mind-body dualism riddled with anxiety--we deeply worry about death. Because we face our inexorable deaths, a paradox is created: we put lots of energy into denying death. We spin elaborate defenses through our symbolic systems (religion, capitalism, political). Becker argues that these defense symbols constitute buffers to our self-esteem, and we can only read self-esteem through our interactions with others. We latch onto group-based symbolic ideologies such as religions that offer simple steps to fend off death in order to enhance our self-esteem. All of our cultural strivings are to achieve a "heroic" feeling (even by serving a powerful Being, or by joining into warmongering) and a system of ready-made ethics for being a "hero" and "transcending death." Cultural striving = immortality striving. I was here and I mattered. But any threat to these immortality strivings threaten believers. Therefore, being presented with a contrary world view (e.g., atheism) is inevitably threatening to our self-esteem and our mortality. Converting others to one's own world view is a way to enhance one's own world view. If one can't convert others they still might be able to convince others to downplay their differences in public ((or even destroying others). About 20 years ago, many social scientists began testing these theories, with notable success (Judges reminded of their deaths set prostitution bond of $455; control judges--not reminded of their deaths--set bonds of $50). Reminders of death profoundly affect our behavior (e.g., 9/11 was a profound reminder of our impending deaths that dramatically kicked up our embrace of religion and patriotism--it urged people of all political persuasions to embrace others like themselves and to embrace more simplistic beliefs than before). Some of these experiments are described in this excellent lecture (I also described some of them in my previous posts on "Terror Management Theory). Beahan highly recommended viewing a documentary exploring Becker's ideas: "Flight From Death." Here is the menu of podcasts currently offered by Reasonable Doubts. I highly recommend a visit.

Continue ReadingExploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

A former Christian describes his former Christianity

Mike Baker submitted a few comments to DI over the past few months. Then, after I published yet another installment of my favorite quotes (read: I took a night off from actually writing), Mike offered me his substantial collection of provocative quotes (we’ve published them here and here, and there’s more to come). We started an email correspondence a few weeks ago. When Mike told me that he was formerly a Christian, but no longer, I asked him a few follow-up questions. It turns out that there is an unexpected twist to Mike’s story. He is no longer a Christian, but he believes in God. Yet he believes that organized religions are generally harmful to society. Yet he also admits that good things are sometimes accomplished by religious organizations. After a few rounds of back and forth, I asked Mike whether he would be willing to allow me to share his thoughts with the DI community, and he agreed. I think that you’ll enjoy reading Mike’s genuine thoughts and his engaging writing style. Without further adieu, here is that email conversation: Mike: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on religion in that five-part essay you wrote. As a person who has always called himself a Christian (albeit a loosely wrapped one), I've recently walked away from my "faith". In large part by the inactions and apparent acquiescence of "Christians" to G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Feeling somewhat "lost", I began reading Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris and C. Hitchens just to name a few. I was totally engrossed and amazed too at what is not discussed in church. I now see religion (almost all of the brands) as a brake on human advancement at best and quite possibly the catalyst for civilizations’ destruction at worst. I guess you could say I am in the Sam Harris camp there. I do agree, however, with your summation that bridges need to be built. Here's a little on me. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany and brought me up to fully appreciate the meaning of our Constitution and what true freedom and democratic principles represent. Much to my mothers chagrin (something I didn't fully understand at the time) I joined the Marine Corps after high school and served for eight yrs. Believing that we were the "good guys", bringing peace and freedom where ever we went I served proudly. Time and a better understanding of history have taught me that that is not always the case. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingA former Christian describes his former Christianity

Deeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

One of the biggest mistakes one can make when trying to figure out people, in my opinion, is to assume that conscious thoughts in the form of words do most of the work of cognition. I believe this has it upside down, and that 90% of the engine our cognitive engine is not available to consciousness--it is subconscious and not available for introspection. It is a huge foundational mistake to ignore Freud's recognition that a large and powerful portion of the mind is not conscious. This is an especially important thing to note for those who cling to the notion that they can explain human behavior on the basis that it is generally rational. This mistake is compounded by the fact that humans are exquisitely good at confabulating, both consciously and unconsciously. We drum up ex-temporary reasons for our decisions post facto. We don't really know why we do the things we do but we brashly claim that we do know why we do the things we do.

Continue ReadingDeeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

Time to simplify eating

Come on, now. Dog food looks quite delicious, or at least the packaging does. And most dogs I know seem to enjoy reasonably long healthy lives, without requiring anyone to plan their meals or cook them. So how about it? Is anyone ready to switch over to eating dog food, at least occasionally? I suspect that we could get by on a cup of it in the morning and another cup in the evening. Or is eating far to intertwined with being social and being proper? [Disclaimer: I have eaten a piece of dry dog food on several occasions. It tastes like a bland cracker, no matter how "premium" the brand. But it is certainly edible by humans]. I "challenged" readers to switch over to eating dog food in a previous post. It would certainly be convenient, but there was fierce resistance to the idea, even though the morning cereal many of us eat has the same fill-up-the-bowl-and-eat-it procedure. [It shouldn't come as a surprise that humans could survive on dog food. Consider this: "We are not so different when it comes to genes either. The dog genome is basically the human genome divided into about 70 different pieces and rearranged on a greater number of chromosomes, according to a new map of the dog genome."] I will offer three anecdotes about the social pressures that affect the way we eat: Last night, a woman eating at a table of friends in a diner starting eating her quesadillla with a knife and fork. I embarrassed her more than a bit by asking her whether she'd eat them quesadillas this way at home, in private. She admitted, no. At home, she would simply pick up the pizza-shaped pieces and eat them pizza-style. But at the restaurant she felt compelled to cut them into even smaller pieces with utensils. Anecdote number Two: A few months ago, I attended a function hosted by a parent at my children's school. Food was offered in a spacious room with a clean dry floor. I was talking with a group of people that included the hostess when the hostess dropped a cracker on the floor. She reached down to pick it up, hesitated, then walked over to a trash can to throw it away. I then asked her whether she would have thrown away that cracker had she been eating alone. She sheepishly admitted that had she been eating at home and dropped the cracker, she would have picked it up and eaten it. Dropped food often occurs to those of us raising children; parents of young children commonly invoke the "30 second" rule and we eat food that has spilled onto any reasonably clean dry floor. Dropped food triggers zero-tolerance among adults. And God forbid that you would ever try something like this. Anecdote number Three: I know more than a few attorneys who would rather be found dead than to to be seen eating lunch in low priced restaurant (e.g., a Chinese stir fry restaurant or Taco Bell) in the business district of town on a workday, even though they admit that they often eat this sort of food when with their children and they actually enjoy it. Thus, our behavior is often not about the food, even when it seems to be. And much of what we do is not really about the thing that it seems to be about. Usually, it's about social relationships and the compulsion to make proper displays to those around us. I suspect that most things that puzzle me about life have similar explanations; it's not about the thing it seems to be about--it's about displaying one's fitness and resources to others. The example that immediately comes to mind is religion. I've previously written about the social compulsions that seem to underlie religious assertions and participation in religious ceremonies. Well, it's getting late. I think I'll have a bowl of dog food and then turn in.

Continue ReadingTime to simplify eating

Is religion honest?

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.

Continue ReadingIs religion honest?