There are some words that are not even remotely offensive or profane; but just the same, people tend to avoid using them because they feel that it makes them seem stupid or ignorant. One of these is the simple statement “I don’t know.” It seems to be more more acceptable for people to arbitrarily “vote” their beliefs or denials rather than just come clean and say that they’re clueless, or at least uncertain! And it’s this concept of “belief” that I’d like to examine a little.
To me, believing something is basically arriving at a conclusion, from observation and reflection, that whatever I have observed and reflected upon is valid and has truth value. Thus I generally believe people who have established a track record with me for honesty. I believe in science and math, the concepts from which are borne out in their technological applications and in their descriptions and predictions of things and events, respectively, in the known universe. I believe in the arts, which are true in that they successfully evoke reactions of pleasure and other emotions from me; and my own existence, from the continuity of my memory and my ongoing experiences. I believe in exercise and a healthful diet because they cause me to feel better. In none of these examples that I mentioned is belief or disbelief a matter of virtue or vice.
And yet when it comes to religion, that is exactly how belief is often framed (especially with Christianity and Islam). In those religions, if you believe in the precepts that they express about the deity, than you are “good” or “saved” and have the hope of eternal life in heaven. But if you make the cognitive decision that a particular faith is not believable, than according to them, you are an “non-believer” and an “infidel”, basically evil and doomed to eternal damnation at death. And I’ve always had a serious problem with the “belief is virtue” dogma that underlies these faiths.
On the opposite end are those who claim non-belief in a god, or atheism. But is that really not believing or is it really just another form of belief, which is that there is not a god? If you say that you believe there is no god since science does not indicate the existence of one, I would just reply that science does not indicate the existence of you either, as a subjective entity who refers to yourself as “I” and is rooted in the here and now. And yet belief in our own existence, as apart from everything else, is firmly planted within each of us!
To me, those who claim that science does not indicate the existence of a god and hence believe there is no god may also be reacting in a human way to the disturbing “belief as virtue” doctrine I pointed out before. To say one believes that there is no god, though, is a positive belief statement that has made (in my opinion) a radical leap of faith based upon something that isn’t even remotely complete (our body of scientific knowledge). Better to say one does not believe in a god, which indicates an absence of belief and does not indicate a leap of faith (to the negative conclusion). But to some, that might come too close to the scary words “I don’t know”!
There’s nothing wrong with making an occasional leap of faith. We do it all the time in our daily lives. For example, I have faith that when I’m on the road, a driver in the oncoming lane won’t drift over and smash into me head on. Or that when I put on my brakes, the driver behind won’t plow into me. Or that the food I buy at my grocery is reasonably safe to eat (apart from the sugar and fat, that is). If you’re a confirmed atheist who absolutely believes that no god exists, then that’s all right with me, too. But don’t fool yourself regarding leaps of faith: like true believers in religions and gods, you’re jumping, too! But, y’know, you really don’t need to! It’s also all right stand on this side of the chasm of uncertainty and say “I don’t know”, and let it go at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bill, I see two problems with your argument: equation and conflation.
ReplyDeleteEquation, and this is a common argument about atheist: You're equating "non-belief in god" with "belief in non-god". My atheism isn't a "belief" in any sense that I consider it, and certainly not in the sense that anyone who "believes in god" means it. I see no credible evidence that there's a "supreme being", a "higher power", or any such, and so I have no basis on which to believe that one exists. In analyzing the beliefs of others, I see inconsistencies, contradictions, and wildly unlikely tenets that are entirely unsupported by evidence, so I can't see how their beliefs can possibly be right. I'm basing what I think on my observations, not on any "belief".
Conflation: You're conflating "belief" or "faith" with "trust", and I content that they're different. Several of your "leap of faith" examples strike me as wrong anyway. I don't think you really have "faith" that a car won't hit you; I think you have an expectation, based on usual behaviour, that drivers will do what they're supposed to and will avoid collisions, but at the same time you're alert and watchful for anomalies, and you adjust your driving (by increasing following distance, decreasing speed, or changing lanes) accordingly. None of that is "faith", as most people think of it.
But the example of wholesome food is conflation of "faith" with "trust". You trust that the A&P or the Publix down the street is selling food that's safe to eat because our society has established generic trust relationships between merchants and consumers. But the first time someone you know should get sick from seafood they got at your local Publix, you're likely to trust that store less; perhaps you'll trust the whole chain less. And if there's a widespread problem with the spinach supply, you'll stop trusting the spinach at all stores and restaurants, until someone you trust (CDC or FDA, for example) tells you that it's OK.
That's trust, not faith, and they're not the same thing.
Finally, yes, we certainly do things in everyday life that we have no basis for. Sometimes we just have to make an in-the-moment decision, and we have no observed evidence, no proxy evidence, no trust relationship... we just have to wing it. You might call that "faith" or "belief"; I don't.
Barry, I have to take issue with both of your arguments.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the one that I equated “non-belief in god” with “belief in non-god”, the exact opposite is true, my point having been to draw a distinction between the two. Although your atheism seems reasonable and works for you, I also have experienced others who strongly insisted that they knew that there is no god. To them, this was a belief, and one in which they had a strong emotional investment. And I think you are playing a little with the definitions and common usage of words by separating the idea of “what you think” from being a belief. To me, at least, when I think that something is so, based on my observations or not, that means that I believe it is so.
Your point about faith and trust is another example of missing what I was trying to say. Whether you have faith in something or are trusting in something, you are still experiencing the common element of acting as if whatever you have faith in or trust merits it, without any directly observable evidence that this is true. What may have set the idea of faith so far apart in your mind from trust is the rationalizing that many religious people engage in when tragedy strikes them or the god of their beliefs doesn’t seem to be responding to their prayers. It is easier to explain away and excuse something when the object of that faith is intangible (and possibly simply imaginary). You could easily see how trust could break down under more tangible circumstances (such as food poisoning from grocery items). But you’re accustomed to seeing the term “faith” used in a more religious context. I see more of an overlap between the usage of “faith” and “trust”. I will concede that I may have overstepped it a bit with the traffic examples, seeing how little faith (or even expectation) I’ve come to have about my fellow drivers!
Finally, I don’t even know whether you picked up on the essence of my argument. Which is that the inability of science to prove something, in this case the existence of god, does not prove that thing’s nonexistence. I believe that science does a credible job of describing much of our reality, but it has built-in limitations (a topic that I may pursue at some other time). Is the question of the existence of god even appropriate for science to try to answer? If not, then basing one’s “thoughts” about such a topic on an inappropriate methodology’s lack of results seems pretty circular to me.
But most of all, I am awfully tired of feeling that, while the most honest answers to many questions are the simple words “I don’t know”, people are simply reluctant to express that sentiment for fear of appearing weak or lazy. After all, one of the things we had instilled within us as kids was to do our homework so that we would know the answers to the tests the next day at school. To respond to a question by expressing uncertainty or ignorance became a mark of shame, to some extent. And some have carried that attitude through adulthood with them (not you, but speaking of people in general). But saying “I don’t know” about something is often the result of careful study about that topic and can be an impetus for ultimately seeking a greater understanding.
And, Barry, agree or disagree, thanks for challenging me!
[Sorry; this is very long.]
ReplyDeleteI think that, first, if you don’t think there’s a semantic difference among different uses of “believe” (when we use it in a religious context or something related to that, and when we say “I believe his account of the incident,” for example) and between trust and religious faith, then I don’t think we can agree on some of this. I see a fundamental difference, which we often blur — to the detriment of common understanding. In your text, an example of the fundamental distinction is between “belief” in exercise and diet, and “belief” in God; I don’t see these as the same concept. But that’s OK; we can fail to agree and still have a good discussion, of course.
This fundamental difference is, for example, why I think that asking someone if he “believes in evolution” is not asking the right question. I don’t see that as a question of “belief” in the sense that they mean it. One can clearly label anything as “belief”, but when you get down to the real sense, there’s a difference between accepting or rejecting the evidence for evolution — because there is subjective evidence available to be accepted or not — and believing the biblical account of creation, with man being made from dust on the sixth day.
«Regarding the one that I equated “non-belief in god” with “belief in non-god”, the exact opposite is true»
My confusion, here, may have come from this: “On the opposite end are those who claim non-belief in a god, or atheism. But is that really not believing or is it really just another form of belief, which is that there is not a god?” If you’ve clarified that now by saying that you think some non-believers actually believe in “no god” rather religiously, I’ll grant that there probably are some. I suspect they’re in an extreme minority: if you press most, they can give you reasons that are more concrete than “I just believe,” which is the essence of religious belief.[1] I’m also, to be sure, responding to the standard ploy of claiming that atheism is itself a belief system that’s analogous to religion; if that’s not the argument you’re making, I’m sorry to’ve mischaracterized it.
«Which is that the inability of science to prove something, in this case the existence of god, does not prove that thing’s nonexistence.»
Yes, I did get that. It’s absolutely true, and it’s another standard argument. Vanishingly few of us are making any claim that we can prove that a god doesn’t exist (and I think that the ones who are, are deluded). Rather, we’re saying that we mostly don’t believe improbable things without evidence for it, that we see no credible evidence for a god, that the stories that exist are improbable and contradictory, and so we’ve concluded that what we “believe” is somewhere on the continuum from “I don’t believe there is a god” to “there’s almost certainly no god”, depending upon how we see the evidence and what our sensibilities are.
Most of us probably think it unlikely that our views will be changed, but most of us accept that they could be. It’s certainly true that most things that we think of as “scientific” or “evidence-based” could have been done by a god to look that way. If someone could show me subjective evidence[2] that I consider credible[3], I certainly allow that I could be swayed to that “belief”. But then it wouldn’t be “belief” in the religious sense; I would be accepting observed evidence for it.
On the point of “proof”, though, we certainly can prove that some postulations of a god cannot be true. There’s clearly not a god who protects us from war, because we have wars. There’s clearly not a benevolent god who loves children and protects them from harm, because we have evidence of children being treated quite brutally, spending years dying painful deaths, and such. It’s an easy cop-out to say, “Well, that’s God’s will,” but perhaps a reformulation of what God is/does/wants is in order there.
«Is the question of the existence of god even appropriate for science to try to answer?»
Well, sure, why not? If you contend that it’s not, then I contend that you’ve accepted that it’s superstition for which no evidence can be found. If we think it’s otherwise, then why should we not look for evidence and answers? Now, most scientists think it sufficiently unlikely that we’ll find those answers that they’re not looking for that. Still, if there be a god, it’s quite possible that evidence for it will surface while we’re studying other things. Should that happen (as it’s appeared to in the past), you can bet that scientists will look at it with skepticism... but they’ll look at it.
Oh, and I’m happy to say “I don't know,” when I don't, and I think most scientists are. An unwillingness to admit that would be a serious impediment to doing proper science.
— — —
[1] Yes, there are also religious believers who claim evidence, and that’s another whole discussion. But I think you’ll understand what I’m getting at here.
[2] I say “subjecvtive” because I don’t consider “God spoke to me last night,” or “I felt His power,” to be any sort of useful evidence.
[3] This begs the question, of course, but never mind.
Barry, it’s true that everyone has their own personal ranges of what they consider regarding the meanings and proper usages of the words in their language as they know it. And this is largely based on subjective personal experience. I’m probably all over the map with overreaching analogies as well as a few logical fallacies to boot. But I don’t believe that, regarding the topic of religion per se, you and I are really that far apart. Here are some of my takes regarding religion and the concept of “god”:
ReplyDelete--If there is truly a “God”, then this deity’s real nature has been usurped by three socially-expedient functions over history:
(1) God was the answer to questions that those who employ scientific methodology nowadays work to solve, i.e. our natural world: the nature of the universe, weather, the processes within our physical bodies (including sickness and death), etc.
(2) Seeing that (honest and sane) people express a fear of death and, seeing that it is inevitable, God is useful as a transcendent being who guides them past their physical demise and continues their lives in a good place (like “heaven”). Not only does this assuage anxiety from the believers, but this also aids those in positions of power in society who can use this to place those who are less powerful into life-endangering and sacrificial positions (such as fighting their wars for them).
(3)God has been used as a symbol of supreme authority to bolster the power over others by rulers (through the use of religious people like priests, shamans, prophets, etc.) In other words, to challenge the King is to go against God (and to invite divine punishment after death).
--Religious scriptures were written by mortal human beings who had political agendas to promote and axes to grind. For example, the New Testament Gospel of John is generally acknowledged as being one of the last books of the Bible that was written. Its writing occurred following the failed Jewish revolt against the Romans, and its message reflects the viewpoint of someone who wanted to distance early Christianity from Judaism in the eyes of Rome.
--I have witnessed too many examples of religious people selectively using parts of scriptures to make their points while ignoring passages that would go against them. Hence, Ruth is often cited as an example of tolerance for other nations, while Ezra, a book championing what can only be realistically called “ethnic purity”, is overlooked.
--There are numerous problems I see, not only with Christian doctrine, but also with some of the common statements made by its more vocal exponents.
--Assuming for a moment the existence of a God, am I supposed to determine my allegiances by “voting” for the people who do the most persuasive job of convincing me of their connection to Him/Her? And call all the others “heretics” or “false prophets”?
--I don’t see how it would be possible to scientifically either prove or disprove the existence of God. Especially when no one can agree on what exactly it is that we’re trying prove or disprove the existence of. Does that means there’s no God? No, but, with my other earlier statements, it does mean that if their were such a deity, then its nature would most likely be so vastly different from the image adopted by various world religions that one might as well use a different designation.
--Regarding the existence and nature of “God”, I simply state that “I don’t know” and that I don’t know how I could ever know. Even if something does continue after death, how do I know for sure that whatever it is will bring me closer to finding this out? Unless, of course, I adopt the doctrine of my fellow mortal humans who don’t really know any more about death than anyone else.
--Concepts of good vs. bad transcend religions. They are embedded within the natural social order of humans. Go anywhere in the world, in any society, no matter how isolated, and you will find the ideas of good and bad. Yes, different societies may then choose to attribute morality to their own religions, even exclusively. For example, a few years ago, a Christian friend once told me that, since the Bible said (Book of First John) that “God is love”, then non-Christians are incapable of love!
I suppose that I could go on and on with this sort of criticism about religion. But, Barry, keep in mind that the above article that I wrote doesn’t just mention atheism; it also has some rather provocative things to say about religion (such as the doctrine of belief as a virtue). And yet, although I know that people of “faith” also read this blog, no one has taken the time and effort (as you did, to your credit) to respond to this challenge to them.
Nice set of comments... and, yes, I essentially agree with all of it.
ReplyDelete«Concepts of good vs. bad transcend religions.»
This one points to a real peeve of mine, related to the case of your friend who said that only Christians can love: those who say that since morality comes from God, atheists are necessarily amoral. Sigh.
As to the point about belief as a virtue, I didn't address that because I can't, really... because I think it's just bizarre. That is, I think it's bizarre to consider someone a better person the more willing s/he is to believe things with no evidence.
Yes, I'd like to see some of your "readers of faith" throw their hats into this ring.