If you know someone who seems a little too credulous about an issue, try walking him through the following steps. Ask if he accepts each one in turn. Let X be the issue in question.
- I can be mistaken.
- It is possible that I am mistaken about X.
- Therefore I should hunt for arguments which counter X, making a sincere effort in evaluating each one.
You, the questioner, do not have to be an expert on X. You are merely probing to see if your friend has done his homework. There is a well-understood explanation for why he would avoid counter-arguments to X, if that turns out to be the case. The explanation is cognitive dissonance, and it is the reason people can all-too-easily slide away from reality.
This can be a fascinating exercise when undertaken with a religious fundamentalist. Let X be the proposition that Jesus existed and was resurrected. I’ve had Christian fundamentalists refuse to accept #2! Rewind to #1. OK, now why doesn’t #2 follow? If we can get to #3, it is often objected that arguments against X are biased. But so are the arguments in favor of X! That’s the point! He is trying to decide whether X is true, and he could be mistaken about X. Rewind to #2.
This is my practical demonstration of why I think it is unlikely that a scientist can be fully religious (at least in the traditional sense) while also being fully consistent. Find someone with traditional Christian beliefs who claims to have a scientific outlook (I am not singling out Christianity here—any religion would do). Let X be some Christian tenet, say, that Jesus was resurrected. He may claim to have done #3, but is that really the case? Which books has he read that offer disconfirming evidence for X? He should list a variety of books or papers, and he should be able to explain why he rejected their conclusions.
Of the conversations I’ve had with scientifically-minded religious people on this topic, few have reached that stage. Some will say that they have done #3, but the details are not forthcoming. I have little interest in spoon-feeding them counter-arguments. It suffices to point out that had they applied their scientific outlook consistently, they would have already sought and become familiar with the disconfirming evidence. Cognitive dissonance being what it is, I suspect they are not aware of their inconsistency with respect to #3.
Many would-be clergy lose their faith as a result of what they learn in seminary, a phenomenon examined by Dennett and LaScola in a study containing interviews of non-believing clergy. One pastor in the study joked, “Oh, you can’t go through seminary and come out believing in God!” The individuals who enter seminary are not especially known for their skepticism. How much more should we expect a religious scientist to lose his faith, if only he became educated on the matter?
This sounds practical to me, but I’ve always been an atheist because I was never indoctrinated (willingly or unwillingly) into a religion. As a result I don’t have a very good grasp of the kind of thought processes involved in holding religious beliefs or having them challenged.
Is this what you experienced yourself, or are you going on what deconverts have reported on?
This is from my encounters with a group of aggressive Christian proselytizers on my college campus, and also from my morbid curiosity with some Christian chat rooms long ago.
The three steps may look pedantically silly from our perspective, but they really had a problem with them. They had a strong fear questioning. I was able to get through to a few of them, however, in some small way.
Seth is now deleting posts he doesn’t like … which is his right..
but this closes the door on any pretence of him conducting a forum on skepticism
Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
.Sun Jun 27, 07:42:00 AM EDT
What I wrote was:
“The Skeptical Bible according to Seth:
There is only one Commandment – Skeptics should be nicer and not mock anyone who has religious or closely held beliefs.
Thank you for the opportunity to converse with adults. Much love, littly Bobby”
Seems we hit a nerve there … I like your thinking Oedipus.
BOB
As usual, Bertrand Russell has something useful to say on the subject:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
I think you are simply dealing with the nature of the beast.
http://levelsofillusion.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/homo-suggestibilis/
I welcome your opinion….
I think your questions might be a little demanding. I’m pretty well-versed in most of the arguments, but hadn’t even heard of the one you reference here. In general, we don’t have the time to research all the positions and arguments that everyone has made about ANY topic, let alone every proposition that we might hold. All you can hold out for is reasonable investigation and a demonstration that they’re not just avoiding all counter-arguments.
Additionally, a lot of that might be informal, and so they can’t list precisely what they’ve read. I can tell you that wrt theism I’ve read a number of things (and list some of them) but probably couldn’t tell you off-hand everything that I’ve looked at.
Did you get the impression that I expected people to have read Misquoting Jesus? That was only an example of the kind of disconfirming evidence which they might have read. Maybe that was unclear.
Regarding your second paragraph, remember we are talking about scientists and scientifically-minded people. If a physicist came across an instance where Maxwell’s Equations did not hold, don’t you think he would investigate? Even more so, we would certainly not expect him to base his life upon it (as in the case of a religious proposition) without doing an extremely intense investigation.
So if we are talking about a religious proposition which the scientist had investigated only “informally”, that rather emphasizes my point that he is not acting in a fully consistent manner.
I think the Misquoting Jesus reference is confusing. I’ve clipped the end of the fourth paragraph, which used to be: “For example what does he have to say in rebuttal to Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman (which does not address the resurrection directly but is a starting point in showing that the New Testament sources evolved over time)?”
But if this test was applied to say PZ or Dawkins he would say:
1) Of course
2) Of course
3) Don’t be silly I don’t waste my time sincerely evaluating whether faeries actually exist why should I sincerely investigate why I could be wrong about religion?
I suspect the likes of Dawkins would say that, but only because it’s a conclusion they’ve already reached for related claims. Once you’ve disproven to your satisfaction the existence of green pixies, would you go through every stage with the same rigour if asked to disprove blue pixies?
Theoretically you should, but life is short.
Sure, but would the fundamentalist not just say that “I don’t waste my time sincerely evaluating whether all claims against my religion are valid as I have reached the conclusion that related claims are not, I like Dawkins am not made of time”
We can’t have a rule where the conditions are 3) follow this rule unless you are right in which case don’t.
It’s either a rule that we have to follow to be rigorous correct and scientific, or it isn’t.
I would personally only go through the rigour of disproving blue pixies if my disproof of green pixies related to their colour.
If I take this to mean generally that atheists should read some arguments in support of religion, it is a fair point. After all if millions of people are pointing at something, arms outstretched, then I may as well look to see what they are pointing at.
However they are not all pointing at the same thing—there are thousands of different directions, and we don’t have time to look at them all. But I think we should at least look at some of the major directions in which people point, such as (in my culture) Christianity.
So applying this post to myself, I can say that I read through The Case for Christ, several C. S. Lewis books including Mere Christianity, and an N. T. Wright book. Most of these arguments fall down very soon, using assumptions of the gospel sources which run against the known evidence. It is basically the reason why so many seminarians become distraught with what they learn, and why so many lose their faith or adapt to an extremely liberal form of it.
Sure, if you assume that the gospels are accurate accounts, then you can start making a case for X, Y, Z. But there are so many problems with that assumption. Just to name one: why would Paul, the super-evangelist, never mention that Jesus was born of a virgin? He was making the case as forcefully as he could, so why would he never mention that rather impressive fact about Jesus?
It’s my understanding, at least, that Dawkins says something similar to (3) in the case that he’s asked about how he maintains any degree of certainty with regards to the nonexistence of gods. Though I won’t pretend that his treatment of arguments is complete or comprehensive (that’s a life work and then some), he has at least pursued the more popular arguments. I don’t think it’s fair to say that he’s a priori rejected considering arguments.
I can say something similar for PZ. He does post about and address apologetics occasionally. Again, he’s not comprehensive, but for PZ and Dawkins both, I think that it would be fair to say that they are not as interested in academic concerns for existence so much as practical implications of belief. Due to this, they’ll usually address apologetics and arguments as they appear in the news, not in the journals.
It’s not as though there is an absence of more detailed, philosophical treatments of the arguments. For a philosophy type, I wouldn’t recommend PZ or Dawkins. I’d direct them toward Martin or Oppy instead.
If you are talking specifically about God then I doubt either PZ or Dawkins would answer as you have portrayed them – besides if you have considered arguments for and against say a theistic God , then you need not have to consider arguments against every known theistic deity.
In any case I don’t think Oedipus is making the argument that PZ or Dawkins can do no wrong or that all non believers follow the reasoning depicted above for all issues.
I have observed the same thing about #2 with some Christians and Muslims. “I can be mistaken but never about Jesus/Quran”. “The Bible may be incorrect(say Genesis or Leviticus) but never when it comes to Jesus and so on”.
Your double standards are striking. And you seem offer up a method that you are not very willing to follow yourself.
How about this. I would argue that the vast majority of
seminarians graduate with a very strong faith…I’d bet “droves” of them even graduate with a stronger belief. When it comes to your final paragraph, I challenge you to ask yourself, “Can I be mistaken?”
Rob, it looks like you missed my comment above, in which I apply the post to myself and even offer a specific argument.
However your point is flawed even if I had not written the above comment. You are suggesting that the content of the post can be countered by attacking me personally.
As for “droves,” I am referring to what is being reported in the Dennett and LaScola paper. But I take your point insofar as “droves” can imply a massive exodus or some other imagery, which would be inaccurate. So I will change “Droves of would-be clergy” to “Many would-be clergy”. Thank you for pointing this out.
Rob, the majority of people who get hypnotized to quit smoking do so… for a while. It takes reinforcement to keep it all working. Why would we expect people exposed to religious nonsense to be any different. That’s why we have Bible Study & Vacation Bible School. It’s ALL dissociation after all.
Denial of death schemes are ubiquitous!