So, I’ve played around with this idea, “the religious paradox.” Its the problem of believing in something while believing in the goodness of others to choose for themselves what to believe. This is at the core of our ideals of democracy and equality. I have a hard time believing something without believing that others with opposing view points are wrong. What’s more, I know I’m likely wrong about a great many things. For me, my best guess appears true even though I’ve seen it change. It reminds me of a poem by Kurt Vonnegut from Cat‘s Cradle:
Tiger got to hunt,
bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder,
“Why, why, why?”
Tiger got to sleep,
bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.
I believe all of us find resting places for our thoughts. These may appear like finished truth to but they are, in fact, just a working hypothesis.
There is a natural tension between respecting others beliefs and being a strong advocate for one’s beliefs. Not all beliefs are proved by reason. Some are believed by the quality of a feeling, some believe because they were told by an authority they trust. You may think feelings not legitimate to discern truth; but think if reason can be driven by feelings as well. Is proved to me by looking at my own thoughts and feelings. My reason is driven by motive. Perhaps you can find proof of this in your own thoughts and feelings.
Faith adds a special dimension to this hence the “religious“ paradox. Faith is a kind of commitment to a set of “truths”. Almost by definition, one with faith believes that they are right in their world view, possibly even absolutely right. I’ve had faith and talked to other people of other faiths. Often, I get the feeling that they are waiting for me to come around to their point of view. Its like, “I am right and you can be right to if you agree with me, otherwise you are wrong and need more time before you can realize the truth.” I cannot have these conversations any more. They seem worthless.
For the record I am not asking others to give up their beliefs; nor, would I like to give up mine. I am asking them to recognize that they only can know part of the truth and I know another part. When faith requires one to believe absolutely, to do this is a paradox.
Let me know what you think. I love the diversity of opinion on this blog. Thanks Ben for letting me guest post,
Jeremy Pellani
February 3, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
I agree, and I think that when it comes to personal beliefs, whatever anyone believes is fine with me. But when they’re beliefs about how other people should behave, that’s when there are problems.
Have you read The Happiness Hypothesis, by Jonathan Haidt? He talks about the issue of moral diversity in chapter 8. He points out that while many people are in favour of demographic diversity, when it comes to morality you can’t truly want diversity, otherwise the issue isn’t a moral one but a matter of personal taste.
February 4, 2009 at 2:12 am |
I think that when you start putting “truth” in quotes like this then you’re starting to talk about something that isn’t accessible to reason. Faith is a commitment to NOT using reason.
>I am asking them to recognize that they only can know part of the truth and I know another part.
And how do you deal with fatal collisions of these “truths” unless you water everything down to a pantheistic soup?
I’d like to hear your response to Jerry Coyne’s article in Edge:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html
February 4, 2009 at 8:42 pm |
Thanks for the response guys. I’ll look at those articles and get back to you.
I see the competing truth claims as descriptions of observable patterns. Often, I think both patterns can be true but not all of the possible meanings of the language used are true. Science has standards and language but is still only a description of part of the truth. I believe there are patterns that are observable but not provable and science because of its conventions does not accept these claims as truth. This is fine. I do not believe that we should necessarily fence in our minds to look at the patterns that science has already proved.
I was talking about “truth” as the subjective observable reality that we all experience by the virtue of being alive sentient beings. We may interpret it into stories that are contradictory; however, I’m sure the observed realities do ultimately square.
As for faith being a commitment to not using reason. One could have a faith in science. Its patterns seem to describe the truth often enough that we believe what we are told is true “according to science” and we don’t work it through ourselves. In fact, we all put a lot of faith in things we ourselves cannot reason out. – Jeremy
February 4, 2009 at 9:46 pm |
>I see the competing truth claims as descriptions of observable patterns.
So you’re talking about “claims” rather than ‘truths”.
“I was talking about “truth” as the subjective observable reality that we all experience by the virtue of being alive sentient beings. We may interpret it into stories that are contradictory; however, I’m sure the observed realities do ultimately square.’
Subjective accounts conflict between themselves and between (say) video recordings of an event. You don’t have to spend much time in a courtroom to notice that the “observed realities” do not square.
“As for faith being a commitment to not using reason. One could have a faith in science.”
As surely many do, but seeing it as part of a process of reasoning about the world that has developed a remarkably coherent and productive structure.
“Its patterns seem to describe the truth often enough that we believe what we are told is true “according to science” and we don’t work it through ourselves.”
Planes don’t fall out of the sky, lasers in CD players don’t stop working because we don’t believe in them, can’t understand them or aren’t aware of them. Those with a strong faith often subdivide the world very strongly so that they essentially abandon their religious faith as soon as they get on an aeroplane or an operating theatre table.
February 5, 2009 at 9:27 am |
Hey Mike,
Forgive me if I presented this idea a little messy. When reality is perceived it is made into a story. The story describes reality and also presents falsity as part of the vehicle to communicate that reality. Some times the falsity is a recognized device like a metaphor or a mythology. In these cases, the listener is asked to forgive the lie and look for the truth pattern.
Most of the time I suspect the story teller believes both the true part and the lie and cannot tell the difference between the two.
So I guess when I say “claims” or “truths” I mean stories that contain both descriptions of true patterns and falsity as well. I suppose I am more interested in what is true about the stories than what is false.
The video of the car crash is interesting. I still suspect that each story of the crash contains truth.
I’d like to get to a place with people where this is the focus of the conversation. It seems to me that there will be very little movement of a persons story about an event unless the true parts that they observed are honored and recognized.
I guess I didn’t mean to try and debunk science. I agree with your good arguments about this. My point is that people of faith do have reasons for having faith. They may not have done all of the reasoning out of every idea but they are convinced all the same. If science cannot tell a story that honors and recognizes what they feel they’ve observed as the truth, then it is sciences short coming. You cannot just say “they are not rational” because they have different kinds of evidence that they both cannot prove but cannot deny.
February 5, 2009 at 9:56 am |
“they are convinced all the same. If science cannot tell a story that honors and recognizes what they feel they’ve observed as the truth, then it is sciences short coming.”
Some of the those personal “truths” are going to be delusions, and I don’t know what sort of honour that deserves. Science – indeed reason – is not about honouring any subjective experience other than as a data-point for whatever you happen to be studying. To identify this as a shortcoming of science is to create a novel straw-man of what science is about, which is NOT a vehicle for managing interpersonal relationships.
“people of faith do have reasons for having faith.”
I’ll refer you to Dan Dennett’s commentary on the Jerry Coyne article, especially the idea of the Dumbo feather:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#dennett
“You cannot just say “they are not rational” because they have different kinds of evidence that they both cannot prove but cannot deny.”
If you have a discipline of not following reason, then it becomes hard to sort out what is evidential from what is purely subjective ( and within that: purely subjective wish fulfilment ). Angels, alien encounters and various other levels of hallucinatory self-delusion fall sharply into this category.
I think there are a lot of personal stories out there whose recounted details are rather banal – even banally in their fantasy – but which point to a human need for attention due to prior abandonment or abuse. In that case I would sooner we respectfully treat the person rather than honour the literal details of the story.
Furthermore, as Dennett points out, we shouldn’t suystain
“our vulnerability to those who abuse the “reverence” with which we are supposed to respond to their indulgences. We can continue to respect the good intentions of those who persist in professing belief in God, but we’ll be doing them a favor if we stop pretending that we respect the arguments they use to sustain these fantasies.”
February 6, 2009 at 8:56 am |
I read Dan Dennett’s commentary and the Jerry Coyne article. Good stuff. I’ve read and reflected on your comments Mike. Its brought into focus for me a few issues.
I’m trying to build energy for the idea that honest accounts of one’s experience has truth value. Mike you point out in your most recent post some real problems with assigning truth value this way. I definately hear the last quote of Dannett :
“our vulnerability to those who abuse the “reverence” with which we are supposed to respond to their indulgences. We can continue to respect the good intentions of those who persist in professing belief in God, but we’ll be doing them a favor if we stop pretending that we respect the arguments they use to sustain these fantasies.”
Where does the dialog take place then? It seems that unless personal experience is respected as being at least partly true there is no foundation for people of faith to stand on. I understand if you are ok with that. My problem comes when I am left with the honest impression of something I cannot prove and I am not trusted enough in a conversation to have my experience to have weight. Perhaps you think this is as it should be. I am interested in creating converstions where the participants are trusted as competent observers and their stories are respected if not beleived.
I wonder, Does anyone sees the value in this type of conversation? Does it just seem like a way to give proof like weight to unproved ideas?
February 8, 2009 at 4:17 am |
“Does anyone sees the value in this type of conversation? Does it just seem like a way to give proof like weight to unproved ideas?”
If no one’s looking to disprove anyone else’s story, then I have a mental picture of everyone politely nodding at everyone else. More tea vicar?
February 8, 2009 at 5:14 pm |
I am intrested in discussion not just nodding politely. I would like more discussions that speak to a persons whole point of view rather than the tedius point counterpoint type discussions. The truth is that everyone gets it wrong sometimes but we can still hear whats right about what they have to say.
I think a certain amount of humility is needed to have these types of conversations. ” For me, my best guess appears true even though I’ve seen it change.”
I suspect the above statement is true for most people. Is it too much to ask for honesty about this in conversation? To me, this means that there is always the possibility that I am wrong even when it really seems like I’m right.
February 8, 2009 at 5:41 pm |
I think you are trying to have it both ways by asking for “proof like weight to unproved ideas” and subjective “point of view”.
“The truth is that everyone gets it wrong sometimes but we can still hear whats right about what they have to say.”
Who determines what is right?
I’m sorry but I’m just hearing a muddle of good intentions with no procedure for assigning truth-values, that doesn’t buy us anything but a collection of personal convictions akin to a group therapy session.
February 8, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
Ultimately everone desides for themselves what is right. This is and always has been the case. Part of the problem this addresses is that not everyone agrees on a proceedure for asigning truth values.
People make sense of the world in many different ways. Although not all of the ways are scientific, they apparently describe the world well enough for someone to believe in them. Persons of science and reason may try to convert these people to their paradym which is all well and good. The problem is that people prefer thier unscientific explanations. Why? I’m sure there are all types of answers you can come up with. An answer I come up with is, the unscientific position does a better job of describing someone’s experience than the scientific one. This is what I meant when I said, “If science cannot tell a story that honors and recognizes what they feel they’ve observed as the truth, then it is sciences short coming.”
Ofcourse I am talking in part about the stories of religion and myth. They do not generally stand up to modern scientific scrutiny; however, they do describe parts of reality really well for some of us. These points of veiw may not have a place in a strict scientific conversation. I think these stories do have value because they describe parts of reality well.
February 8, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
“Ultimately everone desides for themselves what is right.”
I think you have thus bowed out from any attempt to find “proof like weight to unproved ideas”.
“the unscientific position does a better job of describing someone’s experience than the scientific one.”
I think you’re begging the question, using faith to underpin faith. You’ve already made up your mind.
“they do describe parts of reality really well for some of us.”
Which parts? Why? How do you agree terms?
February 8, 2009 at 7:07 pm |
I’m not trying to find “proof like weight to unproved ideas” read that post again. I do beleive in god and went to college to study religion. I have no argument against science but the world makes more sense to me throught the lens of a mythology. I think science has some real limits and mythology or religion does a great job of talking about a the parts of life that science does not address or does not address well.
Am I using faith to underpin faith? I would say I’m using the weight of experience to underpin faith and am open to contrary experiences.
I’m going to think about your last question for a while and try and give you a good honest answer.
February 8, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
“I’m not trying to find “proof like weight to unproved ideas” read that post again.”
After re-reading it, I can only ask you to state what you mean.
“The problem is that people prefer thier unscientific explanations. Why? I’m sure there are all types of answers you can come up with.”
Or look at Dan Dennett’s list.
The cumulative effect of reading your posts is that I think you’re straying dangerously into sophistric territory. The style of argument (not the content) is like this material from the Society of Saint Pius X, defending the inquisition: http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm
Some interesting extracts called out here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/02/07/defense_of_the_inquisition
February 9, 2009 at 10:49 am |
I have a movie recommendation for you chaps. It is called “Flight from death. The quest for immortality.”
It takes a psychological approach at asking questions about the beleif systems of people. Its good for the brain.
February 13, 2009 at 8:31 am |
Great stuff, fellas.
I’m having some profound thoughts about this which will probably translate into some muddled/inadequate rambling. C’est la vie, right?
When I’m letting this whole science vs. experience question duke it out in my own head, the line of thought that tends to illuminate things for me is to focus on how drastically we all under-conceive the roll stories, context, frameworks, models, etc. play in our interpretation of whatever input we’re receiving – our consciousness. Every single experience, no matter how far we try to break it down is a combination of SO many inputs and interpretations. Take a label we use like “warm” (and I’m just talking temperature here)… as an experience, this probably involves some energy input with that registers somewhere on some absolute temperature scale and somewhere on the relative to our current body temperature scale, the nerves in our skin, our current state of mind/emotions, similarities/differences in our physical makeup as opposed to others, brain chemicals, memories, etc. etc.
What’s more, “warm” is just a label that is meaningful to us because it’s how we’ve chosen or evolved to group some number of like experiences. What makes sunlight and skin part of that group but not metal surfaces? Maybe if we live in an always hot climate, metal surfaces are part of “warm”.
The point is that there (almost certainly) are specific scientific mechanisms behind experience that science can describe perfectly. But describing the mechanism and describing the experience are two entirely different things. We use stories and labels and language and emotion to conceive of and communicate experiences. You can’t take away the vehicle and preserve the experience. So whether the story is true from a non-subjective scientific/physical mechanism standpoint is one “truth” question, but not the only one. Sometimes we can break a really complex story or label or association down into several more fundamental pieces that align with physical reality better but still provide us with the meaning we need to frame our experiences, great! Win-win. Other times, we’re choosing between a scientifically sound description and a story that does our experience justice, and which we choose is a pragmatic question… what are we trying to accomplish?
I will say that in my travels away from religion, I have had the experience several times of replacing experience-stories with scientific concepts that at first felt void and dissatisfying, but over time became meaningful once more once they were integrated into my native language.
Keep asking.
-Thor
February 14, 2009 at 6:36 am |
That’s a nice piece of thought Thor. observation – data – meaning, observation – data – meaning. Which one of these things does not belong? I think you are spot on about
“how drastically we all under-conceive the roll stories, context, frameworks, models, etc. play in our interpretation of whatever input we’re receiving – our consciousness.”
In thinking about Mike’s last questions about which parts of reality I think religion describes better than science, the following thoughts come to mind. Religion is not primarily what it says but what it does. Not everyone may agree with this but it is one way to view it. For this reason, I give it a pass sometimes on the science/truth front. Much of what religion does effects my/our feelings which are difficult to quantify. Even if you can name the brain chemical that gives the “religious experience” it doesn’t nullify the experience for me. Religion is also a system of social order and community hub. It’s aims are very different than science and it often accomplishes its aims. Religion is often communicated in a story form like mythology that presents an obviously false story that has a truth pattern in it. Example Adam and Eve (I know, some people believe literally).
I’ve found myself in the uncomfortable position of arguing science vs. religion(experience)which is a conflict I don’t naturally have because I view both as just stories that describe un-codified truth. I think of language as the first lie. Stories both describe and betray the truth.
February 14, 2009 at 8:14 am |
“Religion is not primarily what it says but what it does. Not everyone may agree with this but it is one way to view it.”
You mean like the inquisition?
If you look at the Abrahamic religions, many of the teachings reflect the social orderings and survival needs of a desert people. The later teachings of Jesus really don’t differ very much from the golden-rule teachings that various secular thinkers articulated thousands of years earlier, and some of Jesus teachings continue to promote victory over out-groups. Women, slaves, homosexuals, all are subjugated to the whims of a being conceived by the mind of man, and an adolescent man at that.
“Religion is also a system of social order and community hub. It’s aims are very different than science and it often accomplishes its aims.”
More like the Boy Scouts or the KKK?
I’m not trying to flippant or disrepectful, but you’re defining religion away to being nothing special and certainly nothing supernatural. “God of the gaps” indeed.
“I’ve found myself in the uncomfortable position of arguing science vs. religion(experience)which is a conflict I don’t naturally have because I view both as just stories that describe un-codified truth.”
You haven’t described what truths or “truth patterns” you think religion codifies. In fact AFAICT you still haven’t actually addressed my question of “which parts of reality I think religion describes better than science”.
Science is a powerful process that develops as each answered question generates further questions that may open up new realms of discovery. That process asks that you test hypothesis and theory against the world, not once but many times. Not to take someone’s word, but to reproduce results elsewhere.
“Even if you can name the brain chemical that gives the “religious experience” it doesn’t nullify the experience for me.”
Of course it’s still an experience, but why would (in the case of it being a brain chemical) would I want to pay it any more attention than the ravings of a person tripping on LSD?
February 14, 2009 at 9:20 am |
What’s wrong with LSD?
February 14, 2009 at 9:59 am |
Mike,
I’d like to discuss this stuff but I don’t want to fight to the death over it. Religion can mean many different things. I am not saying religion is always good. I don’t think the boy scouts are a big problem. As far as the KKK and the inquisition… really. Look, I am interested in finding the common ground for dialog. If you think religion and religious people have no place in that dialog so be it. I cannot defend all religion or all actions and beliefs of all religious people. The truth is that different people have different ways and standards for determining truth. I have my own that includes science but also uses other methods.
To answer your question –
I think “love your neighbor as yourself” is a powerful command that Jesus gives. The experience of trying to do this or actually doing this is also powerful. Its not really a truth pattern itself but it leads you to truth patterns. Religion does this kind of thing well and I believe it is out of the scope of what science tries to do. To be clear, I think there are certain things that are only observable from inside an experience.
February 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
“Love thy neighbour” is but one statement of the golden-rule that I already said had been articulated by others without having to indulge any religious or supernatural participation. If I was in the mood this early in the morning one could start indulging in some discussion of evolutionary psychology or game theory on this topic…
“I’d like to discuss this stuff but I don’t want to fight to the death over it. ”
This is not a fight to the death. Since you posted here I was assuming that the discussion might at least rise to the level of a sophomore philosophy student, but you keep dancing around everything.
You are not answering ANY question or making any discernable statement about religion.
What reality? What experiences? What truth patterns?
If you’re just going to mumble about religion doing some things well or being a social ordering organisation then you leave yourself open to references to the Inquisition or the Boy Scout movement. “Love thy neighbour” is patently something that religion does NOT do well in a great many cases. This is just because mankind does not do it well, so religion doesn’t distinguish itself at all in this matter except that it can be ferociously hypocritical about it.
“Religion can mean many different things. ”
Back to square one. You are smothering us with vague statements. More LSD vicar?
February 14, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
Mike,
I read all of our posts over again. Here are some things I’d like to say. I don’t pretend my personal mythology would stand up to the rigors of science. Often my personal beliefs offend religious people even, perhaps especially, people who are from the faith of my childhood. I am not really offering my beliefs up to the group to examine. In my origional post, I confess that I think I am often wrong.
Although I believe in truth and sciences ability to describe truth really well, I would be terrified of being made to forfeit my beliefs because they don’t square with the current scientific understandings.
Game theory came to mind when I wrote that bit about Jesus. I’m glad you mentioned it. I’m not saying two systems of thought can’t come to the same conclusions. I don’t mind if Jesus stole the golden rule from his smarter athiest brother.
“I was assuming that the discussion might at least rise to the level of a sophomore philosophy student, but you keep dancing around everything. ” I’m trying best and I’m sorry if I’m wasting your time.
“You are smothering us with vague statements.”
The specific points I’d like to discuss are:
Experience has truth value.
None of us are objective observers.
All of us have likely figured out some truth and our story describes that truth while also professing falsity as truth.
Is there a way we can have conversations where we are all honest that we all guess at the truth.
These are the issues that led me to post.
February 16, 2009 at 12:44 pm |
The way I look at the world it does little good to prove or disprove something… I mean you can argue if that floats your boat but people are largely invested and entrenched in their world view. Ultimately, I think people decide things emotionally and gather the evidence to support that emotion. I don’t believe in the scientists ability to turn this off.
I liked Thor’s bit about the role of story because it recognizes this.
Point counter point arguments are polarizing and reactionary. I believe it is better for people to present their ideas from their personal evidence for comment and disagreement and have alternative or complimentary ideas presented as comments or disagreements. It makes no sense to me to try and disprove someone’s arguments directly as the arguments are probably not why someone believes what they do.
Let’s say you ask someone to go to a movie. They don’t want to go so they say,”No thanks, I have to wash my car.” You may offer to wash their car or pay to have it washed but unknown to you this is besides the point, they don’t want to go.
Most arguments seem like this to me – evidence is presented as if it were an intellectual problem or disagreement. Really what is going on is the participants are emotionally invested in their position.
For instance, most if not all religions have non rational parts to them. It is easy to point this out. Do you think rationality brought them to their faith? I don’t. Why would you think rationality would change their minds or hearts?
The point of what I was trying to write in this post was to look at the falsity of the “I am right so you are wrong” mentality where the details of our stories clash and arguments arise. Instead, I’d like to find an honest way to talk about what each other believes and look to see why we believe it.
Sorry Mike if talking to me has been frustrating. I really do appreciate the conversation and the ribbing.
February 16, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
The difficulty I am having right now is that you seem to want evidence to be both objective and subjective at the same time. How DO you talk to someone “about what each other believes and look to see why we believe it” when you don’t want the other person to ask for clarification (as I have done)?
We’re just back at the vicar’s tea-party nodding politely.
February 16, 2009 at 4:58 pm |
Hey Mike thanks for your continued patience, I posted to this blog to test this idea and develop it.
“How DO you talk to someone “about what each other believes and look to see why we believe it” when you don’t want the other person to ask for clarification (as I have done)?”
I’m so glad you asked – clarification is fine, I would say offering an alternative story can both disagree and challenge another story. I’ve honestly tried to clarify for you. I know you’ve been asking for specifics and I have stayed rather general. I’m sure that is annoying. I have no interest in defending specifics about religion or any other point of view. I did want to make an effort to say that generally I think a religious point of view can be valid and valuable. You have to understand, I’m not arguing to say a certain point of view is valid but that whole range of views have some validity even if you can find holes in the logic.
Even if I have offended your discussion sensibilities, please look again at what I originally posted and see I never meant to put forth a specific world view but a framework to look at many world views. It might not be your thing.
“The difficulty I am having right now is that you seem to want evidence to be both objective and subjective at the same time.” That’s fair I think. I would say it a different way. Maybe, I think evidence is subjective with different degrees of certainty.
I’d like to ask you some questions – you and anyone else reading
1. Do you think your world view is mostly true?
2. Do you know intelligent people who disagree with you?
3. Do you think they are wrong?
4. Is it possible you are wrong and they are right?
5. Is it possible you both are right about the parts that important to you and because you care less about the other parts you have taken less care to insure their veracity?
For me, I believe # 5 is almost always yes and that’s the heart of what I’d like to get at Thor I think touched on it some when he said, “Sometimes we can break a really complex story or label or association down into several more fundamental pieces that align with physical reality better but still provide us with the meaning we need to frame our experiences, great!” This says to me the meaning is the real goal and I think it is true people will give up their story for another competing story if what is important to them is honored.
I said it before but I want to say again – offering an alternative story can both disagree with and challenge another story. Tearing down a story does not usually change minds but offering an alternative that respects what is important to someone might. Offer me an alternative.
February 16, 2009 at 5:08 pm |
“Maybe, I think evidence is subjective with different degrees of certainty.”
Then you’re mostly redefining evidence as opinion. There is no pattern other than a reluctance to even agree on what you’re talking about.
1. Do you think your world view is mostly true?
Yes, but it is not complete.
2. Do you know intelligent people who disagree with you?
Yes, but they won’t discuss the points of disagreement. Some intelligent people can be very dogmatic on certain points. I think much off this is due to the points that Dennett raised.
3. Do you think they are wrong?
Yes, but I don’t go chasing them down on this UNLESS they want their never-to-be-defended view to manifest as public policy that affects me. Unfortunately that is how most religious-minded world-views touch my world.
4. Is it possible you are wrong and they are right?
Yes, but I don’t think adolescent solipsism has much going for it either theoretically or practically.
5. Is it possible you both are right about the parts that important to you and because you care less about the other parts you have taken less care to insure their veracity?
I can’t verify every part of the world, but I can look for a consistent framework that predicts how the world operates and doesn’t buckle when it has to modify itself to improve that predictability.
February 16, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
I reread the Dennett article. He’s telling both stories – his and his subject’s story. It’s a compelling story about what is going on in other people’s heads. I read though his list and wondered how much of that kind of thinking I myself do. An honest person telling their story could do better than telling you the possibilites, they could tell you the truth. If they felt safe.
Your answer to # 2 is great.
“Yes, but they won’t discuss the points of disagreement. Some intelligent people can be very dogmatic on certain points.” They might be afraid you’ll win the argument. Or they may believe their story and be afraid they can’t prove it. You said a while back that faith was a commitment to not using reason. In my experience of different degrees of faith there are some beliefs that are “off limits” and go unquestioned. This is true in my experience of the children of religious families and some adults who never really examined their faith as an adult. In my birth religion, the doctrine was to question “historical faith”(the faith you have because you were told it was true from childhood) in order to develop “true faith”. I suppose one has “true faith” because there is some evidence, experience, or group of experiences that proves it to a degree where it is simply apparent. In this case, someone may have a great deal of genuine certainty but no proof.
“I don’t go chasing them down on this UNLESS they want their never-to-be-defended view to manifest as public policy that affects me. Unfortunately that is how most religious-minded world-views touch my world.” I totally agree – makers of public policy often step over this line and they shouldn’t. This why I think people of genuinely different world views should have honest dialog where its safe to disagree.
“I can’t verify every part of the world, but I can look for a consistent framework that predicts how the world operates and doesn’t buckle when it has to modify itself to improve that predictability.” That’s exactly what some religious people are doing – and that frame work is built partially from experiential evidence like in the case of “true faith”. Perhaps yours is too?
February 17, 2009 at 5:13 am |
““I can’t verify every part of the world, but I can look for a consistent framework that predicts how the world operates and doesn’t buckle when it has to modify itself to improve that predictability.” That’s exactly what some religious people are doing – and that frame work is built partially from experiential evidence like in the case of “true faith”. Perhaps yours is too?”
There are parts of my world such as interpersonal relationships or my views on various political processes that evolve day by day from my experiences, my reading and reflection. There are other things to do with the physical universe which are built on an exchange with scientists and philosophers where all parties try to establish common terms and build a rock-solid framework. That is where I part company with those with a religious/magical worldview.
There are many such worldviews which seem to operate in one corner despite the fact that their own doctrines would cause them to reject each other.
If I go back to your original statement about faith adding a special dimension. Do you distinguish between the numinous/transcendent and the supernatural/superstitious in your set of truths? Do you require the supernatural element to exist for your faith in other non-provable truths?
February 17, 2009 at 7:27 am |
“There are parts of my world such as interpersonal relationships or my views on various political processes that evolve day by day from my experiences, my reading and reflection. There are other things to do with the physical universe which are built on an exchange with scientists and philosophers where all parties try to establish common terms and build a rock-solid framework. That is where I part company with those with a religious/magical worldview.”
I am the sort who is uneasy about the natural/physical sciences being in contradiction with the “softer” parts of world view. Some don’t mind it at all. I confess I live in some degree of contradiction.
“Do you require the supernatural element to exist for your faith in other non-provable truths?” The simple answer is yes. A more complex answer is that if a religious device is useful or describes reality well and it contradicts science , I will hold the device in “super position”. In these cases there is something compelling about the device that makes me think it is not totally false. I suppose I use magical thinking to keep the idea from turning false in my worldview. That would be an example of:
“worldviews which seem to operate in one corner despite the fact that their own doctrines would cause them to reject each other.”
I could be disabused from a belief that is in superposition if I could find a suitable story that honors the parts of the belief that seems true. Thor seemed to describe something similar in his comment.
As far as faith’s “special dimension”… I am critical of those who do not recognize the possibility that they are wrong about things. You understand there are many different faiths. As a student of religion, I have met with many different types of religious people. They all seem to have faith in contradictory things. They are not all right about every detail. That’s o.k. until they are not o.k. with me having a differing opinion. I took to heart your comments on people who may be deluded but I’m not ready to say these people are deluded. They seem like they have a hold of something very important to them and they hold on to it despite weighty arguments against them.
I must say I’m having a hard time separating out my personal beliefs from my public positions in this conversation.