The Great Divide -- Believers/Skeptics

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally published December 31, 2005

I have a very frustrating problem. I am simply unable to understand the religious or spiritual mind-set, no matter how hard I try. I read the arguments carefully, but they do not make sense to me. I ask many questions but get no answers that seem to address, much less satisfy, my questions. And, no doubt about it, I offer up my own views with little reservation, always trying to explain why I think as I do. No rebuttal of any kind from my interlocutors ever seems to hurt my argument.

Am I just stubborn and pig-headed? I hope not. I believe, I am convinced in my heart, that I genuinely want to know “the truth” about the world, even if that truth is that God exists. I am not nearly as sure that my correspondents are quite so open-minded that they also wish to know the truth, especially if that truth is that there is no god.

Still, the question remains – how can I learn to understand belief, let alone experience it?

There are those who will point out that I do, in fact, “believe” many things already, and I suppose they are right. But it always feels to me as if there is some basis, some evidence or trusted source behind the things I believe, and I am generally able to articulate them. For example:

• I believe in gravity, because I’ve never known it to fail, under any circumstances. I do not have to know whether such a creature as a “graviton” exists, or whether space is actually warped by mass (or what that actually means), and I don’t actually believe either of these things quite the way that I believe gravity works as advertised.
• I do not believe in ESP, though many do, because I’ve neither experienced it, never heard of a repeatable demonstration of it, nor ever read a theory of how it might work.
• I cannot say how life began – I don’t have enough science, and science doesn’t have a generally agreed-upon answer anyway – but since it began, I do believe in evolution. The evidence may not be complete in every detail, and the fossil record may have holes, but there are still lots of fossils and evidence. The science, as far as I can judge, seems sound. But mostly, it seems clear that fast-living life forms have evolved within my lifetime, including some very nasty viruses, which seems to me the best evidence of all.
• I understand how some forms of radiation work, and having seen the x-rays, tend to believe what I’ve been taught about them. I don’t understand the properties of sub-atomic particles nearly as well, but I am reliably informed that MRI images depend on “spin,” and I’ve seen the pictures of my spine. It seems to work, reliably and repeatedly, so I “believe.”
• I have seen what are claimed to be faith healings, but never, ever has anyone presented evidence of the phenomenon for peer review, nor are there any records of who as healed, medical proof of what they were supposed to be suffering from, and any knowledge of where they are now and how they are faring. In every case, this stuff is missing. Makes me suspect hanky-panky, and I disbelieve.
• I do believe in the magic of David Copperfield, but that’s because I know a little about the subject, and believe me, the skill is often breathtakingly magical. (But I would have said the same about Olga Korbut and Pablo Cassals).

Perhaps the problem is found further back, where thinking begins. It is surely not possible to “think about the truth” in an absolute vacuum. We must have something to begin with, some basic, fundamental notions that we can accept without proof, and upon which we can build – and which we risk being, in fact, false assumptions and deadly to whatever system we construct.

It is possible to build antithetical systems by beginning with different assumptions. What might high-school geometry look like if Euclid had assumed that parallel lines converge (in a “closed universe”), or diverge?

So perhaps I cannot think about faith or spirituality because I lack the proper “assumptions.” Or perhaps, when given what others might consider an axiom, I do not consider it to be so. It is true that mathematicians have struggled over whether to include the axiom that parallel lines never meet, no matter how far extended. Some (Riemann, Lobachevsky) have created whole (non-Euclidean) geometries by assuming otherwise.

So, for example, some have told me that the probability of everything being just right for life to exist on earth is vanishingly small, and therefore it required a designer to make it so. This is, I assume, and axiom upon which faith can be built. But I think that, while the probability in any one place in the universe is small, the probability of conditions being about right somewhere in the unimaginable vastness of the universe is actually very high, and the only reason I am able to think about it all is that I just happen to be in one of those places. Thus, I do not accept the axiom, and it offers no foundation upon which I can build a system of god-belief.

The other common axiomatic error that I often notice (and hence reject) is the tendency to assume as an premise or axiom that which one is trying to conclude – or “circulus in demonstrando.” This I have seen far to often, especially in Christian apologetics, but frequency of use doesn’t make it a valid form of logical argument, Rene Descartes notwithstanding. You cannot prove to me the existence of god by first asking me to assume he exists.

So, is there meaning in the universe (or is there god in the universe) that science cannot discover but human reason can? Or is that meaning/god beyond even the reach of human reason, requiring nothing more than blind and unreasoning faith? If so, how have some people come, without reason, to be aware, while others, like myself, have not? Surely, a god that wishes to reveal it/him/herself is capable of doing it rather more generally than has so far been the case. All faiths, everywhere on earth, are claimed to have been revealed to a very small, very select group who everyone else was supposed to believe on the basis of their say-so. This works even better if you have some books that nobody claims to have written.

So this brings me full circle – can faith even be described as truth or knowledge of the truth? If so, then every faith is true, including those who profess belief in the Great Pumpkin.

And if every contradictory faith is true, then reasoning and knowledge are false, and nothing makes sense. How will I ever understand this?

[musicman30mm]

I have a very frustrating problem. I am simply unable to understand the religious or spiritual mind-set, no matter how hard I try.

I don't think the problem is yours. This is taking a big liberty, and perhaps you don't want my assumptions or advice. Then again, perhaps you do, this is a public forum after all.

I think you do understand the religious mind-set, all too well. The reason you're confused is that you're operating on a false assumption. You assume that the people who have faith in faith are not deluded. You seem to assume that they simply must have a valid reason to occupy the least likely position. You're wrong. The faithful are deluded. They have taken the most gratuitous possible philosophical liberty, one for which they have no rational defense; hence their invariable refusal to raise one.

Trying to understand religion from the perspective that it is somehow "true", in the sense that it is on equal epistemic footing with atheism is like trying to make sense of the Bible from the assumption that it is a perfect, universally applicable treatise on morality. You will never make sense of it; not because there is sense to be won that you are incapable of, because the Bible simply isn't a perfect, universally applicable treatise on morality.

It seems to me that you wish you could believe, but you just can't. If this is true, it may not be that difficult to take the leap. Wanting something to be true is what we call hope, and faith is but a very slight aberration of hope. I think all one needs to do to get a self-sustaining faith up and running is take that first step in believing that believing in things because they are desirable is somehow on par with believing things because they are true. The circular reasoning takes over from there, a kind of feedback mechanism. It's a bit like sexual selection and the peacock's tail. Once the cycle starts, people can find themselves believing that the less evidence of truth, the more virtuous the faith. Beliefs become unwieldy liabilities, just like the peacock's tail. Hell isn't just a nasty place to punish nasty folks. Hell is infinitely bad and eternally long lasting. Jesus doesn't just love you, he loves you so much that you must weep and convulse when you imagine it.

Clearly, I don't think you are going to be converted or reconverted or whatever the case. I do think that you fail to give the faithful their due criticism though. This is a difference in our styles, so I am sure you think I am unfair.

Anyhow, I'm sure our similarities are strong enough and our differences interesting enough to have many fruitful conversations. So here's to the future.

-MM30MM

P.S. Check out my blog when you get time. I just started it up. Perhaps we can cross-contribute in the future:

http://weeklyirony.blogspot.com/

[Baruch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shao_Lin_Temple

If anything sacred or profane, can fit into a cubbyhole, then your vision of the sacred or profane isn't big enough yet. In particular you need to embrace your inner Bacchus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think the problem is yours. This is taking a big liberty, and perhaps you don't want my assumptions or advice. Then again, perhaps you do, this is a public forum after all.

Like most folks, I'm leary about advice. But I'm all ears when it comes to hearing about your assumptions. That's why I created this forum. I think I may be just intelligent enough to learn something. Or at least I hope so.

I think you do understand the religious mind-set, all too well.

Unfortunately, I think I do, too. I just keep hoping that I can find something that makes it quintessentially human, because otherwise I have to look down upon those who are afflicted with it. And to be honest, I think I do undertand religious belief to be a fundamental feature of human cognition. I haven't written it up yet (and when I do, don't look for PhD erudition), but I'm not far away. In essense, though, I suspect that humans developed the capacity for religious belief concurrently with the development of self-reflective intelligence: knowing that we didn't exist -- and won't exist -- requires a countervailing supposition to relieve us of that existential catastrophe. Therefore, the capacity for religious though ought to be a co-development of conscious, self-reflective sentience.

The reason you're confused is that you're operating on a false assumption. You assume that the people who have faith in faith are not deluded. You seem to assume that they simply must have a valid reason to occupy the least likely position. You're wrong. The faithful are deluded. They have taken the most gratuitous possible philosophical liberty, one for which they have no rational defense; hence their invariable refusal to raise one.

No, I actually agree with you that the faithful are deluded. Where we seem to part ways is on why they are deluded, and whether that might be the evolved natural state. And frankly, sometimes, I think that may be true. I feel more a freak most of the time than any of the faithful of my acquaintance. And yet, I also know that I am more correct. Strange, eh?

Trying to understand religion from the perspective that it is somehow "true", in the sense that it is on equal epistemic footing with atheism is like trying to make sense of the Bible from the assumption that it is a perfect, universally applicable treatise on morality. You will never make sense of it; not because there is sense to be won that you are incapable of, because the Bible simply isn't a perfect, universally applicable treatise on morality.

Now here we are agreed (although there will be some pushback, non-rancourous, from Mirage and Baruch). I've said over and over again that reading any work of man as somehow unassailably "true" can only lead to contradiction and ultimately to the kind of cognitive dissonance that allows for an unlimited range of nonsensical beliefs. And that, for certain, is something I'd be happy to document.

There are, however much we may not like to admit it, a vast array of nonsensical beliefs out there.
It seems to me that you wish you could believe, but you just can't. If this is true, it may not be that difficult to take the leap. Wanting something to be true is what we call hope, and faith is but a very slight aberration of hope. I think all one needs to do to get a self-sustaining faith up and running is take that first step in believing that believing in things because they are desirable is somehow on par with believing things because they are true. The circular reasoning takes over from there, a kind of feedback mechanism. It's a bit like sexual selection and the peacock's tail. Once the cycle starts, people can find themselves believing that the less evidence of truth, the more virtuous the faith. Beliefs become unwieldy liabilities, just like the peacock's tail. Hell isn't just a nasty place to punish nasty folks. Hell is infinitely bad and eternally long lasting. Jesus doesn't just love you, he loves you so much that you must weep and convulse when you imagine it.

It's never easy to discern one's own motives with complete clarity, but I don't think you're correct. I don't want to believe, and in part that's because I think belief would be an abandonment of my own self. I'm not frightened of the things that most believers are. Self-annihilation, my non-existence after death, is more of a comfort to me than not.I find when I think about it that my concern goes to my (hopefully) surviving partner. As there will be no "I," there will be no I to care. But as I exist right now, I care for that future partner who will suffer.

I don't think I said that very well. It's late. I hope you get the gist of my thought.

Clearly, I don't think you are going to be converted or reconverted or whatever the case. I do think that you fail to give the faithful their due criticism though. This is a difference in our styles, so I am sure you think I am unfair.

Criticism is one thing. I do it here (and elsewhere) through asking questions and stating my own opinions. I always try to give the reasons for my opinions, and I always ask (not always politely after the second or third try) that people who express other views do the same.

No, I won't be converted. You've read one or two of the things I've written, and so you also know that I'm not uncritical. But I do think that where there is no "proof," and where belief is supportive to the believer and not harmful to others, we can leave the door open to conversation. So long as it's honest.

That's what I was hoping to do here.

Anyhow, I'm sure our similarities are strong enough and our differences interesting enough to have many fruitful conversations. So here's to the future.

Absolutely! I have so much to learn, and in your first post you've already challenged me beyond my capacity. I really do look forward to our future convesations.

[Baruch]

It is an Enlightenment polemic (see my point in Essays that I also made today, regarding polemic and apologetic, so I don't have to repeat it here), to say that the religious are superstitious, or just the dupes of the clergy. Since I am both spiritual (individual) and religious (collective), and I am no dupe of anyone, and am not superstitious, but well educated in science ... my counter example disproves the hypothesis.

There is no need, in this discussion, to put down secular humanists for not being religious, nor for putting down religious humanists for not being secular. I post here as well as OCRT, because you don't do that, otherwise I would go bother a silly atheist forum (where people are as ignorant and conceited as a theist forum).

Shalom