Reconciling reason and faith

[jraw]

OK, let's dispense entirely with the whole "existence of God" debate. Unless something has changed and I missed it, the same arguments have been playing out for the last, oh, two or three millennia and we're not getting any closer to settling it. It's almost like, if there were a God, then His objective existence would be intrinsically impossible to demonstrate; and if there weren't, then His nonexistence would be equally intrinsically impossible to demonstrate (because anything's nonexistence would be).

I understand why the extremists on the pro-God side keep pushing their belief: It's because their faith comes with a built-in mission to convert as many people as possible.

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith. I mean, you can keep saying over and over again, "But there's no empirical evidence that God saved you from dying in that car crash," but the religious person you're saying it to is not going to be convinced it wasn't God if they know it was Him.*

My point is, I agree with the nonreligious folks' motives for wanting to delineate between matters of reason and matters of faith, but I don't agree that their methods are effective. I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset, and that although either of these is changeable, the process of evoking change is a little more subtle than just pitting one against the other.

So from a rational standpoint, the situation at hand is that the schism between reason and faith appears to be insurmountable using our current methods. Assuming that humanity isn't doomed to rehash the same arguments for the next two to three millennia (a serious assumption, to be sure, but let's work from it, just for fun and because the alternative sucks), can new methods be proposed? And do those who would say they're on the side of reason need to improve their understanding of matters of faith if they want to elevate the debate?

*And to be fair, if God is real, He may very well inhabit the realm of subjective reality, rather than objective reality.

[Diabolos]

I have to agree with you. A basic psychological "rule" is that feelings and emotions have a much more powerful influence on peoples' thoughts and behaviour than rational thinking does.

I used to work in an occupation that required me to influence and motivate people, and almost without exception the most successful techniques for doing this involved understanding the individual's emotional needs and aspirations, and then invoking emotional imagery in getting them to feel just how good it would be if they did such and such. People then have a tendency to "rationalise" for themselves their own beliefs and behaviour, once that behaviour is established.

[RandFan]

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith. I was a Mormon missionary. I grew up in the Mormon church and was a true believer. One event in my life that led me to atheism was a debate with an atheist. It was more like a discussion. He was extremely patient with me and very disarming. He asked me some very good questions and in a tone and manner that lacked any condescension explained to me some basic facts.

I'm glad he out-reasoned me.

It can happen.

ETA: Damn why can't I be like him?

[Bikewer]

There was once a sort of "new-age" show on public radio; each week they would interview some proponent of some wierdness or other.

One fellow made a memorable statement; "I don't need proof, I KNOW."

Illustrates that rather nicely; it's a potent emotional response that trumps reason in most cases. A neuroscientist I was reading made a funny statement along the same lines, (paraphrase) "I resent that the product of millions of years of evolution, my cerebral cortex, can be overridden by the old reptile brain at the back of my skull."

[chriswl]

I understand why the extremists on the pro-God side keep pushing their belief: It's because their faith comes with a built-in mission to convert as many people as possible.

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith. I mean, you can keep saying over and over again, "But there's no empirical evidence that God saved you from dying in that car crash," but the religious person you're saying it to is not going to be convinced it wasn't God if they know it was Him.*
I don't have any mission to convert anyone to the path of rationality. What we are mostly doing on forums like this is talking amongst ourselves about the irrationality of religion and superstition and making sense of it for our own benefit. It helps to have real live believers to argue against but that doesn't mean we expect to change their views.

There is no new understanding we can have of religious people that will provide the key to persuading them. We already understand them all to well - many of us used to be religious ourselves, so how could we not understand them? We stick to the truth, we confront the world as it really is, not as we would like it to be. But this is not an approach that appeals to everyone. I don't have a problem with that.

[l0rca]

OK, let's dispense entirely with the whole "existence of God" debate. Unless something has changed and I missed it, the same arguments have been playing out for the last, oh, two or three millennia and we're not getting any closer to settling it. It's almost like, if there were a God, then His objective existence would be intrinsically impossible to demonstrate; and if there weren't, then His nonexistence would be equally intrinsically impossible to demonstrate (because anything's nonexistence would be).

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith. I mean, you can keep saying over and over again, "But there's no empirical evidence that God saved you from dying in that car crash," but the religious person you're saying it to is not going to be convinced it wasn't God if they know it was Him.*

I used to be religious. I came across these arguments, their evidence and proofs, and became an atheist hungry for scientific knowledge and empiric philosophies. You can indeed convince people with these arguments.

And don't get confused with us not having any proof against their claims of god and them having rediculous excuses to turn away our arguments. We've got enough evidence. We have the theory of evolution; we have natural explanations to phenomena; we have neurological explanations as to why people might be inclined to believe; we can explain morality; we can explain birth; we can explain the beginning of earth, and our sun; we can demonstrate that the brain is one's consciousness; we can simulate ghosts with EM helmets; we can fly above the clouds; we can clone ourselves; we can even create our own Armageddon, and annihilate ourselves. Proof is, however, for people willing to be reasonable about their beliefs. People unafraid to question their imaginary friends. We're not dealing with reasonable people. We're dealing with people who would call ordinary coincidences divine interventions, in the face of tragedies like 9/11 and the holocaust.

The problem is not how we argue with them, or our 'methods'. The problem is the masses are asses, and religion is one hell of a pretty fairy tale. They have absolutely no logical reasoning better than ours.

I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset.

I don't think you've thought very much about this statement, considering your grammar and spelling is on point. Your own small mental game of compare and contrast between our reasoning and methods of knowledge versus theirs should be enough to convince you.

[scimystic]

OK, let's dispense entirely with the whole "existence of God" debate. Unless something has changed and I missed it, the same arguments have been playing out for the last, oh, two or three millennia and we're not getting any closer to settling it. It's almost like, if there were a God, then His objective existence would be intrinsically impossible to demonstrate; and if there weren't, then His nonexistence would be equally intrinsically impossible to demonstrate (because anything's nonexistence would be).

I understand why the extremists on the pro-God side keep pushing their belief: It's because their faith comes with a built-in mission to convert as many people as possible.

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith. I mean, you can keep saying over and over again, "But there's no empirical evidence that God saved you from dying in that car crash," but the religious person you're saying it to is not going to be convinced it wasn't God if they know it was Him.*

My point is, I agree with the nonreligious folks' motives for wanting to delineate between matters of reason and matters of faith, but I don't agree that their methods are effective. I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset, and that although either of these is changeable, the process of evoking change is a little more subtle than just pitting one against the other.

So from a rational standpoint, the situation at hand is that the schism between reason and faith appears to be insurmountable using our current methods. Assuming that humanity isn't doomed to rehash the same arguments for the next two to three millennia (a serious assumption, to be sure, but let's work from it, just for fun and because the alternative sucks), can new methods be proposed? And do those who would say they're on the side of reason need to improve their understanding of matters of faith if they want to elevate the debate?

*And to be fair, if God is real, He may very well inhabit the realm of subjective reality, rather than objective reality.


Welcome, and "good post". But in regard to your end statement, I can't find grounds for belief in the qualitative difference - between 'objective' and 'subjective' - that would make it meaningful. Or, from the other side: I would need to have some solid objective justification(s) for belief in your independent 'subjective realm'. Without these God's existence, or not, in this alternative realm would strike me as a meaningless consideration.

In response to your main point: I don't think that we need to keep re-hashing the same old arguments. I believe that there is a way for us to break our ancient deadlock and move forward. It is through the realization that although 'reason' and 'faith' are not fundamentally incompatible, reason and 'truth' are. I know that that will seem like a very weird statement. But I would suggest that weird and counterintuitive should be anticipated as characteristics of any functional escape from our deadlock. You are right in saying that we have been in it for at least several millennia. My own estimate, based on my understanding of its original source, is that we have been in it for 80 or 90 millennia.

For the clearest explanation of this position that I've yet been able to manage, I'd invite you to visit my blog, at http://poppersinversion.blogspot.com . Its a tough and heavy read, in spite of my continued efforts to lighten it up, but I think that you may find in it an interesting/exciting answer to your post's main question.

BR,

Keith

[jraw]

I used to work in an occupation that required me to influence and motivate people, and almost without exception the most successful techniques for doing this involved understanding the individual's emotional needs and aspirations, and then invoking emotional imagery in getting them to feel just how good it would be if they did such and such. People then have a tendency to "rationalise" for themselves their own beliefs and behaviour, once that behaviour is established.

Yes. For all our smarts, I'm just not convinced that a well-reasoned argument is what moves most people to act. I'd suggest that Robert McKee has it dead-on when he writes in Story that a character "will always take the minimum, conservative action from his point of view.* All human beings always do." And that it takes some emotional, rather than intellectual, push to move us. Which is why everybody just hasn't up and started recycling, why battered wives go back to abusive husbands even when they know what will happen, and why there are still Cubs fans. ;)

*His italics.

I was a Mormon missionary. I grew up in the Mormon church and was a true believer. One event in my life that led me to atheism was a debate with an atheist. It was more like a discussion. He was extremely patient with me and very disarming. He asked me some very good questions and in a tone and manner that lacked any condescension explained to me some basic facts.

I'm glad he out-reasoned me.

It can happen.

Yes, but look at the situation you described, RandFan. He appealed to your mind, but he appealed to your heart, too. And when I say "appealed to your heart," I don't mean he made any epic speeches or grasped your hand and held it against his chest, of course. :) I just mean he made a real effort to communicate with you.

If you'd been stuck in an elevator with him, and he'd used exactly the same arguments and questions, but he'd been calling you a weak-minded idiot, do you think it would have turned out the same way? Maybe, but that would be a huge testament to your own capacity for self-examination, and I think it would be highly unusual.

[jraw]

There was once a sort of "new-age" show on public radio; each week they would interview some proponent of some wierdness or other.

One fellow made a memorable statement; "I don't need proof, I KNOW."

Yeah, not long after The Good Book by Peter Gomes was published, I went to a forum about the text at my university, held by a progressive Christian group. And the leaders of the discussion went through each point so carefully and so clearly, and still, after they were finished, a girl stood up with her King James and started crying and said, "You can interpret all these things any way you want, but I know what it says right here," and proceeded to read aloud some of the anti-homosexual verses from the Old Testament.

To be fair, of course, the idea of faith is that it is knowing -- but a different kind of knowing than that pertaining to empirical facts. What I've never understood is how one could put their faith in a God Who had no regard for the empirical reality He'd crafted.

Illustrates that rather nicely; it's a potent emotional response that trumps reason in most cases. A neuroscientist I was reading made a funny statement along the same lines, (paraphrase) "I resent that the product of millions of years of evolution, my cerebral cortex, can be overridden by the old reptile brain at the back of my skull."

Nice.

[jraw]

There is no new understanding we can have of religious people that will provide the key to persuading them.

I think you just claimed to be sure of the nonexistence of something, which is still not allowed, unless something changed and I didn't get the email. Watch yo'self! :)

[jraw]

I used to be religious. I came across these arguments, their evidence and proofs, and became an atheist hungry for scientific knowledge and empiric philosophies. You can indeed convince people with these arguments.

Well, I am not trying to be obnoxious and of course I would need to know your whole story before commenting further, but your use of the word "hungry" suggests there was some visceral craving present behind your conversion.

And don't get confused with us not having any proof against their claims of god and them having rediculous excuses to turn away our arguments. We've got enough evidence. We have the theory of evolution; we have natural explanations to phenomena; we have neurological explanations as to why people might be inclined to believe; we can explain morality; we can explain birth; we can explain the beginning of earth, and our sun; we can demonstrate that the brain is one's consciousness; we can simulate ghosts with EM helmets; we can fly above the clouds; we can clone ourselves; we can even create our own Armageddon, and annihilate ourselves. Proof is, however, for people willing to be reasonable about their beliefs. People unafraid to question their imaginary friends. We're not dealing with reasonable people. We're dealing with people who would call ordinary coincidences divine interventions, in the face of tragedies like 9/11 and the holocaust.

The problem is not how we argue with them, or our 'methods'. The problem is the masses are asses, and religion is one hell of a pretty fairy tale. They have absolutely no logical reasoning better than ours.

Well, I didn't say they did. But your post is a pretty good example of what spurred me to start the thread. You can cite as many scientific discoveries as you want (all of which are certainly valid), but you're still never going to prove there might not be Something Else out there. And you can write off the schism between science and religion as "the masses are asses" (and believe me, I understand the impulse), but I guess I'm not quite as ready to abandon all hope for humanity yet, and my point is, If you're on the side that's so much smarter, why can't you figure out how to get your message across?

Obviously, some people have done it (see RandFan's post above), but I see far too many cases where the argument on the side of reason comes down to "We're right, you're wrong, and you just won't ever get it." Which I see as just a mirror image of the argument on the other side. Now they may be wrong, but what I'm asking is, can we find other ways to convince them of it, given that merely banging out the same old rational arguments seems to keep bringing us to an impasse?

Or to put it another way: Does the side of reason need to undergo a thorough self-examination, to ensure that its tenets haven't stopped being principles and turned into dogma? Because maybe the reason we have so much trouble getting through to the other side isn't that they're so stupid, but that instead of looking more deeply into what's going on (and I don't mean checking harder for ghosts -- I mean trying to understand how people work) and working that data into a plan, we're writing them off as boneheads from square one.

I don't think you've thought very much about this statement, considering your grammar and spelling is on point. Your own small mental game of compare and contrast between our reasoning and methods of knowledge versus theirs should be enough to convince you.

Honestly, I have thought about nothing but that statement (or idea, anyway) for about eight years now, and I am pretty well convinced that what is generally thought of as the "scientific mindset" these days is a mindset that comes with its own set of forms and preconceptions. That doesn't make it a bad thing at all -- every mindset comes with its own baggage -- but the danger is in not seeing the baggage for what it is. And it's especially dangerous when it comes to the scientific mindset, because of course that mindset above all others should be as free of extraneous influence as possible.

[c4ts]

I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset, and that although either of these is changeable, the process of evoking change is a little more subtle than just pitting one against the other.

Not really. Understanding science is a matter of education and practice. People can go through years of college science classes and not fully understand what's going on with the scientific method. It's that critical thinking (which is involved with science, among other things), when applied to faith, sometimes produces results that don't add up.

[infornography]

It is indeed possible to change someone's mind with a rational discussion, but you have to turn their faith against them. There are things in the Bible that when presented properly and calmly, can really shake a person's faith. Do not seek to disprove the Bible, that never seems to work.

When I was a hard atheist I made it my goal, my agenda, my crusade even to convert as many blind religious followers as I could. I was frequently successful with several partial conversions (ie turning a blind devout into a progressive or even just instilling doubt in them for more than 24 hours) and a few complete conversions.

The problem arose when I discovered that some (actually most) of the people I completely converted resented it. I had dispelled their beutiful fantasy and now they had no crutch with which to handle several of their emotional problems.

There was the occasional person who I would label as "ready" for atheism, but most just aren't.

When I came to that understanding I mellowed out a lot. Now I am a soft agnostic and feel I have a better understanding of people than I once did. With that better understanding of people I came to the realization that a lot of people NEED their faith. Without it their problems are seemingly amplified.

There are other incidents that make me feel like we should not be converting most of these people, but merely focus on trying to open them up to key ideas to mellow them out a bit. That is all.

[jraw]

Welcome, and "good post". But in regard to your end statement, I can't find grounds for belief in the qualitative difference - between 'objective' and 'subjective' - that would make it meaningful. Or, from the other side: I would need to have some solid objective justification(s) for belief in your independent 'subjective realm'. Without these God's existence, or not, in this alternative realm would strike me as a meaningless consideration.

Thank you! Well, when I speak of "objective reality," I'm talking about the reality of observable empirical phenomena. When I speak of "subjective reality," I mean those phenomena which are clearly real but not provable empirically. And the only two I can think of (but what a two they are) are emotions and thoughts. I mean that if I'm thinking of an apple, then the reality is that I'm thinking of an apple. But as real as it is, there's no way to prove it objectively.*

Obviously, phenomena on the subjective plane can't be subject to scientific inquiry. Which of course means it's a convenient place for me to keep God. ;) It would be fair for me to disclose now that I do believe in God, that I have no problems with Him existing beyond the realm of the empirically definable, and that to get further into it here would take us beyond the realm of this thread. I did mention "subjective reality" in my original post just to see if it got a reaction, and I would now move that that comment and all comments relating to it be stricken from the record, so as not to distract from the topic of discussion. I would be more than happy to discuss it later, but it's hard enough to stay on point on the Web as it is.

In response to your main point: I don't think that we need to keep re-hashing the same old arguments. I believe that there is a way for us to break our ancient deadlock and move forward. It is through the realization that although 'reason' and 'faith' are not fundamentally incompatible, reason and 'truth' are. I know that that will seem like a very weird statement. But I would suggest that weird and counterintuitive should be anticipated as characteristics of any functional escape from our deadlock. You are right in saying that we have been in it for at least several millennia. My own estimate, based on my understanding of its original source, is that we have been in it for 80 or 90 millennia.

Oh, no, I would totally agree with you about the weird and counterintuitive. Here's a quote I have loved since I ran across it a year or so ago, from someone who knew from logic:

"In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feelings, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."

Anyway, I am concerned that at times the scientific method is used to dismiss things where it has no bearing.** I mean, I'm no theologian, but I've devoted a big chunk of my whole life, even since I was a kid, to thinking about religion. I've tried to think as critically as possible, and to run things by critical thinkers I trust; and I cannot help but conclude that there may be more Out There, and while there also may not, that it's not the place of science to say, "No, not possible" (and not just in the case of religion, but any case).

It is of course the place of science to say, "That seems highly unlikely, given what we know." But that's a small but enormous distinction.

For the clearest explanation of this position that I've yet been able to manage, I'd invite you to visit my blog. Its a tough and heavy read, in spite of my continued efforts to lighten it up, but I think that you may find in it an interesting/exciting answer to your post's main question.

I will check it out, Keith. Actually, I feel a little foolish, because I started this thread last night, and in about six hours I'll be on a plane that will take me to a cabin in the middle of the woods, where for a week I'll be without online access. It's going to be great, but I completely apologize to everyone who reads this thread for dropping out immediately after it started to get good. I just completely spaced. I will, however, be talking to you all again, I hope.

*At least not yet.
**At least not yet.

[jraw]

When I came to that understanding I mellowed out a lot. Now I am a soft agnostic and feel I have a better understanding of people than I once did. With that better understanding of people I came to the realization that a lot of people NEED their faith. Without it their problems are seemingly amplified.

Yes, that's it. I understand why the beliefs of (for example) some Christian fundamentalists need to be addressed, because they create a real problem for, say, gay people and women who want to have control of their reproductive systems.

But whether you believe in God or not doesn't really have to be a factor in whether or not you can just get along with someone. And although I'm all for truth, justice, Superman (love that guy), and clear thinking, I really do believe we need to make getting along with each other our primary focus. Because once we get that out of the way, we can have a much more effective discussion about the other stuff. Anyway, Socrates thought getting along with each other was of primary importance, and he did his share of thoughtful thinking.

So it's disturbing to me that the level of discussion I've seen so frequently devolves from "you don't have the right to force your beliefs upon me, and here's why" to "if you believe in God, you're an idiot." I mean, at least with the fundamentalists, I can understand their lack of detachment. But that kind of detachment is supposed to be part and parcel of the scientific mindset! :)

OK, must really start packing now.

[AmateurScientist]

I was a Mormon missionary. I grew up in the Mormon church and was a true believer. One event in my life that led me to atheism was a debate with an atheist. It was more like a discussion. He was extremely patient with me and very disarming. He asked me some very good questions and in a tone and manner that lacked any condescension explained to me some basic facts.

I'm glad he out-reasoned me.

It can happen.

ETA: Damn why can't I be like him?

Good counterexample, RandFan.

I suspect your situation is the exception, rather than the rule, as I'm sure you will agree.

I also suspect that the seeds of doubt in your head had already been planted long ago. This guy merely watered them for you.

AS

[RandFan]

Good counterexample, RandFan.

I suspect your situation is the exception, rather than the rule, as I'm sure you will agree.

I also suspect that the seeds of doubt in your head had already been planted long ago. This guy merely watered them for you.

ASI think many if not most all believers have seeds of doubt. Yes, I am the exception and not the rule. The point is that we should have these discussions and we should try to change people's minds. I would not be here if someone didn't try. It's possible and it is a worthy effort. It might seem fruitless at times but we must not let that deter us.

[AmateurScientist]

I think many if not most all believers have seeds of doubt. Yes, I am the exception and not the rule. The point is that we should have these discussions and we should try to change people's minds. I would not be here if someone didn't try. It's possible and it is a worthy effort. It might seem fruitless at times but we must not let that deter us.

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just not very hopeful of success in the majority of cases.

I also agree wholeheartedly that the seeds of doubt are already there for most believers. Doubt is an inevitable part of belief in the supernatural, especially in an omnicient, omnipotent deity, for all but the densest non-thinkers among us.

It is the remarkable capacity for compartmentalization that most of us possess that allows for the simultaneous existence of rational beliefs and highly irrational ones, especially in the face of overwhelming lack of data in support of such beliefs.

I'm all for arguing against nonsense, especially religious nonsense, but history would indicate that it has a strong foothold in our heads, and evolutionary psychology suggests that perhaps we have a deep seated need for belief in a higher being, and hence we get stuck with all the nonsense that flows from it.

AS

[RandFan]

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just not very hopeful of success in the majority of cases.

I also agree wholeheartedly that the seeds of doubt are already there for most believers. Doubt is an inevitable part of belief in the supernatural, especially in an omnicient, omnipotent deity, for all but the densest non-thinkers among us.

It is the remarkable capacity for compartmentalization that most of us possess that allows for the simultaneous existence of rational beliefs and highly irrational ones, especially in the face of overwhelming lack of data in support of such beliefs.

I'm all for arguing against nonsense, especially religious nonsense, but history would indicate that it has a strong foothold in our heads, and evolutionary psychology suggests that perhaps we have a deep seated need for belief in a higher being, and hence we get stuck with all the nonsense that flows from it.

ASAgreed.

[infornography]

I think many if not most all believers have seeds of doubt. Yes, I am the exception and not the rule. The point is that we should have these discussions and we should try to change people's minds. I would not be here if someone didn't try. It's possible and it is a worthy effort. It might seem fruitless at times but we must not let that deter us.

I both agree and disagree.

I agree that working honestly with people who are strong willed enough to handle the sense of responsibility that comes with atheism or agnosticism is a good thing and is probably for the benefit of the subject in question.

However I disagree in that there are a lot of people who really can not handle that responsibility and that sense of ... for lack of a better term, freedom. It removes the ability to throw blame elsewhere (god or satan for instance) and it removes the percieved safety net of an all loving diety. Some people have grown so dependant on those things that without them they are miserable. I have no desire to inflict this upon those who are not ready for it. I have done so in the past and regretted it.

If you do pursue the path of converting the heathen believers, I highly reccomend discrimination in your targets. And good luck.

[RandFan]

I both agree and disagree.

I agree that working honestly with people who are strong willed enough to handle the sense of responsibility that comes with atheism or agnosticism is a good thing and is probably for the benefit of the subject in question.

However I disagree in that there are a lot of people who really can not handle that responsibility and that sense of ... for lack of a better term, freedom. It removes the ability to throw blame elsewhere (god or satan for instance) and it removes the percieved safety net of an all loving diety. Some people have grown so dependant on those things that without them they are miserable. I have no desire to inflict this upon those who are not ready for it. I have done so in the past and regretted it.

If you do pursue the path of converting the heathen believers, I highly reccomend discrimination in your targets. And good luck.Oh no question, my wife and children are the only atheists in two very large extended Mormon families. I don't make it a point to discuss my beliefs with anyone unless they are interested in discussing them. I don't see myself as a savior or missionary to the believers. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. But to those who want to engage in discussion I'm happy to discuss and or debate. I don't shrug my shoulders and walk away but I go into the discussion with eyes open. I know that the chance of success is low.

Good points.

[UndercoverElephant]

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith.


Because the extremists on the atheist side of the debate think that belief in God is disastrous for humanity.


I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset, and that although either of these is changeable, the process of evoking change is a little more subtle than just pitting one against the other.


I suspect you are right.


So from a rational standpoint, the situation at hand is that the schism between reason and faith appears to be insurmountable using our current methods.


Only in the western world. The Chinese and Indians never ended up in this mess because they didn't invent western theology and they didn't invent western science.


Assuming that humanity isn't doomed to rehash the same arguments for the next two to three millennia (a serious assumption, to be sure, but let's work from it, just for fun and because the alternative sucks), can new methods be proposed?


New methods of what? Debate?

[UndercoverElephant]

I was a Mormon missionary. I grew up in the Mormon church and was a true believer. One event in my life that led me to atheism was a debate with an atheist. It was more like a discussion. He was extremely patient with me and very disarming. He asked me some very good questions and in a tone and manner that lacked any condescension explained to me some basic facts.

I'm glad he out-reasoned me.

It can happen.

ETA: Damn why can't I be like him?

I think if you are ever going to convince somebody to change their belief system you first have to show them that you really do understand the belief system they currently hold. The most extreme scientistic atheists and the most extreme religious fundamentalists spend their entire time talking past each other. They try to argue with each other but each is taking a different set of assumptions to the debate and each has a rather simplistic understanding of the others position. It is all too easy to see the holes in other people's belief systems. It is very hard to see the holes in your own. This problem is particularly acute for the scientistic folks, who more often than not will emphatically deny that they have any beliefs at all. At least the religious fundamentalists recognise that their belief system hinges on faith.

[scimystic]

Thank you! Well, when I speak of "objective reality," I'm talking about the reality of observable empirical phenomena. When I speak of "subjective reality," I mean those phenomena which are clearly real but not provable empirically. And the only two I can think of (but what a two they are) are emotions and thoughts. I mean that if I'm thinking of an apple, then the reality is that I'm thinking of an apple. But as real as it is, there's no way to prove it objectively.*

Obviously, phenomena on the subjective plane can't be subject to scientific inquiry. Which of course means it's a convenient place for me to keep God. ;) It would be fair for me to disclose now that I do believe in God, that I have no problems with Him existing beyond the realm of the empirically definable, and that to get further into it here would take us beyond the realm of this thread. I did mention "subjective reality" in my original post just to see if it got a reaction, and I would now move that that comment and all comments relating to it be stricken from the record, so as not to distract from the topic of discussion. I would be more than happy to discuss it later, but it's hard enough to stay on point on the Web as it is.



Oh, no, I would totally agree with you about the weird and counterintuitive. Here's a quote I have loved since I ran across it a year or so ago, from someone who knew from logic:

"In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feelings, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."

Anyway, I am concerned that at times the scientific method is used to dismiss things where it has no bearing.** I mean, I'm no theologian, but I've devoted a big chunk of my whole life, even since I was a kid, to thinking about religion. I've tried to think as critically as possible, and to run things by critical thinkers I trust; and I cannot help but conclude that there may be more Out There, and while there also may not, that it's not the place of science to say, "No, not possible" (and not just in the case of religion, but any case).

It is of course the place of science to say, "That seems highly unlikely, given what we know." But that's a small but enormous distinction.



I will check it out, Keith. Actually, I feel a little foolish, because I started this thread last night, and in about six hours I'll be on a plane that will take me to a cabin in the middle of the woods, where for a week I'll be without online access. It's going to be great, but I completely apologize to everyone who reads this thread for dropping out immediately after it started to get good. I just completely spaced. I will, however, be talking to you all again, I hope.

*At least not yet.
**At least not yet.


Sounds like bliss. Have a good time there, and contact me when you get back. I had not realized from your initial post here that you are religious. I would say that I am too, but in such an attenuated sense that I doubt it would qualify under most people's understanding of the term. It seems to me to be a lot closer to Zen and Taoism then to any of our western theisms. Plenty to say on this, but let us talk when you return.

BR,

Keith

[UndercoverElephant]

Thank you! Well, when I speak of "objective reality," I'm talking about the reality of observable empirical phenomena. When I speak of "subjective reality," I mean those phenomena which are clearly real but not provable empirically.


The most extreme scientistic atheists deny any such phenomena are real. Minds don't exist.


Obviously, phenomena on the subjective plane can't be subject to scientific inquiry.


It's obvious to me, but I've been here for several years and some people still don't seem to understand this basic fact. It's not that it hasn't been explained. Science/materialism has no idea how to deal with subjectivity, which isn't very surprising when you consider that science is a deliberate attempt to eliminate subjectivity.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think many if not most all believers have seeds of doubt.

Do you think Kevin Lowe has a seed of doubt regarding whether or not physicalism is true? :D

[chriswl]

I think you just claimed to be sure of the nonexistence of something, which is still not allowed, unless something changed and I didn't get the email. Watch yo'self! :)
No, no there are lots of things that don't exist. For sure.

[ceo_esq]

Though not a "person of faith", I think some questionable assumptions have been brought forth in this thread. First, the notion of a "schism" between science and religion generally is almost certainly false. Second, the notion of some fundamental incompatibility between reason and faith seems difficult to maintain in the light of the course of western philosophy, at least from the Scholastics onward.

[UndercoverElephant]

First, the notion of a "schism" between science and religion generally is almost certainly false.


So what was that business with Galileo and Catholicism then?

[Foster Zygote]

[QUOTE=infornography;1740202]The problem arose when I discovered that some (actually most) of the people I completely converted resented it. I had dispelled their beutiful fantasy and now they had no crutch with which to handle several of their emotional problems.QUOTE]

I hardly think you are to blame for their misery. If they've come to believe that the truth is something other than what they've previously thought then their failure to find wonder and beauty in the universe is their own fault. I find that most believers have the notion that atheists are bitter, angry people as though religion truly is the only source of happiness. Let's call it the Argument From Touched By An Angel. They seem to confuse skepticism with cynicism. One of the first writers to illuminate the issue for me when I was a young Christian was Carl Sagan. I was struck by his sense of wonder and joy at the universe that scientific inquiry had revealed to him and I realized that the things my religious mentors had told me about "atheists and secular humanists", the "bad guys" of their world, were untrue. They were just making straw men for their flocks. Now I make it a point never to be an 'evangelist for atheism'. I simply don't bring it up. If someone asks I simply say "I'm an atheist" and if they want to leave it at that I let them. On occasion people have given me dirty looks and walked away. One woman said "Your kind should be locked up like the sodomites and evolutionists!" (I live near Bob Jones University) but that was a unique incident. Many are shocked and want to know why I don't believe in the obvious "one true god" and in that case I'm certainly willing to discuss it but I warn them that It's not something I can elaborate in a couple of minutes. Some have sought to "witness" to me about the "true faith" which usually ends in their extreme frustration (I tried to warn them) and on a couple of occasions someone has said that our discussion has made them consider things they've never thought of before. I suggest when we discuss matters of religion with such people we make sure to emphasize that wonder, joy and love need not be abandoned with their old religious beliefs.

Steven

[joller]

we can demonstrate that the brain is one's consciousness;
I find that subject fascinating.
Could you point me to recent threads on this forum dealing with that subject, or some well regarded literature I could have a look at?
It would be greatly appreciated.

[UndercoverElephant]

I find that subject fascinating.
Could you point me to recent threads on this forum dealing with that subject, or some well regarded literature I could have a look at?
It would be greatly appreciated.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57934

[ceo_esq]

First, the notion of a "schism" between science and religion generally is almost certainly false.
So what was that business with Galileo and Catholicism then?

Even if "that business" actually constituted an instance of genuine conflict between science and religion, which is by no means the consensus among historians, it would hardly be enough to establish a general schism between science and religion. Despite its notoriety, the Galileo affair involved, in fairness, just one particular religion at one particular time over one particular controversy. It's not a very representative sample of the overall relationship between religion and science. It's not even typical of the historical relationship between Catholicism and Copernican astronomy, when you think about it.

Cambridge science historian Colin Russell said it far better than I in his article "The Conflict of Science and Religion", published in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 2000):

The history of science has often been regarded as a series of conflicts between science and religion (usually Christianity), of which the cases of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Charles Darwin (1809-82) are merely the most celebrated examples. ... Such a view of the relations between science and religion has been variously described as a "conflict thesis," a "military metaphor," or simply a "warfare model."

The considerable literature on this subject began with two famous works of the nineteenth century: John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). ... For nearly a century, the notion of mutual hostility (the Draper-White thesis) has been routinely employed in popular science writing, by the media, and in a few older histories of science. Deeply embedded in the culture of the West, it has proven extremely hard to dislodge. Only in the last thirty years of the twentieth century have historians of science mounted a sustained attack on the thesis and only gradually has a wider public begun to recognize its deficiencies. ...

The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensitive and realistic historiography of Western science. ... The shortcomings of the conflict thesis arise from a multiplicity of reasons, some of which may be briefly summarized as follows.

First, the conflict thesis hinders the recognition of other relationships between science and religion. At different phases of their history, they were not so much at war as largely independent, mutually encouraging, or even symbiotic. Certainly there are well-documented cases, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, in which science and religion seemed to wage open war with each other. But recent scholarship has demonstrated the complexity of the issues at stake in even these cases, with ecclesiastical politics, social change, and personal circumstances as relevant as questions of science and religion. Quite apart from those considerations, such cases have been too often taken as typical, and, consequently, a generalized conflict thesis has been erected on insubstantial grounds. ...

Second, and more specific, the conflict thesis ignores the many documented examples of science and religion operating in close alliance. ...

Third, the conflict thesis enshrines a flawed view of history in which "progress" or (in this case) "victory" has been portrayed as inevitable. There appears to be no inherent reason why this should be so, though it is readily understandable why some should wish it to be the case. This approach represents and embraces a long demolished tradition of positivist, Whiggish historiography.

Fourth, the conflict thesis obscures the rich diversity of ideas in both science and religion. Neither of these has ever been monolithic, and there was seldom a unified reaction from either. ...

Fifth, the conflict thesis engenders a distorted view of disputes resulting from other causes than those of religion versus science. Given this expectation, conflict is not difficult to find in every circumstance, whether or not justified by the available historical evidence. ...

Finally, the conflict thesis exalts minor squabbles, or even differences of opinion, to the status of major conflicts. ...

Given then, that the warfare model is so inaccurate, one may wonder why it has lasted so long. This is, indeed, a major question for historians. The explanation may lie at least partly in the celebrated controversy of Huxley and his friends with the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. By establishing the conflict thesis, they could perpetuate a myth as part of their strategy to enhance the public appreciation of science. ... The Huxleyite warriors were outstandingly successful in this respect, and their ideals were enshrined in the works of Draper and White, best understood as polemical tracts that advanced the same cause. Yet, Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact, that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship.

...

The remarkable thing about the whole conflict thesis is how readily the Victorian propaganda in all of its varied forms has become unconsciously assimilated as part of the received wisdom of our own day. However, it is salutary to note that serious historical scholarship has revealed the conflict thesis as, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a deception.

[UndercoverElephant]

Even if "that business" actually constituted an instance of genuine conflict between science and religion, which is by no means the consensus among historians, it would hardly be enough to establish a general schism between science and religion. Despite its notoriety, the Galileo affair involved, in fairness, just one particular religion at one particular time over one particular controversy. It's not a very representative sample of the overall relationship between religion and science.


Sure, the schism is a western schism. It never applied to the Indians and Chinese. But that is because the Indians and Chinese never invented western theology or western science.

There need be no schism. The schism is maintained by extremists on both sides of the fence, some of whom inhabit the JREF. It's maintained because both sets of extremists want to maintain it.

[lolurigeller]

Science/materialism has no idea how to deal with subjectivity, which isn't very surprising when you consider that science is a deliberate attempt to eliminate subjectivity.

True it can't deal with and account for all phenomena completely but science has it place since it can observe and explain it in a provable physically empirical view.

So if someone is having a religious or spiritual experience then there is a physical thing happening inside the brain of the person causing that experience, that much is true and you can make an assertion that it is the sole factor in A(x) the universe of all known phenoma. However to make an assertion that it is the only factor that accounts for A(x) the universe of all phenomena is a leap of faith.

If you do pursue the path of converting the heathen believers, I highly reccomend discrimination in your targets. And good luck.

It is better to have people come to that position through their own intelligence and innate intuition, instead of forcible conversion and persuasion, because if they are persuaded they are in effect the same believers as they were before. No difference.

[ceo_esq]

Sure, the schism is a western schism. It never applied to the Indians and Chinese. But that is because the Indians and Chinese never invented western theology or western science.

A number of historians and philosophers of science have argued that the Indians and Chinese never developed science in the Western sense partly because they had non-Western theologies.


There need be no schism. The schism is maintained by extremists on both sides of the fence, some of whom inhabit the JREF. It's maintained because both sets of extremists want to maintain it.

Well put.

[chriswl]

I don't know if I'd call it a schism, but there is a pretty clear dividing line between those who believe in supernatural entities and those who don't. You don't have to be any kind of extremist to see that.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't know if I'd call it a schism, but there is a pretty clear dividing line between those who believe in supernatural entities and those who don't. You don't have to be any kind of extremist to see that.

Where am I on your scale?

[chriswl]

Where am I on your scale?
I don't know. The question is, do you?

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't know. The question is, do you?

Yes. I'm in the middle, always. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

This thread is called "Reconciling reason and faith." There is one book in particular that I'd like to recomend to anyone interested in this subject:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195132076/102-9554836-1636137?v=glance&n=283155


Book Description

This book takes a bold new look at ways of exploring the nature, origins, and potentials of consciousness within the context of science and religion. Alan Wallace draws careful distinctions between four elements of the scientific tradition: science itself, scientific realism, scientific materialism, and scientism. Arguing that the metaphysical doctrine of scientific materialism has taken on the role of ersatz-religion for its adherents, he traces its development from its Greek and Judeo-Christian origins, focusing on the interrelation between the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. He looks at scientists' long term resistance to the firsthand study of consciousness and details the ways in which subjectivity has been deemed taboo within the scientific community. In conclusion, Wallace draws on William James's idea for a "science of religion" that would study the nature of religious and, in particular, contemplative experience.

In exploring the nature of consciousness, this groundbreaking study will help to bridge the chasm between religious belief and scientific knowledge. It is essential reading for philosophers and historians of science, scholars of religion, and anyone interested in the relationship between science and religion.


Anyone who responded to this thread because of its title will enjoy this book.

For anyone from the R&P board who knows who the Churchlands are, the author of this book teaches interdisciplinary studies at the same University where Paul Churchland is professor of cognitive science.

[Yahzi]

It's almost like, if there were a God, then His objective existence would be intrinsically impossible to demonstrate; and if there weren't, then His nonexistence would be equally intrinsically impossible to demonstrate (because anything's nonexistence would be).
If the existance of something is indistinguishable from it's non-existance, then we say that thing does not exist. This is called Reason.

The only reason the debate has continued so long is because one side simply rejects Reason, and holds out for the truth of their claim regardless of all logic, evidence, or reason.

What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks,
Because it is preferable to slamming their head into a brick wall.

Eventually, of course, they run into the wall anyway, regardless of what we say. But that is no reason to stop trying.

I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset,
This betrays a deep misunderstanding of science and human nature.

Science is a tight-rope walk; a constant effort to hold what we want to be true to the test of what is true. It is not ingrained, and indeed people fall away from it all the time.

Religion, on the other hand, is where one falls to when one falls off the tight-rope: to the world where things are true because you want them to be true.

So from a rational standpoint, the situation at hand is that the schism between reason and faith appears to be insurmountable using our current methods.
Only because we are not allowed to make people suffer the consequences of not growing up.

can new methods be proposed?
Yes. Let's call a spade a spade; let's stop letting the "nice" ones slide while they are empowering the bad ones. See Sam Harris for more.

And do those who would say they're on the side of reason need to improve their understanding of matters of faith if they want to elevate the debate?
I understand the Christian faith better than the vast majority of Christians I talk to. It doesn't actually seem to help. :)

And to be fair, if God is real, He may very well inhabit the realm of subjective reality, rather than objective reality.
To inhabit the realm of subjective reality, rather than objective reality, is to not be real.

What did you think "not real" meant, if not that?