Faith, Religion and Atheism
Nov. 22nd, 2005 12:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
yrieithydd![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cartesiandaemon and I appear to be having TGGD in comments on other people's journals. This seems unfair the owners of those journals, especially the_alchemist as her post was about vegetarian food in India, but to an extent to mr_ricarno even though it is rather more relevant to his post on a debate on the place of faith in national life, so I thought I'd bring the comments and response together on my own journal!purplepiano wrote:I know it's more fashionable these days to define people by positives, but "non-meat-eater" would be more precise.
To which
cartesiandaemon responded:
That's an interesting thought. Suddenly, I want to compare my being atheist with being vegetarian. Both are things I don't do. Both I feel should naturally be the default and in theory everyone should do it, and the omnivores and theists should be the exception[1]. But I hadn't quite thought of vegetarian like that.
So I said
and also many other things for which I think there is no evidence,
That sounds to me more like agnosticism than atheism per se!
omnivores and theists should be the exception
Historically that makes no sense as I'd say that omnivores and theists have tended to be in the majority! But we probably should argue this on a post about vegetarian food!
So
cartesiandaemon responded:Like my other comment, perhaps a matter of insufficient definition. For the record, I think:
* There is no evidence that a God exists.
* In the absense of evidence, I assume something isn't there.
* In theory, if there was good evidence, I would change my mind, but I really don't expect this to happen.
* Most people would call this position "atheist" though a lot would say "agnostic"
Historically that makes no sense as I'd say that omnivores and theists have tended to be in the majority! But we probably should argue this on a post about vegetarian food!
I even put in a footnote trying to disclaim this. It's not important, it might not apply here really, though there have been complete changes in society I hope we can keep even though the other way used to be universal.
In response to
mr_ricarno's faithworks post, cartesiandaemon wrote:I would agree with most of that, but inevitably repsond to that which I don't:
I was somewhat disagreed with about the difference between factual and moral beliefs. I couldn't explain well the difference. And I don't know exactly what constitutes secular humanism. But I feel I may disagree with her humanism being a faith.
On some level all things I think are believed. But I think there may be a difference between things I strive toward, things I observe in life, and things that have worked so far and I make a leap of faith to assume will continue to be so.
Which caused me to opine:
But I feel I may disagree with her humanism being a faith.
Why? Where does `our right to be individuals,' to come from? It's not something which has been held by all societies everywhere. Why is she more right than Professor Weston in Out of the Silent Planet* who thinks that individuals can be sacrificed to the greater good of ensuring the continuance of Life?
*The first of C.S. Lewis' Sci-Fi trilogy which I re-read last night!
On some level all things I think are believed. But I think there may be a difference between things I strive toward, things I observe in life, and things that have worked so far and I make a leap of faith to assume will continue to be so.
Yes, and? That's true for me as a Christian too.
to which
cartesiandaemon replied:I've rewritten this about ten times trying to be succinct, and I'm not sure I'm correct.
* I'm not saying her humanism is correct (nor that she wasn't obnoxious).
* I think faith can mean different things. I suspect the people in the debate didn't have a clear common definition which didn't help.
* I think a common meaning would be the same as religion.
* By common usage, a number of morals don't count as a religion, and I think she thinks her opinion there fit into this category.
* I can't define religion well, but claiming something that isn't, is, has a number of connotations that could be aggravating to anyone, but I don't understand enough to discuss in a bullet point.
So, I quoth (drawing in his other comment):
I think a common meaning would be the same as religion.
Maybe this is where the problem is. A) what is a religion? b) is it synonymous with faith? Yes there is overlap, but I think religion implies worship which does not make sense in the case of atheism. They are also tied up with the question of worldviews and basic assumptions. What bugs me about the Toynbees and Dawkinses of this world is that they do what they accuse their opponents of doing and do not/cannot/will not see this. We all have basic axioms about the world which are prior to evidence. Logically, agnosticism is the only position, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God (which is part of why I was objecting to your vegetarian/atheism should be the norm comment on
I think I'm going to put these comments together into a post on my journal rather than cluttering up other people's comments!
[ET attribute the first quote to the right person]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 12:44 pm (UTC)Stuff like ice floating always puts me in mind of an analogy by Douglas Adams of a puddle on the ground thinking. "Isn't it amazing how this hole is exactly the right shape to fit me? In fact, it's such an exact fit, it must have been designed for me."
And then there's simply the fact that, if the universe wasn't of a sort that could generate conscious beings like us, we simply wouldn't be here to be amazed at the fact that it does.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 01:26 pm (UTC)But if you look at the physics of it the tolerances on very many things are quite small... if this or that physical constant was slightly different we wouldn't be here. Not that there would be a conscious someone/something else in our place, but there wouldn't be a place for them to be at all. Now maybe there is an infinity of parallel universes that encompass every possible variation of every possible parameter that has ever existed (which logically would mean that every combination of every step of radioactive decay, Brownian motion or quantum state had its own separate universe) but I'm not aware of any evidence for that beyond hypothesis. And if such did exist, how do I end up in this universe rather than that universe where my life turns out differently?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 02:32 pm (UTC)I will leave aside the question of if the universe is that precicely tuned or not, and find the traditional next line on the philosophical side.
(a) If the argument is "The universe being just right for us is very unlikely, it seems more plausible it was designed like that," then how does that help, for you're changing the "it just happened" clause from "right conditions for us to exist" to "right conditions for God to exist", why is the second more likely, rather than just not known?
(b) Can you even compare probabilities of one-off events? Our intuition is *extremely* suspect for that.
(c) I exist. It was astronomically unlikely my exact sperm and egg met. Does that mean it was meant? Does it make a difference if the alternative is something like me, or something entirely different?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 05:42 pm (UTC)It's true that there's no evidence for that or for parallel universes (at least that I'm aware of), but they seem like equally valid explanations as God is.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:27 am (UTC)Except I'd say that there is evidence for/of God, especially, from a Christian POV God's self-revelation, to Israel and supremely in Jesus.
The God hypothesis is also much older than the parallel/series universe/multiverse. I'm not sure whether that is admissible as evidence though.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:04 pm (UTC)Indeed. One of the major factors that caused me to become a Christian was reading a book by a non-Christian that sat down and examined all the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ (gospels, Roman writers, archaeology etc) using best historical practice (looking at bias of sources etc). And I came to the conclusion that it actually did happen.
So if Christ was resurrected as he said he would, then it has to be taken seriously. And if he wasn't then everything that has been Christianity for the last two thousand years is utterly futile. Possibly even dangerous. Either Christians have the truth or they're supremely misguided - I don't see any middle path here.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-27 12:27 am (UTC)How did you guess the book? Have you read it? What did you think?
no subject
Date: 2008-12-27 10:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-27 10:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-27 10:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-27 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 11:21 am (UTC)I agree responding to an old comment can seem slightly odd, but I find it the most reasonable way of saying something about it.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-06 11:27 am (UTC)It turned up in the form room at school in sixth-form, no-one knew from where, and hung around until it got lamentably trodden on. We read the beginning, but no-one there was inclined to take it seriously, I'm afraid.
At the time, my reaction was being sure that the evidence would turn out to not be convincing, but not being bothered enough to research it myself. It being such an important question I should make a positive decision myself (or at least get opinions from a Hebrew/history scholar I trust), but it will probably be a long time before I do, if ever.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 01:30 pm (UTC)I know these are not absolutely conclusive proofs for God's existence, that is what I was hoping to imply with the distinction between `evidence of' and `evidence for'. I am not convinced one can create a case of evidence for the existence of God which would stand up in court as it were, but I do not think that is how God works. But I will also say that I am incapable of proving that I am not in the Matrix, or even that I could prove that someone was my friend logically.
I believe that the Christian story makes sense of the world in a way that other things don't. It's not that I believe in God in the abstract, but in the God who reveals himself in Christ.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 05:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:24 am (UTC)The point, AIUI, is that life as we know it wouldn't exist if ice didn't float and that H2O is unusual (unique?) in having a solid form which is less dense than its liquid form.
Definition of faith
Date: 2005-11-22 02:09 pm (UTC)Does our aknowledgement of differing definitions of "faith" resolve our disagreement about whether or not her humanism would be one? And why it might be annoying to for people to use it in what you thought was incorrectly (regardless of to what extent religions and um, non-God moral systems, are equally prior axioms or not, which I will move on to).
Re: Definition of faith
Date: 2005-11-23 12:30 am (UTC)If you take faith to equal religion and religion to include certain things (like worship or irrationality)* then yes. But I would argue that denying that humanism is a faith position is the one which is using the terminology incorrectly and so it is annoying of Toynbee to deny that it is a faith position!
*I'm not saying you think that, but I suspect that some people here faith and/or religion and think that it means something like `believing seven impossible things before breakfast.
Re: Definition of faith
Date: 2005-11-23 11:17 am (UTC)Or perhaps: how would *you* define faith?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 02:40 pm (UTC)This is intimately related to the proof for God, because if A and B differ as to if God is obviously true, they will also differ as to whether beliefs with God are a priori or logical or what, which makes this answers to this question easy to misinterpret.
It doesn't seem there is a good definition of religion. We work by gut feeling. But I think things involved include:
* worhsip, or some sense of "this is how to run your life"
* organised (though here we're thinking more about personal religions)
* ritual (again, not so much here)
* supernatural (see A and B comment, but you know what I mean)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 02:57 pm (UTC)I'll reply more fully later, but worship and `how to run your life' (or morality) are two distinct things.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:48 am (UTC)Not A Faith in the sense of a Religion (I.e. Islam is one of the great world Faiths), but that faith/belief was involved in being a secular humanist.
Do you mean, in holding any position whatsoever, or in being a humanist specifically?
Part of this for me is the point about unproveable axioms. What's the relevant bit of Maths? The one about all systems having unproveable axioms?
I think axioms are naturally unprovable[1], that's what an axiom is, but that they tend to be so basic everyone thinks they *must* be true.
What we're thinking of is Godel's theorem, that in any conception of mathematics, or logic, or other system[2], there must be true statements unprovable within that system.
[1] Maths pedantry: I mean, assuming you count rules of inference as axioms, and don't have redundant axioms, then the axioms can't be proved except by assuming themselves.
[2] More maths pedantry: assuming the system can express sufficiently complicated concepts, like additon, equals, and thereforality.
(frozen) no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:48 am (UTC)The original point was She made the case that secular humanism is indeed a form of faith:
Not A Faith in the sense of a Religion (I.e. Islam is one of the great world Faiths), but that faith/belief was involved in being a secular humanist.
Part of this for me is the point about unproveable axioms. What's the relevant bit of Maths? The one about all systems having unproveable axioms?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 01:05 am (UTC)I would wibble and ask people to define their terms and not use them unless I knew how they would be taken...
Not A Faith in the sense of a Religion (I.e. Islam is one of the great world Faiths), but that faith/belief was involved in being a secular humanist.
Do you mean, in holding any position whatsoever, or in being a humanist specifically?
Part of this for me is the point about unproveable axioms. What's the relevant bit of Maths? The one about all systems having unproveable axioms?
I think axioms are naturally unprovable[1], that's what an axiom is, but that they tend to be so basic everyone thinks they *must* be true.
What we're thinking of is Godel's theorem, that in any conception of mathematics, or logic, or other system[2], there must be true statements unprovable within that system.
[1] Maths pedantry: I mean, assuming you count rules of inference as axioms, and don't have redundant axioms, then the axioms can't be proved except by assuming themselves.
[2] More maths pedantry: assuming the system can express sufficiently complicated concepts, like additon, equals, and thereforality.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-27 04:51 pm (UTC)Do you mean, in holding any position whatsoever, or in being a humanist specifically?
Holding any position whatsoever. Everyone has a worldview but as in Godel's theorem bits are unproveable from within.
It is not something on which a neutral position can be taken (and claiming one is actually making a statement).
It's like saying that all religions should be taught as equal. That only works if you believe that religion is really true and important!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 02:53 pm (UTC)A very very long previous debate can be summed up something like "We may disagree on how the world *is* or how it *ought* to be."
I think there's a difference between saying "red squirrels are extinct" and "even if it doesn't make any difference to anything else, we should preserve the red squirrel species". (Coming up is what I was driving at with the "difference between" line).
The first is a matter of fact. If we mutually accept the evidence of our eyes and ears[1] this is just stupid, we can show you they're not extinct.
However, the second is *necessarily* an assumption. You can't prove it someone unless they happen to share it, or a related assumption (eg. "preserve knowledge for knowledge's sake").
I don't think you can say that someone crusading to reduce and make common the first sort of assumption is hypocritical for accepting personal assumptions of the second sort.
However, this is complicated by the fact that some people think God is something you believe without evidence (a bit like the first red squirrel, except (a) it would be true and (b) no contrary evidence), and others think there is evidence for god (my response coming up in a moment), and some think God is an assumption of the second sort, so they all disagree about what sort of assumption. But this is where I'm starting from when I say things like that.
[1] Some people don't. Eg. Neo and Descartes. But assume both people in this paragraph do.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:47 am (UTC)But, in religion/faith terms some of the underlying assumptions of the second sort come out of the factual beliefs. I.e. saying `all people are made in the image of God and are loved by him and thus should not be tortured' comes out of belief that God exists and created the world and us in his image which I would say are of the sort of red squirrels existing. Either it is true for everyone or it is not true for anyone. I cannot say `red squirrels* exist for me even if they don't for you'. Whereas for a secular humanist, who might well say `there are no moral absolutes, and we should all do what seems right to us'**, to say `torture is wrong' there is a problem of justifying it.
I am also not quite sure whether in arguing that secular humanism was a form of faith, Elaine Storkey was talking about moral issues, or the fact that atheism is a faith position. Logic can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so both theism and atheism involve faith.
However, this is complicated by the fact that some people think God is something you believe without evidence
Does anyone who believes in God think that they believe in him/her/it without evidence? Or is this a position taken up by those who do not think there is (conclusive/compelling) evidence for God's existence?
*I like the use of red squirrels in this, because I've seen them (and even had them nearly eating out of my hands!)
**I can't remember whether Polly Toynbee is a relativist!
(my response coming up in a moment),
A long moment!
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:50 am (UTC)I've had more protracted debates ;)
And I don't know why I picked squirrels. I just thought it was cute, I guess. And tried to think of a statement everyone could see both sides of.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 12:55 am (UTC)What do you mean? Do you just mean it stems from a more general moral than one about red squirrels specifically, or something more?
I.e. saying `all people are made in the image of God and are loved by him and thus should not be tortured' comes out of belief that God exists and created the world and us in his image
But why does "God made us and loves us" imply "torture is wrong"? I mean, *I* might agree with the inference, but I think there is another assumption there of the *looks up* second sort bridging the gap -- one we think is obvious, but might be refused by a psychopath, or a fallen angel, or a libertarian.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-27 05:02 pm (UTC)What do you mean? Do you just mean it stems from a more general moral than one about red squirrels specifically, or something more?
IIRC, my point was that `red squirrels should be preserved' is a statement not an assumption, but that it involves/relies on assumptions about what is worthwhile etc.
But why does "God made us and loves us" imply "torture is wrong"? I mean, *I* might agree with the inference, but I think there is another assumption there of the *looks up* second sort bridging the gap -- one we think is obvious, but might be refused by a psychopath, or a fallen angel, or a libertarian.
Aah, I appear to have missed stages out and apparently am arguing an ought from an is and thus contradicting my agreement with you!
I'll try again.
The sort of beliefs about unprovable factual statements one holds (e.g. Does God exist or not exist?) has an impact on the sort of assumptions one is like to make in the second sort of statements (about preserving squirrels/knowledge for their own sake).
So, someone who holds that God is love and the creator of the world and that he made us in is image, may well then infer/assume (and I believe that Christianity teaches) that thus we should treat all people well and not torture them.
Whereas, if someone believes that God does not exist and that `there are no absolutes' but who still things that torture is wrong has much less basis for the assumption involved in saying that torture is wrong.
Does that make more sense?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 01:00 am (UTC)Indeed. It's quite possible she meant more one, and Polly heard more the other, though they are inextricably related.
Logic can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, so both theism and atheism involve faith.
Again, do you mean this applies to everything, or to God specifically? Lacking words, I would say "I disbelieve in God the way I disbelieve in flying saucers"[1]. I don't know whether or not you would call thinking flying saucers haven't visited earth a faith position.
[1] I know you disagree with this, and think there *is* good evidence for God, but this way our disagreement is clear, rather than being confused by the word "faith" being used in different ways.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 01:02 am (UTC)AFAIK, some christians think there is insufficient or no evidence for God, and their faith is a leap of trust. Atheists almost all think there is little or no evidence, and hence tthink that christians believe in God in defiance of that. I have no figures on how many atheists think how many christians think there is no evidence :)