I haven’t written any posts in awhile, partly because I have been having a long debate with someone on another blog post, in the comments, about the conflict between Religion and Science, which has gravitated, as usual, to the existence of god. This is as it should be. It is where atheist/theist debates should properly end up. One can talk about the merits of religion, or the
efficacy of religious belief, or the overwhelming preponderance of theists in the world, but ultimately none of it means anything in the debate until you’ve resolved the TRUTH of religion – i.e. does god exist. If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth. It should be obvious. The fact that there isn’t even something close to human consensus gives the lie to the proposition.
If he doesn’t, then it really doesn’t matter whether the religious give more to charity, or are more moral (a subjective opinion, anyway), or are in the majority in the world, or create great art and music and literature, because the reasons for doing so are not bottomed on the existence of a supernatural being, but on the belief in the existence of that being.You can’t give credit to the being believed in, unless that being actually exists, any more than you can give Snoopy credit for shooting down the Red Baron, no matter how fervently you believe he did. And if that’s the case, then all of those results of religion are human based, and credit should go to the human spirit that embodies those things, not to some divine entity that created us as his little playthings.
What got me writing today was a remark by PZ Myers on a broadcast of an interview with Minnesota Public Radio that he posted yesterday. He said, well…here is part of the transcript, a response to a question from the audience:
Debra: Yes. My name is Debra. I’m from Minneapolis. I’m wondering what you think the future of religion is, both in this country and around the world. It seems like there’s this growing religious fervor whenever I read the news or see things, and so I’m wondering if you think it’s something that will grow or kind of fizzle out.
Myers: I think we’re in the middle of a serious backlash right now, that the fundamentalist religions are really in fear of the changes happening. This is a reaction against modernity. The world is changing, right? And one thing you know about fundamentalist religions is they don’t like change, so they’re getting very, very upset about this. But I think the path of history is going to go against them. That we’re seeing the American public, for instance, shifting very rapidly on issues that were considered very important to the evangelical Christians, like gay marriage. You know, a majority now supports this. The more they rail against us, I think the more people are seeing them as an alienating force in society.
So I think they are going to fade away.
Knowledge is empowering. Ignorance and fear are used to take away power. The history of civilization has been the history of the continuing accumulation of knowledge about the reality of the world around us. Science has played a very large role in the accumulation of that knowledge, with the scientific method predominating in all disciplines of inquiry. Another way of putting this is that the more we know, the more intelligent we get.
I understand and accept that religion was a useful mode of inquiry when there was nothing else, back when we were primitive, unsophisticated, uneducated humans and didn’t know better. Religion conveniently placed-marked those areas of reality we had no capability of understanding, until we advanced to a better method of understanding. That place marker was the supernatural – gods – conveniently contrived to explain the unexplainable in nature.
But since we discovered the usefulness and truth-rendering ability of science, religion has been pushed father and farther into the background of our collective intelligence, to the point that only those with a stake in the continuation of the influence of religion continue to rely on it. Anyone else with even a modicum of critical thinking abilities rejects religion, in favor of science.
This doesn’t mean that everyone is going to reject religion, because as a function of human development, superstition is hard to shake. We don’t know everything, and as long as the fear of the unknown exists, we’ll always have superstition, and hence we’ll always have religion. I liked Myers description:
Anyway, they asked me the same question and my answer there was, I think, as science progresses that we’re going to slowly move away from this kind of religion. That I think what will happen is it won’t go away ever, because people do find consolation in tradition and ritual and they find happiness in the traditions of the forebears. And so, yeah, it’ll stick around, but it will acquire a more proper place in our lives. And the comparison I made in that movie is I said that religion will become like knitting, that it will be something that people will do and nobody will be condemned for it. It will be regarded as a pleasant hobby and a good thing for some people to do. It keeps them occupied and it’s intellectually interesting, all that kind of good stuff.
Everyone needs a hobby, and if one finds it intellectually stimulating to ponder the what-ifs of religion, then knock yourself out. Please don’t insist, however, that I take up your hobby.
I do think it’s much ado about nothing to worry too much about what the Christian Right is doing to this country. In the short run, yes, but in the long run, I think the country will grow up enough to see the silliness of religious belief. As evidence for this, first, we have the precedent of other, older First World countries doing just that. European countries are far less religious that we are in America at the present, at least overtly. But we are a young country, with growing pains yet to be experienced.
Second, indications are that the Christian right is simply a vocal minority, with a voice that sounds more like a death rattle than an exclamation of might or right. They make a lot of noise, with much flame but little heat, if I’m permitted to mix a few metaphors. The great vast middle of America doesn’t buy much of what they are selling. Many of the social issues that comprise the broth of their soup are religiously based – like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. But poll after poll indicates that while they can mobilize to create controversy, Middle America doesn’t agree with them.
Take abortion. Despite almost 40 years of constant objections to abortion, trying to elect politicians and judges with their mindset, influencing or enacting legislation to restrict the right to abortion, and other means of intimidating abortion providers and recipients (including outright murder and terrorism) the majority of Americans still think that abortion should be legal. They have failed to convince us.
Take Gay marriage. There was a time when homosexuality was considered 
a loathsome disease. Now it’s pretty much accepted by most Americans. Only the hard core religious seriously object to it. This is because we have become educated to the fact that a sizable minority of Americans are, in fact, gay; that it is not contagious; and that there is no “agenda” to homo-sexualize our children. In short, as we’ve become more knowledgeable on the subject, the demonization created by religious dogma is supplanted in favor of intelligence and tolerance.
So yes, we have to tolerate a short term response to secularism and non-religion in this country, before we are able to break the bonds of magical thinking. All we are experiencing is a bit of backlash to the counterculture changes of the last 50 years, almost all of which, by their very nature, shake religion to its core. The so-called sexual revolution, gay rights, science supplanting religion in the schools, the list is all encompassing, and very threatening to the hegemony of religion, so it’s natural to see religion, as a meme, fight back.
But it is a fight religion will lose. Collective human intelligence will override superstition, fear and ignorance, because it always has.
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
Take abortion. Despite almost 40 years of constant objections to abortion… the majority of Americans still think that abortion should be legal. They have failed to convince us.
Yeah, but the anti-choice movement has seriously eroded abortion rights in a number of states, such as South Dakota. Texas recently passed a law requiring women to see an ultrasound of the fetus before getting an abortion. State legislatures are seeing numerous bills designed to either chip away at abortion rights or otherwise harass women seeking abortions in a blatant attempt to dissuade them, such as the ultrasound requirements or mandating that they first go to a crisis pregnancy center (read: anti-abortion propaganda center).
You also have to remember that movements can take decades to achieve success. For example, one movement you and I both see as a positive one was the womens suffrage movement. It took the better part of a century before the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920. In the years before that, women got the vote in a few states, which helped pave the way.
I have mixed feelings on the Myers statement: “I think they are going to fade away.”
You covered a lot of it, but I don’t think we should underestimate religion’s staying power – though HOPEFULLY in a moderated form. PhillyChief often talks about the “indulgence” that people take part in, in a way that is very reminiscent of addiction. I agree. Addictions are VERY hard to break and every agency that has ever worked at helping people beat their addiction starts with the basic principle of “admitting the problem”.
Most sufferers of religious indulgence addiction do NOT admit it – hence the problem with saying that we think they’ll just get over it, at some point. Smokers, junkies, drinkers, over-eaters very seldom “just get over it” without saying “I have a problem here”.
Let’s look at the other modern Westernized nations that you mentioned. I’ve never seen studies that query this, but don’t you suppose it’s very likely that most of the people from those countries would A) claim not to have “a problem”, yet B) answer in the affirmative if you asked them if they believe they have “a soul”, or that there is “an afterlife”? If you are going to do a legitimate study of people and their religious indulgence, I say you have to do more than ask them if they are still a Christian, or if they consider themselves a member of any specific faith.
Despite my pessimism, we can still have a reasonable hope for “moderation” of the indulgence. This is one of the things we’ve seen in Europe and elsewhere, and even THAT MUCH is a big improvement. Hell, even if we look at the believers who comment here on your blog from time to time – many of them do not reject evolution and other scientific findings, reject a woman’s right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term or reject the notion of gays having the right to be treated EXACTLY as we would treat any other member of society.
So…. take your “hope” there, but not from the idea of religion “fading away”. As you said, as long as there are unanswered questions, and as long as we have death, we will have people taking some comfort in the addiction of religious belief.
The Anti-choice people know that we fear the SCOTUS right now, so they’re creating all of these anti-abortion laws almost daring someone to challenge them in hopes that it goes all the way to those Catholic Justices.
Shit won’t change until the assholes die. That’s just the way it is. You have to do the hard work now convincing the young and just wait. That’s it.
I play in a lot of churches, deal with a lot of church people, and if I had any money to bet I’d say that religion is, in fact, evolving.
Here in my town, which is a sort of cultural fossil bed (yeah, yeah, I’m one of the fossils…grumph) 😉 you can actually follow it by date.
All but a couple of the big mainstream churches have closed. The unaffiliated, evangelical, small-case, store front churches are doing very well.
There’s a different paradigm, though. People don’t stay more than a couple of years, they drop out, and in another couple of years they come back, see,s to be the new membership way.
A friend of mine devout catholic, teaches Spanish in school told me something else rather interesting.
Our local “Solons”, just last year, almost literally woke up one morning to the realisation that there was a very substantial Hispanic community which had formed in the past 15 years, and they never noticed until then. From )0 to close to 6000.
That’s when the local Catholic churches got wind of this, and they, too, hadn’t noticed the influx. They thought they’d watch and see… hmmm… still not noticing the Hispanics…
Being as their outfit is pretty high mainainance, and the “come home to the church” thing is largely a ploy to defray costs of reported buggery, bishop installment, etc, my friend and some others who are Spanish speakers were sent out to talk to them and invite them to mass at their local edifice rex.
She said that they were quite surprised to find out that a small portion wanted nothing to do with religion, a larger percentage were Catholic, more than that were actuall LDS, and probably 5/8 were evangelical protestants of some stripe or another.
Interesting, Sarge. I don’t know how the Catholic Church is doing worldwide, but I SUSPECT they are losing ground. 50 years ago Mexico was Catholic – pure and simple. Today there is a FAST spreading evangelical population. These people did not move to Mexico, which means they are converts from Catholicism. Again, 50 years ago Puerto Rico was a Catholic nation (state? Province? Territory?). Today it is almost entirely various Protestant denominations, with evangelicals leading the way. If this trend can be generalized for Central and South America then the Catholic church would be in deep shit – except for the millions of converts they continue to get in African nations.
The differences are definitly there if you look.
The church my wife went to for most of her life, her father was a member for eighty years, we were married there, biggest methodist church in town will be closing at the end of the month.
I should also have mentioned that these “store front” operations are pretty canny, when you think of it.
Not too long ago they tried to get a “mega-church” going, but it fizzled in a rather ignominious way. This was, apparently, noticed, and from what I’m told, they sort of went the other way. Even the Southern Baptists, who (from my personal experience) tend to philosophicaly favor growth looked at this, and they winced, but are giving it a shot.
Small, personal, and manageable.
A little bigger than the individual, but small enough to be a member, not part of a crowd.
They are dealing with the societal short attention span, it seems to not matter in any way but time.
They are re-doing the “early days, the Paul and Silas days, and when they inject the “we are disliked and persecuted” angle into it, at present, it’s a winner.
One preacher told me that his parent organisation actually studied the local Hutterite communes, and their success, and the limiting of size seems to be the key.
I think it’s mainstream religion that’s taking the hit. That’s certainly where the non-religious are coming from in Europe.
I was once told that there is a certain percentage of humanity that have “addictive personalities”, meaning that there will always be people attracted to things that are addicting. This was from a very good friend, the son of an alcoholic, who was going through a low point in his father’s life. I tend to agree, though I couldn’t really hazard a guess as to why. DNA? Nurture? Nature? Who knows.
Like Myers suggest in my OP, there will probably always be a certain % of people who fill find religion stimulating, fulfilling and necessary to their individual lives. I have no problem with that, as long as they keep it to themselves.
My daughter was baptized Sunday in the local Baptist Church. She’s 25. She was afraid to tell me, because she knows how I feel about religion. My wife and I were not invited to come. My wife was hurt by that, but I was OK with it, and frankly didn’t want to watch (they tried to drown her in a big hot tub). :). But I understand why she did it. She’s been looking for a community of friends, and she found one there. She likes the people. She’s going through the motions in order to belong. She doesn’t come home and proselytize because she knows I’ll probably have something to say about it.
My wife told her that she’s been baptized three times – once when she was born before we even knew who she was because she could have died after birth, and the Catholic priest was handy, the next time after we adopted her we took her to my wife’s church for a full blown christening (UCC) , and now she’s Baptist. I told her last night that I was going to set up a bas mitzvah for her, as we might as well cover all her bases. 8)
I’m stealing that.
We have friends, through my daughter, who are originally from the Philippines, which are also thought of as primarily Catholic. In fact, that’s where, on Good Friday, that have actual crucifixions. With real nails.
All in fun, of course.
Anyway, here in Central PA, they belong to the local evangelical “Free Church” (oxymoron alert).
Had an event actually IN ‘central Pennsylvania yesterday.
We played in State College, and as we actually know where the exact geographical center of the state is, we decided to stop and see it again. Also took my compass to see if the Scotia anomoly was still at it. It was.
The “edifice rex’ thing is something I heard in my teenage years, can’t remember where or who said it. Feel free to use it… as an attorney, you will probably use it, um, ‘judiciously’? 😉
Religion is, to my way of thinking, a human need for a lot of people, and from what I read and my contact with the “intelligencia” (at least what passes for it in our area) of the non-theistic community, even ones who have “Left The Fold”, they don’t understand the appeal, the very need that some people have.
I know about cancer and other disabilities, as does Hitchens, but I don’t think this impacts Hitchens, or even me like it does a lot of the people around here.
People have a sense of the world, they know they are “right”, and they realise that most of the world doesn’t share it, and don’t like it even a little bit..
A whole lot of folks want some type of order and structure in their life, and these are the parameters. “We” don’t like gays, abortion, certain behaviors which we identify as “sin”. Those who disagree are in “error” and, although the law frowns on
“us” meting it out, “they” want correction.
You hit it on the head with the “community” thing. My wife was asked by some people from her (soon to be former) church; who will help her when I die?
Since I am an atheist, apparently not them.
There ar worries of a cultural nature here in the US that don’t exist in places like Sweden and some of the others.
If Prof. Myers, or Dawkins, Harris could say, spend about five years as a farmer, say a 350 acre spread, dairy cattle, feed cattle, corn, hay, fairly prosperous, they might have a better idea of why this man has granted himself an imaginary friend to turn to.
Or, around here, a thiry-something woman, year of college, had a better than average job, single mother of two, now living in a rat trap upstairs apartment, holding down two jobs, no benefits, shit heap car that just might not make it through next inspection. No family in the area, Ex-husband prety much on the end, too, the only times that any money comes in for the kids is when the national guard deploys him to Afghanistan or Iraq.
But one of the kids seems to have asthma, the other has ADD, you have to somehow shit the money for meds and doctors, and you’ve been having these really bad pains in the small of the back, and now you’re “spotting”, but you can’t go to a doctor because there simply isn’t money. Nor the time, because you just might lose one of your jobs.
If you go for any kind of help, which you probably won’t get, you may get a social worker, who is looking for problems, who may write a report about anything, which will bring in “Authorities” which will bring punishment. Future? Hell, just get me through the day!
So, why not go for a community which at least gives you a pat on the back? Why not take a vacation in a fools paradise? One where the people who made the decisions that put you in the economic fix you’re in will get theirs, where you can cry about the “love of god” when it’s actually your life you’re weeping over…and if you didn’t get to cry and emote in your church you’d probably be doing it all the time.
It’s simplified, but it’s all around me here. I can’t hold people like that in contempt.
I’ve said before, I’ve been in aircraft when things went pear-shaped and the pilots worked like fiends to get the thing on the ground before there was a cascade-effect and the laws of physics got rolling, been on a sea-going tug, looked up from my engine room hatch to observe a wave which was higher than our 64′ mast which was (luckily) lifting us, literally fought for my life against other humans and their machines.
My make-up doesn’t permit it, but I have thought it might be nice to be able to believe, to force yourself to think that no matter what happens it will turn out “better” at the end…well past the end really.
Actually, I doubt if most of the others involved really believed at their core anymore than I did, it was a cry like a hurt, fearful childs, for succor to whatever might be passing by and well disposed.
Here, we have no help, really. Your farm goes, you get sick, you lose a job? Please dry up and blow away as unobtrusively as possible. Make no noise or disturbance as you go.
So, yes, they’ll dig through a room full of horseshit to find the pony they’re sure Santa brought them. That isn’t there.
You imply that people like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, Myers are intellectually and financially disengaged from the “average Joe”, don’t understand it from Joe’s point of view, and I suppose you are correct. That said, aren’t the “public voices” of just about any group or movement going to be isolated from the trenches?
I think I’M pretty close to “average Joe”. I’ve got tons of , err, “issues”. Physical, financial, emotional, educational…. I’ve lived my life amongst Christians, many of whom had problems like mine; many others who I can look at and honestly say “I WISH I only had your problems”. For my entire adult life I have rejected any supernatural solution to my problems. We’re talking 40 years. I’d rather suffer the things I do than go running to Sweet Jesus and his emissaries here on earth – just to feel some much needed relief.
I don’t say this to boast. I say it simply to show that it’s not necessarily a good argument that people seek Christ from a position of weakness and need. I’m not sure I know what’s different between me and them – but I’d like to understand.
We’re pretty much on the same page, John. with “issues” you mentioned and the viewpoint. There’s no way I’ll ever believe, either, but when you live close to people like I have, you notice things.
Again, there are probably as many reasons people claim some belief or actually DO believe as there are people, and from reading your comments and blogs, I know that you are aware of this, too.
At the one end, you get people who on a judeo-christian cultural level have been told that mankind is “evil”, they were born “flawed”, unworthy to come into the presence of a certain deity due to having commited the greatest sin of all, being born human, and being in the presence of this alleged entity is, in our default mode, a “good thing”. As opposed to the alternative which is reported by various authorities to be “bad”. And most of us get one or the other, “bad” being the default position unless certain rituals, behaviors, and professions are made, others eschewed.
A child, in his bed sees “groon”, calls for help, which will not assist him: Things go “bump” in the night., maybe it is a “long legged’ beastie” waiting to pounce, who wants to go find out? Parent’s response to calls for assistance are often, “shut up and go to sleep”. So the kid ramps it to the next level.
Some people can grow out of it, some it seems to set up a resonance which makes them a bit more susceptable to the need for a deity.
And the deity which the christian worship seems to be the worst aspects of whatever authority they see coupled with what they see in a mirror.
The deity my mother worships, “god the father”, is HER father. She literally shakes when she enters a church with “gladness”, because this deity “loves” her in spite of her unworthiness and sinfulness, and it has to slap her around periodicly to show her who is boss, and that she damn well better appreciate what has been done for her scungy self. And if she cries, well, it’ll give her something to really cry about. Does she like something? don’t show it, the object will be taken away, maybe. This is a smart, 90 year old woman.
This was at one time bound up very tightly with personal identity, at least around here. The church and religious branding set you apart, gave you roots as well. I know a lady who came from a Slovac family, she married a man from an Irish family, and both families were scandalised. They were both catholic, but to marry THAT kind of catholic…??!!
It’s a huge mosaic, really, all kinds of pieces, all unique.
The man I trained horses for was the second atheist I ever knew, he taught me about how it was when he grew up. Started looking around, paying attention, and everything I’ve seen and heard pretty much confirmed his viewpoint.
Up the hill from me there is an “upscale” enclave, most of them are associated with the college, Whales swim in pods, pheasants live in nides, and I guess a grouping of academics could be called a “pomposity of professors”.
Some go to the local UU meeting, and I played there a couple months ago.
When I mentioned that I had been an atheist since age five, they scoffed. First they didn’t believe that, and second, a person such as myself couldn’t be a REAL atheist. Laughable.
I mentioned that it was indeed so, I did not believe in any deity. According to my Webster’s Dictionary, that was pretty much it.
I was informed that one needed more sophitication than I had. Simply not believing really didn’t cut it. I mean, I didn’t use words like “eschatology” or hermaneutics” every third sentence. I mean. really!
I said, hmmm, I guessed that classes must be taken, papers written, examinations passed, dissertaions defended before such a status could be conferred…?
One of these persons actually said, “What would a redneck REALLY know about these things”?
And I from what I read of the “gnu” atheists (an Australian, athist philosophers words, not mine 🙂 )they probably share a smidge of that thesis.
“But since we discovered the usefulness and truth-rendering ability of science, religion has been pushed father and farther into the background of our collective intelligence, to the point that only those with a stake in the continuation of the influence of religion continue to rely on it. Anyone else with even a modicum of critical thinking abilities rejects religion, in favor of science.”
Bah. I wish atheists could make their case without ad hominem distortions. Otherwise, good post.
Thank you, Jon. I think. 8)
I assume you objection is to the last sentence you quote. I’ have to admit that it’s really hard to keep from being judgmental about people who insist on willful ignorance as a way of life, but I ‘ll take your criticism and try to do better.
SI, I’ve known a whole lot of people who’s philosophy of life seems to be:”A fierce and stubborn refusal to face the facts and address reality will always see us through”.
And it’s sooooo fuckin’ frustrating to watch. It’s like watching the Duggers pop out babies with a big smile on their face, saying “isn’t this wonderful?”. I’m just so glad they have their own TV show to support the brood. Let their admirers support their lifestyle. It would really piss me off to see them go on welfare.
“I assume you objection is to the last sentence you quote.”
That one stood out the most, but there were others. For example:
“One can talk about the merits of religion, or the efficacy of religious belief, or the overwhelming preponderance of theists in the world, but ultimately none of it means anything in the debate until you’ve resolved the TRUTH of religion – i.e. does god exist.”
Right on the money, but then:
“If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth. It should be obvious. The fact that there isn’t even something close to human consensus gives the lie to the proposition.”
Don’t get me wrong, I agree on the merits of science and all that, it’s just that we shouldn’t fight illogic with illogic. Like I said, good post overall.
What’s illogical about the observation that if a religion claims a “Truth”, that truth should be universally obvious, and the fact that it’s not seems to belie the original claim of truth?
Many truths are not universally obvious, many universally obvious things have been shown untrue.
But I wasn’t talking about many truths. I was talking about one significant truth claim – that god exists.
What is illogical about the observation that if god exists, the fact that his existence is not obvious, and /or universally accepted is not a problem for the truth claim? We’re not talking about the claim that chocolate is better than vanilla here. We’re talking about the existence of a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent being that created everything. Why would one NOT expect that this being’s existence should be obvious and universally known?
Bah, *unTRUE* No edit function. 😉
“We’re not talking about the claim that chocolate is better than vanilla here. We’re talking about the existence of a supreme, omnipotent, omnipresent being that created everything.”
Believe me, I get that.
“What is illogical about the observation that if god exists, the fact that his existence is not obvious, and /or universally accepted is not a problem for the truth claim?”
Because the fact that something isn’t obvious isn’t a valid argument against it existing. You have to assume a direct correlation between “obviousness” and “truth” to make that step. Try laying it out as a deductive argument, and I think you’ll at least see where I’m coming from, whether or not we agree. And it’s fine if we don’t. 🙂
Off topic: did you review Stefanelli’s book? If so, where can I read it?
Even more to the point, and this relates to the discussion on delusional thinking:
“If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth.”
Where’s the evidence for that premise? This is what I m ean by laying it out as a deductive argument. If we can prove the truth of that premise, we might have something. Without evidence for that premise, we’re stuck in the mud, and unfortunately “delusional” by our own standards. Tread softly, this is why I’m sayin’ it cuts both ways.
In light of the claims of the characteristics for this god, it seems its existence should be evident but you’re right, we should refrain from straying from the meat of the matter, what are the specifics of the god in question and why should we accept the claim that it exists.
We’re so engulfed in Christian beliefs and claims that we often fall into arguments about the religious claims (ie – PoE, historicity of Jesus, biblical contradictions, etc) when such things are so far ahead of the base claim that a god exists. There’s really no point to moving past that claim, one which has yet to meet its burden of proof.
Oh, incase you didn’t catch it in the other thread, the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
ultimately none of it means anything in the debate until you’ve resolved the TRUTH of religion – i.e. does god exist. If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth. It should be obvious. The fact that there isn’t even something close to human consensus gives the lie to the proposition.
I’m currently reading the Essays of Michel de Montaigne (written during the latter part of the 16th century). It is an interesting work. The other day I was reading a chapter from Book 1 titled “That it is folly to measure the truth and error by our own capacity” and it gives some insight into how a theist (de Montaigne was a Catholic) defends the idea of believing in things we as atheists would consider absurd or incredible.
de Montaigne writes “reason has taught me that to condemn anything so positively as false and impossible is to claim that our own brains have the privilege of knowing the bounds and limits of God’s will, and of our mother nature’s power.”
He goes on in the next page, “How many improbable things there are, vouched for by trustworthy people, about which we should at least preserve an open mind, even if they do not convince us! For to condemn them as impossible is rashly and presumptuously to pretend to a knowledge of the bounds of possibility.”
So, from a theist perspective (I suppose), when we say we disbelieve the existence of god because science tells us A, B, C and D, the theist can respond “Well, it’s presumptuous for a human to believe that A, B, C and D can be expected to serve as conclusive evidence against the existence of god”, because, as I quoted de Montaigne wrote above, “it is folly to measure the truth and error by our own capacity.” It is true that some of the things we have believed, and some things that some us may believe right now, may be wrong because we are assuming that certain things are not possible. An analogy would be denying the existence of something because we can’t see it with the visible light spectrum, but is quite visible once one learns to construct a device to see in the infrared or the ultra violet.
Of course, for those of us who are atheists, such a response can be seen as an all too convenient escape clause for the theist. It’s one thing for a theist to personally believe, for example, that birth control is sin in the eyes of god because of some passages in the Bible and that believer lives his or her personal life accordingly. But when it comes to using that as a basis for public policy, that is a different thing altogether. Then it becomes a case of having to provide something more concrete in support of say opposing access to birth control. It’s not enough to say “Well, it’s in the Bible, and it is beyond your capacity to say that the Bible is not the word of God, therefore even married couples cannot be permitted to use condoms.” Because once you do that, you’re opening a pandora’s box in that anyone can declare that a particular belief is true because, well, it’s beyond your poor powers of comprehension to prove that it is not true.
The problem is particularly acute with Young Earth Creationists, who automatically disregard any evidence to support an old Earth, an old universe, evolution, or disprove Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, and so forth. It is a viewpoint that purposely seeks to draw a boundary about what conclusions we can draw from study and investigation, with anything that conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible as automatically being wrong or faulty based on our inability to properly interpret the data. Therefore, the very evidence they rely upon to make informed decisions in the course of their daily lives gets chucked out the window when it conflicts with their religious dogma. I recall (an admittedly vulgar) exchange that PhillyChief and several others had on Yunshui’s blog with Rhology that the latter would want some evidence that his wife was cheating on him rather than just taking somebody’s word for it. The argument being, if he would demand evidence in that instance, then why reject it on other areas?
As for “significant consensus” regarding belief in the existence of a god, a theist could retort that the vast majority of people do believe in some form of divinity, and a large portion of those believers fall under one of the three major Abrahamic religions.
I’m touched that you remember that. I feel all “vaclempt” right now. Please, talk amongst yourselves….
No shit! How the hell DID you remember that, Tommy? I didn’t even remember “Rhology” until I saw the name in your comment…. which reminds me now, where IS that guy? Does he still comment around here under another name? 😉
Every now and then he pops up on ERV or Jolly Nihilist. I think he was banned at The Atheist Experience. He does not strike me as the kind of person who would post under another name.
You don’t see his wife anymore, Evo? 😉
Understandably, while I have little memory of Rhology, I DO remember the little animal Ugh, the sounds his wife used to make. I dumped her. The neighbors and my wife at the time found it all very annoying.
I wonder if he would demand evidence yety?
After sex. the poor things would huddle in the corner, staring at the door and say “PLEASE… of he finds me he’ll make me go back to church and participate in cookie bakes” . Weird, huh?
“As for “significant consensus” regarding belief in the existence of a god, a theist could retort that the vast majority of people do believe in some form of divinity, and a large portion of those believers fall under one of the three major Abrahamic religions.”
That’s right. That’s just another reason I’m not persuaded by this “significant consensus” business. Popularity has no bearing on truth.
Very true…. let ALONE the “significant consensus” among humans that ideas in each of our own brains, due to personal experiences, have any great meaning.
Just sayin’….
I’m beginning to think we’re arguing at cross purposes.
I doubt you’d find many people who would disagree with something as obvious as ‘Humans will die without air”. That’s a fairly popular belief, no? Of course we have science to back it up, and we know why, but there was a time when we didn’t, yet we still could pretty much conclude that it was TRUE. A consensus, indeed near unanimity for the claim, without any understanding of it. And, as it turns out, it was in fact true.
It’s the same thing with regard to god’s existence. If it’s that TRUE, as most theists tend to proclaim, you would think you’d get a pretty good consensus of agreement, but you don’t. Oh, you have a majority, and maybe that’s a consensus, but a significant minority doesn’t believe it, and hardly anyone agrees on the particulars of exactly what god they are talking about that they claim exists. Something as significant to the existence of humans should be obvious, but it’s not. I know that the lack of consensus does not make it false, but I never argued that it did. I simply said that the lack of consensus “gives the lie” i.e. contradicts, the proposition that god exists.
Is that delusional on my part?
I already tried to explain what I think is wrong here. You said,
““If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth.”
This is problematic on two fronts: 1) it just doesn’t compute, logically; and 2) any definition of “significant consensus” that cannot include the vast majority of the world’s population seems delusional. I don’t think the recent upturn towards secularism even puts a dent in the theism of centuries past. I think it’s a bit delusional to downgrade the majority opinion as not a significant consensus, especially if we consider the full span of human history.
OK. I’ll concede that.
My thought process was similar to the air example, and it was based on the concept of god. I have a hard time thinking that the wide varieties of religion, with all their various beliefs about god, constitutes a significant consensus. Their belief in god, while relatively uniform on the concept of supernatural divine beings (excluding a billion Chinese, etc) , is marked more by their disagreement, than their agreement.
Imagine 10% of the worlds population believing that if their air supply was cut off, they would not be able to breath, while another 90% believed that if their air supply was cut off, they simply could stick a tree limb down their throat, or open a vein, or cut off a toe, or jump 2 feet in the air, or [insert 10,000 equally specious beliefs] and they could still breath. Would you say that because 90% believed they could breath without air, there was a consensus on the truth?
Reading that back, I’m not sure that’s a perfect analogy, (but then, I’m not perfect, my wife’s impressions to the contrary) but perhaps you got my drift anyway?
“Would you say that because 90% believed they could breath without air, there was a consensus on the truth?”
Yes. 90% would be a “significant consensus,” without doubt. Are they right? No. Of course not. That’s why your argument seemed weak, perhaps even delusional: there is no necessary connection between consensus and truth. You implied that if a deity really exists, it should be 1) obvious, and 2) amidst significant consensus. But there is nothing you can point to as far as *real world evidence* is concerned that would justify, “If he does, it should be obvious,” or, “If he does, then there should be significant consensus, if not universal and unanimous acceptance, of that one truth.” It’s just a really bad argument, and since it was made without and seemingly despite evidence, it fit the definition of “delusional thinking” that’s been tossed around.
“Reading that back, I’m not sure that’s a perfect analogy, (but then, I’m not perfect, my wife’s impressions to the contrary) but perhaps you got my drift anyway?”
No, I really didn’t. The first version of your argument didn’t make any distinctions. Now, you seem to be implying that there’s no “significant consensus” on the *particulars* of God. That might be true-r, and I would be more inclined to agree. And what the hell does “significant” actually mean, anyways? Ambiguous terminology rarely helps arguments.