Article
6
commentsBeyond Belief
Published at 6:14pm on 24 Nov 2006
What is belief? Is absence of proof the same as proof of absence, or is it just as misguided to disbelieve something without evidence as it is to believe in it? This article explores the touchy subject of dogmatic belief, and explains why atheism is not just "religion for the nonbelievers".
A recent article on Slashdot about a Creationist Museum in Kentucky sparked a debate about atheism versus religion in the discussion forum. This in itself is neither surprising nor particularly interesting, however what is odd how most of the religious counter-arguments against atheism seem to revolve around the position that, in the absence of evidence either way, dogmatic disbelief is just as irrational as belief, and so logically there is as much reason to believe that there is a God as there is to believe that there isn't.
To my mind, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what belief actually is.
Before they have heard a theory, everyone starts off having no opinion about it, which is effectively the same as not believing it. When they are first presented with the theory they then evaluate it according to their own criteria - such as its compatibility with things they already believe, or the perceived reliability of the source - and then make a judgment about whether to believe it.
If something is incompatible with what you already know, and you have no reason to trust the source then it is rational to assume it is false unless given proof to the contrary. Otherwise every time someone told you something unbelievable you would be forced to re-adjust your whole view of the world and disregard everything you already thought was true. A person who did this would be considered a hopelessly naive fool.
Anyone can see that it is irrational to believe in things that there is no evidence for because there is an infinite number of possible things that might be true, many of which contradict each other. Trying to believe them all would drive you to madness.
Most atheists do not define themselves by the belief that there is no God - there is no 'church of the nonbelievers'. Atheism does not stem from the dogmatic belief in the non-existence of God, but rather the refusal to believe in anything for which there is no proof, or at least some compelling philosophical argument.
The reason why most atheists came to doubt the existence of God is that at the point they encountered the concept they found it didn't fit well with what they had seen of the world and in the absence of proof they therefore found it improbable. In some cases they were raised with religion, but later found that it didn't fit well with the world they saw around them. There is nothing unusual about this - most children go through the same thing with the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.
The reason why most religious followers believe in God is that they were either raised with it from an early age such that they had no prior belief system against which to compare it, or they encountered it at a time of great emotional vulnerability such as the death of a loved one, or a stay in prison, at which time their altered emotional state caused them reject their existing understanding of the world because the reality they knew had been cruel to them.
There are other reasons - a dream perhaps, or a 'miraculous' experience - but they usually boil down to something that was convincing for them because it got through a chink in their critical armor, not because the event itself was very compelling (at least, not to an impartial observer).
And whilst the reason for a belief has no impact on the validity of arguments given in support of it (the message, not the messenger, is what matters), the reason, or lack of it, why a person came to have the beliefs that they do can have a strong impact on their own ability to subject it to critical appraisal.
The difference between atheists and theists is not simply their willingness to believe unproven ideas. Every religious follower is also a nonbeliever. You won't find many Christians who believe in Buddha for example. If you pressed them as to why they don't believe in Buddha then they would probably give you similar arguments to the ones an atheist would give you for why they don't believe in any gods.
There is really no such thing as 'faith', there are only ideas which you are willing to think rationally about, and ideas that - usually for reasons of indoctrination, emotional turmoil, or earlier naivety - you are unable to subject to the same level of critical thinking that you would apply normally.
Religion is not unique in this regard, plenty of people are dogmatic about politics, or prejudice, or even science. Inability to think critically about an idea doesn't make it false, but it does devalue your own ability to judge its worth. If you have a strong feeling that something is the case, but you can't give a reason why you believe it, you have to be very suspicious about how it worked its way into your belief system in the first place. If you can't justify it now - why was it so compelling back when you first heard it?
The problem with belief is that because you judge new ideas according to ones you already hold, having a rogue idea in your head makes it very difficult to think critically about any other ideas you encounter that brush up against it. You will find yourself rejecting good ideas because they make you uncomfortable, and accepting peculiar concepts that wouldn't normally make sense to you, and you will believe that you had a good reason for doing so. But the belief that the reason was good is based on the foundation that ideas already in your head have been subjected to critical analysis, and unfortunately that isn't always the case.
Richard Dawkins has done much to explain the concept of these rogue ideas, which he calls memes. He explains their behaviour as being similar to that of the genes in our DNA, that propagate and evolve with ultimately self-serving determination - selected for their ability to survive rather than any benefit they provide to the host. It is a pity then that Dawkins alienates so much of his audience by his inability to subject his own dogmatic hatred of religion and all its trappings to the same level of rigorous critical analysis he advocates. Perhaps this is a fittingly ironic demonstration of the truth in his argument.
Many of the rebuttals of atheism seem to be based on comparing atheism itself to a religious dogma, yet theists often fail to understand that the very fact that it is possible for someone to believe dogmatically in something contradictory to their own beliefs, is itself proof that choosing things to believe in without requiring proof is unlikely to lead you to the truth - it is trying to discover reality by lottery rather than by reason.
Dogmatically disbelieving something despite proof is indeed just as irrational as dogmatically believing something without any. But proof of non-existence is not required for non-belief. Disbelief is the natural state of Man. We do not believe anything before being given reason to do so. How compelling that reason needs to be depends on how much the thing we are being asked to believe goes against what we already know. It is not dogmatic to require proof before believing the unbelievable.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are those of the author and are not shared by Charcoal Design unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Always obtain independent, professional advice for your own particular situation.
Comments
Critical thought vs blind faith
Many people(dawkins included) believe that Christianity calls for blind faith. Just read the Bible and follow it. This is an error of all time. Jews & Christians of old would always test the facts. Paul and Jesus both told the people to test there words to see if they what they said was correct. THere can be no blind faith in any religion, as with anything there has to be choices made upon suppositions that have good grounding and a proven track record.
I sit on a stool that I believe will support me as it has in the past.
I breath assuming what I breath is air.
I fly/drive because statistically it is safe.
Christianty is based on the fact that
1. there is a God( the ultimate Creator)
2. Man is sinnful(breaks the law of God)
3. Man needs redemption
The third is base on the first two. The first can be assumed by thoroughly testing the universe. The first test is to look at the essential laws of the universe.
1. The second law of thermodynamics calls energy loss in anything (order). Ie in developement of the universe order will only come with an outside force organizing it. The law requires(if its true) that disorder always degenerates naturally from order.
2 & 3. When one looks at the heart of a man(myself) I can realize that my mind and thoughts are not clean. Thus I of myself can not make them clean.
If I accept morality than there must be an arbeture of that morality(Higher Power). If there is no higher power than mass murder is not wrong(thats how we got Stalin, Hitler and Mao). In fact there s nothing wrong nor right nor is there any real reason for living, but most people see some reason for living.
Thus when people say that Christianity is blind faith they are using derogatory terms without any critical thought thus doing exactly what they accuse Christians and any other religion of doing.
I might not agree with the other religions but correct thought does not come from lambasting others as often comes from slashdot, but real thoughtfull discussion.
My son of three often times seems to think more clearly than many of the people on slashdot, who seem to have a non-religion religion.
ReplyPosted by Michael at 9:27pm on 29 Dec 2006
Like the software
Ps Like the software, and suspect the creation musium is a bit to dogmatic on those things which are yet to be proven
ReplyPosted by Michael at 9:28pm on 29 Dec 2006
Re: Critical thought vs blind faith
Michael Wrote:
"Christianty is based on the fact that
1. there is a God( the ultimate Creator)
2. Man is sinnful(breaks the law of God)
3. Man needs redemption"
I don't really want to get into a debate about whether the Christian religion is true - that isn't really the point of this article. I would question your assertions though:
"1. The second law of thermodynamics calls energy loss in anything (order). Ie in developement of the universe order will only come with an outside force organizing it. The law requires(if its true) that disorder always degenerates naturally from order."
This is a common abuse of science, namely using physics as a metaphor - thermodynamics is about energy, not order. In physics if there is a law about one thing then you cannot use it to automatically prove something else that is metaphorically similar. In this case the law of entropy basically says that once energy is turned into heat it cannot be turned back, It says nothing at all about evolution versus intelligent design, or more specifically whether small pockets of order can spontaneously form from chaos.
Another similar abuse is using "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" to justify acts of vengeance, when actually the law refers only to contact forces between inanimate objects, not human conflict.
"2 & 3. When one looks at the heart of a man(myself) I can realize that my mind and thoughts are not clean. Thus I of myself can not make them clean."
Your definition of "clean" presumably derives from your religion, and the argument is therefore circular - you think you are unclean because your religion says the things you do naturally are sinful, and you take this as proof that the religion is true.
I would say that much of what you consider unclean thoughts are probably perfectly acceptable to someone who doesn't subscribe to your religious views. Even if they aren't, how does this constitute proof that a supernatural being has the power to clean you? Or that he has any inclination to do so? Or that he will only agree to do so if you follow the practices laid out in the Bible? And so on...
"If I accept morality than there must be an arbeture of that morality(Higher Power). If there is no higher power than mass murder is not wrong(thats how we got Stalin, Hitler and Mao). In fact there s nothing wrong nor right nor is there any real reason for living, but most people see some reason for living."
Not true. I accept that there is morality just as I accept that 2 + 2 = 4, but I don't believe there has to be a supernatural arbiter of mathematics, so similarly I don't see why there must be a supernatural arbiter of morality.
In a world built on logic and physical rules, such concepts as maths and morality simply *are* the case. You could try doing maths with 2 + 2 = 5 but your sums wouldn't add up, and similarly you could try to form a society where murder was considered acceptable but it wouldn't last very long.
As for the meaning of life, I am content to live because I consider my own life to have value. I don't need a higher power to tell me that my existence is worthwhile.
Do I consider Christianity to be a blind faith? Not necessarily, but I have yet to encounter one of its followers who has not demonstrated at least some blindness to the flaws in its logic. And until it can be demonstrated to withstand rational criticism without resorting to circular reasoning of the kind above then I shall not be converted.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 2:30pm on 06 Jan 2007
Thanks a lot for what You are doing!
Great design, useful info!This resourse is great!Keep it up!With the best regards!
Frank
ReplyPosted by Frankxc at 5:06pm on 31 Jan 2007
entropy, evolution, intelligent design
The basic principle behind the second law of thermodynamics is every simple: Large scale events which require an extremely unlikely sequence of events on the scale of individual particles just don't happen.
For example: The air in an isolated room does not spontaneously become hot at one end and cold at the other end because the sequence of events at the moleculair level that would be required is extremely unlikely.
The link with evolution is now probably clear. The evolution of e.g. a new type of cell requires a sequence of changes at the leven of individual molecules (dna and other stuff). If these changes are extremely unlikely (which, at the moment, seems to be the case) than this would prevent the appearance of new types of cells.
Evolution is mostly explained to people at the macroscopic level: Bodies and organs. It sounds reasonable that a body part could change over time, become something else, do something else.
However when these large scale changes are translated to changes at the microscopic level it does not fit anymore... Changes are not one-to-one. This is really a huge problem: The lower levels of life just don't have the right properties that evolution at the higher levels would require.
Intelligent design is the idea that life as we know it is not really natural. ID in very basic terms considers life as we know it to be technology. Highly advanced technology, but technology none the less. Life looks designed, is it real design?
ReplyPosted by qrnlk at 6:14pm on 23 Apr 2007
Re: entropy, evolution, intelligent design
It is a common misconception that macroscopic evolution requires a sequence of very unlikely random mutations at the microscopic level - like tossing a coin a hundred times and getting all heads.
But this is not a fair analogy. As Dawkins has pointed out, though the change process is random, the selection process isn't. The pressures for survival of the fittest means that only mutations which are beneficial (or at least, non-harmful) to genetic propagation are maintained. So it's more like the case of tossing a coin a hundred times, and throwing out all the tails. You end up with all heads, but no principles of probability are violated.
Also, the structure of DNA-based life is very well suited to microscopic changes wreaking useful macroscopic effects. If you take something like a computer or a car (i.e. the product of design) and swap pretty much any two components around, the machine will stop working altogether. But with life, if you swap chromosomes and DNA pairs around you almost always get something that works. Okay, it might be a hideous mutant or unable to reproduce, but it still *does something* in many cases. DNA is optimised for allowing tiny, random changes to have big, and potentially useful effects, but no machine we've ever designed is so robust to random tweaking.
There's no reason why this would be the case in a system that had been designed. In fact it runs quite contrary to good design principles, because a side effect of this link between micro and macro changes in life forms is that it's almost impossible to predict what effect a small change might have due to random dependencies between seemingly unrelated genes.
So if, hypothetically, life was *designed*, why was it designed in a way that makes it almost impossible to make changes except by making random microscopic tweaks to the genes, and then selecting the most successful results? a process that is "coincidentally" exactly what happens naturally if life is left to its own devices.
ReplyPosted by Nick at 09:48am on 30 Apr 2007