CR: I think we need a lot more research on atheists and am glad that we are starting to see more. Even if you look at the pretty basic questions asked by organizations like Pew you can see that there is diversity in the spiritual inclinations of atheists. There are neurological and cognitive-based reasons to argue that a very small percent of people are true atheists. But there are also reasons to believe that many atheists are really more superficial or social atheists – people who view themselves as nonbelievers but who actually engage in supernatural thinking. Some atheists are angry at religion or even God and so view atheism as a protest against belief. Some, particularly young people, may see religious belief as not cool, something for old people. And many have benefited from a socially and economically privileged life that has not stress-tested their atheism.
Consider, for example, a recent study in New Zealand that observed an increase in religious belief among nonbelievers who were personally impacted by a major earthquake or research showing that atheism is associated with poorer psychological wellbeing among people in economically disadvantaged areas but not in more affluent ones. Think about the following example. It is easier for a rich person who lives in a very safe neighborhood to become philosophical about the value of the police. This person can say with little consequence that the police are bad and we don’t need police, that all the police do is create problems. But you can bet with near certainty that this individual would be quick to call the police in an emergency. In other words, the safer, more comfortable, and prosperous a society is, the less outwardly religious it may appear to be.
I say “outwardly” because even when people live where they feel physically safe and can easily meet basic needs, existential questions about meaning remain. Many atheists may be one serious existential threat away from finding religion or looking for a substitute for it. From this perspective, true atheists are the few who may simply lack the underlying cognitive characteristics that allow for supernatural and related spiritual thinking. They may also be the rare individuals who are low in the need for meaning. So I don’t think the trends of declining religion are evidence for a decline in people’s religious nature. We wouldn’t say that because people are spending less time in face to face social interactions that the social nature of humans has diminished. I don’t think the religious nature of humans has diminished either.
KV: In recent years, nearly every poll in the West suggests an overall decline in religious faith and an increase in the so-called religious “nones.” However, in Supernatural you propose that people might perhaps exchange one variety of supernatural beliefs for another. Can you expand further on that idea for us here?
CR: In the book, I discuss a number of trends related to supernatural and paranormal beliefs that are in the opposite direction of declining religiosity. Many surveys in the US and other Western nations reveal that people aren’t abandoning all supernatural and related beliefs. As these countries become less invested in traditional Christian beliefs, they become more interested in nontraditional spiritual practices, ghosts, UFOs, healing crystals, psychic powers, and so on.
For example, my colleagues and I recently replicated research documenting an inverse correlation between religiosity and belief that intelligent alien life exists and is monitoring humans as well as conspiracy theories about government cover-ups regarding UFOs. After replicating this effect, we sought to further explore why it is that the less religious people are the ones more into aliens and UFOs. We predicted that part of it is about the need for meaning in life. Religiosity is generally positively associated with meaning. If nonreligious people see life as less meaningful but remain motivated to find meaning, they may be more inclined than those who already have a meaning-providing religious worldview to be attracted to ideas that would suggest humans are not alone in the universe. We found support for this idea using statistical modelling that linked low religiosity to low meaning to a greater desire to find meaning to beliefs about aliens and UFOs.
To be clear, aliens and UFO monitoring aren’t necessarily supernatural but they are outside of an evidence-based understanding of our world. To believe in them requires a leap of faith. And many UFO-related beliefs have a very religious flavor. They involve feeling like powerful beings are watching over us and may one day welcome us into a cosmic community. Of course, many nonreligious people do hold these beliefs, but there are many unorthodox supernatural or paranormal ideas and beliefs that nonreligious people are attracted to in their search for meaning and cosmic significance. And there are secular ideologies such as transhumanism that have what I call supernatural-lite qualities. They aren’t explicitly supernatural but appear to be driven by the same cognitive and motivational processes and often end up looking very similar to religion.
KV: In Supernatural, you suggest that faith in religious supernatural beliefs may offer some benefits for physical health, mental health, and societal living. Can you tell us about what some of those benefits are, and whether you find that there are any downsides to supernatural beliefs?
CR: Religious supernatural beliefs promote meaning, and meaning is a predictor of wellbeing and mental health. These beliefs have also been shown to help people cope with stress and the life events that challenge meaning. This might be because meaning motivates people.
That is, people who feel they have a purpose are more driven to take care of themselves, to work hard, to live a healthy life, and to persevere when life gets difficult. People who feel meaningless don’t have this motivation. They are more inclined to turn to drugs and alcohol or other hedonistic behaviors that feel good but do not help them in the long run.
Steve, I find it interesting that no one has commented on this yet. Your post starts with Routledge saying that more research needs to be done on atheists and I presume you agree with this as well as some of the other views he expresses in the interview so I would be happy to offer myself as a subject if you would like to learn about an actual non-faith view rather than what seem to me to be the potentially strawman and ad hominem fallacies that Routledge offers.
ReplyDeleteI am an elderly, moderately conservative, middle class Englishman with a degree in philosophy and 50 years experience of contemplating the meaning of human existence, having been born and brought up in a non-religious (not anti-religious) family. I suspect that the world might be a slightly better place if everyone was able to hold to whatever belief system they feel makes sense of the world and their place in it and that rational discourse is at the heart of removing the divisiveness which is one of the stumbling-blocks in that process.
If you are truly interested in investigating the non-religious view of life please feel free to ask me any questions.
May I ask you a couple of questions please?
Delete1. What specifically do you mean by non-faith? Are you referring to non-theism? What exactly do you subscribe to and/or not subscribe to? If non-theism, non-theism seems vague. Atheists are non-theists, agnostics are non-theists, Theravada Buddhists are non-theists, some pantheists are non-theists, syntheists are non-theists, inanimate objects are non-theists, and so on.
2. Are you a moral realist? If so, how would you justify your moral realism?
Thanks.
"if you would like to learn about an actual non-faith view rather than what seem to me to be the potentially strawman and ad hominem fallacies that Routledge offers."
DeleteI have extensive experience reading and debating real live atheists. That said, a natural opening gambit would be for you to specify" the potentially strawman and ad hominem fallacies that Routledge offers".
Sorry Steve, I missed seeing your reply. Yes, specifically I would say that "...neurological and cognitive-based reasons to argue that a very small percent of people are true atheists..." is as much a strawman argument as atheists who say that neuro-science has 'explained away' religious belief. And "...people who view themselves as non-believers but who actually engage in supernatural thinking.", "Many atheists may be one serious existential threat from finding religion…", seem to me to be quite shallow and pointless comments. He admits that traditional Christian belief is declining in Western countries and that people in those countries are turning to non-traditional beliefs but then claims he has evidence that it is the 'less religious' who are turning to UFO conspiracies. In which case, why are the traditional Christians declining and, if they aren't becoming atheists, where are they going?
DeleteI think his point is that ufology and the New Age are the functional equivalent of religion. They address the same psychological needs (or transcendent meaning).
Delete1. Rodney Stark wrote in his book The Triumph of Faith: Why the World is More Religious Than Ever about secular European countries: "35 percent of the French believe in astrology, 35 percent of the Swiss agree that 'some fortune tellers really can foretell the future'".
Delete2. A Wall Street Journal article notes:
The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.
3. See more here.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with much of this although I think it oversimplifies the situation by not sufficiently acknowledging that this is something of a 'snapshot' of a process which is going to carry on changing for some time and I think there is also, generally, a tendency to overestimate the influence of 'New Atheists'. However, it wasn't my intention to offer any refutation of the views expressed in the opening post; my main objection to it is that the arguments presented are confused and poorly expressed.
DeleteReligions like Christianity and Islam may decline in Western nations, but globally speaking Christianity and Islam are on the rise. Here's what the Pew Research Center projects:
Delete"While religiously unaffiliated people currently make up 16% of the global population, only an estimated 10% of the world’s newborns between 2010 and 2015 were born to religiously unaffiliated mothers. This dearth of newborns among the unaffiliated helps explain why religious 'nones' (including people who identity as atheist or agnostic, as well as those who have no particular religion) are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population in the coming decades."
"By 2055 to 2060, just 9% of all babies will be born to religiously unaffiliated women, while more than seven-in-ten will be born to either Muslims (36%) or Christians (35%)."
"Christians were the largest religious group in the world in 2015, making up nearly a third (31%) of Earth’s 7.3 billion people. Muslims were second, with 1.8 billion people, or 24% of the global population, followed by religious 'nones' (16%), Hindus (15%) and Buddhists (7%). Adherents of folk religions, Jews and members of other religions make up smaller shares of the world’s people."
"Between 2015 and 2060, the world’s population is expected to increase by 32%, to 9.6 billion. Over that same period, the number of Muslims – the major religious group with the youngest population and the highest fertility – is projected to increase by 70%. The number of Christians is projected to rise by 34%, slightly faster than the global population overall yet far more slowly than Muslims."
"As a result, according to Pew Research Center projections, by 2060, the count of Muslims (3.0 billion, or 31% of the population) will near the Christian count (3.1 billion, or 32%)."
Hello, thanks for some interesting questions here. 1 is quite difficult to answer satisfactorily in a brief post but I tend to use the term 'non-faith' to try and convey the idea that I've never had a faith that I've rejected, so that I don't particularly feel atheism as a defining limit and also as a way of avoiding being categorised in too narrow or rigid a set of ideas so, yes, it is a fairly vague description. What I subscribe to, as much as possible, is to remain open to new ideas as I think that one of the things humans are good at doing is adapting to changing conditions.
ReplyDelete2 is really impossible to answer briefly! Am I a moral realist? Well, this partly depends on what you mean by moral realism. I think my morals are founded in reality because I think that our reality is, to some extent, socially constructed and, therefore, if I do something that society considers immoral there may well be real consequences. Of course, what constitutes 'society' and what counts as 'moral' are not precisely defined which leaves room for mistakes and anti-social behaviour but also the possibility of change and development. Some things are more basic than others which is why, for example, killing other humans is regarded as something to be avoided as much as possible in almost all societies for a large part of our history.
These answers only begin to 'scratch the surface' so I'll expand on any points that interest you.
Thanks for the interaction, Chris Morris! If I might respond:
Delete"I tend to use the term 'non-faith' to try and convey the idea that I've never had a faith that I've rejected, so that I don't particularly feel atheism as a defining limit and also as a way of avoiding being categorised in too narrow or rigid a set of ideas so, yes, it is a fairly vague description."
It seems to me this non-faith is itself a proposition that needs to be argued for in order to be accepted or rejected, no?
"What I subscribe to, as much as possible, is to remain open to new ideas as I think that one of the things humans are good at doing is adapting to changing conditions."
In general I suppose it's good to "remain open to new ideas". However, one can't remain "open to new ideas" forever in the sense of entertaining anything and everything ad infinitum, right? Surely that's not what you mean? As G.K. Chesterton once quipped: "Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
"Well, this partly depends on what you mean by moral realism."
By moral realism I mean objective moral values and duties. Moral values and duties which are fundamental features of reality. At least I think that's a decent definition to begin with, but I'm sure we can better refine moral realism.
"I think my morals are founded in reality because I think that our reality is, to some extent, socially constructed and, therefore, if I do something that society considers immoral there may well be real consequences. Of course, what constitutes 'society' and what counts as 'moral' are not precisely defined which leaves room for mistakes and anti-social behaviour but also the possibility of change and development. Some things are more basic than others which is why, for example, killing other humans is regarded as something to be avoided as much as possible in almost all societies for a large part of our history."
If moral values and duties are socially constructed, then wouldn't this mean moral values and duties are subject to society? Different societies can have different moral values and/or duties. Hence moral values and duties aren't fundamentally objective but subjective on this view.
Of course, just because "almost all societies for a large part of our history" have avoided "killing other humans" doesn't necessarily mean "killing other humans" is inherently immoral. Otherwise this could be an argument for beliefs such as the supernatural since almost all societies for a large part of our history have believed in the supernatural. In short, what you say may be of historical or sociological or similar interest, but it doesn't strike me as a moral argument about why a society shouldn't "kill other humans"?
"It seems to me this non-faith is itself a proposition that needs to be argued for in order to be accepted or rejected, no?" Mostly, no because it's a small part of who I am and it doesn't impact my life to any great extent so I generally don't feel much of an obligation to work out a detailed justification. If I had to justify it, I suppose I would say that I've not yet come across a faith that made sense to me or provided explanations for things that I couldn't otherwise explain.
ReplyDelete"However, one can't remain 'open to new ideas' forever in the sense of entertaining anything and everything ad infinitum, right?" Yes, you're quite right, that's not what I mean as you may infer from the previous paragraph. I can't imagine that anyone is ever in the position of being either completely open to any and every idea or completely closed-off from anything new. We all exist somewhere along a spectrum of knowledge and ignorance and, in the final analysis, there's only so much you can know in a finite life-span.
"If moral values and duties are socially constructed, then wouldn't this mean [they're] subject to society?" Yes, I would say so. Different societies do, in fact, have different moral values but, as I say, some values are more fundamental than others so some values we share with most societies, others we only share with similar societies and others are quite unusual. Whether this means that they get labelled 'subjective' or 'objective' is an open philosophical and political debate.
As I said in my previous post, "killing other humans is regarded as something to be avoided as much as possible in almost all societies for a large part of our history." So the implication of this is that killing people is not 'inherently' immoral; there will inevitably be circumstances where killing someone is seen as the correct course of action. And as regards your further point, yes, almost all societies have, indeed, characterised some deeply-held sense of something 'eternal', 'beyond our everyday reality' as 'supernatural'. This seems quite a natural belief to me as does the view that moral arguments can be justified on historical and sociological grounds.
Chris Morris
Delete"Mostly, no because it's a small part of who I am and it doesn't impact my life to any great extent so I generally don't feel much of an obligation to work out a detailed justification."
I guess we're not cut from the same cloth, for I can't quite grasp how someone considers questions which various "faiths" and "non-faiths" attempt to address to be "a small part" of them that "doesn't impact [their] life to any great extent". Questions like: Why am I here? What's the meaning of life? Does God exist? And so on and so forth.
To put it another way, I would think there still would be a big "impact" on our lives if (suppose) it's true we live in a godless, meaningless, purposeless, valueless universe.
"If I had to justify it, I suppose I would say that I've not yet come across a faith that made sense to me or provided explanations for things that I couldn't otherwise explain."
Similary, one could say atheism and agnosticism make no or little sense and don't provide explanations for questions pertaining to ultimate whys and wherefores. These sorts of statements cut both ways, I think.
"Yes, I would say so. Different societies do, in fact, have different moral values but, as I say, some values are more fundamental than others so some values we share with most societies, others we only share with similar societies and others are quite unusual. Whether this means that they get labelled 'subjective' or 'objective' is an open philosophical and political debate."
Well, I would think if moral values are fundamentally based in a society, say a shared social contract, then it logically follows that moral values are subjective.
"So the implication of this is that killing people is not 'inherently' immoral; there will inevitably be circumstances where killing someone is seen as the correct course of action."
One can likewise distinguish between various types of killing. I would think killing in self-defense is justifiable if there were no other options. However, would murdering an innocent person ever be justifiable? Yet, if moral values are fundamentally based in society, then it's possible one society views murdering an innocent person as morally wrong, while another society views murdering an innocent person as morally right or at least neutral. In which case moral values are fundamentally man-made and subjective. There is no fundamental moral right or wrong, good or bad. There is no fundamental difference between moral and immoral. Morality is at bottom a social or human construct.
"I guess we're not cut from the same cloth..." Yes, we're all individuals with different experiences so, while ontology and cosmology/cosmogony are certainly very interesting, for me, they're not of such immediate concern. I realise this is probably something that's not easy for you to understand but I'm old - I might have perhaps ten years left to live (and that's a surprisingly short time now) - and I've lived a normal, happy, productive life without ever knowing the answer to such questions. For me there has gradually come an acceptance that any answers may not have made much difference to my life and the chances of me finding such answers are now quite small.
ReplyDelete"Similarly, one could say atheism and agnosticism make little or no sense and don't provide explanations..." Here we come back to my point about 'non-faith' - I've no objection to being labelled as 'atheist' but I would take it to mean a lack of knowledge of any god or supernatural being, a simple admittance of ignorance - so I wouldn't expect that it would be able to provide answers to questions of any sort other than, perhaps, to tell me that I'm ignorant.
"In which case moral values are fundamentally man-made..." Yes, that would be my opinion. However, I think it would be a false dichotomy to claim that things can only be either subjective or objective, that objective means we have morality and subjective means we don't. A considerable part of our reality is socially constructed, that is, in your view, it is subjective (as I mentioned earlier, there is some debate about whether this counts as 'subjective' or 'objective') but personally I don't worry too much about what label it's given, it's still real. Such things as language, economic and political systems and nationalities are substantially or wholly social constructs but they are all capable of expressing moral rights and wrongs.
Thanks for the continued dialogue, Chris Morris.
Delete"Yes, we're all individuals with different experiences so, while ontology and cosmology/cosmogony are certainly very interesting, for me, they're not of such immediate concern. I realise this is probably something that's not easy for you to understand but I'm old - I might have perhaps ten years left to live (and that's a surprisingly short time now) - and I've lived a normal, happy, productive life without ever knowing the answer to such questions. For me there has gradually come an acceptance that any answers may not have made much difference to my life and the chances of me finding such answers are now quite small."
If you have roughly 10 years left, then I would think these questions would be more pressing, no? It's like a football (soccer) match. In fact, it's like the final match in the World Cup. It's possible for teams to have fought to a tie (say) until stoppage time. However, if there are only minutes left, then it's all the more pressing to "win" as it were. Even if your chances of finding answers is small, though I still think 10 years is a long time (of course, no one is guaranteed tomorrow), then why not fight all that much more to know? After all, if atheism is true, then all that's left is oblivion. It's not as if you have anything lose to go down fighting for answers rather than resigning yourself to the yawning black abyss of oblivion. Rage, rage against the dying of the light, at least in terms of never giving up. However, if God exists, or indeed if the God of the Bible exists, which is what I'd argue for, then you'd have an eternity to lose. The stakes couldn't be higher. Shades of Pascal's wager and all that.
"Here we come back to my point about 'non-faith' - I've no objection to being labelled as 'atheist' but I would take it to mean a lack of knowledge of any god or supernatural being, a simple admittance of ignorance - so I wouldn't expect that it would be able to provide answers to questions of any sort other than, perhaps, to tell me that I'm ignorant."
Graham Oppy is a leading philosopher of atheism, a world class scholar, and himself an atheist. Here's how he defines atheism: "Atheism is the rejection of theism: a-theism. Atheists maintain some or all of the following claims: that theism is false; that theism is unbelievable; that theism is rationally unacceptable; that theism is morally unacceptable." (The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, p 53.)
"Yes, that would be my opinion. However, I think it would be a false dichotomy to claim that things can only be either subjective or objective, that objective means we have morality and subjective means we don't. A considerable part of our reality is socially constructed, that is, in your view, it is subjective (as I mentioned earlier, there is some debate about whether this counts as 'subjective' or 'objective') but personally I don't worry too much about what label it's given, it's still real. Such things as language, economic and political systems and nationalities are substantially or wholly social constructs but they are all capable of expressing moral rights and wrongs."
DeleteSure, I agree to a significant degree with what you've said. I agree there "Such things as language, economic and political systems and nationalities are substantially or wholly social constructs but they are all capable of expressing moral rights and wrongs". I'm not at all suggesting these aren't "real". However, what I'm referring to is fundamentals. What fundamentally grounds moral rights and wrongs even within diverse political or social systems? Maybe I ought to take a specific case in the hopes of clarity. Is it morally acceptable for a group of Muslims such as ISIS to rape female "war brides" and decapitate or burn non-Muslims who disbelieve in their Islam? On their view, it is morally acceptable. However, on our view, I presume we would say it's morally unacceptable. Yet, if moral values are fundamentally man-made (which you agree with), then, fundamentally speaking, I don't see how we can conclude ISIS is morally wrong to commit such acts. At best, we can only conclude they're entitled to their moral values just as we're entitled to our moral values. No one is fundamentally right or wrong. Yet, if this is true, then it opens a Pandora's box of possible atrocities, for there is ultimately no moral difference between good and bad or right and wrong.
"...I would think these questions would be more pressing, no?" Again, I'm afraid it's a 'no'. Thinking back to when I was your age (I'm assuming you're in your 20s or 30s, my apologies if I've guessed wrong), I know this would've been something I struggled to understand, too and there's probably not much I can say to elucidate this for you. What I can say is that I tend to see Pascal's Wager the other way round, that I would prefer to spend time with my wife and daughter and enjoy the wildlife garden I've spent the last 25 years creating rather than prioritising philosophical speculation that may or may not provide answers to things which may not exist. If I've got it wrong, I just have to accept the consequences presumably. Again, I don't see a dichotomy here. I carry on studying and thinking about philosophy and if that answer popped up tomorrow I would be delighted but, as a non-theist, I've never had any expectation of anything other than oblivion anyway.
DeleteYes, I've read Oppy. He has his view of what atheism means, I have mine, many other people have different ideas of what it means. It's a word that was invented to conveniently cover a range of ideas so I rarely waste any time worrying about a precise definition.
"I'm not at all suggesting these things aren't 'real'. However, what I'm referring to is 'fundamentals'." Well, I'm inclined to see "real" and real as both real and I'm not aware of anything more fundamentally real than real. My 'fundamental' is the empirical world that I'm aware of being a part of and, so far, I haven't been able to access anything beyond that. Does this mean that I can't argue against political groups using religion as an excuse for murdering people or men boasting that they can grope women's genitals because "you can do anything when you're famous" or any other moral turpitude? No, of course not. I can put forward reasoned arguments as part of a continuing conversation that I hope will make a difference eventually. Sometimes it has no effect, sometimes a slight effect, sometimes a considerable effect and sometimes you have to bring out the military and bomb people - back in the early 70s I was a member of Friends of the Earth when we thought of ourselves as part of a 'lunatic fringe' with no expectation that environmentalism would ever be taken seriously and I think we have made some progress - but I'm not sure what the alternative would be. The implication of your post is that the alternative would be either (whatever your particular religion happens to be) or the contents of Pandora's box but Pandora's box is always open and, no matter how convinced you are of the indisputable correctness of your beliefs, the people you would be opposing are just as convinced that they are right and you're wrong, which tends to encourage extreme and polarised views.
Thanks again, Chris Morris.
Delete"Thinking back to when I was your age (I'm assuming you're in your 20s or 30s, my apologies if I've guessed wrong),"
You're right. :)
"What I can say is that I tend to see Pascal's Wager the other way round, that I would prefer to spend time with my wife and daughter and enjoy the wildlife garden I've spent the last 25 years creating rather than prioritising philosophical speculation that may or may not provide answers to things which may not exist. If I've got it wrong, I just have to accept the consequences presumably. Again, I don't see a dichotomy here. I carry on studying and thinking about philosophy and if that answer popped up tomorrow I would be delighted but, as a non-theist, I've never had any expectation of anything other than oblivion anyway."
Fair enough.
That said I would like to add studying and thinking about philosophy isn't necessarily the only or even best way to answers, I don't think. Philosophy can only take one so far since philosophy is ultimately reliant on human reason and human reason has its limitations. And, of course, humans aren't pure reasoning machines like computers or what not. There's more to humans than the ability to reason, even if we are better logicians than Spock.
There are other routes to knowledge. For example, at the same time as studying philosophy, why not regularly attend a church service or Bible study? You may have tried in the past, but why not try it again? Bring your wife and daughter along if they'd like. Like a group activity or regular family outing. Granted, my understanding is the Anglican church in the UK isn't exactly a vibrant church these days (that's putting it mildly), but I wouldn't necessarily recommend an Anglican church anyway (depending on the particular church, though there are some good ones). Rather I presume there are decent evangelical churches in your area which you could attend, get to know people, and so on. (I'm making this recommendation in part since this is an evangelical Christian apologetics weblog. What else would you expect?! :) )
And since this is Steve Hays' post, perhaps I ought to mention a two part series by him that's well worth reading: "Why I Believe" parts 1 and 2.
"My 'fundamental' is the empirical world that I'm aware of being a part of and, so far, I haven't been able to access anything beyond that."
Of course, empirically-based knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge that's available and true. In fact, like most things, empirical knowledge has its limitations too. It's not as if a scientific experiment such as a randomized controlled trial can prove 1 + 1 = 2 or that it is immoral to torture a baby for fun.
"Does this mean that I can't argue against political groups using religion as an excuse for murdering people or men boasting that they can grope women's genitals because "you can do anything when you're famous" or any other moral turpitude? No, of course not. I can put forward reasoned arguments as part of a continuing conversation that I hope will make a difference eventually. Sometimes it has no effect, sometimes a slight effect, sometimes a considerable effect and sometimes you have to bring out the military and bomb people - back in the early 70s I was a member of Friends of the Earth when we thought of ourselves as part of a 'lunatic fringe' with no expectation that environmentalism would ever be taken seriously and I think we have made some progress - but I'm not sure what the alternative would be. The implication of your post is that the alternative would be either (whatever your particular religion happens to be) or the contents of Pandora's box but Pandora's box is always open and, no matter how convinced you are of the indisputable correctness of your beliefs, the people you would be opposing are just as convinced that they are right and you're wrong, which tends to encourage extreme and polarised views."
DeleteActually, I'm afraid you've missed my point. I was making an internal criticism against your atheism and your agreement with moral values being fundamentally man-made. If atheism is true and if moral values are fundamentally man-made, then it would seem logical to conclude you're not a moral realist but a moral relativist (or similar). If moral relativism is true, then it would seem "anything goes" so to speak. And I don't see any refutation of my point in this paragraph, but perhaps you've made it and I haven't grasped it, which, if so, perhaps you'd be willing to explain to me what I've missed.
"...studying and thinking about philosophy isn't necessarily the only or even the best way to answers." Yes, I agree although I (as you might expect) I have a very broad definition of philosophy - like all good philosophers since Voltaire, I regard cultivating gardens as a very philosophical activity! I must admit, the idea of attending an Anglican service is appealing as it would probably make me feel young, or younger than the majority of the congregation at least... Actually, my wife comes from a Catholic background and some of her family are still active in that church so we do occasionally get to attend for weddings and funerals which I find 'interesting' but also very warm and friendly. I accept your recommendation in the spirit which it's offered, however I have studied the Bible (and Buddhism, Daoism and, to some extent, Hinduism) so I'm not sure what additional information I could derive from that but I will read Steve's essay as I'm always fascinated by other people's beliefs and their reasons for holding them.
ReplyDelete"...I don't see any refutation of my point in this paragraph, but perhaps you made it and I haven't grasped it..." Yes, it did fly past at some speed! Partly, it's a problem with terminology but also, to some extent, with expectation. 'Terminology' brings us back to the beginning of our conversation ("2 is really impossible to answer briefly! Am I a moral realist?") and the problem of trying to articulate a massively complicated philosophical position in a way that makes sense in a few hundred words. So, in short, my view of our reality is that it is relative, multi-layered and constrained by physical limitations, that moral values are man-made and, consequently, moral relativism is realism. The expectation involves the difference between what I take to be your aim of 'problem-solving', that is having a set of fixed moral rules that would bring an end to any behaviour those rules prohibit and my aim of 'problem management', the continuing conversation hoping to rationally modify human behaviour.
Many thanks for a respectful and intelligent conversation, Chris Morris! :) I guess I've run out of things to say so I'll have to leave it here. I respect your thoughtfulness and time spent replying to me. I do highly recommend Steve's essays, and I do hope you get a chance to visit an evangelical Anglican or other similar type of a church. That might be fun to hear what you thought of it if you ever get a chance to attend. In any case, it's been a real pleasure dialoguing with you, and I wish you ad yours all the best!
DeleteThank you for an interesting conversation, young man (I'm sorry I can't refer to you by name).
ReplyDeleteI've now had a chance to read Steve's 'Why I Believe' and this section precisely articulates how I see philosophy:
"So my point is that trying to justify what we believe isn't always an easy thing. In fact the more fundamental the belief, the harder it may be to explain and defend because it deals with such familiar things - things so basic to our understanding of the world within and around us that it may never occur to us to justify our belief in such things inasmuch as they are what enable us [to] make sense of the world."
I have no hesitation in completely agreeing with this assessment but some things caught my attention as being highly disputable, to say the least. Steve's grasp of history seems to be somewhat partial when he asserts that "Witch-hunting peaked, not during the Middle Ages, but the Enlightenment. Likewise the wars of religion took place during the Enlightenment."
There are so many implications in this that are simply incorrect that it's difficult to know where to start in correcting it. The Enlightenment is generally acknowledged as a self-conscious attempt by a certain set of 'Philosophes' and others to re-situate ideas about human being in a universal rationalism during the second half of the 18th century which had some varied influences on European and American societies. It's not, in that sense, a 'historical period' in the way that, for example, we can say the U.S. Civil War started on a particular date and ended on another date. Voltaire was certainly making a name for himself as early as 1718 but Diderot and deLambert's publications didn't start to spread the ideas to more general audience until the 1750s.
The last of the great Witch-hunters in Britain, Matthew Hopkins was active in the first half of the 17th century and Hobbes amongst other writers was questioning the reality of witchcraft at that time. Of course, it takes a long time for these things to fade or transform in to other problems but even if Steve is thinking of Cotton Mather and Salem this still has nothing to do with the Enlightenment other than being part of the social manifestation of problems that the Enlightenment thinkers were aware of in formulating their views.
Similarly, the Thirty Years War had ended by 1648 although the French wars of religion carried on to the end of the 17th century.