Atheism: Proving The Negative: Science vs. Faith

Monday, January 12, 2009

Science vs. Faith

19 comments:

Brigitte said...: Why "vs."?

For example, when you love your wife, there is a lot of science involved, from hormones to recombining DNA, etc.

But there is more. There is faith and there is faithfulness and loving care. Even when you are crabby, you keep this love. It remains.

I think we do "science vs. faith" because we are too lazy or scared to do "faith vs. faith". With the pen and not the sword, faith vs. faith needs to be explored.; January 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: You are referring to the irrducible nature of the subjective. I think Thomas Nagel has some good writing on this. Others will, of course, demur.

Blake; January 13, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: This idea, that science and faith are diametrically opposite ways of looking at the world, itself qualifies as an idea, and so is a valid input to either flow chart.

Let’s assume that the idea is true. How then does one account for the fact that so called "primitive" societies had very detailed and accurate knowledge of animal behavior while also having strong faith beliefs (Atran, Dunbar) or that 50% of US scientists believe in God (deGrasse-Tyson). While this is less than the percentage of US citizens who claim to believe, it is still rather high compared with the percentage of scientists that do not believe in evolution. How can these scientists operate with both algorithms simultaneously? If the idea is true shouldn't atheistic scientists be more efficient? Many critics of religion cannot help but acknowledge that the historical record shows believers have made important progress (deGrasse-Tyson), or that the beliefs of scientists in spite of some contrary evidence, often drove them to investigate deeper and sometimes paid huge dividends (Koestler, Dunbar) (and sometimes great scientists went to their graves not believing new evidence (Einstein).

The enormous evolutionary advantage of adapting your ideas to meet the facts should have eliminated faith, if faith really is what you say it is.
The evidence from Atran and others seems to indicate that faith reasoning and scientific reasoning operate in different domains. To believe the contrary, seems to be ignoring the evidence and so would fall into the right hand flowchart and thus should be considered unscientific.; January 14, 2009 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said...: If the idea is true shouldn't atheistic scientists be more efficient?

Gosh, how could we test this? Maybe someone could make a survey of more accomplished scientists, such as members of the United States National Academy of Science, and see if they have a higher rate of disbelief.

Leading scientists still reject God
E.J. Larson, L. Witham, (July 23, 1998) Nature 394, p. 313; January 14, 2009 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Very valid data, that must be considered, but an idea or theory must account for all the facts to avoid being classified on the dogma side of the page.
The data you cite, while consistant with the doubt vs dogma idea, does not directly indicate that believing scientists are less efficient, only much less numerous.

How are people who believe (have a habit of ignoring all evidence), still able to do science well?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html; January 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Excellent Straw Man!

Grade: A

And as an appeal to authority, Reginald has an excellent point.

Grade: A-

James Christensen; January 15, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Anonymous said...: The data you cite, while consistant with the doubt vs dogma idea, does not directly indicate that believing scientists are less efficient, only much less numerous.

Coupled with other data which show 40-50% of scientists (as opposed to members of the National Academy of Sciences) hold some form of religious belief, I think the point is made. Precise numbers vary depending on who is considered a "scientist" and how the question about belief is worded.

Scientists are still keeping the faith
E.J. Larson & L. Witham (April 3, 1997) Nature 386, 435-436.; January 15, 2009 at 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: God and Science: An Inner Conflict

...
"We can only believe in one explanation at a time," [psychologist Jesse Preston of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] told LiveScience. "So although people can report explicitly, 'Look, I've been a Christian all my life, and yes, I also believe in science and I am a practicing chemist,' the question is, are these people really reconciling belief in God and science, or are they just believing in one thing at a time?"
...; January 15, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Matt McCormick said...: The study at Reginald's link is more evidence for the hidden, unconscious neurological forces at work contributing to our religiousness. See my most recent blog post for more.

Thanks RS.

MM; January 15, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...: There have been in the past, people who claimed that women, or blacks, etc were not capable of doing highly intellectual tasks like those of a scientist. And there was no shortage of reasons why.

How many female or black scientists should it take to convince a rational person, that this view is wrong.

It should only take one Marie Curie for example. One fact that doesn't fit the theory is enough for a rational person to reject it. What would we say to someone who then says "but how do you explain the perponderance of white male scientists?" A sufficient answer is I don't have to, it is unknown, I could speculate but I need not.

So while the perponderance of elite scientists being atheist, or male, or white at any given time is an important fact that may need to be explained or corrected, the fact that believers, woman, and blacks can do science seems quite clear from even a single piece of evidence.

The fact that many scientists have been bigots in the past, should be a hint that all of us, believers included, are quite capable of ignoring data when we choose to.
It does not seem to be something limited to religious thinkers.; January 15, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Teleprompter said...: Anonymous,

I agree that "if one good example contradicts a claim, the claim needs to be re-examined, revised or rejected" (paraphrased).

For example, many Christians say that their religion is the ultimate source of morality. The existence of non-Christians who are moral should go a long way toward disproving this point.

Yes, everyone is capable of ignoring evidence from time to time. Science, however, has built-in outlets to account for this. Blind faith does not. I think that is the pertinent issue here.; January 15, 2009 at 7:41 PM
M. Tully said...: paulv,

When you wrote, "The data you cite, while consistent with the doubt vs dogma idea, does not directly indicate that believing scientists are less efficient, only much less numerous."

The question is do the theistic scientists compartmentalize?

Do they apply the same rigorous standards of evidence and predictive power to their Theistic beliefs that they do their scientific beliefs?

Would an astrophysicist say, "Well astronauts, every piece of evidence I have to date shows you won't survive this mission, but my faith tells me you will so you should go on it?"

Umm...No.

Show me a consensus of scientists that apply the same rigorous tests to their faith as they do to their real world applications and we can have a discussion.

Or is your god not all powerful, but one who acts on emotion only?; January 15, 2009 at 7:57 PM
M. Tully said...: paulv,

"How then does one account for the fact that so called "primitive" societies had very detailed and accurate knowledge of animal behavior while also having strong faith beliefs (Atran, Dunbar)"

Let me think...

A "knowledge of animal behavior..."

Hmm, I do well when I consume protein, my muscle tissue grows faster and I out breed my competitors. The most abundant source of protein comes from consuming animals around me.

When I avoid the sabre-tooth and the hyena, I out breed my competitors. Understanding animal behavior is an advantage in both finding an advantageous food source and avoiding threats.

No, for the life of me, I can't figure out a natural (evolutionary based) reason why that would happen!

As for also having faith, can you explain why so many forms of life on this planet (protozoa, plants and animals) have survived much longer than humans, avoiding predators and finding new food sources, without faith?; January 15, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Anonymous said...: As for also having faith, can you explain why so many forms of life on this planet (protozoa, plants and animals) have survived much longer than humans, avoiding predators and finding new food sources, without faith?

Oh come now, they're all about the same age: 6000 years. (wink)

What Is Science?; January 16, 2009 at 5:56 AM
Anonymous said...: So while the preponderance of elite scientists being atheist, or male, or white at any given time is an important fact that may need to be explained or corrected, the fact that believers, woman, and blacks can do science seems quite clear from even a single piece of evidence.

Hmm, it was your side (in the person of paulv) which called for evidence, then when it is presented and inconveniently does not support your wishes, you attempt to discount it. And the claim made was not an exclusion of deductive certainty (e.g. "believers cannot do science"), so a single counter-example does not negate the statistics. Your attempt to frame the discussion that way is therefore a strawman.

Unlike the case with racial or sexual bias, there is not a long-standing societal bias against believers. In fact, the bias has been in the opposite direction. Until a few centuries ago open atheists, in science or not, were at risk of their lives.; January 16, 2009 at 6:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Reginald, it was not my intention to hide my identity, and you have correctly surmised that the anonymous post was mine.
But The truth of a position is not a function of the author, so after accidently forgetting to leave my name, I decided not to clutter the page with a second post explaining the error. (although now I have)

I think Tully's point on compartmentalization is very pertinent. Believers (and anyone can compartmentalize). It explains Atrans data on Mayan indians (with what we would call primitive beliefs) having very accurate knowledge about local animals. It explains how in the past very rational scientists have also been Nazi's, or sexist.

The original argument was a conflict of faith vs science, with that one form of thinking should predominate. Atran and others assume that they operate on different data sets.
Ie. that being able to accept some things on faith does not impair the ability to thing about other things logically. You present some data that people can't really belief two things at a time, but the article is quite clear that this is preliminary data, and alternate explanations exist (that people have been conditioned to believe science and religion are mutually exclusive). Other things you cannot afford to wait for certainty, so you develop methods to emotionally commit to important causes before all the data is in. Scientists have show great faith in the veracity of some ideas in the face of evidence to the contrary, faith that more important data was yet to be discovered. Many times their faith has been proved right.

As for protazoa surviving without faith, or science, hands or eyes, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Homo sapiens sapiens however has eyes, hands, religion and science.

If you agree that believers can do science well than you accept that their capacity for faith-based thinking somehow does not destroy their capacity for logical thinking. You then, like me, should not fear that faith will destroy science.

This is the claim that Atran and others make. I am not disputing the point that their are more atheist scientists than believers. Nor the argument that the smart money now appears to be with atheism. What evidence am I ignoring?

The main point about women and science, is that the preponderance of male scientists alone is not sufficient to conclude that gender helps science.
So the preponderance of atheistic scientists alone does not show that faith based thinking makes scientists less efficient, as you seem to attribute when you first brought up the fact. What evidence am I ignoring?

If there is a fundamental competition for the way people think, between skeptical approaches characterised by science, and dogma characterised by religions, How does one account for peaceful coexistance of both methods in many instances? You can say that no-one is perfect, and so the faults of some scientists is due to them not being fully able to suppress faith based idiocy. This can account for a believing and bigotted scientists, but becomes a bit of a circular argument, and cannot be independently verified or falsified.; January 16, 2009 at 7:18 AM
Teleprompter said...: paulv,

No one is arguing that we should eliminate the instances of people taking things on faith.

What is desirable to be eliminated, in my opinion, is when people take things on BLIND faith alone.

Yes, scientists do have 'faith' in certain propositions when they have evidence that their hypothesis is correct. For example, when Einstein articulated his Theory of Relativity, we did not have the technology to test it extensively. However, he still had confidence in his work.

Religion, and the blind faith in which it is predicated, is not falsifiable. That is another major problem: science is falsifiable, and can be tested at some future date, as you indicated. However, religious claims are usually not testable.

Yes, there is a competition for "the way people think" -- do you want people to employ non-falsifiable thinking which is predicated upon blind faith, or falsifiable thinking which is predicated upon evidence and experimental research? That is what is meant, in my opinion, by the "science vs. faith" debate.

Generally, the "peaceful co-existence" of which you speak occurs when a society values falsifiable thinking in science and unfalsifiable thinking in religious matters. If societies want to embrace that dichotomy, that is their own choice. However, if these non-falsifiable beliefs influence serious decisions about public policy, then we need to have a transformation of thinking. In many countries, non-falsifiable religious beliefs are indeed altering policy implementation and public debates in a counterproductive way. This is why we need a shift in public perception from blind faith to skepticism.; January 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Player Piano.

I agree hold heartedly with the value of scepticism. So when it is claimed that faith is about getting an idea and holding on to it forever, I'm sceptical and want to see data for this. Do the proponents of faith (rteligions_ really behave this way? Not according to anthropologist Scott Atran.

And when I hear more science will solve everything, I'm also sceptical (although I think science needs to be part of the answer).

Science alone, did not start the movements against slavery, the movement to limit experimentation on laboratory animals or prisoners. I haven't seen evidence that scientific collaboration with repressive regimes (USSR, Nazi Germany etc) was different that that of the general public).

Godel's theorem essentially says that for mathematical systems there will be true statements that cannot proved from within the system. Stephen Hawking and others, argue that Gödel's theorem implies that even the most sophisticated formulation of physics will be incomplete, and that therefore there can never be an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles, known for certain as "final". (from Wikipedia)

A complete theorem must contain inconsitancies. So we ultimately must accept some contradictions.

I do support science, but don't feel that all religion is a mortal threat. They have coexisted for hundreds (in the west) if not thousands of years, in which time the majority of western religions have (sometimes slowly) accepted all scientific discoveries.

Even if we accept that religion is a danger to science (or that Jews were a danger to Germany) we should still attempt to isolate the dangerous components by some sort of test, both to save any innocents that perhaps don't have the dangerous trait, and destroy other dangerous things that may have aquired the defect from religion. (like some forms of nationlism) Lastly we should keep the religion danger in perspective to the other dangers facing science. Focussing on old and minor dangers, when new and major ones abound is doing a disservice to science. In the end Hitler did more damage to Germany than Jews ever would have, and the attempt to destroy religion could do the same for science.

Science has other real dangers, like the rising influence of corporate and military players who may wish to restrict the free flow of information (patents and trade secrets) upon which science depends, or unduly influence the direction of research. The focus on short term results (like next fiscal quarter) of the publish or perish career structure that has become entrenched, Smolin argues in "The Trouble with Physics") makes breakthrough work like Einstein less likely.

You have a valid concern on public policy, and as believer in democracy, I think that the people are the ultimate best judge of what is in their best interest. I think it will be difficult to convince some Americans that stem cell (and other medical) research is worthwhile, unless we can provide them with decent access to healtcare.

I say keep trying to convince them on public policy. It may be slow going, but they will ultimately respond to reason. If however scientific progress benefits only a minority, then the majority will ultimately turn on the way we do science.; January 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: In The New Republic:

Seeing and Believing

Jerry A. Coyne, evolutionary biologist, reviews two recent books on science and religion:

Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution
by Karl W. Giberson
and
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
by Kenneth R. Miller; January 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM

Books:

Schellenberg, J.L. Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason
God and the Problem of Evil, ed. William Rowe
Stenger, Victor. God: The Failed Hypothesis
Ehrman, Bart. Lost Christianities
Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism
Everitt, Nicholas. The Non-Existence of God
Gale, Richard. On the Nature and Existence of God
Martin, Michael. Atheism, A Philosophical Justification
Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Ed. Martin.
The Improbability of God. Eds. Martin and Monnier.
The Impossibility of God. Eds. Martin and Monnier
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion.
Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell.
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!" George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”
- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpses fossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it is
all going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism. You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith? Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like? Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing? (they aren’t). If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith? Faith is a bad thing? That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken. Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5. Atheism is bad for you. Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field. Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken. What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more. There are a number of obvious natural explanations. Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases. Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons? Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

6. Atheists and atheist political regimes have committed horrible crimes against humanity. Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, perhaps Hitler, and their atheistic tyrannies tortured and murdered millions.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.” It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions. “Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7. Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.” For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race. There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice. But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us. Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters. Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes. Real respect is found in disagreement. The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8. Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference. The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines. By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method. The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals: actively seek out disconfirming evidence. The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.

Atheism: Proving The Negative

Monday, January 12, 2009

Science vs. Faith

19 comments:

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Atheism: Proving The Negative--The Recent Posts

Proving Atheism

Morality and Atheism

Theistic Fallacies

Troubles for Christianity

Naturalism, Magic, and Religious Belief

The Epistemology of Atheism

The Psychology of Believing

Faith and Atheism

Problems with Fine Tuning and Design Arguments

Evil and God

Religious Tolerance and Atheism

Problems with Immortality posts

Problems with Miracles

Other Articles by Prof. McCormick

Links:

Books:

Quotes:

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

Get this Blog by email, by FeedBlitz

Archive:

Visitors to this site: