One of my students (Thanks Kate!) found this article. They are arguing for a thesis quite consistent with what I've been pressing in several recent posts:

Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.
One of my students (Thanks Kate!) found this article. They are arguing for a thesis quite consistent with what I've been pressing in several recent posts:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
16 comments:
I believe that if the average believing peep could study, even just a little bit, a few key terms then they would be on the road to Team Atheist: cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies (all of them) and motivated reasoning. Awesome as usual buddy,
KRiss
It seems this article could be particularly applicable to you given how you responded (or lack there of) to Randal Rauser's (powerful) critique of your pet argument against the resurrection,
Here: http://bit.ly/pCaj6q
Here: http://bit.ly/pGcm6b
Here: http://bit.ly/qemfvT
Here: http://bit.ly/nUesz0
Here: http://bit.ly/pKAAgF
I think it would be most beneficial to your argument to make a more serious response this time.
thedark,
Did you read the comments? There was a pretty lengthy discussion there in which he did respond.
There are no conditions, hypothetical or real, under which those dedicated to apologetics will concede that their views are irrational. So engaging with their rationalizations can only result in their claiming victory.
@DeStefano
Yes, I did read the comments. That is exactly what I mean by a lack of a serious response. McCormick revealed, as the atheistic apologist that he is, that there are no conditions, hypothetical or real, under which he will concede that his views are irrational.
@McCormick
And you are an atheistic apologist guilty of the very things you accuse others of. It's hard to imagine how you don't see how Rauser completely undermined your pet argument.
I find these studies fascinating for many of the same reasons you do. However, I am trying to get a handle on the explanatory power and scope of these studies with respect to religious beliefs. Now, it seems fairly clear that these studies can readily account for some of the more obvious instances of religious belief, but I wonder how they relate to reflective religious belief. For example, Richard Swinburne seems to be a paragon of reflective religious belief. My opinion on this is that Swinburne has a very advanced education compared to most adherents of the various religious belief systems, but various motivational and cognitive biases have been with Swinburne throughout much, if not all of his academic career, and along his academic career, his life has followed a kind of "trajectory of reflective religious belief formation" that has resulted in a fairly sophisticated web of beliefs and justifications such that much of his motivational and cognitive biases are buried deep compared to a non-reflective believer. In other words, these studies are uncovering biases that are inherent in all people who have religious belief, but in the case of some reflective religious belief (i.e. Richard Swinburne), these motivational and cognitive biases are buried pretty deep. So, someone like Swinburne is rational given his background beliefs, heuristics, priors, etc., and he is capable of rationally responding to objections to his view, but ultimately, he has several unconscious motivational and cognitive biases inextricably entangled around his reasoning and decision procedures that he may or may not be culpable for? What do you think about the things I have said?
Thanks
I love your blog and I remember learning about cognitive dissonance in psychology and relating it to religion.
Presumably this runs both ways. E.g., Matt, how invested do you feel you are in your position? "the strength of this uncomfortable tension depends on the degree to which people have invested in their beliefs, for example by way of public commitment, or by the time and effort spent acting in accordance with these beliefs"
Also, I'm also not quiet sure yet how it relates to the resurrection. Presumably you mean the case for Jesus' resurrection, wherein scholars grant that the apostles didn't simply (somehow) hold that God had vindicated Jesus in an obscure way, but that they genuinely believed they saw, with their eyes, Jesus appearing to them alive from the dead.
Relevant articles would sooner be ones pertaining to group hallucinatory experiences brought on by said cognitive dissonance. Though I'm skeptical that group hallucinations occur, if they do, the hypothesized criteria don't seem to be met in the apostles case. Many think it is very difficult to explain the apostle's experience naturally.
"The followers who had resigned from their jobs, given away their material belongings and were present at the arranged place and time with full conviction in their imminent salvation, became even more ardent believers after the prophecy failed, and started to proselytize even more actively for the cult. However, those for whom the cognitive stakes were lower (e.g. those who kept their belongings and stayed home in fearful expectation of what was supposedly to come), were more likely to abandon their beliefs afterwards."
Pensive, you can't see how that can possibly relate to the resurrection?
Matt DeStefano, no, I don't see how that is at all relevant. Recall, scholars of every stripe say "that [the apostles] genuinely believed they saw, with their eyes, Jesus appearing to them alive from the dead."
The atheist is called to give an explanation of this event. What would give them such a visual experience? Most atheist historical Jesus scholars think they hallucinated. So I recommended Matt McCormick to try and tie this in to the association between dissonance and hallucinations. Otherwise, dissonance simpliciter is just irrelevant to the datum Christians call atheists to explain.
There are a lot of subtle issues here. First, I'm not at all clear about what most scholars say. I have found that apologists and evangelicals are not reliable sources of information about that. Furthermore, these claims need to be distinguished: "There is evidence that there was a religious movement of people who believed X that dates 30-150 years after the alleged events of X," from "there were people who believed they saw X." There is a great deal of work that needs to be done to infer the latter from the former. In my experience, too many folks gloss over that gap as if it is easy or obvious. Furthermore, attesting to what people believe, if we are just talking about the relevant academic experts to cite here, is perhaps more the province of philosophers and epistemologists (like myself), especially about supernatural or metaphysical matters, or psychologists, and less the province of historians or Bible scholars. Belief is a rich and complicated phenomena, about which I am one of the experts to be honest, and many of the important subtleties about what it is aren't even on the radar of the typical Bible scholar, apologist, or highly motivated believing historian. My book goes into all of these matters at length. Coming out in the summer.
Gary Habermas (only now a Christian, because of this argument) writes "On the state of Resurrection studies today, I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and cataloged about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something."
Also, it's important to note that the belief that "there were people who believed they saw x" is not based on the existence of people who believed x between 30-150 years after (AD 60-190). Consider 1 Cor., which non-Christian scholars date to AD 53-55 (and it's not Paul's earliest letter). In fact, here in 1 Cor, we see all sorts of information with is symptomatic of a thriving community and movement which has been existence long prior AD 53-55. Moreover, in 1 Cor 15:3-5, Paul writes "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." Paul here is appealing their pre-existing belief in the appearances to make his argument, a belief which obviously predates this letter. In fact, scholars know for a number of reasons that Paul is here quoting a creedal confession[1] that dates to AD 30-35, according to virtually all atheist scholars (maybe less than 5% put it between AD 35-40).[2]
[1]Dale Allison, who denies resurrection, writes that "[1 Cor 15] incorporates, as almost universally recognized, a pre-Pauline formula." Reginald Fuller, who (in the Bultmannian school) similarly denies the resurrection, writes "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition." cf. The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 647.
[2] cf. The Oxford Companion to the Bible (ultra liberal), p. 647, where we read "The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul "received" after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances." I have a mountain of citations if you want them.
I was a little confused about your final point. It shouldn't take an epistemologist to determine whether a subject S genuinely believes p (that's not really what epistemologists study, at least not with any special focus). I might be misunderstanding you. Paula Fredricksen (Jewish Prof., Historian of Early Christianity) captures the ubiquitous sentiment of her peers when she writes "I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know as a historian that they must have seen something."
Hi, I'd love to recommend to you a great atheistic/skeptical podcast called Cognitive Dissonance. The show can be heard at their site http://dissonancepod.com and is also available on iTunes and Stitcher. It is an irreverent show produced by a couple of intelligent Chicago guys, who are also HILARIOUS.
I think Occam's Razor is a great indicator of the relative validity in Atheist vs, Apologist positions, and the general rigorousness of the arguments used by people on either side can be a sure sign of their overall rationality.
Saying that people on both sides have emotional motivations for being correct, as well as economic ones, is a false comparison, for it implies that is the underlying reason for continuing to defend their respective positions is mostly an exercise in maintaining the status quo.
It seeks to ignore that both atheists and apologist's can have more or less rationality in their arguments, and is actually an appeal to emotion fallacy that seeks to undermine the ability to genuinely recognize truthful argument.
pensiveblake, I would like to see some citations here for your claim: "Matt DeStefano, no, I don't see how that is at all relevant. Recall, scholars of every stripe say "that [the apostles] genuinely believed they saw, with their eyes, Jesus appearing to them alive from the dead.""
Most 'schollars' I've read says this is hearsay, and if true, offer a type of mass hysteria, not hallucination, as an explanation. Mass hysteria is a well explored phenomenon of actual occurrence.
Post a Comment