The Permissibility of Faith

[spetey]

Hi folks!

In my experience, when debating with those who believe in God, my interlocutors will inevitably appeal to faith as their justification for belief. (Some don't call it "faith"--some call it "intuition", or "trust" or some such.) I'm very wary of such appeals, because I hear it as "I will continue to believe despite lack of evidence or argument for my position (at least, of the kind that I can share with anyone who disagrees)." I think such behavior is impermissible. Faith to me is just dogmatism, and to me, dogmatism of any kind is very dangerous.

For comparison: imagine, for example, that you met a rabid racist. You give a carefully reasoned argument to the effect that skin color doesn't matter to who a person is or what rights they have, etc. The racist responds: "Although I have no answer to your argument, or arguments that I can share with you for my own position, I just believe; I have faith that my race is superior." You would be at an impasse, right? Should you come to disagree over some important social policy measure, there is no way to reason out your disagreement. Instead you have to see who has more money for PR, or who has more tanks, or what have you. I assume that in these cases we all agree that "faith" is in an important sense impermissible. We think the racist is being dogmatic, and we think that it's destructive not to be open to reasoning.

So why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion? Or have I somehow misconstrued what it is to appeal to faith?


spetey

[chrispalasz]

Thanks. Hello back to you! 8)

spetey: But this is not a reason you can share with others who don't already share that faith, and that's what I'm seeking. Instead you're "begging the question"--assuming what's to be argued for in your argument.

Imagine the racist saying "I believe other races are inferior because they are, and my belief is correct." (Let me make it clear that I'm not calling you a racist--I'm just making a comparison to an obviously bad case, and asking for a disanalogy.)

Actually... I'm not assuming anything that I don't know. That's exactly the point. If I'm talking to you on the phone and you tell me there's a red car in your driveway - just because I don't know if it's true doesn't mean it isn't true. But you see that red car sitting in your driveway.

Now, if you tell me there's a red car in your driveway and I ask "but how do you KNOW?" and you tell me that you know because you're LOOKING at it. Fine. Or you could say, similarly, that you know because it's THERE.

The latter may not be a good argument - but it is the reason, all the same. How would you prove to that person over the phone that the red car exists, assuming you don't have the means to take any pictures of it?

spetey: Belief by personal communication is different from belief by faith. But it's similar in that it apparently can't be shared with those who haven't been spoken to personally by God.

I believe this is where you're mistaken. Belief (or knowledge. They're interchangable in this context) by personal communication is the same as belief by Faith in Jesus Christ.

Faith is the pathway of communication to God. The Holy Spirit is the means by which we comminicate, Faith is the path. It's the same as a telephone or a train. We talk on the telephone, the telephone wire is used to communicate. We ride the train, the railroad track is used to get somewhere.

spetey: Why can't the racist similarly say "faith is permissible in my case because it's proof that the other races are inferior"?

The key difference is what that faith is in. The racist is using the term faith in a completely and utterly different way than a Christian uses the word Faith. That should be apparent from my above response. They're simply not the same thing. The analogies are only the same if you can replace the word "faith" with the word "knowledge" and still have the context work.

Now, if the racist said "knowledge is permissible in my case because it's proof that the other races are inferior" then that doesn't make any sense. One would then say: "Fine. What is that knowledge? How did you come to that knowledge? What is the basis for that knowledge?" Arguing for the knowledge of the EXISTANCE of something really can't accurately be compared to knowledge of the superiority of one thing over another.

spetey: Presumably you'd want to say: "it doesn't count as proof unless it can appeal to others who don't already share your view!"

Right. To this I will say that Christians cannot offer any proof to others who don't already share our view... but God can. It is God that gives Faith. I can confidently say that no Christian has ever convinced (of his/her own accord) a non-Christian to become one. God has convinced people using a Christian, maybe... but it's never really been the Christian.

Because this is the case - Christians use the argument of Faith in order to persuade the person we are talking to to seek knowledge of God from Jesus Christ - who is living and active in everything and is readily available to be communicated to, even though we cannot see Him physically.

spetey: If by "take the challenge" you mean "start believing in God" or "seek God" or some such, then no, of course not. You see we atheists genuinely believe there is no God to seek. And we could similarly say that no Christian is "taking the challenge" of believing that there is no God. Changing beliefs doesn't work that way. You can't just stop believing, right? You have to be given a reason. Well, it's the same with us atheists.

You have to have a reason, yes, but you don't necessarily have to be given one. Maybe all Christians have not taken the athiest challenge - but I have... and I know other Christians that have. If you can't "just stop believing" then pray about it. If any athiest appeals in prayer that he/she wants to be shown the Christian Faith in Jesus Christ... I am confident that God will answer. Maybe not always after the very first try... but He will answer.

Besides - the reverse is not the same because there is no gain. You can't say "stop believing in God so that you realize there is no God". But Christians are saying that there is away to obtain the knowledge of God. And yes, of course you must believe it. But nobody is asking you to decide to believe it - that's ridiculous, as you have pointed out. But if God gives anyone the Holy Spirit, they WILL see Him... and they WILL know Him.

It's the same as the red car analogy I used earlier. If there's a red car in my driveway and I can't convince you that it's there, we might hang up the phone. Then, maybe you'll drive your car over to my house to check and see if there is , in fact, a red car in my driveway. You don't have to know it's there before you see it... but at the same time you can't know it's NOT there either. That's the difference. People will see what they WANT to see... but it's the people that will accept what's there, regardless of what it is, those are the people that find God when they seek Him.

spetey: It is exactly this part that worries me most. When ethics relies on a tenet that cannot be shared with others, but is just held dogmatically (as religion too often is), then I think it is fantastically dangerous.

Well then let me be one to assure you that the True Christian belief is not upheld on some thin dogma, but it is upheld by an infallible, eternal, and perfectly good God who died for our sins.

[spetey]

Hi again harvey1! Welcome to my new thread. (He and I have already had a long discussion in the thread he mentions...)

Incidentally, I thought I'd posted a response to this, but for some reason it didn't go through. If we end up with multiple posts, then sorry.

As I mentioned in the sub-forum "The Argument from Diversity" (see http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2512#12512 ), intuitive argument is not an appeal to faith. In fact, if everyone held the same intuitive approach to an issue, there would be hardly any firm disagreements! Once an individual was just given the 'facts' involved, anyone having the same intuitive bent would be bound to agree.

Well of course--and if everyone shared the same faith, then there wouldn't be disagreements either. But the whole point is that people don't all share this faith or intuition, and so then how do we settle the disagreement?

I don't know what fine distinctions you want to make between faith and intuition, but at any rate they have at least this much in common: they can't be shared as a reason for belief with someone who doesn't already have that faith or intuition. That's what I'm looking for. Because here sit I, with neither your faith nor intuition. What reason can you give me to believe?

There's a touch of irony here, and I don't mean to offend you. Your argument that only the 'scientific method' is capable of producing truth (a term which hasn't been substantiated, btw) is not a valid argument. But, you still take a dogmatic stand on the issue nonetheless.

I don't think I've ever claimed anywhere on this forum that the "scientific method" is the only way to get truth. I do think it's a darn good one, though... and perhaps I believe something like what you claim for me, if you construe "scientific method" broadly enough to include conceptual reasoning and the like.

But anyway, I'm not dogmatic about the scientific method. I can give reasons for why one should use it. I do not just appeal to faith or intuition that the method is a good one. More importantly, I am amenable to reasons that you might give against it. I don't believe "no matter what". If you have a good argument against the scientific method, let's hear it! I admit it would be a bit of a hard sell, since I do believe strongly in the scientific method--for what I think are lots of good reasons of my own, reasons I can share if you really need convincing--but that's different from believing dogmatically.

Dogmatism, though, is hardly a harmful thing. Without it, we would never be able to have an public education system since every group would insist on equality in teaching (e.g., creationism).

I don't see how dogmatism saves us (or could save us, counterfactually now!) from creationism in public schools. To be open-minded and amenable to reasons for revision is not the same as considering all views equal. You still get to believe things! Or are you suggesting that evolution is just a dogma, held for no publically available reasons?

Be careful of dogmatism. It's easy to identify dogmatism in others, it's much more difficult to detect it in yourself.

Fair enough. But I really don't think I'm dogmatic--I think I can give reasons, rather than having to appeal to faith and intuition. Of course my arguments will bottom out somewhere, but I think they'll bottom out in premises that you'll share with me--like "all other things being equal, more happiness is good", or "at most one of two contradictory propositions can be true", or stuff like that.


spetey

[spetey]

As for faith, to me this term is perhaps one of the most abused, misconstrued terms in religious history. Faith does not imply, and should never imply, a lack of evidence. Faith is what you exercise in response to overriding evidence.

The epistle to the Hebrews states it best in my view:

"Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see." (Heb. 11:1)

In other words, faith is just having confidence in the things you cannot prove are true. In case of religious faith, it is having confidence in the things you also hope for are true. Faith by itself is not evidence or a reason to believe.

This confuses me greatly--it looks like there is a lot of internal tension here about how you want to use the word 'faith'. On the one hand you want to say I have "faith" in claim p when I have overriding evidence for it. On this construal, I guess I have "faith" that the earth is round, that 2+2=4, that I live in Kalamazoo, and so on.

Then you quote the epistle to the Hebrews apparently in support of this construal, though I for one read that quotation as saying that to have faith is to believe in what you hope is true without reasons you can see. (This is a construal I would accept cheerfully.)

Finally, you seem to agree with my reading of the epistle to the Hebrews, saying that "faith is just having confidence in the things you cannot prove are true." But I guess the tension I see is here: if you have overriding evidence for a claim, as in your first construal of faith, then don't you also have proof?

Look, I don't really care too much how you want to use the words 'faith', 'evidence', 'proof', 'intuition', and the like. Let's just settle on some so that we can get our discussion on the same page.

In more neutral terms, what I want to know is: when is it permissible to believe something for which you can give no publically available reasons? Why is it permissible for the Christian, and not for the racist?


spetey

[spetey]

Hullo again...! Incidentally everyone, I'm learning a lot from this dialog, thank you.

Right. To this I will say that Christians cannot offer any proof to others who don't already share our view... but God can. It is God that gives Faith. I can confidently say that no Christian has ever convinced (of his/her own accord) a non-Christian to become one. God has convinced people using a Christian, maybe... but it's never really been the Christian.

As I say, personal revelation is different from faith, because then I would be happy to say that you have a certain kind of evidence, even though it's not what I've called "publically available". I can tell you if I suddenly had the experience of a strong image or voice that could tell me things I didn't already know, or (for example) change the weather around me very quickly or something (and in ways that voice announces ahead of time), I would certainly consider that evidence for at least an intelligence of extraordinary powers of the type attributed to God! If that voice also told me that it was that of the traditional Abrahamic God, I would consider that hypothesis very strongly indeed, and probably convert on the spot.

But if you think this is the only way one can (rationally) come to believe the truth about religion, don't you think it's kind of weird that God only reveals God's self to a few people? Why does God hide the truth from poor suckers like me?

It's not just a matter of looking--heck, I spent most of my early childhood looking and believing and waiting for a God, and God never revealed God's self to me.

Take those who have faith in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. They tell you: you're all wrong about this God stuff. Just look for the IPU and we swear, you'll find her. (In IPU's case the deity clearly has a sex.) She will reveal herself to you. Do you take this as reason to start praying to the IPU? Or do you have reasons ahead of time not to do so? Wouldn't you want a (publically available) reason to believe, first?

In the case of the car, I have at least some reason to believe from your testimony. I weigh that against the probability that you're mistaken or lying. In the case of the red car, it seems on balance more likely you really do have a red car on the driveway (though I only attach a certain degree of credence to the claim). In the case of supernatural deities talking to you, given the antecedently low probability of this event, I think it's on balance more likely you're mistaken or misinterpreting (or perhaps lying, though you seem like a nice person so I wouldn't think so in your case!). Isn't this how you react to people who claim to hear voices that told them to kill their parents, or to start a cult and wait for spaceships?

Well then let me be one to assure you that the True Christian belief is not upheld on some thin dogma, but it is upheld by an infallible, eternal, and perfectly good God who died for our sins.

You're not the first to tell me... and you're not the last to fail to convince me by so "telling" me. I need a (publically available) reason to believe this! Because on the face of it, it's just as implausible to me as that the IPU is underwriting all our morality. (And a good deal more dangerous, since the IPU probably doesn't discriminate against gays, or suggest that it's a good idea to kill the infidels, or...)


spetey

[harvey1]

Well of course--and if everyone shared the same faith, then there wouldn't be disagreements either. But the whole point is that people don't all share this faith or intuition, and so then how do we settle the disagreement?

I'd like to avoid re-stating my whole argument at ( http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2512#12512 ), however what I said there, I'll paraphrase it simply as: intuition is a reasoning process while faith is a conviction to a set of beliefs. If you disagree with someone's intuitive concept on a subject, then to change their mind you have to appeal to another intuitive concept that takes a higher priority over that sub-intuitive concept. For example, let's say you wish you were alive at the time to change Einstein's mind on quantum mechanics being antirealist. Einstein rejected it, not because he saw in QM a contradiction of scientific evidence that couldn't be reconciled more than any other scientific theory, but rather - as I understand - it contradicted his realist views. In order to change this intuitive notion that reality should conform to realist approaches, you would need to show that his realist approach contradicted science in a few other areas besides QM. If you showed enough evidence for him to question his intuition (on realism) as valid, sooner or later you will break the man. He would come to the conclusion that he was wrong about antirealism, and would readily start accepting antirealist views.

The same goes for religion. If you want to change a religious view, then you have to appeal to intuitive notions which are 'higher' than a particular belief. So, for creationists, as an example, you might appeal to their understanding of the Bible. If you could show that their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, and do it in such a way that the creationist felt was a valid approach (believe it or not there are fundamentalist rules for biblical interpretation), then you will succeed in changing the minds of many creationists who hold the scriptures in higher esteem than their creationist beliefs. On the other hand, some creationists are just appalled by evolution, and these people will not be convinced by biblical arguments. Unfortunatley, this is perhaps most creationists, so the task of convincing them is probably as hard as convincing Einstein that nature embraces some aspects of antirealism (e.g., QM). There is perhaps an argument 'out there' which might appeal to them, but those arguments might be tough to construct.

I don't know what fine distinctions you want to make between faith and intuition, but at any rate they have at least this much in common: they can't be shared as a reason for belief with someone who doesn't already have that faith or intuition. That's what I'm looking for. Because here sit I, with neither your faith nor intuition. What reason can you give me to believe?

We all share common reasoning methods by the mere fact that our evolutionary history has enough in common to make that necessary (e.g., the need to survive, the need to eat, etc). If you want to convince someone of your intuitive-based argument as superior to their intuitive-based argument, then you have to be as Paul, become a Roman to the Romans, and a Jew to the Jews. That is, you have to understand their perspective, and then focus your intuitive argument based on their intuitive perspective.

If you do as many people and just give facts that are constructed based on your own world view, you will be just talking at them, not to them.

I don't think I've ever claimed anywhere on this forum that the "scientific method" is the only way to get truth. I do think it's a darn good one, though... and perhaps I believe something like what you claim for me, if you construe "scientific method" broadly enough to include conceptual reasoning and the like.

Once you enter the fray of philosophy, then you are especially prone to the problem that you wish to put around the neck of religion. Philosophers are very prone to keep the same position throughout their lives. Some change their views, but some religious people convert to different religions too.

But anyway, I'm not dogmatic about the scientific method. I can give reasons for why one should use it. I do not just appeal to faith or intuition that the method is a good one

.

All the reasons that you could give will eventually reduce down to intuitive reasons that you just expect someone to believe as 'obvious'. If you say they are true, then someone could show you theories that claimed that status and were proven false. Once the truth option has been taken from your utility belt, then you must appeal to instrumentalist or pragmatic concerns, and then they can refute every single pragmatic argument that you can devise. For example:

Spetey> Scientific method created air travel, air travel is good
Skeptic> It also invented nuclear weapons, and nukes are bad
Spetey> Yes, but we are better off with air travel
Skeptic> But, we'd even be better off without exploding nukes
Spetey> C'mon, nukes haven't exploded on cities
Skeptic> Hiroshima, Nagasaki, that's just the beginning

In other words, the science skeptic, if it really came down to an intuitive argument on whether it such a method is helpful, can make their case on aspects of the method that indicate that it is not helpful. Whether you believe it or not, is up to you and how you perceive the world in which we live.

More importantly, I am amenable to reasons that you might give against it. I don't believe "no matter what". If you have a good argument against the scientific method, let's hear it!

You just heard it, but it won't change your mind about using the scientific method, even if it eventually leads humanity to extinction. Why would such a terrible fate not persuade against a scientific approach to knowledge? Such a view will contradict all your intuitive beliefs about how we might be able to rise above our hatreds, etc, and may not use such weapons (I don't mean to put words in your mouth, I'm just showing the argument so that it is easy to see what I'm talking about).

I don't see how dogmatism saves us (or could save us, counterfactually now!) from creationism in public schools. To be open-minded and amenable to reasons for revision is not the same as considering all views equal. You still get to believe things! Or are you suggesting that evolution is just a dogma, held for no publically available reasons?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that we have evolved the kind of intuitive thought process which is concerned about truth. However, I'm well aware that 'truth' is not defendable, and in fact, to even think it is is a kind of dogma on my part. I'm fine with that. Majority rules, and the majority writes the history books.

Fair enough. But I really don't think I'm dogmatic--I think I can give reasons, rather than having to appeal to faith and intuition. Of course my arguments will bottom out somewhere, but I think they'll bottom out in premises that you'll share with me--like "all other things being equal, more happiness is good", or "at most one of two contradictory propositions can be true", or stuff like that.

These premises are shared because of the evolution of human thought that makes larger use of intuition-based reasoning. They are not shared because they are reasons unto themselves. We say certain things are self-evident (e.g., as certain premises), not that certain things are proof in themselves. No such proof exists in these starting premises, and people naturally disagree what they are. At least, they disagree on what the secondary or tertiary beliefs should be (etc), and how to prioritize those beliefs among other beliefs. This is why there are atheists and why there are Christians, why there are realists and why there are antirealists.

The solution is not to cite faith or dogmatism as the fault. The solution is to have tolerance for different views, and tolerance is itself an intuitive appeal. The appeals must be made, but sometimes such appeals fall upon deaf ears.

[otseng]

Greetings spetey. Interesting issues you bring up and I think they are important ones.

In more neutral terms, what I want to know is: when is it permissible to believe something for which you can give no publically available reasons? Why is it permissible for the Christian, and not for the racist?

I would say it's always permissible for Adam to believe in whatever he wants, even if there is seemingly no reason for Bob to understand why Adam believes in it. But, like you said, it cannot be expected for Bob to share in Adam's beliefs without some publicly available evidence to support such a position. For Adam to simply declare to Bob to just have "faith", without any additional support, will most likely not make Bob believe in it.

I would also dare say that the number of Christians on this board that uses an appeal to faith without support is in the minority. I do not think many here would simply say, "Hey, just have faith man! No evidence is necessary!"

So, what is faith? I would characterize faith as the element between facts and belief. It bridges the gap of what we really know to be true to what we believe to be true.

For example, I believe that my wife does not cheat on me. Do I have hidden cameras installed in my house to watch her every move? Do I have a hidden GPS in her purse that relays her location to my cell phone? Have I installed a chat monitoring program on every single computer in the house? No. I do not have 100% absolute certainty that she is faithful to me. But, I do have certain evidence to point to the fact that she does not cheat. The bridge between the two is faith.

When there is no evidence to believe in something, I see that as "blind faith". This faith I think is dangerous. If there is absolutely no reason to believe in something and one believes in it, then it is not a reasonable position. Taking my previous example, suppose I have no evidence that my wife is cheating on me. But I believe that she has a secret lover and tells her so. My position is based on blind faith since I have no evidence. It is not a reasonable position.

However, to answer your first question, "why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion", I believe evidence is paramount. Forcing someone to believe in something by relying on that person to have faith should not be used in debating. Each person has a certain measure of faith. Some have a lot and require little to no evidence. Some have little faith (like me) and require sufficient evidence to make it to a level of belief. When someone has reached that level of evidence necessary, then faith has to be activated to reach the level of belief. Appeals to faith is permissible when enough evidence has been presented to sway the listener.

So, in terms of debating, evidence is what is initially important, not faith.

[spetey]

Hi again harvey1! (Where do either of us get the time for this, anyway? I've really got to cut down, but I've got the forum bug...!)

The same goes for religion. If you want to change a religious view, then you have to appeal to intuitive notions which are 'higher' than a particular belief.

Good! Good! We're getting on the same page, very good. What you call "appealing to higher intuition" I call "appealing to shared reasons". Perhaps we can use a neutral phrase like "appealing to antecedently shared beliefs"? That's what I think makes for a good premise to an argument.

(As I understood our other discussion, you bottomed out on "theistic evolution of ideas", for which you could only provide "intuition" in a sense that I took you couldn't share with me. But I guess that's best continued over there, when I get a chance...)

If you do as many people and just give facts that are constructed based on your own world view, you will be just talking at them, not to them.

Quite so, yes! Hooray! We have both experienced this frustration I know. So that's why I think we have to start with premises we share, the "higher intuitions" of which you speak (the "reasons" of which I speak).

Philosophers are very prone to keep the same position throughout their lives. Some change their views, but some religious people convert to different religions too.

Very interesting. Yes, there's open- and close-mindedness on both sides. Comparing them would certainly be an interesting sociological study! Myself, I've changed my views a lot as a result of philosophical thinking--on God, free will, knowledge, the mind, the nature of rationality...

But anyway, I'm not dogmatic about the scientific method. I can give reasons for why one should use it. I do not just appeal to faith or intuition that the method is a good one

. All the reasons that you could give will eventually reduce down to intuitive reasons that you just expect someone to believe as 'obvious'.

Well, yes, they would have to bottom out somewhere. But maybe they would genuinely be reasons that you share with me! If not, then we repeat the process, until we get back to premises that we do share. That's how interpersonal reasoning seems to work.

Once the truth option has been taken from your utility belt, then you must appeal to instrumentalist or pragmatic concerns, and then they can refute every single pragmatic argument that you can devise.

If the truth tool gets yanked from me, it gets yanked from you too. You no longer get to claim that it's true that Jesus rose from the dead, or that it's true that there's a God. You only get to claim these beliefs are "useful". Is that something you're ready to concede?

If we get to keep the truth tool, then I say science is good at getting us the truth about the world, even if some people use these truths to ends I don't like. (And, totally beside the point: I do believe that the progress of science on the whole has benefit us, based just on the fact that as bad as things are now, I would rather live now than in any time in history.)

These premises are shared because of the evolution of human thought that makes larger use of intuition-based reasoning. They are not shared because they are reasons unto themselves.

Why did these premises win the "evolution of ideas" so decisively that even people with vastly different views like you and me share them? Perhaps because they're true. I don't know what you call "reasons unto themselves". I think they're reasons in the sense that they're premises we share and that have implications for other beliefs.

The solution is not to cite faith or dogmatism as the fault. The solution is to have tolerance for different views, and tolerance is itself an intuitive appeal. The appeals must be made, but sometimes such appeals fall upon deaf ears.

I'm all for tolerance, of course. But that's different from saying "ah, all opinions are right." Either the theist or the atheist must be wrong. No? And myself I'm curious which... or rather, I'm curious to hear why others think it's the atheist who is wrong. Because I'd like to believe the answer that's true, and I recognize that rational people disagree with me. Until we sort it out and agree, we should be tolerant and respectful of each other's views. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try settling the question. Certainly those who post here should be interested, anyway, right? I'm not just intolerantly forcing the discussion on random strangers! I'm bringing it up with those who have come seeking out such discussion.


spetey

[harvey1]

But anyway, I'm not dogmatic about the scientific method. I can give reasons for why one should use it. I do not just appeal to faith or intuition that the method is a good one

. All the reasons that you could give will eventually reduce down to intuitive reasons that you just expect someone to believe as 'obvious'.

Well, yes, they would have to bottom out somewhere. But maybe they would genuinely be reasons that you share with me! If not, then we repeat the process, until we get back to premises that we do share. That's how interpersonal reasoning seems to work.

This assumes that every premise is based on premises that everyone agrees upon. This, I think, is a false assumption. For example, one of my base assumptions in my reasoning is that a lack of an belief on something does not let you off the hook by choosing not to form a belief about something. Rather, if there is someone forming a belief on something that they feel solves some philosophical problem, the burden is equally on me to explain why that belief is not needed AND what belief is needed (or at least give at least one example) to satisfy the problem. I used to think that this was just a logical belief that could be proven, but since few atheists or agnostics seem to grasp it, I've come to see that this belief of mine is purely a product of my own intuitive grasp of the world.

Once the truth option has been taken from your utility belt, then you must appeal to instrumentalist or pragmatic concerns, and then they can refute every single pragmatic argument that you can devise.

If the truth tool gets yanked from me, it gets yanked from you too. You no longer get to claim that it's true that Jesus rose from the dead, or that it's true that there's a God. You only get to claim these beliefs are "useful". Is that something you're ready to concede?

That's not my point, however. My point is that there really is no proof or preferred starting point which we can all agree is 'the truth' and then we start reasoning from that point. So, absolutely, I am ready to concede that there is no certainty of knowledge for human beings. We need to grasp some things intuitively and hope that there are enough other people in the world who agree remotely with those ideas. Fortunately, we all evolved together as a species, so our civilization does share these common starting points, but it is not so complete as to allow us to all share the same intuitive values (or come to agree in the same intuitive values). This is where science has been helpful, because many of the intuitive values we do share, we have been able to make headway in those beliefs by constructing a common source of knowledge. That doesn't make it truth or even approximate truth, rather it is a good pragmatic starting point to agreement on some rather important matters such as what we will label 'knowledge'.

Unfortunately people grow up, come accustomed to hearing science taught as truth, and somewhere along the line they see science as truth. Once this happens, inevitably, a naive atheist will come along and ask where is God. Since God is a concept that by definition is not included in scientific study, well of course God is nowhere to be found. Then others come along and say why does religion consider itself truth since all religions disagree on some fundamental points, and then they reason that religion is entirely false.

Where I step in is to point out how the whole process of reasoning is guided on evolutionary development of Man. Tracing this development back in time it is clear that we never do have the 'facts'. All we have is our sense impressions of the world, and how we respond to those sense impressions has, at first, little to do with 'logical reasoning'. In fact, our whole concept of 'logical reasoning' emerged after we already had a grasp of the world in a very incoherent, but, pragmatic manner. Our worldview is built on a pragmatic structure that evolved over millions of years and gradually took on more and more of what we currently consider logical reasoning.

It's important, though, not to be fooled by our evolutionary past to where we begin to believe that we are logical creatures. We were never logical creatures, we are evolutionary products of our environment, and that led to the 'logical' creatures we are today. Admitting such, we can come to grasp with our intuitive nature and how that nature continues to evolve within us.

If we get to keep the truth tool, then I say science is good at getting us the truth about the world, even if some people use these truths to ends I don't like. (And, totally beside the point: I do believe that the progress of science on the whole has benefit us, based just on the fact that as bad as things are now, I would rather live now than in any time in history.)

You wouldn't be saying that if the Soviet Union and the U.S. nuked each other in 1985. The biggest threat to the human species is our own scientific progress, and it remains to be certain if Doomsday is around the corner. I, for one, would not consider science worth it if we spent the next hundred thousand years living in nuclear war after nuclear war.

These premises are shared because of the evolution of human thought that makes larger use of intuition-based reasoning. They are not shared because they are reasons unto themselves.

Why did these premises win the "evolution of ideas" so decisively that even people with vastly different views like you and me share them? Perhaps because they're true.

Well, that gets close to my major point. Evolution of intuitive ideas has, and continues to, produce truth concepts - at least as much as humans can understand and approximate. Since evolution has produced this much already, it is fitting to allow evolution to keep up the good work.

I don't know what you call "reasons unto themselves". I think they're reasons in the sense that they're premises we share and that have implications for other beliefs.

They are intuitively developed, there aren't any coherent reasons other than a pragmatic (evolutionary) development of proto-intuitive notions.

The solution is not to cite faith or dogmatism as the fault. The solution is to have tolerance for different views, and tolerance is itself an intuitive appeal. The appeals must be made, but sometimes such appeals fall upon deaf ears.

I'm all for tolerance, of course. But that's different from saying "ah, all opinions are right." Either the theist or the atheist must be wrong. No? And myself I'm curious which... or rather, I'm curious to hear why others think it's the atheist who is wrong. Because I'd like to believe the answer that's true, and I recognize that rational people disagree with me. Until we sort it out and agree, we should be tolerant and respectful of each other's views. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try settling the question. Certainly those who post here should be interested, anyway, right? I'm not just intolerantly forcing the discussion on random strangers! I'm bringing it up with those who have come seeking out such discussion.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you weren't a tolerant person. My point is that we are not going to be successful at reasoning our way into agreeing on one conceptual scheme that everyone can reason within.

[spetey]

Since evolution has produced this much already, it is fitting to allow evolution to keep up the good work.

By 'evolution' of course you mean your "evolution of ideas", the loose analogy to natural selection that Dawkins drew up on memes and such. Fine... two ideas in competition in this "evolution of ideas" are atheism and theism. Let's see which is more "fit" by trying to give publically available reasons to each other. Just saying "there's an evolution of ideas" does not give either side points in the debate. (When you appeal instead to your God-directed "theistic evolution of ideas", then of course I do not grant you that's what's going on; you have to give me reason to think that God is directing it.)

My point is that we are not going to be successful at reasoning our way into agreeing on one conceptual scheme that everyone can reason within.

It's points like this where you seem to give up on the possibility of coming to rational agreement on the topic, and that's what makes me suspect that at bottom your belief is based on what can't be shared with others (what I call "faith"). You appeal to the "conceptual scheme" talk of philosophers of science. But you see in science people do manage to convince others of the superiority of one conceptual scheme over another, through (guess what?) reasons that can be shared across both. That's how we come to have "paradigm shifts" (if you insist on seeing things through "conceptual scheme" lenses, which I don't). And I'm pushing for a paradigm shift toward atheism!


spetey

[spetey]

Greetings spetey. Interesting issues you bring up and I think they are important ones.

Thanks! I've gotten very interesting responses too. It's all very interesting to me.

However, to answer your first question, "why might appeal to faith be permissible when it comes to discussions of religion", I believe evidence is paramount. Forcing someone to believe in something by relying on that person to have faith should not be used in debating. Each person has a certain measure of faith. Some have a lot and require little to no evidence. Some have little faith (like me) and require sufficient evidence to make it to a level of belief. When someone has reached that level of evidence necessary, then faith has to be activated to reach the level of belief. Appeals to faith is permissible when enough evidence has been presented to sway the listener.

So, in terms of debating, evidence is what is initially important, not faith.

Great! I'm so glad you agree, and yes, it seems to me too that many Christians on this forum are willing to consider evidence one way or another, rather than appealing to faith. The very existence of this forum is a great comfort to me.

Still, to be frank, I think Christianity must appeal to faith at bottom. This thread on faith has sparked some interest, but when earlier I started a thread asking for reasons to believe in the Abrahamic God instead of the Greek ones ("The Argument from Diversity" thread), only harvey1 tried to do so. And, as I read how that debate ended up, he too ends up appealing to faith at key points. (More precisely, he appeals to what he calls the "intuition" that the Abrahamic God directs some selected peoples' ideas toward belief in that God.) If there are reasons to believe in the Abrahamic God, they might convince a Zeus-worshipper or a Hindu, right? What reasons like that are there? (Perhaps best answered on that other thread; harvey1 and I were lonely there.)


spetey