The Argument from Diversity

[spetey]

Hi folks,

First, I'm very pleased to have found this forum. I think more open debate, especially about religion, is crucial to the world's future. It is too easy in the days of the internet simply to find people who agree with you, and post only to their message boards, patting each other on the back for being clever enough to agree. So I salute you all for coming here instead!

Let me start with a little exercise in confronting religious plurality, what I like to call the "argument from diversity". Let's pretend that I believe in a god, but not the God of the Abrahamic tradition. Instead, I believe in Zeus, and the other Greek gods. Of course there aren't really any (or many) Zeus-worshippers these days, but let's pretend as an example, to stand in for all the other conflicting religions that really are out there today.

I suppose many of the Abrahamic tradition (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) would think Zeus-worshipping kind of silly, and perhaps worry that I won't go to heaven. Maybe you even fear I'll be damned for eternity. Nonetheless, pretend I believe in Zeus, and that I'm similarly worried about Christians (and Jews and ...), because if you don't worship Zeus properly--sacrificing lambs and such--you'll have to go to Hades and roll boulders up hills for all eternity, like poor Sisyphys.

Now here's the exercise: can you give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God--one that I don't already have for believing in Zeus?

Thanks for your patience... I look forward to a polite and engaging exchange.


spetey

[harvey1]

In my rush to reply, I made a couple of gaffes.

- Every Peircean reference should be Peircean-like. I don't think it is fair to ascribe to Peirce the 'evolution of ideas' perspective in quite this way since I think the context of his views was more limited to the scientific domain, or at least, a community of experts.

- Also, I'm not saying popularity increases the likelihood a view is correct. Although, I am saying that an extinct belief increases the likelihood that view was not correct.

- To know if the likelihood of a belief as being true has been increased, I think the amount of passing tests and exposure of the belief to adversity is an important criterion for its truth. If a belief grows despite that, then the likelihood that there are truth kernals residing with that belief also increases.

[spetey]

Oh no! More confusions about (what you call) "foundationalism", and (what you call) "infinitism", and (what you call) "Peircianism", and (what you call) "conceptual schemes"... aside from being confused, it's also a serious distraction. The question before us is very simple:

• Can you give a reason for your belief that the God of Abraham exists?

If you think we are just of two different "conceptual schemes" so can't translate each other, or if you think that this belief is "terminal" for you, or if you think that there is no such thing as a good reason versus a bad one, then your answer is simply no, you cannot give me any reason. If this is your position, say so.

If you can give me a reason, then I would like to hear it. I might disagree that it's a good reason. Then we'll discuss that reason. Epistemology might come up but it doesn't have to, and it doesn't all have to be settled now. From what I can tell, you have given one reason to believe Christianity is correct: because a lot of people believe it now. I have disputed whether this is a good reason. You can defend it, or move on to some other reason, or concede that you have no reasons.


spetey

[harvey1]

Can you give a reason for your belief that the God of Abraham exists? If you think we are just of two different "conceptual schemes" so can't translate each other, or if you think that this belief is "terminal" for you, or if you think that there is no such thing as a good reason versus a bad one, then your answer is simply no, you cannot give me any reason. If this is your position, say so.

That's not exactly the subject of this thread as I understand it. Rather, you assumed that a god exists for the purpose of this thread. The exact question is : "give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God... that I don't already have for believing in Zeus."

If you can give me a reason, then I would like to hear it. I might disagree that it's a good reason. Then we'll discuss that reason. Epistemology might come up but it doesn't have to, and it doesn't all have to be settled now. From what I can tell, you have given one reason to believe Christianity is correct: because a lot of people believe it now. I have disputed whether this is a good reason. You can defend it, or move on to some other reason, or concede that you have no reasons.

I gave you the reason - it's just not the reason you want to hear. You tell me which points you disagree with and we'll discuss that issue. Let me roughly state my position (again...):

• (1) Human beliefs can tend toward truth under appropriate conditions
  (2) Tending toward truth often requires humans to exist in 'societies'
  (3) 'Societies' should set-up a consistent methodology toward truth
  (4) Beliefs should be generated using the methods in place
  (5) The beliefs generated from the methods in place should be revisable and subject to differing viewpoints and discussion
  (6) Beliefs should be subject to tough criteria and testing situations to see how they hold up
  (7) As successful implementation of beliefs are found, a correlation of beliefs and reliable methods are found (e.g., rational standards). These standards should be used to further other areas of endeavor (e.g., the search for scientific truth)
  ( 8 ) As a consequence of (6), failures of the 'society' cause re-evaluation of the beliefs and methods used, and possibly eliminating them for one reason or another
  (9) Those beliefs and methods that are suspected as being a cause of failure are revised
  (10) Beliefs and methods that are identified in (7) that survive for eons and eons become part of 'society' to the point to where they define the 'society' in question (i.e., they become very difficult to change)
  (11) These beliefs and methods are inscribed as truth in a fallibilistic context
  (12) Repeat the process starting with (4)

Now, Christianity meets the conditions above, but I'm afraid that the Zeus religion does not because it didn't survive ( 8 ). Hence, this is a reason as to why your opening statements in this thread are shown to be wrong:

can you give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God--one that I don't already have for believing in Zeus?

My reason, I believe, is sufficient to answer that question. Zeus didn't survive ( 8 ), so that is a reason for believing in a different God.

[spetey]

That's not exactly the subject of this thread as I understand it. Rather, you assumed that a god exists for the purpose of this thread. The exact question is : "give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God... that I don't already have for believing in Zeus."

Right. Notice this does not assume either deity exists. It just asks: what reason is there to believe in God that there isn't to believe in Zeus?

Let me roughly state my position (again...):

• (1) Human beliefs can tend toward truth under appropriate conditions
  (2) Tending toward truth often requires humans to exist in 'societies'
  (3) 'Societies' should set-up a consistent methodology toward truth
  (4) Beliefs should be generated using the methods in place
  (5) The beliefs generated from the methods in place should be revisable and subject to differing viewpoints and discussion
  (6) Beliefs should be subject to tough criteria and testing situations to see how they hold up
  (7) As successful implementation of beliefs are found, a correlation of beliefs and reliable methods are found (e.g., rational standards). These standards should be used to further other areas of endeavor (e.g., the search for scientific truth)
  ( 8 ) As a consequence of (6), failures of the 'society' cause re-evaluation of the beliefs and methods used, and possibly eliminating them for one reason or another
  (9) Those beliefs and methods that are suspected as being a cause of failure are revised
  (10) Beliefs and methods that are identified in (7) that survive for eons and eons become part of 'society' to the point to where they define the 'society' in question (i.e., they become very difficult to change)
  (11) These beliefs and methods are inscribed as truth in a fallibilistic context
  (12) Repeat the process starting with (4)

Some comments on these:

• Just what are the "appropriate conditions" of (1)? The magical thinking of astrology, for example? Or critical analysis as it's conducted in the sciences?
• I disagree with 4; it commits what's often called the is/ought fallacy. Sometimes a new, better method should be used when we feel we have found one.
• I very much agree with (5) and (6). Now, what are the tough criteria? Surviving for a long time, like astrology has? Or standing up to the test of reasons?
• (8) equivocates on "failure" of a society. Societies can fail by being conquered or something like that. Is that evidence that their beliefs were wrong? Should we also throw out the math and philosophy that the Greeks came up with, since their culture was conquered? Societies can also "fail" in terms of pragmatic implementation of belief systems by finding that they don't achieve their goals as well as they'd like. In these terms, Greek culture was a resounding success, advancing far beyond their peers in terms of ability to achieve goals. So does that give me pragmatic reason to believe in Zeus and the other gods?
• I hope you don't see (10) as a reason to keep a belief in place--because it's already entrenched--especially in light of your (5) and (6).
• I don't know what it is to "inscribe [something] as truth in a fallibilist context"; does that mean anything different from "believe"?

Whether Christianity meets the criteria you give depends on how you answer these questions. Whether Greek god worship meets these criteria also depends on how you answer these questions. Also, whether astrology meets these criteria depends on how you answer these questions.

As for (8), I ask again: if the vast majority of Christians happened to die in the next year or so, would that be proof that Christianity was wrong? If you were one of the surviving Christians, would you convert to Hinduism, or whatever the most popular religion was at that time?

;)
spetey

[harvey1]

Thanks always for your comments Spetey. It's great having these discussions with you and getting your well-constructed replies...

That's not exactly the subject of this thread as I understand it. Rather, you assumed that a god exists for the purpose of this thread. The exact question is : "give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God... that I don't already have for believing in Zeus."

Right. Notice this does not assume either deity exists. It just asks: what reason is there to believe in God that there isn't to believe in Zeus?

Well, what you said to open the thread was, " Instead, I believe in Zeus, and the other Greek gods." So, technically, the task of this thread wasn't for me to provide a reason that showed that God existed. Rather, it was merely to show a reason for Abraham's God that wouldn't necessarily apply for a vote for Zeus. In other words, I took it as that I should show an asymmetry in my arguments that sided for Yahweh that wouldn't side for a belief in Zeus. My ( 8 ) eliminates Zeus but doesn't eliminate Yahweh.

Let me roughly state my position (again...):

• (1) Human beliefs can tend toward truth under appropriate conditions
  (2) Tending toward truth often requires humans to exist in 'societies'
  (3) 'Societies' should set-up a consistent methodology toward truth
  (4) Beliefs should be generated using the methods in place
  (5) The beliefs generated from the methods in place should be revisable and subject to differing viewpoints and discussion
  (6) Beliefs should be subject to tough criteria and testing situations to see how they hold up
  (7) As successful implementation of beliefs are found, a correlation of beliefs and reliable methods are found (e.g., rational standards). These standards should be used to further other areas of endeavor (e.g., the search for scientific truth)
  ( 8 ) As a consequence of (6), failures of the 'society' cause re-evaluation of the beliefs and methods used, and possibly eliminating them for one reason or another
  (9) Those beliefs and methods that are suspected as being a cause of failure are revised
  (10) Beliefs and methods that are identified in (7) that survive for eons and eons become part of 'society' to the point to where they define the 'society' in question (i.e., they become very difficult to change)
  (11) These beliefs and methods are inscribed as truth in a fallibilistic context
  (12) Repeat the process starting with (4)

Some comments on these: Just what are the "appropriate conditions" of (1)? The magical thinking of astrology, for example? Or critical analysis as it's conducted in the sciences?

The appropriate conditions is what is described later in the list (e.g., (2), (3), etc...)

I disagree with 4; it commits what's often called the is/ought fallacy. Sometimes a new, better method should be used when we feel we have found one.

That's not a correct interpretation of (4). The meaning of (4) is not that one ought to do something (although I see no reason why they can't if they desire); rather, the meaning of (4) is that if a method exists it will naturally produce beliefs (i.e., this should happen under any kind of situation that I can imagine). For example, if Bob devised a new method on how to lose weight, then the new method should produce new beliefs about weight gain and weight loss (i.e., by further refinement). If it doesn't happen, that's not a big deal. The method might be trivial (e.g., Alice developing a method of how to go to sleep faster), in which case the new beliefs that might result from the new method might be as simple as a belief that Alice can make early meetings since she can expect to get a good night sleep. That's all that (4) is saying.

I very much agree with (5) and (6). Now, what are the tough criteria? Surviving for a long time, like astrology has? Or standing up to the test of reasons?

Definitely reasons are part of the testing. However, I would be careful about what kind of reasons justify or disqualify a belief. For example, one of my favorite examples of false reasoning was Cartesian Europe and their insistence that Newtonian physics was not reasonable since it depended on action-at-a-distance. So, one must be careful to put too much weight on analytical reasons and not enough on pragmatic reasons.

As for Christianity, it has gone through the hopper on analytic reasons and just about every kind of reasoning process. Of course, there are 'reasons' that some people think prevents a sound interpretation of Christianity, but I think Christian philosophers have responded well to the challenges. But, it should be noted, that there is no philosophy that is free from serious criticism. It just so happens to be the state of human beliefs that they are all vunerable. The issue isn't so much as being invunerable, the issue is that they are not absurd in the face of analytic reasoning. I know you won't buy into this, but I think you tend to ignore how powerful skepticism is and how resistant it is. In my view, what this means, is that we have to find workable beliefs, not necessarily beliefs that are free from weaknesses and free having their fair share of problems.

(8) equivocates on "failure" of a society. Societies can fail by being conquered or something like that. Is that evidence that their beliefs were wrong? Should we also throw out the math and philosophy that the Greeks came up with, since their culture was conquered? Societies can also "fail" in terms of pragmatic implementation of belief systems by finding that they don't achieve their goals as well as they'd like. In these terms, Greek culture was a resounding success, advancing far beyond their peers in terms of ability to achieve goals. So does that give me pragmatic reason to believe in Zeus and the other gods?

Keep in mind that I'm talking about trends and tendencies of human thoughts to move toward truth. Of course, there are going to be many instances where someone crucified someone spreading truth, and that's a tragic fact. However, there is, I think, a movement toward truth. This is my view of how knowledge is made possible over time. I thought you said this was non-controversial here?:

As you've stated it so far, it's uncontroversial: we seem to be approaching some truth (or at least better beliefs in some sense) over time. No one's arguing there.

I hope you don't see (10) as a reason to keep a belief in place--because it's already entrenched--especially in light of your (5) and (6).

Absolutely. Actually, after you've gone through an exhaustive (5) and (6) which applies both in terms of analytical, synthetic, and pragmatic reasons, then I think you are justified in having this belief.

I don't know what it is to "inscribe [something] as truth in a fallibilist context"; does that mean anything different from "believe"?

It means that it is considered as truth, but the relationship with that truth is always a fallibilistic one with regard to knowledge.

Whether Christianity meets the criteria you give depends on how you answer these questions. Whether Greek god worship meets these criteria also depends on how you answer these questions. Also, whether astrology meets these criteria depends on how you answer these questions.

No, because the belief of the Greek gods is no longer around. So, it is not a belief that has survived (nor did it ever really undergo any real 'testing' in terms of persecution which I think is also associated with (6) (i.e., in addition to reasoning and obtaining pragmatic success)).

As for (8), I ask again: if the vast majority of Christians happened to die in the next year or so, would that be proof that Christianity was wrong? If you were one of the surviving Christians, would you convert to Hinduism, or whatever the most popular religion was at that time?

No, it would not be proof. Although, the situation for the future would start looking grim. One would need to have good reason to offset the persecution. This is why religious 'signs' are so important in times of crisis. It gives reason to have belief despite the signs that success is nowhere to be found. However, the only ones who have to believe those signs (i.e., have good reason to believe those signs) are the ones in the faith. For those on the outside, they will almost assuredly see the failure as an argument that the religion has failed. If there are no legitimate signs, then the reason for believing rest on one's own experience which must offset a heck of an argument against their faith.

A great example of this is Jesus' death. The death of the Savior was seen as a great setback by those who followed Jesus. However, the sign they received was the experience of the Resurrection. That gave them reason to believe and preach the Gospel with severe persecution.

[spetey]

Thanks always for your comments Spetey. It's great having these discussions with you and getting your well-constructed replies...

Thanks, I don't stop often enough to thank you, but I too am enjoying these discussions, at least on some level...

I very much agree with (5) and (6). Now, what are the tough criteria? Surviving for a long time, like astrology has? Or standing up to the test of reasons?

Definitely reasons are part of the testing. However, I would be careful about what kind of reasons justify or disqualify a belief. ...

As for Christianity, it has gone through the hopper on analytic reasons and just about every kind of reasoning process. Of course, there are 'reasons' that some people think prevents a sound interpretation of Christianity, but I think Christian philosophers have responded well to the challenges.

I of course don't. And I of course don't agree that Christianity has "gone through the hopper on analytic reasons" and come out unscathed. I think it comes out of that hopper looking ragged and horrible. (It comes out of the wishful thinking hopper looking awesome, though!) I think most people don't ever put it in that reasoning hopper. But since you and I disagree, here is the place to put it through that hopper again. It's not enough to say "philosophers think there are reasons for Christianity". There are some, and I frankly think those philosophers are also, at base, wishfully thinking. Meanwhile there are many other philosophers who think that Christianity (and other supernatural posits) fail badly. So let's put aside these appeals to authority and try to reason through it ourselves. It's not enough to say "lots of people believe C" or "some philosophers believe C". Why do you believe C, even on close analytic reflection?

In my view, what this means, is that we have to find workable beliefs, not necessarily beliefs that are free from weaknesses and free having their fair share of problems.

If you mean "workable" in the sense of "passes reasoning" rather than "makes me feel good", then I agree. No theory is without difficulties. So let's try to see which has less. It's not enough to say, "eh, all theories have their problems, so I'll just pick C." That would also be justification for racism, or any of a number of other bad theories.

However, there is, I think, a movement toward truth. This is my view of how knowledge is made possible over time. I thought you said this was non-controversial here?

Yup, I think in general we have moved closer to truth. But I don't think there's anything inevitable about it; there could always be a nuclear holocaust first, or the Nazis could have won world domination, or whatever (I don't think that would make Nazism right). And I think we'll be still closer to truth when no one believes astrology, and I think we'd be still closer to the truth when people stop believing Christianity. You disagree. So let's consider what reasons we have now to think Christianity is true or false, rather than just saying "well beliefs tend toward the truth, so probably C is true." This would justify astrology too.

I don't know what it is to "inscribe [something] as truth in a fallibilist context"; does that mean anything different from "believe"?

It means that it is considered as truth, but the relationship with that truth is always a fallibilistic one with regard to knowledge.

Yes: it's believed.

No, because the belief of the Greek gods is no longer around. So, it is not a belief that has survived (nor did it ever really undergo any real 'testing' in terms of persecution which I think is also associated with (6) (i.e., in addition to reasoning and obtaining pragmatic success)).

Under the supposition you want to keep, it has survived, because I believe it. Or do you need a large head count to determine which religion is right, so just having me believe it isn't enough? You need a majority rule? And in what sense did it not undergo "testing"? You mean reasons testing? Let's put it through the reasons hopper too, and see how it compares to Christianity. If you don't mean reasons testing, then I don't think that kind of "testing" (like whether people who believed it survived Roman invasions or whatever) is relevant, just as I don't think it's relevant to whether Euclid did good work in geometry.

As for (8 ), I ask again: if the vast majority of Christians happened to die in the next year or so, would that be proof that Christianity was wrong? If you were one of the surviving Christians, would you convert to Hinduism, or whatever the most popular religion was at that time?

No, it would not be proof. Although, the situation for the future would start looking grim. One would need to have good reason to offset the persecution. This is why religious 'signs' are so important in times of crisis.

Huh? What persecution? Suppose it was just that freak communion-wafer virus.

For those on the outside, they will almost assuredly see the failure as an argument that the religion has failed.

Maybe, if they have this weird "theistic evolution of ideas" view that you have. What I'm asking you is: do you think they would be right to apply the "theistic evolution of ideas" here? Your answer seems to be no, since you wouldn't yourself convert if the demographics of the world changed that radically. This makes me think maybe you don't think that the contingent matter of whether an idea happens to survive is really the best test for whether it is reasonable.


spetey

[harvey1]

So let's put aside these appeals to authority and try to reason through it ourselves. It's not enough to say "lots of people believe C" or "some philosophers believe C". Why do you believe C, even on close analytic reflection?

Why do I believe is a difficult question since it is a historical/personal one. I think the reason anyone believes anything falls ultimately in this category.

However, I think the question you want to know is why do I continue to be a Christian now that I know what I know about science, philosophy, other beliefs, etc.? The answer to that question is because I think it has the best meaningful answer to explain the world that we see. In our world, it is easy to believe any meaningless answer (e.g., North Korea will launch its nukes against San Francisco setting off nuclear wars...), but it is much more of a challenge to believe something meaningful (e.g., somehow humans will make it through the very dangerous times in which we live). Belief, in my view, is a matter of choice. It's not just believing what we can possibly have reason to believe, it is believing what we can reasonably believe and still see meaning in the world. This is perhaps our most fundamental difference in how we see the world and the choices that humans have to see the world.

No theory is without difficulties. So let's try to see which has less. It's not enough to say, "eh, all theories have their problems, so I'll just pick C." That would also be justification for racism, or any of a number of other bad theories.

I would say let's see what beliefs offer hope, and let's see if we can reasonably believe those beliefs. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to think that humans will exterminate themselves, but humans require meaning in their lives and that means that we have to possess hope.

No, because the belief of the Greek gods is no longer around. So, it is not a belief that has survived (nor did it ever really undergo any real 'testing' in terms of persecution which I think is also associated with (6) (i.e., in addition to reasoning and obtaining pragmatic success)).

Under the supposition you want to keep, it has survived, because I believe it. Or do you need a large head count to determine which religion is right, so just having me believe it isn't enough? You need a majority rule?

No, but the ancient Greek religion didn't survive. It's gone. The belief that I think is true (i.e., an evolution of ideas), requires that we write off that religion as a loser. It has nothing to do with majority rule and only to do with the fact that it is gone. Had it survived then it doesn't have to be in a majority, but there should be some reasonable degree of expectation to see it become the religion that humanity finally hones in on at some unspecified date in the future.

And in what sense did it not undergo "testing"? You mean reasons testing? Let's put it through the reasons hopper too, and see how it compares to Christianity. If you don't mean reasons testing, then I don't think that kind of "testing" (like whether people who believed it survived Roman invasions or whatever) is relevant, just as I don't think it's relevant to whether Euclid did good work in geometry.

The testing it went through is natural selection of ideas. It wasn't selected as an idea to be propagated for future generations. Some ideas can go extinct and come back again if they offer some kind of reason (e.g., pragmatic reason) to do so, but do you honestly think that is likely?

For those on the outside, they will almost assuredly see the failure as an argument that the religion has failed.

Maybe, if they have this weird "theistic evolution of ideas" view that you have. What I'm asking you is: do you think they would be right to apply the "theistic evolution of ideas" here? Your answer seems to be no, since you wouldn't yourself convert if the demographics of the world changed that radically. This makes me think maybe you don't think that the contingent matter of whether an idea happens to survive is really the best test for whether it is reasonable.

Yes, the world would be justified in thinking that the religion failed unless they could be made to see what I see from my conceptual perspective. For that to happen, I would have to work diligently on my part to show that the religion didn't falter as everyone had so believed. However, this is a small minority of cases. When ideas falter for one reason or another, they tend to disappear. In some cases there is a resurgence later, but the ideas have usually been drastically modified for a different setting. Even ideas that stick around are evolving drastically and those views are not the same as when they were originally introduced.

Keep in mind, when I talk about evolution of ideas, I have something in mind that applies to more than the Christian religion, or to theism. It applies to everything that can be classified as a belief or idea. This is a general philosophy that is related to a general evolutionary epistemological outlook. I simply apply a little Peircean influence to avoid relativism.

[spetey]

However, I think the question you want to know is why do I continue to be a Christian now that I know what I know about science, philosophy, other beliefs, etc.? The answer to that question is because I think it has the best meaningful answer to explain the world that we see. In our world, it is easy to believe any meaningless answer (e.g., North Korea will launch its nukes against San Francisco setting off nuclear wars...), but it is much more of a challenge to believe something meaningful (e.g., somehow humans will make it through the very dangerous times in which we live).

First, it has yet to be established that theism is more "meaningful" than atheism. (As I have suggested, I think atheism provides a more meaningful life, similar to the way it's more meaningful to strike out on your own than to live with your mother all her life.)

Second, and more importantly, it has yet to be established that for something to be meaningful is any reason to think it's true or otherwise good to believe. It would be really meaningful to me if, I don't know, there were a book of poetry written by famous poets that is all about my life. This is no reason to think such a book of poetry exists. It sounds a lot like wishful thinking.

Belief, in my view, is a matter of choice. It's not just believing what we can possibly have reason to believe, it is believing what we can reasonably believe and still see meaning in the world.

Okay. Let's see what we can reasonably believe--I'm glad you added that part. Because even if I granted that belief in God were somehow "meaningful", I have been explicitly saying that it's not reasonable to believe. So that's the part you have to defend.

It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to think that humans will exterminate themselves, but humans require meaning in their lives and that means that we have to possess hope.

I like hope too, and I have lots of hope, and none of it depends on a super-being watching over us. I don't think humans will exterminate themselves. (Contrary to what the religious tell you, I can assure you atheism is not synonymous with bitter cynical unhappiness!)

Under the supposition you want to keep, it has survived, because I believe it. Or do you need a large head count to determine which religion is right, so just having me believe it isn't enough? You need a majority rule?

No, but the ancient Greek religion didn't survive. It's gone.

Again, under the supposition you insist on keeping, it hasn't gone, because I believe it. I'm saying: suppose I believe in Zeus. What reason would I have to believe in God instead? You can't say to me "because no one believes in Zeus", since that is blatantly false under the supposition. (And, if I'm at all reasonable, I wouldn't think that had a lot to do with its truth anyway, except maybe indirectly.)

Had it survived then it doesn't have to be in a majority, but there should be some reasonable degree of expectation to see it become the religion that humanity finally hones in on at some unspecified date in the future.

Okay. This is important. What reason do you have to say that humanity won't hone in on Greek gods in the future? Is it a truth-based reason, or a reason to do with accidental stuff about how there aren't many believers around now, and so is unlikely to get the funding etc. it needs to spread further?

Now compare that circumstance to the post-wafer-virus circumstance, where you are the only Christian who has survived the horribly contaminated communion wafers. It's unlikely that Christianity will flourish, but for purely accidental reasons to do with the fact that you don't have a lot of resources, and you're a little sick yourself, and so on. Does that show Christianity is wrong? If not, why would similar circumstances show that Greek paganism is wrong?

And in what sense did it not undergo "testing"? You mean reasons testing? Let's put it through the reasons hopper too, and see how it compares to Christianity. If you don't mean reasons testing, then I don't think that kind of "testing" (like whether people who believed it survived Roman invasions or whatever) is relevant, just as I don't think it's relevant to whether Euclid did good work in geometry.

The testing it went through is natural selection of ideas. It wasn't selected as an idea to be propagated for future generations.

Harvey, this is how I hear this exchange:

• spetey: In what sense did it undergo testing?
  harvey1: In the sense that it wasn't selected.

Do you see why this is an unsatisfactory answer? It's basically saying "in the sense that it failed the test." But what exactly is the test? Mere existence? Does the existence of an idea show that it's been tested, so that astrology has passed this test, and Zeus paganism too (as long as there's at least one believer)?

I think the relevant test for whether to believe something is the test of whether there are reasons for it, not whether it appeals to many wishful thinkers who want an apparently more meaningful life or whatever.

[If almost every Christian died in a freak accident then] for those on the outside, they will almost assuredly see the failure as an argument that the religion has failed.

Maybe, if they have this weird "theistic evolution of ideas" view that you have. What I'm asking you is: do you think they would be right to apply the "theistic evolution of ideas" here? Your answer seems to be no, since you wouldn't yourself convert if the demographics of the world changed that radically. This makes me think maybe you don't think that the contingent matter of whether an idea happens to survive is really the best test for whether it is reasonable.

Yes, the world would be justified in thinking that the religion failed unless they could be made to see what I see from my conceptual perspective.

Right. So you don't think an idea's merely surviving or not is the true test, do you? You think it has to do with whether people consider your reasons for your belief ( which I think is what you mean about hoping people will see your "conceptual perspective").

Look, I could go back to asking about reasons to believe in God that don't apply to Vishnu. This in the past has neatly sidestepped your whole "evolution of ideas" front so that we could get down to the real issue. But since you keep coming back to it, I really want to shake you of the idea that an idea's existence or popularity is good evidence for the truth of that idea, or conversely. It doesn't work for astrology, right? And as for the converse: the Greeks knew the earth was round. It was forgotten in the Dark Ages. Was that alone good reason to think the earth was flat, during those times?

Sometimes, when I ask for a reason to believe in God, you seem to say, "lots of people believe it and have believed it, and that's why it's good to believe." When I press you on whether this is reasonable, and whether it isn't just as good a reason to believe astrology or Hinduism, you then say in effect "my belief system has been tested in a way that those haven't been." When I ask you to go through those tests by giving me reasons to believe, you revert back to step one: "my reason is that lots of people believe it, it has survived the 'evolution of ideas'."


spetey

[harvey1]

First, it has yet to be established that theism is more "meaningful" than atheism. (As I have suggested, I think atheism provides a more meaningful life, similar to the way it's more meaningful to strike out on your own than to live with your mother all her life.)

Established by whom? This is a subjective question and you have to ask it for each person. If you ask me, atheism is about as meaningful as a nuclear winter in June.

Second, and more importantly, it has yet to be established that for something to be meaningful is any reason to think it's true or otherwise good to believe. It would be really meaningful to me if, I don't know, there were a book of poetry written by famous poets that is all about my life. This is no reason to think such a book of poetry exists. It sounds a lot like.

There's no reason to think that the meaning that comes from scientific knowledge, or the meaning that comes from rational inquiry of any kind brings with it any kind of truth. Postmodernists and radical skeptics might be correct.

I like hope too, and I have lots of hope, and none of it depends on a super-being watching over us. I don't think humans will exterminate themselves. (Contrary to what the religious tell you, I can assure you atheism is not synonymous with bitter cynical unhappiness!)

I have absolutely no clue why you would consider theism as wishful thinking while at the same time "I don't think humans will exterminate themselves." Even I, as a theist, finds our continued existence the hardest of any of my beliefs to believe. I struggle to believe that humans will survive. I don't know, maybe it's hydrogen bombs in the possession of 150 countries someday, or maybe it's nanobiotech viruses that can be created in a small lab that can make "12 Monkeys" look like a comedy, but I think you are heavily engaged in wishful thinking. Not that I'm complaining since it provides hope that you understand the importance of controlling your beliefs rather than letting your beliefs control you.

Under the supposition you want to keep, it has survived, because I believe it. Or do you need a large head count to determine which religion is right, so just having me believe it isn't enough? You need a majority rule?

No, but the ancient Greek religion didn't survive. It's gone.

Again, under the supposition you insist on keeping, it hasn't gone, because I believe it. I'm saying: suppose I believe in Zeus. What reason would I have to believe in God instead? You can't say to me "because no one believes in Zeus", since that is blatantly false under the supposition. (And, if I'm at all reasonable, I wouldn't think that had a lot to do with its truth anyway, except maybe indirectly.)

You know, it doesn't really matter to me if a small group does get together to seriously try to revive a belief system that had its time and lost. My view with regard to an evolution of ideas is what is probable to happen in the future. In most cases you can't predict the future with any certainty at all, and I try not to predict it, however you have to look at what appears probable. Human extinction appears very probable whereas the Zeus religion being a factor in the future seems to be very improbable. Of course, I believe that God controls and directs evolution, so I believe that God will make it possible that humans can survive (not necessarily without catastrophic damage), whereas I have no reason to suspect that God will revive the Zeus religion. If you believe it will be revived, then all the power to you. However, I see no indication that is the case since the religion, outside of you, has vanished. To me, that is a reason - a very convincing one to me - that shows that the ancient Greek religion isn't coming back. I am still fallibilistic to even this idea, but I feel safe in saying to an ancient Greek religionist to give up the ghost.

Okay. This is important. What reason do you have to say that humanity won't hone in on Greek gods in the future? Is it a truth-based reason, or a reason to do with accidental stuff about how there aren't many believers around now, and so is unlikely to get the funding etc. it needs to spread further?

All of the above. Why, do you think it will get off the ground someday??

Now compare that circumstance to the post-wafer-virus circumstance, where you are the only Christian who has survived the horribly contaminated communion wafers. It's unlikely that Christianity will flourish, but for purely accidental reasons to do with the fact that you don't have a lot of resources, and you're a little sick yourself, and so on. Does that show Christianity is wrong? If not, why would similar circumstances show that Greek paganism is wrong?

I think you are getting confused by my stance on those inside and outside the contextual scheme. Inside a contextual scheme, the failure of those having those beliefs is reason to switch or dump the contextual scheme. However, if there is something else besides the failure which must be considered (e.g., some unpublished strong evidence, a recent miracle, etc), then the people inside the contextual scheme have a reason to stick with the faith. On the outside of the contextual scheme, they have no reason to accept that belief as "something to consider" since they don't have this unpublished evidence or they haven't heard of the new miracle, etc. If this information is brought to their attention, then they have to consider this new information in light of the beliefs failure. For example, in an old Star Trek (i.e., the original series), the Enterprise encounters Apollo. Now, that is the kind of experience which could resurrect the old Greek religion. If such an event occurred on some distant planet (e.g., Apollo's hand holding the ship in space, etc), then I for one would be wanting to take another look at the ancient Greek religion. Maybe I rushed to judgement and ole' Spetey from the 2005 era was correct after all - foolish me. Outside of such an incident, I see no reason to give the ancient Greek religion much of my attention.

The same is not true of Hinduism. I think you've perked my interest in that religion to look deeper knowing the persecution the religion has received. I would like to know more about those tests and find out how their scriptures have evolved, etc. These is all insight that is external to being inside the Hindu conceptual scheme.

Harvey, this is how I hear this exchange:

• spetey: In what sense did it undergo testing?
  harvey1: In the sense that it wasn't selected.

Do you see why this is an unsatisfactory answer? It's basically saying "in the sense that it failed the test." But what exactly is the test? Mere existence? Does the existence of an idea show that it's been tested, so that astrology has passed this test, and Zeus paganism too (as long as there's at least one believer)?

Mere existence is no trivial accomplishment, however I've said from the early days of our discussion that I believe that testing implies more than mere existence. It involves tough processes acting against the beliefs such that their continued existence pushed the beliefs toward a path of rapid evolution. In terms of beliefs, this testing comes in many different avenues, not just the common reasoning litmus tests that we could construct. We have to also look heavily at their existence through persecution and the ability to appeal to those who suffered greatly for believing those things. The reason is that the external pragmatic reasons to stay with a belief are missing (i.e., they are being persecuted, the easiest thing is to give up), but those who held the belief stuck with it. This means that there could be truth because truth is very resilient against persecution. So, it is important to look into the belief to see why it is so resilient and why God might have allowed it to continue to exist.

I think the relevant test for whether to believe something is the test of whether there are reasons for it, not whether it appeals to many wishful thinkers who want an apparently more meaningful life or whatever.

The problem with your view is that reasons are very contextual. What looks reasonable to a Spetey in 2005, will not look reasonable to a Spetey Jr. in 2505. However, successful implementation of a belief will not change. And, more importantly, as I've said before, successful implementation of beliefs is the reason why we have true beliefs from our evolutionary past (e.g., a rational canon which we agree to be considered fallibilistically as true). Therefore, I think it is inconsistent on your part to hold analytical reasons as the only significant attribute of a belief on the one hand, while not acknowledging that the only reason you have analytical beliefs is because of the same successful implementation strategies at work that were also at work when our analytical beliefs were not all that dominant in hominid society (or before the hominids).

Right. So you don't think an idea's merely surviving or not is the true test, do you? You think it has to do with whether people consider your reasons for your belief ( which I think is what you mean about hoping people will see your "conceptual perspective").

Survival means appealing to others in hope they see your conceptual perspective. If people cannot see that, then the writing is on the wall with regard to a belief system.

Look, I could go back to asking about reasons to believe in God that don't apply to Vishnu. This in the past has neatly sidestepped your whole "evolution of ideas" front so that we could get down to the real issue. But since you keep coming back to it, I really want to shake you of the idea that an idea's existence or popularity is good evidence for the truth of that idea, or conversely. It doesn't work for astrology, right? And as for the converse: the Greeks knew the earth was round. It was forgotten in the Dark Ages. Was that alone good reason to think the earth was flat, during those times?

It did work for astrology because, as I provided references, astrology declined for unknown reasons after it was separated from astronomy. Once that happened, it was less than a century when - for the first time in the history of humanity (as far as I can tell) - astrology was pushed out of the intellectual world of a civilization. And, more importantly, it happened for unknown reasons. Well, we can have a good reason why it happened. Without astronomy to provide a good pragmatic success record, astrology was abandoned by its brother who fought his fights. Once he was separated from his brother, everyone could see it for what it was - an unsuccessful belief. Astrology, in order to survive, took on entertainment as a partner, and so now we see astrology mostly survive as a source of entertainment - but no colleges to speak of, or anything of that sort.

As for the earth was round, this gets back to what is commonly and mistakenly believed about the Middle Ages. There was some progress in those periods while they were being attacked by Barbarian tribes and Muslim tribes from all directions. They were fighting for their survival. So, yes, those kind of events have a way of derailing progress, but there was a Greco-Roman culture still intact. Nonetheless, as I said, I'm talking about a statistical process. When you start talking about a whole region under attack, that whole 400-600 year period is just one sample. You have to take a number of samples of that kind of timeframe/region-frame, and then you can see how over the course of many of these circumstances, the beliefs that are 'true' find a way to bubble to the surface. There are major 'random' events that can disrupt the most true beliefs, but the evolution of ideas has a way of recovering if you look at the specific event over the context of hundreds and thousands of those events.

Sometimes, when I ask for a reason to believe in God, you seem to say, "lots of people believe it and have believed it, and that's why it's good to believe." When I press you on whether this is reasonable, and whether it isn't just as good a reason to believe astrology or Hinduism, you then say in effect "my belief system has been tested in a way that those haven't been." When I ask you to go through those tests by giving me reasons to believe, you revert back to step one: "my reason is that lots of people believe it, it has survived the 'evolution of ideas'."

Again, you have to refer to my outline on how true beliefs evolve over time. The first part of your response is related to (1), the second part is related to (6), and the third part is related to ( 8 ). If you follow that outline, you'll see what I'm talking about is much more general than religion. It is a template for all true beliefs in a large-scale statistical sense.

(1) Human beliefs can tend toward truth under appropriate conditions
(2) Tending toward truth often requires humans to exist in 'societies'
(3) 'Societies' should set-up a consistent methodology toward truth
(4) Beliefs should be generated using the methods in place
(5) The beliefs generated from the methods in place should be revisable and subject to differing viewpoints and discussion
(6) Beliefs should be subject to tough criteria and testing situations to see how they hold up
(7) As successful implementation of beliefs are found, a correlation of beliefs and reliable methods are found (e.g., rational standards). These standards should be used to further other areas of endeavor (e.g., the search for scientific truth)
( 8 ) As a consequence of (6), failures of the 'society' cause re-evaluation of the beliefs and methods used, and possibly eliminating them for one reason or another
(9) Those beliefs and methods that are suspected as being a cause of failure are revised
(10) Beliefs and methods that are identified in (7) that survive for eons and eons become part of 'society' to the point to where they define the 'society' in question (i.e., they become very difficult to change)
(11) These beliefs and methods are inscribed as truth in a fallibilistic context
(12) Repeat the process starting with (4)

[spetey]

Hey gang! Again cutting way down to a few key notions:

First, it has yet to be established that theism is more "meaningful" than atheism. (As I have suggested, I think atheism provides a more meaningful life, similar to the way it's more meaningful to strike out on your own than to live with your mother all her life.)

Established by whom? This is a subjective question and you have to ask it for each person. If you ask me, atheism is about as meaningful as a nuclear winter in June.

Established by reason-giving, of course. I have given a reason why I think atheism is more "meaningful" than theism (a heavily metaphorical one, I grant, but that's partly due to the slippery nature of what's "meaningful"). If you think what's "meaningful" is all subjective, and there are no facts of the matter, then you are not in a position to claim that theism is (in fact) more meaningful than atheism, so even by your own lights it should not be on the table as a reason to pick one over the other. (Of course I think it should not be on the table anyway, since it is just wishful thinking.) If on the other hand you believe that theism is genuinely more meaningful than atheism, you have (I think) an obligation to provide reasons for this position, in light of such reasons against it. You say atheism is not meaningful. Why? Perhaps it's time to address this.

Second, and more importantly, it has yet to be established that for something to be meaningful is any reason to think it's true or otherwise good to believe. It would be really meaningful to me if, I don't know, there were a book of poetry written by famous poets that is all about my life. This is no reason to think such a book of poetry exists. It sounds a lot like.

There's no reason to think that the meaning that comes from scientific knowledge, or the meaning that comes from rational inquiry of any kind brings with it any kind of truth. Postmodernists and radical skeptics might be correct.

Let me say again: if like the postmodernists you genuinely believe that there are no truths, that no one belief is better than another, that any method of belief-formation is as good as another, then you have no place on a forum for debates, trying to convince others of your position. The very premise of a debate is that one belief might be better than another to hold. If on the other hand you don't believe this pomo claptrap (as you have claimed numerous times before, much to my relief), then please don't appeal to it when you feel backed into a corner. If you wish to defend wishful thinking, do so; if not, don't. Don't defend wishful thinking by saying "maybe no belief is better than any other". That cure is way worse than the disease, and I hope never to see it from you again.

Look, I could go back to asking about reasons to believe in God that don't apply to Vishnu. This in the past has neatly sidestepped your whole "evolution of ideas" front so that we could get down to the real issue. But since you keep coming back to it, I really want to shake you of the idea that an idea's existence or popularity is good evidence for the truth of that idea, or conversely. It doesn't work for astrology, right? And as for the converse: the Greeks knew the earth was round. It was forgotten in the Dark Ages. Was that alone good reason to think the earth was flat, during those times?

It did work for astrology because, as I provided references, astrology declined for unknown reasons after it was separated from astronomy. Once that happened, it was less than a century when - for the first time in the history of humanity (as far as I can tell) - astrology was pushed out of the intellectual world of a civilization.

Astrology has not declined. It is a huge industry and tons of people genuinely believe in that junk, probably way more than in Christianity (if you include Chinese astrology etc). You want to say it "declined" because you don't believe it. But then of course on those grounds I get to say "Christianity declined"!

Also, you say astrology was "pushed out of the intellectual world". This is closer to correct, and closer to a reason to think astrology is not true. But is that really your standard? Because you must be aware that religion is being "pushed out of the intellectual world" too, right? The majority of academics are atheist, and that's a majority that's growing fast. (See eg Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998).) As more and more academics turn atheist, will you agree to that extent that atheism must be false? Presumably not. Presumably you think there are reasons for your view that academics are overlooking. What are they?


spetey