Are You Agnostic About Talking Tomatoes?
Sam Harris writes on The Washington Post's blog about how silly it is, and how damaging it is, to believe in Pascal's Wager:
...Pascal suggested that religious believers are simply taking the wiser of two bets: if a believer is wrong about God, there is not much harm to him or to anyone else, and if he is right, he wins eternal happiness; if an atheist is wrong, however, he is destined for hell. Put this way, atheism seems the very picture of reckless stupidity.But there are many questionable assumptions built into this famous wager. One is the notion that people do not pay a terrible price for religious faith. It seems worth remembering in this context just what sort of costs, great and small, we are incurring on account of religion. With destructive technology now spreading throughout the world with 21st century efficiency, what is the social cost of millions of Muslims believing in the metaphysics of martyrdom? Who would like to put a price on the heartfelt religious differences that the Sunni and the Shia are now expressing in Iraq (with car bombs and power tools)? What is the net effect of so many Jewish settlers believing that the Creator of the universe promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean? What have been the psychological costs imposed by Christianity’s anxiety about sex these last seventy generations? The current costs of religion are incalculable. And they are excruciating.
To me, it's tragic, and tragically stupid, to waste a moment of your life praying to an imaginary diety. (Also, it's kind of embarrassing -- or should be.) And I'm with Harris on all of the examples he gives above. As for the Israel example, Jews are supposed to believe that the greatest virtue you could practice is saving a single life. Well, as I've blogged before, think of all the lives that could be saved if the Israeli Jews said, "We're blowing this pop stand," and, as Ken Layne suggested, relocated the state of Israel to Baja (they can afford it -- they'll just buy it, or part of it), leaving the Middle East to the Arabs.
But, it's bullshit, this lifesaving thing, like so much of religion, or the Jews would be hotfooting it out of there for Mexico, now wouldn't they? I mean, what are a few old pots and a crumbling wall vis a vis some 5-year-old's life? Apparently, we have our answer: they're much, much more valuable.
Harris continues:
...If the wager were valid, it could be used to justify any belief system (no matter how ludicrous) as a “good bet.” Muslims could use it to support the claim that Jesus was not divine (the Koran states that anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus will wind up in hell); Buddhists could use it to support the doctrine of karma and rebirth; and the editors of TIME could use it to persuade the world that anyone who reads Newsweek is destined for a fiery damnation.But the greatest problem with the wager—and it is a problem that infects religious thinking generally—is its suggestion that a rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition for which he has no evidence. A person can profess any creed he likes, of course, but to really believe something, he must also believe that the belief under consideration is true. To believe that there is a God, for instance, is to believe that you are not just fooling yourself; it is to believe that you stand in some relation to God’s existence such that, if He didn’t exist, you wouldn’t believe in him. How does Pascal’s wager fit into this scheme? It doesn’t.
...Pascal’s wager suggests that a rational person can knowingly believe a proposition purely out of concern for his future gratification. I suspect no one ever acquires his religious beliefs in this way (Pascal certainly didn’t). But even if some people do, who could be so foolish as to think that such beliefs are likely to be true?
Belief in Santa Claus can be justified by Pascal's Wager, and there is no downside, even embarassment-you don't have to tell anyone you believe.
Can anyone think of a downside to belief in Santa Claus?
Machida1 at April 22, 2007 5:03 AM
> tragically stupid, to
> waste a moment of your
> life praying to an
> imaginary diety. (Also,
> it's kind of embarrassing
It's always really about that, the need to look down on somebody.
That they care little for your opinion of their belief takes a lot of the sport out of it, but it also makes your condescension safe.
Crid at April 22, 2007 5:07 AM
Pascal's Wager just fulfills the misguided belief of trying to build a bridge between faith and reason. It will always fail.
Actually, Crid, that is an old cheap shot.
Yes, I admit of using my atheism to put down others. When I was a teenager. Atheism is a lot more than having that superior feeling towards the 90% of the world's population. Mature nonbelievers value the Atheist Wager: You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
What atheists are doing is confronting the apparent irrationality that underlies a person's belief system in a supreme being. Believers feel this sense of embarrassment too, especially religious people who live in modern secular societies. It is one of the main reasons for their hostility towards atheists. There are theists using the VT massacre to discredit atheists and atheism. i.e. Dinesh D’Sousza:
"Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing...
...To no one's surprise, [Richard] Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules."
Now do most religious people agree with D'Sousza?
The problem with believers are incapable of crossing the proverbial abyss from a transcendent world view to an immanent one. Basing one's life in this world alone is too difficult for most people to handle. I can sympathize with their reasons behind their irrationality, but I cannot accept it on face value.
Joe at April 22, 2007 7:19 AM
Hey, no Pascal's Wager, no Ma nuit chez Maude. And that would be one of humanity's great losses.
Paul Hrissikopoulos at April 22, 2007 8:31 AM
I've been watching the mass pray-ins for world peace, for grief at the VT shooting, etc - there's no end of them. Whether you believe there's anyone on the receiving end of the prayers, they do have an effect on people here and now, in the same way as a protest march or demonstration does. People feel strongly about these recent events, but unlike a true political protest, there's no-one to direct your protest or concern to. Hence, prayer lets people sound off, which is surely therapeutic.
Norman at April 22, 2007 9:30 AM
I don't think people who died have gone to "a better place," but no place at all. They're dead, they're gone, the end, fini. I don't tell people who write to me with some problem to keep believing in something that doesn't make sense -- and persist in their behavior. It's anti-life.
This tragedy is explainable -- probably by the fact that the guy had untreated mental problems. I find that much more digestible than the religious pap explanations or attempts to "understand" with fairytale suggestions.
And yes, I look down on people who don't use their ability to reason. It's part of living a partially wasted life.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2007 10:00 AM
I'll argue that prayer is a form of meditation and therefore, although misguided, not a waste of time.
Hasan at April 22, 2007 10:27 AM
To no one's surprise, [Richard] Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. I spoke at my brother's funeral. He was an atheist, as I am, so there was nothing in what I said about him just being "asleep", being in a better place, or that we would meet again. He was part of my life, now he is gone, I am sad, and I will remember him as long as I live. Note: that is not "forever."
Why should Dawkins speak to grieving friends and relatives? His strength is atheism, not human sympathy. You might as well ask Pat Robertson, who I am sure could explain it all as some form of divine punishment.
The more I read the Dinesh D’Sousza quote, the angrier I get.
Norman at April 22, 2007 10:34 AM
> that is an old
> cheap shot.
How so?
> using my atheism to
> put down others.
So it's not so old, not so cheap.
> Atheists are nowhere
> to be found.
I was going to make that very point this morning. The human heart is a noxious thing, and no fragment of Cho's evil (or Imus' tomfoolery from the week before) had anything, anything to do with religious thinking. Iddinat sumpin'?
> I cannot accept
> it on face value.
So don't! But don't ridicule it, either.
> they do have an effect
> on people here and now
Exactly. People get things from religion that no one else is offering. If you don't feel it, don't attend. You don't have to go to the Grand Ol' Opry, either. And before you cluck that "The difference is that we're not trying to...", remember that more Christians went down in front of Godless weapons than the other way around last week in Blacksburg.
Amy's never offered one of these critiques without noting that the faithful are dim and base. The proportion of atheists who want to blow snot at the faithful is almost precisely the same as the slice of faithful who want to proselytize.
It's peasy-podsy mixed with a lifelong round of didso-didnot.
Crid at April 22, 2007 11:18 AM
Flipped through Hitch's new "god is not Great" last night at Skylight Books. Definitely on the summer reading list.
Lena at April 22, 2007 11:19 AM
In studying logical fallacies, I've heard Pascal's Wager being used as an example of argumentum ad bacculum, that is, argument by threat. Believe in God or be sent to hell for all eternity.
The problem I've had with this concept of God is that it presents him as a barbaric monster, and His worshippers as more merciful than their own Creator. After all, they are interceding to protect you from His wrath, so you can spend all eternity with Him. Hmmm...makes you wonder which one of these two destinations is Hell?
One wonders what kind of sick individual would want to believe in God or who could enjoy eternity in His company knowing that millions of His children are being consigned to unspeakable agony forever. Even if none of those millions were people they actually knew (which is highly improbable).
Say you're a believer and your life partner isn't. The two of you die and you're in paradise and he's going to suffer intense pain for all eternity. Aside from the gross injustice of torturing someone forever for what could be (at most) less than 1 century of misdeeds on earth. How are you going to enjoy this "paradise," knowing someone you loved is being tortured? For that matter, at what point do you ask the Almighty, "Hey, uh, don't you think he's had enough of the punishment? It's been like 6 trillion years..."
Religion is a strange monster, to be sure.
It seems to cultivate a smug attitude of being "better" than someone else. You could spend all eternity looking down your nose at people you hate going, "Tch, tch, tch...you should have been perfect like us."
I must admit, in a way, it has a certain attraction. Wouldn't you like to believe that George W. Bush, for instance, is going to pay for sacrificing our young people to line the pockets of Halliburton, lying to the American public all the time?
Patrick at April 22, 2007 11:37 AM
> Definitely on the
> summer reading list.
He'll warm up the show for Amy:
Ackerman Grand Ballroom
PANEL 2121 10:30 AM
Religion & Culture: Do They Mix?
Moderator Mr. Thane Rosenbaum
Mr. Christopher Hitchens
Mr. Zachary Karabell
Mr. Jonathan Kirsch
Crid at April 22, 2007 11:49 AM
> It seems to cultivate a smug
> attitude of being "better"
> than someone else.
As does snotty atheism:
> "Tch, tch, tch...you should
> have been perfect like us."
The lyrics to Amy's favorite tune.
> is going to pay for sacrificing
> our young people to line the
> pockets of Halliburton,
No more so than every earlier president back to Eisenhower, and maybe Taft, for sustaining the flow of cheap oil by supporting crime families as dictators.
Crid at April 22, 2007 11:53 AM
Atheism is unfounded as theism. Nobody can offer credible proof to support their assertions that there is or isn't a god. The existence of a deity is one of the great unknowable questions of life. People believe whatever helps them get through the day and make sense of the world.
justin case at April 22, 2007 12:08 PM
Dinesh is just a cheap sleazy ideologue. The world is full of them... believers and nonbelievers.
In fact most people do not know than I am an atheist. Only when the religious question is brought up... usually by a religious person. That is how most of my debates begin and usually end with the believer having a fit or emotional meltdown of some kind.
I will give an example of a friend of a friend who was studying to be a Lutheran minister. For a few years he tried to get me into a debate with him and I would usually avoid it by walking away.
One time I just got sick of it and decided to knocked him down a few pegs by attacking his Divinity major. I asked him: What is theology? The science of god, right? Something that tells us about god, his attributes and his relations to humans and the universe. The future minister agreed with my simple view of theology. Then I asked if theology is a science then how can you prove this divine realm? Nothing in this realm could proven through the scientific method. Then what is theology? His response was that theology could be the systematic discourse of religion. I countered the argument by saying: Do I qualify as a theologian? I’m discussing religion. All the past critics of religion qualify as theologians? The future minister got really defensive and stormed off.
Now am I ridiculing him? Just his career choice. He wanted to have a debate with another adult. He got it and didn’t like the results. Who acted like the child not getting his way?
Joe at April 22, 2007 12:18 PM
Why should Dawkins speak to grieving friends and relatives? His strength is atheism, not human sympathy.
That's a very accurate comment! And I appreciate your remark about speaking at your brother's funeral. Likewise, I'd say people who've meant something to me who've died -- Cathy Seipp, Marlowe Minnick, Marlon Brando, Marnye Oppenheim, Ted Churchill -- live on through the difference they made in my life and the world.
Regarding Justin's comment above, that atheism is as unfounded as theism, you're wrong. I'll explain by example: I simply don't believe in that for which there's no evidence. Thus, I don't believe in god, talking dogs, or tomatoes that can do tax accounting.
Amy Alkon at April 22, 2007 12:19 PM
Thus, I don't believe in god, talking dogs, or tomatoes that can do tax accounting. Seconded. I really don't see how the foundations of theism and atheism can be equated. One is explicitly based on the high value given to faith, the other devalues faith in all its forms. The equation between the two is never made by atheists, as far as I can tell.
Norman at April 22, 2007 1:59 PM
One of the things that has always amused me about Pascal's Wager (as well as those who promote it) is this:
Assuming that God does indeed exist (and can, as so many of his followers insist, see into our souls), in what way would 'believing', just in case, not be a fundamental insult to such a being? We're essentially being told that we can fool God into accepting us, simply by going through the motions.
As for me (an atheist), I'd much rather be condemned for what I really believe, instead of praised for what I might otherwise pretend to believe. If, by some remote chance, God does indeed exist, and I have to face him after death, I will face him honestly, true to myself, whatever the cost.
Also, for Justin's statement, there is a fundamental tenet in scientific (and mathematic) discourse, which is that it is not possible to prove a negative (e.g. God does not exist). In that case, the onus is upon the person proposing the existence of God to submit the (objective) evidence in favor of their position.
Rod at April 22, 2007 8:01 PM
Very true, Rod. So far, this has been my sole reason to be "only" an agnostic with very, very strong atheist tendencies; I'm pretty sure that many self-confessed atheists are being chastised this very minute by believers who state: "You can't prove that there are no tomatoes doing the tax accounting according to the instructions of your talking dog when you're not paying attention." No, I can't, but I won't carry that onus for the believers in any discussion. They should prove that there is a god or stop preaching and face the facts. (Educated guess: Won't happen.)
Rainer at April 23, 2007 12:44 AM
it is not possible to prove a negative I wish this canard would go away, because it's not true. For a start, it appears to be a negative itself! But it's possible to prove lots of negatives, such as there is no largest prime number and there is no elephant in this room.
If, as Rod claims, this is a fundamental tenet - let's see it! Chapter & verse, please.
Norman at April 23, 2007 1:48 AM
Norman, I think you are right about the elephant. But only in a certain way. I could add a couple of other particular cases where it's actually possible to prove a negative. Bu all those examples go back to evidence for something that has been proven to exist, like a thoroughly searched room which is too small to hold even the tiniest of elephants. And of course it is our job to prove the claims we make, not someone else's. I think that's what Rob meant to say.
Rainer at April 23, 2007 4:35 AM
Norman makes an excellent point above.
Basically, there's no way to formulate the issue of whether there is a god in terms of a testable hypothesis like we can do with scientific questions.
If anyone can replace the XXXXXX and YYYYYY in either of the statements below with words, I'll be impressed.
justin case at April 23, 2007 5:07 AM
Basically, there's no way to formulate the issue of whether there is a god in terms of a testable hypothesis like we can do with scientific questions.
Then why would you believe in god? And why would you not think anybody who believes in god, in the absence of proof there is a god, primitive and silly?
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2007 6:23 AM
Justin, I don't see your point. It seems we could put a lot of words into your statement:
If there is a god, when we do DRUGS, then THEIR EFECTS will happen.
If there is no god, when we do CRIME, then PUNISHMENT will happen.
If there is a god, when we do SEX, then ORGASMS will happen.
If there is no god, when we do WORK, then PAYCHECKS will happen.
doombuggy at April 23, 2007 6:47 AM
> primitive and silly?
GRRRRR!
It's amusing, but not really pretty, how people want things to be simple and sincere. Amy, people who pray get something out of it. The thing they get means more to them than your opinion of them. Got it? So you can spin your wheels and sputter and cuss all you want. And at the end of their lives, they'll have found their fulfillment, but you'll be a person who got in the habit of snarking unproductively. The effects this habit will have on the rest of your life are not their problem.
My close personal/imaginary radio friend Doctor Drew believes in psychotherapy much more than I do. I think in general, "You should get therapy for that" is what we say to people who have very common and crippling problems, because what we got here is a cold, dark planet. But if you're going to be a positive person at all --or in the case of the radio guy, someone people turn to from the depths of addiction-- you'd better offer some hope.
In recommending therapy to addicts and childhood victims of abuse, he says close relationships with other people are how we grow. You have to trade things with other minds. So that's really important if you're a human being.
A pattern that intense in our nature is going to be expressed whether there's anyone worth talking to or not. So people pray, read gospel, seek meaning and pretend it's an exchange. You're a sophisticate: Could this surprise you?
Meanwhile, all those churchy people are getting fellowship. They're getting exposed to community standards, and standards from distant cultures to which they'd not otherwise be held. They get music, they get art, they get reading and they get routine, which does much to make life tolerable. It's ridiculous to say they're getting nothing out of it just because "There's no proof!"
Cold planet. People are in pain, and mockery is not how you show the way to something better.
Crid at April 23, 2007 6:57 AM
Lena showed me a very interesting book yesterday - I'm going to get a copy and blog about it - that basically shows that the notion that it's wrong to criticize people for dumb beliefs is confused with being racist, and is thus thought to be a violation of some sacrosant. I have to go off and write, but the problem is, the dumb beliefs don't just give these people comfort, they have a serious negative affect on the rest of us. Which is, again, why I don't really make a fuss about really dumb beliefs like astrology and numerology, but belief in a non-existent god is a problem for the rest of us.
Personally, I find admitting what reality is the best way not to waste life (especially not by sitting around in church praying to an imaginary god).
Amy Alkon at April 23, 2007 7:03 AM
Cho was probably certain he was making a concession to reality. We wish he'd just gone to church.
Crid at April 23, 2007 7:10 AM
I'd rather say we wish Cho hadn't killed all those people; whether Cho went to church or not is completely irrelevant.
Rainer at April 23, 2007 8:11 AM
Doom buggy - what I was referring to was the hypothesis testing approach that science uses. Ya know, creating predictions that distinguish between different theories (in this case, the theory that there is or isn't a god). None of your examples fit this.
Then why would you believe in god?
I'm an agnostic. I have no evidence confirming or disconfirming the existence of god. The smartest person I know believes in god and says that it's an experiential thing - sort of "you know it when it happens." So, she may have had delusional moments, or maybe she's experienced something I haven't. I can accept that possibility.
the dumb beliefs don't just give these people comfort, they have a serious negative affect on the rest of us.
It's true. But the belief that there is a god isn't the cause of these negative effects, it's the belief that god wants infidels killed, or women subjugated or whatever. There's a difference.
justin case at April 23, 2007 8:14 AM
So, Justin, I guess you are also agnostic with respect to the chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the sun? You have no evidence for or against it.
Norman at April 23, 2007 8:22 AM
> whether Cho went to church or
> not is completely irrelevant.
Tell Amy.
Crid at April 23, 2007 8:29 AM
I guess you are also agnostic with respect to the chocolate teapot orbiting on the far side of the sun?
No need. If I gave a crap, I could find a way to answer that question. I like chocolate, though.
justin case at April 23, 2007 8:44 AM
You got me wrong, Crid. What I meant was this: Whether Cho chose to waste his time in church or anywhere else is completely irrelevant to me. I just wish he hadn't killed all those people.
Personally, I find admitting what reality is the best way not to waste life (especially not by sitting around in church praying to an imaginary god).
I'm completely with Amy here.
Rainer at April 23, 2007 8:51 AM
You know, some people believe that the universe is comprised of infinitely small strings of pure energy, that vibrate to produce different types of particles.
As yet, they have no empirical evidence to support this theory. Are these people crazy and deluded idiots?
justin case at April 23, 2007 8:51 AM
If you are referring to string theory, check out this passage from the Wikipedia:
String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it is not a proper physical theory. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and may yet become important in our understanding of the universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or discarded.
If I had replaced the words "string theory" with "Proving the existence of a god" in the paragraph above, I'd be in a lot of trouble with believers; in science, however, the kind of honesty from the paragraph above is business as usual. Goes a long way towards the difference between religion (crazy and deluded) and science (crazy and deluded only at the surface).
They should have called it "string hypothesis", though.
Rainer at April 23, 2007 9:42 AM
Norman and justin:
Yes, you are correct (fundamental tenet wasn't exactly how I meant to phrase it, that's what I get for posting after a full day of debugging). It is, however, an appropriate tool for the examination of general cases.
To say that we can't prove a negative is useful when talking about whether something exists. If I say that there's an invisible dragon in my garage, it is more correct for you to insist on objective evidence than it is for me to ask you to prove that it doesn't exist. A single piece of good objective evidence will generally convince a skeptic, but proving I don't have an invisible dragon is a potentially infinite exercise (especially if I keep moving the goalposts).
So it is still correct to say that the burden of proof belongs to the claimant, and not to the skeptic.
justin,
I'm actually quite a fan of string theory, it has a nice elegance about it. It would be nice if objective tests can be devised to support it (and if I recall correctly, there have been some possible avenues for testing proposed, but they're likely a ways of in terms of being practical).
Even so, if a test against string theory failed, or if a test supported an opposing theory, the theorists would willingly (if not enthusiastically) drop or adapt their theory. The same can't be said for the proponents of God (or the invisible dragon).
Rod at April 23, 2007 10:00 AM
Rod-
I did know what you meant, and I agree - it's just the "can't prove a negative" thing that I find irritating because it's not precise. Besides, "proof" in a formal system like arithmetic is a different beast from, say, legal proof. As I'm sure you are aware.
If string theory doesn't make any different testable predictions than other theories, then the simplest theory should be adopted. A theory has a well-developed mathematical or logical basis, so that you can reason about it and make deductions. But it may or may not have any application to the physical universe. Number theory is pure maths, for instance. A hypothesis is a proposition whose truth or otherwise can be empirically determined, ie it is a statement about the physical universe which you can test by experiment.
Norman at April 23, 2007 11:23 AM
"...Pascal’s wager suggests that a rational person can knowingly believe a proposition purely out of concern for his future gratification. I suspect no one ever acquires his religious beliefs in this way (Pascal certainly didn’t). But even if some people do, who could be so foolish as to think that such beliefs are likely to be true?"
I agree with Harris in general, but the above point is flawed. Many people act ethically because it gratifies them, even though it may be a lousy survival strategy. Not to mention that science now claims we are hard-wired for spiritual belief. If so, are atheists mutants?
Dave at April 23, 2007 7:28 PM
Actually, it seems we're hard-wired for reciprocal altruism and behavior we would call "ethical" - there were survival benefits to behaving in a way that you weren't made an outcast of the group.
As for being hard-wired for spiritual belief, I haven't read the studies on that, but there's nothing from preventing any of us from applying reason.
Amy Alkon at April 24, 2007 12:02 AM
... are atheists mutants? - this is just another way of saying, are atheists more evolved? - but it's probably best said tongue in cheek.
Genes control much of our bodily (and brain) development but just as much is our reaction to the environment. People are predisposed to think in certain ways. One of these is superstitious behaviour - which word I prefer to "religious" as it has less baggage. Superstition is belief not justified by reason or evidence. It includes faith-based belief, which is based on nothing at all, as well as belief based on faulty perceptions and belief based on faulty reasoning. There appears to be some evolutionary advantage to all of these. Faith probably helps small primitive societies to bond and share their values, with rituals and totems. Faulty perceptions includes things like seeing a face in a pattern of leaves. It is better to see a face when none is there than vice versa, especially if it is the face of a leopard. Faulty reasoning includes things like "I prayed to the Sun when I was ill, and I got better, therefore the Sun cured me." This is often better than no reasoning at all. All of these seem to be natural behaviours in people. The great step forward came when the ancient Greeks invented scientific reasoning. It is deliberate, explicit, not instinctive, and much better at getting results. But it has to be learned and it is evidently quite hard to do well.
"The selfish gene" [Dawkins] is a thought-provoking book around this topic, well worth a read and a re-read.
Norman at April 24, 2007 1:26 AM
There are 2 areas of scientific study on the reasons why a person believes in gods. Mainly in biology and psychology. I would recommend reading any contributions by psychologist Paul Bloom and anthropologist Helen Fisher. (who is on Amy's links)
Bloom discusses the dualistic nature of religious faith and compares it in a similar fashion of the belief systems in children. Helen Fisher compares it to the irrationality when someone falls in love. The equivalent of being both irrational and infantile. Emotionally charged metaphors does not constitute objective reality. Why would an adult have a continuous debate with a stubborn 10 year old on imaginary friends (gods/goddesses) and monsters in the closet? (devils) The difference with an adult who professes a devout religious belief is the ability to wax endless poetics on their faith. It is the reason why a child’s world views is seen simplistic while an adult's spiritual views are seen as ethereal.
On a biological basis, I believe that religious faith is a cultural equivalent of genetic drift. That certain genes survive, not necessarily based on their value, but on luck. Religion's luck is based on the historical record of coercion and the limited body of knowledge. Since the Scientific Revolution (300 years ago) things are beginning to change and the clerical class doesn’t like it all. What power group who is about to lose power endorses the change that will further diminish their hold???
Joe at April 24, 2007 8:10 AM
FYI, CNN story on Neurotheology:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/index.html
Dave at April 24, 2007 9:52 AM
Leave a comment