Religion not the only path to altruism

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Topher, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    While I still think that you and Topher are wrong about what Christians/theists believe, I've decided that particular point isn't worth arguing.
    You draw on your personal experiences, I draw on mine, that argument doesn't go anywhere.
    Besides, my aim was never to provide a blanket defence for Christianity/theism.
    I just thought that the sweeping attacks against theism in general were false.
    My aim, if anything, would be to prove this sweeping attacks to be flawed so that you guys would leave generalised attacks in favour of taking the individual theist as they present themselves.


    As to this "Ideal Theist" idea, because the argument is complex I decided to take it one step at a time.
    If I could not even defend the Ideal Theist then what hope was there for a non-ideal version?
    I've decided to start as simple as possible and then see what I can build upon from there.
    If Topher has no further arguments against the Ideal Theist being a good thing, then maybe I'll try and take things further.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2008
  2. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Yes, the desire to hold true beliefs about the world and not hold false beliefs is part of my argument for why we should ensure our claims and beliefs are justified. (And your clarification that this would be a 'practical reason' gives be a better understanding about what you mean with the term.)

    When people are truly convinced that they are wrong, they will not continue to believe it, regardless of the consequences. For example, if I told you I won 1 million, and you believed I didn't (maybe the belief that we were financially on the same level had some good effect on you) if I were to then show you my bank balance, all the expensive things I brought of something else which convinced you that I did win 1 million, you would certainly not believe it, unless you had some mental problems which causes you to maintain a knowingly false belief. The problem with complex beliefs like religions is the proof or disproof cannot be presented that easily, and mostly they're in the form of logical arguments, which many people may not understand, or there maybe something else which complicates the matter, but the concept is just the same: normal, rational, sane people will not believe thing which they know are false. Even if people primarily believe for other reasons; if they are not overtly concerned with truth, they will still hold that their belief is true.

    I don't think this underestimates human psychology. Of course in practice it won't be simple, as I explain above, however the essence of my claim--that people want to hold true rather than false beliefs about the world--is a valid reason.

    That is one practical reason why we should ensure our beliefs are true. I've given you a number of others, which either apply to everyone, or are more specific:

    1. Saying something is true/factual/historical, and is therefore objectively so, is tantamount to saying everyone should accept it (even if your not trying to actually force it upon everyone the effect is the same). This is because objective things about reality by definition apply to everyone. The speed of light is something which applies to everyone because it is an objective truth of the universe, so everyone should accept it. Likewise, saying [insert religious claim] also applies to everyone; saying it is true is to say everyone should accept it. That is why we must determine whether it actually is true. Even if the belief does not affect behaviour (which is debatable), or is not treated in a way which directly requires accuracy, you are still effectively saying everyone should change their view of the world because of this particular truth.

    2. Specific things like medicine and technology which we've already discussed. And as I said, even if their claims are not about such things, they still use and rely on the scientific values which produces this outcomes. In Richard Carriers talk he lists three values that are at the core of science: curiosity, empiricism, and progress, and he argues that to accept the fundamentals of religion means you necessarily must reject these values at least some of the time (i.e. they have to compartmentalise), however to value curiosity, empiricism and progress means you have to encourage them, and reward their use, at all times. So the core of theism is inherently against these scientific values, at least some of the time, yet even those theists who occasionally value them--although often not in their conceptual form (i.e. they value them only in their output, what they achieve, not in of themselves)--do not do so for religious matters, while at the same time having no rational basis for why they should not be applied to them.

    If you argue that theists will and should only use these scientific values for things that require accuracy, Carrier demonstrates why they also apply to values and morals. Essentially, in order to say we ought to do or value something, we first need to know what is the case. Yes, an ought from an is, but despite what Hume tells us, we do this all the time. To use one of Carriers examples: in order to say we ought to change the oil in our car, it must be the case that we want our car to work, and it must be the case that ensuring the car has oil will make it work. In order to make ought claim, we have to establish what is the case, and we can only do this with objective scientific methods and values. So even moral and value issues require accuracy!

    3. More broadly, what you believe to be the case about the world will affect your psychology, and therefore you behaviour. You agree to this, but you don't have a problem because you only see the good things that may result from it, but once you accept there may be positive consequences you also must accept that there may be negative consequences (and lets also not forget that what is positive or negative is also subjective; someone may be adamant that their faith brings them positive results, but to someone else that result could be negative.) In short, because it can have an affect on behaviour, it means we must ensure the claims are assessed.


    Regarding the issue of belief. Yes, "proved beliefs" are distinct from just "belief," although I would say there is no distinction between "proved beliefs" and knowledge--justified true belief--since once a belief is proved it is therefore true, and so becomes knowledge. In any case, as I've said quite a few times, the issue is not whether the beliefs are actually proven, it is the claim that they are proven[/b]. Theists make this claim whenever they assert that their beliefs are true, since to claim a belief is true necessarily implies there is proof, otherwise there is no justified basis for the assertion that it is true to begin with (and if there is no justified basis for the claim then they have no business making it!) Of course, a claim may very well actually be true, although currently unproven, but to assert that it is true is to imply that they have or are aware of some evidence that makes it so.

    The bottom line is you are erroneously making "proved beliefs" and "faith beliefs" to be mutually exclusive, as if theists can not, or do not, claim that their beliefs a true, and therefore proven. So I am not taking exception at the philosophical distinction, only the impression that there is a distinction in practice (i.e. the idea that theists concede that there is absolutely no basis for their claims. There don't. There isn't.)

    As for how I am using the term belief. I am using it to mean the state of mind that something is true. Of course you can delve into the philosophy of mind and debate all sorts of theories (but please don't!) however none of those detract from the core point that belief is something which you think is true.


    To summarise.

    1. There are a number of practical reasons for why we must justify our claims: truth claims effect/apply to everyone (1); moral and value issues require accuracy (2); they can have a behavioural effect (3).

    2. While I agree that there is a distinction between "proved beliefs" and "faith beliefs," I deny that it is there in practice.


    (PS. My objection against the 'ideal faith' is that it doesn't exist. It never has and never will. Why not post where you were trying to take the argument, rather than in stages? What is the point of the exercise to begin with?)
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2008
  3. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Okay. I'll before I move on to the next step, I'll just quickly give some quick replies to your latest points.

    Cool. I think that I am using it as contemporary philosophy does although it wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken about that.

    Right. I agree that it takes quite a deranged mindset to knowingly belief something that has been proved false.
    Even fundamentalists are uncomfortable with it - they prefer to deny evolution is scientific rather than deny "scientific fact"
    As a consequence, faith beliefs are usually forced to inhabit gaps.
    Even if a strong atheist found my argument in favour of faith convincing it would not be psychologically possible for them to believe it.

    That said, I don't see how this leads to an argument that we should make accuracy of beliefs an absolute priority.

    But that's different to holding it to be "certain" or "proved" right?

    Your argument that people do not believe in things that are certainly false.
    I'm not sure that leads to "I must ensure my beliefs are certainly true"
    I'm not saying there definitely isn't a link - I've not ruled one out, but I don't see one just yet.

    Your other 3 will be easier to answer:
    I'm not sure about that.
    I can see a theist saying that Jesus resurrected, that it really did happen but as they cannot prove it they think it's fair enough that other people believe differently.
    Most people in modern religion are very pluralistic about truth in religion.
    They accept that their own beliefs aren't certain, and that God is complex and wondrous, so other ideas about this God can also be valid.

    I say that the Ideal Theist only says "should be accepted by everyone" for proved beliefs.

    I cannot agree with the bit in italics.
    I do lots of activities that do much less to encourage curiosity, empiricism and progress than faith/theism does.
    I eat food, I play computer games, I masturbate...
    Where's the "curiosity, empiricism and progress" in these activities?
    Besides, I think that ideal religion can contain all 3 of these values.
    The "beliefs" themselves aren't being examine for accuracy, but there's still a lot of investigation going on.
    Faith can often be a first person investigation into human nature.
    People explore morality, their psychology, their values.
    It's not a lack of investigation, just a different investigation.

    With the ideal theist it is anyway.

    I agree and so does the ideal theist.
    Remember I said that Faith had a methodology based on "Faith must lead to virtue"
    The ideal theist must therefore use accurate reason to work out what these virtues are and use accurate psychological assessment to judge whether their "faith beliefs" are having a positive psychological effect or negative psychological effect.
    Investigation into morality and values are one of these things.

    Once again I agree.
    I bring you the Ideal Faith methodology again.
    The believer must use reason to determine values and psychologically assess whether their faith is working to achieve them.
    So faith can still be scrutinized, but rather than be valued or rejected based on their scientific accuracy they are to be valued or rejected based on their effect on the believer.
     
  4. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Fair enough.
    I was defining "proved belief" and "faith belief" from scratch to avoid clashes with pre-existing terms.
    I didn't want to start up the whole "fact" debacle again!!
    But I think you're right - "proved belief" does seem very synonymous with knowledge.


    If they are saying that it is the truth then they seem to be applying
    In my experience, they prefer the words "I believe that it is true" which would be something different.
    Anyhow, if you come across some one who does claim proof then fair enough - challenge them.

    Actually, if you look back to my definition on the previous pages you will see that I specifically noted that a proved belief can have religious significance and a religiously significant belief can be proven.
    In those cases, the belief will be both "proved" and "faith".
    My claim is that the ideal theist will not say:
    "Faith, therefore proved" - after all, that would break his rule of only using proved beliefs as premises in rational arguments!!

    I think I kind of agree.
    Remember I agreed that it was impossible for someone to believe something they found proved to be false.
    But "thinking something is true" is different to "being certain that something is true" and I think it's only the latter than implies proof/justification.
    (I think you agreed with this.)


    To review
    I think I knocked down your arguments in (1), (2) and (3)
    (1) stated that you need to encourage scientific values at all times, but that would rule out many human values.
    Besides, Ideal Faith can encourage these values.
    It's just a different investigation to that of the empirical world.
    (2) and (3) had premises I agree with, but they do not contradict ideal faith.

    Your first argument, about how humans value truth wasn't exactly knocked down and ruled out, but it isn't a complete, valid case yet.
    As it stands, there isn't yet a valid objection to the claim "Ideal Faith/Theism can be a good thing"


    In my next point I'll make some arguments using the premise "Ideal theism is good"
    Arguments that I would have been unable to make unless you took this premise seriously.
    That's why I had to focus on this premise first.
    If I hadn't, we'd have been in a complex debate with too many points coming out at once.
    As creationists tactics prove, that doesn't bode well for truth and clarity.
    Now my "Ideal theism is good" premise is semi-establish (even if you're not absolutely convinced) I'm ready to take the next step.
     
  5. Topher

    Topher allo!

    I don't think so, for the reasons I explained. To say something IS true is to imply there is evidence for it, that it is proven to be the case. If there is not evidence, no proof, then they have no basis for saying it is true. I think they saying something is proven and saying something is true are necessarily inter-linked. I don't think they have to be certain however.

    I think it does. For beliefs they already hold will probably already think the belief is true to begin with. Their evidence/proof is usually what originally convinced them. People believe things for a reason it is almost always because they were convinced it was true. While they may believe for other reasons, such as ay value the belief brings them, these will likely be rationalised/realised after they have been convinced that it is true. For beliefs they currently do not hold they will want to be convinced that they are true. Unfortunately most peoples standard of proof is very weak.

    I think you misunderstand. The point is not whether the theist has a problem with whether others believe the claim, rather it is a ramification of the claim it self; no one has to actually say everyone must believe it since it is implied within the claim itself. If X is objectively true then it applies to everyone and therefore everyone should accept it is true. To claim X is true has the same affect: you're making an objective truth claim that, if actually true, applies to everyone.

    It's ALL in italics, so I don't know what you're referring too.

    I suggest you listen to it as he explains it in detail. (I posted it below in case Timmy Boy want to listen to it.)

    For example your desires. To know what your desires are requires curiosity; to know whether something will sure satisfy your desires requires empiricism, and to be willing to change your behaviour for any reason based requires progression.

    The point is they should be if what you're doing requires accuracy, and moral issues are something that DO require accuracy.

    And these rely on accuracy, and they rely on curiosity, empiricism, and progress. The rely on the desire to want to examine them and to want make discoveries (curiosity), they can only be examined through experience (empiricism), and you must be willing to change your view should new evidence arrive (progress), and of course to make valid conclusions about these issues you must ensure your information is accurate.

    Oh so you DO agree that morality requires accuracy. You also argue that the theist uses their faith-based thinking to aid moral issues, which means you are in fact saying that they ARE using their faith for accuracy. But you have also said that we can scientifically assess claims if they require accuracy. So they really shouldn't be using their faith for accuracy, they should be using scientific values and methods.

    What we have to discover is not whether the claims have positive or negative effects, but whether they are true, because our morals rely on truths about human nature. e.g. If X satisfies Y, then in order to find out if we ought to do X we must determine whether it is the case that humans desire Y.

    No, because as I said human values rely on these scientific values. You cannot say you embrace them if you accept and reject them to suite your own aims, i.e. you cannot use them when they support your goal, but reject them when they don't.

    Make the damn arguments. :bang: It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or not. I might just want to read them.
     
  6. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Why science is better than religion and always has been.
    Richard Carrier​

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNMUz1iediU"]YouTube - Part One Richard Carrier and PZ Myers[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkQrDsGy2w"]YouTube - Part two Richard Carrier and PZ Myers[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Zbm9NNRas"]YouTube - PartThree Richard Carrier and PZ Myers[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GkE1TxMRzU"]YouTube - Part Four Richard Carrier and PZ Myers[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y96MFsuT9u8"]YouTube - Part Five Richard Carrier and PZ Myers[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNFIHrp-giw"]YouTube - Part Six Richard Carrier and PZ Myers[/ame]
     
  7. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Duuuuuuude... patience! :hat:
    I got to work on them as soon as I finished that previous post.
    Because it's new work it's taking me a while to put together, compared to my last two posts where I could wizz through and give snappy answers.
    I promise my next post will be the arguments based on "Ideal Faith is good"
    What I'll then do is read the posts you've just done but not reply.
    We can pick them up again should we go back to the dispute over whether "Ideal Faith" is a virtue.

    From now on the focus of this thread will be the arguments I'm about to post.
    (They'll be up tonight. I absolutely promise!! :Angel:)



    PS Give put the MP3 links above as well.
    I've already downloaded it but it will put it in a convenient place for other people following this thread.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  8. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Arguments that make use of the premise "Ideal Faith is a good thing"
    The arguments in defence of this were as follows:
    1) It is harmless in that it doesn't clash with rationality.
    2) It is guided my a method involving moral reason and psychological reason to help the believer be more virtuous.

    Note: If you do not actually accept the premise, just accept it hypothetically for this topic.


    How "Ideal Faith" relates the real thing
    I am going to provide a definition of faith that I believe holds true across all kinds of religious faith:

    Faith is a belief that:
    a) does not require evidence/empirical reason for it's validation.
    b) is supposed to lead the believer to virtue

    Part (a) of the definition is uncontroversial
    Part (b) of the definition I'll briefly defend as follows:
    1) When a believer is not virtuous they'll insist that proved a lack of faith on their part
    2) If a believer finds their faith to be causing vice they will reject it.
    They will then either dismiss faith altogether or atleast find a different faith.

    Ideal Faith is ideal because it meets 3 conditions:
    1) The believer does not assume that a faith belief is also proved.
    If a faith belief is to be considered to be proved, it must be proved.
    2) When judging whether their faith is leading to virtue, these virtues must be determined my reason.
    3) When judging whether their faith is leading to virtue, psychological reason must be used to investigate the effects of faith.

    It's meeting these conditions that makes "Ideal Faith" ideal.
    I now claim that:
    Liberal Theists meet these conditions as humanly possible.
    Their human fallibility in reason is no more so than a secular humanist.
    Fundamentalists fail these conditions to a large degree.
    It's in failing these conditions that causes the problems associated with fundamentalism.
    Moderates come somewhere in between - a moderate amount of success/failure.


    Now I'm ready for my first point:
    Faith can be reformed - even that of a fundamentalist
    Above I claimed that the fundamentalist fails in 3 ways.
    They mistake "Faith Beliefs" as being therefore proved and their beliefs in morality and psychology are not rationally justified.
    Should these 3 problems be amended then they would be come an ideal/liberal theist.
    This means that there is no need to destroy a fundamentalists faith.
    If we were to improve those 3 areas then that would solve the problem.


    This leads to my first argument:
    If faith can potentially be reformed to be positive, surely that's better than getting rid of it altogether?
    The ideal theist uses moral reason and psychological investigation that boosts their ability to be virtuous.
    Liberals with their human limitations can still achieve this to a large degree.
    Even fundamentalists benefit from faith.
    The Christian Union at my university (tends to be the moderate-fundamentalist range of demographic) had members with shockingly offensive and irrational beliefs, but their behaviour as people was equally shocking for positive reasons.
    They were always calm, friendly, often clever and hard working when it came to studies, new how to have a good time even if they left out certain activities that many of us enjoy.
    My point is, their faith had an extremely admirable effect on their personality.
    That is, I admired their personalities as much as I detested some of their doctrines.
    Why throw out the good with the bad?
    If we can maximize the good while minimizing the bad, surely that's the way forward?


    My next argument follows makes a further claim:
    Reforming arguments will be more effective than ones that attack faith altogether.
    That's because; if faith can actually be a good thing then:


    1) You will be attacking something the theist should and does value and this will make the psychologically defensive
    While theists in the real world vary in how well they meet the conditions for ideal faith, it is quite likely they will have at least sometimes get it right and enjoy the benefits.
    This means that they will correctly see that you are attacking something positive within their self.
    This perception of something positive being attacked will make the psychologically defensive which will make them less open minded towards the genuine criticisms to the more negative sides to their faith.

    2) You will be attacking something the theist should and does value and this will prove to them that your argument is flawed
    As they will be psychologically defensive they will be looking for any excuse possible to ignore/dismiss your argument.
    Finding flaws, like that you're attacking something good, will give them such an excuse.
    It makes the argument lose credibility.

    3) Liberal theists only provide cover when they too are attacked
    This one should surely be common sense.
    If someone attacks something purely that fundamentalists do, e.g. use fear of hell, then the liberals will join the attacks as they agree.
    If you attack faith as a whole, you'll be attacking liberals and their positivity.
    They didn't mean to be cover, you just used a clumsy attack that attacked good things that they do.
    It gives fundamentalists yet another excuse to dismiss your arguments.

    4) Reforming arguments can be framed in a purely positive way
    Rather than "attacking" a person's faith or fundamentalism, they can be framed in a way of personal improvement.
    All 3 issues can be frame in positive terms:
    Ensuring accuracy for certainty and truly understanding morality and how the mind works.
    Framing them in positive terms reduces the psychological defensiveness.

    5) Attacking faith encourages cheat-proofing
    One problem we see, particularly among fundamentalists, is tendency to insist things are proved when they aren't, and to accept bad arguments that wouldn't be accepted from a neutral perspective.
    Allowing ideal faith would reduce this.
    At the moment they have conflicting values.
    They recognise that beliefs should generally be justified and that their religious beliefs are of value to them.
    This puts them under enormous pressure to find a justification for their beliefs, which can leave them either giving up positive aspects of their faith or cheating the rational process.
    If we gave their faith beliefs a place that didn't require this justification, this would ease this pressure and conflict, and they would be able to conduct their reasoning without the motive to cheat.
    At the moment they try to make their beliefs meet two different sets of values which inevitably makes a mess.
    If we allowed for two different types of belief, this would allow each type to follow just one set of values and thereby ensure purity in each type.



    This should be enough for now.
    Many of these points I've thought up for the first time just now so some of them will be badly worded or otherwise flawed.
    Nevertheless, this is where we start. I hope they'll improve as we go.
    The argument more or less runs:
    1) Ideal faith differs from un-ideal faith by meeting 3 conditions
    2) All faith can be reformed by encouraging improvements in those 3 areas
    3) If reformed faith can be positive then it's better to reform it than to get rid of it.
    4) Attempts to reform faith will be more effective than those that attack it altogether.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  9. Topher

    Topher allo!

    I didn't mean to hurry up, I simply mean you should post them. You have a tendency to require people to agree to your arguments before you continue it, which is really annoying, because people end up going around in circles with one issue, which is pointless if its unlikely to convince anyone. :woo:

    http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/111064/RichardCarrier-PZMyers2.mp3

    This is immediately wrong. Religion, and therefore faith, is based on empirical claims. So your saying that either:

    1. Religion cannot make empirical claims; claims which require evidence. This means theists cannot make most of the claims that they do make. Most religions are therefore void under this! Furthermore, moral claims, something you allow theists to use their faith for, are empirical claims! So by your own definition of faith, they cannot use it for moral issues!

    2. Or religion can make empirical claims; claims which require evidence, it just doesn't need to justify them. This is just ridiculous.
     
  10. David

    David Mostly AFK, these days

    Altruism is available to anyone - even religious people
     
  11. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    lol! Great start!
    That quote was just supposed to mean "belief without evidence"
    i.e. your definition of faith.
    I should have said "the believer does not require empirical evidence/reasoning in order to accept the belief"
    It's what I was saying earlier in the thread.
    Your definition of faith is part of the definition and there's also another part:
    "the believer expects the beliefs to cause virtue.

    With that misunderstanding out of the way, let's try again!



    Although I'm not sure why you wrote the following:
    So I take it you've forgotten the entire 20 pages just gone by.
    In this post you hypothetically accepted that the Ideal Theist was okay.
    That means it's okay for beliefs to not be evidenced/justified so long as they recognised that it wasn't "proved belief"/knowledge.

    Why do you keep bringing up this "Morality requires reasoning" issue?
    Each time you bring it up, and each time I agree with you.
    Yes, the claims "X is moral" and "Y is immoral" require justification.
    I've said time and time again that the Ideal Theist is to use reason to work out what the virtues are and change their faith accordingly to meet this.
    I said that faith had its role to play in psychological effects and should stay out of rational decision making.


    You were wondering why I try to get a premise agreed on?
    This is why.
    I just did a post full of arguments but they didn't get addressed because you were still hung up with issues with the previous premise.
    You couldn't even take the premise hypothetically.
    If I'd tried posting these arguments before now it would have been even worse.
    Splitting arguments up into sections and focusing on one part at a time is the only way that they'll be properly addressed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2008
  12. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    But the question of whether or not Topher and I are unfairly generalising about what Christians believe hinges on the question of what they actually believe in real life, so why is this point not worth arguing?

    I'm not just talking about personal experience (although that is an element). I'm also talking about history and the use of religious terminology (including the fact that liberal moderate Christians still call themselves Christians rather than Muslims or Hindus - if they're only treating the Bible as a set of guidelines they can ignore in the event of perceived irrationality then what's wrong with treating the Qur'an in the same way? Why not go to the mosque instead of the church?).

    The anti-theist arguments that people like Topher and I use are very old, and religion in Europe is waning, so if atheists had simply been attacking a strawman all this time then we could have expected a massive rebuttal by senior clergy. However, this mass rebuttal has yet to arrive.

    You may have met people who describe themselves as Christians despite not taking ANY parts of the Bible literally but I would argue that these people are a rarity. In doing so, I would ask you to step outside your personal experience and consider the objective evidence I mentioned.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  13. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    It wasn't worth arguing because there was no objective evidence to draw on.
    All of us were drawing on personal experience and oddjob examples.
    Besides, I've managed to make the points I need without it.
    Take a look at post 88.

    By that same logic you could say that these atheistic arguments have been around for that long and despite modern education, the majority of people still aren't convinced.
    That argument sucks no matter which side uses it.
    The only way to settle this is look at the arguments themselves.
    I've presented arguments for you to address.
    What do you find?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  14. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    I have shown you objective evidence. I have shown you a logical argument about moderate Christian debate tactics (which, to be fair, you you discussed in the next paragraph), I have pointed out the bloody history of religion, I have attempted to demonstrate the difference between religion (even in its moderate form) and secular moral philosophy, and I have also pointed out that even moderate Christians still label themselves "Christians" as distinct from "Muslims" or "Hindus", which would be pointless if the texts were all simply judged by secular moral standards. I understand that you may not agree with my conclusions but you cannot say that my argument is purely subjective.

    But this point is unrelated. The pros and cons of the "ideal theism" that you propose have nothing to do with what religious people - be they moderates or fundamentalists - actually believe, so how does it act as a defence against our criticisms?

    Atheists like myself would argue that there are reasons why people continue to profess in God other than those that truly withstand logical scrutiny, such as childhood indoctrination, a culture of religious tolerance, wanting to fit into the local community, misunderstanding the theory of evolution, poor education in many parts of the world and wishful thinking, which have prevented religion from dying completely. On the other hand, senior clergy do not defend Christianity on the basis that they don't really believe that any of it happened. The nearest they come to claiming a strawman is that they accuse atheists of tarring them all as fundamentalists, which is an argument I have many previously mentioned problems with.

    The (dare I say) fundamental problem that I can see in the process of ideal faith is that it involves circular reasoning. In order to judge whether or not your "faith beliefs" are leading you to virtue, you have to assess those beliefs critically, which means that it's not faith at all but secular moral philosophy merely dressed up in religious terminology, which then raises the question "why bring faith into the equation at all". Moderate religion is not the same thing as secular moral philosophy. On Liberty is not the same kind of book as the Bible.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2008
  15. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Dude, how can you still be making judgements on my argument when you still haven't read them?
    I wrote "see post 88", I linked to post 88, yet I see no response to the arguments presented in post 88.

    Seriously. If you're puzzled with where I was going with this whole "Ideal Theist" thing then it explains all.
     
  16. Topher

    Topher allo!

    The problem is with how you have limited this "ideal faith" is it essentially becomes useless.

    - This ideal theist cannot use it for anything which requires accurate information. (For that he must turn to the evidence.)
    - This ideal theist cannot use it for any decision making. (Again,
    for that he must turn to the evidence.)

    You think this ideal theists unjustified beliefs will not affect his decision making/behaviour, or that justified beliefs will not improve his decision making/behaviour, but how do you know? How do you know that knowing what is correct won't help him make wiser, more informed, and justified choices?

    What use is a belief if it cannot be used in your decision making? You would not even be able to express the belief since the expression of a belief is a decision one must make. It seems you have created a faith which is simply useless, with no purpose, since any legitimate purpose either requires accurate information, or it will affect our decision making/behaviour in some way, or both.

    Taking all the above into consideration, can you tell me anything this person can use his ideal faith for that has a purpose, but does not involve accuracy, or decision making, or behavioural influences?

    I will agree that there is nothing inherent about faith-based beliefs/claims that necessitate that they be justified. They must be justified however if the beliefs/claims require accurate information, are used in decisions making, affect behaviour, and/or affect others. With that said, I still maintain that all faith-based beliefs/claims must be justified since I deny that there are any faith-based beliefs or claims (or indeed any beliefs or claims) that do not rest on accurate information, are not used in decision making, or do no affect behaviour, in some way.

    The problem is you can only "maximize the good while minimizing the bad" by inventing a non-existant faith. In reality however, while faith may bring with it some benefits, it brings with it an awful lot of problems. Why bother with faith and all of the baggage that comes with it, when you can achieve the same results without faith (as demonstrated by millions every single day!) The fact is you do not need faith to be virtuous, good or moral, and so rather than inventing a non-existent "ideal faith" that is irrelevant to how faith-based thinking really works in the world, why not instead start informing people that you do not need faith to do these things; why not inform them of logical and informed reasons for doing these things. And of course the benefit of having logical/justified reasons is if someone takes issue with your conclusions, your morality, your virtues, you will have a solid foundation from which to refute and/or persuade them. In short: why give people bad reasons to be good, moral and virtuous, when good (and I would argue better) reasons are available.

    It may make them initially defensive, but then everyone is naturally defensive towards criticisms of their beliefs. What it does do however is plant a seed, and ideal, which they may examine later.

    We are justified in attacking all faith because all faith--as it is used in the real world--is a problem. Even the most liberal of theists will use their faith for things which they shouldn't.

    The very problem the argument deals with is the notion that faith is good to begin with! So those criticising faith cannot do the very opposite of their criticism and join in the assumption that faith is good. The very point of their argument is to make the point that it is not good. The fact faith may have pragmatic benefits does not mean it is overall good. You have to look at the overall outcomes, and in reality, any benefits are rendered null as a result of the problems it creates.

    Also no, it won't prove that the argument is flawed. It may only make them *think* the argument is flawed. Criticising theism does not make the argument flawed.

    The problem is not whether they claim they are proven, it is they they will use them in arguments, decision making and for other things, as if they are proven. This isn't just fundamentalists.

    The fact it is a value to them does not exempt it from its burden of proof.

    The problem is the beliefs DO require this justification. In real life the claims/beliefs ARE used for accurate information, they DO influence behaviour, they DO play a role in decision making, and they DO affect others. The fact they cannot provide the justification does not mean we should just let them off. You cannot just invent a new type of non-existent faith as a response to our criticism of real world faith!

    It only results in a mess because the beliefs are not found on evidence.

    Moral and aesthetic theories can, and should, be well founded on evidence. You cannot develop moral and aesthetic theories and not expect to have them to be scrutinised, or be surprised when evidence is demanded.
     
  17. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    Not quite. Remember how I said that holding these beliefs could have a psychological effect?
    So rather than being used to make rational decisions, they will generally inspire a state of mind that is psychologically beneficial.
    I also want to note that I'm not claiming that's the only benefit/purpose to faith - there might be more out there.
    For now I just want to rule out harm (i.e. it doesn't misinform decisions) and give atleast one example of a benefit.

    Ideal faith doesn't contradict knowing what's correct.
    They should know what's correct as well in their "proved beliefs"/knowledge.
    Instead, it focuses on an area of life where "correctness" is irrelevant.
    It takes certain beliefs on for their psychological effect so it will be their psychological effect that is important and the correctness irrelevant.
    Maybe it will turn out that the beliefs with the most beneficial effects happen to be factual correct anyway, by happy coincidence.

    I didn't mean to rule out behavioural influence altogether, otherwise you'd be right - it would be quite meaningless.
    The only restriction I meant to place was that it wouldn't misinform rational decisions.
    E.g. When a person chooses whether to make a boat out of concrete or wood, they need correct information over which one floats.
    The ideal theist would only use proved belief in such a decision.
    I've been arguing that the faith beliefs of the Ideal Theist will have a positive psychological effect that manifests in a different way than to affecting rational decision making.
    And this will lead to a positive behavioural effect.


    I did read the rest of your points.
    However, they all seemed to be working on the premise that Ideal Faith wasn't real faith so shouldn't affect how we treat real faith.
    As you didn't reply to my section on how Ideal Faith relates to real faith, I wanted to repost it:

    The Three Standards of Ideal Faith
    Ideal Faith is ideal because it meets 3 conditions:
    1) The believer does not assume that a faith belief is also proved.
    If a faith belief is to be considered to be proved, it must be proved.
    2) When judging whether their faith is leading to virtue, these virtues must be determined my reason.
    3) When judging whether their faith is leading to virtue, psychological reason must be used to investigate the effects of faith.

    It's meeting these conditions that makes "Ideal Faith" ideal.
    I now claim that:
    Liberal Theists meet these standards as humanly possible.
    Their human fallibility in reason is no more so than a secular humanist.
    Fundamentalists fail these standards to a large degree.
    It's in failing these conditions that causes the problems associated with fundamentalism.
    That doesn't mean they fail all the time though.
    Atleast some of the time their faith will be ideal.
    (I know that's like saying murderers only kill people some of the time but you'll see why I made this point later)
    Moderates come somewhere in between - a moderate amount of success/failure.

    So an alternative to attacking faith altogether would be to attacking failures of the above 3 standards of Ideal Faith.
    Do you agree that if people held to the 3 standards of Ideal Faith above, as humanly possible, than that would more or less eliminate the problems of faith and it could even be a virtue?

    I say "as humanly possible" because real faith would be held be real people and even liberals do it wrong from time to time.
    That said, scientists also fail to live up to the standards of scientific values too.
    All they do is try and live up to them "as humanly possible".
    I still hold that the Liberal Theist might screw up from time to time, but no more so than a secular humanist.
    What separates the liberal faith from ideal faith is human irrationality that no one is immune to.
    I might even suggest that human irrationality can be minimized by having good psychological health and that "faith beliefs" can benefit there.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2008
  18. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    I did respond to your arguments in post 88, I just didn't quote them. In my last paragraph of my previous post, I argued that the process of reasoning involved in "ideal faith" necessitates critical evaluation of the claims, which renders any notion of faith redundant as you are essentially just engaging in moral philosophy, which is not the same as religion, even the moderate form.

    I also do not believe that your idea of ideal theism is something that even moderate Christians subscribe to, and since you claimed that I have unfairly generalised against religion, this point is still of the utmost relevance, which is why I keep pressing it by providing you with objective logical arguments in support of my criticisms. You can't just avoid the issue by refusing to address it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2008
  19. Strafio

    Strafio Trying again...

    It's not just moral philosophy.
    They still "believe" it to be true.
    It's just that the role this belief plays in their practical lives is on of inspiration etc rather than the kind of solid certainty of scientific beliefs.

    The ideal theist justifies their belief with pragmatic reasoning.
    Faith beliefs, rather than being justified by whether they are scientifically proved, are justified by the psychological effect that they have on the believer.
    This does reflect on common theism, even fundamentalism.
    If you ask Christians why they have faith, they will often make claims about being a better person, about their life having meaning, about how bad things were before they were "saved".
    The reasoning is varies from theist to theist, but it's guaranteed that they believe it's improved their life in some way.

    The only difference between the Ideal Theist and real theists is how well they abide to the 3 standards of ideal theism given in the above post.
    My claim is that we can attack failures to abide to those standards of rationally rather than faith altogether.




    Anyhow, a single comment isn't a proper response.
    I laid out an entire argument with detailed steps.
    To just dismiss the argument with a single line doesn't address the argument.
    If you disagree with it, which step do you disagree with?
     
  20. Timmy Boy

    Timmy Boy Man on a Mission

    I admit that I have heard many moderates purport to justify their beliefs by saying that it encourages them to be a good person. But "pragmatic reasoning" is simply poor logic on the part of religious moderates; to paraphrase Sam Harris, a useful delusion is still a delusion. A statement is either true or it is not, regardless of how inspirational you find it or whether you want to put quotation marks around the word "believe", which is why I do not believe the story of the hare and the tortoise to be true even though it makes a good point. This is what I mean about moderate Christians sitting on the fence and providing no coherent answer to criticisms from atheists on the one hand or fundamentalists on the other. If you are not making supernatural claims in support of your morality then you are merely engaging in secular moral philosophy, and you are no more religious than I am when I make arguments based on Mill's harm principle.

    So I don't accept that religious moderation really works as a matter of logic. It is the result of religious people buckling under the pressure of living in a (mostly) liberal and rational society and trying to discard the more unpalatable elements of their religions in order to fit in more easily. This is why the argument falls apart.

    Answering your posts in a step-by-step manner would only convolute our debate. I pointed out what I saw as the problems with your line of reasoning, that should be enough. Basically, it seems to me that ideal theism involves reasoning backwards, because in order to decide whether believing X would lead you to virtue, you have to make up your own mind about what is and isn't virtuous according to your own ideas. So you would say "I believe killing is wrong, therefore I think I'll believe that I would go to Hell if I killed someone, as this will discourage me from doing it." The obvious problem is that you've already decided it's wrong, and you're only pretending that you'll go to Hell in order in an attempt to deter yourself from giving in to temptation, so why not just cut out the middle man?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008

Share This Page