Such is the preposterous infallibility of the believer; their belief is unassailable, and anyone who dares question it is to be ridiculed and shamed. Is that not the definition of arrogance? We overlook the boundless arrogance of the faithful every day*, mostly because those of us who recognize it would rather try to ignore it than call them out on it and face their self-righteous indignation.
Neither of us expect to be able to change the other's mind. However, because this is someone that I love, I plan to try to explain why my atheism doesn't make me a bad guy.
The claim of arrogance against me was explained by a comment "the vast majority of people, and so many brilliant people believe in God." So the idea is that I'm arrogant for thinking I know better than them.
I'm sure I could spend hours documenting hundreds of stupid things that lots of people believe. I could theorize why people tend to believe dumb things, and tell the story about the Emperor's new clothes. I'll save myself the effort and skip to the bottom line: if a million people believe a stupid idea, it is still a stupid idea.
But I think there is a fair point - learn from smart people. A problem with this is that I could probably also provide plenty of examples of people known for their brilliance in one area who have ridiculous beliefs in other areas. Hitler, Osama, The Unabomber, Sadaam... intelligent people with bad ideas. Some people use their intelligence to cleverly argue the case for a belief they chose irrationally, kind of like brilliant lawyers defending obviously guilty clients.
So the smart people I look to are scientists. The scientific method trains you to remove sources of bias and rely on evidence. Science is open to disagreement, constructive criticism, and falsification of theories. Master the scientific method, and you master the best path we have to discovering truth.
From Natalie Angier's Confessions of a Lonely Atheist:
Recently, Edward J. Larson, a science historian at the University of Georgia, and Larry Witham, a writer, polled scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science on their religious beliefs. Among this general group, a reasonably high proportion, 40 percent, claimed to believe in a "personal God" who would listen to their prayers. But when the researchers next targeted members of the National Academy of Sciences, an elite coterie if ever there was one, belief in a personal God was 7 percent, the flip of the American public at large. This is not to say that intelligence and atheism are in any way linked, but to suggest that immersion in the scientific method, and success in the profession, tend to influence its practitioners.
So here are the stats** on belief in God:
American Public: over 90%
General Scientists: 40%
Elite Scientists: 7%
Scientists are overwhelmingly less likely to believe in God than people with little scientific expertise. I don't even think it is arrogant to profess a belief in God, thus rejecting the disbelief of the people who understand how best to search for and discover truth. But I do think it is arrogant to have all that information and still think less of someone for their atheism.
* Sam Harris: "Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."
** I didn't go to the trouble of checking those stats, because I'm lazy. I've seen similar stats before, and I doubt anyone would seriously dispute the contention that atheism is much more common among elite scientists than in the general population, which is all I need to make my point. The inevitable comic result is that some religious zealot will provide stats that show the opposite, I'll criticize their survey methodology, and they'll say the results bias my evaluation. Of course the scientific approach has solved this dilemma - simply have someone review the methodology before they know the results. Religion has also solved this dilemma - simply form your beliefs regardless of evidence, and ignore anyone who questions you.
11 comments:
I hear yearh..
But on another note: If you are a gambling man, isn't it safer to bet in God. Pascels wager I think its called.
BB
I can't imagine an all-knowing and vengeful god thinking too highly of someone who only believes in god because he's afraid and calculated that beleiving was the better wager.
Also, I don't even know what it would mean to "believe" based on Pascal's thought process.
So my gamble is that if there is a god, he'll like me for using the reasoning skills he gave me before disappearing and hiding all evidence of himself.
Those statistics only prove that scientists are despicable heathens headed for eternal damnation.
As for Pascal's Wager, the fact that most people are so willing to accept the idea that you can manipulate your own beliefs is appalling. It shows how little most people value intellectual honesty... which helps explain why so many educated people persist in their belief in God.
I can't think about this stuff too much or I start to dislike humanity.
btw, my first sentence there was a joke. The next two were, unfortunately, not.
how can a man think himself a man of science if he truly believes .99999 = 1? It is really yhe same principle at work here.
I'd think the science/math minded people who dont believe in God would never think such a fuzzy idea (.999=1) would be true. Where as the "weak minded" people who want easy answers (i.e. religion) would want the easy answer that .999 is close enough to equal one.
That is a comment truly worthy of Dave Chappelle's whacked out mental state.
Back to the subject at hand, I'll take the bait, and play Devil's Advocate for a moment. My understanding is that you disagree with the believer because they have no scientific evidence to prove that a diety exists. In fact, you reject the existence of a diety because there is, as of now, no scientific proof.
But any number of now accepted scientific principles were unprovable for the vast majority of history. Were these principles less valid for the first 5000 years of civilization because they were unprovable? Because we were unable to prove that the Earth really did revolve around the sun, was it "foolish" or "arrogant" to believe either side?
You seem to be accepting on faith that we will never prove the existence of a higher order being. I would say that's likely, but not impossible.
That's the problem I have with Atheism. My understanding is that to be an atheist, you actively reject the existence of a higher order being. I'll grant that I haven't seen him yet, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility of his existence being proven in the future.
I came to this line of thinking a long time ago, and decided that I would just not care about the topic. I guess that makes me agnostic?
The blog-spam protection has gotten easier recently.
I welcome the Devil's Advocation. Keep it coming.
My understanding is that you disagree with the believer because they have no scientific evidence to prove that a diety exists. In fact, you reject the existence of a diety because there is, as of now, no scientific proof.
That is part of it. I see no reason whatsoever to believe in God. I see weak reasons to wish there was a God, but I see better reasons to hope there isn't one. I don't even have a huge problem with privately held absurd beliefs, but I have an enormous problem with people believing something with their entire being without any proof, and attacking those who would take the other side.
But any number of now accepted scientific principles were unprovable for the vast majority of history. Were these principles less valid for the first 5000 years of civilization because they were unprovable? Because we were unable to prove that the Earth really did revolve around the sun, was it "foolish" or "arrogant" to believe either side?
Previously unproven theories were still true ("true" in the sense that gravity is true - it is a robust theory that holds up to scrutiny). It wasn't especially foolish to believe earlier religious theories that science has shown to be false, however I do think it was foolish to accept them without question. And it was arrogant to insult, hurt, or kill people who believed something else.
That's the problem I have with Atheism. My understanding is that to be an atheist, you actively reject the existence of a higher order being. I'll grant that I haven't seen him yet, but I'm not going to rule out the possibility of his existence being proven in the future.
Weak atheism says "I don't believe in god". Strong atheism says "I believe there is no God." Sounds like you don't like the strong. But here's the thing - aethism in itself isn't really even a philosophy, it is a lack of irrational belief.
Compare: I don't believe I have a dead body buried under my kitchen. I'm a weak noncorpseist. I believe there isn't a dead body buried under my kitchen. I'm a strong noncorpseist. Which is more reasonable?
I, adspar, don't know for 100% that some higher power won't reveal itself to me tomorrow. I don't know 100% that there isn't a dead body under my kitchen. But I have no reason at all to believe in God or dead bodies. So I choose to believe that there aren't either, based on a reasonable educated guess.
The other key thing here is that I'm a free thinker. I'm open to the falsification of my beliefs. Show me a skeleton and I'll question my noncorpseism. Show me a man come to life after being dead for 3 days, and I'll question my atheism.
But the believers continue to believe even as the scared walls of their mystical fortresses come tumbling down. There's always some creative way to reconcile belief in the irrational, and there always will be, no matter how thoroughly science explains everything.
One of my favorite lines from the atheist manifesto is, “One's convictions should be proportional to one's evidence.”
Do I know there is not a God? No, but I do know that anyone who claims any conviction that there is a God has failed the test of intellectual honesty.
This idea also applies to previously unprovable scientific principles. Indeed, before they were proved, anyone who believed them with certainty were arrogant to some extent. Their arrogance was inversely proportional to the amount of evidence they had.
I aint crazy. This blogger is full of himself. And possibly shit. One question for you, sir:
How much of scripture is garbage, and how much is true?
I assumed that the first chappelle comments were intended to be funny.
Scripture is neither garbage nor true. Scripture is literature. Interpretting it as history or science is missing the point. The Bible is a great philosophic work of literature.
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Post a Comment