I'm mentioned a few times on here that I've occasionally listened to his radio show and I like a lot of what he has to say. I like his approach of being fair-minded and objective, and his willingness to fight for what he believes in. I think he's a brilliant guy, and I know that he is a devoted Catholic.
If he believes in god with absolute certainty, then it is because he doesn't apply the same fair-minded objective standard to his religious thought. In establishing political, historical or scientific claims, he would demand supporting evidence that passes fair tests of logic, objectivity, and reproducibility. No reasons that he or anyone else believe in god would meet those standards of proof.
Is he stupid for believing in god? No. He just hasn't decided to apply those standards to every part of his life.
Is it stupid not to apply such standards to every part of his life? Ah, this is a better question. I think it probably is stupid not to consistently apply standards of proof to all aspects of belief, but I'm not as sure about this. To answer that question, we need to determine the good and bad consequences of that decision. If the bad outweighs the good, belief without adequate evidence is stupid.
Belief in god, or choosing to follow a certain faith has certainly been a very positive thing for many people. The good side of religious faith is well documented, and I don't think I need to elaborate here. Some parts of the bad side of religious faith have also been well documented - people commit all kinds of unspeakable atrocities in the name of god.
But what about Bill O'Reilly? He's not advocating killing all the non-believers, so there isn't that bad consequence of his decision not to apply rigorous standards of proof to his religious faith. But a point I've touched on before from the Atheist Manifesto is that widespread acceptance of religious thinking encourages people to accept false certainties. Just because he doesn't choose to take drastic actions based on his beliefs doesn't mean that other people won't.
If Bill O'Reilly, who demands proof for almost everything, believes in his idea of god without proof, why can't radical Muslim terrorists do the same:
A person can be so well educated that he can build a nuclear bomb while still believing that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Such is the ease with which the human mind can be partitioned by faith, and such is the degree to which our intellectual discourse still patiently accommodates religious delusion.
So I think an important downside of Mr. O'Reilly's religious beliefs is that it adds to societal acceptance of irrational conclusions.
No, I don't think Bill O'Reilly is stupid for believing in God. But I suspect it does more harm than good, a suspicion based on my belief that honesty is better than dishonesty. Obviously this entry isn't a full analysis of the harm and the good, it is just to illustrate the kind of approach needed to answer the questions asked.
I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running. Maybe my valuing honesty is naive.
19 comments:
I like Bill O Reilly too. He might probe vehemently in a non-productive way, but like he says I believe he's watching out for us. He is a traditionalist and his traditions lie in his Catholic upbringing. Most people grow up with this faith and no one can take that away from them. Like what Bill espouses, I believe we should concentrate more on harmony and rational thinking, instead of who's right and who's wrong.
I'm open to the possibility that full analysis might show that religion does more direct good than harm. But I'm not sure than goodness built on irrational belief is the way I'd like the world to be running.
How would you like the world to be running?
On honest rational thought.
You?
speaking of bombs and intelligent people...
i dont think einstein expected 72 vigins
"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
-more einstein for your viewing pleasure
adspar-it is not my intent to biblethump you, but if you havent found God...maybe you havent looked hard enough. dont stop actively seeking out truths even if you think you have found them. in other words, although we have conclusions, dont set them in stone-this works for christians and nonchristians alike.
consider that several logic proofs have been created proving the existence of a God...but none exist disproving the existence of a God.
maybe one can prove the existence of God, and possibly the mystery lies in who God is. christianity frustrates many, including me, because it is contingent upon the premise that man cannot be omniscient. thereby, the Christian God cannot exist with 100% certainty, as you have indirectly indicated.
also...being unrealistic is always shaping our future reality. have you read much about positive psychology? this popular theory basically asserts that man lives a better life by blinding himself to unpleasant truths. i think you might enjoy reading any of martin seligman's books about it.
Not that one man's opinion proves anything, but here are some Einstein quotes in response.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
"Only if every individual strives for truth can humanity attain a happier future; the atavisms in each of us that stand in the way of a friendlier destiny can only thus be rendered ineffective."
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
It is abundantly clear from these quotes that any god Einstein believes in is nothing like the biblical god many believe in today. It sounds like he believes god as nature or something to that effect.
To address your other comments:
but if you havent found God...maybe you havent looked hard enough
I was raised in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school for 12 years. I had plenty of time to wrestle with these concepts, and I certainly didn't want to arrive at the conclusion that my whole family was filled with false belief. Maybe if you've found God, it is because you don't know what looking really is.
dont stop actively seeking out truths even if you think you have found them. in other words, although we have conclusions, dont set them in stone-this works for christians and nonchristians alike.
I agree 100%. Question everything.
consider that several logic proofs have been created proving the existence of a God...but none exist disproving the existence of a God.
This isn't true as far as I know. If you have information about such a proof that hasn't been dismissed, feel free to post it.
The search for truth is what I care about. Positive pyschology is about mental health, not acheiving greater understanding of the human mind. Evolutionary psychology is the good stuff.
Searching for proof of God's existence is a waste of my time. No supernatural force intervenes in anyone's life. If there is a God, he has nothing to do with our lives, and so why waste my time searching for something that probably isn't there anyway?
I take it back, here are over 300 proofs of god:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I dont have tons of opinions on the subject that I would like to share, but I did want to atleast note that i disagree with your last two paragraphs in your blog entry. In particular the sentence "But I suspect it does more harm than good"
I know you were speaking about believing in God more than just religion, but I dont agree. I also dont agree that being true to ones faith is dishonest.
It seems that some want scientific facts and logic to verify religion. But i think religion is something personal based on faith and believing, not math proofs. By inspection it is clear why there is no resolution between the two views. I dont know how to prove something that someone believes. I dont know how to disprove it either. One is not better than the other. To each his own.
I do have a question for you though, not directly related to this topic. If you have time, dig a little and formulate an opinion on this topic. If you really wanted me to not do work at all today at work then make an entry on the subject. I am very curious if you think there is a such thing as an athlete being "clutch"?
Anyways the bottom line is i am beating you in both fantasy basketball leagues we are in sucker!
i think believing in god is stupid
seriously, we all think the greeks and romans and every other religion that has existed (besides the monotheistic ones that currently rule our lives) are flat out wrong and the people who believed them were too (and probably a lot people think that they all went to hell, yay!). obviously there a zillion other examples of the craziness of god-people, including those mentioned in your posts.
how can anyone possibly believe in all that god nonsense? i don't even know how people can fit the ideas into their heads. how can people hold so many conflicting, irrational beliefs at the same time? i can't get over that our politics has to be ruled by these insane people. that healthcare rights can be determined by someone's belief in a god.
(it's a given here that i'm a strong atheist)
I also dont agree that being true to ones faith is dishonest.
Anyone who understands the concepts of "all-knowing" and "all-powerful" and believes in a god that is both of those things is being dishonest.
I dont know how to prove something that someone believes. I dont know how to disprove it either. One is not better than the other. To each his own.
Belief based on logic, reason, and evidence is better for everyone than blind faith. Anyone choosing blind faith certainly has the right to choose it, but they risk harming themselves and others, so I think blind faith is grossly irresponsible.
why is believing in a god being dishonest?
and why is it blind faith? how do you know what anyone believes? how can you measure how my faith or lack thereof affects the decisions i make in my life?
why are you so certain you are so much better than others because you base your entire life on logic and reason? how are they risking themselves and others more than a non religious person?
how do you see a persons religion impacting their lives? I am curious because you seem to have this issue with your way being "better" and I dotn know how you are measuring better-ness.
i am just curious as to why. i dont need answers to all these random questions, they are just something to think about. i suspect they might be fairly typical of a person who knows very little about atheism. and the truth is, if i wanted to learn more about it I would. so feel free to touch on or disregard anything you feel comfortable doing.
if you are interested i do have a minor suggestion and that being that you should be careful with your tone. you come accross as arrogant and the negative attitude towards any opinion other than your own is not very inviting...
I'll answer a lot of your questions later in future posts probably. But I'll say this in response to your final point:
I'm sure we both understand that there is a difference between having a good product and being a good salesman. I think organized religions have bad products and great salesman. I think I have a good product, but I'm probably a terrible salesman.
Adspar, I think you are doing a pretty good sales job actually. The manifesto was written in a more arrogant tone than your posts are. I do think you should continue to try to be very careful with your tone though, as dealing with "faith" can be very frustrating, and it's easy to slip into a condescending tone when discussing faith. That's why I try to keep relatively quiet on the subject... my personal opinions are likely to be seen as rather offensive (eg, see Cara's comment above).
Thanks Keith. Of course with you I'm preaching to the choir (ha, using a church analogy to describe fellow anti-church people). And I'll never change the minds of many people. So I guess if I'm selling, it is to the undecided people.
Actually, maybe I'm selling to you to. You say you've actively avoided the topic. Maybe hearing someone else say all the things you've always thought but didn't want to say will encourage you to take steps you otherwise wouldn't have.
Right on, Cara.
As much as I feel this is a waste of time, I feel almost obligated to comment.
I'm not so sure organized or theistic religions are necessarily "bad products". In fact let's use Darwin to show how it's a GREAT product (subtitle: how could x billion people be wrong?; subtitle2: intro to memetics)
Religion and God are ideas. Ideas, like organisms, replicate, passing from one generation to the next. Ideas, like organisms, also compete for survival. The worst ideas are forgotten while the fittest ideas survive and reproduce. Whether the idea is true or not is irrelevant.
Organized, theistic religions like Christianity are hyper-super-fit ideas. Diesel. Cockdiesel even. They are awesome at replicating: followers beget more followers, missionaries convert, saviors save, homeless and indigenous natives are bribed with vegetable soup and crusty bread, roofs, 72 virgins, eternal happiness, salvation, etc.
They are also awesome at survival. They rely on FAITH, and thus are unfalsifable. They are not susceptible to reason, evidence, or logic. Anyone who opposes is doomed to eternal damnation.
So seems to me you have an awesome product. Whether it’s true or not of course doesn’t matter.
Or maybe it's a bad product (false idea), but just really good sales (awesome survival and reproduction).
I’m also going to copy this thing about Occam’s Razor from the first search result I found (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html). No need to reinvent the wheel. I don’t remember when I first learned about this, but I’ve certainly remembered it ever since.
Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.
Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. In mathematical modelling of systems, the principle can be made more concrete in the form of the principle of uncertainty maximization: from your data, induce that model which minimizes the number of additional assumptions.
This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.
As much as I feel this is a waste of time, I feel almost obligated to comment.
I know what you mean about a waste of time. There are so many things I could be doing to make me life better other than debating the existence of someone's imaginary friend. But it is a popular battle about truth, and I find those hard to back away from. So do you I guess.
I'm not so sure organized or theistic religions are necessarily "bad products". In fact let's use Darwin to show how it's a GREAT product.
I'd agree that in the environment of our evolution they aren't too bad. At worst they're only mildly harmful to individual humans, but not harmful enough to weed out, like aging.
You could then argue that when we invented agriculture about 12,000 years ago and started forming states that religion became pretty useful to those states. But that doesn't necessarily mean good for all individuals.
I would argue that now that we have 7 billion people on the planet with little room to expand, and a general acceptance that killing people is bad, religion is more harmful than good. In fact to the (hundreds of?) millions of people who have been slaughtered, torchered, taunted, and otherwise harmed because of religious differences, religion has always done more harm than good.
I disagree that religion is a -EV proposition for the world.
What is it Mike McD says about bad beats? Poker players can remember the bad beats they take, but few big pots that they've won? I think the same is true of our perception of the effects of religion. We don't see/think about/remember the positive effects. We're continually bombarded by the negative effects. This skews our perception of the net result of religion.
I'm not a believer, but I know that there are a lot of believers who are doing a lot of good in the name of their belief. That's not an insignificant term in the equation.
Let's also not forget the main benefit to society that comes from religion. It's an organized way to allegorically teach the social rules that are necessary for society to function. Consider the (sizable) fraction of “well-behaved” people who had proper social behavior fed to them in some form of Sunday school. If a belief in a god comes along with that, I think I'm willing to accept it.
And I don't think there are currently viable alternatives to religion which would accomplish this.
Iceguy you make a good point. I think there are better ways available to teach people a (secular) code of morals. The whole heaven and hell thing is a big thing that bothers me, since eternal damnation/reward is such a powerful force.
Even if you can show that religion is the most effective way to control the masses, I still don't like it that its built on a lie. Lies can be exploited, and they have been. All it takes is some religiously minded people, and evil leader, and then we got planes smashing into buildings. How many suicide bombers are going through with it if they don't believe in eternal reward. How many people believe in eternal rewards if the majority realizes and says how stupid it is to believe in heaven or hell with zero evidence?
your point that we selectively remember evidence that helps our case is an important one, although i disagree that we're "bombarded by negative effects."
i think more of the people who are doing good in the name of religion would still be doing good in the name of secular ethics than the amount of bad that bad people would be doing without invoking god's will.
i dont know, you blame these crazy acts on religion... i am quite sure there is some corruption involved and its not automatically the relgion to blame.
corrupt leaders can abuse power and control and manipulate others. religion is just the vehicle used by some evil people.
i am quite sure there is some corruption involved and its not automatically the relgion to blame.
Do you think we should give judges the power to seize anyone's assets without explaination or appeal? Lets call that the Donkey Power.
And there are lots of good reasons to use the Donkey Power - you could take everything a drug dealer has and give it to needy children.
Only the corrupt judges would abuse that priveledge, so its not that there's anything wrong with the Donkey Power, only there's something wrong with anyone who uses it inappropriately.
Any power granted to people can be used inappropriately. For that reason we should be very careful what powers we give and why.
i like many of the core social teachings of religions. i don't like the absolutes and eternal consequences that they use to blackmail people who can't think for themselves.
some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to encourage people to do good. they're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from drug dealers and give to needy children. some religious leaders teach heaven and hell to get people to fly planes into buildings. they're the judges who use the Donkey Power to steal from you to buy themselves a new car.
religion is just the vehicle used by some evil people.
and its a really fucking powerful vehicle, so why give it to them. we don't need religion. we dont need to invent heaven and hell to have reason to do good. and we dont need to give evil people such a powerful weapon to manipulate people.
Post a Comment