In my last article I posed some questions and shared some thoughts on faith and what I think is the difference between faith and belief. As was the case with two prior articles on the Religion section of HP, this article drew a large number of responses ranging from appreciative to caustic. Since that posting I've read a number of articles in the Religion section and am puzzled by a pattern I think I've detected.
Not to pull rank, but by way of a relevant context, I consider myself a scientist. I have a Ph.D. in Neuropsychology and have studied biology, pharmacology, and (at an amateur level) quantum physics. Additionally, I've made a study late in my life of philosophy and theology. I find no essential contradiction between being a scientist and inquiring into philosophical or theological questions or even having religious faith. In this I find myself in the company of Einstein, Freeman Dyson, Charles Darwin and others as detailed in a recent post by Krista Tippett.
My theological thinking is, without doubt, on the radical end of the spectrum, so I'm used to being attacked from the right - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, even Buddhist from time to time; conservatives are offended by my lack of orthodoxy and my view that all institutional religions are (a) aimed at the same target and (b) fundamentally corrupted to the extent that they hold power over their adherents. What did come as a surprise was the vituperation I drew from those who proclaim themselves to be anti-religion, atheistic, scientific, and intellectual. Somehow the very fact that I consider this to be a legitimate area of inquiry seems deeply offensive to these folks.
So I have to wonder, what is so offensive? If I engage in an exploration of my own faith (and I distinguish faith from religion or belief), how does that harm those who would have you believe that they have settled the question once and for all. There is no God, all religions are false, and all those who profess any level of faith and belief are stupid. So why bother going online to call them names (it's not just me, it's anyone who posts from a faith perspective including the aforementioned conservatives who come in for their share of calumny from these supposed superior intellects)? One fellow was honest enough to answer that he just likes to argue, but most don't.
I've come to believe that there is a scientific/intellectual right that is no less fundamentalist and no more tolerant of other views than their religious counterparts. Their belief system is one of the secular churches - science, mathematics, philosophy, etc., and anyone who does not think as they do is ipso facto evil. Oh, they would never use a term like evil - they use their world's terms for evil - stupid, benighted, brainwashed, you name it.
What I will call Secular Fundamentalism is no more consistent with what it claims as its roots than Religious Fundamentalism is consistent with its own roots. Christian fundamentalism bears very little resemblance to the teachings or life of Jesus Christ, extreme Orthodox Judaism is more concerned with following rules than with the moral teachings on which Judaism stands, and as for Islamic Fundamentalism, the Prophet (PBOH) would barely recognize it.
My studies in science, philosophy, and theology have led me to a conclusion I consider both basic and inescapable. We know nothing for sure, and everything we think we know will someday be shown to be either false or only part of the story. As human beings we are very sure of what we know and equally sure that when we discover something we don't know, we will figure it out. We are equally sure that there is nothing we don't know (and don't know we don't know) that is worth bothering with. As Schopenhauer said: "every man mistakes the limits of his vision for the limits of the world."
So to those who take issue with my exploration I say "yes, I may be wrong." But to those who feel the need to be insulting and condescending about it, I say "what are you afraid of?" The 17th Century mathematician Blaise Pascal is famous for his metaphorical wager: If God does not exist and I act as if he does, I lose nothing. But if God does exist and I act as if he doesn't, I lose everything." On the face of it this seems to me to be a pretty cynical basis for belief, but even so it points toward an open mind that the detractors of religion seem to lack. As a psychologist, when I see a reaction that seems (a) intellectually inconsistent and (b) out of proportion to the stimulus it suggests to me that something is being threatened. It is human to resist being dominated by anything, even our own beliefs, and that is one reason I tried to make the case for faith as a more difficult but superior basis for the inquiry than belief - my detractors seem to have missed that point.
Follow Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/egurowitz
Noah Baron: Christian Fundamentalists: Not the Only Faithful
Michael Ruse: Darwinism and the Moral Argument for God
For the thousandth time, atheists are not dogmatically certain that there is no god! We disbelieve that there is a god, often on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence for god and we find the Christian God's existence as likely as Zeus'. We concede that we are uncertain on the matter. This has been discussed as length by atheists, both in their books and commenting here on HP. Yet, every time I turn around on HP, it seems like someone else is charging us atheists of believing that there is no god.
Also, there are arguments and specific issues and concerns on which the conversational intolerance against religion is based. You ought to learn the justification behind it before condemning it.
The charge that we are "certain" and are "fundamentalists" is nothing more than ad hominem attacks on critics of religion and a demonstration of gross ignorance of atheism. This is already old and needs to stop. If you don't like various criticisms of religion, attack the argument, not the person.
First he appeals to his authority :
"Not to pull rank, but by way of a relevant context, I consider myself a scientist. I have a Ph.D. in Neuropsychology and have studied biology, pharmacology, and (at an amateur level) quantum physics. Additionally, I've made a study late in my life of philosophy and theology."
then he states a conclusion he has come to:
" I find no essential contradiction between being a scientist and inquiring into philosophical or theological questions or even having religious faith."
Here's the problem. If we are supposed to consider his background relevant (which I am happy to do) then he must show HOW this background has played into his conclusion. In other words, demonstrate it is relevant. It is not enough to baldly state that he finds no essential contradiction between being a scientist and having religious faith. If he does not do so then his appeal to authority is gratuitous. It may have played no part. There are religious fundamentalists who are scientists. It is possible to reconcile the two. How is he different? What makes his experience relevant to us and adds authority to his conclusions. If we don't understand this his whole piece loses credibility.
Your key proposition is :. "Their belief system is one of the secular churches - science, mathematics, philosophy, etc., and anyone who does not think as they do is ipso facto evil. Oh, they would never use a term like evil - they use their world's terms for evil - stupid, benighted, brainwashed, you name it."
I think the key to understanding what is going on here is to include 2 factors you have not discussed.
a) the damage that many believe religion has inflicted and continues to inflict on the world. I am referring here to a world far from the university educated liberal live and let live members of the faithful who distance themselves from the fanatics. But it is worth remembering that members of the faithful with what is quite literally a medieval view of the world massively outweighs the educated minority. There are rationalist who consider this to be corrosive of rationality itself and dangerous in our globalized world.
b) it is incredibly frustrating to deal with members of the faithful who are unable to articulate any coherent justification for their belief. Grounds they do articulate or defenses they mount are typically blatantly flawed.
which brings me to my question. with your background and appreciation of what it takes to believe any proposition with confidence and your knowledge of the role science has played in illuminating so much that was dark, what is the ground for your belief?
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Oneness.
Give us this day our Singularity and forgive us our hypocrisy and we will never forgive those who comment unconstructively against us.
And lead us not into Secular Fundamentalism, but deliver us from reason.
For Thine is the Collective Consciousness and the Unity and the Narcissistic Wishful Thinking forever and ever.
YouBetcha
that moves the discussion along a ways
Ed is going to thank you for backing him up
Believers must voice righteous outrage at cultural deterioration.
There’s nothing to be gained by diluting The Truth with the vain imaginations of the secular humanists. The legal commitment of radical ideological secularism in the name of science to any and all of the fanatically-twisted far-left fringes of American culture -- evilutionists, scientologists, socialists, environmentalists, and other atheists -- will destroy the very foundation of our society!
God is love.
Suckered me, too, until I caught on.
The reason people reject God isn't because of anything man does or says ( thats just a cop-out ) it's because " men love darkness because their deeds are evil"
Both extremes make you blind. A wise man would see that science does not have all the answers anymore than religion does. Like any great truth, the real answer is a blending of the spiritual and physical worlds.
I am a physicist myself and an atheist. Being a non-believer does not give you the right to disregard institutions that have given billions of your brothers well being and peace.
A "wise man" would, however, take a look at the track record. Wouldn't he?
"Being a non-believer does not give you the right to disregard institutions that have given billions of your brothers well being and peace."
Oh, yeah? Says who?
Morphine can give well-being and peace. If you don't believe it, pass a kidney stone sometime.
morphine used for pain relief is of course is just one example of the benefits of science to billions of people.
I am sure you will however refuse it in the unlikely event that God ever smites you and you find yourself in excruciating pain.
Obviously.
I don't see a lot of people here claiming that science has all the answers. It happens every now and then, and when it does I groan and roll my eyes. I would imagine that any sensible person would have a similar reaction, regardless of his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof.
"Being a non-believer does not give you the right to disregard institutions that have given billions of your brothers well being and peace."
I myself regard them very closely, I study them in great detail. Just as I would look very carefully at a 400-pound sumo wrestler if I was about to go fight him.
Let me translate.... I have a Ph.D in Neuropsychology and I read a lot.
Congrads, but your defensive intellectual name dropping does not mean you are an expert in anything other than Neuropsychology. So I welcome your views here but they are just views like everyone elses, nothing more. There is no "expert" pronouncing them.
We've seen that. And seen it. And seen it. And seen it. And --
Has no more validity than Argument from Popularity.
Except -- I'd be willing to bet that Gurowitz has no more Authority -- or Popularity -- than RoyPiper.
It's an old saying that everything before "but" is BS. Of course Dr Gurowitz is trying to pull rank. Nice to see it's not working so well.
I don't have a PhD. I know a lot of PhD's, and some of them are very brainy people. I also know some very brainy people didn't go the doctorate route. I don't judge people's intellect by their credentials, absolutely not.
The docs who impress me are the ones with interesting things to say. When someone rattles off their credentials and titles and degrees in the midst of a debate, in my experience, it has always been the sign of a lack of substantive things to say on their part. An unconscious declaration of intellectual bankruptcy. Every time.
Why did I put it that way? The people who impress me, docs or not, atheists or Christians or Jews or Moslems or Buddhists or Hindus or Sikhs or Mormons or otherwise, have interesting things to say.
Agnostics just don't impress me, period. (Kidding! But only kind of. I haven't run across a lot of agnostics, but honestly, at this moment, I can't think of one who wasn't boring and dreary to me. May that change, Vishnu willing!)
NO EVIDENCE, whether Mr. Gurowitz Ph.D likes it or not or thinks people who point it out are Whatever.
That would be silly and rare, hence, irrelevant to take issue with.
Speaking as an atheist, I dont make a positive claim. I am simply rejecting other claims, on the basis that there is either no evidence to support those claims, or (more often than not) the evidence directly contradicts the claim in question.
As an agnostic, you are an atheist, so spare the strawman. I'm agnostic too, so is everyone who isnt crazy.
Believe what you want, I basically don't care. But its not a wise move to plead on logic, if you are anything else than a weak atheist, its the only 'ideology' defendable with logic.
I know the Bible is not.
Shall we continue?
On Huffpo ! Say it ain't so.
Apparently, the only good atheist is one who keeps their filthy, unbelieving thoughts to themselves. How dare they have opinions !
.
I asked, is "secular fundamentalist" an endearment?
I claim strawman. Re-read paragraph 5. I didn't make it up. What seems to enrage True Believers so is that atheists dare comment at all.
The nature of comments on the internet is to be forceful and anonymous. Sorry if it offends. (Well, not really.)
.
Regardless of your belief system atheist, christian, muslim etc. when you disregard the belief systems of others you are detrimental for the (admittedly endless) search for truth.
Most likely the people I just described are not you, and I hope you don't take this an attack. Religion is quite a fiery subject, and one that unfortunately would benefit from healthy debate but also rarely is ever subjected to it.
No one comes on this website and just posts, "religion is bad". Go to the profile page of any atheist commenter who posts here, and you will read endless well-reasoned arguments. But fundamentalism (which is incorrectly defined by the author) is an easy charge to toss around, yet never defend.
.
I think he's trying to pretend that he doesn't understand their objections, when in fact, they spell them out when they are allowed to post. He said: "So I have to wonder, what is so offensive? If I engage in an exploration of my own faith (and I distinguish faith from religion or belief), how does that harm those who would have you believe that they have settled the question once and for all."
He's not doing this in the privacy of his home. He's publishing it on a popular website. In other words, he's promoting it. They object to that. What is the mystery? On a recent post, wondering explained it even further: "You religionists (or religion apologists) actively try to influence me and my family's life with your idiotic ideas."
Uncivilized? That's subjective. Unclear? I don't think so.
are more like me.
Random nobodies.
I like to talk about this stuff, I like to be in the fray with my own opinions, but I don't lie about being an "intellectual" or a high person in any way. I'm a failing artist and I work at a stable. In the classist way of things, I'm one of those filthy "goatherds" ancient texts were apparently written for, except my work is with horses. Methinks that not to many posters who actually care about being listened to and "puffing up" to make their opinions (whatever they are) look good are going to be so honest.
Don't fool yourself - this is the Internet. We're all nobodies here.
.
I used to raise Appaloosa's up in Mass.
Fanned.
That's not the argument, and your attempt to frame it this way is -- in my opinion, of course -- inflammatory and disingenuous.
As is your attempt to invent such a creature as a "Secular Fundamentalist" in order to conflate said imaginary creature with religious fundamentalists -- in my opinion, of course.
(Hafta keep adding that phrase now -- in my opinion, of course.)