The Argument from Diversity

[spetey]

Hi folks,

First, I'm very pleased to have found this forum. I think more open debate, especially about religion, is crucial to the world's future. It is too easy in the days of the internet simply to find people who agree with you, and post only to their message boards, patting each other on the back for being clever enough to agree. So I salute you all for coming here instead!

Let me start with a little exercise in confronting religious plurality, what I like to call the "argument from diversity". Let's pretend that I believe in a god, but not the God of the Abrahamic tradition. Instead, I believe in Zeus, and the other Greek gods. Of course there aren't really any (or many) Zeus-worshippers these days, but let's pretend as an example, to stand in for all the other conflicting religions that really are out there today.

I suppose many of the Abrahamic tradition (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) would think Zeus-worshipping kind of silly, and perhaps worry that I won't go to heaven. Maybe you even fear I'll be damned for eternity. Nonetheless, pretend I believe in Zeus, and that I'm similarly worried about Christians (and Jews and ...), because if you don't worship Zeus properly--sacrificing lambs and such--you'll have to go to Hades and roll boulders up hills for all eternity, like poor Sisyphys.

Now here's the exercise: can you give me a reason to believe in the Abrahamic God--one that I don't already have for believing in Zeus?

Thanks for your patience... I look forward to a polite and engaging exchange.


spetey

[harvey1]

First, it has yet to be established that theism is more "meaningful" than atheism. (As I have suggested, I think atheism provides a more meaningful life, similar to the way it's more meaningful to strike out on your own than to live with your mother all her life.)

Established by whom? This is a subjective question and you have to ask it for each person. If you ask me, atheism is about as meaningful as a nuclear winter in June.

Established by reason-giving, of course. I have given a reason why I think atheism is more "meaningful" than theism (a heavily metaphorical one, I grant, but that's partly due to the slippery nature of what's "meaningful"). If you think what's "meaningful" is all subjective, and there are no facts of the matter, then you are not in a position to claim that theism is (in fact) more meaningful than atheism, so even by your own lights it should not be on the table as a reason to pick one over the other. (Of course I think it should not be on the table anyway, since it is just wishful thinking.) If on the other hand you believe that theism is genuinely more meaningful than atheism, you have (I think) an obligation to provide reasons for this position, in light of such reasons against it. You say atheism is not meaningful. Why? Perhaps it's time to address this.

What do you mean by meaning? I like the American Heritage definition as "inner significance". In that context, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. As far as why I claim theism is more meaningful than atheism is the tons and tons of discussions I have had over the years as to why someone believes in God. The almost universal answer is that God gives their lives an inner significance. Now, maybe you live in a world where that is not the case, but I have no idea of that world. Other than a situation of attending an atheist convention, I don't see people climbing over church walls to be an atheist.

Second, and more importantly, it has yet to be established that for something to be meaningful is any reason to think it's true or otherwise good to believe. It would be really meaningful to me if, I don't know, there were a book of poetry written by famous poets that is all about my life. This is no reason to think such a book of poetry exists. It sounds a lot like.

There's no reason to think that the meaning that comes from scientific knowledge, or the meaning that comes from rational inquiry of any kind brings with it any kind of truth. Postmodernists and radical skeptics might be correct.

Let me say again: if like the postmodernists you genuinely believe that there are no truths, that no one belief is better than another, that any method of belief-formation is as good as another, then you have no place on a forum for debates, trying to convince others of your position. The very premise of a debate is that one belief might be better than another to hold. If on the other hand you don't believe this pomo claptrap (as you have claimed numerous times before, much to my relief), then please don't appeal to it when you feel backed into a corner. If you wish to defend wishful thinking, do so; if not, don't. Don't defend wishful thinking by saying "maybe no belief is better than any other". That cure is way worse than the disease, and I hope never to see it from you again.

Maybe I wasn't clear (I thought I was, though). Realism, for me, is a inner belief based on my own inner intuitive reasons. I can share those reasons, but they are reasons that are based on my human quest for meaning in the world. I obtain meaning from realism - even if it looks foolish to the postmodernist or radical skeptic. I'm not like you Spetey. I don't have this conception that my reasons can split radical skepticism in half. I feel I know differently. I don't think my statements are acts of "faith" (as you call it). I have my reasons, and I think they are very convincing reasons, but they are convincing to me and whoever sees the world in a similar conceptual scheme as I do. It is not convincing to those who view the world way outside that conceptual scheme.

So, I think you are mistaken. Meaning as it relates to our conceptual scheme is a major reason why we continue to hold our particular beliefs, and I am just out and out honest about it. If anyone agrees that it is important to see the world in a consistent, yet religious world, then they have that option just like the realist has the option to reject antirealism, and the knower has the option to reject radical skepticism.

Astrology has not declined. It is a huge industry and tons of people genuinely believe in that junk, probably way more than in Christianity (if you include Chinese astrology etc). You want to say it "declined" because you don't believe it. But then of course on those grounds I get to say "Christianity declined"!

Honestly, I don't know anyone who pursues astrology like a fundamentalist religion. I've never seen anyone ever come on a debate board about it. When I was trying to do some research on the topic, I had a hard time finding sites that talked about justifying astrology, etc. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I would be curious of the size of the belief that eliminates those who do it only for entertainment only (e.g., $25 and under spending per week per person, or less than 30 min a day per person). Obviously, if someone is spending hours a day, it is more than entertainment. I don't think you are talking more than ten million people in the USA who meet this criteria.

Also, you say astrology was "pushed out of the intellectual world". This is closer to correct, and closer to a reason to think astrology is not true. But is that really your standard? Because you must be aware that religion is being "pushed out of the intellectual world" too, right? The majority of academics are atheist, and that's a majority that's growing fast. (See eg Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998).) As more and more academics turn atheist, will you agree to that extent that atheism must be false? Presumably not. Presumably you think there are reasons for your view that academics are overlooking. What are they?

The decline of astrology was most apparent in government. If you consider that to be a factor, then by the same token Christianity is actually growing since it seems the U.S. government, especially at the highest levels, is growing more religious, not less. Even John Kerry, the "most liberal politician in Washington" and ran a very close race to Bush, is a devout Christian. However, I think the decline of astrology has little to do with the ups and downs of Christianity in academia. It had more to do with it being separated from astronomy, I think.

As for the growth of atheism in academia, I think it reflects the lack of interest of this majority to keep a diversity of ideas in academia. Obviously there is a number of theists with sufficient qualifications, but our government has not sufficiently addressed this reluctance to keep a diversity of ideas well-represented in academia, especially as to how it pertains to conservative views. This is one of my many concerns with atheism in general (not you though, you've only told me to never say something twice - not so bad - I think ).

[spetey]

In that context, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. As far as why I claim theism is more meaningful than atheism ...

Do you see the tension in these two adjacent sentences? Compare these two sentences: "Good tasting ice cream is in the tongue of the holder, it's subjective. As far as why I claim vanilla tastes better than chocolate, my reason is that..." If you think taste is subjective, you do not think vanilla tastes better than chocolate (period), you only think it tastes-better-for-you. If you think vanilla just tastes better (period), then you do not think taste in ice cream is subjective.

If what is meaningful is truly subjective, according to you, then again I say that by your own lights it cannot be used as a reason to prefer theism, so it is off the table. (That would be sorta too bad for me, since I think atheism would win on that score as well, even though I think it has nothing to do with the truth of either claim.) If you think it's a fact that theism is more meaningful than atheism, defend this view against my reasons against, and we'll discuss it. First, please explicitly pick a side: is the "meaning" or "inner significance" of a view a subjective matter or not?

As far as why I claim theism is more meaningful than atheism is the tons and tons of discussions I have had over the years as to why someone believes in God. The almost universal answer is that God gives their lives an inner significance.

Do you see why this is suspicious to someone who thinks the main reason people believe in the supernatural is by wishful thinking? I hear you as saying "the almost universal reason people believe in God is that they want it to be true."

Other than a situation of attending an atheist convention, I don't see people climbing over church walls to be an atheist.

That's because you're on the other side of the walls! But trust me, they're streaming over. (Not that I think appeals to what the majority believe have much if any bearing on the truth of a claim.)

Maybe I wasn't clear (I thought I was, though). Realism, for me, is a inner belief based on my own inner intuitive reasons. I can share those reasons, but they are reasons that are based on my human quest for meaning in the world.

I don't know what an "inner belief" is or an "inner intuitive reason" or what it is to have "reasons based on [a] human quest for meaning in the world". But I'm glad you can share those reasons. Please do.

I obtain meaning from realism - even if it looks foolish to the postmodernist or radical skeptic. I'm not like you Spetey. I don't have this conception that my reasons can split radical skepticism in half. I feel I know differently.

I don't understand this chunk at all. Can't I get meaning from realism too? (Or does realism somehow encompass theism for you?) And I think that if something looks foolish to the postmodernist then that's probably a mark in that thing's favor. I don't know what it is to "split radical skepticism in half".

I don't think my statements are acts of "faith" (as you call it). I have my reasons, and I think they are very convincing reasons, but they are convincing to me and whoever sees the world in a similar conceptual scheme as I do. It is not convincing to those who view the world way outside that conceptual scheme.

This is suspicious. You say your reasons are convincing to you and to those who share your "conceptual scheme"--which, from what I can tell, means whoever already shares your religious beliefs. But racist beliefs are convincing to the racists and those who already share their "conceptual scheme". They too may have a hard time giving reasons to those edumacated folks who disagree. Do you think that means the racists' beliefs are reasonable, and their epistemic policy responsible?

Astrology has not declined. It is a huge industry and tons of people genuinely believe in that junk, probably way more than in Christianity (if you include Chinese astrology etc). You want to say it "declined" because you don't believe it. But then of course on those grounds I get to say "Christianity declined"!

Honestly, I don't know anyone who pursues astrology like a fundamentalist religion.

I don't either--but a) there are many, and b) that's not the criterion you proposed. If to be evidence of truth it has to be pursued like a religion, then I would say this criterion is more than a bit biased in favor of religion--wouldn't you? Quantum physics isn't pursued like a fundamentalist religion either; people don't kill for it or anything. I don't think that's any score against quantum physics.

I've never seen anyone ever come on a debate board about it. When I was trying to do some research on the topic, I had a hard time finding sites that talked about justifying astrology, etc.

Sure, I bet that's relatively rare (though again there are many who try to justify astrology with reasons; here's just one of many astrology forums out there). But that too wasn't the criterion you proposed. Notice few religions try to defend their views to the non-believers, either, especially per capita. And if the criterion is instead "can withstand the test of reasons", then this is a criterion to which I readily agree. So let's get down to it: how does your religious belief withstand my reasons against it?

I'm not saying it's not out there, but I would be curious of the size of the belief that eliminates those who do it only for entertainment only (e.g., $25 and under spending per week per person, or less than 30 min a day per person). Obviously, if someone is spending hours a day, it is more than entertainment. I don't think you are talking more than ten million people in the USA who meet this criteria.

To believe in astrology you have to spend more than $25 per week and / or hours a day on the topic? Is this a standard you apply to Christianity as well?

Also, you say astrology was "pushed out of the intellectual world". This is closer to correct, and closer to a reason to think astrology is not true. But is that really your standard? Because you must be aware that religion is being "pushed out of the intellectual world" too, right? The majority of academics are atheist, and that's a majority that's growing fast. (See eg Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998).) As more and more academics turn atheist, will you agree to that extent that atheism must be false? Presumably not. Presumably you think there are reasons for your view that academics are overlooking. What are they?

The decline of astrology was most apparent in government.

It is also suspicious that your appeal moves suddenly from the academic community to government when it comes to judging Christianity. Of course the government is largely religious--that's because the people they represent are largely religious. I think this by and large a bad thing that is damaging the United States badly. Politics is a huge part of the reason I have decided to be more vocal about my atheism. (I have deliberately and with difficulty refrained from making particular political comments, however; let's all agree to keep this thread relatively politics-free.)

However, I think the decline of astrology has little to do with the ups and downs of Christianity in academia. It had more to do with it being separated from astronomy, I think.

I wasn't suggesting that Christianity is declining in the academy because astrology is declining in it. I was suggesting that if you judge the falsity of a belief by whether a large portion of the academy rejects it, then by your own standards you should reject Christianity.

As for the growth of atheism in academia, I think it reflects the lack of interest of this majority to keep a diversity of ideas in academia.

Yikes! Do you think the government should intervene to make sure there are astrologists in the academy, too? After all: we want a diversity of ideas in academia! Oh wait, you mean you want the academy to keep only a diversity of good ideas? Then

1. on what grounds do you say Christianity is a good idea, and astrology bad? (Surely not your earlier grounds of what the academy standardly accepts.)
2. Perhaps you'd better let the experts in the academy decide which the better ideas are that are needed for academic diversity.

Obviously there is a number of theists with sufficient qualifications, but our government has not sufficiently addressed this reluctance to keep a diversity of ideas well-represented in academia, especially as to how it pertains to conservative views.

You think there is active discrimination against the religious in the academy? This would be a startling turn of events from the discrimination against atheists in the other walks of life, but I grant it's possible. Do you have evidence for this claim? Or do you believe it for "inner intuitive reasons" you can only share with those who share your "conceptual scheme"?


spetey

[spetey]

PS Harvey, I was very pleased by your comment below, thank you for sharing it:

I think you've perked my interest in [Hindusim] to look deeper knowing the persecution the religion has received. I would like to know more about those tests and find out how their scriptures have evolved, etc.

I am always glad to get people interested in a wider expanse of conflicting ideas. This usually generates productive thinking on important matters!

Though I'm no religious scholar, I'm pretty confident just about every major religion has suffered severe persecution at one time or another (maybe not Zen, come to think of it). You might want to look into them, too!


spetey

[harvey1]

I really think the more interesting discussion is still on the other forum. Since we are entrenched in 3 discussions, would you mind if we put this one on pause? It's taking too much time to respond.

Just so that you think I'm not copping out, I'll respond to a few comments...

In that context, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. As far as why I claim theism is more meaningful than atheism ...

Do you see the tension in these two adjacent sentences? Compare these two sentences: "Good tasting ice cream is in the tongue of the holder, it's subjective. As far as why I claim vanilla tastes better than chocolate, my reason is that..." If you think taste is subjective, you do not think vanilla tastes better than chocolate (period), you only think it tastes-better-for-you. If you think vanilla just tastes better (period), then you do not think taste in ice cream is subjective.

There's no conflict. I said I like vanilla ice cream because I find it more "meaningful" to most people because I talk to people about their beliefs and I find that vanilla is an extremely "meaningful" taste of ice cream.

If what is meaningful is truly subjective, according to you, then again I say that by your own lights it cannot be used as a reason to prefer theism, so it is off the table. (That would be sorta too bad for me, since I think atheism would win on that score as well, even though I think it has nothing to do with the truth of either claim.) If you think it's a fact that theism is more meaningful than atheism, defend this view against my reasons against, and we'll discuss it. First, please explicitly pick a side: is the "meaning" or "inner significance" of a view a subjective matter or not?

Inner significance is a subjective matter, and it is one where the majority of people find a lot more of it in theism than atheism, by far. Perhaps you've surrounding yourself with a small enough crowd (i.e., other atheists) and it only appears to you that people find atheism subjectively better than theism. I suggest the first place you look is foxholes. Do you think there are atheists in foxholes? Tommy Franks says no.

As far as why I claim theism is more meaningful than atheism is the tons and tons of discussions I have had over the years as to why someone believes in God. The almost universal answer is that God gives their lives an inner significance.

Do you see why this is suspicious to someone who thinks the main reason people believe in the supernatural is by wishful thinking? I hear you as saying "the almost universal reason people believe in God is that they want it to be true."

Spetey, you act like you are a prisoner to what you believe. Let me let you on a little secret, your jail cell door isn't locked. You can walk right out of that prison. Just don't stray to the contradiction and inconsistency prisons on the other side of town. They will lock the door on you if you stray into those places (and throw away the key).

Other than a situation of attending an atheist convention, I don't see people climbing over church walls to be an atheist.

That's because you're on the other side of the walls! But trust me, they're streaming over. (Not that I think appeals to what the majority believe have much if any bearing on the truth of a claim.)

Hmm... Churches couldn't pack 'em tight enough the Sunday after Sept.11. What you see is a small, small percentage of people walking into the doors of atheism. That small, small percent is still many people. Perhaps the reason why you know of them is the same reason why someone in a small church knows who the new members are, the church is small enough to appreciate the inflow of new members.

Maybe I wasn't clear (I thought I was, though). Realism, for me, is a inner belief based on my own inner intuitive reasons. I can share those reasons, but they are reasons that are based on my human quest for meaning in the world.

I don't know what an "inner belief" is or an "inner intuitive reason" or what it is to have "reasons based on [a] human quest for meaning in the world". But I'm glad you can share those reasons. Please do.

We've already talked a little about aesthetic reasons for realism and you were gushing over in agreement. Simplicity, elegance, beauty, causality criterions, etc. Does this strike any memories?

I obtain meaning from realism - even if it looks foolish to the postmodernist or radical skeptic. I'm not like you Spetey. I don't have this conception that my reasons can split radical skepticism in half. I feel I know differently.

I don't understand this chunk at all. Can't I get meaning from realism too? (Or does realism somehow encompass theism for you?) And I think that if something looks foolish to the postmodernist then that's probably a mark in that thing's favor. I don't know what it is to "split radical skepticism in half".

[Chuckle] Is it possible that you are more fundamentalist than me with respect to the issue of realism? Radical skepticism isn't going away. It can accept any challenge from the best epistemologist, and while it may not fair well in many instances, it cannot be defeated. That's important because the onus of possessing knowledge is on the one who claims to have knowledge. The skeptic is only saying prove it that you have knowledge. No such proof exists since every foundation of knowledge has weaknesses of some type (otherwise all epistemologists would flood over to that particular foundationalist way of thinking). In my view, realism rests on the positive meaning it provides. That's why one should choose realism over radical skepticism. So, the realist is, in my view, in the same position as those who claim meaning as their primary reason to believe in God or Christianity for that matter. There's nothing wrong with it as long as you don't go to the side of town where they lock you in a cell and throw away the key.

This is suspicious. You say your reasons are convincing to you and to those who share your "conceptual scheme"--which, from what I can tell, means whoever already shares your religious beliefs. But racist beliefs are convincing to the racists and those who already share their "conceptual scheme". They too may have a hard time giving reasons to those edumacated folks who disagree. Do you think that means the racists' beliefs are reasonable, and their epistemic policy responsible?

No. However, as I said many times, a "society" has a right to govern its soil as it sees fit. We live in a land that has saw fit to not favor racist beliefs, and that is great news for me since my conceptual scheme does not approve of racism.

Notice few religions try to defend their views to the non-believers, either, especially per capita. And if the criterion is instead "can withstand the test of reasons", then this is a criterion to which I readily agree. So let's get down to it: how does your religious belief withstand my reasons against it?

The purpose of this thread was to show how a Zeus worshipper could be shown evidence for Yahweh that didn't apply to Zeus. I showed you that evidence so why don't we leave this exercise for now.

To believe in astrology you have to spend more than $25 per week and / or hours a day on the topic? Is this a standard you apply to Christianity as well?

I came up with a number that I think the average committed person to an ideology will usually contribute. I buy that amount in books (usually) and put way more time into debating with you, so I guess I qualify as someone who is committed to debating beliefs over and above mere entertainment. The $25 per week though, is just an indicator. If someone can only afford $2 but it represents a significant cost, then obviously those people would qualify, but I'm talking about a statistical average. For example, many religious people give way more and spend much more time.

As for the growth of atheism in academia, I think it reflects the lack of interest of this majority to keep a diversity of ideas in academia.

Yikes! Do you think the government should intervene to make sure there are astrologists in the academy, too? After all: we want a diversity of ideas in academia! Oh wait, you mean you want the academy to keep only a diversity of good ideas? Then [*]on what grounds do you say Christianity is a good idea, and astrology bad? (Surely not your earlier grounds of what the academy standardly accepts.) [*] Perhaps you'd better let the experts in the academy decide which the better ideas are that are needed for academic diversity.

I think government-funded education should try and reflect the attitudes and beliefs of those whom it serves unless doing so would be in contradiction to the laws of the land (e.g., education shouldn't promote racism in the South because there are many racists...). It's shameful for people's tax money to be spent on fools who attack their values and common vision, and then turn their children onto those views. I'm sorry if you believe that the tax money coming from people's hard work should be used against their values and beliefs.

Obviously there is a number of theists with sufficient qualifications, but our government has not sufficiently addressed this reluctance to keep a diversity of ideas well-represented in academia, especially as to how it pertains to conservative views.

You think there is active discrimination against the religious in the academy? This would be a startling turn of events from the discrimination against atheists in the other walks of life, but I grant it's possible. Do you have evidence for this claim? Or do you believe it for "inner intuitive reasons" you can only share with those who share your "conceptual scheme"?

I'm not sure there is discrimination per se. What it amounts to is that not enough is being done to guarantee that the diversity of beliefs in the education system somewhat reflect the diversity of beliefs in America. I would certainly not want any quotas or anything, however if atheism has grown as you suggest, then it's time for those hard-working people giving their tax dollars to start asking for a representation in education that reflects their values and beliefs. If they don't get it, then I don't see why this isn't an issue for the judicial or legislation branches of government.

Okay, I responded to your post and I didn't raise any new issues. Can we leave this topic for now and concentrate on just two topics? Please...

[spetey]

Hi Harvey,

A quick note for now. I too am spending too much time on this forum, and am enjoying it, but would like to cut down some. But of all our threads, I think this is the most important one--the one where we consider reasons to believe in God. I would much rather we stop wasting time on the thread about whether it's okay to believe on faith, especially since you agreed some time ago to the main issue--namely that it's best to try to give reasons for an important view where people disagree. Let's discuss those reasons here!

On the other hand, if you're telling me that you have decided you really want to defend (what I call) appeals to faith after all, then we should stop here and work solely on that thread. As long as you think it's okay to appeal to faith, this thread will not get us far.


spetey

[harvey1]

On the other hand, if you're telling me that you have decided you really want to defend (what I call) appeals to faith after all, then we should stop here and work solely on that thread. As long as you think it's okay to appeal to faith, this thread will not get us far.

My thought is that we haven't really talked as much about your views with regard to the issue of "faith" and reasons, and I really want to talk about that since if your views aren't foundationally secure (which I don't think Haack's foundherentism can ultimately provide), then it effects this discussion in terms of how to perceive reasons for a belief in general. My stance is that you are forced to choose a view such as mine, or give up the quest for realist beliefs altogether. That's probably overstated, but I'd like to pursue that a little further before we continue on this thread. I think it'll benefit you too.

[spetey]

My thought is that we haven't really talked as much about your views with regard to the issue of "faith" and reasons, and I really want to talk about that since if your views aren't foundationally secure (which I don't think Haack's foundherentism can ultimately provide), then it effects this discussion in terms of how to perceive reasons for a belief in general. My stance is that you are forced to choose a view such as mine, or give up the quest for realist beliefs altogether. That's probably overstated, but I'd like to pursue that a little further before we continue on this thread. I think it'll benefit you too.

I hear you as saying that you want to defend faith after all--by attacking my position against it. That's fine. I'm a little disappointed given that I thought we'd agreed on (what I call) the impermissibility of faith long ago, but as long as you're still tempted to defend it, it's important to discuss before we continue here.

Meanwhile, is there anyone else who has a reason to believe in God that isn't also a reason to believe in Zeus? If yes, please state it here. If you don't have a reason, but believe in God anyway, I'd also be interested to hear you defend this policy on the Permissibility of Faith thread.


spetey

[harvey1]

I hear you as saying that you want to defend faith after all--by attacking my position against it. That's fine. I'm a little disappointed given that I thought we'd agreed on (what I call) the impermissibility of faith long ago, but as long as you're still tempted to defend it, it's important to discuss before we continue here.

I must say, you have a way of cracking me up! I'm talking about your foundations (or lack thereof). I've already shown that I stand on firm ground. Now it's your turn. In any case, I appreciate that we can put this dialogue on this site on hold while we sort out the other stuff.

[spetey]

Incidentally, folks, just because Harvey wants to take a break from his and my dialog, I consider this topic still very much open for business. Is there anyone who is ready to present a good reason to believe in the Abrahamic God, but not in Zeus, or Vishnu?


spetey