An interesting contribution to the discussion from someone I dialogue with regarding the issue of faith, belief, atheism and reason. An account of their position as a self-confessed Sceptic:
"Firstly, nearly all atheists are sceptics, and their atheism comes from their scepticism.
Secondly most sceptics are frightened of ghosts and of alien abduction. Sceptics never get haunted and they are never abducted, and hence it keeps us safe.
Atheists are sceptics that focus on belief in God, other sceptics (such as Carl Sagan) focus on aliens, others on alternative medicine (my friend at work asked someone that believed in homoeopathy “what do you call alternative medicine that works?” His answer – medicine), others on astrology, others on ghosts, others on creationism, others on history revision, others on moon landing conspiracies (we didn’t land on the moon – it was all filmed in a warehouse on Mars), others on…
You get the idea.
What is most interesting is that, from a sceptics point of view, all of these are the same. We say the same things to each of the groups and get the same response back.
We ask for evidence of X.
Believers of X say The evidence is there if you look at it in the right way.
We say that evidence should be objective and amenable to science.
Some say that X is perfectly scientific and there is evidence but the scientific community refuse to listen. Others say that there are reasons why, despite making claims that seem testable, science will never be able to investigate the claims (I think this is called special pleading).
Then we go round in circles.
What is actually more interesting to me is that some of these believers follow this in debating other believers but don’t apply the same process to their own belief. A sceptic is basically somebody that applies this to all their own views. What is often overlooked by people is that sceptics are nearly always tougher on their own views than they are on other peoples.
Many years ago, before I was calling myself a sceptic, My wife came up to me to tell me that she had heard a news report that showed I was right about something (I can’t remember what it was now).
The next thing I said was “what was the sample size?” and she knew, she had remembered because she knew I would ask.
Even when being shown I was right I tested the evidence.
How to become a believer
In our garden there is a group of three pots. One of these keeps on falling over.
I can imagine someone coming to our house and saying that fairies are doing this. Being a Sagan believing sceptic, I say show me the evidence. They say all you need to do is take the step of belief and then you will see.
Having been worn down by many people saying just take the first step and it will all be clear, I decide to take that step this time. I decide to believe.
Now I believe in fairies.
Now I have evidence for fairies every time that the pot falls over.
If a sceptic now comes to me I will point out that it is their lack of belief that is preventing them from seeing the evidence right in front of their eyes. I can say this because I used to be a sceptic and then saw the truth. They go to the trouble of checking the pot and see that it is a little top heavy and, with our dogs running round it will be the one most likely to fall. I point out that I can remember a time when it was upright and later on its side and I am sure that the dogs were not in the garden at that time. Can they explain that?
As they can’t provide a scientific explanation of this particular time, this proves that their science cannot explain everything and the only rational thing to do is continue with my belief."
11 comments:
How funny - the wind blows a pot over and a belief system comes into being. rational, evidence based.
Enjoyable post though, plenty of food for thought and challenge there, but as none were not present when the pot fell no one can ascertain all the facts but can make reasoned suggestions and assumptions.
T
I guess I am what you call an old order agnostic
Is the story of the plant pot supposed to be an allegory of finding faith? If so, the writer has absolutely no understanding of faith at all. This simply depicts those of faith as having no rational mind, but simply a heightened sense of superstition.
Tim F is correct to point out that reasoned suggestions and assumptions can be made, and are made by people of faith.
However, faith is not purely intellectual or philosophical and therefore cannot be explained by those means alone. Those opposed to faith will discount that argument as nonsense, but it remains true. Having faith does not necessarily mean losing intellect; there are enough intelligent, cogent, rational people in the church to provide the evidence of that!
The simple tale of the flower pot does make one interesting point regarding the difference between the unbeliever and the believer. The believer is one who is willing to expand their parameters to include the possibility of a spiritual world, whereas the unbeliever discounts this option thus narrowing the parameters by which they discern what has happened.
To quote Sherlock Holmes: when you remove the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. It is not impossible that there is an existent deity, although it is improbable to the unbeliever.
The flower pot story is a little too simple to fully explain the believer's stand-point. While there are no doubt those believers who would jump immediately to the assumption of fairy involvement in the flower pot's fall (to use the given metaphor), there are many, many more who would question and investigate the cause taking into account other rational explanations before accepting that fairies are at work. Consider the likes of CS Lewis. The difference is merely that the believer is willing to include that possibility.
Yes, it is an allegory and it is oversimplistic but it does get to the heart of how non-believers see believers IMHO.
I have been told that just by taking the step of belief I will see the truth.
The problem is that by taking that first step and saying "I believe" assumes the very thing that is being believed in. The person in the story must assume that fairies exist in order to believe in them.
No, the person in the story must only believe in the possibility that fairies exist. There is a subtle but profound difference between 'believing' and being willing to believe; and that is what is missing in your story.
The sceptic as you describe him is not willing to accept that there can be anything which cannot be explained by science. The seeker is one who does not yet have faith, but is willing to accept the possibility.
How was the Higgs-Boson particle defined? Not by what was found and explained by science, but by what was not found and therefore assumed to be so. This is perhaps a better allegory for faith?
The sceptic as you describe him is not willing to accept that there can be anything which cannot be explained by science. The seeker is one who does not yet have faith, but is willing to accept the possibility.
This example is about somebody that takes the leap of faith. Taking the leap of faith means you have already implicitly accepted the existence of the thing itself.
I think you misunderstand a sceptics point of view. A sceptic will withhold acceptance until there is reason to accept the existence of something, but they will not accept something without objective, falsifiable evidence.
If I accept that fairies may exist then the next thing to do is find evidence. For fairies there isn’t any.
My position on the existence of fairies and God plus many other things is I will wait for somebody to show me the evidence.
How was the Higgs-Boson particle defined? Not by what was found and explained by science, but by what was not found and therefore assumed to be so.
The Higgs boson was looked for because the details of all the experiments and theories suggested that it should be found. The evidence was objective and falsifiable that it should be there.
Look at the first part of the original article:
Sceptics ask for evidence of the Higgs boson
Higgs said “The evidence is there if you look at it in the right way.”
Ooops, sorry. He didn’t. He presented his findings and people looked for it and found it. There was a clear and definite test that would falsify the existence.
Let’s do the same for fairies:
We ask for evidence of fairies.
Believers of fairies say The evidence is there if you look at it in the right way.
and this is where the difference is
This is the point where belief in fairies becomes subjective.
We say that evidence should be objective and amenable to science.
The believers in fairies say that there are reasons why, despite making claims that seem testable, science will never be able to investigate the claims (I think this is called special pleading).
To return to the allegory: The experimental data collected by Mssrs Higgs and Boson (and others) did not fit with the knowledge they had of particle physics. They, therefore, assumed that there must be another atomic particle that had not yet been found which would explain their results. They set out to find that particle, believing that it existed, but without definable evidence.
As yet, the particle has not been found, only the evidence that it exists by using subjective data from the LHC. (I read somewhere that there is now conjecture that it may be two particles acting together - but can't remember the source so can't quote directly).
A believer looks at the world and says, I cannot explain everything with the knowledge I have of science and philosophy etc. therefore I assume that there must be something else. He then goes looking for it and finds evidence in the subjective data of his own life.
This allegory describes much better my own experience and that of many intelligent, scientifically minded Christians.
This allegory describes much better my own experience and that of many intelligent, scientifically minded Christians.
Firstly, despite appearances, I have a huge amount of respect for many believers, and know that many are scientifically minded and intelligent.
Higgs et al could detail exactly how to look for the boson that bears his name, and they could determine a numbe of objective tests that could be done which, if they failed, would objectively show this. That is the nature of science, it has to be (as Popper put it) falsifiable. This was not about belief, this was about making a testable prediction.
A believer does not make any testable hypotheses. The believer in fairies cannot produce a test that would distinguish between fairy involvement and non-fairy involvement. If they did, there would be evidence and it would no longer be a belief.
This issue about testable, falsifiable evidence is what we, as sceptics, say to all believers. No matter what their belief they always say the same things that you are saying about your belief.
My testable hypothesis was in a room full of people experiencing the love and presence of God today. They and I know what happened was real, because we were there. :)
It sounds like you have had a great Day, Soup D. Knowing that makes me happier too and has literally put a smile on my face. The goodwill keeps on giving.
The events of today would only be testable if they were falsifiable,
and a criteria for failure was set up. This is my 'autistic' (for want of a better word - actually there are others but less polite) side. Ignoring the great feelings that have occurred and which are one of the joys of life and concentrating on the cold, analytical details.
Whatever had happened today; even if it had ended up in a huge row and people stormimg out, that would not change a thing about your belief. Wonderful that is in some ways, but it does mean that it is not a testable hypothesis.
Despite that, I wish every day that you have times like you have had today.
Namaste.
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek :)
Post a Comment