More on freedom of religious whatever

[avevale_intelligencer]

Some very vehement responses to my previous post, some even to things I actually said. :) Religion is a subject that pushes lots of people's buttons, including mine sometimes.

But I wasn't talking primarily about the legal position vis-a-vis religious organisations and their taxes, or about people who exploit the faith of others for their own selfish ends, or about the enforcement of belief or non-belief (neither of which, needless to say, I support). I was primarily addressing the idea, which I believe to be a mistaken one, that sincere and committed religious belief either does not exist, or only exists as a form of mental illness.

I've felt for some time that some secularists, at a loss to understand the inexplicable persistence of religious beliefs even today, have fallen back on the conclusion that people are just doing it to be difficult, or on a whim, or even because they feel threatened by the advance of science and want to retreat to a simpler age. Sorry, no. To paraphrase filkertom, "Religious folks aren't doing it to spite you."

Again, to see religion as the evul enemy of progress as many do, it's above all necessary to avoid accidentally stepping into the other person's shoes. It's much easier to assume that people who do admittedly stupid and inadvisable things in the name of religion are doing it because They Are Bad People, or They Are Dupes Of Bad People, than to look at what is really motivating them. Because to look at what is really motivating them would require a provisional acceptance that what to you are the antiquated myths of a tribe of desert nomads are, to sincere believers, if not actual facts, at least pointers to actual facts. Believing in a deity is not the same as believing that a hot pink shirt sets off your eye colour, or that two characters in a soap opera are probably shagging each other, or that it might rain later.

"Why would anyone want to believe in a god who sends people to hell for having sex outside marriage? That isn't fair!"

"Well, why would anyone want to believe in a universe where nothing can go faster than 186,000 miles per second? Is that fair?"

If you just began to think or to say "ah, but--" then you're probably about to make the same distinction that secularists always make, to distinguish between hard, cold scientific fact and--what, exactly? But to a sincere believer, the fact of hell is as cold and hard as the fact of E=mc2. The believer has exactly the same external authority for its existence as I have for Einstein's theory, i.e. s/he has read it in a book or been told by someone who speaks with the authority of knowledge. Some believers have the additional authority of personal inner conviction. I don't know of anyone who has a personal inner conviction of the limiting velocity of light, except possibly Einstein himself. The experiments by which scientists prove such things take place under laboratory conditions; the experiments by which individual believers prove to themselves the existence of gods take place in the laboratory of their own souls, or minds if you prefer. Neither kind of experiment is easily conducted outside those conditions; however, this is not seen as invalidating their findings, at least on one side.

"Well, but if scientific facts weren't true then your computer and your car and your stereo and your television wouldn't work." (with the implied corollary "do you want that?" which I always find especially amusing)

"True, but if my belief in God wasn't true then my entire universe wouldn't work."

There is much about religion that is wrong and needs re-examining, though most if not all of the atrocities attributed to it arise, as indeed do the current ones, from some state or other arrogating to itself power to which it is not entitled and using religion as an excuse. The notorious Spanish Inquisition, for instance, was established and controlled by secular monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, who are also credited with financing Columbus' expedition to the New World and thereby (accidentally) enabling the discovery of America. There is also much about religion that is confusing; how can the diversity of beliefs be reconciled, and is it possible that one belief system is right and all the others wrong? (Well, that's how it used to work with science.) And there are indeed many people who are crooks, and some people who are idiots, though I believe there are not as many of either as some would like to think...and it's notable that the same people who seem to believe in a preponderance of idiots and crooks in the world also seem to believe that such people would behave more wisely and more morally once they were allowed to govern their own lives unhampered by an external moral and metaphysical framework such as religion offers. Maybe they're right. I wouldn't know. I'm an idiot, and I mostly manage all right, so I suppose it's possible.

But it is simply not true, as I have seen many intelligent and well-intentioned people maintain, that people turn to religion purely and simply because they do not want to have to think. On the contrary, throughout the history of Christianity (which is the religion I know most about, which isn't saying much) there has been a constant stream of intellectual exploration, analysis, debate and controversy, and the problems it throws up have been confronted and examined by honest and thoughtful scholars whose efforts are trivialised and demeaned by such facile conclusions as the one above.

Again, there may be more of this later.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I think you've put the point well. I especially appreciate the points about scientific versus religious evidence, it's something I've been trying to say for years (decades in fact). What evidence do I have that quarks exist? I've read it in books and heard it from people who are recognised as experts in that field. What evidence does my mother have that Jesus is her Saviour? She has read it in books and heard it from people who are experts in that field. What personal evidence do I have for or against either of them? None, from personal experience. What evidence does she have? She has personal experience of answers to prayers and miracles in her life. Hmm, on balance perhaps she has an advantage over me in her belief...

But it is simply not true ... that people turn to religion purely and simply because they do not want to have to think

Insert the word 'only' before 'turn' and I will completely agree with you.

Many people do turn to religion because they don't want to think. But many also turn to science or technology for exactly the same reason. As a recent example, look at the number of people who totally trust technology even when it goes wrong. Following GPS instructions into a lake, believing that "the computer is never wrong" (that's not just a convenient corporate excuse, many people do believe it). How about thinking where you are going, and that if the roadsigns say "the North" you might just not be going to Southampton, or if the computer says that you have a bank balance of 999999.99 pounds it might just mean that it has an error? Personally I start from the position that technology is likely to fail when it is least convenient (Soad's Law) and deities (like taxis) are never around when you need them...

The old adage "You can fool most of the people most of the time" is based on that, most people want to be told what to do and think most of the time, preferably by a recognised 'authority'. Whether that authority is religious or (as seems to be getting more common) secular is largely irrelevant to them. Slap "scientific studies prove" on anything and it will sell to a lot of people.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't know that most people do want to be told what to do and think. It's very comforting, in a way, to think so, if you're one of the ones who question...but on the other hand, I've lived for several decades under a succession of varyingly but demonstrably corrupt governments, whose logical deserts are tarring and feathering at the very least, and for all I've done to overthrow them and put power back in the hands of the honest man, I might as well be just another sheep. And for all I know, everyone else is like me.

Certainly we'd like to be told, authoritatively, that everything is all right, that the technology will work properly every time, and that God will make sure we don't go to hell. I'd like that too...but only because it would free me up to think about other things, and do other things. I think that many people do think for themselves, and if they trust technology, or trust the government, or trust in God, it's only because they're too busy to do otherwise. Whether that is a right attitude to technology, or to God, is another matter (it certainly isn't the right attitude to governments). It is perfectly possible to think for yourself and to be dead wrong at the same time.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Yes, "too busy" (or not interested enough) to think about those matters, so they pick an 'authority' and stick with them. Note that I said "most of the people most of the time", not "all of the time", I believe that the vast majority of people do think for themselves but only on a minority of subjects.

How often does even a "thinking person" actually think about most things outside their main areas of interest or occupation? Even those of us who like to think that we "question everything" actually take most of it on authority. Partly because we just don't have the time or resources (I've never recreated the Michaelson-Morley experiment which gave Einstein a big clue to Relativity, even though that's an area of interest for me) and largely because we just can't be bothered.

Heck, a lot of the time we can't even be bothered to look it up in books, look at the number of times people (and I include myself) post on LJ a question which someone answers with a couple of minutes Google search. Most people (not thou and I, admittedly) depend on other 'authorities' to even tell them what to wear, what hobbies to have (or not to have), how their homes should look, what type of car to buy. And when it comes to really hard questions needing years of research even to scratch the surface, like what to believe about Life, the Universe and Everything, it's not surprising if most of them go with what someone else says for at least part of it, especially if that person is charismatic or there is a large group following them.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

There's something a little more to religion than just a scientific or deist view of the universe as one sees it. I don't know how to phrase that other than to say as an example your religion is Fandom. When I do find the words, I shall post them.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I shall look forward to them.

[batyatoon]

Are you talking about religion-as-community?

[jahura.livejournal.com]

In a sense. It's about what is most important to you. For most love is important, belonging is important, having purpose is important, and identity in the cosmos is important. Religion is the path one travels to attain a sense of these things. Zander's philosophy of writer/artist as creator and in a sense being gifted with the power of creation itself elevates that person to an almost godlike state of which followers of that art may bicker amongst each other about nuances and write hymns, tributes, and (*breathe*) parodies and ordorm rituals and hold gatherings to celebrate the common bond and secretly hope to invoke the attention and approval of the creator is not that different from what many derive from a deist based community. He doesn't belong to any one set following, however, just seems to me fascinated with the process and because he best relates to the ideas in science fiction and fantasy instuctively detects a spiritual home in that belief because no where else has he found that sense of purpose and belonging. That is what is most important to him.

To me, religion doesn't have to be about a god figure, but what concept that clicks that sparks that godlike sense of awe and wonder. For my mom, it's money. That's not to say she worships Mammon, but has found money to be the seat of all other things she finds precious and positive in her life. For my dad, it's AA. He gave his life over to a group of people who were and are in the same predicament, and feels a sense of hope and purpose in helping others that he never got out of thirty-five years as a physician. They each dedicate themselves to these concepts with the zeal of the true believer. They travel extensively in pursuit of their respective calls.

Short answer: yes and no. I still have a lot to ponder on this before I really know what I am talking about.

[bedlamhouse]

An excellent pair of posts that address the subject very well - thanks.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

"Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both than you can with just one."

[howeird]

Another excellent post. Let me try to answer the question I believe you are asking: Why do sane, intelligent people believe?

Comfort. Security. Warm fuzzies.

There is a deep-seated human need to know everything is all right. Deep belief in religion fills that need. I make no value judgment here, though I don't share this need. There's nothing wrong in my book with wanting to know that, despite all the unjust, crazy, cruel and random things which happen in this world, you'll be okay.

Whether you accept Jesus As Your Personal Saviour™, The Noble 8-fold Path, the one-on-one personal relationship with Yaweh, Hanuman and his flying monkeys or the many faces of Erewan and Vishnu, religion gives a sense of control in an out of control universe.

[batyatoon]

I don't know about this, really.

I'm a religious person, and I don't find my worldview much more comforting than any nontheistic worldview I've ever encountered or hypothesized. There are times, in fact, when I find it kind of terrifying.

I don't deny that religion is a comfort to many people, but comfort has very little to do with my reasons for believing.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

And I would imagine you've done quite a lot of thinking about it.

[batyatoon]

I have that.

And really, I think -- if it were just a question of what worldview I found most pleasant, I'd probably be either an atheist or a pagan.

But as you pointed out in your previous post on the topic, that sometimes has very little to do with it.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think there are as many reasons why sane, intelligent people believe as there are sane, intelligent people. That's certainly one of them. The fact that--to stick with the Christian religion--comfort and security and warm fuzzies are a very small part of the whole picture, and are conditional (for some branches) on adherence to a fairly stringent moral code, is something many people forget; that to be a Christian, in the fullest sense of the word, takes *guts*.

[madfilkentist]

"Well, but if scientific facts weren't true then your computer and your car and your stereo and your television wouldn't work." (with the implied corollary "do you want that?" which I always find especially amusing)
 
"True, but if my belief in God wasn't true then my entire universe wouldn't work."

I could answer that by saying that the universe works quite well without a god; this would be a true and sufficient rebuttal, but would also miss the point. The deeply religious simply can't imagine a universe that runs without outside help, even though they're seeing one all the time; but this isn't due simply to lack of powers of observation. Certain sets of assumptions get into people's lives so deeply that their world-model is constructed on them, and leaving them behind requires a huge effort.

Let's suppose that the entire universe around me was really a computer simulation, that everyone around me was nothing more than a persona manipulated by software on a vastly advanced machine. Suppose I was given proof of this. I would find it incredibly difficult to change my worldview, to regard the people I've lived with and around as nothing but simulations. A deeply entrenched religious belief can be just as hard to move away from as this would be.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

When I was a child, between the ages of six and thirteen I think, my universe ran with clockwork smoothness. My parents were always there, there was always food on the table and clean clothes for me to wear and pocket money to spend, there was school to go to, books to read, television to watch, there was no crack in the walls. I was quite happy and never questioned a thing. It was only a few years ago that I found out that during that time Mum and Dad had been desperately struggling to make ends meet, that they had come within an ace of losing the tiny house we'd had to move into after my grandmother died. They had kept me and my brother from noticing anything amiss, all those years.

The thing is, it seems to me that you are in a similar position (EDIT: I mean to the deeply religious people you mention: sorry for unclarity), in that you can't (or at any rate don't) imagine the universe needing divine help to run, even though, beyond the reach of your senses but maybe perceptible to someone else, it may be happening all the time. You assume that the processes that make the universe go are capable of running on their own, because you can't see anyone behind the scenes pedalling; and with the data you've got, that's a valid assumption, that the universe you're seeing is the true one and the one the deeply religious are seeing is the illusion. But an assumption is all it is. And maybe, even if they don't know exactly what it is they're picking up, even if they give it a hundred different names and fight over what to call it...maybe some people can sense, behind the vault of the sky and within the depths of the mountains, the whir of vast wheels, and the flapping of ineffable trouser legs.

I don't know.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I could answer that by saying that the universe works quite well without a god

You could, but it would be incomplete. You could make it accurate by adding "in my opinion", or "seems to work quite well", or by saying "without a visible god". Similarly you are stating your belief when you say "even though they're seeing one all the time", how do you know what they are seeing? All you can accurately say is that you don't see a god or any evidence for one, and that any evidence other people present from their own experience which isn't in your experience you discount.

Turn it round. A deeply religious person can say "atheists simply can't imagine a universe which is run by a deity, even though they are seeing one all the time", and their view is equally valid. They have no proof which they can present to you and you have no proof at all (an absence can't be proved). Both have a belief, and that belief is based on assumptions based on personal experience and preferences.

In fact I can imagine all sorts of things which probably don't exist. Unicorns, FTL travel, intelligent alien life, a world without war, a universe without a creator, a universe with a creator, a universe with lots of gods, an infinite universe with no beginning or end, a closed loop cyclic universe, etc. Which ones I believe in is a different matter, and largely is based on which "great thinkers" I choose to believe as well as on my own experiences. Or maybe it's based on the random movement of particles which make up my brain -- or on how $deity designed me. Science (2008) can't tell me why I believe one thing and not another, nor can religion; my preference seems to be that I choose it based on what seems rational to me but for all I know it's because some simulator engineer programmed it into me yesterday.