Should religious beliefs be treated differently than intellectual beliefs?

[jpgray]

Poll question: Should religious beliefs be treated differently than intellectual beliefs?

Is it absurd to challenge a religious belief using logic, reason and facts--as you would an intellectual belief? Do they operate on entirely different levels?

[LiberalVoice]

1. How can they be on different levels?

I dont acknowledge that another level exists. There is no logical evidence showing there to be a "higher power". So why would I create another level of thought.

[cruadin]

2. Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" was on CSPAN's...

booknotes yesterday---he gave a great lecture and interesting Q&A afterwards.
He was making this very point--that intellectual ideas are challenged as a matter of routine in our society, but that religious ideas are held sacrosanct, even in the secular community.

Here's a link to his book:
http://www.samharris.org/

[Lucky Luciano]

3. I tried to use intellectual reasoning with a religious guy I met

He was definitely an intellectual type as well, so I thought I could use such reasoning, but when the discussion of proofs of his religious assertions came up, he said that it is not an intellectual discussion so that such reasoning went out the window. Basically, he was just saying that there is no need to debate the topics as it will get nowhere, and he will always believe the way he does - as will I. Fair enough I guess.

[asthmaticeog]

4. No. Believe what you want...

...but I won't brook any insistence that "faith" gives one some kind of epistemic pass on proffering evidence.

[patrice]

5. Rational Empiricism, amongst other things, implies that which is not

Rational Empiricism. That which is not rationally empirical would include things like Faith, so Rational Empiricism implies its own opposite. However, Rational Empiricism has nothing to say about that which is not Rational Empiricism, e.g. Faith, because it IS that which is not rationally empirical. Free and honest Scientists recognize the distinctions between Science and what is not Science. They also recognize that Science does not deliver absolutes, only relative probabilities, some of which are relatively strong and ergo useful.

That which is not a product of Rational Empiricism, e.g. Faith, has nothing, necessarily, to say about anything that is not also not rationally empirical. It seems to imply nothing but itself, Faith, the only duality it is comfortable with appears to be the struggle between what is called "good" and "evil".

It is as if Science encompasses the phenomenon known as Faith, but "Faith" recognizes and/or values little that isn't "Faith".

I hope Democrats kick ass on the Separation of Church and State!

[jpgray]

9. Yet some things heretofore outside rational empiricism may come into it

Like a child who believes a light switch is "magic" who then learns about electricity, etc. Or more properly a prehistoric person who believes the celestial bodies are gods or that their movements are governed by gods--when later humankind learns about gravity, does this "disprove" those religious views, or merely lead to a new "interpretation," i.e. gravity being a manifestation of the divine?

Edit: Does religion in these cases fill in for a lack of objective perspective? Or does it point out universal unknowns that simply get closer and closer to being explained but never will be?

[patrice]

13. You're right that Rational Empiricism doesn't dis-proove Religion.

It simply says there is no empirical evidence or support, so it has nothing to say about it.

I've always been frustrated by "religious" folk who want to demonstrate proofs of any kind. I think they are confused.

Also, Science does not say that it "prooves" anything in the common way that most people understand the meaning of the word "proof". Science only produces probabilities that either support or do not support stuff, and no support is ever 100% because it is impossible for Science to test ALL combinations of variables related to whatever outcome it claims as knowledge. It produces only circumstantial probabilities.

[jpgray]

18. But there is empirical evidence for those two examples

The belief that it is the divine which directs the movement of the stars, etc. can be proven false empirically with an understanding of gravity. The belief that a light switch is "magic" can be disproven with an understanding of electricity. Then the questions become: Are these religious beliefs disproven? Were they never really religious beliefs? (Then what defines a religious belief?) Do they simply become reinterpreted--the divine not as the mechanism but as the reason behind the mechanism?

[LiberalVoice]

14. Imagination ... nt

[jpgray]

6. For those who say "yes": how then can religious beliefs be challenged?

Or can they be challenged?

[patrice]

15. They can be challenged to act concretely. "Jesus" is right in front of you

[saltpoint]

7. Hey, with the Rapture imminent and all,

it's a moot point.

My thought on the question is just this -- the example of the Christian missionaries telling tsunami victims they had to pray to Jesus before food, clothing, and shelter would be dispensed were not using either the religious or the intellectual gifts humans allegedly have.

If they aren't using either one, in my book making starving people beg for food makes them assholes.

[Beer Snob-50]

8. religion belief is based on faith while intellectual is on reason and fact

that is just the nature of religion. anyone who believes that religion is based on reason and facts (fundementalists) give religion a bad name for the rest of us.

[progmom]

10. Very nice, pirate.

You said exactly what I was thinking but was unable to express.

[Beer Snob-50]

11. thank you! nt

[porphyrian]

34. That's not true of all religion.

Judaism, for example, relies little on faith. In fact, there are many atheist Jews. It is Jewish tradition to question the meaning of the Bible. They even have an entire book, the Talmud, recording centuries of the ongoing argument. Islam is similar in its scholarly approach, contrary to the propaganda. Only the fundamentalists of any religion (of whom you were correct about giving everyone in a religion a bad name) are incapable of discussing religion intellectually, once defensiveness is overcome and trust established between those in the discussion.

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. Only those reliigous beliefs which can be shown to be false through reason

and logic.

And even that is a tough one.

I think specifically of creationism, and the idea of a world that is only 6000 or so years old. It's pretty well proven that that is not true.

But in terms "Is there a God?", there's no way to prove or disprove it, so intellectual modes are useless there.

And the fruits of religious beliefs can certainly be challenged through intellectualism - for instance, someone says "I believe in Vishnu". Well, that's fine - you can't argue with that. But if someone says "My faith tells me that all hutus should be murdered", I think we have the right to challenge that.

But it does become a muddled mess, indeed. It's more like the science of history or economics or social critique - lots of interpretation, different ways to see and interpret things, and different epistemological starting points - then the science of, say, physics, which is experimentally verifiable.

[patrice]

16. Creationism is a religious belief masquerading as "knowledge".

It can be demonstrated that there is no support for it as knowledge, but it cannot be disproven as either Knowledge or as Religion, because Science has nothing to say about that which is not rationally empirical, except that it is not rationally empirical.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. I never said anything about being able to argue succesfully

or to "prove" it to the one you are arguing against.

But in terms of public debate, and, for instance, issuance of government approved science textbooks, we CAN challenge the Creationist crap and say "this isn't good science" no matter how much they claim that it is good science.

But, obviously, in some areas of this country, the Creationists do, in fact, win.

Still, I'm not sure why you felt the need to jump in on my post and "correct" me. I don't think I said anythig to the contrary of what you said.

[BiggJawn]

17. You can not use Logic to challenge Religion.

Just won't work.

"I believe there is a pissed-off guy in the sky who will squash me like a bug and burn me for ever and ever if I have sex without being in this state he calls "married", but only if it's to somebody with diferent plumbing than me..."

"That's Illogical!"

"No, that's FAITH...."

End of discussion. How do you fight that?

[Stunster]

26. Check out post #23 (n/t)

[Dookus]

19. Yes and no

one OUGHT to be able to, but it's usually pointless to try.

However, if there's an audience, it's worth doing. You may have some impact on a listener.

[starroute]

21. Consensus reality vs. subjective reality

I don't see it as religious vs. intellectual.

Instead, I see there as being a consensus reality, consisting of things we can all look at together, discuss with an expectation that we're talking about the same thing, and form testable hypotheses about.

And then there's subjective reality, consisting of dreams and visions and mystical intimations and symbolic systems like kabbala and moments of enlightenment. That can't be shared, can barely even be indicated indirectly, and certainly can't be theorized about or tested.

Each of them is crucial to the business of being human, and each has its place.

And then there is religion.

Religion, as I see it, has nothing to do with reality of any kind. Much of it represents an attempt by the unenlightened to grab up the myths and poems and symbolic images created by people who *have* experienced subjective reality and subject them to the sort of logical processes that properly apply only to consensus reality.

UFO believers sift through dozens of different dream-narratives and trying to come up with coherent descriptions of alien races or spaceship types. Fundies sift through the very equivalent dream-narrative of the Book of Revelations and come up with coherent descriptions of the apocalypse. Both are total bullshit, and neither one has anything to do with truth.

So yes, you can challenge beliefs of that sort intellectually. But most of the people who adhere to them aren't going to listen to you.

[porphyrian]

22. No, unless you admit there's nothing intellectual about religious beliefs.

The problem is that religion isn't merely a set of beliefs. Religion is also, in many instances, culture, government, education, tradition, identity and moral/ethical foundation for people, especially outside of America, where we like our religion on the side. Religion can also be seen as a very effective means of controlling the minds and actions of a populace through fear and guilt, or a propagandist training ground for future militants. It is all of these things, and realizing this should make it easier to discuss intellectually.

I am personally agnostic, as I have yet to see any evidence proving either the existance or the nonexistance of any god, and I've found that most people who claim to have evidence are either crazy or selling something.

[Stunster]

23. Kurt Godel didn't think so

Is it absurd to challenge a religious belief using logic, reason and facts--as you would an intellectual belief? Do they operate on entirely different levels?

Godel is arguably the greatest logician of all time, and probably the most famous (given his celebrated Incompleteness Theorems). He was also a religious believer and thought that one could prove the existence of God by logic argument....

Kurt Gödel is best known to mathematicians and the general public for his celebrated incompleteness theorems. Physicists also know his famous cosmological model in which time-like lines close back on themselves so that the distance past and the distant future are one and the same. What is less well known is the fact that Gödel has sketched a revised version of Anselm's traditional ontological argument for the existence of God.

How does a mathematician get mixed up in the God-business? Gödel was a mystic, whose mathematical research exemplified a philosophical stance akin to the Neo-Platonics. In this respect, Gödel had as much in common with the medieval theologians and philosophers as the twentieth-century mathematicians who pioneered the theory of computation and modern computer science. However, a deeper reason for Gödel's contribution to the ontological argument is that the most sophisticated versions of the ontological argument are nowadays written in terms of modal logic, a branch of logic that was familiar to the medieval scholastics, and axiomatized by C. I. Lewis (not to be confused with C. S. Lewis, or C. Day Lewis for that matter). It turns out that modal logic is not only a useful language in which to discuss God, it is also a useful language for proof theory, the study of what can and cannot be proved in mathematical systems of deduction. Issues of completeness of mathematical systems, the independence of axioms from other axioms, and issue of the consistency of formal mathematical systems are all part of proof theory.

A lot more here.

Michael Dummett is a very eminent English philosopher and logician, and is especially well-known for his important work on German mathematician and logician Gottlob Frege, who himself can be regarded as the founder of modern logic. From 1979 to 1992 Dummett held the post of Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford, arguably the most prestigious professorial chair of logic in the world. Dummett is also known as a very devout and religiously conservative Roman Catholic, and a fierce opponent of racism.

...Although he was educated within the traditions of the Anglican Church at Winchester, by the age of 13 he regarded himself as an atheist. In 1944 however, he was received into the Roman Catholic Church, and he remains a practising Catholic. After his military service, he studied at Christ Church College, Oxford, graduating with First Class Honours in Philosophy, Politics and Economics in 1950 and then attained a fellowship at All Souls College. An All Souls fellowship is perhaps the ultimate academic prize open to Oxford graduates, providing an ideal opportunity to engage in research without any of the pressure that comes from having to teach, or to produce a doctoral thesis within a set period of time. From 1950 to 1951, Dummett was also Assistant Lecturer in Philosophy in Birmingham University. In Oxford, he was Reader in Philosophy of Mathematics, from 1962 until 1974....

A lot more here.

[RedCloud]

24. Religion is far too childish

It is pitched at the extremely naive and egotistical.
Some say you live, but you must die to really live. Then you have to worship some guy you never met before for all eternity. Sounds like a con job to me.

But let them bring us Lazarus. You know the guy that got cured from death. What's his take on all this? Don't tell me, he lived, he died, he lived, he died so he could live again... Wouldn't that also suggest that someone's healing power isn't so eternal?

Just give me toys around Dec. 25th (stealing Saturnalia away from some), chocolate rabbits that lay eggs and the fear of fire. Boy that will work. Oh wait, I grew up.

[Donkeyboy75]

25. Yes, they should.

You simply can't use logic to combat faith. Some people will simply believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts that are out there. Prime example: Creationists argue that fossils aren't really millions of years old...but that God put them there to test our faith. :wtf: That, friends and neighbors, is impossible to argue with. I know. I have fundie relatives.

That's why laws should NEVER be based on religion. They don't take into account the consequences of the laws proclaimed in their name. Saying "I said so" is enough for them.

It is, however, valid to use logic to point out the hypocrisy that many self-styled uber-religious types display on a daily basis.

[readmoreoften]

27. Personally, I find religion to be silly... but

'logic, reason, and fact' are dim candles compared to subjective experience of the world. For example, I love my girlfriend more than anything in the world. There is no logic, reason, or fact behind it. She has not solved global hunger or won the Nobel prize, yet I think she is the most marvelous person on the planet. We are gay so there is no biological imperative.

Everything in the world doesn't need to be explained or 'corrected'. Fundamentals are wrong, but not just because they believe in a year round Santa Claus. They are wrong because they are actively hostile towards all thought, all metaphysics, all inquiry, all dissent. In my view, hippies who believe in Universal Love are most likely quite 'incorrect'.. but what a beautiful way to be wrong.

I believe in Greek culture there was many kinds of truth. There was 'veritas' or technical correctness and then there was 'alethea' the truth that results from the narrative unfolding of a story or of life itself.

Fundamentalism isn't just 'technically incorrect, unreasonable, or illogical' (so is art, love, and literature). It is hateful, small, mindless, and paranoid. And that's what makes it dangerous.

[Beware the Beast Man]

28. I find the Golden Delicious to be the most savory of all apples.

[jpgray]

29. You're wrong.

Its index of deliciousness is a meager 2.4 on the empirical scale.

[Beware the Beast Man]

31. I would expect nothing less from a Pear-lover like yourself.

:D

[julialnyc]

30. yes because I can disagree with someone's thoughts and

try to explain why they are wrong ........but I would never put down or try to "convert" someone's religion.

[Deja Q]

32. No. Many people believe the Bible word for word. Therefore,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3154274#3154354

Ask people if they follow any one of the chapters in the aforementioned link. * doesn't seem to follow any that makes a Christian a TRUE one. It's not always facts. It's HOW people respond to The Writings of God. Many of them say they do and don't. And I hope Hell is real then because 6 billion people WILL end up there, period.

[jpgray]

35. Right--how were there people in Nod for Cain to live with, for example?

His ma and pa were the first flippin' people on Earth!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. I'm having trouble getting past the phrase "intellectual beliefs"

George Will has intellectual beliefs and he has LOADS of evidence for the existance of those beliefs. That doesn't make his intellectual beliefs valid.

I can give matters of faith a pass since by definition, those matters are independent of scientic process.

I would NOT mess with a person's religious beliefs until they use those beliefs to mess with me.

[jpgray]

36. I've yet to see an invalid George Will belief that can't be contradicted

My question is, can religious beliefs be called into question using the same methods?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. well the answer of course is yes, but depending on which religious beliefs

you call into question be prepared to be treated as an oppressor of the majority.

After all, most people have no trouble questioning the religious beliefs of Scientology, and most people are completely comfortable calling the founder of the Mormon relgion a fraud..but question virgin birth and you have attacked a private personal matter (much like Guckert's right to prostitute himself)

[ken-in-seattle]

37. H.L Mencken said it best..

We must repsect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."
-- Henry Mencken
------------------------------


"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught."
-- Henry Mencken
-------------------------------
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."
-- Henry Mencken
---------------------------------
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good."
-- Henry Mencken
----------------------------------

and a close second:

Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one.
-- Anatole France

[jpgray]

40. Nice quotes. (nt)

[progressivejazz]

39. Where's the "leap of faith" in intellectual beliefs?

Is it in trusting logic to give us answers? Seems to me logic has a pretty good track record in that regard. I see no leap of faith there.


The problem with religious belief is that believers in a particular religion have to make so many leaps of faith. Does God exist? Is there an infallible holy book? Is this book I'm looking at that infallible holy book? How do I know how to interpret it correctly?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

41. I think faith is more rational than it gets credit for. n/t