User talk:MDB/Essay:WhatIBelieve

Hi. So what does your god actually do then?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to that. MDB (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't wish to be picky but Charlton Heston played Moses in The Ten Commandments - it was the first movie I ever saw, just before I turned five. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant, actually. "Heston as Moses in The Ten Commandments" looks a lot like the traditional conception of God. MDB (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"please respect my belief as I respect your non-belief."

That depends. Do you see a place for your belief in the public sphere? Is your belief something that should be taken into account when shaping education or social policy? I can respect an ideology that calls for compassion/respect/forgiveness as something that shapes your world-view and ultimately your politics, but does your belief shape your politics to the point that you could not vote for someone who did not share that belief, or something reasonably close to it? P-Foster (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote based on what someone believes, not why they believe it. To give an admittedly far-fetched example, I'd easily vote for a Hindu whose views were shaped by Gandhi's beliefs ove a Christian whose views were shaped by Jerry Falwell. MDB (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm always a bit worried about that plea for respect for religious beliefs. What does it mean? Does it mean "Please don't criticise them too much?" or "Please don't say nasty things about my beliefs?" or what? Would we accept the same plea from, for example, a homoeopath?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "don't make me regret doing this"? I was asked about my beliefs in the Saloon Bar, and after writing a little there, I thought I'd expound upon them. MDB (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. But presumably if you write an essay you expect people to respond to the points you make?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I do. I just don't want people to respond insultingly. MDB (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If the angle is that the right to hold beliefs should be respected then I'm in total agreement there. I don't think that beliefs themselves are inherently deserving of respect, and the problem with beliefs is that criticism can appear to be disrespectful. To use an analogy, if a man who lost his child in an accident claims that his boy was the best son a dad ever had, is it respectful to correct him? It would probably be honest to do so, but we understand that his assertion is fairly harmless and not worth criticising. On the other hand if he begins treating other kids badly or demands that a statue be built of his child then we're left with little choice but to criticise his beliefs. I think it comes down to how those beliefs are being asserted and how they inform the actions of that person. Countering that dad's claim doesn't mean that I don't respect him as a man. I can respect him while disagreeing with the assertions made as a result of his beliefs. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, then: you can ask me "why do you believe this?", just don't ask "why do you believe something so stupid?" MDB (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's basic manners. Besides, not exactly a way to begin a discussion. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In a general sense of the "respect" thing, I can possibly quote Johann Hari on respecting religion: "When you demand “respect”, you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade." A lot of the time people go on about "respect" when they mean "unconditionally accept what I say and don't challenge me" However, I think the context here seems to be "don't be a dick about this", which I agree with. Far too many people immediately jump to assuming any religious believer is an idiotic and unthinking moron and has no trouble saying it outright immediately, without any forethought, caveats or reasoning. This always has my palm reaching towards my face as it's not only rude but also baseless rhetoric that, frankly, makes you atheists look like complete twats. So I suppose I could say that, while I won't "respectfully" disagree, I will certainly not disrespectfully disagree... if you know what I mean, I'm trying to think of the right adjective and failing here. ^bomination 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That'll work. I didn't write this to be insulted, of course. I wrote it knowing I would be questioned and challenged. I enjoy having my views challenged, because it forces me to think about them. MDB (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And that would be something I can respect! ^bomination 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if we're clear on this. Let's say that somebody says they believe in the Loch Ness Monster or ear candling. In that case we question their beliefs and give our frank opinions.

Now let's say that they claim that the Monster is God incarnate and that ear candling in His way of miraculously healing the sick. Are we now to treat these beliefs any differently and with less scorn because they are now "religious"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with scorn but just general manners in this case. You don't have to respect or tolerate something if you seriously disagree with it - but at the same time it's just bad form to go around waving your dick around shouting "I'm right and you're WRONG!" because that makes you just as bad as any fundamentalist preacher spilling homophobic or racist shit from a pulpit. The "respect" really comes by not being outright insulting but having the due consideration to explain and justify your objections and to challenge someone's beliefs in an intellectually honest way. ^bomination 18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes but would we react differently if the beliefs above were claimed to be religious?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't. However, context and the normative nature of religion does change things - so religion is closer to a taste in music or clothing, or perhaps sexuality, and it would be wrong to judge or demean people on those grounds. Also, contrary to MDB's voting preferences described above, I care more about why people believe things than what they believe. If someone has a decent enough reason to believe something, I can't really touch them and they're safe from a lot of scorn. I wouldn't be able to comment on its truth value or suddenly be swayed to agree with their reasoning, however, but I have to always be mindful that we could all be living in a simulated reality and everything I think about the world can be wrong too. I can't thoroughly enough disprove someone having a feeling of being personally connected to God, for instance, to dismiss religious experience in a truly objective way. We can look for Nessie, we can run an RCT on ear candling, but we currently can't say anything conclusive about God (by saying I may bending more than many atheists would like to accommodate theistic propositions, but to do otherwise would risk dismissing religion purely on a straw man version of what theologians propose). ^bomination 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you could look for Nessie, but for those with faith in Her would maintain that Her divine nature prevented Her being found, and ear candling could be maintained to be like prayer - not amenable to laboratory exploration or only available to those with true faith. But I think that we are in general agreement.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think (in practice) once you've hit that point you're into a whole boatload of goalpost moving and qualify for the whole "believing for a bad reason" scorn. We get to the "you're making an falsifiable assertion" point and have to end it there, really. From there on, things get a little more difficult to make a general rule-of-thumb for. Believing that homeopathy works despite evidence: madness. Believing in a deist god: erm, ...if it makes you happy. So it's important to evaluate beliefs, and reasons for belief, individually and as they come. If we try to make a clear cut distinction between what is a crank belief and what isn't (remembering that "the scientific method is the best way of gaining knowledge" is also, essentially, a belief - and all of its tests and successes hinge on that belief) we run the risk of saying that everything is unacceptable, and this would inevitably include our own so-called rational beliefs ("hey, we believe them so they must be rational!"). In short, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying Belief X is acceptable and Belief Y should be shunned and laughed at providing we can justify it on a case-by-case basis. ^bomination 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to write this up somewhere else, but I may as well write it here. There is a possibility that we could be too black and white on things. From my point of view (as I express it today) I believe in things based on the quantity and quality of the evidence. Let's imagine there is a ten point scale. So evolution, moon landing - massive amounts of high quality evidence = 9.9 on belief scale. God, Nessie - lots of poor quality anecdotal evidence = 0.1 (or around there, perhaps a little more for Nessie.) on belief scale. But there will be other things which will come in around 5 and we sometimes seem to try to go for true or false.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you on that, for sure. Although beyond our evidence things can be true or false - as things can't be both and our observational evidence has to tend towards a true value. But considering that we don't, by definition, know the things beyond our evidence the scale idea works nicely. It keeps us confined within the limits of our knowledge. I suppose the question is then how low can you be on that scale before it becomes absurd to think that those things are true? Lower than 5? Lower than 1? Certainly our evidence quality for quantum theory back in the 15th century was 0! Perhaps our evidence for something might be at 0.1 but suddenly something happens and it changes to 9.9. In principle this means that some faith in otherwise absurd beliefs might, rarely, pay off. But regardless of that fairly facetious Taleb-like point, it's a better way to think than purely black and white. ^bomination 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Respecting all beliefs equally?

I'm curious. Where do you stand on the notion that all beliefs are to be respected equally? I think Sam Harris is responsible for this quote: "George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd." The hair dryer shouldn't make a difference, since the underlying premise is the key element, yet it does. I find it easier to respect more mainstream beliefs, perhaps because it's the culture I grew-up in. It becomes more of a challenge with the more esoteric or non-mainstream beliefs. With the addition of the hairdryer I probably would dismiss Bush's belief as being insane, but without that element I'm more likely to ask him to explain what he means by "speak to God". Is he referring to the inner-monologue that we all have, but in his case he's just named it God? Does he actually hear a booming voice that is not his own in his head? If so, then I'd lean again towards a diagnosis of insanity. MDB, have you ever listened to the Christian & an Atheist podcast? I consider that to be a model for respectful discussion - even if many discussions end with no clear outcome. In the case of belief it's kind of difficult to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome, and this is arguably better than having both sides finishing the discussion by punching air and yelling "pwnt!". Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I often say that atheism only makes sense in the context of the dominance of mainstream religion. So in the sense of the hair dryer, it's that it's outside the scope of the norm. It's the differences that are highlighted when you vary from the norm, rather than the similarities. So looking at an obscure cult-like branch of Christianity, it's likely to be mostly perceived as "something entirely different" rather than "Christianity with a little bit changed", which would be the more accurate definition when you're on the outside looking in on it. When George Bush speaks to his hypothetical hair dryer, he may as well say he's talking to Peter Pan by it - or even outright declare himself to be not speaking to God - because the differences from the norm are enough to be highlighted and perceived as a threatening difference. It's very much due to the "us & them" mentality (which I suppose you could say is true of atheists lumping in all religion together! Although from a semantic point of view that would probably be more justifiable.). ^bomination 17:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I try to respect anyone who tries to take a thoughtful approach to their beliefs, even if I disagree with the conclusions they reach. If someone is obviously just parroting back what they've been told, then I have little respect for them. If I think someone is thinking about what they believe, then I'll respect them, even if I disagree with them.

ADK makes a valid point about norm being what's considered acceptable (pretty much by definition.) Billions of people throughout the world pray, in one form or another. You can think that's ineffectual, foolish, a waste of time and effort, whatever, but it is the norm. I'm not trying to make an argumentum ad populum here; I'm fully aware that force of numbers does not make something "right". However, a belief in prayer is commonly held among humanity.

For what it's worth, I'm not much for traditional prayer. It's something I've always had difficulty doing. MDB (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say that, as an atheist, I don't think I've ever made a request that my views be "respected" - (that's not to say that some atheists might do so though, especially if they live in highly religions areas). If somebody calls my beliefs "stupid" then that tells me a lot about them but it hardly leaves me feeling insulted; amused perhaps - insulted no.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but have you ever gone onto a largely theist forum and written a long essay discussing your atheist beliefs?

My request that my beliefs be "respected" was more of a request that I be debated, not insulted. MDB (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I used to argue on YEC mailing lists. Till I got banned anyway. Though I must admit it was a long time ago. I took whatever they had to give. It was an interesting experience.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. You must be made of sterner stuff than me, because I'm sensitive when it comes to being insulted. Which, like I said, is really all I'm asking -- you can debate me, you can question me, but just don't insult me. MDB (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact I never do. Partly because the moment the ad hominems start the debate ceases to be about ideas and starts to be about personalities. And partly because insults are a great escape route for the other side. Something I have witnessed repeatedly is that once people start to explicitly insult religions the debate moves from the issues to "How dare you insult my religion! I now claim the right to be mortally offended and will take no further part in this!" So direct insults are always counter-productive.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I've largely avoided commenting on this site when I thought the attacks on religion have been overly harsh. It would just turn into a pissing match. MDB (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider this sort of thing. I think we should start making that request a little more often. ^bomination 18:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found that billboard tasteless in the extreme and probably counter-productive. It reminds of a Christian humor bit that showed a sleazy televangelist having a soul winning telethon. "Tote board! Souls saved... two! Hearts irreparably hardened against the gospel... twelve thousand, three hundred, and six? Huh-oh..." MDB (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't for a second suggest that you wouldn't find that tasteless! But I think it illustrates (since we're generally talking about respecting beliefs) that the persecuted minority isn't the believers. And while "respect" is requested by believers most often, it's most needed by the non-believers. It's why I'm a passionate advocate of non-belief when all other lines of reasoning point towards such a thing being tactless or hypocritical. My brain is saying to stop being so religious about being non-religious and then I read something reported by the MRFF, something by Answers in Genesis or even read some of Ricky D's hate mail and I think "dear fuck this is just not right" and head of to proselytize my arse off. ^bomination 19:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Again for what it's worth, I find the claim that Christians in America are suffering from persecution to be laughable. There are incidents, but it's pretty mild harassment, not general persecution. Worse, I think its trivializes the fact that there are places in the world where Christians are in serious jeopardy.

And as I like to say when American Christians claim persecution, "I invite you to visit a synagogue and see if they have a member over the age of eighty or so who was born in Europe. They will explain 'religious persecution' to you." MDB (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Saved from what?

You write:

• I may be largely a theological liberal, but I do believe that God sent His Son to save mankind.

Saved from what exactly?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just using the traditional phraseology. I guess "save mankind from itself by teaching decency" is the best way to put it. MDB (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi MDB. I see. But in that case aren't you are using traditional phraseology about "being saved" to mean something completely different from what is usually meant by that traditional phraseology. I'm also not sure what you mean by "save mankind from itself by teaching decency". Could you expand? Especially the fist part "Save mankind from itself ..." Also are you talking about saving the whole human race or individuals?

Secondly, I wonder if you could explain in what sense Jesus was God's son? You say that you have doubts about the virgin birth so presumably you don't mean in the biological sense - so in what sense then?

Finally on Jesus being the Saviour: was it necessary for him do die on the cross and if so why? Again this takes us back to the traditional understanding of "being saved" where only the death of death of God's son on the cross could make salvation available. Thanks for responding.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Partly answered in the essay. More to come later, but I have QA work to do today, and a looming deadline. MDB (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I see from the updated essay that the virgin birth may be true, or that Jesus is spiritually God's son. That leaves me wondering what being "spiritually God's son" actually means.

But I also note in the quote above you say "God sent His Son to save mankind." (Although I wondered above if you could clarify the "saving" part) Now, if he "sent" Him presumably he had some previous existence as a "Son" up in heaven with God doing whatever it is that They do when They are not saving mankind. So I'm assuming that you're not claiming that Jesus was not just some guy who happened to have some good ideas but really was God incarnate. Given that, I'm not sure why you're doubting the virgin birth. Is it really more remarkable to claim that a God turned himself into a man than it is claim that that another God brought this about by impregnating a human female? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've answered some of those. I'm still thinking about the "save all mankind" part. (It's a tough one.) MDB (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm still unclear about what you think Jesus saved us from though. You say from "ourselves" but what does that mean? Traditionally I think he was thought to have saved us from judgement day or hell or something of that nature. Secondly, whether you maintain that his objective is to save all mankind or individuals (from something or other) that still implies a quite large amount of interest on His part. How does that square with the largely non-interventionist God you propose? And I'm still a bit unclear on the Son of God bit. Was Jesus the the Son of God while he was in heaven? I mean you say he "sent his Son", so presumably he was the Son before he came to Earth. So how did God get to have a Son in the first place? Was there some Mother God somewhere who gave birth to him but how has been lost to history?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think even more explicit Christians really know what we're supposed to be being saved from...some abstract concept of "sin", but that's not really answering the question thoroughly enough for us literal types. I might see if Be Thinking has something on it, that tends to be good for learning about proper, hardcore "Cult of Jesus Style" Christianity, which is the one with the real obsession with sin and being saved. ^bomination 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the statement: I do believe that God sent His Son to save mankind seems to be one of MDB's strongest theological statements. So it does seem reasonable to press him on what it's actually supposed to mean - if anything. It implies a deliberate intervention by God in the world in order to do something which is very important. Important enough that He apparently wanted to get tortured to death to achieve it. So it must be quite important. So what was it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't this be about MDB's views and not what may be found elsewhere on the net?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but I figured if he said he was working on it there might be an accepted version to compare it to. ^bomination 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we're reaching a point it may be something I can't explain, because I accept it on faith that God knew what He was doing, and had a good reason to do it. I realize that someone given to strict rationalism may likely find that a difficult thing to accept, but that's part of what having faith means -- sometimes, you just trust that God knows best. I wouldn't be willing to trust that God knows best how to drive my car and take my hands off the wheel on I-95, but when we're talking about the metaphysical that are ultimately unknowable by humans, then yes, I'm willing to trust God.

I wish I could come up with a better answer. You're asking me legitimate questions, and I can't come up with a satisfactory answer, by my standards. MDB (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but do you agree it must have been very important?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering I believe in a largely non-interventionist God, it must have been pretty important for him to intervene. MDB (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though I did ask how you could reconcile this largely non-interventionist God wanting to intervene in order to carry out this apparently rather vague "saving" activity.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I said largely, not completely. Apparently, He considered this important enough. MDB (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Since I believe I was the one who asked you about your beliefs at the Saloon, and since you replied with such thought and detail, I wanted to give you a personal thanks. Additionally, in doing so, I think you sort of proved my point on the original thread. The initial post seemed to imply that only 16% of Americans believed evolution occurred without any role played by God, therefore 84% of the country were ignorant buffoons who will drive the country back into the dark ages. While your exact opinions of evolution and where God falls into the process aren't entirely clear in your explanation, it seems you would fall into that 84% group, and clearly we have nothing to fear from you and others who hold similar beliefs. My opinion is that evolution should be taught without any inclusion of any god in the lessons, and in learning the science of it, if students choose to believe that there is some sort of divine guidance in the process, well, they can go ahead. That is a theological issue, not a naturalistic one. DickTurpis (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I'm going to try to expound on my belief about God's role in evolution and the like later. For now, I do believe God has ultimate responsibility for life, the universe, and everything, but I do not believe in that as a scientific explanation. I'd define God, in part, as being responsible for setting up "science", and when humans investigate the world, we are learning about hos God set things up. MDB (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why you believe

I see that under why you believe you state:

• It's how I was raised, and it's stuck with me.
• More importantly, though...
• It comforts me.

Presumably, then, if you had been raised a Muslim you would have an equal amount of faith in the Muslim religion. (Or whatever religion you care to use as an example.) But doesn't that reduce what you believe to be right and "true" to a simple lottery of birth? Presumably you would be equally prepared to argue for the "correctness" of another religion or the existence of a different God if you had simply been born somewhere else. Don't you find that at all worrying? I know that I did when I started to think about why I was a Christian lo these many years ago.
I've raised the question with believers on a number of occasions and generally received two answers in about equal proportions:

• That may be true for most people, but I have, in fact studied many religions only to come to the happy conclusion that mine is correct. I tend to find this happy coincidence most suspicious.

The other answer is:

• Yes, I acknowledge that I only believe these things as a accident of birth but I don't think it's important. A response which I find simply incomprehensible. How can it not matter that you hold these fundamental beliefs to be true - and are prepared to vigorously argue that they are really true - when you hold them simply by accident of birth?
  

So I wonder what your response would be to the question - doesn't the fact that you only hold these beliefs because of an accident of birth worry you at all?

With regard to your second point I don't doubt for one reason that it is true. But there are many things that I would be happier believing - but that doesn't make them true.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, good question, and one I've never thought about directly.

But what about the argument "my religion is true for me, but that doesn't mean someone else's religion isn't true for them"? I believe in multiple paths to God.

I'm not arguing that all religions are equally true, because you can certainly come up with numerous bizarre beliefs brought on by religion. But I am willing to consider God revealing himself in multiple ways to multiple people. MDB (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can argue that, but it's a lot weaker position than stating that your religion is in any way "correct". It also means that attempting to persuade people that your ideas are correct becomes a little difficult as you acknowledge up front that that you only hold them by accident and not because of any explicable process.

But, having said that, the argument above is a mere detail compared to the next one because you now have a much bigger issue. When you argue "I believe in multiple paths to God" you are still within the "belief by lottery" mind-set. Not only did Christianity come to by this means so did your very concept "God". Your parents could have been non-religious or atheistic instead of being Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever. The argument leads then not to you being agnostic about the ultimate correctness of your religion; it leads instead to your being agnostic about the very existence of God.

Now, I've been through this process myself and I understand it's a bit of a wrench, so you may want to take a while before answering. Cheers.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am kind of agnostic in that, while I think God exists, I'm not sure of it. That's what happens when you try to reconcile rationalism with God.

As for the rest of your point -- yeah, you've given me something to think about. MDB (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)