The notion that faith - belief in spite of an absence of proof or even in the face of compelling contrary evidence - is a form of mental and moral fortitude needs not merely to be challenged, but to be given the full point-and-laugh treatment, so that we can see afresh how this absurdity deserves ridicule rather than reverence.
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
On June 24 I left a rather lengthy comment on my blog which including the following:
ReplyDelete"While there is no reasonable hope for an end of faith, there is much hope that a more enlightened populous will reject those who claim to know anything mystical as an absolute. So my suggestion is to simply snicker at anyone who makes any reference to a personal god. While I like a lot of these folks as individuals, they deserve mild ridicule for their superstitions, and public mockery (at least of the brighter ones) is probably the best way of effecting some level of change."
I take it that you are advocating the same.
I think there's a reasonable hope for the end of faith, just not in our lifetimes.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I do advocate a level of public mockery, at least of the more egregious superstitions and claims of supernatural knowledge.
The Bum Said: "I think there's a reasonable hope for the end of faith, just not in our lifetimes."
ReplyDeleteYes, as I was cut and pasting this over to you that's exactly what I was thinking. You are right.
"The notion that faith - belief in spite of an absence of proof or even in the face of compelling contrary evidence..." this is only one understanding of faith, and not the one most widely held.
ReplyDeletewhy not ask readers at large what their understandings of faith are?
mild ridicule and public mockery can be instrumental in conversion (conversion = 'the effecting of some level of change') but is probably not as effective as you might think.
other strategies are more effective for conversion, if that is really your intent.
What strategies do you suggest, Scott?
ReplyDeleteEffective conversion:
ReplyDelete1. care about the people you are converting. Conversion is about your paradigm of truth, but it is also about relationships with others. People listen more attentively if they think you care about their joys and sorrows.
2. know your subject. To effectively use the authority of the bible, you can’t just cut and paste verses. The authority you experience in the bible is not as evident to others as you might think. the more you know about the historicity, the criticisms (form, redactive, historical), the exigesis, and the original languages (greek and Hebrew) of the bible, the better able you will be to effectively argue from your perception of the bible’s authority and truth.
3. people are different. I don’t know how you experience conversion, but I bet it’s not the same as 75% of the rest of the world. You have to image yourself in the mind and life of another, to imagine their worldview, before you can ‘say the right things’ to facilitate a conversion in another. That’s why mind games like imagining yourself as an atheist, or a librarian, or a spouse, or the child of an abusive parent, are of value.
4. know your forum. If you choose to convert others on a debating site, or a blog, know about effective logic, syllogism, and logical fallacies. More people are converted by fallacies than by logical arguments, no matter what thinkers wish were true.
5. be ready to be changed yourself. If you are truly effective in converting others, through caring about them, through knowing your subject, through imagining the lives of others, and through knowing your forum, you will be changed. If you don’t want your own worldview altered, get out of the conversion business.
thanks for askin'!!
Scott: These are interesting suggestions. If you were to clean up the punctuation, I'd be interested in publishing your essay on the front page.
ReplyDeleteYour comment appears to come from a Christian theist perspective, no? How do you think it would change, especially regarding point 2, from my own naturalistic, atheistic perspective?
this was a quick dump.
ReplyDeleteit was shared with a bible fundamentalist, so the perspective is agnostic-to-christian.
give me a bit, and i'll make it agnostic-to-atheist.
ee cummings would disagree with you on the punctuation, but if you must, run it thru a grammar checker.
I'm a big fan of ee cummings; he's one of the few poets I can comprehend (my failing, not other poets'). His punctuation works well for his own poetry, but I think canonical punctuation is better for prose.
ReplyDeletewhat interesting meaning you give to punctuation...just kidding!!
ReplyDeletean earlier question--
ReplyDeletewhat is your understanding of 'faith?'
Faith: truth-belief without evidentiary or logical justification.
ReplyDeleteso if i have faith in you, i'm believing in you (in your existence, in you as source of authority, in you as intelligent debater) without logical evidence?
ReplyDeletefaith for me, is the belief that something good will come of this, when things are going well. (hope, on the other hand, is belief that something good will come of this when things aren't going well). such faith involves trust and expectations. i have faith in you.
here's a quick redo of the effective conversion, but it's lame; i really wrote it in response to a christian fundamentalist.
ReplyDeleteeffective conversion:
1. care about the people you are converting. conversion is about your paradigm of truth, but it is also about relationships with others. people listen more attentively if they think you care about their joys and sorrows.
2. know your subject. to effectively use the authority of the bible (or any other scriptural text), you can’t just cut and paste verses. the authority you experience in the text is not as evident to others as you might think. the more you know about the historicity, the criticisms (form, redactive, historical), the exigesis, and the original languages (greek and hebrew) of the bible (or whatever text), the better able you will be to effectively argue from your perception of the scripture’s authority and truth. if you personally don’t find any value in a scriptural text (of whatever type), but your target audience places authority in them, a working knowledge of them facilitates conversion.
3. people are different. i don’t know how you experience conversion, but i bet it’s not the same as 75% of the rest of the world. you have to image yourself in the mind and life of another, to imagine their worldview, before you can ‘say the right things’ to facilitate a conversion in another. that’s why mind games like imagining yourself as an fundamentalist, or a librarian, or a spouse, or the child of an abusive parent, are of value.
4. know your forum. if you choose to convert others on a debating site, or a blog, know about effective logic, syllogism, and logical fallacies. more people are converted by fallacies than by logical arguments, no matter what thinkers wish were true.
5. be ready to be changed yourself. if you are truly effective in converting others, through caring about them, through knowing your subject, through imagining the lives of others, and through knowing your forum, you will be changed. if you don’t want your own worldview altered, get out of the conversion business.
clean up as you see fit.
ee cummings would tell you that there is meaning in punctuation.
ReplyDeleteand i agree.
my arguments are punctuationally soft-spoken.
WOULD THEY BE MORE CONVINCING IF I SHOUTED THEM? I'VE SEEN PEOPLE DO THIS!!!
what does my resistance to convention regarding punctuation tell you about my contrarian nature (pirsig might approve...)
SCOTT, YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN! QUIT THAT YELLING! My ears hurt.
ReplyDeletekelly--
ReplyDeletecome play!
join me in writing fictional naratives about our worldviews.
barefoot-
ReplyDeletei've been thinking about the conversion model and making it work for agnostic-to-atheist, and i've been doing a little exploring here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/08/anencepahlic-babies-and-problem-of-evil.html
but no one will play with me.(i've posted about 2/3 of the way down).
hopoe someone will think with me out loud so i can improve this model.
i don't know what you mean by your naturalistic perspective--is there something i should read about this?
thanks--
scott
p.s. are we done thinking out loud about faith?
Scott: Regarding the PoE: Remember that my fundamental goal, a position shared by many atheists, is not to convert people. I'd like to convert people, but my fundamental goal is to speak the truth as I see it about what I consider an important topic.
ReplyDeleteI mean by my "naturalistic perspective" that metaphysical naturalism is my core metaphysical system: Atheism follows from that metaphysical system and the evidence of my senses. Atheism itself is not, for me, a metaphysical position.
And I'm a philosopher. I'm never done thinking out loud about anything.
you've seen kelly's post about ficticious narratives--once you chose to talk, write, or think (you philosopher, you) about a truth, you've begun a ficticious narrative. it is not possible to 'speak the truth;' in the speaking, the truth takes on meaning.
ReplyDeletehere's an example of a blog of yours which is rich with meaning:
http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/07/top-ten-religious-idiots-6.html
but i'm not sure what truth you are speaking here.
perhaps you'd be willing to pioneer a new school of philosophy that entails thinking out loud....
peace
scott
You'll note that I strongly disagreed with Kelly's basic premise in her essay.
ReplyDeletebeen looking at some of your other posts, and i think you are seeking to convert others--by deconstructionist metaphysics.
ReplyDeletenot 'conversion that just happens in the passing in the business of speaking the truth,' but deliberate converting.
scott
p.s. what's the difference between a metaphysical system, and a metaphysical position? is position a subset of system? is it possible to have a non-metaphysical position in a metaphysical system? what should i be reading?
Don't spend too much time parsing my comments in detail, Scott. ;-) I'm not being that careful to speak precisely.
ReplyDeletehere's an example of your feelings about conversion:
ReplyDelete"Another huge problem with debate is that people almost never change their minds in public. It's very frustrating to debate someone, completely demolish their arguments—or at least think you've done so—and have them refuse to change their mind."
from here:
http://kellygorski.blogspot.com/2007/07/ethics-and-logistics-of-debate.html#comments
and that's not about willful converting? 'frustrating?' 'completely demolish?'
sure it is.
scott
That's precisely why it's not about converting: Even in the absolute best case scenario, you still can't convert people.
ReplyDeletenot that way.
ReplyDeletehence my list...lol
thanks for the wrestle.
do send me some suggested reading. articles, maybe?
thanks again
scott
If you're interested in my views on philosophy, you can start here; the blog has 99% of my relatively mature writing.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest way is perhaps to look at the categories on my sidebar, click on what interests you, and read it in chronological order (reverse of how it'll be listed).
Two of my better (IMnsHO) efforts:
Meta-ethical subjective relativism
The Scientific Method
You might also find my writing on Atheist politics of interest.
give me a few days....thanks again.
ReplyDeletescott