Skip to main content

Five morals on how the religious and atheists should approach each other in discussions

I here draw five morals concerning how atheists and the religious might usefully approach each other in debate and argument (from forthcoming book chapter).

1. There's a tendency among the religious to take offence at comparisons drawn by atheists between religious belief and other supernatural beliefs such as belief in ghosts, fairies, etc. No doubt some atheists do just want to belittle and bait the religious by making such comparisons. However, it seems to me that, given that the X-claim explanation of why Peter fails to recognise the unreasonableness of his Christian belief looks fairly plausible and certainly is no 'just so' story (I'll be posting on this shortly, but it's an explanation of religious belief based on drawing a parallel between beliefs in fairies, ghosts, and other invisible persons on the one hand, and belief in gods on the other), drawing such a comparison can be very appropriate. I certainly intend no offence by drawing it. I don't think the religious should take offence...

Continues at CFI blogs.

Comments

V Smith said…
Your most recent article on AEON "Why are we humans so prone to believing spooky nonsense?" Should it not be "Why are we humans so prone to believing religious nonsense?"?
December 16, 2015 at 2:44 PM
Paul P. Mealing said…
The difference to believing in ghosts and fairies is that people see religion as part of their cultural identity, which is fundamental to many people if not most. Also MRI scans show that there are neurological changes in people's brains when they think of God. In particular, they perceive it as something independent of their self. Now, we can feel smug and call it a delusion, but the point I'd make is that it is completely subjective, like colour. The difference is that one can test for colour perception (even in animals) but there is no test for God, except what people report. This is not evidence of God, by the way, it's evidence that people think of God as something special and different to other perceptions.

I read the text in your link and some of the discussion taking place - I didn't want to intrude, which is why I'm commenting here. I'll write another comment on belief in eternal damnation based on interactions I have with friends.

Regards, Paul.
December 17, 2015 at 4:42 AM
Paul P. Mealing said…
I have friends who live in the same street as me, who believe I will go to hell, yet they are the first people I will turn to if I need help and vice versa.

I'm not sure how they deal with the cognitive dissonance, but it would seem to me that if I was to go to hell or something like it while I was still alive they'd have a different view. The fact that it doesn't affect our relationship suggests to me that at a subconscious level it's a fantasy. What's more, like all good Christians they are very pro-Israel, Jews are God's chosen people, yet they will also all go to hell. It goes without saying that we have very robust discussions but I think one can only do that with people whom you are on good terms with.

Regards, Paul.
December 17, 2015 at 5:16 AM
Adina Covaci said…
Hi,

I've just read your article on Aeon and it made me think of Mircea Eliade, a Romanian historian of religion. I think one particular book of his might be of interest for you, as it talks about the human need for the sacred (which is what grounds religion, according to him): http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Dreams-Mysteries-Encounter-Contemporary/dp/0061319430 .

Best,
Adina
December 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more