I just received a brochure from a major group of skeptics offering to teach me how to win arguments with religious believers. I concede that I am a skeptic, addicted to the scientific method, demanding evidence and consistent theory. However, I don't see the point in attempting to argue against the validity of any religious position.
In the first place, it's not ever going to be possible to convince a religious believer with a rigorously logical argument. Not only do religious people not require (or even recognize) the rules for logical discourse, their belief by definition is not based on logical reasoning or irrefutable evidence. It is based on emotion, "faith", the appeal of various aspects of the religion, family belief systems, and so on. Faith, by definition, doesn't depend on replicable evidence.
In the second place, what is the point? Who gains by weakening someone's religious beliefs, no matter how absurd they are? People who are fervent religious believers can be rational and skeptical in other areas, so they don't appear to be "weakened" by their belief system. I dislike their tiresome self-righteous tendency to treat deviance from their particular point of view as ignorant or stupid or even evil. But I don't see how, as a skeptic, I should be as intolerant and arrogant as they are.
I observe that religious beliefs give a certain comfort to people in pain and in trouble. I imagine that believing in life after death takes away some of the sting of loss and grief. Believing in some system that makes life appear to be more fair is very appealing, even though religions that attempt to do this (in spite of the evidence) have to reach pretty far to try this. We want to believe in the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the innocent, and clearly that doesn't happen in this world.
So to you religious people out there who may by chance have read this far: I'm glad you find comfort in your beliefs. I hope they sustain you in your darker hours. I only hope you don't find it necessary to punish me for not believing in your religion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dr. Boyd,
ReplyDeleteI stumbled upon your blog by accident and I find it very thought provoking.
The idea of boundaries is right on the money. It seems to me that religion and science butt heads because they both believe that they have dominance over the other. They encroach on each others domain. I personally believe only fanatics, religious or scientific, bellyache over this apparent incompatibility. Isaac Newton was fervently religious and yet he was also a founding father of science. I also think that faith is making a comeback in scientific realms... especially in quantum mechanics. The empirical evidence for some of quantum theory may never be produced or reproduced, and yet some of the most brilliant minds in science will stand by their equations despite the ridicule of other scientists. Talk about taking something on faith... 100 plus dimensions.
I am curious because I am planning on going to get my master degree in psychology. What is your training based in and any thoughts for the prospective psychologist. I am looking at becoming a Jungian analyst.
Great work!! I will be back to check things out.
Peace,
J. Bundy
Jungian analysis is, as far as I know, not taught in any major university, as it has little credence in the mainstream of psychotherapy. You might look into programs at universities offering the Psy.D. degree.
ReplyDeleteOf course religion and science are incompatible. That was my point. Incompatibility doesn't prevent people from simultaneously believing in conflicting systems. There are two modes of thought involved; the rules even for thought are separate in each domain, religion and science.
And I appreciate your comments. Glad you read this.
HB