Religous arguments II

It occurs to me, after reading the comment made to the preceding blog, that part of the problem with the science vs. religion argument is the usual boundary issue: whose domain rules should be used to evaluate the issue?

Members of the religious domain want to use their rules and standards to evaluate the validity of the scientific domain; members of the scientific domain assert that their domain rules should be used to evaluate the religious domain. From the standpoint of each domain, the other domain is sorely lacking. In fact, we all tend to judge the domains of others by our own domain standards. They do the same to us. The issue that arises over and over again throughout human history is how to deal with domains whose rules and behaviors are abhorrent to us.

I'm certainly not saying that we have to evaluate each domain from within its own rule structure. It would be impossible to have law and government if each group could only be judged by its own rules. The problem is how to establish the validity of an over-arching set of domain rules. Governments do that by simple establishment of an entire nation as a domain with its own rules, or "laws", and further asserting that such laws have priority over the rules of all domains under them or subordinate to them.

In order to evaluate government domains and their rule systems, we then have to establish some further system that includes all the government domains within a new rule system that is asserted to have priority over all subordinate domains, such as governments. Few governments are willing to surrender their own rule systems to such a system (like the UN or the League of Nations). But without subordinating their own rules, they cannot be in a position to judge the appropriateness or acceptability of the rules of other governmental/national domains. So they dance back and forth across the boundary, trying to assert their right to judge without surrendering to the judgment of others. An interesting if insoluble problem.

Religious arguments

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.

Boundary crossing

An additional thought to append to the preceding note: "Crossing a boundary" means to take the rules from one domain into another domain. Bringing gang rules into a school is an example. Sexual advances from an employee to an employer (or vice versa) is another. The issue is not so much whether we like or approve the rules but that they break or conflict with the rules of the new domain.

To "fit in", we must comply with the rules for the domain we are in. It isn't an absolute necessity that we fit in; it's just a choice we can make. If we don't like the rules in a domain, we don't have to enter that domain unless the choice is forced on us. We don't care so much, for instance, if rival gang members shoot each other. We object to their behavior breaking our domain rules when their violence spills into the public sector.

In recent years, we have begun asserting the priority of an overall set of domain rules, which we call "human rights". We assert them to have priority over all local domain rules, which justifies our entering into other domains, by force, if necessary, to impose our higher priority rule set. This comment is not intended to criticise such action, but to point out that wars break out in order to assert the priority of one or another set of domain rules as "universal". Religions, in particular, generally assert their domain rules as superior and that all conflicting domain rules be changed. The assertion of human rights as a pre-eminent set of domain rules is no different than any other assertion, religious or otherwise.