Sunday, March 31, 2019

An atheist and a YEC walk into a bar...

Enough politics.  Let's talk about religion.

Ever since I was a kid growing up in the deep south I have been mystified by how people can believe in God.  Note that I didn't say "why people believe in God", because that's a different question.  I think I understand the why (it helps people deal with existential angst); it really is the how that I have trouble understanding.  To me, it has always been self-evident that the Bible is a work of mythology, and so for a long time I was firmly of the opinion that the only way that one could sustain a belief in God was through ignorance.  This belief was reinforced by the people I tended to hang out with, mostly other atheists, who spent a lot of time and effort promoting rational arguments that religion is false.  (A commonly held view in the atheist community seems to be that the scourge of religion persists on this earth simply because atheists have been insufficiently diligent in spreading the seeds of enlightenment.)

Ironically, this theory is contradicted by data.  A lot of atheists seem to think that religion and education are universally anti-correlated, but this turns out to be false.  There is some truth to it, but one of the many noteworthy exceptions is American Christians.  (Jews and Hindus also tend to have significantly better than average educations.)  It was also contradicted by my personal experience.  Like any good atheist, I spent a fair amount of time arguing with religious people, and over the years I noticed two things: first, my arguments never seemed to persuade anyone (though it was not uncommon for me to offend people by reading certain Bible verses to them).  And second, a lot of the people I was arguing with were actually very smart and somehow managed to sustain their beliefs despite being well aware of all of the apparent absurdity.

This matters.  People's beliefs about religion vs. science sometimes get translated into policy, and getting it wrong can have grave consequences.  Accordingly, I think it's important to develop an understanding of the mindset that leads people to believe differently than you do rather than just dismiss them as ignorant knuckle-draggers (or, if you're religious, as incorrigible hedonists lacking a moral compass).  One of two things has to happen: either you'll learn something that will help you focus your own message and make it more effective, or you might come to realize that you were actually wrong about something.  Either way, that feels like progress, so over the past few years I've spent quite a bit of time hanging out with and talking not only to religious people, but also to believers of extreme views that seem completely crazy to me, including lunar landing denialists, flat-earthers, and creationists.  It's been a very interesting experience.  I've been fairly impressed with the sophistication of their arguments, even though, of course, I vehemently disagree with them.  It has forced me to think deeply about the foundations of my own beliefs, because although (say) a flat-earther's arguments seem absurd to me, refuting them turns out not to be quite as easy as you might think.

The fundamental problem is that today's world is much too complicated for an individual to figure out everything on their own, so you have no choice but to trust somebody.  No one has the resources to obtain first-hand evidence for everything they believe.  If you're an atheist you (almost certainly) adhere to certain beliefs because of something you read somewhere rather than (say) an experiment that you personally did, and that means that you have to trust that the author is not mistaken or trying to deceive you.  Now, there may be a sound reason to trust the author of (say) a scientific paper, but most people who put their trust in science don't actually give that a lot of thought.  They just hew to formulas like: if it is published in a peer-reviewed journal it's probably true (and vice versa).  And they will continue to believe this even in the face of evidence to the contrary published in a peer-reviewed journal!

There is a sort of social hierarchy of respectability of the sorts of trust that people choose to adopt.  At one extreme are scientists and members of the clergy of established religions like Christianity and Islam.  At the other extreme are the flat-earthers, lunar-landing denialists, alien abductionists, and Bigfoot hunters.  Somewhere in between are the young-earth creationists (YECs) who believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God, and that therefore the world was created in six 24-hour days about six thousand years ago, that Noah's ark was real, and that Charles Darwin is the spawn of Satan.  (FYI, that link is to an article about Ben Carson, the famous neurosurgeon, currently serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Trump Administration.  Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, and hence a YEC.  And he is quoted as saying that Darwin's evolutionary theory "was encouraged by the adversary," i.e. the devil.  So "spawn of Satan" is really not much of an exaggeration here.)

These groups are minorities whose identities are defined by unfashionable beliefs, and so their adherents often feel beleaguered by modern society.  As a consequence, it's not easy to get them to talk to someone outside of their group.  They often view outsiders as the enemy.  But I've recently had the rare opportunity to have an extensive discussion with a YEC who was willing to engage with surprising confidence and intellectual honesty.  Over the past few weeks we've had what is quite possibly the longest civil exchange between and atheist and a YEC in the history of the world.  The thread started to get out of hand, so we decided to reboot the discussion here because Blogger is a better venue for extensive discussion than Reddit.  My correspondent's name is Jimmy Weiss, and his opening salvo is here.  The opportunity to have this kind of discussion with a knowledgable YEC is rare, and I am grateful to him for being willing to put himself out there in this way.  The differences between YEC and established science are quite stark, and it is not an easy position to defend in today's world.  Jimmy does quite an admirable job.

This introduction turned out to be quite a bit longer than I intended, so I will put my actual response to Jimmy in a separate post later today.

13 comments:

Jonathan said...

Ron, I find this topic interesting. Unfortunately Jimmy's style is verbose. It might benefit your readers if there was an "edited for brevity" alternate version with the main points.

Ron said...

@Jonathan:

I sympathize. I'm going to include a summary of what I think the main points are, but I wanted Jimmy to go first because I was worried that if I wrote a summary it would misrepresent his position. (As it stands, I have to correct some things Jimmy got wrong about *my* position. This is one of the problems that I really want to address: both sides view the other through the lens of their own deeply held beliefs, and that makes it hard sometimes to see what the other side's position actually *is*.)

Luke said...

> Ever since I was a kid growing up in the deep south I have been mystified by how people can believe in God. Note that I didn't say "why people believe in God", because that's a different question. I think I understand the why (it helps people deal with existential angst); it really is the how that I have trouble understanding.

Hmm, if my faith does anything along the "existential angst" dimension, it increases it. And it is doing so for several people around me, some of whom are fairly close to abandoning their faith for that reason. A big part of that is predictive failure: "there is a better way" was promised, but the reality is too much stagnation [according to them, and I empathize while disagreeing]. I take this to be a big reason that Paul wrote of the hypocritical religious elite at the time: "For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”"

> To me, it has always been self-evident that the Bible is a work of mythology, and so for a long time I was firmly of the opinion that the only way that one could sustain a belief in God was through ignorance.

To me, it seems obvious that the social contract is a work of mythology as well as the popular view of democracy. And yet, so many people, especially intellectuals, seem to buy it—hook, line, and sinker. I'm glad you wrote I no longer believe in democracy, but you appear to be as much of an anomaly as you say I am. :-|

What I don't understand is why it is so nonsensical to think that God wants fantastically more for us than the advances made by the scientific and industrial revolutions, but that we humans are getting in the way in all sorts of ways. What we have now is a "creative aristocracy"—only a small fraction of humans are able/permitted to creatively influence more than a few other humans in their lives. This is a de facto denial of the imago Dei, which comes right at the beginning of what you call "mythology". I am left wondering if there is some sort of systematic conspiracy to perpetuate such aristocracies; it is much easier to do so with some sort of grounding myth—like Enûma Eliš was, back in the day.

It seems to me that what is going on at the very foundation is a war over what kind of world we could build and inhabit. I take that to be the very war waged in the Bible; Deut 17:14–20 is a key text when it comes to aristocracy. Another aspect is the Jews' expectations of a political messiah who would free them from external bondage, whereas Jesus argued that the problem was internal bondage. These are very different ways to construe what the core problem is, how we could go about fixing it, and what kinds of results we can expect from doing so. The nature of this debate is philosophical/​theological. And yet, so many wish to call such discussion "mythological" (I'm exempting you on this particular charge, Ron). It's not that there are no empirical correlates of understanding the matter one way vs. the other; instead, one can very easily presuppose one way and interpret empirical phenomena according to that way, not knowing there are alternatives.

Ron said...

> if my faith does anything along the "existential angst" dimension, it increases it

That's not surprising. That's what happens when you start to engage in serious inquiry and discover that the thing you have been basing your life on is all a scam.

The good news is that there's a way out.

> the social contract is a work of mythology as well as the popular view of democracy

Sure. Failure to see the value of mythology is one of the mistakes that atheists often make, and one which I've argued against vociferously (if ineffectually) for years. But you have to design/choose an *effective* mythology, and to do that you have to decide what your goals are, and a big part of the problem is that different people want different things. This is one of the reasons that trade is so wonderful: it leverages the diversity of goals to create wealth out of nothing.

But the hardest part of getting what you want has always been figuring out what it is.

> It seems to me that what is going on at the very foundation is a war over what kind of world we could build and inhabit.

Yes, that is exactly right. But very few people understand this (I'm glad you do). Even fewer see that we, not God, have *control* over this process. (That part you don't yet seem to grasp.)

Luke said...

> That's not surprising. That's what happens when you start to engage in serious inquiry and discover that the thing you have been basing your life on is all a scam.

That doesn't seem to be the only logically possible cause of existential angst—although to be fair, I don't totally understand urban dictionary: existential angst. What I was thinking of is that when the distance between where we are now and where we could be is high and the means to get from here to there seem small, one can be left with a kind of vertigo and a doubting that the distance could actually be crossed. The longer it seems the distance can't be crossed, the more one is left to doubt whether it ever could be crossed.

> The good news is that there's a way out.

I'm not yet willing to throw up my hands and declare that I could not possibly contribute to making progress toward where we could be. Indeed, the more people who do throw up their hands, the less likely we will end up somewhere better and the more likely we'll end up somewhere worse. Entropy sucketh.

> But the hardest part of getting what you want has always been figuring out what it is.

And yet, what of that hedonic treadmill?

> Yes, that is exactly right. But very few people understand this (I'm glad you do). Even fewer see that we, not God, have *control* over this process. (That part you don't yet seem to grasp.)

I don't accept the either/or. As to few understanding this, how would you then construe the whole "culture wars" shtick?

Ron said...

> That doesn't seem to be the only logically possible cause of existential angst

I didn't say it was. I just said that when you discover that your life has been based on falsehoods that tends to produce existential angst. There are other ways to do it, but that one is pretty effective.

> I'm not yet willing to throw up my hands and declare that I could not possibly contribute to making progress toward where we could be.

I'm not asking you to (quite the opposite). But you should consider the possibility that your failure to make the progress that you had hoped or expected might be because you're working from a false assumption.

> I don't accept the either/or.

I know.

Luke said...

> I just said that when you discover that your life has been based on falsehoods that tends to produce existential angst. There are other ways to do it, but that one is pretty effective.

Your hypothesis was that religion is used to decrease existential angst, and yet here I am sticking by my religion even when it increases existential angst. I suggest more brittle hypotheses.

> But you should consider the possibility that your failure to make the progress that you had hoped or expected might be because you're working from a false assumption.

If you can explain how this might work out with relevant particulars, I'm all ears. I'm especially interested in the bit about (i) not diminishing expectations [too far]; and (ii) not giving up on being part of bringing those expectations to fruition. I see a lot of ¬(i) and ¬(ii) out there.

> Luke: It seems to me that what is going on at the very foundation is a war over what kind of world we could build and inhabit.

> Ron: But very few people understand this (I'm glad you do). Even fewer see that we, not God, have *control* over this process. (That part you don't yet seem to grasp.)

> Luke: I don't accept the either/or. As to few understanding this, how would you then construe the whole "culture wars" shtick?

> Ron: I know.

Perhaps it would be interesting to talk about the difference between:

     (1) We have causal power and so does God.
     (2) Only we have causal power.

I'm a little hesitant to say "*control*", as that could easily denote more causal power than we actually have. There is also a question of whether what humans really need now is the ability to dominate creation and each other, which is one form of 'control'.

But I'm especially interested in your answer to my "culture wars" question: you appear to be attributing to me some deeper understanding than those spouting off about "culture wars". Just what is it you don't think many understand?

Ron said...

> religion is used to decrease existential angst

Yes, but it only works if you don't think about it too hard. You're apparently thinking about it too hard, at least with respect to the goal of decreasing your existential angst. If you want to decrease your existential angst then it's best to just let go of all of your hopes and ambitions and have faith that Jesus will take care of everything in the end. (In fact, you can just stop caring about *anything* in this world because you have an eternal afterlife to look forward to, but again, for that to work requires that you don't think about it too hard.)

> If you can explain how this might work out with relevant particulars, I'm all ears.

Well, that's a very long story, but the general idea is that using evidence, experiment and reason rather than faith and revelation as guides to truth will be more effective at bringing about good outcomes. One of the results of this is that religions are myths, so we should not regard them as factually true. However, myths are also powerful, so we should not simply discard them either (this is the mistake that atheists make). What we need is to invent better myths. which is a project that no one (AFAICT) is actually working on because religious people are generally happy with the myths they have, and atheists have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

> We have causal power and so does God.

Sure. Replace the word God with "nature" or "fate" or "the gods" and I have no quarrel with that. But that requires a pretty radical departure from mainstream Christian theology, which holds that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-loving, and we should submit ourselves unconditionally to His will. (Note that it does NOT require a departure from mainstream Jewish theology. For Christians, arguing with God is unthinkable, but Jews do it all the time.)

Luke said...

> Yes, but it only works if you don't think about it too hard. You're apparently thinking about it too hard, at least with respect to the goal of decreasing your existential angst. If you want to decrease your existential angst then it's best to just let go of all of your hopes and ambitions and have faith that Jesus will take care of everything in the end.

Am I supposed to laugh at the mock extrapolation/​deduction 'some' ⇒ 'all'? Or the mock conspiracy theory-esque thinking whereby the original hypothesis is preserved in the face of any and all contradictory evidence? I'm not sure what we're doing, here. I thought you were advancing a serious, scientific hypothesis—one fully open to Popperian falsification. I'm willing to make a nod to Sturgeon's law, but much more than that is boring.

> Well, that's a very long story, but the general idea is that using evidence, experiment and reason rather than faith and revelation as guides to truth will be more effective at bringing about good outcomes.

How many people in the world today do you think are doing this in every single domain—including questioning their own hypocrisy, self-righteousness, etc.? A while ago you said you had failed to teach EE&R to … anyone? Or perhaps it was religious folk—although you have said things similar about trying to teach fellow atheists/​secularists some basic things.

From what I've seen of EE&R, it is great whenever the instrument itself is trustworthy. We are, after all, the instruments with which we measure reality. But to what extent do we allow those instruments to be examined arbitrarily much? I think that's one of the Bible's major purposes, and I find that virtually nobody wants this done to them. (Note that a tool which helps you pierce façades will also help you build better façades.)

> What we need is to invent better myths.

Why must we operate according to myths? Surely any myth we concoct will bite us in the ass, in the end. Perhaps it would help for you to provide a definition of 'myth', to ensure we're on the same page.

> … and we should submit ourselves unconditionally to His will.

You mean, like Moses did in Ex 32:9–14, Num 14:11–20, and Num 16:19–24, and in Num 11:10–15? Yes I see your parenthetical; I again return to that 'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning which I have to believe you are employing tongue-in-cheek.

Perhaps we could discuss whether a system of thought capable of enabling the greatest freedom would also be capable of enabling the greatest slavery. This would be similar to a façade-piercing tool also helping people build better façades. It seems the Enlightenment was very right to construe much 'truth' as instrumental, amplifying both the excellent and the terrible. But then we must be careful to sample properly from use of such a tool, rather than cherry-picking what we like or what we don't like.

Ron said...

> Am I supposed to laugh

No. Maybe all you need to do is let go of some, not all, of your hopes and ambitions. Whatever works for you.

> Why must we operate according to myths?

I don't know that we must. I simply observe that we do. I think it's unfortunate. I think we'd be better off of we could wean ourselves from myths, but I don't know how to accomplish that.

> like Moses did

This is one of the big differences between Christianity and Judaism. Jews take Moses as a role model and argue with God. Christians by and large don't. Most Christians, when I draw their attention to those verses (Exo32 in particular), experience quite of bit of cognitive dissonance.

> Perhaps we could discuss whether a system of thought capable of enabling the greatest freedom would also be capable of enabling the greatest slavery.

No, I'm pretty sure that would be a complete waste of time.

Luke said...

> No. Maybe all you need to do is let go of some, not all, of your hopes and ambitions. Whatever works for you.

Sorry, not sure how this is a response to 'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning (which is always unscientific) or the conspiracy theory-esque construal of Christianity.

> I don't know that we must. I simply observe that we do. I think it's unfortunate. I think we'd be better off of we could wean ourselves from myths, but I don't know how to accomplish that.

This seems like a place where science could provide us salvation [from falsehood]. Do you know what it has done in this realm?

> Christians by and large don't.

Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap. Science, fortunately, pays attention to outliers. It thrives on outliers. It is our salvation for groupthink and fallacious 'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning. The trick is that atheists who praise science so often violate science in other areas. You, thankfully, are several cuts above average. The question I have is whether you wish to reject 'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning *everywhere*.

> Most Christians, when I draw their attention to those verses (Exo32 in particular), experience quite of bit of cognitive dissonance.

Any tool which promotes freedom can be used to produce enhanced slavery. You don't think talking about this would be fruitful; I see it as a simple corollary of the fact–value distinction, of all 'knowledge' being 100% instrumental. As a foreigner to atheism, perhaps I can take it more seriously than those for whom it is 'home'?

Ron said...

> You, thankfully, are several cuts above average.

Thank you. I try.

> The question I have is whether you wish to reject 'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning *everywhere*.

I don't know what you mean by "'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning". (If you mean induction, I reject that unconditionally. I'm a Popperian.)

> Any tool which promotes freedom can be used to produce enhanced slavery.

I'm not sure I agree with that, but I am sure I don't want to argue about it right now. It's been a long day.

Luke said...

> I don't know what you mean by "'some' ⇒ 'all' reasoning". (If you mean induction, I reject that unconditionally. I'm a Popperian.)

I often see you treating pretty much all remotely orthodox Christianity in a monolithic fashion. It's not just you; sociologists do this on a regular basis. This is especially insidious when you have a causal hypothesis which does seem to fit some [remotely orthodox] Christians, but nothing like all. If in fact Christianity does what I've said—intensify variance—then cherry-picking allows one to construe it as too bad or as too good. Parochial experience is one kind of cherry-picking.

> > Any tool which promotes freedom can be used to produce enhanced slavery.

> I'm not sure I agree with that, but I am sure I don't want to argue about it right now. It's been a long day.

Let me know if you ever do want to discuss it. As far as I can tell, what I've said here is a simple correlate of morality, aesthetics, and goodness being 100% subjective. Knowledge and tools become 100% instrumental.