The joy of changing your mind
I was thinking earlier today about religion as a meme, and the familiar point that (as Steven Weinberg summarizes it in the TLS) ‘the persistence of belief in a particular religion is naturally aided if that religion teaches that God punishes disbelief.’ I was thinking about the fact that what that means is that religions that do teach that are a racket, in a quite literal sense. A racket, and also circular. ‘Believe in this god because it will punish you if you don’t.’ ‘But why should I believe that?’ ‘Because it will punish you if you don’t.’ ‘Yes but why should I believe that it’s this god that will punish me, what if it’s actually a different one that will punish me for believing this one?’ ‘Because this one will punish you if you believe that.’ And so on. That’s one of the problems with Pascal’s flutter, of course. So anyway, it’s circular, and a racket. And it’s a very nasty racket at that – one of the nastiest that could be imagined.
Why? Because it systematically and deliberately disables one of the core human abilities: flexibility: the ability to change our minds.
That really is horrible, you know. I don’t think we appreciate how horrible it is, because we’re so used to it. But it is very horrible. Look, it’s a privilege being human. We get to have long-term memory, and we get to have language so that we can extend our memories by exchanging them and discussing them with other people, and we get to extend them further and make them more reliable by recording them in various ways. Think of that. Even the cleverest of other animals can’t tell each other what their ancestors did; they know nothing at all about anything that happened outside their own memory and observation. It’s a privilege having such complicated minds, and flexibility is one of the luxury appointments of those minds. The ability to change them is a fantastic thing, and religion’s short-circuiting of that ability is an appalling way of proceeding. We’re so used to it we take it for granted, we don’t notice the horror of it, but really it is a bad thing.
It’s one of the best things about us, the ability to change our minds, and it makes possible many other best things about us – the ability to learn, for a start. Imagine disabling people’s ability to learn. Terrible business.
Dawkins touches on this in an interview at Alternet, in reply to the observation that ‘People finally say, “What’s it to you? Why not be an atheist if that’s what works for you, and leave the rest of us to be as religious as we wish?” This, I believe, is offered as a challenge to your open-mindedness or your respect for others. You’re being called “an atheist fundamentalist.”
“Fundamentalist” usually means, “goes by the book.” And so, a religious fundamentalist goes back to the fundamentals of The Bible or The Koran and says, “nothing can change.” Of course, that’s not the case with any scientist, and certainly not with me. So, I’m not a fundamentalist in that sense.
Nothing can change, you see. What a horror. What a nightmare that idea is. Those poor deprived people. It’s heart-rending.
Reminded me of a recent thought I had when looking at the December TV encounter of Dawkins and Tony Benn (on the Dawkins website). Dawkins, as always, was being completely reasonable and Benn was waffling on about it all being very well that scientists can invent things but they’re no help in giving us the morality to know how (or whether) to use them. And it struck me, looking at that rather silly and pointless spectacle, that people love calling Dawkins “militant” and to make sure no one gets a different feeling they juxtapose him with the most harmless and fluffy representatives or defendants of religion on offer. If there were a shortage of people prepared to say there’s a hell and unbelievers are going there, I’d understand, but there isn’t. Why the hell don’t they show that as the counterpoint to Dawkins (or Sam Harris, etc.) so people could see how “militant” atheists compare with the real deal?
I was starting to get irritated (again) at the way almost all comments to your posts agree with you. “Yea verily”. I realize that’s not your fault but I was looking for a chance to disagree.
This is not it. Your observation is as aspect of religion I had not thought of, so thank you for the insight.
A related point is that many religions impose on believers a duty to annoy others by attempting to save their souls. I don’t think Islam does this, though it suggests that no-believers be mistreated in other ways.
I always prefer fundamentalist militancy – that is: concerned with essentials and argumentative. It is the dogmatism, unwillingness to argue, consider opposing arguments, that really is, as OB says, horrible. BTW: The only dogmatic atheists one is likely to meet are not in the least militant – they usually call themselves agnostics.
Thoughts in Captivity
http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/thoughts.html
_
‘ ‘But why should I believe that?’ ‘Because it will punish you if you don’t.’
But if they were only saying that, we would only laugh and go on with our lives. What they are saying is: “Because WE will punish you if you don’t!”
Yeah, thats right! (roll eyes)
A secular saint, without possibility of error. Therefore the idea that he may have asserted a strawman argument is obviously just biased codswallop.
Nothing can change? Riiight…
Amaud,I live in constant fear that the arch bishop of Canterbury is going to punish me!and how about that deeply threatening pope!!
It’s a nasty racket indeed. Compare:
‘Vote for this candidate because when he’s elected he will punish people who didn’t vote for him.’ ‘But why should any of us vote for him anyway?’ ‘Because he will punish you if you don’t.’ ‘Yes but why should I believe that it’s him who will come to power and punish me, what if it’s actually a different candidate that will punish me for voting for this one?’ ‘Because this one will punish you if you vote for another one.’ And so on.
I think next time someone rings my doorbell wanting to talk religion to me (my reaction so far has been a very polite “No, thank you”), I’ll agree to listen to what they have to say on one condition: that they give me their home addresses and agree that I can ring their doorbells at a future time of my choice and they’ll listen attentively while I give them my opinions on religion.
Biggest problem, even if they agree, is probably that when I come calling they’ll be out, ringing other people’s doorbells.
Yeah GT, look what happened to Jesus!
But seriously, I think Arnaud has hit the nail on the head. Religions were invented to keep people together, and outsiders out. When societies became too large to rely on kinship groups to keep order then another mechanism had to be found. Religion (as opposed to what I would call simple spiritualism) was invented and its rules imposed to maintain some kind of civilisation amongst people who had nothing in common except where they lived. So belonging to the religion of the group was a method of gaining acceptance; it didn’t matter that it might not have made logical sense. At least it made sense in the terms of being a mechanism for keeping the group together; and allowing it’s and it’s members survival.
Unfortunately, there are still too many parts of the world where human beings have not developed a culture that will allow them to move on from this archaic form of social organisation.
“Believe in this god because it will punish you if you don’t.’ ‘But why should I believe that?’ ‘Because it will punish you if you don’t.”
“Blessed”? OB, One is not supposed to question, as the following will inevitably happen if one has disbelief, that is – if one is a Roman Catholic,{unless, of course, there have been dramatic changes since Vatican II}.
“Hell is a state or place of punishment were the wicked {who disbelieve}undergo everlasting suffering with the devil and his angels.”
This mantra was spoon-fed me AT AN IMPRESSIONABLE age in Goldenbridge. Whatever about Pascal’s flutter. My head is in a contant flutter trying to comprend the indecipherable {from my standpoint}.
But wait, look what will happen if you do believe the “RACKET”
“Heaven is a state or or place of perfect happiness were the blessed see and enjoy God forever.”
WOW! a much more preferable place to go to – so why not believe out of sheer fear of going to hell. Who, after all in their right mind would want to befriend a ‘hells angel?!
“Catholics receive Christ’s saving and sanctifying grace, and Christ Himself, into their souls when they are baptized. Yet they also know that Christ has established certain conditions for entry into eternal happiness in Heaven–for example, receiving His true Flesh and Blood (John 6:54) and keeping the commandments (Matt. 19:17). If a Christian refuses or neglects to obey Our Lord’s commands in a grave matter (that is, if he commits a mortal sin), Our Lord will not remain dwelling in his soul; and if a Christian dies in that state, having driven his Lord from his soul by serious sin, he will not be saved” From there on in it is hell, fire, and brimstone.
“Biggest problem, even if they agree, is probably that when I come calling they’ll be out, ringing other people’s doorbells.”
Not if you get there at 3 a.m. they won’t!
Well, surely, if I don’t believe in (existence of god A) then (god A will punish me) becomes kind of irrelevant. As blackmail, it’s not particularly effective. I could do better than that. As Arnaud mentions, it’s the people volunteering to do the punishing in this life that’s the problem.
Pascal’s wager in reverse (sort of):
Any God who would command belief in himself would seem to be rather insecure and need attention. Such a God would be pretty far from “supreme” and perfect. I would expect a genuinely supreme being to want me to use the mind he created me with in order to discover the truth which requires proportioning my belief to the evidence. If I don’t believe in God, God would never hold that against me. On the other hand, if I believe that God is a vengeful, jealous being who commands and needs my belief and attention, I would be impiously projecting nasty human imperfections upon God. The idea of believing in God because God commands belief under threat of divine punishment is as absurd from the viewpoint of those who believe in a supreme being as it is from the viewpoint of the atheist. So, if the evidence points towards the non-existence of a supreme being, being an atheist is the surest way to act piously towards that supreme being (if it turns out that such a being exists).
The most insightful comment here is about the disabling of “one of the core human abilities:flexibility:to change our minds”
And in times such as these when we can put this to ability to great use, this inability could be fatal, tho only to the future survival of our species. The planet will survive and will probably product another concious creature, maybe with multiple limbs, wings? and a mental flexibility that’s not so easily incapacitated by belief.
Its all very well, but religious people do deal with change and reality; only in the world you imagine is there some kind of stasis. ‘Nothing can change’ is Dawkins’ projection onto the theist, not the theist herself.
The theist says that God stays the same, not the world and not circumstances. Hence a small list of moral absolutes attributed to God remain constant, and given that in just one generation morality has swung so very far that is actually not a bad thing overall.
For instance, the ‘corporate paedophilia’ recently pointed out in these pages is checked by a widely held view that sexual exploitation of children is wrong, and a willingness to act against that wrong. That willingness has been removed for a lot of former moral wrongs, (adultery, divorce, …) and if NAMBLA had clever publicists and twenty years of activism that willingness would also creep down to protecting only the very young. Look at how that protection is not applied in our own society for forced marriage of underage aboriginal girls to old men, for instance.
Would it be better to believe a moral judgement is conditional on checking today’s editorial line at the Huffington Post or Instapundit?
“The theist says that God stays the same, not the world and not circumstances. Hence a small list of moral absolutes attributed to God remain constant”
Who compiles this list for the theist? And who ammends it in line with a changing moral climate?
Or is the list just shrinking by natural attrition.
“religious people do deal with change and reality”
As we all must, I do get the feeling sometimes tho that theist dont like having to change and like to dictate the reality in which they, and then by extension, others probably not of their bent, who just happen to be in the same society must live in.
Maybe Huffington Post can sometimes come up with better moral judgements that suit the times than a so called holy book.
RC’s say, {Q} “Has god a beginning? {A} God has no beginning he always was and always will be – he is eternal.
Andrew: everyone likes to dictate the reality in which they and others live. If I hold (as most would) murder to be wrong, I would probably want to dictate the reality around me on that principle. If a group of theists hold homosexuality to be morally wrong (as I would not) then it is perfectly reasonable from their perspective to dictate reality around them on that principle. I’m convinced OB would want the world to live according to some of her principles – and she’s right to.
But ChrisPer, I said “religions that do teach that are a racket” – I limited it on purpose. I realize not all religious people believe that and not all religions or branches of religion teach it.
“The theist says that God stays the same, not the world and not circumstances. Hence a small list of moral absolutes attributed to God remain constant”
Ah yes – that sounds so innocent. But of course it all depends on how small that list is, and exactly what is on it. It depends very heavily indeed. For lots of believers the list is not small, and many of the items on it are either pettifogging or loathsome.
“If a group of theists hold homosexuality to be morally wrong (as I would not) then it is perfectly reasonable from their perspective to dictate reality around them on that principle.”
What does ‘reasonable’ mean there? Of course it’s self-evident that ‘from their perspective’ they’re right; that’s what ‘from their perspective’ means; but in fact they’re not right, and that becomes apparent when you try to persuade them to give reasons other than purely ‘god said’ ones for thinking and saying homosexuality is wrong. They can’t do it. They try, and fail. Sacranie tried, people Dawkins talked to on the Channel 4 thing tried, the bishops and archbishops tried, and they all failed. Saying it’s ‘perfectly reasonable from their perspective’ is a kind of cop-out, because that’s true by definition and beside the point, and it’s simply a way to defend any and all nasty prejudices. Obviously they’re all perfectly reasonable from their perspective, otherwise people wouldn’t have them. But ‘reasonable’ if it means anything has to mean subject to rational, universalizable argument, which the idea (for instance) that homosexuality is morally wrong is not. The word ‘reasonable’ ought to function as a way to distinguish between mere taboos and genuinely reasonable moral views.
So, yeah, OB would want the world to live according to some of her principles, but she is aware that she probably would have had different ones if she had grown up in a different time and place, so she is aware that such principles are fallible, and that she has to be able to argue for them.
I meant “reasonable” in this state as going from opinion to political action – to try and change the world around you. I do not believe that the idea that the Bible if literally read provide a foundation for morality (and that, ergo, homosexuality is wrong) can be held to be reasonable. But once you hold that viewpoint, it would be quite irrational not to try and fight for it.
The reasonability and ultimate universalizability of moral principles is a dicy subject, by the way. Because you always end up with some ultimate: perhaps the principle that one should minimize harm to others (and consenting homosexuals harm no-one) and strive to increase happiness to others and to subsequent generations (and homosexual partners increase the happiness of at least each other) – but something like that could be raised on a theistic basis as well. And you can’t ultimately get your moral principles from something amoral. Not biological evolution (which might tell us how altruism may have arisen but cannot tell us why it is good (or bad, if you’re a Randian ;-)) to be an altruist), not anything else. It just happens to be that it’s likely not possible to derive some kind of ultimate principle and derivative coherent moral system from a literalist reading of the Bible – which makes it a perfect place to pick and choose according to one’s own personal taboos, likes and dislikes. But this has everything to do with the way moral authority is supported, not with the theistic/atheistic nature of one’s moral system.
“But once you hold that viewpoint, it would be quite irrational not to try and fight for it.”
Again, that applies to any viewpoint; I don’t quite see the point of saying it. Once you hold the viewpoint that all apostates should be killed with as little delay as possible, it would be quite irrational not to try to kill all apostates. And so on. People believe what they believe; I get that, and I don’t deny it. Am I missing something?
“ultimate universalizability”
Well notice I didn’t say “ultimate”. I realize you end up at moral intuitions, but there’s a lot of reasoning that has to go on after that.
It doesn’t just happen to be that the Bible isn’t a good place to find moral intuitions – it’s not some random thing like where a raindrop falls – there are reasons the Bible is such a crap place to find moral intuitions. That’s one reason religions of the book are so nasty: they are rooted in distant, outmoded, very very very male-dominant societies.
“everyone likes to dictate the reality in which they and others live”
And herein lies a very big problem for humanity.
This is not very feasible given the no of people in the world. This was the big stumbling block for the new agers, when they got their noses out of their navels and had a look around. Its all very well chosing a personal reality but often from the outside that reality resembles insanity.
So obviously this isnt going to work. What religions tried to do, but have failed dismally at, is provide an external framework under which larger numbers of people can coexist.
However over time this has broken down and fragmented into all manner of subsects. So this is its failure because the basis was as OB said in distant,outmoded, …male dominated societies.
So what someone claimed as being revealed to him by god? thousands of years ago today is obviously just them dictating the reality they wanted to live in.
We have to change this, CHANGE being the operative word here. Be flexible, adapt without any supernatural help.