Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday January 20 2019, @10:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the Fee-Fie-Fou-Fhum-Fideism-Falafel dept.

Commentary at Salon!

Should you believe in a God? Not according to most academic philosophers. A comprehensive survey revealed that only about 14 percent of English speaking professional philosophers are theists. As for what little religious belief remains among their colleagues, most professional philosophers regard it as a strange aberration among otherwise intelligent people. Among scientists the situation is much the same. Surveys of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, composed of the most prestigious scientists in the world, show that religious belief among them is practically nonexistent, about 7 percent.

[...] Now nothing definitely follows about the truth of a belief from what the majority of philosophers or scientists think. But such facts might cause believers discomfort. There has been a dramatic change in the last few centuries in the proportion of believers among the highly educated in the Western world. In the European Middle Ages belief in a God was ubiquitous, while today it is rare among the intelligentsia. This change occurred primarily because of the rise of modern science and a consensus among philosophers that arguments for the existence of gods, souls, afterlife and the like were unconvincing. Still, despite the view of professional philosophers and world-class scientists, religious beliefs have a universal appeal. What explains this?

[...] First, if you defend such beliefs by claiming that you have a right to your opinion, however unsupported by evidence it might be, you are referring to a political or legal right, not an epistemic one. You may have a legal right to say whatever you want, but you have epistemic justification only if there are good reasons and evidence to support your claim. If someone makes a claim without concern for reasons and evidence, we should conclude that they simply don't care about what's true. We shouldn't conclude that their beliefs are true because they are fervently held.

Another problem is that fideism—basing one's beliefs exclusively on faith—makes belief arbitrary, leaving no way to distinguish one religious belief from another. Fideism allows no reason to favor your preferred beliefs or superstitions over others. If I must accept your beliefs without evidence, then you must accept mine, no matter what absurdity I believe in. But is belief without reason and evidence worthy of rational beings? Doesn't it perpetuate the cycle of superstition and ignorance that has historically enslaved us? I agree with W.K. Clifford. "It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." Why? Because your beliefs affect other people, and your false beliefs may harm them.

I am checking to see what the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster has to say about all this.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 21 2019, @12:51AM (5 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday January 21 2019, @12:51AM (#789272) Homepage Journal

    Talking the talk is not the same thing as believing.

    Also, if you want to compare misdeeds records, you're going to want to get erase Stalin, Mao, and friends from the history books first. Active disbelievers have caused far more death and suffering in the past hundred years than believers have over any century in history.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @01:15AM (3 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday January 21 2019, @01:15AM (#789289)

    Also, if you want to compare misdeeds records, you're going to want to get erase Stalin, Mao, and friends from the history books first.

    No, you're not. Stalin and Mao (and also Hitler but for different reasons) were not really atheists at all, although I understand the temptation to characterize them as such.

    Actually their attitude to religion would more accurately be described as "uninterested", unless their interests came into conflict.

    I know, it's hard to take a nuanced view of history when you want to believe in good guys and bad guys.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @02:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @02:09AM (#789335)

      No, you're not. Stalin and Mao (and also Hitler but for different reasons) were not really atheists at all

      Yeah, right, the "no true atheist" argument.

    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday January 21 2019, @02:42AM (1 child)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Monday January 21 2019, @02:42AM (#789359) Journal

      Hitler was a recovering Roman [ushmm.org]Catholic [catholicworldreport.com]

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by slap on Monday January 21 2019, @06:16AM

    by slap (5764) on Monday January 21 2019, @06:16AM (#789422)

    Hitler?

    "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty
    Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work
    of the Lord.." -- Hitler