Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
“It begins with skepticism. The history of human folly, and our own susceptibility. Illusions and fallacies tell us that men and women are fallible. One therefore ought to seek GOOD reasons for believing something. Faith, revelation, tradition, dogma, authority, the ecstatic glow of subjective certainty-all are recipes for error, and should be dismissed as sources of knowledge.”
When the desire for certainty overrides curiosity and skepticism the result is faith based belief, and superstitions and revelations are anecdotal remedies for validation. Tautologies rule the nonskeptical mind and imagination replaces reality.
I tripped out on the difference between the scientific method and (for lack of a better term) the religious method a month or so ago. I probably oversimplified when I termed them “observation” and “revelation,” respectively. I was into the value of transmitting knowledge in a reliable manner from one individual or group to another. I realized, and I may be completely wrong, that there is no possible way to convince someone that they have NOT had a religious experience, or met God at 7/11, or whatever.
Whether or not they did really wound up making no difference. Revelation, by it’s characteristics, is immediately invalid when an attempt is made to transmit any knowledge gained by it to a 3rd party. There is no possible manner to protect against confirmation bias, and a tremendous amount of other personal, subjective variables. Observsation has no such issues. Ironically, I think that the effects of religious experiences and whatnot can be observed, at least regarding the individual, and then it can be determined if there was any effect. Of course, that doesn’t prove the validity of the experience. In BM’s case, maybe he did have an actual experience with God. Look at how the majority of us view God, and look at how the majority of us view BM. Doesn’t seem to be too much of a difference.
I tripped out on the difference between the scientific method and (for lack of a better term) the religious method a month or so ago. I probably oversimplified when I termed them “observation” and “revelation,” respectively. I was into the value of transmitting knowledge in a reliable manner from one individual or group to another. I realized, and I may be completely wrong, that there is no possible way to convince someone that they have NOT had a religious experience, or met God at 7/11, or whatever.
Whether or not they did really wound up making no difference. Revelation, by it’s characteristics, is immediately invalid when an attempt is made to transmit any knowledge gained by it to a 3rd party. There is no possible manner to protect against confirmation bias, and a tremendous amount of other personal, subjective variables. Observsation has no such issues. Ironically, I think that the effects of religious experiences and whatnot can be observed, at least regarding the individual, and then it can be determined if there was any effect. Of course, that doesn’t prove the validity of the experience. In BM’s case, maybe he did have an actual experience with God. Look at how the majority of us view God, and look at how the majority of us view BM. Doesn’t seem to be too much of a difference.
Revelation has played a big part in human cultural evolution. The problem isn’t the revelation, if it’s valid (any more than there is a problem with anybody having a sudden Ah Ha experience and seeing a solution to a problem). The problem is that because others don’t have the revelation all that’s left for them is the structure of beliefs that comes out of it, and those get outdated yet people still try to hold on to them.
Skepticism is a recent obsession of mine. I’m not sure that a skeptic in the formal sense can really even hold beliefs to the degree that a belief corresponds with knowledge claim. This is problematic if one attempts to promote skepticism as it seems necessary to make some sort of claim as a point of reference. You should be a skeptic because… But I think skepticism can be held in the mind as a sort of vanishing point by which one can arrange the strength of various propositions.
While I like the idea of good reasons its too vague stated like that. The goodness of a reason really depends on some assent of common ground between interlocutors. If one does not have any foundational assumptions in common it is unclear that there can be a consensus on what a good reason is. And it seems highly problematic to presume ones own standards as the universal measure. It is not enough to simply agree that reasons are necessary and that they should be good.
Agreed, but…the sticky point is…if it’s “valid.” What does that mean, and why is it valid?
Validity is exclusively for the person experiencing the revelation to decide. No one else is in a position to test it, unless it involves predicting certain events, etc.
‘It is not enough to simply agree that reasons are necessary and that they should be good.’
Sure it is. The point is- good reasons are evidence based. End of story. Skepticism requires that. Superstition does not. Both cannot provide knowledge that is coherent, valid and verifiable.
Validity is exclusively for the person experiencing the revelation to decide. No one else is in a position to test it, unless it involves predicting certain events, etc.
What good is a revelation without some form of prediction power?
Validity is exclusively for the person experiencing the revelation to decide. No one else is in a position to test it, unless it involves predicting certain events, etc.
What good is a revelation without some form of prediction power?
The most basic, essential religious revelation is some form of “I AM.” It is simply a disclosure of God’s existence/presence, in some manner, to an individual. There may be a predictive element to it in the sense of “I will be with you” or some such, but the core of it relates to God’s existence. It’s not really possible to objectively validate unless it gets into the “I will send destruction on the earth on December 21, 2012” or “I will return on October 21, 2011” class of prediction.
The most basic, essential religious revelation is some form of “I AM.” It is simply a disclosure of God’s existence/presence, in some manner, to an individual. There may be a predictive element to it in the sense of “I will be with you” or some such, but the core of it relates to God’s existence. It’s not really possible to objectively validate unless it gets into the “I will send destruction on the earth on December 21, 2012” or “I will return on October 21, 2011” class of prediction.
Bruce, I don’t mean “prediction power” in the sense of a Nostradamus or a fortune teller, but in a way that intimates at some hidden way of operating that “we” have access to. So even a very basic revelation such as you describe above can tend to have enormous predictive potential by way of intimations of certain thinking habits and behaviors.
Agreed, but…the sticky point is…if it’s “valid.” What does that mean, and why is it valid?
Validity is exclusively for the person experiencing the revelation to decide. No one else is in a position to test it, unless it involves predicting certain events, etc.
That’s my point. It might be a terrific epistemological method for the individual receiving the revelation, however, it loses any value when transmitted to a third party.
Bruce, I don’t mean “prediction power” in the sense of a Nostradamus or a fortune teller, but in a way that intimates at some hidden way of operating that “we” have access to. So even a very basic revelation such as you describe above can tend to have enormous predictive potential by way of intimations of certain thinking habits and behaviors.
OK, I suppose that is correct, in that a relationship with God would supposedly give the believer some insight into the way God thinks/operates, at least according to the believer’s interpretation of events. But that form of predictive power would not be subject to objective validation or falsifiability. I suppose, as a Christian, I could say that I would predict that, on the whole, Protestant Christians should fare better than others, except perhaps for Jews. But that wouldn’t show that it was God doing the blessing. It would just be difficult to validate. So, that’s left up to the individual.
Agreed, but…the sticky point is…if it’s “valid.” What does that mean, and why is it valid?
Validity is exclusively for the person experiencing the revelation to decide. No one else is in a position to test it, unless it involves predicting certain events, etc.
That’s my point. It might be a terrific epistemological method for the individual receiving the revelation, however, it loses any value when transmitted to a third party.
Correct. It convinces the individual, but has no real power to convince anyone else, unless their standards are pretty low. Now, several people telling about the same sort of revelation might convince a person to look into it for himself, but until he has his own experience, it remains in the realm of speculation.
Revelations are uncorroborated hearsay accounts and totally subjective in nature. What would make one valid? Verifiable?
Have been out of contact the past few days. That’s a pretty poor idea of revelation. When an answer to a problem suddenly pops into your mind, that’s a revelation. The test is, does it work? Revelations on the grand scale are similar, but more risky. And they are judged by the same criterion: do they work in the situation in which they arose. Mohammad’s revelation, for example, was well suited for seventh century desert tribes, it unified them and put an end to all sorts if inter-tribal warfare. It produced an entire culture. And for several hundred years that was the dominant culture on the planet. The problem is, to quote Levi-Strauss (paraphrase, still on the road without access to notes), “Thinking comes in degrees, and a way of thinking can easily decline into a way of remembering.” That is, a way of thought that was functional under the circumstances in which it originated changes from a way of seeing and getting along in the world in an effective way into a dogmatic cage. Revelations have a lifespan, and when they decline they must either be renewed by new understanding, or discarded. With Islam, a great example of this; the underlying revelation, minus all the cultural baggage that came along with it or accreted to it, is simply that of absolute unity (the same as the philosophical discovery of Parmenides, Plato, and Plotinus, etc.). If Islam is going to survive, somebody with the appropriate background and status needs to reformulate that revelation into a modern context. And if anybody does that, half a billion Muslims will stream bloody murder for his or her head.
BURT: If Islam is going to survive, somebody with the appropriate background and status needs to reformulate that revelation into a modern context. And if anybody does that, half a billion Muslims will stream bloody murder for his or her head.
Well, let’s hope islam (and other nonsense) doesn’t survive. I don’t want it to survive but I have no great hopes for the immediate future in that regard. If anyone does “reformulate islam into a modern context’ I’m sure you are right in saying that “half a billion Muslims will stream (sic) bloody murder for his or her head”. Maybe that’s the best thing that could happen. Get it out of their system. Let’em kill each other over their stupid religion. Christianity went through a comparable nonsense. Still going through the dying phases of it. I don’t care. As long as they leave me and my atheist friends alone. I think the world might be better off without the lot of them, whatever religion they are. Let’em exterminate themselves so that we end up with a nicer sort of Homo sapiens.
Yes, yes, I know. The question is would/could we (religious self-extermination or not) find a better way to be not so nasty to each other. Who knows? Let’s suck it and see. We’ve got nothing to lose but the evil of religion. If after religion is dead we still can’t be good (we never will be totally good, of course) then at least we’ll be able to get on with being more sensibly naughty.
I think religion might be like an asteroid hit or an ice age. If your species gets through it, it goes on to adapt and speciate and take advantage of new climes. Maybe humans have produced another extinction event already with its god ordained will to power and dominace over life that is resulting in unprecedentedly rapid climate change. Will we be snuffed out in an end Permian or an end Cretaceous type global catastrophe of our own making? If our trashing of the planet does result in such a catastrophe our abrahamic religions will have had no small part to play in it.
Humans are sick! They need to take better care of themselves. Stop doing woo. Look after the common. Quiet running down the farm.
Religion poisons everything. It fucks the whole damned planet.
