[FoRK] Terms - Practicing Science: Secular vs. Religious Ideology

[Jeff Bone]

On Jan 11, 2008, at 12:43 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

> Actually, I *agree* with you.   I am trying to push Jeff to be more  
> precise in his phrasing, but perhaps I should ignore him and work  
> with you.

You're of course free to ignore me...  from time to time it's  
probably even the healthy thing to do.. ;-)

> Does the term "religion" equate to (I)  "belief in mysticism/the  
> supernatural", or simply to (II) "organized shared beliefs"? I  
> prefer "ideology" for the latter, as that is more neutral and  
> precise, but if you want to lump those as "religion" I can work  
> with that.

For my part, absolutely agreed.

> My position is that (II) is really the most important problem,  
> whereas Jeff seems to be claiming it is (I). That is why I keep  
> bringing up secular counter-examples.

I believe that (I) is a more insidious problem in many respects;   
certainly a more acute problem at present.  They are not exclusive;   
presenting examples of the evils of (II) as a counter to accusations  
of the evils of (I) is nonsensical, a false dichotomy.

> And despise Jeff's mistaken belief that I am a strict fideist  
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism], I do believe these are  
> questions that could be logically analyzed based on empirical  
> data.  I'm just trying to get some clarification of exactly _what_  
> we're disagreeing about, so I can figure out what data would be  
> useful.


I never said you were a fideist.  However, given that you (a) are a  
self-proclaimed Christian, and (b) you sure as shit have not  
presented any other sort of intellectual basis for belief, I have to  
conclude that you are de facto a fideist.

Dr. Ernie, I actually don't know --- and on some level don't really  
care, in a benign sort of not-caring way --- what it is that you  
actually believe.  I don't really have any quibble with you at all;   
I find that your tendency to shift the focus from (I) to (II) above  
is a useful foil.  Whether or not you believe in anything in  
particular, you engage the arguer against (I) in the manner of an  
adept believer, a fideist, by using a rhetorical dodge to shift the  
discussion.  (I do think that both (I) and (II) are problematic, but  
I want to figure out how to keep the focus on (I) rather than always  
allowing it to be derailed by those uneasy with sharp critique of  
faith.)

BTW, I pretty much have all the data I need whenever I watch "the man  
on the street" being interviewed, on Leno, etc..  Or when I listen to  
televangelists.  Or politician-believers.

Surely it is clear to you that there is a correlation between  
religiousity (the US being one of the most "faithful" nations) and,  
well, let's just say it:  stupidity.  You can argue that this is not  
causative, but I think the preponderance of the historical evidence  
suggests otherwise;  the most "enlightened" in every era have tended  
to be the least religious, or at least the most liberal in their  
application of their faith.  I (and many others, far more credible  
than myself) have even offered the memetic hypothesis of why this  
should be the case.

I'm quite sure that we already have all the facts before us;  it's  
just that the faithful wish to sweep them all under the rug and  
misdirect to the evils of (II). That's ALWAYS the tactic.

To justify faith (belief in something without evidence) you'd need to  
show how this has been historically *and continues to be* a pro-fit  
adaptation.

> Here's a frightening thought: maybe there's a whole bunch of  
> Christians out there who do NOT subscribe to the kind of anti- 
> rationalist mindset you've experienced, but you're worldview  
> refuses to accept that possibility.

Not possible, by definition.  BY DEFINITION, Dr. Ernie.  My  
definition of rationalism EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY of a belief in  
God, ghosts, faeries, and so on.  This is not a false dichotomy, as  
the example above.  This hinges on the necessity of evidence in any  
sort of rationalism that I would find meaningful.  You may disagree;   
you are free to do so.

I'm sick of the notion, the definition, the very MEANING of the word  
"rational" being diluted by those who would like to be, but are not.

> Only by your definition, not mine.

But there's the rub;  you can't just co-opt every word that somebody  
comes up with to mean "not like X" and insist that it means "X."

> I am not by "my own admission irrational".

Indeed you are.  You are by your own admission a "Christian."  If (as  
I assume) by that you mean that you believe in the Christian  
invisible monster-in-the-sky, then you are (by my definition of  
rationalism, which you are well aware of at this point) irrational.

You may not like my choice of terms, but you must agree that you  
possess the characteristic that I'm referring to, whatever you might  
like to call it.

My point is merely that possession of that characteristic means that  
I cannot, and generally (though perhaps not specifically) am not  
willing to, engage you on the same basis that I would engage someone  
who did not possess that characteristic.

> And yes, I'd be happy to back up that claim, if you (or anyone  
> else) would be willing to discuss it in *rationalist* terms

You cannot, since you are not and cannot be trusted to become a  
rationalist (as described above.)

And furthermore, that dialogue has been tried far too many times over  
the centuries, with the usual result that the true rationalist is  
ultimately trumped by authority, popularity, etc. of the traditional  
pro-religion point-of-view.

Time to turn the tables on that whole thing.  Which is exactly what  
this is...




jb