The beliefs that underlie the demands
A line from Sam Harris’s The End of Faith (p 128):
…we are confronted by people who hold beliefs for which there is no rational justification and which therefore cannot even be discussed, and yet these are the very beliefs that underlie many of the demands they are likely to make upon us.
This is why NOMA, in addition to being wrong as a description, is no use. It’s also why the much-repeated claim that science has nothing to say about God or other religious beliefs is flawed. If religious beliefs are immune to any kind of rational, this-world inquiry or dispute, then we are abandoned to a world in which unreasonable, protected beliefs get to tell us what to do.
Ophelia, is there something missing in the second sentence after the quotation?
I think “this world” should be written “this-world”
I agree that NOMA is very wrong. Can’t wait until Harris’ book comes out in October. I already pre-ordered it.
Thanks Hamilton; yes there was. The old “writing the next sentence before completing the typing of the first” problem.
Well I considered this-world but it wasn’t quite how I wanted to say it. Still…you’re probably right; as it is it’s confusing. Oh allllllllll right.
Harris could have written:
Why add the scare-quotes? Because this is a peculiar way to use the word belief. I am skeptical of the claim that people really have such exotic, powerful, convenient beliefs. I don’t think that belief is the right word for what they are describing. You don’t get to deal the cards and make up the rules.
Um, I for one am not going to read your almost 200 page long PDF file to find out why you are skeptical of claims about people’s beliefs. Well, maybe I might, but only if you spend a little effort right here, giving at least the briefest outline of your argument so I can judge whether to go to the effort of reading the detailed version. I don’t mean this to sound as crass as it may seem, but you remind me a tiny little bit of certain conspiracy theorists I have come across whose argument in toto is, “just watch these couple of hours’ worth of videos on youtube”. (If I try, my brain usually goes into meltdown within five minutes. The stupid, it burns. No comparison to your work, which may well be eminently sound. I just don’t know it from what you wrote. I don’t even have an inkling.)
Your final sentence was too cryptic for me as well. Maybe just because it’s late.
1) NOMA = Deliberately and explicitly lying with the intent to achieve short-term political outcomes.
2) Truth = Not lying, despite the short nor long term outcomes.
It is that simple, when distilled.
“Because this is a peculiar way to use the word belief.”
Your belief that this is not how you would use the word does not change the fact that it’s how some religious apologists use it.
I am still not convinced that we should ditch NOMA. In its basic form it is really just a way of advocating agnosticism for religious claims. At the same time it places them in a separate category from empirical claims. This separate ‘magisteria’ is inhabited by the miraculous Jesus and his friends but, we should remember to point out they are not alone there. The non empirical magisteria also contains a number of other characters, perhaps not so very welcome from the religious perspective. How about Thor and Zeus, Grendel and the Minotaur, Gandalf and Yoda? How about leprechauns and goblins, Santa and his elves?
This is the true realm of theological expertise. I have no objection to Jesus fanboys (or indeed fangirls) imagining fantastical scenarios and intents of their hero but lets not treat them any more seriously than a Star Wars fan advocating the public to take action against the Empire.
Roy, Sam Harris has made essentially the same point in his Atheist Manifesto (see the part about the diamond the size of a refrigerator).
To Hamilton Jacobi:
In his Atheist Manifesto, Harris writes:
But if the idea that a rational human being could have such beliefs is absurd (that is, by implication, false), then either all the billions of “believers” out there are not rational human beings, or they do not have such beliefs. I reckon that the latter is a better explanation.
dirigible said:
I’m not sure I get your point. How do these apologists use it? What are they talking about?
To Harald Hanche-Olsen: I understand your reluctance. Here are some introductory points.
Belief is, as Thomas Jefferson put it, “the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition.” To say that anyone believes, for example, that “slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe”, would be to misuse the word. That phrase is not an intelligible proposition; one can neither disagree nor disagree with it, so it cannot be anyone’s belief.
Remarkably, theologians stipulate, as readily as skeptics do, that no mere mortal understands doctrinal claims such as “God created the whole Universe” or “Jesus loves you”. But if no one understands them, they are not intelligible; and if they are not intelligible, they cannot be believed.
This means that the immortal controversy over whether we “should believe in God” is vacuous. That is not a choice we get to make. Belief in God is not possible. It can’t be done – and therefore no one does it.
(Many people say, “You can’t tell me that I don’t believe in God. I feel it in my heart.” But a feeling is not a belief. The claim is not that you cannot have religious feelings, but that you cannot have religious beliefs.)
This finding has important implications for public policy. For example, many repressive practices – preventing one’s children from learning about evolution; forcing one’s wife or daughter to (as Sam Harris puts it) live in a cloth bag – are justified by reference to someone’s “sincerely held beliefs”. If, as I claim, no one holds such beliefs, we need a new way of thinking about this coercive behavior.
Correction: for “one can neither disagree nor disagree”, please read “one can neither agree nor disagree”.
Sigmund, are you claiming that my wee beastie is not real? Wait, does that mean I’m not real either?
Grendels (imaginary?) Dad
Sigmund,
Yes, a version of NOMA that really did accept that everything in Magisterium2 is simply fantasy and/or fiction would be okay – it would be like what we have now with regard to fiction and fantasy. But that version doesn’t exist – which is hinted by the very word ‘Magisterium.’
Then there are also issues about the way some pop culture fantasy inculcates scorn for science, etc, but…we’ll just step around that for now.
Ophelia, I don’t think we need go so far as to force the issue of the supernatural magisterium as being synonymous with the realm of fiction. We simply need to be careful in defining our terms. If the magisteria really are non-overlapping then the implications for theism are far more damaging than they currently let on.
Let me put it this way. Science can ask questions of anything that interacts or has interacted with the natural world. It cannot ask questions of anything that doesn’t interact with the natural world. If the religious magisteria is defined as not interacting with nature then so be it. Let them have it. Just remind them every time they make claims that involve humans.We all know that the religious don’t believe in strict NOMA (look at Francis Collins recent introduction to his last book where he tossed it aside). They believe in SOMA – slightly overlapping magisteria – and its in these areas of claimed overlap that science must have its say, as it does with everything else that interacts with matter.
The other, non-empirical magisterium is not supposed to be the supernatural. It is moral teaching, which I translate as teaching about how we should act. We absolutely must not bequeath this to the religious. Religion is about the last place that we should be looking to for this sort of guidance.
And if these supernatural beings and so on are supposed to provide a source of moral authority, I think it’s very worthwhile pointing out that they are not only undetectable by scientific instruments but almost certainly non-existent.
To Roy Sablosky (if you are still following this thread): Thanks for the explanation. I am putting your book on my list of things to at least look at a bit. Maybe I’ll get caught up in it and read the whole thing. We shall see.
But I am puzzled about one thing: It may well be that theologians say we cannot understand, but ordinary religious surely believe (!) that a statement such as “God created the whole Universe” is intelligible, and one presumes that they assent to it. So the question is, in whose eyes must a statement be intelligible in order for it to be possible to believe in it? Heck, the statement seems intelligible to me, though I do not assent to it, but then I am not a theologian. (I think I would make a rather crappy one.)
To Harald Hanche-Olsen: yes, I am following this thread, with automated assistance.
And yes, it does seem obvious that people “believe (!) that a statement such as ‘God created the whole Universe’ is intelligible” – if they consider the question, which of course they do not. But it is not intelligible. This is a fact – which means that it does not depend on anyone’s opinion.
The statement “God created the whole universe” does not make sense, whether you consider God to be part of the universe it created (in which case it had to create itself, which is nonsensical), or not (in which case it did not create everything, which contradicts the assumption). The proposition “God created the whole universe” is incoherent, which means that is not really a proposition – it has not proposed anything! – and therefore, it cannot be an object of belief, simply because of what the word ‘belief’ means.
So anyone who thinks that he assents to this “proposition” is mistaken. Since it is not a proposition, you can’t assent to it, no matter how much you want to.
Again, this argument is based not on physics or metaphysics, but on language itself. Given how we use the word ‘belief’, the statement ‘I believe that God created the whole universe’ cannot be true. That is not a belief you can have.
Picture this. I stride to the podium and I proclaim, “Europe albedo artichoke!” Then I challenge the audience: “Are you with me, or against me?” They can’t be with me or against me. Why? Because I have not said anything. And in exactly the same way, you can neither agree nor disagree that “God created the whole universe.” It is not a statement, just a senseless series of words! And therefore, if you tell me that you believe it, I will say, “No. I don’t think you do.”
What do you think?
Russell, quite. My point exactly. “If religious beliefs are immune to any kind of rational, this-world inquiry or dispute, then we are abandoned to a world in which unreasonable, protected beliefs get to tell us what to do.”
Roy: Yes, I absolutely agree that some statements are objectively nonsensical, and therefore cannot possibly be believed. (Russell’s paradox in mathematical logic is one example.) And if by universe you mean, by definition, everything including god, if it exists, then of course “God created the universe” is nonsensical, and objectively so. Of course “universe” means “everything”, etymologically speaking, but if you were instead to define it as “everything except god”, then “God created the universe” has meaning, or so it seems to me. It would be equivalent to “God created everything but itself”. I find the idea rather ludicrous, but meaningful all the same.