My "Does God Exist?" debate with Dr. Ronda Chervin - now available on Youtube!

My recent recorded "Does God Exist?" debate (held on August 19, 2012 vs. Dr. Ronda Chervin) which was recorded for a special episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available on Youtube. A remastered high-quality downloadable and streamable audio-only file is scheduled to be released as a podcast on the first Wednesday of September. This was my second recorded debate of this kind.



Dr. Chervin presented variations of Aquinas' third and fifth ways in her opening statement.
I presented the evidential problem of natural evil, Stephen Law's 'Evil God Challenge,' and the problem of theological fatalism.

Thanks to all who supported, promoted, and watched the debate. Jason Gogola (behind the camera) and Karla Porter (the debate's moderator) helped with the organization and worked hard to make this happen. An extra special thanks goes out to my opponent, Dr. Chervin, for providing a good debate.

Comments, questions, and feedback -- always encouraged -- can be posted here. I will be participating in events like this in the future, so constructive criticism will help improve the quality of debates like this. Consider also sending e-mail and thanks to Dr. Chervin at ChervinRonda (at) gmail (dot) com. Feel free, also, to sound off on the event's Facebook page which still has ongoing discussion!

I will be dedicating some upcoming blog posts concerning this debate in which I will further develop the arguments I presented, restate and expand my objections to my opponent, and comment on some issues which were raised in the question and answer session. Stay tuned by following the blog label 'NEPAGodDebate' and keeping watch on my blog.

An interesting note which should be known...
At a point in the question and answer session, moderator Karla Porter was asking questions which were not delivered by persons in the live chat. For whatever reason, the chatroom crashed and -- while it was still open -- questions were not easy to read considering the blinding speed of the chat. In the future, we will ask that questions be sent via another medium instead. I appreciate, though, that so many people viewed! Crashing the chatroom is a good sign of interest :)

Information on participants:

Ronda Chervin received a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Fordham University and an MA in Religious Studies from Notre Dame Apostolic Institute. She is a widow, mother, and grandmother. Ronda converted to the Catholic Faith from a Jewish, though atheistic, background and has been a Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Loyola Marymount University, the Seminary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Franciscan University of Steubenville. She is an international speaker and author of some fifty books about Catholic thought, practice and spirituality. Ronda is currently a Dedicated Widow of the Holy Eucharist forming a small community of dedicated widows. Dr. Ronda is currently teaching philosophy at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. Her website can be found at www.rondachervin.com.

Justin Vacula received bachelor's degrees in Philosophy and Psychology, a minor in Professional Writing, and the distinguished W.A. Kilburn Memorial Award for Philosophy from King's College. Justin Vacula is an outspoken atheist, activist for the separation of church and state, a speaker, writer/reporter, blogger, and host of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast. He is currently enrolled in Marywood University's graduate-level Mental Health Counseling program. Vacula holds leadership roles as the co-organizer, spokesperson, and a board member of the NEPA Freethought Society. Justin has appeared on various radio shows, television networks, and podcasts. Vacula will be speaking at the upcoming September 28-30 Atheist/Humanist conference in Harrisburg. His website can be found at www.justinvacula.com.

Karla Porter works with organizations that want to achieve employer of choice status, are interested in attracting candidates who will develop into employee brand advocates that drive growth and continued success, embrace diversity, desire a culture of innovation and excellence, want to enrich the community, and reward superior performance with celebrity. Porter is one of four organizers behind the upcoming NEPA BlogCon 2012 conference at Luzerne County Community College taking place on September 29. Her website can be found at www.karlaporter.com.

William Lane Craig and The Problem of Evil

Prince Prospero from the horror film "The Masque of the Red Death" hints at the problem of evil.

Christian apologist and popular debater William Lane Craig doesn't think that the problem of evil -- a classic philosophical argument which seeks to undermine belief in the Christian god in light of natural disasters and suffering in the world -- is a problem. Craig has recently given a lecture concerning the problem of suffering and evil at Aalborg University in Denmark. I've watched it and have noticed that his responses to the problem of evil really haven't seemed to change since his debate with philosopher Kai Nielsen in February of 1991. This post will respond to a portion of Craig's opening statement from his 1991 debate and attempt to show why his response to the problem of evil is insufficient.

The problem of evil -- at a very basic understanding -- is well-informed by the above picture. The atheist who points to suffering in the world -- particularly natural disasters and diseases which kill people outright and lead to tremendous suffering -- sees evidence to assume that an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god (omni-god) does not exist. If an omni-god existed, some reason, it would not have created the universe in such a manner that guarantees natural disasters and diseases kill people and lead to a great deal of suffering. It is not only the case that God permits the disasters, but it is also the case -- as should be noted -- that God, if he exists, designed the universe which contains the disasters. 


It also isn't just some suffering that exists, but also an egregious amount of unnecessary suffering. Throughout this post, I'll use the term 'natural disasters' to abbreviate - but it is important to note that much suffering exists because of other factors such as degenerative diseases, mental illness, birth defects, random mutations of genes, and so on. None of what could be considered natural suffering, at least in this case, is the result of human action (and the atheist isn't arguing for God, for example, to intervene in the case of my stubbing a toe or even my driving a car into a tree following a drunken binge). 

An argument, then, along the lines of the problem of evil can be formed as follows:

(1) Egregious natural suffering, guaranteed by the natural laws of the universe, exists.
(2) An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god is incompatible with (1).
(3) An all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god does not exist.

Premise one is quite obvious and needs no defense - Christians, even, do not deny premise one, but rather would object to premise two. The atheist can say that God could simply create a universe (and would do so) that is very much unlike ours - one in which an egregious amount of natural suffering does not exist. Why, one wonders, would a god that is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing create this universe? Absent of reasons -- and with the seeming contradiction -- it seems to be the case that an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god does not exist. I could further elaborate on justification for premise two, but that shouldn't be needed here.

William Lane Craig, though, as you might expect, objects to premise two. He says, in his 1991 debate,

...we can actually prove that God and evil are logically compatible. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent.

What, then, one wonders, could be these morally sufficient reasons that God might have which would show that God and evil are logically consistent? Craig doesn't offer any of these reasons, but rather says,

We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we're limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God's wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God's providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We're just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

Note that above, Craig seems to focus on evils which "human freely perpetrate." This, though, is not the thrust (or even the argument) of the problem of evil as far as natural suffering is concerned. What we are dealing with here, or otherwise what seems to be contained in the most forceful argument, is natural suffering.

I have always found Craig's response -- paraphrased to 'we're not in a good position to judge whether God has a sufficient reason for evils that occur' -- to be quite interesting as it seems to be, despite what Craig says (in his above linked lecture), an 'appeal to mystery.' 'For all we know,' Craig seems to assert, 'God might just have a reason.' Absent of finding any sort of reason, seeing the evidence of an egregious amount of natural suffering in this world (and knowing that if the Christian god existed, he could create a world much different than ours), we have all reasons not to believe in the Christian god, it seems.

We understand that, as humans, our knowledge is quite limited. This, though, when dealing with objections to certain beliefs -- in the face of defeaters (reasons to undermine belief) to the beliefs -- shouldn't lead us to simply throw our hands in the air saying something to the effect of, "Well, for all we know..." Knowledge, as it overwhelmingly seems, is based on what we currently know based on observations and reasoning. We hold beliefs, or should hold beliefs, not on what might be, but rather based on what is and what we do know. Absent of reasons that the Christian god might have for designing and permitting an egregious amount of natural suffering, we should be led to the conclusion that the Christian god does not exist - 'natural evil' seems to serve as a defeater to Christian belief.

Craig's position -- and the position of every Christian who maintains that God may, 'for all we know,' have a good reason to design and permit natural suffering -- seems to lead one to the position of, which seems quite interesting in the face of Christians asserting that God is a benevolent being, 'moral agnosticism' or even moral nihilism. If, for all we know, God might have a reason to design and permit natural suffering, natural suffering, after all, might be a wonderful thing. On a Christian accounting, God is an all-loving being...so if God designed an earthquake which had killed hundreds of people, this must be a good thing.

Almost all adults (and children) in the world -- perhaps barring psychopaths -- agree that natural disasters are a terrible, horrible thing. The world would be so much of a better place, it so uncontroversially seems, without natural disasters. This intuition is quite strong and is reflected when persons grieve, donate money to relief efforts, and even try to deter natural disasters. To look at, for example, a tsunami that kills thousands and say, "Well, for all we know this could be a good thing. It might just have been the case that all of those people, for whatever reason, would have been responsible for great moral evils. God might have indeed permitted this, that makes sense" seems to be quite unreasonable - especially when considering the Christian god could achieve whatever 'ends' he desires by different means not including designing the universe with natural disasters.

Is the real concern, though, whether we are in the position to judge that God has no good reasons for permitting and designing natural suffering or, rather, is it the concern that the mere existence of egregious natural suffering poses as a defeater to Christian belief? I think it is the latter and that this whole 'are we in a position' talk is a distraction from the real issue at hand. Either way, it seems to be the case, with the omni-terms that Christians affix to the god they believe in, that we are in a position to judge that God has no reasons for permitting and designing natural suffering - especially in the case of him being able to design a different universe.

As Prince Prospero said in "The Masque of the Red Death," if a god of live ever did exist, he is long since dead (although someone, some thing doesn't seem to rule in its place).

William Lane Craig: Some atheists suppress and deny their belief in God

Image for Craig's newest podcast episode

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "William Lane Craig: Some atheists suppress and deny their belief in God." Read the first paragraph below. Click the above link for the full article.

In the newest episode of the Reasonable Faith Podcast titled "Does Reason Lead to Atheism or Theism," William Lane Craig argues that some atheists actually believe in God although they deny their belief. Craig explains that sin and complexities of human psychology can lead atheists to suppress their belief in God.

Full audio and some text from my HACS talk

On July 17 of 2012, I appeared as a special guest for a philosophy class titled "Atheism and the New Atheism" for students at Holy Apostles College and Seminary - an evangelical Catholic university in Connecticut. More details are here. I delivered an opening speech and participated in a question and answer session which followed. The entire event lasted one hour and thirteen minutes.

As promised, the full audio of the event was released and has been made available to the public thanks to Dr. Mahfood. Stream the audio here or download the ZIP file here. The audio is unfortunately spotty at points. I may release a re-mastered version of the audio at a later date.

A text version of my speech can be read here:
Holy Apostles College and Seminary Atheism and New Atheism Speech

Timestamps:
     (0:00 - 0:25)          Introduction by Dr. Mahfood
     (0:25 - 0:47)          Opening prayer by Dr. Chervin
     (0:48 - 1:50)          Introduction of Justin Vacula by Dr. Mahfood
     (1:50 - 17:50)        Opening speech from Justin Vacula
     (17:51 - end)          Question and answer session

Some of the questions and sentiments (paraphrased) in the question and answer session:
(18:13) Do you use science to determine what is true and false?
(20:33) What good reasons would be sufficient [for you to believe in God]?
(23:30) Do you only believe in something when all the contrary arguments have been resolved?
(27:06) Is there an objective standard for belief or do you have a personal standard?
(29:08) Do you believe something can be universally true?
(30:16) Are you dogmatically opposed, given your commitment to naturalism, to supernatural explanations?
(37:20) Would a supernatural experience lead you to belief in God?
(39:00) Are you looking for hard evidence to believe in God?
(40:52) What about faith?
(42:05) Discussion about the problem of natural evil and omni-attributes
(46:55) Theodicy: This is a fallen world/God's goodness was evident, but is no longer
(49:20) Theodicy: There is a good that supersedes an evil world. Perhaps suffering leads to good beyond   this earth? Perhaps suffering is just a prelude to the afterlife?  
(52:00) Theodicy: Evil serves a purpose. We see examples in this world in which suffering is required to achieve certain ends.
(54:00) Omni-attributes seem to be a different matter from God existing.
(55:48) Are you an agnostic?
(59:40) Theodicy: Eternal happiness, in light of limited suffering in this world, seems not to be a problem.
(1:01:43) What about metaphysical arguments for God's existence?
(1:04:00) Your philosophical studies seem to start with the Enlightenment. What about before that?
(1:10:45) How do you know that your reason without faith fulfills you?

Epica: Epistemology and Subjectivity

Epica's fourth full-length studio album

This post was inspired by the Wiley-Blackwell 'Philosophy and Pop Culture' series. I am a huge fan of Epica (and the Wiley-Blackwell series!) and thought that a post like this would be a fitting overview of some of Epica's music and an introduction to the topic of epistemology - particularly in regards to the notion of subjectivity. Throughout this post are references to Epica's songs. The headers are lyrics from the song "Monopoly on Truth" from their fifth full-length studio album "Requiem for the Indifferent."


I see what you mean

The music of the Dutch symphonic metal group Epica is interesting not only because of their mixing of harsh and clean male vocals (including grunts and screams) with mezzo-soprano female vocals in addition to elements of heavy metal blending with elements of classical music (in some cases a 40-piece orchestra and a 30-piece choir), but because it leads listeners to reflect on various philosophical themes - a welcome departure from much of what is considered to be 'pop music' in the United States. For Epica, the music is not the only thing that can be described as 'bombastic' because the lyrical themes are similarly profound.

Recurring philosophical themes in Epica's songs -- which can easily form a long list which should attract listeners with varying interests and curiosities [I will list only a sample of themes and songs here] -- range from concerns about the environment ("This is the Time" and "Deep Water Horizon"), dangers of organized religion ("Cry for the Moon" and "Living a Lie"), fate ("Dance of Fate"), the nature of consciousness ("The Phantom Agony"), love ("The Obsessive Devotion"), martyrdom ("Safeguard to Paradise"), the nature of truth ("Monopoly on Truth"), religious pluralism ("The Divine Conspiracy"), isolation ("Blank Infinity"), addiction ("Chasing the Dragon"), the implications of scientific research and the conflict between science and religion ("Beyond Belief"), and freedom of speech ("Martyr of the Free Word"). Various songs also touch on events current to album releases; for instance, "Facade of Reality" includes spoken words by Tony Blair concerning the September 11, 2011 attacks in New York City and the song "Internal Warfare" was dedicated to the victims of Anders Breivik.

Epica's website heralded their most recent album, "Requiem for the Indifferent," with the following - a very clear indication that philosophically-minded individuals aren't just drawing implications from their music:

This title refers to the end of an era. Mankind can no longer stick their head in the sand for the things that are happening around us. We are facing many challenges. There is an enormous tension between different religions and cultures, wars, natural disasters and a huge financial crisis, which is getting out of control. More than ever we will need each other to overcome these problems. As we are all connected; the universe, earth, nature, animals and human beings, this period in time will be the prelude to the end for those who still don't want to, or simply won't see it. A Requiem for the Indifferent but also a possibility for a new beginning with great new chances!

It's clear what you say

The title track of Epica's 2005 album "Consign to Oblivion," while not necessarily advocating or arguing for particular philosophical positions, raises a large deal of philosophical concerns surrounding -- just to name three -- psychological egoism [the idea that all human behavior, even that which would be considered altruistic by many, ultimately stems from and is primarily concerned with self-interest], metaphysics [a domain of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality], and epistemology [a domain of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge].


The "Consign to Oblivion" lyrics which raise metaphysical and epistemological issues, while perhaps quite apparent to Epica fans, are contained here for the 'indifferent:'

No we can't understand the universe by just using our minds. We are so afraid of all the things unknown. We just flee into a dream that never comes true.

Too much thinking goes at the cost of all our intuition. Our thoughts create reality. But we neglect to be! So we're already slaves of our artificial world.

Philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753) is popular for the notion of idealism - that material substances [largely referred to today as matter] do not exist, but rather reality -- or at least the objects which make up reality -- is ideas in minds of people who percieve. Physical objects, then, do not exist, on this accounting of reality. Berkeley's ideas, though, have fallen to the wayside in light of modern science and modern philosophy which both largely consider the idea of material objects existing independently of minds or observers as an obvious fact - and perhaps for good reasons (which I won't discuss here).

While ideas of idealism have drifted away by the 'force of the shore' and 'the tides of time,' what can be said, then, of subjectivity and facts about individuals? Perhaps a tenable version of "our thoughts create reality" can be had in some respects?

The truth isn't just a derivative of your views


The phrase 'perception is reality' is quite popular in current times. Following advances in science (perhaps particularly in the field of quantum physics) and movements of postmodernism across various disciplines, people have questioned the nature of truth - to the extreme untenable and self-refuting stance of 'there is no such thing as truth' (that statement itself appears to be a statement of truth). While it may be impossible to reach a certain truth on many matters (especially when considering that the notion of certainty is shaky and might have little to do with a justified true belief), there seems to be no compelling reason to 'resign to surrender' as far as epistemology is concerned.


People, though, often think of justified true belief as a matter of 'feeling' or 'gut thinking' (I just happen to believe this certain way because it seems right 'to me') as opposed to considering or thinking (whether they think in terms of these categories or not -- ideas of justification, warrant, coherence). For some, if something is believed and perhaps 'felt,' doubt simply can not or does not enter the picture. Self-reflection, then, is tossed to the side in favor of over-reliance on one's own views on a matter just because, as it seems, one happens to hold particular views or 'feel' a certain way. Can some beliefs, though, be justified in a very hasty manner because one might just happen to believe a certain proposition without much thought or needed reasons?

Various non-controversial claims such as 'the table is red,' 'it is raining outside,' 'I will experience pain if I kick that table,' etc. may as well be warranted simply by the fact that one holds the belief and the belief is not coupled with a good reason for an observer or the person holding the belief to doubt it. We understand, through past experience with a realization that our five senses are not faulty, and perhaps -- for the more advanced -- Bayesian analysis that such non-controversial beliefs are justified true beliefs although Hume may throw a wrench in the machine.

Truth is a fiction of your views

Non-controversial beliefs aside, what can be said of people who -- expressing certain feelings about a certain matter -- appear to be acting in a fashion contrary to an appraisal of a certain situation by outside observers? A person, Jane, might believe that all of her actions end in failure while holding a superstitious belief that the world is 'out to get her.' Despite a friend -- Jack -- discussing facts about Jane (who happens to live in a brand new home, has a secure well-paying job, two healthy children, and an affluent and happy spouse), responses of 'this is how I feel' are the answers to anything Jack proposes. Jane, in this situation, believes that because she holds a particular belief or 'feels' a certain way, her belief is a justified true belief.

Does simply 'feeling' something, then, make a belief true? It seems obvious that in this case the answer should be 'no.' One would be foolish, though, to deny that this person believes a particular proposition (and the person who is presenting contrary evidence certainly is not doing so) despite protestations from the person who may continue to utter phrases like 'you are telling me how I feel' or 'you are telling me I don't have a right to believe a certain way' - conversation-stoppers which are not relevant to the discussion or are otherwise distortions of what a conscientious objector with good intentions may hold. The belief and the 'feeling' is acknowledged by the person who presents evidence contrary to a certain belief (even though there is disagreement) - the dispute, though, lies not with one's 'right to believe' or whether one is 'entitled' to feel a particular way, but rather with whether the belief is a reasonable one for a person to hold [given contrary evidence].

Protestations of one lacking open-mindedness or empathy are similarly conversation-stoppers and unwarranted assumptions. A version of open-mindedness 'worth wanting' is one in which a person is willing to amend beliefs provided new information is presented, not, as some would think, a cognitive shift that takes place merely because someone asserts something to be true. One can be justified, in many cases, as should be obvious, in not changing a belief because the information presented was not sufficient enough to warrant the change. Similar is the case with empathy. One can listen to what someone says and even understand a particular perspective but also happen to disagree with a person's evaluation or reasons for holding the belief.

Your fury can no longer stand

Perhaps people are quick to respond to objections concerning matters they find to be personal and believe to be very evident (even though much evidence to the contrary might exist) because they hold positions in which they envision their beliefs as 'parts of their person' instead of viewing propositions as a result of particular stimuli and reflections (taking a 'disinterested perspective' a la Thomas Nagel's "The View From Nowhere"). A person such as this might then view disagreement, even if voiced by others in a very civil and non-attacking manner, as disrespectful in that a person voicing an objection to a particular [cherished] belief is acting in an immoral fashion.


Persons with an attitude like this aren't acting in intellectually virtuous manners or employing what is often referred to as an attitude of skepticism (not to be confused with the classical philosophical notion) in which one is willing to modify any belief considering sufficient argument, evidence, and reason is presented to justify a modification. Instead of engaging with objections to their ideas -- as detailed above -- persons with this unhealthy attitude levy personal attacks at their detractors assuming sinister motives when there may not be any good reasons to do so.


This hauteur will come to an end


It is healthy to apply a reasonable measure of doubt to certain beliefs one may hold - especially when said beliefs can be 'beset in gold.' Since our beliefs can (and do) very often inform our actions, it should be important to 'just think it over now' and consider 'another point of view'. Instead of responding to detractors -- especially when they seem to be expressing genuine concern while being thoughtful and charitable -- with 'no discussion,' one should take the words of Epica's "Monopoly on Truth" to heart and sing along saying, "It's time we realized our errs." As the song goes, "If you look around and you see all the things that are not meant to be, then you know it's time to let them go."

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast Episode 12 - Practical Strategies to Combat Faith - with Dr. Peter Boghossian

Episode 12 of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available! Below is information copied directly from the podcast's page:

Podcast Topic:

The episode – largely a discussion between Dr. Boghossian and the podcast's host Justin Vacula – covers three interrelated topics: what religious faith means and why it is, as Boghossian calls it, a cognitive sickness and pretending to know something you don't know; how all types of people can effectively engage persons of faith; and how individuals can be effective agents of change in the secular movement and beyond.

Cast:

Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member)

Jason Gogola (Producer, Web Director, and a Board Member)

If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to podcast@nepafreethought.org 

About Dr. Peter Boghossian: 

Dr. Peter Boghossian is a faculty member of the Philosophy Department at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. He has been called the Christopher Hitchens of the Northwest, has published various controversial articles, given even more controversial public lectures, and is an outspoken critic of faith. Peter’s podcasts, and lectures are free to download from Philosophy News. You can follow Peter on Twitter @peterboghossian.

Mentioned in the Podcast:

The Skeptics Society and Skeptic Magazine

Michael Shermer's “Why People Believe Weird Things”

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Richard Dawkins' “Viruses of the Mind”

Sean Faircloth's “Attack of the Theocrats”

Sam Harris' Project Reason

Daniel Dennett's “Breaking the Spell”

Center for Inquiry

Dutch symphonic metal band Epica

Star Trek: The Next Generation “Who Watches the Watchers”

Malcontent's Gambit Podcast

“The Internet: Where religions come to die” [Thunderf00t]

Music used in podcast:

Artist: Elliot Smith

Song: Pitseleh 

Lyrics highlighted: 

You say that God makes problems just to see what you can stand before you do as the devil pleases. Give up the thing you love. No one deserves it.

Reframing the conversation: Theism, atheism, and more

This post should be the first in a series of a general 'umbrella topic' of "Reframing the Discussion." I hope to talk more about this topic in future posts, podcast episodes, and speeches dealing with the sub-topics of how to be a better communicator, engage in a genuine conversation, and change perspective of how people view disagreement and discussion in order to encourage others to view disagreement and discussion as a positive 'thing.'

In previous months -- and especially following a wonderful discussion I had with philosopher Peter Boghossian (discussion is now available here) -- I have been really interested in the general topic of how a person can effectively communicate with others and what -- if there is an 'answer' -- is the 'best way' to engage a person whom one happens to disagree with whether a discussion is regarding what one considers a 'heated topic' or something as non-controversial (or what one would think would be non-controversial) as how science informs philosophy/how philosophy informs science. I don't think there is just one way to be an effective communicator...but I also don't think that any given way of communicating messages to others is permissible simply because there is not just one way to be an effective communicator; some methods of communicating can rightly be labeled as ineffective.

Every so often, 'turf wars' of sorts are present in the secular community in which people argue that since -- as some assume -- people can't or won't 'change their minds' on some issues, people should have no problems or moral qualms about flat-out insulting theists, attacking individuals with clear malice, and dropping any intentions of education. [Education, though, admittedly ought not always be the overt or latent goal because satire, blasphemy, etc. may be appropriate in many cases...] Theists will likewise be uncharitable to secular individuals; it works both ways (as some commonly say "There are asses in both camps.") I note this as a rationale for authoring this post in which I will use an encounter I had with two people today -- regarding a topic totally unrelated to secularism or theism -- to illustrate some points and later return to issues of atheism and theism later in this post.


Earlier today while I was waiting for a bus to arrive, I heard a woman openly talking about how she is upset because she, on her account, had to quit a job she had (assisting disabled persons in an assisted living facility) because the hourly pay was too low leading to her -- instead of working in a field or a place of employment she wanted to work in -- working in a field she was not interested in.

I responded to her expressing a concern and said, at one point, that it is too bad that persons in helping professions often get paid very little compared to some persons in other professions. Soon after I said this, an elderly man interjected and asked me if I was "for socialism." I said, "Excuse me?" (because I didn't understand why he said that) and asked him to clarify what he meant by that. Instead of responding to my question and having what I consider to be a fruitful conversation, he continued saying, "I made 40 [dollars] an hour before I retired. Did I make too much money?" Once again, I asked him to clarify what he was saying...and the man simply walked away.

As you might have thought (or might have been lead to believe because the lead-in to the previous paragraph), this is not a good way to express disagreement with someone or have a conversation. From the looks of it, it seems that this man wasn't interested in actually learning something about my position, understanding my position, or having a discussion. Instead, the man seemed to have jumped to conclusions, distorted my reasoning (without even, of course, identifying what it was), and just 'pulled a hit-and-run'.


A productive way to start a conversation, before jumping to conclusions about a position one might endorse or what a person believes, is to ask some questions. In this case, questions like a very general and elementary introduction to a conversation would be "Why do you think people in helping professions should earn more money?" and "Do you believe that all workers should earn roughly the same amount of money?" [attempts to gauge what a person believes by directly identifying what one thinks the person believes]

Following these questions, I would be able to identify my position, learn something this man believes, the man could learn something I believe, and so much more. Reflection on an issue like this (and so many others) might be very valuable because humans have blind spots, people may introduce something a person hasn't thought of, and -- quite optimistically -- we can both work toward reaching justified true beliefs (or perhaps something like that).

Returning to the secular/theist angle...if persons enter conversations viewing conversations as learning opportunities or opportunities to educate and have the intention for the 'other' to walk away with a positive impression of someone whom they disagree with [rather than having someone walk away even more 'polarized'], both 'camps' can learn much about being effective communicators in, as I call it, 'reframing the discussion.' Two indications of being a critical thinker -- no matter how smart someone is or no matter how confident a person may be about the beliefs they hold -- are a willingness to consider others' points of view and engage in discussions with people with whom they disagree.

Like it or not (and you should like it), there is much that secular individuals can learn from theists. Theists are not, as some unfortunately seem to caricature all too often, people who can add nothing to conversations about even religion because their theological assumptions are unwarranted (although, as most theists and atheists reading this would likely agree, people like Pat Robertson -- for instance -- seem to show a tremendous disregard for truth and say really stupid things regarding certain topics).

I will admit, when I first considered myself to be an atheist, I was filled with too much unwarranted confidence without experience and deep reflection [at least compared to where I am at now] and my approach was pretty shitty. After much engagement with academic theists, more investigation of 'better arguments' (as opposed to arguments that even academic theists consider to be quite silly and, to borrow a phrase I have heard from some, 'infantile'), and some fruitful discussion with lay theists, I consider myself to be a much more learned individual and a more effective communicator. There is also thankfully still much more to learn!

Reframing the discussion as a positive encounter, of course, shouldn't mean that everyone should jump to unreasonable conclusions of 'all beliefs are of equal weight because there is no such thing as truth and perception is reality,' 'people's beliefs should be immune from criticism' or assent to the commonly uttered phrases of "I have the right to my own opinion" or "You should respect my beliefs" as genuine reasons for people to hold beliefs or otherwise, as previously mentioned, be immune from criticism [click the hyperlinks for my thoughts on these topics]. I have 'belief intolerance,' as funny as it sounds (and how very uncontroversial it should be) in the case that truth exists, people can (and are) be wrong about certain matters, and the simple fact that someone holds a belief is justification for holding a belief. I don't, as some diversity proponents unfortunately do -- as I will plainly put -- commit intellectual suicide by sabotaging one of the chief aims of higher education which is leading students to justified true beliefs with an acknowledgment that truth exists.

What then is the moral of this story? The next time you happen to disagree with someone about a matter -- instead of jumping to conclusions and not having a genuine conversation with the intention of learning something or communicating an educational message -- try to ask some questions, not be a hostile person, and assume you know what people believe before you happen to ask. Although it may seem to be a cliche of sorts, I find truth in the phrase 'you never know what you can learn from others or how you can influence others.'

Of course everything can't be fully explained and I didn't consider everything possible in this post so, as always, feel free to comment on this post and please post with the intent to have a genuine discussion and such.  : )

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast - Episode 11 - Interview with Ethereal Collapse

Episode 11 of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available in either video or audio format!
Follow this link for the podcast through your method of choice.


Podcast Topic:
Joining us for this podcast -- hailing from Wilkes-Barre, PA -- are members of the melodic death metal band Ethereal Collapse. We discuss themes of philosophy which are present in their music and talk about the band in general.

Cast:
Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member)
Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Board Chairman)
Jason Gogola (Producer, Web Director, and a Board Member)

If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to podcast@nepafreethought.org

Ethereal Collapse members on this podcast:
Ryan Klubeck (Guitar, Vocals)
Ken Huber (Guitar)
Nick Durcik (Bass)
Matt Rodriguez (Drums)

Related Links:
Like them on Facebook.
Become a fan on ReverbNation.
View their videos on Youtube.

Have diversity initiatives sabotaged higher education?

Diversity initiatives in higher education, with the intent to foster harmony and understanding of others, seemed to have undermined some of the primary goals of higher education: leading students to critically self-reflect and hold justified true beliefs. Some diversity initiatives have reinforced the very harmful idea that disagreement is disrespectful and have also assented to indefensible epistemiological ideas including 'all perspectives are equally valid' and 'people are justified in holding a belief because it is a product of their culture.' Harmony can be had -- and perhaps better so -- as a result of critical discussion that should be encouraged and welcomed instead of discouraged and viewed as disrespectful. 


(This post follows a recent discussion I had with philosopher Peter Boghossian. We have very similar views on this matter! I was aiming to write a post like this for some time, but haven't formulated my ideas in writing...so now is my chance.)

Readers who are familiar with my work should know that I value truth and critical discussion about beliefs. In many blog posts, podcasts, and speeches of mine, I argue for a reframing of the commonly assented to idea that disagreement is disrespectful...and the we just shouldn't disagree with people. Instead of viewing disagreement as something that must be disrespectful and viewing disagreement as something that should be avoided we should view disagreement as an opportunity to learn something, challenge our own beliefs, and perhaps lead others to reconsider their beliefs. We all have blind spots, after all, and could learn something by speaking with people whom we disagree with.

Diversity initiatives, though, from my experience, seem to buy into the 'disagreement is disrespect' meme and have led many to commit intellectual suicide concerning the nature of truth while sabatoging one of the chief goals of higher education - namely that students, when exposed to different ideas, should modify their beliefs and hold only that which is justified and true...all in the sake of some sort of harmony not worth wanting by any in the intellectual realm because many, it seems, don't believe that we can disagree about major issues and maintain harmony.

In my final year of high school -- and even in many of my introductory college courses such as 'first year experience' -- I was told time and time again that college was a time in which students would be exposed to people from all around the world with different worldviews, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), sexual orientations, political ideas, and so much more. Instead of being a member of a 'small town insular community,' college students are exposed to an entire different climate. While in college, the hope, I was told, was for students to consider others' beliefs and self-reflect so as to learn something and better understand the world, other cultures, and so much more. Self-reflection, it seems, should be a byproduct of exposure to new ideas.

All of this, though, while it seemed great at the time, seemed to be only partially true. I was exposed to different ideas and persons, but the self-reflection aspect simply wasn't something that was being promoted. Instead of critical discussion of ideas and self-examinations, faculty and students alike seemed to be brainwashed into accepting indefensible positions such as 'all perspectives are equally valid,' 'everyone is justified in believing what they believe because that is their right,' and 'we should, instead of challenging others, celebrate differences.'

All perspectives, though, as my philosophy classes have taught me, can't be equally valid because we would be lead to accept contradictions and be forced to accept ideas which fly in the face of our moral intuitions and logical reasoning. In my "Ethics and the Good Life" class which probably was one of the most influential classes in my second year of my undergraduate career, I learned that ethical cultural relativism -- the idea that a position is morally justified because a culture assents to it -- is one of the most indefensible ideas in ethics because, for example, cultures can assent to the idea that wife burning is morally acceptable.

"Who are we to argue with that" some will say, "because you aren't from that culture and people decide what's true for them." Unfortunately, this sentiment is all too common - and seemingly embraced by persons in the modern 'diversity movement.' Apparently, because I am not from a certain culture, some will contend, I am not qualified to share my ideas -- and just should not -- and truth just flies right out the window. In the name of not 'criticizing' ideas that are foreign to Americans, we're apparently supposed to tolerate intolerance and just 'leave ideas alone.' What a catastrophe.

My philosophy classes have also taught me that, when evaluating the merit of a belief, it's important to realize that not all opinions or beliefs are equal in weight; many opinions are uninformed, flawed, ill-formed, do not cohere with reality, and are outright fallacious. The simple fact that someone holds a belief does not lead to the belief being warranted. Persons ought to consider objections to their beliefs, whether a belief coheres with reality, whether the assumptions that lead to the belief are warranted, and so much more. While persons may have a legal right to hold a belief (and certainly won't be arrested for thinking about something), a moral right and whether the belief is a justified true belief or not is an entirely different matter. In the name of harmony, perhaps, and 'respect for beliefs,' diversity initiatives and other considerations have undermined higher education and have convinced so many that people are moral monsters to challenge others' beliefs.

Perhaps, as I mentioned, a major motivation people have to object to disagreement is to preserve harmony (as if the only way to do so is for people to sit down and shut up). Can't we just all live together and keep our beliefs to ourselves? Why can't we just live and let live? Why do people like me continue to write and do what I do? Aren't beliefs just private matters? People ask these questions quite frequently. It's quite difficult, I would respond to contend that many or most of our beliefs are solely private matters when it's quite clear that our beliefs inform our actions and have the ability to harm others and ourselves. Persons like me are concerned with what others believe because their beliefs impact others' quality of life. I care about whether or not people hold justified true beliefs when certain matters are of paramount concern.

Refraining from disagreement with others and assenting to the idea that all perspectives are equally valid seems to be quite an easy and attractive way to deal with disagreement, but it's an incredibly intellectually dishonest position and something that higher education should never maintain. What progress is had when people lack self-reflection? If all perspectives are equally valid, what is the point of challenging our own beliefs? Why should we even attend school and be concerned about holding justified true beliefs if this is the case?

Open-mindedness is a term that often gets thrown around by persons in diversity initiatives, but this term is largely misconstrued and quite relevant to this discussion. I am told, after I voice objections to people who hold untenable beliefs (often after they start a discussion with me and reveal that they haven't critically examined their own ideas and/or understand very little about epistemology and admit that they aren't concerned with truth), that I am closed-minded and that I should "accept others." Excuse me? Since when is asking questions about someone's belief a horrible thing [in the realm of higher education]? Do not teachers do this in almost every class and encourage students to self-reflect? True open-mindedness is a willingness to admit that you can be wrong about something and a willingness to change any and all ideas provided new evidence, reason, and argument comes in...and this 'being wrong' isn't a bad thing; admitting one is mistaken about something is a sign of progress and intellectual courage - and this is really something to respect and admire.

One thing that leaders of diversity initiatives and I can agree on is that it it more important that we live together than we all agree. Diversity initiatives, though, seem to take a drastically different approach to this matter and work from many flawed ideas about epistemology and a harmony 'worth wanting.' It is quite possible to be respectful toward persons while having a conversation about important and often contentious matters. A primary problem, though, is that people view 'attacks on ideas' as 'attacks on persons' even when said 'attacking' is done in a very civil and calm manner with regard to the person who holds the belief. Perhaps diversity initiatives should change the focus and maintain that critical disagreement is something that we should strive for and work on becoming better at. If we can 'step back' from our beliefs and understand others' perspectives, it seems that society will be a better place and that a true harmony can be had in which people -- instead of viewing disagreement as disrespect -- can have the intellectual courage to understand others instead of demonizing them...and an 'everyone is right and no one should disagree' attitude isn't going to get us there. This is not the goal of higher education and should not be the goal of diversity initiatives.

Leaders of diversity initiatives, instead of maintaining that all perspectives people hold are equally valid and that we just shouldn't assert that people are mistaken (or otherwise engage in critical discussion), should start to focus on how to respectfully disagree and prioritize justified true beliefs. We can 'bring our differences to the table' and consider meetings between differing individuals to be great opportunities for challenging our own beliefs and the beliefs of others rather than missing this great opportunity and hopelessly and dishonestly maintaining that all perspectives are equally valid and disagreement is just disrespectful. Critical discussion should bring about more understanding than does sitting back at a table and refraining from asking questions. If this is not the case -- and diversity programs continue to convince others that all perspectives are equally valid and discourage critical discussion -- it seems that diversity programs have sabotaged the aim of higher education and they are harming us more than they are helping us.

For more thoughts of mine, both in writing and through podcasting, on this matter, please utilize the following links:

Blog posts:
"Disagreement, not disrespecting: Attacking beliefs, not persons"
"A response to those who claim offense"
"Belief Intolerance"
"On being wrong, intellectual honesty, and acquiring belief"
"Truth relativism and liberal religion"

"Think for yourself already: A discussion I had with Muslims"
(During an inter-faith/diversity event I attended while in undergraduate career, students objected to me asking a Muslim man -- after he had asked for any question from the audience -- whether he believed that it is justifiable for non-Muslims to burn in Hell for eternity soon after the Muslim man had practically preached about how non-Muslims would burn in Hell for eternity. Some students thought I was the disrespectful one and was in the wrong to ask that question...)

Podcasts:
"Respecting Beliefs"
"Discussion on religious faith"

As always, please feel free to share this content, offer your own ideas, and give me some feedback.

A response to those who claim offense

(A fitting poster for this post...)

It's often the case that people are quick to respond to content or people they happen to disagree with with a 'sit down and shut up' mentality in which they believe that certain ideas just shouldn't be discussed. Is this an appropriate attitude to have? In a pluralistic society, I argue, claiming offense and objecting to content -- simply because you happen not to like it -- is unacceptable and immature.

Throughout my 'career' as a 'professional atheist' [a label, expressed with derision, that WILK Newsradio host Steve Corbett used to dismissively refer to me on a recent episode of his radio show] many people -- no matter how mild my tone is or how much I write that persons should not interpret disagreement as disrespect -- claim that my work is offensive. Some people even go so far as to assert that I should cease publishing content, criticizing religious ideas, and simply just 'sit down and shut up.' I've posted several responses to these concerns in the past, but wish to, in this post, hopefully put this issue of offense and objections to my work to rest.

Possible motivations and problems

I believe that many assertions of offense and general objections to my work are hasty responses that are the result of an emotional reaction and a belief that cherished ideas should not be dissected. In a world with so much disagreement and sequestering of ourselves -- despite, ironically enough, the openness of the internet and the increased exposure people can have to different ideas -- perhaps some believe that we should just 'live and let live' and mainly communicate with those who are like-minded. Not enough exposure, perhaps, might be a reason that people have such a difficult time dealing with ideas foreign to them.

Perhaps a hellish mix of misplaced or misunderstood aims of diversity and truth relativism (the notion that truth is relative from individual to individual and/or that there is no such thing as objective truth) has unfortunately led people to believe that everyone can be right about any issue, all beliefs are ultimately one's opinion, and that it's simply just rude to disagree with anyone. Ironically, some efforts to 'draw people together' and find common ground seem to be responsible for causing much harm and intellectual suicide. In the name of what some consider to be tolerance and diversity, some have blissfully placed their brains in blenders and have not achieved a degree of tolerance worth wanting.

Additionally, the ever-returning and often mentioned [in this blog, at least] 'right to opinion' might also be a culprit serving as a barrier to honest discussion...

Cognitive dissonance, the sensation/experience felt when one happens to seemingly hold contradictory beliefs or becomes exposed to information which runs counter to their beliefs, can be difficult to deal with. It seems quite easy to 'throw up the smokescreens' and become defensive when our beliefs challenged and it seems quite difficult to overcome the easy response and, instead of becoming defensive, 'step back' from our ideas and even do so much as to consider another point of view. Perhaps cognitive dissonance is responsible for the attitude of deflection of criticisms?

The general responses of "you shouldn't talk about that" or "you should just leave these ideas alone" that often seem to come from those who object with offense to certain content are often quite short and without explanation or argument (and hopefully I'm not a victim of confirmation bias here). When these comments are made, I typically ask for persons to explain their reasoning and elaborate, but they fail to do so. If persons respond -- after I defend myself, expand on my ideas, and further clarify my reasoning pertaining to the issue at hand -- original objectors continue to, instead of responding to the content, object to a discussion about certain matters even taking place (while the discussion is taking place).

This 'methodology' is not a sign -- it seems -- of an honest discussion in which the objecting party is looking for a conversation; this seems to be characteristic of a hit-and-run tactic paired with an insufficient concern for truth and intellectual laziness. One would expect that people who were willing enough to object to my work would be willing to have an honest discussion if they were willing enough to post and were genuinely offended [perhaps seeking to squelch the content], but this unfortunately isn't the case. Perhaps I am giving people too much credit.

Some philosophy might save us...

In his book "The View From Nowhere," philosopher Thomas Nagel explains how difficult it can be to critically self-reflect and how impossible it might be to 'separate ourselves' from our beliefs. A state of total objectivity -- it appears -- is something we just can't reach as human beings, but we can try our best to work toward objectivity - and with good reason. Self-reflection and a willingness to modify our beliefs -- provided good reason, argument, and evidence are presented that justifies a cognitive shift -- is essential to being an intellectually-minded individual and perhaps even a productive mature functioning member of society.

What good would life be if we never amended our beliefs or realized our errs? We all make mistakes or might happen to hold incorrect ideas for whatever reasons (often no fault of our own) and that's nothing to be ashamed of. What should be considered shameful, though, is an unwillingness to amend our beliefs and a closed-minded attitude. Realizing that our beliefs were inaccurate and considering a new perspective shouldn't be something that we avoid, but rather should be something we embrace. I call this progress, openness, and a concern for truth.

In a 'marketplace of ideas' and a pluralistic society that is not filled with 'yes men' or 'yes woman,' some people will feel offended or provoked by certain content because people regard their beliefs as important self-identifying characteristics and view 'threats' to their beliefs as character attacks. Someone is bound to claim offense when issues such as worldviews and religions are being scrutinized. Before claiming offense, though, or acting in an immature fashion -- especially when content with quite a mild tone is being considered -- people ought to realize that disagreement is inevitable. Just about anyone can claim to be offended by just about anything, so the questions that should be considered are "Is it reasonable for me to claim offense?" and "What should the response be to content I consider offensive?" before people jump to unreasonable conclusions and make unreasonable demands for others to cease expressing their ideas.

One person's 'offensive content' is the next person's 'telling it like it is' that is, as some may see it, quite uncontroversial. With a sea of differing value judgments and barometers as to what is appropriate and inappropriate, it seems futile to protest to anything and everything out there. While there may be no objective standard for what can be considered offensive (mainly, perhaps, because this is an issue of personal taste and there is no quick-and-dirty way to distinguish 'offensive' from 'not offensive'), we shouldn't despair. The proper reaction to what one considers to be offensive, then, considering mentioned issues, is a mature attitude in which one realizes that people will happen to disagree - and disagreement shouldn't force or otherwise demand people to cease from publishing 'any old content.'

Offense isn't the goal, but progress should be

It's difficult for me to identify a single or primary motivation -- if one even exists -- pertaining to why I do what I do, but I can say that I don't write with an intention to offend people, provoke, or make people upset. Writing -- what seems to be my main focus as far as my involvement in the secular community is concerned -- can serve many different purposes such as highlighting bigotry, inspiring people to work toward change, and helping people to understand where certain people are 'coming from' outside of the quick soundbytes and short tweets (although these can be helpful). I like to author longer posts, although they may not be read by as many people if the posts happened to be shorter, in order to allow people to understand my reasoning and further the conversation.

Self-reflection and exposure to new ideas can be a learning experience, a catalyst toward progress, an 'opening door' to new opportunities, a chance to defend one's beliefs and respond to thoughtful objections, and so much more. Instead of claiming offense and avoiding discussion with people, engaging oneself can be quite fulfilling and productive even thought it may seem uncomfortable. If all else fails and engaging with new ideas is too much to handle -- or persons simply just don't want to engage with ideas -- persons can simply 'take the high road' instead of objecting to ideas being voiced with a substantive response.

It seems to be more important that people -- if we were forced with one option over another -- live together than agree on everything. Disagreement is inevitable, so we ought to be able to respond to people and ideas we might happen to disagree with in an intellectually mature and honest manner. Living together, while it may seem very difficult, seems to be much more possible than a successful effort for humans to agree on all issues. Having honest discussions and interacting with people whom we might happen to disagree with seems to allow for our own intellectual progress and understanding of other people. Instead of glibly claiming offense and asserting that others should 'sit down and shut up,' let's assume a mature attitude and be realistic.

As always, comments are welcome. Sharing this post on Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, and wherever else (click below to share!) is also appreciated.

If you're interested in my thoughts (and the thoughts of Rodney Collins) on another related and often overlapping matter, 'respecting beliefs,' please listen to Episode 9 of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast titled, as you might have guessed, "Respecting Beliefs" in audio and/or video formats.

New video episodes of NEPA Freethought Society Podcast available!

Returning from a hiatus, the NEPA Freethought Society is providing new and old viewers alike with THREE new episodes! Watch below:

'Respecting beliefs' (and right to opinion and taking offense)

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

'Religion and the workplace' discussion with Karla Porter

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

Interview with melodic death metal band Ethereal Collapse

Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com

Confidence in science: Faith, fact, or something else?

A discussion in the New York Times starting with an article published on December 21, 2011 titled "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" prompted readers to ponder whether scientific inquiry and discovery will lead humanity down a smoother road, whether scientific inquiry will produce more good than harm (or vice-versa), whether there should be limits on scientific inquiry, and whether 'faith' in science is the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith.

A follow-up article published on December 23, 2011 titled "Is Confidence in Science as a Source of Progress Based on Faith or Fact?" includes various views on whether, as you might guess, "confidence in science," according to the article, "as a source of human progress is underpinned by fact or faith." The author notes, "Some readers may have missed that the discussion was not about confidence in science as an enterprise, but confidence that benefits would always accrue to society from applications of scientific knowledge."

These topics ought to be interesting to many whether they have a very slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science. Unfortunately, though, those with a slim understanding of philosophy, science, and philosophy of science are often confused or missing some major points such as when they think 'faith in science' [this phrase should not even exist, especially amongst those who do have an understanding of science, philosophy, and philosophy of science because the definition of faith, I would wager, is generally 'belief without evidence'] is the same as 'faith in religious ideas.'

Andrew C. Revkin, in the "On Flu Strains, Folkies and Faith in Science" article, seems to put quite a high bar on the word 'prove.' He writes, "I'm a huge fan of science, as is obvious given that I've spent my life studying it and writing about it. I think that more science and science literacy, and fostering a culture of innovation and inquiry, will boost odds of a relatively smooth ride for humanity as our appetite for resources crests. But can I prove that? No." He continues, "...I have confidence that scientific inquiry, as long as it is carried out in a transparent way, will endure as a force for progress - particularly in comparison to the track record for movements in which ideology trumps reason. And, no, I can't prove that."

I'm not sure why the author notes that he "can't prove that" and perhaps am further confused as to why he doesn't continue noting that, from what we have seen so far, scientific inquiry has yielded a tremendous amount of information, discovery, new technology, and so much more that has made human life better. Although, of course, we have also created technology which can kill people at a rate much faster than ever before, it seems evident that the scales are tipped in favor of 'good' and not 'evil' in this case. We're living much longer, we're understanding more about the universe, we're using technology that was once only dreamed of in science fiction, and we have almost eradicated diseases which would regularly kill or make life horrid for many.

While we can't 'prove' what science will yield in the future, we can be very inductively justified in assuming that, on good evidence, that scientific inquiry will make life much better by looking at the current trend...and this isn't faith - or at least the same kind of faith as, say, religious faith like Pete Seeger, in the article, mentions. The author notes, "...Seeger recalled how his father used to prod friends who were scientists in this way: You think that an infinite increase in empirical information is a good thing. Can you prove it? He'd then retort that faith in science is no different than faith in anything else (emphasis mine).

'Faith in science,' if we must use this term, is much different than 'faith in anything else.' As I noted, we are inductively justified in believing that science will continue to be a source of human progress.

When religious claims are concerned, proponents often lack good reason for their claims and can and do often admit that they have no reason to believe, but rather hold faith. Faith, according to some, is a virtue.

"Trust that God has a plan for you," people say.

"My experience thus far has dictated that there is more than meets the eye even though I can't show you this," people say.

That boy over there who recovered from a bacterial infection... just believe that a Mohawk Indian who lived 350 years ago named Kateri Tekakwitha intervened and the doctors, simple regression of the disease, or other naturalistic explanations had nothing to do with it and instead of simply saying "I don't know," jump to the conclusion that there was supernatural intervention.

Additionally, as you might expect, the arguments/reasons for belief in the Christian god are often very problematic and do not 'hold up' to inquiry. "Have faith" is the 'last card' that is often played, even if some incontrovertible evidence came about that showed the belief were false a la Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig [videos in links] who believe that the Holy Spirit has given them reasons to believe via an immediate experience and nothing can serve as a defeater to Christian belief [thus, it seems, making Christian belief unfalsifiable and irrational].

Scientists do not, by any means, operate on "faith" like those of religious sects often do. Consider methodological naturalism -- the assumption scientists make that the natural world is all that exists -- when doing research. Some religious persons might say that this is a faith-based claim. Scientists operate under methodological naturalism because they want to explain the natural world and look for naturalistic explanations [and supernatural explanations do not have good explanatory power, generally are not testable, and are not conservative or fruitful].

We see that 'faith in science,' if we must call it that, is much different than 'faith in religion.'

When I consider belief and what I believe, I think that knowledge is provisional - it is best on the best interpretation of what we know now and could be, of course, wrong in the future or undermined by various skeptical hypotheses. For all I know, I could have been created five minutes ago with pre-programmed memories and holes in my socks or I could be a brain in a vat. I don't believe these things because I have no good reasons to do so. I can't be "100% certain" or 'prove that I am not a brain in a vat,' but belief in the external world, for example, as opposed to the world being an illusion, is justified - and very much so. The word 'prove,' it seems is quite useless in contexts such as these.

Philosopher Jonathan Kvanvig writes, "There is no reason whatsoever to think that believing the truth is always impossible; the best that could be claimed is that there is no guarantee in any given case that we have achieved the state of believing the truth. Perhaps it follows that we should not hope for the chimera of infallibility."

Returning to the article, and moving away from whether 'faith in science' is the same as religious faith, Brad Allenby writes:

There has to be a big dollop of faith: no single person can possibly begin to understand the world we live in from first principles. It is, of course, a rationalistic faith, in that I am fairly confirmed in my belief that, say, 747’s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently. More fundamentally, my faith that 747’s will fly is of a different kind than the traditional religious kind, in that the latter cannot be supported by direct experience, but only by interpretations of direct experience which pull on the faith narrative.

Allenby is indeed "fairly confirmed" in his belief that "747s will fly because in fact the vast majority of them do, and frequently," but I don't see the value of calling this belief faith. This belief can simply be called a justified belief and direct experience is not needed for this sort of belief to be justified. We can assent to the experts, appeal to others' past experiences, and so much more in order to be justified in believing that future 747s will fly.

Steve Fuller writes:

The prospect that scientists have created a lethal strain of avian flu and are on the verge of publishing their technique in the world’s leading scientific journal has reopened the debate over science’s aspiration to ‘universal knowledge’ in two distinct senses: Should science investigate everything, and should its findings be made available to everyone? Doubts on both fronts pertain to the potential evil that might be unleashed, either by will or by accident. That the doubts should center so clearly on evil consequences betrays the theological origins of the concern. From the serpent in the Garden of Eden to the Cartesian demon of modern skepticism, evil is always portrayed as something that simulates good in nearly all respects. Yet knee-jerk moves to censor and otherwise restrict scientific inquiry threaten to compound rather than the remove the evil in question.

The common lingering concern of "Well, what if advances in technology lead to ruin, horror, and misuse" has probably permeated almost every new technological advance that can be used for harm. Despite this, we're quite happy to continue progressing and rightfully so. We're happy to enjoy our smartphones, laptop, new vaccines, and lives generally free of tuberculosis and polio. While technology might be used for 'evil' (and can often be), it is 'up to us' to police.

We often balance the benefits and costs of our actions and can do so regarding technology. For example, I'm quite aware that my privacy has diminished because of my internet use, owning a smartphones, and much more. To completely refrain from taking advantage of modern technology because of concerns of privacy, it seems, is quite silly. If, though, the trade-off were much more in-line with the negative, I might refrain, but I enjoy my technology and don't want to give it up because of what seem to be very minute concerns.

While some 'evil' may and almost certainly will come about because of progress, it seems to be the case that the benefits far outweigh the costs and deciding to stop progress in fear of some negative consequences is more harmful than progressing to begin with.

To be fair, there are, of course, some moral concerns that may come about when considering progress that we should be mindful of. Perhaps it may be for the best, for example, to not produce a technology which can be embedded in someone's skin at birth that would be unremovable and would constantly transmit a GPS signal to a government. Civil liberties concerns, we can see, crop up. We can, though, stop some progress/technology and not all. We can 'sit down' and consider certain issues without abandoning the entire enterprise of progress.

A refreshing comment from Angela Dellaporta on the difference between 'faith in science' and religious faith reads:

Science is intrinsically humble. Any scientific hypothesis must be tested repeatedly, by many different people, before it is believed. If the hypothesis does not meet the standards, then it is not considered to be scientific truth. These high standards make it easy to have faith in scientifically proven facts — though the best scientists will admit that there is always a margin for error, however small. Faith in religion is a very different thing. It is faith in the unprovable, faith in the mystery, faith in the unknown and unknowable. Because of this, humility, rather than stridence, is usually expected in those who have a deep religious faith, too.

While I enjoy this comment, I still find the phrase 'faith in scientifically proven facts' to be useless because it is not faith, but rather warranted belief. Hope not for the chimera of infallibility, for "100% certainty" is a distraction.

Confidence in science is not faith, but it is rather inductively justified. Reject the phrase 'faith in science' and do not allow belief about scientific principles or advancement to be relegated to the same status as religious faith. It is all too often that religious persons try to claim that their 'faith in science' -- which is justified if we must use the term -- is the same as religious faith, but this is simply not the case. Additionally, people argue that a naturalistic world view is simply inadequate and that religious faith is needed. We can be justified in looking to science for progress and answers to questions. Fear not, though, those of you who may be having visions of scientism floating in your heads...science is not the only way to arrive at conclusions, for other disciplines such as philosophy are needed.

For more on the topic of faith, please listen to the second episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast in which I talk about some ideas I presented here and much more.

As always, feel free to add comments and questions below...and don't assume that I'm talking about all religious people or all definitions of faith.