About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

We of little faith.

By Sue Blackmore

June 8, 2007

"Religious faith is not inconsistent with reason." I nearly choked on my breakfast when I heard this on the Today programme. These words were spoken by Mr Blair, in his inimitably sincere style. He was addressing an Islamic conference in London, on June 4, and pledging more money to support Islamic studies in British Universities.

When I'd calmed down I went to check, and it really is true. In the full text of his speech, on the No 10 website, he says:

"In the face of so much high profile accorded to religious extremism, to schism, and to confrontation, it is important to show that religious faith is not inconsistent with reason, or progress, or the celebration of diversity."

But religious faith is inconsistent with reason (and much more that we value as well).

I'm not referring to the ordinary kind of faith by which we have faith in another person's honesty, or that taking an aspirin will reduce our headache. I am talking about religious faith, as Tony Blair was too. In this context faith means believing without reason. Indeed, this is precisely how it is defined, for example as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" or in Merriam Webster as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Does this make faith inconsistent with reason? I would say yes. Reason demands that you look for evidence and believe accordingly - which is exactly what we do when we trust a friend because they've been reliable in the past, or doubt a rumour until we've checked on the facts.

Faith is corrosive to the human mind. If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around. If someone is convinced that it is acceptable to base their beliefs on what is written in an ancient book, or what some teacher tells them they must believe, then they will have no true freedom of thought; they will be trapped by their faith into inconsistency and untruths because they are unable to throw out false ideas when evidence against them comes along. The whole point of a university education is to learn to think for yourself, to criticise theories, to compare ideas and to find out the truth by research, exploration and experiment. Whether you are studying French, chemistry, or psychology, you are given tools for thinking independently and ways of evaluating other people's claims. In this there is no room for faith, and should be no room for faith.

I want to be clear about some things I am not saying. First I am not saying that everything has to be rational. There is much about human life that has little or nothing to do with rationality; there's love and affection, art and poetry, happiness, beauty and intuition. But none of these things has to be taken on faith. University courses include much that is not rational, not just in arts courses but even in science, where one has hunches or enjoys beautiful ideas, but again there is no room for holding onto religious faith - wherever the ideas come from they must ultimately be thrown out if they are shown to be wrong. Second, I am not saying that no students should have religious beliefs. This is (and must be, in a free society) a matter for them, in the privacy of their own minds. There will always be some students who believe things on faith and others who don't, but the job of a university course is to make people think and to give them the tools for doing so. Faith is not one of those tools. Indeed, by and large, a university education reduces religious belief, as indeed it should.

I have had countless students on my psychology courses who began as believers in God, or the afterlife, or spirits and souls, and then had to question those beliefs through the process of learning how the mind actually works. I have seen them (and I hope helped them) go through this painful process of throwing off their restrictive childhood religious beliefs and learning to live with the uncertainties and open-mindedness needed for real learning. Finally, I am not saying there should be no courses on Christianity or Islam or any other religion. There are and should be, for there is much of importance to study: the history of the religions, the beliefs, their cultural background and much more. But universities should be teaching people how to think, question, and understand these things, not to have faith in "truths" proclaimed without reason or evidence.

Tony Blair pronounces the word "faith" with just that touch of special reverence in his voice, as though it were something to respect, something we should admire in others and grant them licence to believe whatever they want on its account. Indeed he proclaimed that the conference was "an opportunity to listen; to hear Islam's true voice; to welcome and appreciate them; and in doing so, to join up with all those who believe in a world where religious faith is respected". How despicable. How creepy. How frightening when we see the dire consequences of faith-based actions all around us. Of course people of faith want us to respect their beliefs. For they have no other way of defending them than to appeal to respect, to promise rewards for believers, or threaten punishments for unbelievers. So anyone who cares about the truth should resist these meme tricks. Religious faith is something that we should struggle to throw off when we have better ways of learning the truth about the universe we live in; something we should overcome rather than something we should respect.

I, for one, do not want to live in a world where religious faith is respected. I do not want more "faith-based initiatives". I do not want more faith schools, and our great universities should continue to teach people to think for themselves, to respect the truth, and to take nothing on faith.

9 comments:

Ken Comer said...

I disagree with Blackmore's central premise. The denotations she presents, "'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence' or in Merriam Webster as 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof'" do not contradict those for reason:
Merriam Webster
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
7. Philosophy.
a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.
(I skipped "4. sound judgment; good sense" as being too subjective)
American Heritage Dictionary: "4. sound judgment; good sense."
(I eliminated those senses of the word "reason" where I felt the meaning was inconsistent with Blackwell's and Blair's usage of the word)

One can reason logically from an assumption. Ben Franklin, in one of my favorites among his essays, pointed out that his vegetarian stance of not taking the life of animals for his nourishment could be bent to include animals that ate others of the same kind: fish. He discovered this fact after long contemplation aboard a ship shortly after the ship had run out of food from land. Neither of his assumptions-- that he should not eat of the flesh of other creatures, nor that it was okay to eat the flesh of creatures that ate of their own flesh--had any grounding in any logic that makes much sense to all of omnivores, especially those of us who eat the food products of the biggest agricultural firms of the USA even though we know of the horrible cruelty inflicted on these beasts. At least, if it does, we are able to reason our way out of any moral dilemma.

Blackwell fails on two grounds, both of which seemingly based on the ridiculous assumption that "faith" and "reason" (or even "faith" and "logic) are antithetical. First, she presumes that all reasoning is done from material evidence (especially "all known material evidence"). It is not, and has been written not to do so since the time of Socrates (or, if he was fictional, you can find another Greek or two) who showed that reasoning can be the employment of logic on things which cannot be known. Second, she makes the outrageous assumption that reason demands that you look for evidence and believe accordingly. It is the rare mind that is doomed to look for evidence and believe accordingly, suspending belief until such time that it was truly proven, for such a mind would first have to find evidence for the entirety of existence as something other than a one-person-only subjective experience with nothing beyond its reports of senses.

By the way, I still haven't forgotten about the way you dissed agnostics (and therefore me). I wrote a tome in disparaging reply, but decided not to unload it here. It made lots of good points, but it lacked the soul of wit.

Skywolf said...

What a bitter-sounding woman.

You know I'm extremely sceptical and dismissive of organised religion in general, but I have to heartily disagree with her statement that religious belief shouldn't be respected. Of course it should... the same way anything that has deep meaning for another person should. It doesn't matter if you grasp or agree with such beliefs or thoughts. The fact that they matter to another person is enough to demand some level of respect if only because we should all respect our fellow human beings.

I have no respect for fundamentalist teachings, religious extremists, or any other belief systems that cause harm to others... but simple faith and a belief in something shouldn't receive automatic ridicule. If it's not hurting anyone else, and someone is receiving comfort and depth to their lives as a result of it, I see no reason not to respect it, even if I personally disagree with its premise.

I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died to save me from eternal suffering, but if someone else believes that on a personal level and receives something positive from it, then I respect their right to believe it. And I would uphold that right on their behalf, simply because I believe we should all be free to follow whatever path we find beneficial in life, so long as it doesn't cause harm to others. It's that level of diversity that makes us so interesting as a species! People who wish to squash such diversity and have everyone follow exactly the same set of values and beliefs strike me as narrow-minded and pathetic, whatever their personal beliefs may be.

CyberKitten said...

ken c said: By the way, I still haven't forgotten about the way you dissed agnostics (and therefore me). I wrote a tome in disparaging reply, but decided not to unload it here. It made lots of good points, but it lacked the soul of wit.

Fair enough. I normally end up annoying most people eventually - often unintentionally.

skywolf said: What a bitter-sounding woman.

It did cross my mind [grin].

skywolf said: I have to heartily disagree with her statement that religious belief shouldn't be respected. Of course it should... the same way anything that has deep meaning for another person should.

Indeed - but only upto a point. I certainly think that religion should not have any kind of special treatment in this regard. We do not put any other strongly held beliefs - be they political or philosophic - beyond debate or criticism. Only religion seems to demand (or need?) this status.

skywolf said: If it's not hurting anyone else, and someone is receiving comfort and depth to their lives as a result of it, I see no reason not to respect it, even if I personally disagree with its premise.

I pretty much agree with you. If a person keep their beliefs private and doesn't wave it in anyone's face I'm completely happy for them to pass uncommented on. If however, they want to make their beliefs public and open for discussion and debate I am more that willing to enter into such a debate with them. Although I normally find that a 'brick wall' is hastily thrown up before very long.

skywolf said: if someone else believes that on a personal level and receives something positive from it, then I respect their right to believe it.

People can and do believe many things. Personally I don't really care one way or another. I'm certainly not trying to convert anyone to my point of view (to which, of course, I am equally entitled). But if the subject is brought up I will undoubtedly ask lots of pointed questions and may laugh at the replies. I've certainly had people laugh at me before now and no doubt they'll laugh at me in the future too.

skywolf said: People who wish to squash such diversity and have everyone follow exactly the same set of values and beliefs strike me as narrow-minded and pathetic, whatever their personal beliefs may be.

I certainly have no intention of squashing debate. So far at least I have never deleted a single comment on this blog no matter how personal they get. I've had to walk away for a while so I don't "shoot from the hip" but I have never infringed anyone's free speech even when they were 'having a go' at me. Again, that's what debate is all about - the (very) open exchange of ideas.

Laughing Boy said...

It’s difficult to respond calmly to people who show us no respect. Sometimes it’s made easier if they are acting reflexively; it’s possible that they aren’t behaving as they typically would. Sometimes people are just so self-involved that they seem unaware that other beings are attempting to co-exist, but that happens so often in modern society that we’ve all pretty much gotten used to it. Ms. Blackmore can’t be granted either excuse. Her fundamental point is that respect should be determinedly withheld from people who hold religious beliefs. Such a sweeping adjustment to commonly accepted social rules demands a good argument I think, it least here in America, which was founded on principles of religious freedom and equal respect for all. She says, “…there is no room for faith, and should be no room for faith.” Such ideology is not found in the writings of America’s founding fathers. Ms. Blackmore thinks she has better ways to run society—the way of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. But if we ignore evidence she has seemingly forgotten, that her way has been tried (to death), we can consider her argument, and if it's a good one maybe we could reconsider dismantling and discarding the foundational principles of democracy, equality, and freedom. Maybe Marx was right. But I’ll have to continue this later. Now I’m going off to church…while I still can.

Skywolf said...

I certainly have no intention of squashing debate. So far at least I have never deleted a single comment on this blog no matter how personal they get. I've had to walk away for a while so I don't "shoot from the hip" but I have never infringed anyone's free speech even when they were 'having a go' at me. Again, that's what debate is all about - the (very) open exchange of ideas.

Whoa... I was absolutely not directing that comment at you, CK. I completely admire your constant encouragement of debate and the calm and reasoned way in which you deal with your critics, no matter how harsh they may be.

I was aiming my remark at Sue Blackmore, fundmentalists of any religion, and anyone else who tries to remove the diversity of varied belief. I certainly don't include you amongst those types, nor in fact any person who follows a religion without trying to force it upon others.

And I heartily agree with you about the need for debate. I love a good debate. :) But I don't mean to say that respecting a belief means it shouldn't be discussed and debated. If anything, according due respect to a belief system should include the need to discuss it deeply rather than just blindly going along with it. When I engage in a religious debate, I'm simultaneously doing my best to respect the opposing view's beliefs even whilst questioning them. I may not always, in fact, end up respecting the beliefs themselves, but I will continue to respect the rights of the individual to believe them.

CyberKitten said...

skywolf said: Whoa... I was absolutely not directing that comment at you, CK. I completely admire your constant encouragement of debate and the calm and reasoned way in which you deal with your critics, no matter how harsh they may be.

Not to woory! I didn't take it as a personal criticism - I was just stating my case.

Thanks for you other comments. They're appreciated.

Laughing Boy said...

"Faith is corrosive to the human mind."

Why is that, Sue?

"If someone genuinely believes that it is right to believe things without reason or evidence then they are open to every kind of dogma, whim, coercion, or dangerous infectious idea that's around."

But I've been told I must look for evidence and behave accordingly. What's your evidence, Sue? Sue...? I guess we'll come back to that.

"University courses include much that is not rational, not just in arts courses but even in science [I think to myself that she has the table to herself in the professor's lounge], where one has hunches or enjoys beautiful ideas, but again there is no room for holding onto religious faith"

I thought your gripe was with beliefs that do not rest on logical proof? Should we not then discard all such beliefs that aren't up to epistemic snuff, not just religious ones?

"Wherever the ideas come from they must ultimately be thrown out..."

Oh, and what other ideas don't make the cut besides religious ones? Oh, they're the only ones, huh? Interesting.

"...if they are shown to be wrong."

If I may make a suggestion, maybe your ends would be better served with less bitching and more showing.

"I have had countless students on my psychology courses who began as believers in God, or the afterlife, or spirits and souls, and then had to question those beliefs through the process of learning how the mind actually works."

Really...countless? You must have been teaching a long time. You don't look that old, but then again you do have a penchant for 200-year-old philosophy. Anyway, if I may speak bluntly, Sue, I'm not a mush-brained teen-ager and I'm suspicious of those who are given to hyperbole.

[incoherent mumbling]

What's that? I can believe what I want as long as I never speak of it or act on it? Didn't you say I should think for myself, be independent? It's part of your program of helping kids throw off their restrictions to tell them to sit down and shut up? I see. You must be very popular.

So about that evidence? You want to e-mail it to me or what?

[incoherent mumbling]

CyberKitten said...

laughing boy said: So about that evidence? You want to e-mail it to me or what?

If she reads this blog (which I somehow doubt) you never know... Watch that in-box!

Laughing Boy said...

It'll have a virus that seeks out and corrupts (i.e., frees me from) all files with the word 'God' or 'Christ' in them.