Look Who's Irrational Now: GK Chesterton's Empirical Revenge

[roo_ster]

I could think of a couple alternate titles that would be apt:
"You're Gonna Believe in Something"
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing  they believe in anything."
(GK Chesterton)

It always tickles my fancy when ancient folks (be they Hebrews, Greek, or Han Chinese) have their understandings and/or observations of the world confirmed via empirical means.  They did not have our Scientific Method or MS Excel or even obnoxious atheist profs.  Goes to show that though their *expletive deleted*ss might have been stuck in the middle of BFE, thousands of years in the past, their minds were as good as ours.

Anyways, I was chuckled when the following article popped up, giving ol' GK his due.

There has been talk about a genetic component to faith.  I suspect that those who reject the prevailing 2000 YO faith seek to fulfill their need with even less rational/empirical faiths.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Look Who's Irrational Now
By MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY

"You can't be a rational person six days of the week and put on a suit and make rational decisions and go to work and, on one day of the week, go to a building and think you're drinking the blood of a 2,000-year-old space god," comedian and atheist Bill Maher said earlier this year on "Late Night With Conan O'Brien."

On the "Saturday Night Live" season debut last week, homeschooling families were portrayed as fundamentalists with bad haircuts who fear biology. Actor Matt Damon recently disparaged Sarah Palin by referring to a transparently fake email that claimed she believed that dinosaurs were Satan's lizards. And according to prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, traditional religious belief is "dangerously irrational." From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more civilized populace.

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

Even among Christians, there were disparities. While 36% of those belonging to the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama's former denomination, expressed strong beliefs in the paranormal, only 14% of those belonging to the Assemblies of God, Sarah Palin's former denomination, did. In fact, the more traditional and evangelical the respondent, the less likely he was to believe in, for instance, the possibility of communicating with people who are dead.

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.

Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn't. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students.

We can't even count on self-described atheists to be strict rationalists. According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's monumental "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" that was issued in June, 21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven.

On Oct. 3, Mr. Maher debuts "Religulous," his documentary that attacks religious belief. He talks to Hasidic scholars, Jews for Jesus, Muslims, polygamists, Satanists, creationists, and even Rael -- prophet of the Raelians -- before telling viewers: "The plain fact is religion must die for man to live."

But it turns out that the late-night comic is no icon of rationality himself. In fact, he is a fervent advocate of pseudoscience. The night before his performance on Conan O'Brien, Mr. Maher told David Letterman -- a quintuple bypass survivor -- to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn't accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: "I don't believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory." He has told CNN's Larry King that he won't take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn't even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.

Anti-religionists such as Mr. Maher bring to mind the assertion of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown character that all atheists, secularists, humanists and rationalists are susceptible to superstition: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense, and can't see things as they are."


I think, in time, we will be able to add some of the other current manias currently percolating.  Examples like global warming, fears of irradiated foods, and and such will be seen as secular witch hunts/hysterias or one-for-one substitutes for religion (environmentalism, for example).

[Perd Hapley]

I wonder how this meshes with the argument that Christianity prepared the way for a scientific view of the physical world?  I.e., Christians believe in a natural order with set laws that can be determined, rather than a world ruled by countless little gods, fairies, ghosts of ancestors, etc. 

[Iain]

The Gallup Organization, under contract to Baylor's Institute for Studies of Religion, asked American adults a series of questions to gauge credulity. Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?

The answers were added up to create an index of belief in occult and the paranormal. While 31% of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these things, only 8% of people who attend a house of worship more than once a week did.

On a quick scan - if I answer those questions like this:
"I suppose it is possible for ghosts to exist and we may someday discover a scientific explanation for them, however the evidence suggests that there is no such thing.'
Is my answer taken as a yes or a no?
Is that answer less rational or 'unsceptical' than 'No, because they are not in the Bible?'

I'd also be surprised if a belief in future foretelling dreams was less common amongst Christians than it is amongst non-Christians. 'Your old men will dream dreams...' or was it young men? One has dreams the other has visions - both scientifically unlikely to predict the future.

I think, in time, we will be able to add some of the other current manias currently percolating.  Examples like global warming, fears of irradiated foods, and and such will be seen as secular witch hunts/hysterias or one-for-one substitutes for religion (environmentalism, for example).

This is very tired. Not all of us who are concerned about human impacts on the environment are missing church, in either sense. Slightly insulting to suggest that perhaps if climatologists went to church on Sunday they'd see the error of their ways. I've sat through sermons in church that were so 'take care of creation as instructed' that I felt nauseated. Alternatively I now have a terrifying vision of a pastor shouting 'Pump baby, pump' from the pulpit. Really wrong.

And if one were to be very cynical:

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition.

Shock horror. The decline in one set of superstitions allows for a rise in another? You mean many human beings who are unable to get by in life without their special invisible friend replaced one special invisible friend who had ceased to be trendy and acceptable with another special invisible friend? You mean human nature doesn't really change much?

But I'm not feeling Dawkins enough today to carry on in that vein.

[Stand_watie]

      Galileo. Newton. Michelangelo. Darwin. Einstein. Freud. Hawking.

    All brilliant men of faith. Men who can't "prove" their theory. They take it on faith.

[lee n. field]

I wonder how this meshes with the argument that Christianity prepared the way for a scientific view of the physical world?

WRT that, here's one to read: R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science.  Hmm.  Eerdman's dropped it.  Curious.

'Your old men will dream dreams...' or was it young men? One has dreams the other has visions - both scientifically unlikely to predict the future.

And not so intended.  Prophetic idiom abounds.   This is St. Peter in Acts 2, quoting the OT prophet Joel, and applying it to Pentecost.

[freedom lover]

Quote from Iain:

one set of superstitions

It's interesting that you call religions that. I do not believe that everything can be explained through pure observation. The universe had to come from somewhere. According to the current big bang theory, all matter was once compressed into a very small object. One day it simply exploded and eventually everything drifted together through gravitational attraction and after billions of years developed into what we see now.

I don't buy that. Where did that small, dense object come from? Everthing has to have a beginning. It takes more faith than I'll ever have to believe something could come out of nothing.

There would have to be some intelligent force to create matter, however illogical it may seem. the whole "unmoved mover" idea. And if there is a creator God, he would probaly care about his creation because he worked hard on it.

There are also those personal observations of the seemingly paranormal and spiritual nature. some people claim to have experienced things that could only be explained by religion. Granted, some are hysteria and some are lies, but not everyone can be crazy, especially if they don't think or act insane.

One person who has claimed to have experienced God's power is a relative of mine. He does not look, act or speak like someone who is insane. The information he was given could simply not have come from his own mind, unless his mind created the tales after the events supposedly prophesied beforehand happened. I know for sure he would not lie to me, because he is my father.

I myself have seen what looked like exorcisms performed. The demons may or may not have existed. It could have just been a show, but I highly doubt that. I think something real was going on, whether it was mental or spiritual, I may never know.

The logic and experiences aforementioned have led me to the belief that there is a God. Not all religion is hocus pocus, and atheism is not the answer either.

[K Frame]

"Where did that small, dense object come from?"

Nice try, but it's turtles all the way down... 

[Nick1911]

I'm with Iain; the article differentiates between religious beliefs and superstitious beliefs .  I don't see the world that way.  I view religion as a thin facade of social acceptance sitting on top of a superstitious belief system.  As such, the information in the article is entirely unsurprising.  It's like stating "People who don't drive domestic made cars are more likely to drive imported cars!"

[MechAg94]

I think what you atheists are trying to say is that we humans are not as naturally rational as we think we are. 

[ArfinGreebly]

I'm still waiting for Atheism to explain morality.

Explain fair.  Right and wrong.

And do it as the consequence of purely physical factors.  Evolution is allowed.

I just wanna know how fair/unfair, right/wrong, moral/immoral derives from "okay, so there was this chemical soup, you see, and so a bolt of lightning or something hit this chemical soup and it started to evolve."

After a Big Bang.

And we won't even try to deal with aesthetics.

[De Selby]

While I sympathize with the spirit behind articles like these, I think the method is a bit flawed here.

It looks like they chose one set of superstitions, ie, those that Christianity traditionally forbids, and ignored superstitions that go with Christianity.

For example, what if the study asked, instead of about Palm reading, a litany of questions that apply to Christian religious belief:

-Do you believe that dinosaurs were made up by scientists to discredit the bible?

-Do you believe that evolution occurs over time?

-Do you reject all scientific data that indicate that the earth is over 6000 years old?

-Do angels come down from the sky to cause changes on earth?

-Do you believe that prayers are more powerful than medical treatment in remedying diseases?

Etc etc.

[Intune]

I'm still waiting for Atheism to explain morality.

One day Ugg saw the rest of his clan sitting in a group and acting very agitated.  Uh, oh, he thought and shuffled over.  Trork, their leader, was in mid-sentence.  &  let him get away with it any more.  We are down to our last haunch of mastodon and if he steals this one too we are royally screwed.  Do I have to crank out another flow chart for you unibrows to get it?"

"Titi, how many more of our young girls have to come up missing before we straighten this out and do the right thing?  I know that some of you are against it but&  Oh, look whos here.

The first rock hit him square on the nose&

Explain fair.  Right and wrong.

Im with you brother.  Just the other day my third wife was arguing with my first wife about Phyllo, son #27, about having his bakery next to that nasty butcher shop where the bacon fumes can taint his dough.  Immoral infidels.  One of these days that pork is gonna get mixed right in and theyre going to chop his head off on the square.

Wife four thinks that this is neither fair nor just but as you know, with her third-grade education (could you imagine if we let them go further?  Ha!) She does her best thinking in bed. So I did the right thing & just slapped her and told her to go prepare my bath.
   

I just wanna know how fair/unfair, right/wrong, moral/immoral derives from "okay, so there was this chemical soup, you see, and so a bolt of lightning or something hit this chemical soup and it started to evolve.

 I just wanna know how fair/unfair, right/wrong, moral/immoral derives from, man, woman, garden, apple and serpent.

We are sacrificing another virgin today.  Can you believe how well the crops are doing?  High five bro, were on the right track.  The Gods are pleased&   

[Iain]

Moving on.

Arfin, not that your questions are exactly germane, but they are interesting. What is the simplest formulation of Western/Christian morality - do unto others as you would done to? Something like that anyway.

For a highly social, intelligent but relatively vunerable creature like early man, this makes basic sense. What we call altruism isn't a terribly complicated thing in those circumstances, you are nice to the next guy in the cave, maybe he saves you from something big that has fangs. You share your food, they share theirs. You cooperate on hunts and get some of the reward. It's complicated by notions of might and strength, but that is true today.

Also - even if morality as you understand it is entirely a product of religion, the atheist who sees no basic reason to accept the religion itself can still see the basic value to the moral aspects of it, as long as they don't involve baby sacrifice. You could even view religion as a social construct of man to enable control, enforcement of notions of what is right and what is wrong. Then the religious will argue that those had to come from somewhere, i.e a god. The non-religious will argue that it makes sense to be decent, and we should be decent and that the role of religion in enforcing decency says nothing about the underlying validity of the religion itself, it's still a pretty story made up to scare us into doing what so many know they should do, but don't.

[roo_ster]

I'm with Iain; the article differentiates between religious beliefs and superstitious beliefs .  I don't see the world that way.  I view religion as a thin facade of social acceptance sitting on top of a superstitious belief system.  As such, the information in the article is entirely unsurprising.  It's like stating "People who don't drive domestic made cars are more likely to drive imported cars!"

OK, to take your out of balance auto analogy and drive it into the ditch...

The point being, "People have a strong preference to cars rather than walking without a car."

Atheists who reject the traditional religions take up some other thing to serve the same purpose.  The true atheist who holds faith in absolutely nothing that he can not prove empirically is so rare a critter as to be as substantive as Bigfoot himself.

Similar to the way some folks anthropomorphize their pets when they have no kids, close relatives, or just plain difficulties forming close bonds with other humans. 

Environmentalism is, in a way, a perfect substitute.  It has founding myths, canonical literature, good and evil actors, a concept of sin, apocalypse, and all the rest.  And still lets you have all the recreational sex and drugs without judgment. 

Tell me these folks aren't doing some heavy substitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA&feature=related

Although, to bolster their case for tree anthropomorphism, the following was filmed i nthe darkest depth of the Scottish forest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIULIJxVr7A

[Otherguy Overby]

Would this also support a reliance on the "Pathetic Fallacy"?  A reliance on irrational thinking?

IOW, the classical dictionary explanation "The Cruel Sea" the sea is neither thinking, or cruel, some people just attach human attributes to the inanimate.

Some people really believe "guns are made for killing" but the rational among us just think of them a fun tool.

Or, might this be delving to far into a leftist mind?

[Iain]

Atheists who reject the traditional religions take up some other thing to serve the same purpose.  The true atheist who holds faith in absolutely nothing that he can not prove empirically is so rare a critter as to be as substantive as Bigfoot himself.

I know several people who qualify. I won't include myself because as I seem to care somewhat about the future of the planet and the human effects thereon I am a follower of the prophet Gore. I worship by walking when I can, using public transport when practical and trying to reduce my consumption of imported foods. As an example of my faith I will turn off the light in the hallway in a minute because I don't need it to be on.

Speaking of empirical proof - tree-worshipping Gaia nuts aside (and they are like using snake handlers as an example of Christianity as well you know), I'd posit that there is much more substantive proof that we humans are damaging our environment than there is that God created that which we misuse.

[roo_ster]

tree-worshipping Gaia nuts aside (and they are like using snake handlers as an example of Christianity as well you know)

Snake handling or no, the Earth Firsters were engaging in activities that were very close to some I witnessed in heavy charismatic Christian churches.  I mean, they were spot-on.

So, I guess if Earth First ~ charismatics/pentacostals, maybe these others could be categorized thusly:
Greenpeace ~ Southern Baptists
Sierra Club ~ Methodists
Audubon Society ~ Anglican
ELF ~ Snake handlers / abortion doc murderers

[Iain]

maybe these others could be categorized thusly

Only if you must insist on your environmentalism/religion comparision. I mean you've not made a good case at all, but go ahead.

[lee n. field]

Snake handling or no, the Earth Firsters were engaging in activities that were very close to some I witnessed in heavy charismatic Christian churches.  I mean, they were spot-on.

Oh, my.  Ignore this thread for a day, and something really interesting comes up.

Can you be specific as to the parallels you see?  I'm much more familiar with the charismatic Christian and sort-a Christian types than the Gea-nists, and some of them worry me a lot.

[MrRezister]

Seems to me that for all it's scientific trappings, the current fad of Eco-Power is more or less "earth-worship".

On a somewhat related note, has anyone seen previews for Maher's new film "Religulous"?  I like seeing Bill Maher on tv occasionally, but he devotes way too much time to tearing down people based upon their religious beliefs.  Seems like his movie is basically him going around and making fun of religious (most of whom I'm assuming will be Christians, or some derivative) people for a couple of hours.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/#comment

I can't help but wonder if it's Maher's "counter-attack" to Ben Stein's movie "Expelled":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

[roo_ster]

Seems to me that for all it's scientific trappings, the current fad of Eco-Power is more or less "earth-worship".

On a somewhat related note, has anyone seen previews for Maher's new film "Religulous"?  I like seeing Bill Maher on tv occasionally, but he devotes way too much time to tearing down people based upon their religious beliefs.  Seems like his movie is basically him going around and making fun of religious (most of whom I'm assuming will be Christians, or some derivative) people for a couple of hours.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/#comment

I can't help but wonder if it's Maher's "counter-attack" to Ben Stein's movie "Expelled":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

I'd pay a full-price ticket to see him do his thing to a sampling of Christians, Jewishs, and Muslims; the fundi-er the better.

Why do I think he will neglect the latter completely and most likely won't touch the second, either?

[roo_ster]

Snake handling or no, the Earth Firsters were engaging in activities that were very close to some I witnessed in heavy charismatic Christian churches.  I mean, they were spot-on.

Oh, my.  Ignore this thread for a day, and something really interesting comes up.

Can you be specific as to the parallels you see?  I'm much more familiar with the charismatic Christian and sort-a Christian types than the Gea-nists, and some of them worry me a lot.

In total or just some of the actions & mannerisms in the youtube clip?

I'll assume youtube clip only & describe the larger set later, if you want to go there.



t=00:00
The clip starts off with a big ol' mess of group emotional incontinence.  In this case, sadness/grief with attendant crying & moaning.

Similar group emotional incontinence in the charismatic services/Bible studies I attended.  In a service, the particular emotion was dependant on and directed by the preacher and not solely grief. 

I bet if we saw more footage of this "Gorillas in the Mist" documentary of the Earth Firsters we would see a larger range of group emotion displayed, likely the joy/celebration of some old-growth tree that the leader would use to stimulate a group ecstacy complete with tears of joy , tambourines, and "happy" drumming vs the "sad" drumming in the clip.

Also, music being used in concert to some "spiritual" leaders words to elicit a particular emotion in the others.


t=00:25
Smelly Hippy Chick* #1 (SHC01) bears witness to the terrible sins perpetrated against trees/god and pledges her faith, love & devotion to trees/god.


t=00:57
Preacher/leader/SHC02 interfaces with the outsider/unbeliever and uses language similar to many Christian denominations, not just charismatics.  People are hurting, craving answers, losing touch with this and such as society has evolved, yadda, yadda...

Then, "Bring me to this cathedral..."

Meanwhile, footage of folks who, in another context, could be praying, laying on hands, etc. in a demonstrative manner.


t=01:30
SHC03** with more witnessing and trying to get herslf all worked up to cry & holler, kinda like new converts to charismatic churches get all worked up to speak in tongues the first time. Notice SHC04 bobbing her head, sprititually getting into SHC03's witness and trying to help her get over the hurdle and be baptized in the spirit scream for the trees, while mouthing "Yes, yes..." Others are holding hands in the circle in an attitude of communal prayer

"Aaaaaigh..."

"We have sinned against You, O Lord/Tree/Nature/Earth!"



* What, your youtube clips don't come with Smell-O-Vision?

** I am assuming chick due to voice.  I could be wrong.

Only if you must insist on your environmentalism/religion comparision. I mean you've not made a good case at all, but go ahead.

How foolish of me.  I mean, it is not as if folks worshiped nature and trees and natural phenomena for thousands of years. 

When the dominant religion fades, it must be some manifestation of...something...for folks to see the re-introduction of faiths displaced by the dominant religion, but with a contemporary twist.

Have you seen the official pronouncements of the mainline eco-orgs?  Chock full of earth-worship by another name.  Crimes against their deity, apocalyptic rhetoric, plans of action for sanctification, etc.

Reading the middle of the read eco folk is also enlightening.  Just the other day, the environmental impact of cycling was under discussion. Posts about proper disposal of chain lube (non-trivial series of steps), is it OK to toss a busted inner tube (no), and so on.  It was like a bunch of ultra-orthodox jews talking about permissible acts on the Sabbath whilst wearing gay bicycle shorts.

Nope, nothing to see here...

[macadore]

Atheists who reject the traditional religions take up some other thing to serve the same purpose.  The true atheist who holds faith in absolutely nothing that he can not prove empirically is so rare a critter as to be as substantive as Bigfoot himself.

Can you prove this empirically?

[roo_ster]

Atheists who reject the traditional religions take up some other thing to serve the same purpose.  The true atheist who holds faith in absolutely nothing that he can not prove empirically is so rare a critter as to be as substantive as Bigfoot himself.

Can you prove this empirically?

 

Well, the original article did provide some data to shed some light on the topic.  Start there.

I will admit the "Bigfoot" analogy is a bit of literary license without empirical basis.  Feel free to substitute, terms like "infrequent," "low probability," etc., to satisfy your preferred level of precision in discourse divorced from colorful language.

[lee n. field]

t=00:25Smelly Hippy Chick* #1 (SHC01) bears witness to the terrible sins perpetrated against trees/god and pledges her faith, love & devotion to trees/god.

I assume you're talking about the wailing treehugger video that's making the rounds.  25 seconds is about as far as I could stand of it.  I guess I'll have to go back for more.

Did anybody with the Geanists have a message from %insert_Diety_of_choice%?  A enthusiast meeting isn't complete without a soi-disant prophetic utterance.

kinda like new converts to charismatic churches get all worked up to speak in tongues the first time.

They fake it.  At least a buddy of mine who early in his christian walk traveled in those circles confesses to having faked it.

Makes me glad I'm a Calvinist.  When one of us goes bonkers, it's usually accompanied with scriptural exegesis and close argumentation.  Not something that might get one committed.