[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[Matt Kundert]

Steve, excellent piece.  However, you're starting to get 
long-winded, like my reputation, so I suggest cutting it 
out.  Seriously--there can be only one.

I have one wrinkle to Steve's thoughts that people 
attracted to Alexander Bain's definition of belief as a 
habit of action should bear in mind.  The reconstrual of 
evidence is great--

Steve said:
A bald belief in God (just like a simple lack of belief in God) 
does not necessarily cash out as a pattern of action that 
frustrates anyone else's pursuit of happiness, so we don't 
have the right to demand that theists supply evidence in 
support of their beliefs until such beliefs are made public 
as specific actions or the intention to act in such a way as 
to interfere with other people's desires.

Matt:
What I would add is that we need to remember that 
physical articulation of beliefs--thoughts made public in 
the form of spoken or written words (hell, even 
semi-linguistic forms as gestures and looks)--are part of 
the "made public as specific actions."

It is when we attend to the word-portion of public actions 
in the above formulation that we end up still on slippery, 
unclear ice in just what, as secularists, is simply another 
person's private pursuit of happiness that we should butt 
the hell out of, or is rather something we should be 
concerned about and take action towards (like the spilling 
of our own words).

Five different cases:

1) someone says on an internet forum: "I believe in God."

2) someone says on an internet forum: "I believe in God, 
and that means America is great."

3) someone says on an internet forum: "I believe in God, 
and that means the world was created in 7 days."

4) a science teacher says on Sunday to his parish: "I 
believe in God, and that means the world was created in 
7 days."

5) a science teacher says on Monday to his physics class: 
"I believe in God, and that means the world was created 
in 7 days."

I think all five cases deserve different treatment.

(1) is Steve's "bald belief in God."  As stated, it isn't very 
interesting for the average outsider (even if you are a 
believer) as the person has motivated it, so what is there 
to object to?  Asking for evidence would likely provoke 
responses on this model: "Because I feel His presence."  
And then what would the atheist say?  If you say, "Well, 
I don't," the response might be, "I didn't ask you to," and 
now you just look silly.  If the atheist says, "that's not 
relevant," and the response is, "it's as relevant as feeling 
love," now you look really silly.  If the atheist says, 
"Believing in God is the flouting of scientific evidence for 
evolution," and the response comes, "But I do believe in 
evolution," now you look stupid for having imputed beliefs 
to a person willy-nilly.

Bald belief in God?  Say, "Good for you," and move on.

The trouble with (1) is that nothing in particular 
necessarily follows from it.  To feel the need to engage in 
a conversation, I would think you'd need more evidence 
of something pernicious.  (2) is similar, though weirder.  
The trouble with (2) is that the conjunction seems like a 
non sequitor.  And you might ask why the person thinks 
there's a connection there.  But nothing, again, 
necessarily follows from either belief.  However, American 
exceptionalism is a well-known motivator of occasionally 
bad actions (particularly in those who provide a 
conjunction between it and their bald belief in God), so 
extra probing might be in order, to find just what the 
person thinks is entailed.

(3) is an interesting case because it isn't clear whether 
all secularists should feel compelled to argue with 
someone who believes the world was created in seven 
days, particularly if it's only articulated on an internet 
forum.  I say we shouldn't all feel compelled, though 
people who do can have at it.  Only bear in mind that if 
that belief doesn't, say, motivate them to say hateful 
things about gay people or make their children 
scientifically illiterate, it isn't clear what purpose one 
would have in mind in so engaging.  At a certain point, 
however, with some people (and for clarity sake, I will 
admit that people in internet forums are probably not 
these "some people," but meek introverts you meet in 
regular life might be), one might wonder whether the 
secularist is being the inconsiderate one by hammering 
away at a belief the believer doesn't even motivate to 
do anything with.

(4) seems cut and dried to me: nothing wrong, nothing 
to complain about.  Dude shows up to his private club 
and says private, insidery things to other insiders.

(5) also seems fairly cut and dried: dude should be fired.  
He should be fired, not because he expressed either 
belief, but because he expressed the second belief while 
wearing his physics hat, he was expressing his belief in 
the creation of the world in seven days _as a promoter 
of physics_ to a crowd who was _trying to learn physics_.  
Like a lawyer being disbarred for breaking professional 
rules, the science teacher began teaching religion _as 
science_.  I don't care if teachers want to tell their 
students whether they believe in God, Allah, Yahweh or 
Vishnu--it doesn't seem relevant, but I'm not so naive as 
to think that all sorts of personal beliefs don't seep into 
educational environs all the time.  Nor do I think it is, 
most of the time, pernicious.  But (5) is.

But to say again: words are actions.  First Amendment 
case-law only seems on the surface to contradict that 
statement, but even American law understands that 
anything that has a physical effect counts as an action 
that might have a further reaction.  Can't yell "fire" in a 
theatre, after all.  (Though apparently you can yell for 
somebody to call 911, even though there is _not_ a fire 
burning on the dance floor.  I know; I checked.)

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/