[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[Steven Peterson]

 Hi Matt,

Matt said:
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."
>
Steve:
I agree with your expansion of the idea of action to include articulation of
beliefs. My point is that all such actions that could be categorized as
religious do not necessarily have the potential to interfere with anyone
else's pursuits, and if they don't then they don't need to be justified to
anyone else. It is only when the religious person wants to enlist someone
else in her own pursuits based on a religious belieff such as participating
in the public project of science or history or politics hat she faces
justified demands for evidence that she has a duty to respond to. Her duty
to provide evidence lies only in the extent to which her belief is in
service to a desire that includes the cooperation of others.

In regard to your 5 cases (especially 4 and 5), if someone intends to be
participating in the public projects of history or science (the project of
achieving consensus on a coherent picture of reality that best enables us to
predict and control) in claiming that the earth was created in 7 days, then
that person's beliefs must submit to demands for justification. But if the
person intends this belief as aimed at satisfying some different desires
that do not include implicit demands for the copperation of others, then the
vey same assertion does not need to submit to demands for evidence.
Best,
Steve


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.)