Where Reason Ends and Faith Begins

[cbayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/t-m-luhrmann-where-reason-ends-and-faith-begins.html?_r=0

JULY 26, 2014


Credit Miko Maciaszek

T. M. Luhrmann

STANFORD, Calif. — NOT long ago, I was at an event in which many people, most of them professors, were arguing for the existence of things that many of their colleagues did not believe in. Someone gave a talk in which he explained that he knew that U.F.O.s existed even though all the best evidence for them turned out to be false. Others spoke sympathetically about shamanic healing, reincarnation and near-death visions. But then a woman described her research on what it was like to be dead, which she had based on reports from mediums who claimed to have had the dead speak through them. She cited, as evidence of the benevolence in the afterlife, an Anglican priest, Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson, who wrote a book attacking spiritualism while alive but who, she said, recanted the book after his death in 1914. The group stared at her in disbelief. This, they felt, was flabby-minded.

In a delightful account of the British Society for Psychical Research (a remarkable group in its turn of-the-last-century heyday, and whose presidents have included William James, Nobel laureates and fellows of the Royal Society), Renée Haynes, a writer and historian who died in 1994, introduced the concept of the “boggle threshold”: “the level above which the mind boggles when faced with some new fact or report or idea.” Haynes herself was fine, she wrote, with telepathy; hesitant about reincarnation; but appalled that a woman had flown across the Atlantic to have her torn “aura” repaired by a guru expert in invisible mending.

We all have these boggle lines. Praying in an ancient language you don’t understand is fine; praying in tongues (not a human language, but thought to be a spiritual one) anathema. A god who has a human son whom he allows to be killed is natural; a god with eight arms and a lusty sexual appetite is weird. You believe in the Holy Spirit, but you draw the line at exorcism. You take for granted that Christ will come again to earth, but riding on a white horse and wearing a robe dipped in blood? That’s obviously a prophet’s besotted fantasy.

One could explain these distinctions as simply the product of local culture — the church you grew up in, the familiar rhythms of your family’s life. For better and for worse, it is pretty basic to humans to understand themselves as different from other humans because of what they do and what they hold dear.

more at link

[Orrex]

1. I have often asked but have never gotten an answer

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 08:14 AM - Edit history (1)

If one accepts a certain supernatural phenomenon as real without any evidence, on what basis does one reject any other supernatural claim made with no evidence? Clearly some sort of mental gatekeeper is at work, but that gatekeeper always seems to boil down to pure aesthetics.

I never knew that Haynes had coined "boggle threshold" to describe this same thing, but I thinl I'll start using that term as well.

[cbayer]

2. Isn't this question similar to why one is entranced by

a certain piece of art or loves a particular individual, etc, etc. while others feel nothing or may even be repulsed.

Sometimes things can't be explained but the feeling they evoke is very real. At any rate, I think she describes it much better than I ever could.

Is it just aesthetics? Perhaps.

I also like the concept of the boggle threshold or limit. Everybody has one. What seems to be most important is understanding that yours is just yours and you are no more or less correct about what is real and what is not than someone with a different threshold.

[Brettongarcia]

3. Problem is when people set the boggle line very, very low.

So they never reason much at all. Even about many things that reason easily explains.

Over-emphasizing "faith," and magical thinking, attacking the "vanity of the mind," and Science, unfortunately, encourages setting the bar very, very low.

Leaving millions of believers essentially, deprived of their Reason.

No wonder they often don't do well in life.

[cbayer]

4. It's also a problem when people set it very, very high.

Fortunately, most people set it somewhere in the middle and that keeps life interesting.

Millions of believers are deprived of their reason? That is nonsense. They just have a bobble threshold that is different than yours.

And where do you get the idea that believers don't do all that well in life?. That's a very Randian idea you have there, BG.

[Brettongarcia]

6. Those who rely on faith-healing, and don't go to an MD when they are sick, have probably set it low

The penalty for that furthermore, in the natural course of things, is often death, by untreated illness.

But there are millions of other better examples, where people suffer when they reject reason early, and go with magical thinking, instead. Those who say, don't get much education; relying on God or the preacher to tell them "all" the need to know.

More of these people exist than you might think. Most of my life I've worked with minorities, especially Hispanics. I'm convinced that their lack of education, and consequently lower incomes, can be attributed to in part, religion. The Church encouraging them to pray when they need something; rather than learning rational job skills.

[cbayer]

7. Those that only make decisions based on factual data and never take into

account other things like emotions, different POV's, and unexamined variables have probably set it too high.

The penalty for that is dogma and rigidity and possibly complete lack of pleasure.

Of course there are millions of example of the bad consequences of extremism. One can find just as many religious as non-religious.

Hispanics have a lack of education that is attributable to religion. That's nonsense. And you are essentially calling Latinos lazy and reliant on prayer instead of hard work and learning rational job skills. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You may have worked with latino minorities most of your life, but you have a prejudice that is quite distasteful.

[Brettongarcia]

8. Having worked to help minorities, we need to identify places where they suffer and fail.

Of course they work hard. But still, typically, they do badly in academic settings.

So what is the reason - and how can we fix that? It would be patronizing or prejudiced to assume they do badly because of innate lack of ability.

So what is the factor that prevents them from achieving more in the education sphere, and then getting better jobs?

If religion indeed makes it harder for many to distinguish factual reality from fantasy? Then a child in school might think that Snow White was a historical figure ... and do badly in History class. And then do badly in real life.

[cbayer]

9. I'm sorry. I can't have this conversation with you.

Your paternalistic approach filled in with some innate prejudices about minorities and religion just make it impossible.

You have a nice evening now.

[Brettongarcia]

10. Lower achievement on academic tests by minorities, and lower incomes, are objective facts.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. And there you have it. When the going gets rough, the personal attacks start flying.

Cbayer has painted herself into a corner with her false dichotomy where the choice is between religious indoctrination and a life devoid of fantasy. She can't defend the position she is in, so instead makes a thinly veiled charge of racism, based it seems on mentioning that there is a problem with our educational system and our urban poor, and then announces that the discussion is over.

[skepticscott]

35. The other tactic of choice

seems to be an attempt to dismiss substantive arguments, based in fact and logic by saying "that's just your opinion", as if that all by itself made the utterly unsupported alternative equally valid.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. summarized now in a one liner: "says you"

but one of the more mature and sophisticated posters here.

[skepticscott]

37. I'll have to take your word for it

My filters screen out posts that habitually don't get past the subject line. No longer worth my time.

[rug]

43. Well Warren, are you defending this thinly veiled invocation of sociobiology?

Lower achievement on academic tests by minorities, and lower incomes, are objective facts.

I'm all ears.

[rug]

42. They're facts if your name is Edward O. Wilson.

I don't mine your inane and inept attacks on religion but you've crossed a line when you invoked sociobiology.

[okasha]

26. Amazing that a jury on a "progressive" site

let that Randian bilge stand.

[cbayer]

27. I didn't alert on it, but I don't think it belong here.

I try to engage with him, but I regret it every time.

[okasha]

28. There's no point in it.

Google turned up a history of similar pretentious nonsense on several other religion-based blogs. Professor Larry Hurtado of Edinburgh University kicked BG off his site for just exactly the same kind of posts currently being inflicted on DU.

[cbayer]

29. That's interesting information.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Indeed. Only one juror thought it was remotely hide-worthy.

What could possibly be the explanation for that? Are we all crypto-randians? A vast conspiracy to fix the jury pools? A really stupid alert?

[okasha]

39. As noted, amazing.

[skepticscott]

41. No more amazing

than that progressives would fawn over Pope Francis in thread after thread, despite his holding adamant and unequivocal views which, if expressed openly on DU, would get him PPRed in the first 10 posts. Despite his holding views which, if expressed by any Republican politician or pundit, would have him raked over the coals on this site on a daily basis. Despite his firm belief that an entire segment of the human population should never be granted the equal rights to which they are entitled, and despite his leadership of a world-wide organization dedicated to perpetuating bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals in every country of the world, including, but not at all limited to, the denial of marriage and adoption rights.

No, not even close to that amazing.

[rug]

44. Here's your chance Warren.

Defend this:

Of course they work hard. But still, typically, they do badly in academic settings.

Let's see exactly which privilege is at play.

[skepticscott]

34. 6 out of 7 of your fellow "progressives"

Saw absolutely nothing wrong with it, and the one who did had nothing more substantial that the vague and vapid old "broadbrushing" smear to offer in support.

[edhopper]

46. I am still trying to understand where people find fault with this

you are clearly stating that underprivileged children do worse academically, but it isn't due to anything lacking in the students. I infer from this that you are saying it is environmental or cultural. Are there those here that disagree with that?
Most likely there are multiple things that contribute to this, poor schools, language skills, problems with their homes, nutrition, poverty itself, a society prejudiced against them?

I really did not read this as you saying religion is the only or main factor. Perhaps others did and that is the point of contention?

[okasha]

48. See his post #6.

[edhopper]

49. Well I have to ask if this is his opinion of minorities

specifically Hispanics. Or he sees it as a some children he has worked with.
Is this like talking about young people who pick gangs over school, who put all their effort in to athletics over academics. Places where doing well in school is frowned on. All these problems exist, but of course they are specific to the individuals. What he describes does happen, but shouldn't be given as statement for Hispanics in general.

I'll withhold judgement for now. If this is opinion of all Hispanic, then it is prejudice. If he is just talking about some circumstances he witnessed, then it's appropriate.

[Reter]

24. Results of your Jury Service

On Sun Jul 27, 2014, 12:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Those who rely on faith-healing, and don't go to an MD when they are sick, have probably set it low
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=142966

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Patronizing and racist comments re: Hizpankcs

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 27, 2014, 12:34 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hizpankcs?

Alert on yourself. You sound like Rush Limbaugh.


Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything at all bad with that post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Pretty broad brush you're painting with....

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Ah yes. The alert trolling continues.

Every utterance is parsed for ways to reframe it as alert-worthy. The payback: banishment (albeit temporary) is too great to resist for many.

[skepticscott]

13. This is a very good example of what Jerry Coyne was talking about

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/why-are-faitheists-so-nasty/

There are quite a lot of faitheists out there who on the one hand can't get themselves to accept the existence of a supernatural sky-daddy (or who know if they do, they'll be regarded with a smirk by the pseudo-intellectual/academic crowd they hang out with), but on the other hand seem to have a desperate need for there to be something, anything out there that they can call "god" or "mystical" or "transcendent" or whatever other buzz word suits them. They argue frantically for the need for "exorcisms" at the same time they claim to reject the notion of demonic possession (but let's keep that door open…please..PLEASE!) They deeply resent people like Dawkins, who keep spoiling the party for them, and who make the space where irrationality can exist smaller and smaller all the time. They still want so badly to be able to be both religious and rational at the same time, but they know just enough that they can't manage it without their heads threatening to explode.

One the other hand, some of us know that there is more than enough wonder and fascination in the real world to keep life interesting, and that every day, rationality uncovers even more such. We have no need to delude or comfort ourselves by pretending or wishing for things in the utter absence of evidence. We're quite happy waiting for the evidence and then finding pleasure in understanding and knowledge that gets steadily closer to the truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Uh, no. A work of art is a tangible thing.

Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2014, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

We can, and of course many people have, examine and analyze what it is about a painting, for example, that makes it worth looking at. We may never know everything about art, but there are no barriers to our endeavor to do so that are insurmountable because they violate physical laws.

The supernatural does not exist and cannot be examined. All you can analyze are the bullshit reports from those who claim to have experienced it.

[trotsky]

11. And if it can be examined, then it ceases to be supernatural...

and just becomes natural.

But for cbayer, the world has to be populated by extremes - religious/emotional and those devoid of it entirely, or "Spocks" as she has called them.

[skepticscott]

12. What utter nonsense

Even you don't believe this, based on the fact that you yourself sit around mocking the silliness of Mormon beliefs (as you've admitted on this board) or call creationists "a bunch of dumbasses" (as you've also done on this board).

The logical consequence of your argument is that people who believe that Barack Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim are no more or less correct than those of us who think that he's a Hawaiian-born Christian. Or that people who believe that vaccines cause autism are every bit as justified in their beliefs as those who reject that kind of nonsense.

Reason ends and faith begins at the same point that reality ends and fantasy and delusion begin. Reality, and people's connection to it, is the acid test.

That you have such a compelling need to promote this level of intellectual nihilism is more than a little scary.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Not really.

Finding something attractive or meaningful, is not like imbuing it with truth or substance.

I don't see the parallel anyway.

[edhopper]

14. I thought this

was an interesting look at some of the psychology behind faith.

People do seem to be more specific about what they don't believe in rather than what they do.


(BTW The Bristish Society for Psychical Research, over a century of failure and still going strong)

[skepticscott]

15. There's no cure for stupid

even among some people who claim to be scientists. That's why science succeeds only as a collective endeavor, with standards that transcend the psychological and emotional needs and biases of any individual or any small group of individuals.

[edhopper]

17. That is a good point about science

it needs to be beyond human emotion and foibles as much as possible to succeed.
This is not true of religion it seems, where personal feelings and outlook are paramount.

I am assuming this is about the BSPR?

[skepticscott]

19. It applies to the BSPR

But also to many others who are scientists, or who claim scientific credentials.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. welcome back.

I'm sure your many fans will be eagerly parsing everything you post here.

[skepticscott]

31. Thanks! And yes, I'm sure that

a few unfortunate souls were celebrating their imagined little victory in the fight against what they imagine to be bigotry, while at the same time hemming and hawing about the wonderpope's worldwide campaign to deprive an entire segment of humanity of equal rights.

[rug]

45. Don't give up.

[skepticscott]

47. My point just keeps getting made

[cbayer]

16. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

It rang true for me on many levels, but was not a perspective that I had formerly considered.

Interesting thought about people being more specific about what they don't believe. I think those that have rejected an idea sometimes have a more concrete idea of what they are actually rejecting, while the believers tend to be more like the blind men and the elephant, describing only small parts of a bigger whole.

[edhopper]

18. I found here

in my thread about what people believe, which I would think now you would agree it was not a disingenuous piece of horse manure, that many people have a very general belief in a type of God or belief system they have but admit it is only a general idea and the specifics are unclear.

[cbayer]

21. My views on you are changing, it's true.

And I am sorry if I misjudged you, but sometimes I tend to react based on past experiences, as most of us do.

I would be very skeptical of anyone who claimed to have a very specific idea of god. I am much more comfortable with those whose ideas are difficult, maybe even impossible, to describe.

I will say this for you, edhopper. As much and as strongly as I disagree with you at times, you do keep it civil and tend not to make it personal. That's a great attribute and I enjoy talking with you.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. that would be because as soon as one attempts to get into the specifics of a "god belief"

it generally collapses into incomprehensible babble or obvious idiocy. So yes, best to keep those beliefs "unspecific".

[skepticscott]

32. It's the only way some faitheists have

to keep hope alive that they will someday be able to go back to some form of godbeliefing, with all of the satisfaction that brings to them. Whether that includes anyone on this board is a secret I imagine they'll keep buried deep.

[edhopper]

25. Thank you

I try to keep my post about the discussion, I may get argumentative, but I hope it is about the debate, not the person.

A few times i find it better to just walk away.

[TygrBright]

38. Interesting article!

I was with the author up until this line: "FAITH asks people to consider that the evidence of their senses is wrong."

Rather, faith is the acknowledgement that the evidence of our senses is incomplete, that outside of our sensorium, and beyond the reach of our current technology to perceive, measure, and describe, there are other phenomena that are part of the Universe.

Enlightenment and reason are in some ways an outcome of humanity's continuous attempts to expand our sensorium, perceive and measure and describe what is beyond it.

I cannot sense a molecule, and until quite recently, no tools existed to perceive and describe it. Yet the will of humanity to understand that which we cannot sense has brought us to the understanding of molecular and even subatomic phenomena.

My opinion is that unless we continue to believe there is that which is beyond our sensorium and our tools --have faith, in fact-- we cannot continue to expand our reason and enlightenment.

Perhaps the "boggle factor" described is the point at which people are prepared to admit that the next year, decade, century, might reveal to us more of what we cannot perceive or measure?

speculatively,
Bright

[cbayer]

40. I am glad you liked it.

Your take on faith makes a lot of sense. It's the admission that there are some things that require a leap, that can not stand up to a demand for evidence. And it's embracing that that might be ok.

I think that your argument that faith drives discovery is really interesting. Why would I bother looking for something I was convinced did not exist. Am I not more likely to pursue something I believe to be true, even though I don't have any evidence to support it?

My favorite movie is Contact. There is something there that calls to me.

Plus, I could watch Jody Foster brush her teeth and be happy.