Ross Douthat responds to a post by Bradlaugh on various beliefs in the supernatural:
But even extraordinary happenings aren’t, well, all that extraordinary. Religious belief exists and persists in part because religious experiences exist and persist – even if they’re far from universal, as Derb will be happy to inform you – and in existing and persisting seem to cry out for an explanation. And many of the numinous encounters that people seek to explain, both to others and to themselves, don’t fall into the “oneness with the universe” category that gets the students of brain states and meditation so excited: They’re often weirder than that, and often darker….
Obviously my own model is that religious belief exists because the human mind has a tendency to infer supernatural agency in the world based on peculiar sensory inputs. I won’t get into that in detail, you can read In Gods We Trust or Religion Explained. On a more banal level it seems to me that the variation as a function of time and culture suggests that humans fit their perceptions of supernatural agency into their own frameworks. Ross admits this. But that isn’t the point of my post…I went and looked for the original Harris Poll that Bradlaugh’s post was based on, and I found it online.
These particular bits of data really confuse me:
|
Religion |
||
|
Catholic |
Protestant |
|
|
% |
% |
|
| Darwin’s theory of evolution |
52 |
32 |
| Ghosts |
57 |
41 |
| Creationism |
46 |
54 |
| UFOs |
43 |
31 |
| Astrology |
40 |
28 |
I understand why Catholics are more prone to accepting evolution than Protestants. But astrology, UFOs and ghosts? I checked the GSS and it doesn’t look like there’s a big Catholic-Protestant difference on astrology in their sample, but it’s smaller than Harris’.
Obviously my own model is that religious belief exists because the human mind has a tendency to infer supernatural agency in the world based on peculiar sensory inputs.
Aren’t all the higher animals born with instinctive knowledge of succession and causality? Then just add in Man’s capacity for higher levels of thinking and imagination and you get the: everything has a reason for its happening and if it is not an obvious reason, then I’ll invent a fantastical one, as the mind remians restless until it can convince itself it has that cause identified.
“I understand why Catholics are more prone to accepting evolution than Protestants. But astrology, UFOs and ghosts?”
Don’t Catholics put much more of an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the Trinity than Protestants do? The “mystery”, to put it charitably, of three-persons within (cough, cough) one god?
If so, maybe they are more primed to accept ghosts and mystical-astrological thinking. (UFOs leave me stumped, though.)
Just speculating here….
Ivan Karamazov
Will you try next: Simplistic psycho-babble explanations that fit my preconceived notions for $1000, Alex?
As for the data I will speculate that, as many such surveys do (perhaps it is all they can do) this one relies to a fault on self-identification. This is how we get absurdly high numbers of self-identified Christians in this country. If we simply ask for self-identification, then apostates such as Fred Phelps show up in the “Christian” category when, according to the manner by which we are instructed to judge those who claim the title, (by their fruits–pun not intended but relished) Phelps is not a Christian. Even more to the point are the surely numerous purely cultural Christians.
Consider the categories. Evolution is often reconciled with Christianity. Ghosts are at the least problematic–in the case of the Witch of Endor it’s not clear if we are actually dealing with Samuel’s ghost. Creationism goes without saying. UFO’s–they become fairly difficult to reconcile with any mainstream dogma–the best you can say is that the bible is silent on the matter.
But the astrology category is telling. It is absolutely impossible to reconcile astrology with the idea of a sovereign God–that is theism. For anyone who accepts astrology and also claims to be Christian–I would be very suspicious that their Christianity is anything more than a ‘C’ or a ‘P’ stamped on their dogtags.
The supernatural is a lot more full for Catholics. Lots of mystery. Lots of saints. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Things are a lot more simple for Protestants. After all, a big part of many Protestant sects is about stripping things down to the fundamentals (to be just like the early Christians). A lot of atheism in America has exactly this sort of sensibility. Catholic atheists are a different breed.
A lot of atheism in America has exactly this sort of sensibility. Catholic atheists are a different breed.
A humourous aside to this: I’m an Ulsterman by birth, and in my younger days there was a joke going around those environs about an Englishman visiting Belfast. First person he encountered in Belfast was an old lady who somewhat brusquely demanded to know what religion he was (it was a big thing back in those days, and alas, to some extent, still is). “I’m an Atheist”, he replies. To which the old lady responded: “But are ye a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?”.
I think that Thras is spot on. Catholicism’s instinct is that we do not go through life alone — there are saints, angels, everywhere. They watch us, they help us, e.g., “Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom God’s love entrusts me here.” I am not surprised one bit that Catholics are more inclined than Protestants to believe in UFO’s — particularly given their greater belief in evolution. I imagine that the reasoning goes something like this: If evolution is true, then there probably is life elsewhere in the universe, and if there is life elsewhere in the universe at least some of that life is bound to be intelligent, and if some of it is intelligent some of that life is bound to be much smarter than us, and if they somehow stumble across us they are like to decide to pay us a visit.
“If we simply ask for self-identification, then apostates such as Fred Phelps show up in the ‘Christian’ category when, according to the manner by which we are instructed to judge those who claim the title,… Phelps is not a Christian.”
Self-identification is the only reasonable manner to make this determination on anything approaching a rational basis. Your nutty “by your fruits” test is worse than useless, it’s self defeating because it’s wholly subjective. You say Fred Phelps is not a Christian and he says you are not a Christian. So between you there are no Christians, even though you both claim to be Christian.
Why the personal attack? I notice you didn’t bother to say what was wrong with what I wrote. Ever put a new puppy on the edge of a high table? How do you suppose it “knows” to pull back, unless it has from birth a sense of Space, Time, and Causality? Do you suppose it remembers what happened to it that last time it jumped? Our brains are pre-wired with those intuitions, else our distant ancestors, in whom this all first evolved, would not have lived to reproduce.
I await your next ad hominem.
Not entirely silent.
Good speculation. Rings true to me, raised as I was in a pre-Vatican II Catholic environment. “Holy Ghost” were the very words our priests used, “Holy Spirit” much more rarely.
Grant Canyon,
It is a test based on the idea that words have meaning. If I claim that “I am a secular rightist, and I support mandatory prayer in public school and the nationalization of all industry” you would rightly say “you ain’t no secular rightist.”
As I said, words have meaning. Christianity means what the bulk of Christians say it means. And the bulk of Christians would judge that Phelps, regardless of his claim, behaves in a way that is contrary to the beliefs of a wide, cross-denominational spectrum of mainstream Christianity and contrary to the teachings of Christ.
In the same manner, if someone claimed: “I am a Christian and I believe Elvis is Christ” we can say that such a person is in fact not a Christian.
Of what possible relevance is it that Phelps would declare that I am not a Christian? If Sarah Palin claimed she was a secular rightist and the owners of this blog were not, would we have to accept her claim as equally valid lest we be accused of a True Scotsman fallacy?
But that wasn’t unidentified. Technically. I would think? Also, Ezekiel 1.
everything has a reason for its happening and if it is not an obvious reason, then I’ll invent a fantastical one, as the mind remians restless until it can convince itself it has that cause identified.
There is a very good “reason” for the mind to remain restless until a cause has been identified: causality is a prerequisite for planned action and successful action is an obvious evolutionary advantage.
Unfortunately, not only whimsical fantasies like supernatural agency interfere with effective causal models but it is formally impossible to build an all encompassing model.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason has been proven wrong even in the simplified setting of mathematics.
The religious fantasies are bound to show their evolutionary disadvantage in the long run by pushing the worshippers toward various Darwinian culls, end-of-times, Armageddon, Jim Jones, etc…
Ivan Karamazov,
My next “ad hominem” is to suggest that you should explore the definition of “ad hominem.” You are confusing it with “mocking” or “insulting.” If I said: your argument is wrong because your name is Ivan, that would be an ad hominem.
Your argument is “not even wrong.” I’m a scientist–when someone wants to explain something, I naturally ask: how do you test that? So how do test your, um, theory: “everything has a reason for its happening and if it is not an obvious reason, then I’ll invent a fantastical one, as the mind remians restless until it can convince itself it has that cause identified.”
If you can test that, then we should be able to apply the same test to the theory of “god-shaped holes in peoples’ hearts.”
@David Heddle
“It is a test based on the idea that words have meaning. If I claim that ‘I am a secular rightist, and I support mandatory prayer in public school and the nationalization of all industry’ you would rightly say ‘you ain’t no secular rightist.'”
Only because the terms “secular” and “rightist” are more sharply defined in a way that “Christian” isn’t. (i.e., “cultural Christians” are still Christians.)
Moreover, your ‘secular rightist’ analogy doesn’t describe Phelps. Phelps is closer to “I support setting aide class room space, after school, for voluntary student-led prayer and would not always be opposed to limited tax credits for certain industries vital to the national defense.”
“As I said, words have meaning. Christianity means what the bulk of Christians say it means.”
You skipped a step. You have failed to justify why “the bulk of Christians” is the appropriate arbiter of the meaning of the word “Christian.” You’ve also failed to identify what metric is the appropriate one to make that fine gradation. (Indeed, if one needs an arbiter to determine the meaning of the word “Christian” in practice, then the word does not “have meaning” or, at least, does not have anything approaching an objective meaning.)
Even if the bulk of the world’s Christians decided that Southern Baptists weren’t Christians, that doesn’t change the fact that they are Christian because they self-identify as such, and they make a colorable claim to such. Similarly Phelps self-identifies as such and makes a colorable claim.
“And the bulk of Christians would judge that Phelps, regardless of his claim, behaves in a way that is contrary to the beliefs of a wide, cross-denominational spectrum of mainstream Christianity and contrary to the teachings of Christ.”
Nonsense. Pat Robertson said the gays caused god to flood New Orleans. Phelps says the gays caused god to kill US Soldiers. Bare difference of degree, not of kind. Yet no one would claim that Pat Robertson is not a Christian.
“In the same manner, if someone claimed: ‘I am a Christian and I believe Elvis is Christ’ we can say that such a person is in fact not a Christian.”
Not necessarily. We can, perhaps, say that his Christianity is unusual, but so is the Morman’s. But even if it is conceded that the “by their works” test can distinguish between a Christian and an Elvisian, that is not the kind of distinction that you are drawing regarding Phelps.
Self-description might be imprecise because it would fail to distinguish marginal outliers like the Elvisian, but that issue pales in comparison to the problems one would have in empanelling a congress of high priests or theologians every time you wanted to survey people’s religious affiliation.
“Of what possible relevance is it that Phelps would declare that I am not a Christian?”
Because who is to say that it is your view as to what make a Christian, a Christian, rather than Phelps’ view. It’s all pretty much subjective anyway.
The religious fantasies are bound to show their evolutionary disadvantage in the long run by pushing the worshippers toward various Darwinian culls, end-of-times, Armageddon, Jim Jones, etc…
In the long run we are dead 🙂 In the short run, last I checked Creationists are more fecund….
Never mind your stalling “tests” for now. Do you doubt that everything has a reason for its happening? You haven’t said yet, and this is the third post. I can’t imagine that you do doubt it. How could you possibly even walk around?
You call yourself a scientist. “Over-educated” seems more likely to me. We all know the type. What the Irish call “too clever by half”.
Grant Canyon,
As I suspected, you are reserving the right to apply a test of admission to someone claiming to be a secular rightist, but denying another group (Christians) the right to police their own membership. You justify it with vague self-serving statements about what is more sharply defined.
Your position is historically and logically absurd. It, for example, implies that no church should excommunicate anyone, at least if the person being excommunicated claims to be a true adherent to that church. Pelagius claimed to be a Christian—how intolerant of the church to call him a heretic.
For the same reason that the bulk of secular rightists could declare that Sarah Palin is not in their club, even if she claimed to be. Who else (apart from God, and he’s not talking) should decide who can reasonably claim the title Christian? A court in Brussels, perhaps?
What part is nonsense? That the bulk of Christendom would certainly argue that Phelps gives no evidence whatsoever of being a Christian other that claiming to be a Christian—which is only a necessary (at least normatively so) but not sufficient condition. The New Testament has quite a few examples of people who claim to be Christians—who even believe, but ultimately are not.
As for Pat Robertson, he has indeed as you stated, made ridiculous statements, statements that are contrary to orthodox Christianity and have no biblical support. However, obscene as some of his statements are, he has not demonstrated total commitment to aberrant behavior a la Fred Phelps. It is a matter of degree. You have posed this plank as if you can match Robertson and Phelps tit for tat. You can’t. You need a log scale to get both Robertson and Phelps on the same plot.
I realize for a certain group of insecure atheists, it is attractive to claim that Phelps is just as much a Christian as anyone else making the claim. Usually such atheists, and I don’t know if you are one, will also argue that Stalin and Mao were not really atheists.
When I stated: “In the same manner, if someone claimed: ‘I am a Christian and I believe Elvis is Christ’ we can say that such a person is in fact not a Christian.” You replied:
You have played you hand. Anyone who would write “not necessarily,” that someone who claimed Elvis is Christ must be afforded the honorific Christian is making an irrational argument and neglecting my original point: words have meaning.
Ivan Karamazov
The thread has gone too off topic too quickly.