These discussions about religion that have arisen often on TIPS over the
last year or so are always fascinating for any number of reasons. The
latest discussion seems to be focused on the instrumental value of
religion (specifically, the association of religious belief with moral
behavior). Religious belief may or may not have such an instrumental
value; but for me, the crux of the matter always comes down to the
reasons that one believes something to be true in the first place. And I
think that this question is what keeps this issue alive on TIPS: there
is a fundamental disagreement among people on this list regarding the
issue of what is a good reason for believing something to be true.
In our scientific work, virtually everyone on this list would agree that
one must have adequate evidence in support of a claim before one can
give one's assent to it, although we might disagree over what we
consider to be adequate evidence as well as other related issues. Some
people on this list, however, seem to compartmentalize this scientific
principle: it pertains to their scientific work and to practical
questions they may want answered in their everyday lives (such as why
their car wouldn't start this morning). In other areas of their lives,
faith (believing without the need for evidence) as well as "alternative
ways of knowing" seem not only sufficient reasons for believing
something to be true, but perhaps even virtuous.
Then there are those, such as I, who do not compartmentalize the
scientific principle that adequate evidence is required before one can
give one's assent to a claim (not that one always lives by this ideal,
but that one always strives to do so). These people often cannot
understand why someone would believe something on faith: such a reason
is often incomprehenible to them (even for those of us who used to have
similar faith-based beliefs). To argue that faith has an instrumental
value is irrelevant to such people: there seems to be a fundamental
philosophical divide between those who are able to accept beliefs on
faith and those who are unable to. Even if the evidence were
incontrovertible that faith leads to increases in measures of moral
behavior, health, happiness, sexual vigor, physical attractiveness,
wealth, success, and so on, a person who cannot accept a belief on faith
will be unmoved.
For me, the teaching message I have learned from these many threads is
this: for many of our students (as well as for many of our teachers),
there are strict limits to the lesson that one must collect and evaluate
evidence before one can accept a claim as likely to be true. For certain
claims, evidence is seen as unnecessary. For those of us who believe
adequate evidence is always necessary regardless of the nature of the
claim, we must ask ourselves to what extent we need to challenge the
faith-based perspective in order to teach our lesson about the need for
supporting evidence.
Jeff
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
“No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.”
Lily Tomlin
Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS)
http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html
