One of the podcasts I enjoy listening to is the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, a science-oriented, religiously skeptical discussion conducted out of the New England Skeptical Society. The shows run long, so I can’t listen to all of them, but I’ve heard a couple of them, featuring Michael Shermer and John Rennie. You can learn a lot of science and unlearn a lot of myth from these discussions.
When they wander onto religious territory, however, their skepticism tends to take a strange turn. I have noted in the past that Michael Shermer’s skepticism does not range as far as it ought. His magazine, The Skeptical Inquirer, approvingly cited a discredited article purporting to show that Christianity has negative social effects. He would have done well to treat that study with more caution.
In an article in current Touchstone magazine, titled ”The Skeptical Inquirer,” Edward Tingley takes this question of self-proclaimed skeptics’ skepticism to a far broader and deeper level. The article’s subtitle tells more than the title: it is, If Only Atheists Were the Skeptics They Think They Are. Tingley, a philosopher at Augustine College in Ottawa, launches a strong counter-assault on what he considers an erroneous conception: that today’s atheists and agnostics are the virtuous thinkers who never jump to conclusions ahead of the evidence.
He begins provocatively:
Unbelievers think that skepticism is their special virtue, the key virtue believers lack. Bolstered by bestselling authors, they see the skeptical and scientific mind as muscular thinking, which the believer has failed to develop. He could bulk up if he wished to, by thinking like a scientist, and wind up at the “agnosticism” of a Dawkins or the atheism of a Dennett—but that is just what he doesn’t want, so at every threat to his commitments he shuns science.
That story is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
He continues in that tone for a few paragraphs, and then moves into providing real support for his claims. It’s drawn primarily from Blaise Pascal:
There are skeptical theists; Pascal was one….
“I have wished a hundred times over that, if there is a God supporting nature, [nature] should unequivocally proclaim him, and that, if the signs in nature are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether”—but nature prefers to tease, so she “presents to me nothing which is not a matter of doubt” (429). “We desire truth and find in ourselves nothing but uncertainty” (401). “We are . . . incapable of knowing . . . whether he is” (418). This is where the modern person usually starts in his assault on the question, Is God real or imaginary?
This is base camp, above the tree-line of convincing reasons and knock-down arguments, at the far edge of things we can kick and see, and it is all uphill from here. Thus, it is astounding how many Dawkinses and Dennetts, undecideds and skeptical nay-sayers—that sea of “progressive” folk who claim to “think critically” about religion and either “take theism on” or claim they are “still looking”—who have not reached the year 1660 in their thinking. They almost never pay attention to what the skeptic Pascal said about this enquiry.
Could it be that it is the atheists and agnostics who have rushed to judgment? Have they missed 350 years (or more) of good thinking on the question of God? In what ways was Pascal a model skeptic? He recognized–did not shrink back from–our inability to judge the existence of God by our senses. Translated: our inability to judge the existence of God through science. The modern atheist says, “well, then, there’s no scientific evidence for God; thus there’s no God.” Tingley suspects more than a little of a rush to judgment in there! For Pascal,
There is still the reasoning of the heart.
The scientist Pascal claims to know a route that will take us over the ice to convincing discovery. It is the refusal to test his thinking that betrays the faith of atheists and agnostics.
No no, they will say, point to something material on which to base belief and then I will look at it. “Give us solid evidence!” They insist that every belief about reality must be accepted on the basis of evidence (“experience or logic”). On what basis do they accept that? Evidence? But there is none.
There is no evidence, that is, for the idea that every belief must be accepted on the basis of “experience or logic.”
But atheists and agnostics pick. They commit in the absence of evidence.
I have quoted enough here. The argument is Tingley’s not mine, so I will borrow no more of it. Don’t evaluate it, please, on the basis of these short excerpts; I present them here merely to stimulate you to go to the source and read it for yourself. Then we can talk about it here.
Related: “Though It Is Not Impossible To See God…”
and Evidence of the Heart: The Sense of God
Wow, great article. My mind is spinning - too many great points to comment on. I’d be interested to hear what others think, in particular, about this snippet (bold is mine)
A fool says in his heart that there is no God.
Very good post.
Love your blog.
Maybe we can exchange links.
Email me and let me know.
thanks,
Lance
http://www.lancessoulsearching.com
jgargus2@comcast.net
I used to be surprised that skeptics I talked to took on that attitude of “I’m being totally rational, objective, and critical. I’ve thought all of this through, and there’s nothing but reason behind what I believe,” so frequently.
Since then I’ve come to accept this as the norm. It’s an inescapable reality that some things really cannot be grasped by pure science, and that everyone has unprovable assumptions that they work with every day. Those truths are very uncomfortable to the person who wants to say, “I’m being purely rational,” because they stand in direct contrast to that claim.
I think we can see daily evidence of that denial in the way these skeptics talk about science-minded believers. They have to question their intellect and rationality - to accept it would be to admit that pure reason is not enough to settle the questions that they want to see as finalized.
Shermer’s magazine is Skeptic. The Skeptical Inquirer is another magazine altogether. See http://www.csicop.org .
And Lance, if a fool can get it right, why can’t you?
Medicine Man said:
“It’s an inescapable reality that some things really cannot be grasped by pure science, and that everyone has unprovable assumptions that they work with every day.”
That reminds me a lot of Paul Little’s book, Know Why You Believe; more specifically, the chapter “Do Science and Scripture Agree?”. I’m in the middle of writing a book chapter review on this because it was a strong influence in my early Christian walk.
Molly, thank you for the correction on the magazine.
Lance did get it right.
Everyone gets things wrong once in a while.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/how-skeptic-magazine-was-_b_38896.html
Here Shermer even admitted why his skeptical instincts were thwarted:
Good for him for coming clean, however.
I think the central theme of the article Tom linked to can be summed up in this brief quote - “There are three options, not two.” The author said “reason delivers three options” so let me ask the skeptics out there, is he correct? Why or why not?
The author addresses the “no evidence” reason for believing only two options exist. What do the skeptics think about this?
Tom, that article will provide fodder for a lot of discussion. Re: SteveK’s quote above:
I think everyone agrees that we must first draw a line, that is, we must assume some things - rationality, etc. But assumptions are not empirical claims, and it seems to me that the question of whether God exists or not is an empirical claim, and empirical claims must rely on evidence (as well as the background assumptions that all evidentiary conclusions rest on). But we can’t go assuming a conclusion that should really be reached by evidence.
Is there something besides an assumption (like rationality) or evidence that I’m missing?
I won’t have much time to respond right away, I busy for few days.
Paul (or others),
I think that’s really the crux of the issue. Assumptions which cannot be proven through evidence are inescapable, no matter what your worldview. Also, regardless of your position on God, you will either start, end, or pass through some point in which “hard evidence” is neither feasible nor possible.
The skeptic who dogmatically says that nothing can be believed in without “hard evidence” does so irrationally. First, because that very statement is assumed, not arrived at empirically. Second, because it assumes an artificially narrow concept of reality, one which conveniently excludes the very entity(entities) that the skeptic claims are not being demonstrated.
So, yes, we do have to make assumptions. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it’s absolutely necessary. What is wrong is acting as though you have made no assumptions at all, i.e. taking the common attitude of the religious critic. It’s also wrong to make assumptions that are self-defeating, such as trusting only empirically verifiable facts (which is in and of itself not empirically verifiable).
I guess the gist is that “faith” (trusting in what you can’t prove but have good reason to believe) is inescapable. You either accept that, or you don’t, but even to deny that statement is to exercise it.
MM
Many a skeptic will say evidence that isn’t ‘hard’ can’t help us understand reality. This is one of those artificially narrow concepts of reality in my opinion. Since we all make assumptions, isn’t it best to assume ’soft’ or intersubjective evidences point toward something real? It’s not just best, it’s the only logically consistent position to hold. As you said, “to deny that statement is to exercise it” - which means it’s illogical to deny it. Our job as skeptical truth-seekers should be to search for that ‘hidden’ reality, being careful to consider both hard and soft, intersubjective evidence.
Paul,
I think that’s exactly what the article was saying is not true:
If Tingley is right (and that point is hard to argue), the question becomes this: will we move immediately to conclude that God does not exist? Or can we explore the possibility that he exists but does not show himself to our senses?
That’s the question, and it runs directly counter to your assumption that the existence of God is an empirical matter.
Steve,
I’d say we have to be careful with this:
You could easily take the above to the extent that says anything is possible, and anything is real, because ‘all forms of evidence are representative of reality’. I think it’s more accurate to say that “some” soft or intersubjective evidences can point towards something real. Or, more to the point, it should be made a limiting statement, rather than an open-ended one, such as “Since we all must make assumptions, it’s necessary to assume that at least some subjective evidences point towards something real.”
That gives a logical, rational place to work from, since the more open-ended version leads to the kind of meaninglessness that postmodernism suffers from.
This, however, is exactly where we should be:
MM,
I didn’t mean to imply that all forms of evidence point to reality. My final sentence about giving careful consideration is more to the point. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this.
Steve,
Oh, I figured you did. And the idea of looking for all forms of evidence is the key in any case!
Tom, one thing first: by empirical claim, I only meant to distinguish evidence-based conclusions from assumptions. The only other thing we have to draw conclusions with is logic, but even logic has to operate on evidence in order to draw a conclusion about the universe (see below).
Now, God could exist and never show himself to our senses (talking with us as a friend does would give us evidence, which is the big analogy in the argument from divine hiddenness), and we could never have evidence that he exists, and yet he could still exist (lack of evidence is not evidence of lack - did I get that phrase right? - but it is certainly suspicious). That is hypothetically possible, but so what? We’d still have no reason to believe in him, other than what pure logic and assumptions could provide. But which is going to do the heavy lifting, so to speak, in order to get us to a valid conclusion that God exists? Certainly not assumptions, because that is merely assuming that which you’re trying to conclude. The only thing left is logic, but even that has to be founded on evidence, ultimately. Maybe not evidence of God as a being that we perceive like we do our friends, but evidence of the orderliness of the universe, perhaps.
So let’s be clear: evidence, direct or indirect, is still needed. Perhaps God is like dark matter? Lots of physical evidence that points to his existence (I’m restating your position, I hope and I think), but nothing directly of his actual physical presence as a being?
Even this, Paul, seems not to be drawing from what Tingley said about the third way:
I’m wondering how you would respond to Tingley’s third way. Do you think he’s wrong? Why?
I started with a similar question - and again here. Thanks to Paul for attempting to answer…but….where have all the skeptics gone?
I don’t get what the third way is (the heart?). I didn’t finish reading his article, I only scanned it. Can you summarize? I literally don’t know what “the heart” means in this context. Intellectual openness I get, but I suspect he means something different.
Good point, Steve.
I wonder if this third way might be so completely far out, so distant from normal empiricist thinking, that it’s just hard for people to recognize it as a logical alternative. It’s a foreign way of thinking for many.
Maybe we can take it just a step at a time: is Tingly (following Pascal) right in saying that the third option exists? The question at this stage is not whether the third option is viable, but simply whether there is indeed a third option.
This will be hard if you don’t really read the article, Paul. Here’s the nugget that introduces it:
The first option is God exists, and shows himself to our senses (there is an empirical route to knowledge of God). The second is that God does not exist. The third is that he exists but does not show himself to our senses.
So the current question is whether the third option is at least logically possible. If it is, then we ought to proceed to consider in what ways it might be true and how we might go forward from there. That’s what Tingley addresses in the rest of the article.
(He also speaks, as a major point, of how the so-called skeptics have dogmatically taken a doctrinaire position that rules out the third option from the start.)
I think Tingley addressed this question very well. MM’s comment was the most concise when he spoke about the the logical possibility of a third option: “to deny that statement is to exercise it”. So I think the third option is impossible to deny.
Tom, the third option most definitely exists, but it has two problems:
1. For what other things can we *not* say that they may exist but there is no empirical evidence? Unless you’re saying the epistemological situation with God is the same as with dark matter (you did not respond to my analogy with dark matter, and I’d love to hear from you if I got that right or not), then it seems like we can hypothesize the existence of many other things in addition to God. some of which will be quite absurd.
2. What is the likelihood, in general, that something exists but for which there is no empirical evidence? That is, on what other foundation (besides empirical evidence) can we rest a conclusion? Assumption? No, for obvious reasons. Logic? I don’t see how a logical conclusion doesn’t ultimately rely on empiricism (even 1+1=2 means nothing unless we have empirical experiecne with two apples; otherwise, it’s just a Turning machine, manipulating meaningless symbols). The logic that leads astrophysicists to hypothesize dark matter rests on purely empirical observations.
Paul,
“Evidence” is a broad term, and “empirical evidence” is a sub-set of it. The idea is that there are more kinds of valid evidence than just the empirical, or “hard” evidence. Emotions are an example – they cannot be described as “hard” by any stretch of the imagination. And yet, my emotions are a kind of evidence by which I can make decisions, in that they tell me something meaningful.
The idea is not to throw open the doors to anything as valid evidence, but only to avoid artificially throwing a lot of evidence out. So, yes, there are plenty of things that can be hypothesized, whose existence cannot be absolutely denied, and which would be pointless or strange. The idea is to see what quality and quantity of supporting evidence we can apply in order to make a decision one way or the other. Absurdities will be revealed as such, in the light of all available forms of evidence.
For instance, we cannot rule out the possibility that there is a purple glass sphere with pink dots orbiting the star Sirius. We have no “hard” evidence whatsoever that this object exists. We have no “soft” evidence either, all we have is theoretical possibility. If God was like this, then there would be some legitimate weight to hard agnostic claims that we just can’t know about Him. However, we do have a great deal of non-empirical evidence suggesting God, as well as a lot of empirical evidence to support those suggestions.
The evidence that points towards God is like evidence for anything else, in that it has to be considered as a whole. So-called-skeptics tend to look at each piece of evidence completely by itself, all alone, and say, “This does not prove God.” Then they toss it over their shoulder, and look at the next bit of evidence as though the first one was never there. When all is said and done, the skeptic is standing with his back to a gigantic pile of evidence and confidently claiming that there is absolutely no evidence at all.
This would be like a murder trial where each piece of evidence that doesn’t prove guilt entirely by itself is considered inadmissible. You’ll never have any evidence at all, then, because evidence always needs other evidence to be compared to.
The difference between God and “dark matter” is that dark matter was hypothesized purely to correct discrepancies between prevailing physical theories and observations. The model said “A”, observations said “A+0.00001”, and so dark matter was devised and inserted into the model ad hoc. It’s not so much that observations suggest dark matter, as that observations don’t fully support the theory in question, and dark matter is a construct that patches the hole.
God, on the other hand, is not an idea proposed to make an existing theory fit an observation. God, in a sense, is the theory itself, based on the observations. We observe an orderly universe, a generic moral sense, an intuition of free will, and so on and so forth. We (collectively) observe events and actions and communications from God. So, our concept of God is one developed from observations as the overall theory. Dark matter is a hypothesis inserted into a theory in order to fill a crack.
In response, then, to #1: We could say almost anything logically possible could exist, in theory. Not all such hypothesis will be match with other forms of evidence. The possibility that something exists is not the same things as the likelihood that it exists.
In response to #2: There is no doubt that things exist (reality is reality) apart from our empirical observations. Firstly, this is because our storehouse of empirical data is very limited. The pattern of rock formations on Pluto is what it is. We have no empirical evidence that those rocks look one way or another, but they have some shape. A lack of present empirical evidence does not preclude future empirical evidence, nor does it affect reality.
Secondly, the very examples of dark matter, quantum theory, and so forth show that reality can be grasped through means other than the empirical. Yes, dark matter was suggested in response to empirical evidence, but it has never been empirically measured. Heisenberg recognized that there are limits on our ability to empirically observe reality; and yet, reality is what reality is, observed or not. Neither of those cases can really be said to be based purely on empirical observations – philosophy, assumption, and preference were used to decide how to interpret the observations.
God, then, can be suggested by the summation of evidence as strongly as any anything else. That is where the “leap of faith” is made: the end of a springboard of evidence. We add up all of what we see and decide that God makes the most sense of it. We don’t just close our eyes and try to jump from the locker room right into the pool. Skeptics say that making the leap of faith is foolish. For them, it is, because they’ve only followed the evidence so far. Trying to hit the pool from the parking lot is mighty silly. Those who follow the evidence farther, however, see how reasonable it really is.
MM, you’re absolutely correct that the disagreement between theists and atheists comes down, at some point, to adding up all the bits of evidence–excellent, fair, and poor. So arguments about a single piece of evidence can be thrown off because atheists will debunk a piece of evidence but theists will fit that evidence into a larger picture. So how do we resolve that situation?
You took my dark matter analogy further than I wished it to go. I didn’t mean to bring in the fixing-a-theory aspect of dark matter.
You must have missed my distinction between direct and indirect evidence. We have not directly observed dark matter, but hypothesizing comes very clearly from obvious empirical measurements. Quantum theory as well. Regarding Heisenberg, our discussion is logically prior to the uncertainty principle. That is, we can discuss the question of what is evidence, assumption, logic, etc., in a Newtonian universe, even. That’s where there’s still plenty of issues to work through without bringing in observers influencing quantum effects, etc.
Quantum theory is regarded as one of the most solidly empirically proven theories in hard science. What’s not empirical about the two-slit experiment, Einstein’s photo-electric effect, etc., etc.? This is as hard a science, complete with complex machines, measurements of physical properties, mathematical calculations, etc., etc. Just because other assumptions (rationality at least) are assumed doesn’t mean the empirical stuff isn’t necessary or not present.
Can we agree merely that atheists and theists add up the evidence differently? It’s not that atheists only follow the evidence so far; we have followed the evidence as far as you have, but we add it up differently. For instance, iI believe that it is absurd that some god who loves me refuses to communicate directly and obviously with me - ever in my earthly life. It is also absurd that my decision while on earth about accepting Jesus as my savior is non-retractable. Why can’t I decide after, say, 3,819 years after my death, while I’m in hell or wherever I am, that I do accept Jesus as my savior, and then I would go to heaven? Why must I decide now, while on earth? It’s as if there’s some paperwork deadline instituted by some lower-level functionary - if I don’t get my application in on time, that’s too bad. I could go on, but at least give atheists (in general) the credit for following the evidence as much as you do, and I’ll return the favor.
Hi MM,
This is a great point:
<blockquote> So-called-skeptics tend to look at each piece of evidence completely by itself, all alone, and say, “This does not prove God.” Then they toss it over their shoulder, and look at the next bit of evidence as though the first one was never there. When all is said and done, the skeptic is standing with his back to a gigantic pile of evidence and confidently claiming that there is absolutely no evidence at all.</blockquote>
God is evidenced, but not proven, in questions of origins, cosmology, morality, intelligence, logic, etc. In every case God makes sense of the issue and is the better explanation than the non-God explanation form-fitted <i>ad hoc</i> to any one of these cases.
Again, great iteration of this.
Paul,
Yes, modern-day atheism is not a lack of belief due to lack of evidence. It’s a conclusion. I’m not picking on you, Paul, just those who can’t see what is going on - or don’t want to see it.
I know you are asking serious questions, but this made me laugh. Must be the imagery it conjured up in my mind. Let me ask you a question, Paul: Based on your understanding of the biblical God, do you desire to have a proper relationship with him - you being the created being that you are and God being the sovereign God he is?
Paul,
Well, my resolution is hardly one that a skeptic would accept. I’d say the skeptic needs to treat evidence for God the way they treat evidence for everything else.
It’s not that the atheist “debunks” the evidence, they just reject it in pieces. They make a (usually) correct judgment that “bit-of-evidence-#123, considered entirely by itself, does not prove that there is a God”. The problem is that they then make the statement, “therefore, this piece of evidence has nothing to do with God”, or “therefore, there is nothing about this that points towards God.” This is then repeated with other parts of evidence. That’s how the skeptic gets to the point of having a pile of evidence, and yet claiming that there just is none.
I say that evidence for God has to be considered the same way as evidence in, say, a courtroom. State exhibits A through Z probably don’t prove, taken individually, that so-and-so killed so-and-so. Taken together, though, they can eliminate reasonable doubt. My view is that the evidence for God works in this way. I know that skeptics see things differently.
I know you weren’t going quite that far on dark matter, but I wanted to be sure to emphasize that there is a critical difference between the conceptualization of dark matter and the conceptualization of God. One was arranged ad hoc, out of whole cloth, to fix gaps between observations and theory, the other fits observations as-is.
I might have missed some distinction between direct and indirect, but I think then we’re just trying to use two different sets of definitions. And, you’re slightly off-target in your assessment of dark matter. Yes, empirical observations were made. Yes, those observations were instrumental in the development of dark matter theories. But no, dark matter theory is not developed from anything remotely empirical. It’s given non-testable properties that give it the desired properties within the overall theory. Dark matter theories are non-empirical by their very nature. They relate to empirical data, but they do not come from it, strictly speaking.
No one said that quantum theory wasn’t a hard science, or empirically verifiable. But it does indicate that there are some limits to what we can observe, test, and duplicate from a strictly empirical perspective.
Atheists and theists certainly add up the evidence differently. That’s part of the point of the linked article. If the evidence for God was a pile of money, in my opinion, the current skeptical approach is to ignore anything of lower value than a $5.00 bill, since it “doesn’t add much.” They are then surprised to find that the theist ends up with a much higher assessment of the value of that pile. Evidence is evidence, whether it comes in a half-million little bits or three big chunks.
I understand that there are aspects of theism, Christianity, and so forth that people have a hard time with. May I say, though, that moral outrage isn’t evidence of non-existence? I find the idea of murder horrible – but murders happen every day. I think adultery is wrong, but people cheat all the time. I hate it when people flick cigarette butts into my lawn, but it happens. The fact that I don’t like something does not mean it is not true. That’s a hard truth, but an undeniable one.
Respectfully, then, I have to say that the objections you raised are important, but irrelevant to the question of God’s existence. Those objections are not matters of evidence – they are matters of preference. The fact that murder is repugnant to me does not in any way lessen the reality of it. Your response is exactly why, with all due respect, I have to disagree when most skeptics claim to be following the evidence as much as theists do. There is too much of the “…but if God is real, then things I don’t like with would be real, as well.”
The person viewing the evidence in the courtroom can choose to reject all of it, on the grounds that the defendant is someone they care about, and they think it’s absurd that their loved one could be guilty. That’s their prerogative, and your prerogative, but it’s not an example of following the evidence where it leads.
For those interested, I found a cumulative case written up here. Lots of $5 bills and a few $100 bills too. ;)
MM, the currency that is the evidence (to continue your money analogy) is judged by the atheist to be counterfeit, so it is not worth anything as legal tender (as good evidence). Maybe there’s a few genuine nickels and dimes in there, but not nearly enough to purchase belief.
We may just be disagreeing about poorly reasoned atheism versus well-reasoned atheism.
My incredulity at God’s deadline for my acceptance of Jesus is a strong reason to doubt God’s existence, even as I acknowledge the hypothetical (and I don’t necessarily mean “small” by that word) possibility that God could very well just decide to be like that.
Perhaps another way to say it would be that it doesn’t make any rational sense for God to have that deadline for me to accept Jesus, and it doesn’t make any rational sense for God to not communicate directly and obviously with me, as my friends do. Sure, maybe God exists and chooses to be that way, but it still wouldn’t make any human-sense, perhaps only God-sense. But this then leaves the theist with only the “God works in mysterious ways,” which, of course, can be used to justify *any* irrationality.
Paul,
If you can accept the idea that God may very well not choose to act as you think He should, then I hope you can see that those disagreements are not valid reasons to deny His existence. You seem to be saying the opposite: that it’s easier to believe that He doesn’t exist than that He disagrees with you. Consciously or subconsciously, that’s just assuming Godhood ourselves, by assuming that it’s unbelievable that some other entity could have a higher moral sense than me(you).
It makes perfectly good sense, in all definitions, for God to impose some kind of ‘deadline’. There’s also good reason not to make absolutely and version of “obvious” communication you want to draw up. In short, both are because those who don’t want to believe will find every reason they can not to. They’ll delay for forever if they’re so inclined. They’ll rationalize away anything.
Part of my criticism of the skeptical mindset is that, to the skeptic, there is no such thing as “enough.” From the Christian standpoint, God has communicated, in direct and obvious ways. If a billion-letter coded message in two-bit format arrived from space via radio, SETI would be cheering over our contact with an alien intelligence. I have something several times that size in my DNA, made of absurdly sophisticated self-replicating proteins. Skeptics keep talking about how biology “appears” designed, physics “appears” designed, earth “appears” designed – but none of them “really” are. Shouldn’t all of this apparent design suggest something? Choosing to define all of those as “insufficient” is exactly the kind of irrational flaw that the linked article is talking about. What you are saying is tantamount to claiming that burial mounds, flint arrowheads, pottery shards, and bone needles are not acceptable evidences of human settlement – only stone castles or iron tools are legitimate proof. No steel? Then there’s no reason to believe that people were there. Those other things just “appear” to be man-made.
It’s not that God works in such mysterious ways, it’s more that God works in specific ones. He’s given us free will, and as a part of that He’ll leave enough wiggle room for the committed unbeliever to remain so, if they choose. Salvation is something granted by grace to those who offer a submissive, repentant faith to God. It’s contradictory to the nature of God to offer it to those who have rejected Him, and who only submit to avoid punishment. A judge may offer a murderer a chance to confess before sentencing, and avoid the death penalty. If the murderer waits until he’s in the death chamber to confess, that confession is meaningless, and the judge will treat it as such.
That is why your arguments, and the arguments of almost every skeptic, inevitably drift towards those “moral outrage” arguments: on the face of it, the evidence does strongly point towards some kind of God. The desire to reject that God finds expression somewhere, and it’s usually through statement of those preferences.
Paul,
It’s also not true that God can be used as an excuse to justify anything. He’s given us clear statements about His character, nature, and will. Something that’s not consistent with those attributes isn’t justifiable for the believer.
That said, even when it’s used irrationally, at least “God of the Gaps” presumes a purposeful explanation for the bizarre. The “it just happened” explanation can’t be defended at all.
MM, I’m not sure about the meaning of the word “should” above. I only said God not communicating directly with me, like my friends do, isn’t rational, and the same for the deadline to accept Jesus. To say that God “should” act otherwise is a different point.
Furthermore, without a rational reason, divine hiddenness ceertainly is evidence of his non-existence. It explains the situation very well without multiplying entities.
It’s not a disagreement, it’s that God doesn’t act rationally with hus communications and deadline. Are you justifying God’s apparent irrationality with “God obviously knows better,” or something like a super- (God-like) rationality? If so, you implicitly agree that God’s actions are irrational insofar as humans understand rationality. Otherwise you must try to justify his actions/approach with human-rationality (as you attempt directly below), and nothing else. And, I’m not assuming Godhood for myself or humanity. Where did I necessarily imply that?
But what about those who would believe but honestly don’t find a reason to? As purely and as honestly as I know how, I opened myself up and asked God to communicate with me directly, and spoke to Him, and got nothing.
Furthermore, you can’t seriously be suggesting that every single non-believer is that way because they don’t want to believe. That begs the question, doesn’t it? “Anyone who doesn’t believe like me has hardened their heart, isn’t really interested in an honest exploration of the situation,” which equals “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me isn’t rational.” Then why should we try to have a rational discussion?
And why is the deadline appropriate for those who honestly and sincerely would believe but don’t see what you see?
Paul,
And, again, “I don’t agree” is not the same as “irrational.” Communication on the level you’re talking about removes the free-will aspects of believing in God, also making it pointless. Part of that submission to God is an admission that we don’t know everything. Being able to repent after you’ve died and gone to Hell would defeat any purpose of life in the first place. There’d be nothing rational about letting criminals go free, as long as they say “I’m sorry” after they get caught. You would do things differently if you were God, fine. It is not impossible to believe that a deity might not see things the way you do.
There are rational reasons for it, some of which were recently mentioned. While I don’t see it this way, it’s entirely possible that God could exist and deliberately choose to hide all of the evidence for Himself. The linked article did discuss this possibility, and some reasons why. Yet again, personal distaste is not evidence of non-existence.
There is at least one very good reason, a very important reason, that belief in God is not a purely (hard) evidential thing: human diversity. Not everyone has the intellect to have a conversation like the one we are having right now. Some don’t have the capacity to do much more than take care of their own basic needs. There are those who are too poor, too ignorant, too limited mentally, or too disadvantaged to be given a glimpse of every scrap of empirical evidence in the universe with which to decide. So, God makes Himself available through more universal and accessible means. That’s rational, isn’t it, if God wants to reach as many of us as possible?
That’s not true, because you’re making the exact mistake the article, and I, are talking about. It explains what “situation?” This has to be looked at holistically. For every aspect of life that gets a little simpler to explain without God, there are a dozen that become impossible to explain. Your own disagreement on some theological points might be best explained, to you, by the absence of God, but there’s much more to be considered than that.
I’m saying pretty clearly that there is a rational basis for what God does.
Your assumption of God-hood comes in your approach to aspects of God you don’t like. Your response to these is not “I don’t like that, I don’t like that God is that way.” Nor is it, “I wouldn’t worship God if He was like that.” You are suggesting that you cannot believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless entity would do things differently than you. Deliberately or accidentally, you’re arrogating supreme authority and judgment to yourself.
What I’m about to say gets tough, but understand where I’m coming from. I understand that there are aspects of God that are not all sunshine and roses. Even as a believer, every person is going to struggle with the difference between how we want things to be, and how God wants things to be. I also realize that it’s more important to search for truth than for validation of my own preferences. I have a deep appreciation for those who are really searching for truth. With that in mind, when I read this…
…I have to ask what exactly you were expecting? Making a sincere effort to know God is great, but you seem to want God to appear in a vision, speak in English, or perform some other overt miracle. God will communicate with you, but He won’t necessarily do it as though he was on a walkie-talkie. If you’re really feeling an urge to seek Him, then He’s already communicating with you! That ‘twitch’ that says, “go find out more” isn’t just random synapses, that’s God calling. If you’re limiting God’s ability to communicate with you, He’s not going to kick down the doors. It may be that you’re demanding a phone call, and He wants you to read a letter. He may be whispering, and you want Him to shout at you. Don’t wait for Him to shout - C.S.Lewis explained quite well how God does that.
No, but I am most confidently and adamantly suggesting that virtually all “experienced” skeptics can be described exactly that way. Nobody believes anything unwillingly – what you give intellectual assent to is not beyond your control. Nobody disbelieves anything unwillingly – what you reject is not beyond your control. The skeptic believes many things, which he does not fully understand, and yet rejects God with that as an excuse.
There are those who do not believe who are really seeking. If I didn’t believe that, I’d have no use for apologetics. There are those who do not believe who aren’t seeking at all. Richard Dawkins is not seeking truth. Neither is Sam Harris, or Acharya S, or Christopher Hitchens. It’s not hard to understand that nothing in this world will ever convince Dawkins that God exists; his commitment is absolute.
And let’s be honest – your own statement about God says exactly this:
Wasn’t that your argument against the way God does things? You said:
You disagree, therefore, to you, it’s irrational. I can accept that rational disagreements exist. Then again, not all disagreement is rational.
Because they do have opportunity to believe. the longer a person resists that “still, small voice”, the less likely it is that they’d ever believe anyway. Scripturally speaking, those who “honestly and sincerely” would believe, will believe, someday. Everyone decides how they’re going to respond.
We can go on for hours and hours, but the undeniable truth is that we really do choose what we believe. We have reasons for our faith or lack of faith that aren’t based purely on empirical evidence, or on crystal-clear logic. In a nutshell, the evidence for God is universal and apparent enough that no one lacks what they need to make that decision. It’s simply a matter of choosing to believe it, or not.
I’ve always been firm, but cautious, about asking those who say that they would believe, if there was evidence, this question, which only they know the answer to: do you really, truly, want to believe it? If the answer is no, then all the evidence in the world won’t matter.
Huh? I’m not saying they are the same. I’m just calling what I see is irrational as irrational.
So I think I have this straight, now. The (or one) essential part of believing in God has nothing to do with evidence or rationality or logic, it is merely an exercise of (free) will and a desire to want to have God exist. So if I really, truly, want to believe something, that is an essential part of making it true. Apply that to *anything* else and you’ll see how absurd that is. Thinking that something can’t exist will harden your heart against seeing that it does, but desiring something to exist will fool you into thinking that it does when it might not. *Both* are examples of bias that must be removed when determining the truth.
Why is dying like getting caught in your analogy? I don’t get that, and it is a crucial part of your analogy. I can’t address the other implications of your analogy until I get that one cleared up.
This is about whether God acts rationally, not what I might do if I were God.
I’ve said this before, too: this is about whether the God you describe is rational, not about my distaste.
So your God is so handicapped that he has to have a one-size-fits-all approach? Why is he limited to a single approach for everyone? That is not rational for the creator of the universe to be so hamstrung.
I’ve already said that God could work in mysterious ways, but we can’t call it rational, as we understand the meaning of the word. My first argument is very narrow: is God’s behavior rational? Once we determine that, then we can figure out whether his rationality or lack thereof is evidence for his existence or not.
And this is an absurd situation. There’s no reason for it.
Wrong. I had an urge to find out if he exists. Your phraseology implies that I already assume he exists, and want to commune with him. When I ask him to talk to me, I don’t know if he exists or not. It’s one way to try to find out if he does or not. Like when I don’t know whether my friend is in the area, I call out to him, and he responds if he’s there. Your God can’t even do that for me.
Do have anything at all to back that up? Do you think you can just claim anything at all?
Apparently, that’s how you operate, but a valid commitment to the truth, as Tom says, is to be held by it, to go wherever the truth will take us, regardless of whether we wish the conclusion or not. This is called lack of bias, having an open mind, which does not mean wanting a certain result. Your comments here make me think that the real reason why you believe in God is because you want to.
And the point of this sub-exchange was that you addressed my point by claiming that non-believers have hardened their hearts, but you have still failed to account for those who sincerely disbelieve.
No, you have it backwards. I judge something to be irrational, therefore I disagree with those who would claim it is rational. It can be no other way, logically.
Again:
And if the answer is yes, then all the evidence in the world won’t matter to you, either. You will be convinced of what you want to believe in no matter what. It works both ways. This encapsulates the foundation of the atheist case.
The solution is to remove all bias, one way or the other, and only listen to what reality is telling us the best we can, without preconception, without our hearts telling us where to go, etc., etc. Your approach can have <b>no</b> place in determining what is truth.
This makes a mockery of the idea of objectivity, and, ultimately, of reality itself.
The truth is not necessarily what we want.
Hi Medicine Man,
Very good comments here.
I would enjoy and hope that you can keep it up.
=====
A few thoughts gleaned from Timothy Keller’s <i>The Reason for God</i>:<blockquote>
To know oneself , is above all, to know what one lacks. It is measure oneself against the Truth, and not the other way around.- Flannery O’Connor
Motivations are nearly always mixed. If you wait until our motives are pure an d unselfish before you do something, you will wait forever.
The first thing you have to do is repent. That’s not a very elegant word but there is no getting around it.
Th repentance that really changes your heart and your relationship with God begins when you recognize that your main sin, the sin under the rest of your sins, is your self-salvation project.
Yet those who enter a relationship with God inevitably look back and recognize that God’s grace had sought <i>them</i> out, breaking them open to new realities.
===
In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity.
No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven seems to them a sham.
“In each of us there is something growing, which will BE Hell unless it is nipped in the bud.
…
All that are in Hell choose it.” C.S. Lewis, <i>The Great Divorce</i>
That is why it is a travesty to picture God casting people into a pit who are crying “I’m sorry! Let me out!” The people on the bus from hell in Lewis’ parable would rather have their “freedom, as they define it, than salvation.
All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?
As C.S. Lewis points out, the journey to hell is a process…
</blockquote>
Hi Paul,
I’ve shelved a comment asking exactly what steps you’ve taken in your quest to know God. But perhaps you could ponder how you’d respond.
As for this, I just thought I’d note the irony coming from a man who can’t even affirm that he exists, is a jazz musician, and is not a brain in a vat.<blockquote>This makes a mockery of the idea of objectivity, and, ultimately, of reality itself.
The truth is not necessarily what we want.</blockquote>
Interesting as well that you state categorically what logic demands when you tell us that logic is merely something we assume. It turns out then that you are only assuming what can and cannot be otherwise.
First I have to know if God exists. Follow the logic there for a sec, if you will. No sense in getting to know someone if they’re a figment of your imagination.
MM and I have been having a great discussion, in my opinion. We’ve been respecting each other, it’s stayed quite civil, and the argument has actually progressed. Given that, I decline to respond to your caricature of my argument.
Paul,
I keep bringing this up because you keep conflating perceived irrationality with non-existence.
No. There are things in this world that you believe, for which you do not have exhaustive empirical evidence, logical support, or experience. You have good reasons to believe them, and some questions about how they actually work. Pick any topic, whether you think you know something about it, or not. There will come a point where you have no other answer to the successive questions “why” and “how” other than “I don’t know.” That limited knowledge doesn’t stop you from trusting that those things exist, are meaningful, etc.
Quantum physics is an example. The vast majority of people on earth have never observed experimental verification of a quark. They’ve never learned all of the sophisticated mathematics behind how quantum theory works. All the same, they can and do trust in the conclusions that scientists say that they’ve come to - on the basis of a reasonable faith.
That reasonable faith is necessary for belief in anything. You can’t possibly know everything, so there is no escaping some exercise of faith. Exercising of free will is absolutely necessary, but that exercise is not meant to be devoid of intellectual or evidential influences.
Yes, we have to avoid extremes in the “want to”-“don’t want to” divide. But leaning one way or the other is inescapable. All we can do is acknowledge that internal bias, and judge our own reactions accordingly.
God wants us to trust in Him. He wants us to admit that we need Him, and that He is who He claims to be. Once a person dies, then belief in God is no longer their choice – it’s a truth forced on them. It’s not an expression of respect and worship at that point. The person who feels repentant post-mortem is like the criminal who only feels sorry once they get caught. Prior to that, they’d have been perfectly happy to continue on violating the law. After their capture, they’re only sorry to be in trouble, not sorry for the wrongdoing. Confession after conviction in a courtroom is meaningless, and repentance after judgment is as well.
If God operated in the way you suggested, then there would be no reason for anyone to believe in Him. They could just ignore Him, wait until they died, and then say, “Oh, so you are real. Well, then, please don’t hold me responsible for my actions before.” The judge in a court would never take that seriously from a convicted defendant. “Oh, so I didn’t get away with it. Well, then, in that case, I’m sorry and I really want to be a good citizen.”
You seem to be making the two functionally identical. You’re expressing an incredulous attitude towards the idea that a rational God might do things that way. If we can acknowledge that other human beings can rationally disagree, why can’t God?
I’m sorry, but this tells me most of what I need to know about going forward from here. I suggested that God has created a means by which to know Him that’s accessible for all mankind, and you response is to criticize it as a “one-size-fits-all” limitation? How is that a limitation, rather than an expression of His power? Isn’t that something you should be expecting - a universal means of apprehension?
He devises a means by which anyone can know Him, and you call that “limited.” I think you’re so committed to the belief that God cannot be rational that you’re willing to do some serious gymnastics to defend it.
If you want to know God, you’ll find a way. If you want to find reasons to disbelieve, you’ll find them. What you’ve said recently is casting some serious doubt on the sincerity of your search. I don’t know or care to say much more than that. God exists, He created ways for us to know Him, and those who want to use them will use them. If you’re going to insist that God only communicate with you in a specifically narrow way, then you’re not really interested in truth, just validation.
Yes, and part of that commitment is to acknowledge truths that we do not like. It is to accept that things do not have to conform to our own personal whims in order to be real, rational, or meaningful. Even in those times, there is a deliberate choice to believe what we not have wanted to, a decision to accept what we don’t prefer. I made it quite clear that my own beliefs do not entirely match my preferences. There are truths, which I acknowledge, that I sincerely wish were not so.
It’s “a” reason, not “the” reason. I have no problem saying that anyone who dismisses the “choice factor” in regards to belief is willfully ignorant in that regard.
I don’t know how else to phrase an account for those who “sincerely disbelieve”. If they disbelieve, then they disbelieve. Those who really want to find out, will find out.
But you seem to be vehemently denying that choice has anything to do with your own belief, or lack of it. And besides, if it works both ways, why are you resisting the connection of choice to belief in general? If it (beliefs have a component of choice) is so fundamental to the atheist case, and this is so plainly obvious:
Then why are you speaking as though that distinction does not apply to you?
Then you misunderstand. Truth is not necessarily what we want, of course – but no one is obligated to believe in the truth!
Didn’t you just make a large point of agreeing that some people are committed enough to their beliefs that nothing could ever change their minds? Are you going to ask me to quote every skeptic I’ve ever talked to? Its an idea established enough to be accepted:
That’s not a fringe belief Huxley’s espousing. It’s an honest look into the motivations of a great number of skeptics.
MM, it will take me a while to respond to your post. Please be patient.
Paul,
No patience! No quarter! Not no how! You and I both know that any answer not fully developed in ten minutes, complete with references, cover art, and a soundtrack is inadmissible! Shame on you and your…”patient” approach! Shame!
I’m not conflating them, I’m merely saying that God’s irrationality is one reason to suspect he doesn’t exist. If I hypothesized that another god existed, and laid out a theology that was nonsensical, are you saying that fact of its nonsensicality wouldn’t be a factor in your rejecting the truth of that theology (forget for a moment your supposed evidence for the truth of Christianity)? Could you still believe in your god if you were shown that he was irrational?
The standard does not have to be exhaustive, merely sufficient. But the real issue here is discussed below.
If the reasons for believing in them are good, then they are relying on evidence, assumptions, or logic. But assumptions and logic cannot be sufficient to prove the existence of an object or a being.
Not at all. Eventually you get down to the assumptions (non-contradiction, rationality, etc.).
The issue isn’t whether one has personal (direct) knowledge or whether one trusts others’ personal (direct) knowledge. The issue is what that knowledge is based on, ultimately. Whether you have personal knowledge of a claim or not, we judge the validity of a claim the evidence, assumptions, and logic, no matter who personally observed the evidence, stated the assumptions, etc.
There is no basis for claiming that leaning one way or the other is inescapable. I’m a mediator, and while I may often personally favor one party or another for idiosyncratic reasons, I am trained to ignore those considerations, and I can tell you from personal experience, that both I and other mediators are quite capable of ignoring those considerations. It sounds like, though, it’s more difficult for you to do so, which may be one reason why your biases lead you to believe in God.
You’re conflating respect, worship, and belief in truth. In what sense of the words “respect” and “worship” is the assumption of another’s existence necessary, because it’s the truth of God’s existence that is in question here? These definitions are ad hoc definitions, convenient for covering up the irrationality of the theology.
Furthermore, truth is *always* forced on us. We cannot choose to make reality what we want. Reality is what it is, regardless of our wishes or desires. As Tom says, the truth holds us.
You can’t claim that in every case. What about the criminal who truly and honestly feels sorry after he’s caught? You can’t claim that never happens.
Confession isn’t the issue, repentance is, see above. You can’t claim that everyone who repents after conviction is insincere, on what basis can you claim that for *everyone?
The rational option would be to establish that he is real as clearly as you imply he will after we die. No rational reason not to, then there’s no reason not to be clear and take his commandments seriously. Note I’m not saying everyone would do that, but there would be no reason for God not to. Which is why my claim is that this system God has set up is not rational in the way that we understand the word.
Not to open up another can of worms, but if this is a question of being held responsible for actions on earth, how can an infinite punishment (hell) be just for finite (earthly) crimes?
The issue is that I claim that God’s system is irrational, and you think it is. You’re trying to inflate my issue for me, please allow me to define what I’m trying to argue and when.
Not at all. People are different, why must it be universal? It’s God limiting himself, for no good reason. I’ve given you an example in which God could communicate, by any *rational* measure, more effectively by using more means than the ones he currently uses (like having an actual conversation with someone, especially me), and it’s surely within his power to do so.
Recall that my issue is not what I’m doing, but what God is doing, and whether it makes sense or not. And I’ve already (and will do so more below) addressed the issue of willfulness in a proper, rational approach to this issue (that is, it plays no role).
I’m not insisting how God communicate, I’m only judging, accurately, as I claim, that God’s methods are not rational, as we understand the term.
The only choice we need make is to decide that we will let the truth guide us, and not the reverse. So it still makes no sense for you talk about willfully deciding what the truth is in any particular case. You can use the words, but the actual meaning falls apart upon examination. Our goal should be to *not* decided willfully what is true, but only to commit to following the truth whever it leads.
It’s a *horrible* reason. That reason should never enter into the calculation as to what is objectively true. How can you say this? It may be true that you want to believe, but that can’t be a valid, rational reason why you believe the particular thing that you believe.
I was saying that if someone lets biases intrude, all the evidence won’t convince neither a believer nor a disbeliever. That’s what is working both ways. Re-read that section again.
See directly above.
I understand that I must keep my biases out of the process, whereas you are making the case that biases should be part of it.
Then why do you insist on incorporating choice into belief (”we willfully decide to believe in God”). I can only say it again – properly, and rationally, we willfully decide no content of the truth, we only apply proper process (logic, evidence, etc.) and let the chips fall where they may. After the initial decision to be unbiased, there is no willful choice to believe in any one particular belief or not, especially beliefs about whether something exists in the real universe or not.
Fallacy from authority. Furthermore, for you argument to be logically valid, it’s not just a large number of skeptics (and the argument from authority doesn’t even establish that), but even one skeptic will invalidate your claim.
To summarize, there is no valid third way. The heart has nothing to do with it. All rationality requires is a couple initial assumptions that are necessary for any conversation at all (law of non-contradiction, etc.), logic (closely tied to those initial assumptions, actually), and evidence.
Paul,
I understand this, which is why I keep saying “perceived irrationality.” I’m contending that your’e going in the disagree-means-irrational direction, not the irrational-means-disagree direction. That is, you’re not responding to the idea that there are reasons why God might do as He does, you’re just re-asserting that you don’t like them. Calling it “irrational” does not make it so, and all you’ve done is assert, not support.
And at the end of that sufficiency is a choice to take the final step to believing that which you have sufficient cause to.
No, evidence is needed. But there is no such thing as “exhaustive” or “perfect” evidence. Nor can any person ever hope to amass all of it, even if there were. And there are more kinds of evidence than just the empirical. Just because one acknowledges their limited knowledge and accepts something based on rational “faith” does not make them irrational.
Also not true. You (presumably) don’t know everything about the equations Einstein used to develop special relativity, nor the mathematical equations to support it, nor could you re-create the experiments used to verify it. Nor are you seeing any practically observable effects of relativity. You’re trusting that what you are told by scientists is true – you’re not basing your belief in an extensive set of evidence to prove relativity. You’re making the reasonable choice to believe that relativity is an accurate theory based on your best understanding of what you’ve been told, and your best understanding of the people telling you. You can’t really say that you’re in a position to judge the evidence for special relativity, nor Quantum theory, since neither you nor I have really observed the evidence for either.
Paul, you’ve just expressed an almost immediate contradiction, and now it seems like you’re disagreeing just to disagree. We’re saying the same basic thing, here. You acknowledge that personal preference bears on decision-making, and has to be recognized in order to make more objective judgments. Yet, you’re asserting that your own biases are not influencing your judgment, but mine are – claiming to be above the influence of preference. I’m almost obligated to suggest that my ability to openly recognize that preference weighs in my metaphysical decision-making suggests that I have a better handle on it than you do.
And I’m sure you’ve seen, even just on this blog, the lengths to which some people will go in order to disbelieve that which most people consider overtly obvious. This is consistent with my claim that we ultimately choose what to believe, to varying degrees.
I’m sure they’re all very, very, very sincere in at least some sense, but sincerity has nothing to do with it – sincere confession and repentance of murder after sentencing won’t change the sentence. You had your chance, and now there are consequences for the choice that was made. Feeling sorry is not the issue, either. There is a trusting, submissive component to faith that can’t be reached after death.
This is exactly why there’s no reason for God to conform to your preferences:
Precisely. No matter what line you draw, you’ll have to admit that some people still won’t cross it. That makes disagreement with God over where the line is placed purely a question of preferences, not rationality. No matter how I define the difference between the saved and the un-saved, someone can and will complain that “there’s no reason for God to do it that way.”
Frankly, I’m just not patient enough to keep waiting for that to happen. You keep claiming that it’s irrational, but the only supporting statements you make for this are pure moral outrage. There’s nothing contradictory, impossible, or absurd about the system that’s being espoused. Unless you were able to define this issue in something other way than “because I don’t like it that way”, your argument’s pretty well defined as it is.
I really don’t know how to argue with this. A universally available means of understanding is limited? I guess if I invented a language that everyone on earth could speak and understand, you’d call that “limited”. This is as clear an example of committed skepticism as I can think of. “God created a way in which everyone can know Him.” “Oh, then He’s limited.” What?
That’s typical closed-door anti-theism – instead of recognizing that God made one way that can work for everyone, you’re upset that there aren’t three. If there were five, you’d be upset that there weren’t six. Sooner or later, you’re the postmodernist who wants every conceivable way to lead to God.
There is no other option. My decision does not affect the reality of the truth, but I cannot see how someone who participates in negotiations or mediation can actually say that people don’t apply choices to their beliefs.
What followed this…