= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MrHen comments on Belief in Belief - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (164)
Your observation and orthonormal's observations are correct: religious people often expect and claim that evidence for God is impossible. This is because when they say he exists, they mean existence in a different sense than what you think of.
It's Gould's separate magisteria. Physical materialism rejects the separate magisteria, and I'm convinced that it is self-consistent in doing so. However, dualists do believe in the separate magisteria and you cannot try to interpret their beliefs in the context of monism -- it just comes out ridiculous.
Religious people who have assimilated the ideas of separate magisteria think that the religious fundamentalists who expect there could be evidence of God, and actually expect science to conform to 'true' religious belief are kind of crazy.
Ironically, physical materialists seem to have more affinity for and focus much more on the theistic beliefs of the latter (crazy) group. I don't know what fraction of believers comprise each group (I do know that the fraction of bible literalists increases substantially as you move further south in the United States) but my impression is that the separate magisteria set are much more concerned with rationality and self-consistency, so you're more or less ignoring the group that would listen to you and which you could have an interesting (albeit frustrating) conversation with.
I'll go back and read 'belief in belief', but I don't think you have a good interpretation of the people who expect no evidence of God.
Oh yes, 'Belief in Belief', recalled vividly as I reread it.* I liked this post (up-voted). It's a bit of physical-materialist solidarity-building, an opportunity taken to poke fun at the out-group. The material being made fun of is taken out of context only to the extent that material coherent to one world-view is transplanted without translation to another.
As Eliezer aptly put it,
The thing is, not everyone owns this. The out-group you're making fun of doesn't. The appeal of this view is the paradigmatic strength of physical materialism.
No one has mentioned the idea of dual magisteria as a better explanation for this behavior in these comments until now: that no evidence is expected for the dragon because the dragon isn't just invisible, its existence is non-empirical.
John Mark Rozendaal simultaneously gets the paradigm difference and dismisses it:
This is an especially useful quote because it highlights how many religious groups (John's background was Calvinist) realize their beliefs are non-empirical and find this virtuous. That's why they say they believe in one God, rather than know of one God -- faith in something non-empirical isn't just tolerated, it's what their faith is about.
* I was about to link to the post 'Belief in Belief' and then realized this is where I am .. these Less Wrong worm holes take some getting used to!
I am in occasional contact with religious people, and they don't behave as the "separate magisteria" hypothesis would predict.
For instance, I have heard things along the following lines: "I hope my son gets better." "Well, that's not in your hands, that's in God's hands." All this said quite matter-of-factly.
There is active denial here of something that belongs in the magisterium of physical cause and effect, and active presumption of interference from the supposedly separate magisterium of faith.
Of course most of those people back down from the most radical consequences of these beliefs, they still go see a doctor when the situation warrants - although I understand a significant number do see conflict (or at least interaction) between their faith and medical interventions such as organ transplants or blood transfusions.
This isn't just an epiphenomenal dragon, it's a dragon whose proscriptions and prescriptions impinge on people's material lives.
Think of the relation between the magisteria as a one-way relationship. The supernatural can affect the natural but there is no way to move backwards into the supernatural.
This is flat wrong and doesn't accurately describe the theology/cosmology of most theists, but it helps when using the concept of magisteria. Personally, I don't think the term magisteria is completely useful in this context.
There is a deep problem behind all of these things where one layer or set of beliefs trumps another. In a framework of map/territory beliefs this makes little sense. It certainly doesn't translate well when talking to someone who doesn't adhere to a map/territory framework.
An example: If you asked the person why God didn't make your son get better you will get a bazillion answers. Likewise, if you asked about taking your son to the hospital they will tell you that you should. These two beliefs aren't in conflict in their system.
I have watched an entire congregation pray for someone who had cancer. They earnestly believed that their prayer was having some effect but if you asked for particulars you will get the bazillion answers. These people are not trying to explain away a future answer. They have seen what appears to be a bazillion different endgames for the scenario they are now in. That, mixed in with the crazy amount of factions within Christian theological circles, isn't going to make sense with a map/territory framework. But they aren't using that framework.
The weak assumption in the dragon example is that the believer of the dragon hasn't already tried using a CO2 meter. Don't underestimate the amount of historical questions packed behind the confusing answers you get when you ask someone to prove their dragon exists.
That being said, the dragon example does bring up a very awesome and valid point. If I took a few of those people who were in that congregation who prayed about cancer and asked them years later about the prayee's status... what would they say? Would they expect a change in their state? Would the cancer be gone? What do they expect from the prayer? My guess is that they wouldn't make any prediction.
Then the natural can perceive the supernatural but not vice versa. To perceive something is to be affected by it.
The real problem with those who go on about separate magisteria is that they are emitting words that sound impressive to them and that associate vaguely to some sort of even vaguer intuition, but they are not doing anything that would translate into thinking, let alone coherent thinking.
I'm sorry to be brutal about this, but nothing I have ever heard anyone say about "separate magisteria" has ever been conceptually coherent let alone consistent.
There's just one magisterium, it's called reality; and whatever is, is real. It's a silly concept. It cannot be salvaged. Kill it with fire.
Do you consider it a useful concept for describing a particular kind of stupidity (eg. Aumann)? Or is a useless concept even then?
I think it is a useless concept even then. It doesn't make sense and doesn't compute. By the time you translate whatever "stupidity" you are describing into "magisterium" you (a) know enough about the stupidity to speak to it on its own terms and (b) aren't really talking about the stupidity; you are talking about magisterium which is a bastardization of two beliefs. How does that help?
Erm... I agree with you? I don't think the term magisteria is an accurate description of what they believe:
"Magisteria" doesn't do anything useful. People have been using the word to describe why theists think God is "above" empirical results.
Blarg. This is a semantic war. "Affect," in this case has nothing to do with perception. Don't forget that these people are not working with the same framework. I am not trying to defend the framework or even that I am claiming it for myself. I am only trying to help explain something.
Yeah, okay, I am with you. I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I am advocating separate magisteria. You don't have to apologize for being brutal; I am confused that it seems directed at me.
I grew up as a Mormon; they have a very different view of God than most Christians.
God is an "exalted man", essentially a human that passed through a singularity. Also, regarding spirits: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." Spirits are "children" of God, literally progeny in some sense. Spirits are attached to human bodies, live life as mortal beings, and then separate, retaining the memories of that time; the promise of the resurrection is a permanent fusing of spirit matter to undying bodies made of normal matter, and exaltation, reserved for those who prove worthy, is the ability to create spirit beings. It is the spirit that is conscious. "Eternity" just means "far longer than you have the ability to properly conceive of". "Sin" means "addictive substances or behaviors".
This sort of story is pretty decent sci-fi for early 1800s.
Mormons fully expect spirit matter to show up in the correct theory of physics, whether it's dark matter or supersymmetric particles, or whatever.
As a missionary, I encouraged people to pray and ask God if the Book of Mormon was true; many who did so had an experience that was so unusual that they took us very seriously after that. Those that didn't couldn't be held accountable for not believing us, since that kind of experience was up to God to provide.
I now think there are simpler explanations for most of what I once believed. It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that I was wrong because of the "no conflict between science and religion" tenet, and I was raised as a Mormon in a very loving, functional family, and had particularly clever parents who were very good apologists, and I'm not a very good rationalist yet.
As a specific example of Eliezer's larger point, prayer is a natural attempt to influence the supernatural; so by that account, prayer must be futile.
Er, I am not defending the idea of one-way relationships between magisteria. The point was meant to highlight that magisteria is very much the wrong term.
As far as the one-way relationship, the term was not used to mean communication, causality, or anything else in particular.
The easiest example is a write-only folder on my computer. I can drop a file in that folder but do not have any direct measurement of its success or what happens to it after I drop it there. This relationship is "one-way" in the same way that my original statement was using "one-way." Likewise, a read-only file can be opened and viewed but not modified. This is also "one-way" in the same manner that I meant "one-way" in the original statement.
Both of these examples are not one-way in the manner that magisteria would describe one-way.
And again, I am not trying to defend this view. I am merely trying to describe why magisteria is the wrong term.
Prayer would be an example of dropping a file into a write-only folder. We do something and assume that something happens to it later. We don't have access to whatever happens because we don't have read access.
This statement wouldn't make any sense in the cosmology of a typical theist. That cosmology may be completely wrong but using this statement to tell them that prayer is futile would make you sound like a complete nut. The discussion needs to start somewhere else.