Tuesday, May 29, 2007
skeptics want to avoid bechira
The more I read in bloggerland the more I am convinced that skeptics are most uncomfortable not with mitzvos per se but with the basic concept of bechira chofshis. The whole search for unassailable proof is a desire to escape the most basic choice any religious person makes – the choice to believe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are 100% right. There is however a little deeper problem that i believe is not addressed. People have a hard time defining what is based on belief and tradition and what is empirically or logically provable. When they do not differentiate and expect an empirical proof for something that cannot and should not have one, they think the belief is a fiction.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of nonsense. So if all you want is choice in your beliefs, then go believe in Mormonism. Elah My, you want to believe in something which is true, so you look for reasons. I would bet my bottom dollar that if I asked you why you believed you would give me a whole bunch of 'reasons'. The only problem is, they won't be very good.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I disagree. There are many strong arguments that can be adduced in support of the truth of Judaism - more robust and convincing arguments than any other faith tradition can offer.
ReplyDeleteSkeptics generally respond by pointing out that none of these arguments are absolute proofs - there are alternative explanations, etc., that, however unlikely or implausible, are easier for them to accept than the most reasonable conclusion. This is similar to the response atheists give to the arguments for God's existence.
Of course, the irony is that skeptics themselves cannot really offer any convincing proof to establish their own values or beliefs. Somehow they have concluded, quite arbitrarily, that, when it comes to philosophy, theology and morals, their approach is the "default". Yet they would not employ such skepticism in their decision making about any other area of life; they would be satisfied with arguments far less compelling than the Kuzari's to convince them to embrace the values of liberal and supposedly "enlightened" 21st Century America, for example.
RJM very well put. Our friend Anonymous and his friends have been putting forth these "self evident" truths for the last two years but have not been able to "hear" any other posssibility including the one that they may be missing something. Once in a while though I glimpse a small light going off. A new meaning to "Lamed leshoncha lomar eini yodea"?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous misses the point. I was not addressing belief in *Judaism* - I was addressing belief stama. Of couse we all want to believe only that which is true, but only the skeptics fail to realize that truth in most areas of life is not a matter of irrefutable evidence that willy-nilly overcomes all doubts, but of *choosing* the *best* option among competing alternatives. By setting the bar at willy-nilly absolutism, all belief is effectively undermined.
ReplyDeleteSkeptics, by their own logic, can't help themselves, and certainly can't take "credit" for anything they've done.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I wonder if you saw the brief debate in the "Going After Rabbi Gottlieb" comment thread on Orthoprax over the past couple of days...I think the ball is in my court but I haven't had the time to write.
ReplyDelete>The more I read in bloggerland the more I am convinced that skeptics.......
ReplyDeletePlease back that up with some reasoning or evidence. Here's my rebuttal to your non-argument -
http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2006/08/private-orthoprax-continued.html
Be sure to check it's predecessor.
And I can just as easily spin your argument the opposite way - http://baalhabos.blogspot.com/2006/09/armchair-analysis.html
I looked at both your posts. You seem hung up on 1) the social pressure religion creates in its adherents to conform 2) CD as a psychological force reinforcing belief. Both of your observations have value, but have nothing to do with me. I am not talking about social or psychological pressure, but about philosophical propositions. A proposition like 2+2=4 is not a belief, it is a fact whose truthfulness cannot be denied. Religion is a belief, which means at some point one must *choose* whether to accept it as truth, because ultimately all proofs can be refuted.
ReplyDeleteWhen you ask me for evidence, evidence of what? - evidence that facts are not beliefs, that people choose beliefs... You mean you disagree with those statements? CD comes into play to help us justify beliefs, but at some point a person needs to take the plunge and believe something before CD works! A skeptic quite simply is someone who refuses to enagage in the activity we call belief (actually, to be more precise, refuses to engage in belief in the area of religion, because even skeptics believe many other things with a remarkable lack of CD : )
>I looked at both your posts. You seem hung up on 1) the social pressure religion creates in its adherents to conform
ReplyDeleteHung up? Because one post out of a hundred discusses it? Besides it's true, take away social pressure and this society would look very different.
> Religion is a belief, which means at some point one must *choose* whether to accept it as truth, because ultimately all proofs can be refuted.
All beside the point, in your post you stated " The whole search for unassailable proof is a desire to escape the most basic choice any religious person makes – the choice to believe.". To me this is another way of saying people don't believe because of their Yetser Hora. You ascribe a motive for disbelief instead of accepting it at face value.
If I misunderstand you, then I retract what I'm saying. If not, then I vehemently object.
> but only the skeptics fail to realize that truth in most areas of life is not a matter of irrefutable evidence that willy-nilly overcomes all doubts, but of *choosing* the *best* option among competing alternatives. By setting the bar at willy-nilly absolutism, all belief is effectively undermined.
ReplyDeleteMore nonsense. The skeptics will argue that the *best option* given all the available evidence is certainly not OJ! Nobody is expecting 100% proof of anything. But when you have 75% proof AGAINST what is supposed to be true (for example), thats when the 'skeptics' start getting annoyed. You guys are so subjectively biased its pathetic.
> By setting the bar at willy-nilly absolutism, all belief is effectively undermined.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have never seen anyone do this. This is a pathetic srawman put up by people who believe in things contrary to the evidence. Its along the same (pathetic) lines as when a theist says 'you have to prove to me that there is no God'.
Bottom line: Claiming that God wrote a book and gave it to your people is an extra-ordinary claim by any standard. We laugh at Mormons and others when they make ridiculous claims, but somehow when it comes to our claim bogus arguments like the Kuzari seem to be good enough.
>>>To me this is another way of saying people don't believe because of their Yetser Hora.
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to say that, nor did I mean to ascribe a motive to anyone. All I said (or meant to say) was belief by definition involves a choice. Sounds like you agree, I think.
>All I said (or meant to say) was belief by definition involves a choice. Sounds like you agree, I think.
ReplyDeleteNot so fast. All I was looking at was what I thought was motive as in your title "skeptics want to avoid bechira".
To get to the nitty gritty of what you are saying, the answer is still no, we don't *usually* choose to believe; we decide to believe based on the evidence or lack thereof. Trivial example, If you come home and the house is a mess and you ask your 12 year old son "what happened", and he comes up with some crazy wild story you may *choose* to believe him despite the evidence because you trust your son. But if it happens a few more times, you will *decide* against it. It's the same with OJ, at first I choose to believe despite what I felt were problems; I choose to believe to wanted to give my beloved OJ the benefit of the doubt. Eventually, I decided against it.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>>>The skeptics will argue that the *best option* given all the available evidence is certainly not OJ!
Again, the issue is belief, not OJ or Mormonism - please reread my post. Secondly, the fact that belief is so widespread even among reasonably intelligent people should at least give pause before you write that the evidence against belief is so compelling. Obviously, it is not at all clear cut. Thirdly, the fact that the claims of religion are extraordinary by the standards of science is irrelevant - extraordinary things are often true. Fourthly, I have never heard a proof AGAINT (capitals in your original) theism - most atheists claim that they need not prove anything, but instead the burden of proof is on the believer to establish his/her case. For a fuller treatment, see my previous post http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2006/12/sam-harris-and-teapot-proof-old-ideas.html
and note the quotes therein.
>>>we don't *usually* choose to believe; we decide to believe based on the evidence or lack thereof
ReplyDeleteBut others aware of the same evidence come to different conclusions. Imagine jury #1 is presented evidence in an imaginary case and jury #2 is presented with the same evidence - jury #1 convicts, jury #2 does not. Have the two juries not engaged in free choice? When a member of jury #2 says that obviously there was not enough evidence to convict, can we really take that statement as an objective fact in light of jury #1's conclusion, or is it fairer to say that the memember of jury #2 did not convict because he *chose* to interpret the evidence differently?
(Again, I am not discussing *why* a member of jury #2 may have been motivated to interpret things differently, I am only observing that a choice was involved.)
There may be dozens of reasons someone may convict or not, including emotional ones, racism, intelligence, religious bias, prejudice, empathy, etc. And believe it or not, it may be that some jurors are more astute than others and less gullible. It's not an issue of free choice.
ReplyDeleteAs a juror, I may say that I choose to give someone the benefit of the doubt. I don't say that I choose to believe the defendant; I say I to believed the defendent.
>Secondly, the fact that belief is so widespread even among reasonably intelligent people should at least give pause before you write that the evidence against belief is so compelling.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that competing religious beliefs are so widespread among reasonable intelligent people should at least give you pause as to how meaningless belief is as a barometer of truth. This is true within mainstream orthodoxy itself. MO does not believe that Charedism is the *true* life and Chareidim don't believe that MO is the true life.
> Thirdly, the fact that the claims of religion are extraordinary by the standards of science is irrelevant - extraordinary things are often true.
It makes no difference that extraordinary things are often true. What counts is how often extraordinary claims won out over true scientific beliefs.
>>>It's not an issue of free choice.
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight, because I am a bit startled by this claim and I don't want to put words in your mouth. You are saying that when a jury sits down to deliberate guilt or innocence, that is not a decision arrived at by free choice?
And if I read you correctly, the reason this is not free choice is because the decision is affected by bias like 'racism, intelligence, religious bias, prejudice, empathy, etc.'? So are there any day to day decisions you make that are immune from these factors and for which you have free choice, or do you deny that free choice exists?
As for the other issues you raise, I never claimed belief is a barometer of truth, just that a lack of evidence does not preclude a claim from being true. The issue of competing truth claims is too broad for me to tackle in the comments here - good question, but I don't want to discuss it now. And your last point I agree with completely - extraordinary claims have won out, and they have done so by overcoming challenges to the validity of their supporting evidence. At least we agree on the facts.
We need to clarify something. I indeed do not know if there is something as Free Will. It certainly feels like there is, but neuroscience and related fields seem to be chipping away at it. But I *choose* to conduct my life as if there were free will. So for the moment and for the sake of this conversation, and for the sake of my sanity and my ability to get out of bed every morning, I'll go along and say we have free choice.
ReplyDeleteBut that is free choice as to how we react and behave based upon our beliefs and experiences. We don't choose to believe, we decide to believe. Two jurors will come to different conclusions based on the same evidence, it might be due to their belief. Because it is not just the immediate evidence that creates the belief, rather their whole lifetime of experience.
You claim you employ free will in your beliefs. If I present you with a Koran you don't choose to disbelieve, you don't. Yet the same Koran is believed by millions. Belief has nothing to do with free will.
So I think it is incorrect to say we arrive at a decision based on free choice.
> And your last point I agree with completely - extraordinary claims have won out, and they have done so by overcoming challenges to the validity of their supporting evidence. At least we agree on the facts.
ReplyDeleteMay may agree on the facts but diverge in the interpretation. You imply that EC (extra.. Claims) *often* have overturned scientific evidence. Please cite 5 examples.
Sorry, never said 'often', so I can't respond to your last point. I said, and reiterate, the point simply is that extraordinary does not preclude something being true.
ReplyDelete>>>If I present you with a Koran you don't choose to disbelieve, you don't. Yet the same Koran is believed by millions. Belief has nothing to do with free will.
Aren't you undermining your own point - the fact that I disavow the social pressure of millions would indicate that I am exerting my own free will? Anyway...
I never denied that evidence, background, social pressure, etc. influence how we decide. What free will means is that there is some inner consciousness which weighs those factors and arrives at a subjective outcome, as opposed to determinism, which sees the outcomes as a foregone inevitable conclusion. 2+2=4 is not belief; I can't under any circumstances avoid drawing the implied conclusion. Most human experience allows for the subjective fudge factor.
On that note, let me restate the original point: if I could prove to you that G-d exists and that Orthodox Judaism is true, why would your acceptance of religion constitute a decision, a belief, or an exercise of your freedom of choice any more than your accepting that 2+2=4 is true? Isn't the freedom to choose different interpretations of evidence precisely the difference between religion and math?
>Sorry, never said 'often', so I can't respond to your last point. I said, and reiterate, the point simply is that extraordinary does not preclude something being true.
ReplyDeleteBut that fact alone, is irrelevant. So maybe there are aliens monitoring us now. It's extraordinary and millions of people have reported being abducted by aliens.
>Aren't you undermining your own point - the fact that I disavow the social pressure of millions would indicate that I am exerting my own free will? Anyway...
We are getting into semantics. I call it decide you call it free will.
> What free will means is that there is some inner consciousness which weighs those factors and arrives at a subjective outcome, as opposed to determinism, which sees the outcomes as a foregone inevitable conclusion.
I'll try one last time. If I told you that it's night now and you disbelieve me, would you call that decision a result of free will? Yes or no?
On that note, let me restate the original point: if I could prove to you that G-d exists and that Orthodox Judaism is true, why would your acceptance of religion constitute a decision, a belief, or an exercise of your freedom of choice any more than your accepting that 2+2=4 is true?
Sorry, I don't follow.
>>>I'll try one last time. If I told you that it's night now and you disbelieve me, would you call that decision a result of free will? Yes or no?
ReplyDeleteYes.
To restate again, avoiding semantics: if there was indeed a proof to G-d's existance and OJ, but your own logic, wouldn't you be compelled to accept that proof? It would be like accepting 2+2=4, or the fact that it is sunny now as I write this, both facts which I can justify.
If religion could be boiled down to those terms, wouldn't that remove free choice from the believer, meaning he would either have to accept the conclusion or live life as a lie? Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
>>>>I'll try one last time. If I told you that it's night now and you disbelieve me, would you call that decision a result of free will? Yes or no?
ReplyDelete>Yes.
OK, so we have a semantic difference. It is my impression that when people talk of free will, it is in the arena of inevitability. Action produces reaction. Free will is opposite of Deterministic.
I don't call that (2+2=4) decision a decision of free will vs determinism. That is a matter of coming to the obvious conclusion. It's neither free will nor determinism. As a matter of fact 2+2=4 is not a foregone conclusion as someone might be impaired. Free will is the wrong term to use.
> if there was indeed a proof to G-d's existance and OJ, but your own logic, wouldn't you be compelled to accept that proof? It would be like accepting 2+2=4, or the fact that it is sunny now as I write this, both facts which I can justify.
OK, I see.
>If religion could be boiled down to those terms, wouldn't that remove free choice from the believer, meaning he would either have to accept the conclusion or live life as a lie?
I think you're confusing the issue of Free Choice in how to react and the actual decision making process which even for 2+2 is not a matter of choice.
If you provide mathematical proof that there is a God, I might still choose to Rebel against God. *That* is free will.
I had a feeling you would say that. You are right, free will was not the best term to use, as you always have free will to rebel. Nonetheless, I think there is an important distinction between acknowleding the truth of 2+2=4 and choosing to rebel against it and avoiding acknowledging the truth of a proposition. I don't think the Torah's conception of 'free will' as it applies to emunah is simply the freedom to rebel against self-evident truths - I think the freedom of bechira is that those truths are by definition *not* self-evident.
ReplyDelete