|
||
|
||
So how does this relate to faith? I think it relates to what priorities one sets between the various methods available for developing beliefs. Different people may place different priorities on the various methods of developing beliefs and may use them in different ways. Atheists, humanists, rationalists, objectivists, and those with similar attitudes tend to give highest priority to reasoning based on evidence as a method for determining beliefs. We may use our intuition or authorities in developing beliefs as well, but these methods will always be subject to verification or validation by reason and evidence. Reasoning based on evidence is the foundation of our belief development system.
Other people, for various reasons, may not take this same approach. They may give primacy to either authority or intuition or may spread their belief formation among the three in a manner that would appear to be cognitively dissonant to us. For instance, a Catholic may give primacy in terms of belief formation to the authority of the Catholic church. A religious believer or "spiritualist" might give priority to their intuition or feelings as to what is right or true. I maintain that when we talk about a person having faith, what we are really saying is that they place their primary trust in either authority or intuition. This does not mean that they will ignore or not use reason and evidence. But, reason and evidence will take a back seat if they come into conflict with what this person places their primary trust in.
Whereas a person who places their primary trust in reason and evidence would discount the feelings of intuition or the pronouncements of authority if they conflict with the conclusions of their reason, someone who places their primary trust in another methodology would discount or modify the conclusions of reason and evidence such that they conform to the beliefs derived from their trusted source. For example, a person who feels that there is some supernatural, spiritual element to the universe might reason that the feelings I have labeled as intuition are actually the result of a connection to some spiritual, supernatural reality. Similarly a bible believer might rationalize inconsistencies in the bible away based on the intuitive feeling or authoritative pronouncement that the bible is true. Since it is "known" that the bible is true it makes perfect sense that any reasoning that contradicts it is wrong.
...Differing Needs...
Before we can discuss what this means with regard to dialogue with people of faith we need to consider one more question, why do people choose or use a particular belief formation methodology? I think the simple answer is, because it meets their needs/desires. We all have needs/desires: happiness, comfort, pleasure, meaning, self-esteem, stimulation, making sense of the world, and a plethora of others. Our choice of belief formation methodology will be influenced by our experiences and our, possibly unconscious, feelings and thoughts about which methodology will meet our needs.
I would suggest that our belief systems are not simply devised to form a picture of the world. Our beliefs are what they are because they meet our needs. Some of us may have a strong need for things to make rational sense. I think all people probably have this need to some extent. However, if someone has another need that is stronger, say a need for comfort, then his or her belief system may accommodate that need, possibly at the expense of another need. I think it is just a fact of life that sometimes our needs may conflict with one another and we might not be able to satisfy them all. The stronger a need is the more it will influence our beliefs and our "choice" of belief formation methodology.
...Mutual Understanding?
What does this mean with regard to dialogue with people of faith? The function of dialogue is to come to a mutual understanding between two parties. I don't think such understanding can be achieved unless you get down to a fundamental level. Frequently the discussions I see taking place between believers and non-believers are very superficial. (Actually, they are usually more of debates than dialogues.) They deal with beliefs but they rarely get into the method through which those beliefs came about and even rarer what needs those beliefs serve.
I'm sad to say I've participated in such discussions myself. However, if true dialogue is the goal then a different approach is necessary. I think that to achieve mutual understanding you have to understand the why and how of your own beliefs and those of your dialogue partner. This means understanding what belief formation method you and they are using (i.e. where you place your trust) and how your/their beliefs meet your/their needs. If you don't come to this understanding then I think a lot of discussion will just be wasted breath (or typing). Since our beliefs rest on these fundamentals real dialogue is most likely impossible without understanding them. You might have a very different discussion with a believer who places their trust in authority compared to one who places their trust in their intuitive feelings.
Relating to Theists
I think there are also repercussions from this line of reasoning to they way we relate to and think about believers. It is really unfair to consider believers to be stupid or emotionally weak simply because they believe something that we don't consider rational, yet I have seen non-believers express that attitude on several occasions. There are plenty of quite intelligent believers as well as plenty of emotionally strong believers. While some individual believers may be arrogant, aggressive and pigheaded, as anyone who frequents the forum will know, most are not and it is arrogant and childish, as well as irrational, to think that all believers are like that. It also largely misses the point.
The believer's position may have its own integrity. If someone places their primary trust (in general or in regard to some specific items) in a faculty other than reason and they develop beliefs based on this faculty then trying to reason as to why their beliefs are wrong is pointless as their beliefs aren't based on reason. Also, trying to reason that someone should place his or her trust in reason is circular as it assumes that reason is the primary mechanism for belief formation. That would be like trying to reason why someone shouldn't love some person. Love doesn't come from reason. In many cases the placement of trust does not come from reason either. If you think someone needs to change his or her belief formation method to one of reason you will first have to demonstrate why reason is superior which will involve showing that reason will meet the persons needs in a superior manner to what they are currently using.
While I think we should learn to respect the integrity of a point of view, this does not mean that we necessarily have to accept all viewpoints as being of equal value. It is not unreasonable to think that one belief formation methodology yields greater benefit than others. If we think that placing ones primary trust in reason based on evidence as the method for developing beliefs yields the greatest benefit, for all people, not just for ourselves, then it is reasonable to promote that view. It might be a futile effort but, if we are going to attempt it, it should be done in a respectful manner, keeping in mind the principles just discussed. This will be the subject of a follow-up article, "Why Reason?" Regardless of whether we promote our own viewpoint, hopefully we can at least improve the quality of dialogue between non-believers and people of faith.
-->