However, we can behave as if we believe something or love something. And such behavior may very well lead to real belief or love.

I don’t know exactly what Pascal meant when he spoke of “believing.” If he simply meant some sort of assent to certain largely untennable ideas, I think Dawkins criticism is right on. But it seems Dawkins’ criticism is generally directed at a version of religion that distorts Christianity by focusing on such assent. There’s a difference between belief and faith. If Pascal was more focused on a true faith (as opposed to merely believing certain statements to be factualy ture), then Dawkins’ criticism isn’t as much on point.

It would also be interesting to know what “belief” reason impels and how it does so.

GCC,

I think what you say in your last paragraph is probably the response you would receive if you did confront someone on the double standard. There is also that practical question of what happens when I die. There is an eternity after death that would seem to be of the utmost concern.

Or they may say something like, “Well there is MORE evidence for X politics than there is for Y religion so that’s why the two aren’t really comparable.” Well, we must know what is meant by X politics. For instance, take the death penalty. One might argue against it because: it’s unjust/inhumane; it’s expensive; it’s not a deterrent; and maybe more.

The first reason is really akin to an objective moral statement and don’t see how you can have any evidence for it (can you provide ‘evidence’ for “Murder is wrong”?); the second reason isn’t really an argument against the death penalty but against expensive penalties and non-deterring penalties. Presumably, if the death penalty was made cheaper, it would then be ok.

My point is, is that behind so-called policy statements are really religious-type statements. I’m sure this could be summed up more clearly but for the time being think about some of our political systems: classical liberalism posits so-called rights of man and liberty; Marxism/socialism positing historical materialism etc. Our political systems have underlying religious-type statements as their foundation. By religious-type statement I mean statements that lack so-called sufficient evidence.

And can there really be that much evidence for policy statements when policy opinion is so varied even amongst the brightest intellectuals?

iblase

Speaking of “unthinkingness” (or better, ignorance), the question “How can one be a scientist and believe in God?” is really a strange one to me. It seems to me that any conflict between science and religion is voluntary.

The way I understand God, I think I would answer it with another question: “How can I believe in God and not be a scientist?!?” (Of course, I would think the same thing would apply to any form of exploration of creation, art, science, philosophy, etc.)

Oh, and one last thought. People might find it OK to be agnostic in religion and not politics because they recognize the practical necessity of policy decisions while not seeing any practical necessity in religion. If that’s the case, it’s not really a double standard, because the two things – in that person’s mind at least – aren’t really comparable.

Thanks for you comment. I see what you’re saying and I’m sure that the libs=bad, cons=good mentality exists in full force also in conservative circles.

But the Us vs. Them = Good vs. Bad mentality wasn’t really my point. My point was that pluralists or liberals (loosely defined) disavow the Us vs. Them mentality in religion (i.e. all religions have equal claims to truth) but then seem to embrace it in politics.

Now the conservative or traditional Christian do not have quite the same problem because they may believe in exclusive truth claims for religion and also in politics (i.e. embrace Us vs. Them in religion and politics).

From my own experience I have confronted Clifford’s Thesis and the Pluralist Thesis quite often; I went to a small liberal arts school (emphasis on liberal) where the Pluralist Thesis was ceaselessly espoused. After 9/11, there was a renewed emphasis on ‘toleration’ of different religions (more on this in future posts, I expect) and a common quote on dorm doors read, “God is too big for just one religion”. Then when I came to graduate school, variations of Clifford’s Thesis abounded (being in physics probably had something to do with it). Religious belief is met by, “How can you even be a scientist and believe in God?” and the like. To be fair I have also encountered those who do extend Clifford’s Thesis to all areas of life and are therefore practically total skeptics.

I, Blase

Towards the end you pointed out that saying Islam = wrong and Christianity = right is condemned while saying Liberalism= sweet and Conservatism = sucky is not. But, to make the point work you had to parenthetically point out that one would have to make the latter statement in a generally liberal, that is likeminded, group. Doesn’t it seem just as likely that if in a group of similiarly defined Christians one would making the former statement would also not be condemned?

The point being that Us Good, Them Bad talk is generally cheered when Us and Them can be defined and we’re around Us, no matter who the Us od Them are. It’s only condemned when we move out of those circles. That raises all sorts of other questions though…

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/atheists-contradict-themselves/

It looks like you have some interesting stuff here, so good luck!