A Strange Circularity (Stanley Fish Article)

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:34 pm

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/atheism-and-evidence/

Here is an article by Stanley Fish called "Atheism and Evidence." In it, he discusses the distinction that is generally drawn between 'reason' and 'faith,' and attempts to show that both science and religion rely on as much reason as faith (and that the dichotomy between the two is somewhat false).

He talks, more specifically, about the idea that both science and religion are circular ("but not viciously so") in their reason seeking. The 'reasons' that religious folk come up with come from inside their faith (rather than outside it), and the same for science: the evidence that we say confirms science is gotten by science, and is thus, circular.

I agree with much that Fish says including the following:

The word "reason" begs the question of what counts as a good 'reason.' For a religious person, that is, a good 'reason' to believe in god might be a religious one. Does that count as good reason? (Again, it begs the question of who is judging.)

Also, I believe very much that science and religion are both circular processes (but that this should not worry us). Science confirms its methods by using its methods. If it confirmed its methods by some other process, then we would use THAT process, rather than the scientific one. Similarly, religion confirms its 'truth' by using its spiritual methods. (For example, prayer is confirmation to many religious folks that religion works.) We have all heard religionists say it: "You must believe before god will show himself." Circularity.

I also agree with Fish's more controversial point: that science in the way of Dawkins and Harris can look every bit like a faith as the faiths they condem. Here is a good paragraph from Fish:

Stan the Man wrote:

This is a remarkable sequence. A very strong assertion is made – we will “undoubtedly discover lawful connections between our states of consciousness [and] our modes of conduct” – but no evidence is offered in support of it; and indeed the absence of evidence becomes a reason for confidence in its eventual emergence. This sounds an awfully lot like faith of the kind Harris and his colleagues deride – expectations based only on a first premise (itself asserted rather than proven), which, if true, demands them, and which, if false, makes nonsense of them.

I agree, and I think that this is irresponsible of the authors. If they want to attack faith - "believing with no evidence" - then they should not show such blatant faith-like conjectures. They could say that they THINK that sceince will do ____ in the future, but they should not say so confidently that "it is only a matter of time before science does ______" That is , as Fish suggests, criticizing someone for doing something and proceeding to do the same thing.

Thoughts?

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:09 am

Scientists can be unscientific in their statements. Absolute certitude is neither called for nor properly part of science and if statements of the sort are made they are neither scientific nor appropriate. The tentative nature of science is of course a strength, and the tendencies of the mind to be self-deluding, self-serving, and biased in oh so many ways should lead to humility.

Of course individual predictions can be overstated, but on the whole the self-correcting machinery of science generally takes care of this while the incentives among the religious are not equivalent. Correcting the errors of others leads to career advancement in science; in religion such "corrections" lead to more sects.

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:12 am

Quote:

Thoughts?

Science offers explanations for the way our tangible reality operates and all those explanations are based upon a testable, natural basis (even though some may not be immediately tangible).

Religion on the other hand offers explanations that deal with a non-tangible, non-testable, supernatural pseudo reality, most of which are simply naked, dogmatic assertions.

While both may have reasons for their particular process, I’d say scientific reasoning is certainly more rational, because it doesn't ask us to believe in unverifiable and frankly absurd conclusions.

Newbie First Class Joined: Feb 02, 2008 Posts: 44

MockingGods wrote:

Quote:

Thoughts?

Science offers explanations for the way our tangible reality operates and all those explanations are based upon a testable, natural basis (even though some may not be immediately tangible).

Religion on the other hand offers explanations that deal with a non-tangible, non-testable, supernatural pseudo reality, most of which are simply naked, dogmatic assertions.

While both may have reasons for their particular process, I’d say scientific reasoning is certainly more rational, because it doesn't ask us to believe in unverifiable and frankly absurd conclusions.

Use science to demonstrate for me that all reality is tangible

Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:37 pm

If "religion" had anything that worked in the same way that dentistry or the polio vaccine or the jet airliner worked, I might pay it some attention.

It unfortunately has no successes more convicning than the placebo effect (using the most advantageous example I could think of). All this cachination about faith and reason is diversionary. When someone figures something out using "religious processes", whatever those are, get back to me.

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:33 am

romans120 wrote:

MockingGods wrote:

Quote:

Thoughts?

Science offers explanations for the way our tangible reality operates and all those explanations are based upon a testable, natural basis (even though some may not be immediately tangible).

Religion on the other hand offers explanations that deal with a non-tangible, non-testable, supernatural pseudo reality, most of which are simply naked, dogmatic assertions.

While both may have reasons for their particular process, I’d say scientific reasoning is certainly more rational, because it doesn't ask us to believe in unverifiable and frankly absurd conclusions.

Use science to demonstrate for me that all reality is tangible

Use anything demonstrable to show a non-tangible reality could or does exist. Science doesn’t deal with vacuous claims of the supernatural; by its very nature, it can’t.

Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:11 pm

I'm not sure, but it seems that Fish is ignoring meta-inductive reasoning: that the sucess of science boosts its own credibility. And inductive reasoning holds in a more a priori logical realm, not a scientific one.

Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 1:54 am

Fish wrote:

There will probably come a time,” Harris declares, “when we achieve a detailed understanding of human happiness, and of ethical judgments themselves, at the level of the brain.”

Probably?

Fish wrote:

He acknowledges that, to date “little convergence has been achieved in ethics,” not only because “so few of the facts are in” but because “we have yet to agree about the most basic criteria for deeming an ethical fact, a fact.”

Wait, Harris was willing to acknowledge this?

Fish wrote:

The field of “the cognitive neuroscience of moral cognition” (a real mouthful) is young, and “it is clearly too early to draw any strong conclusions from this research.”

It’s too early to draw strong conclusions?

Isn’t fish suppose to be making a case here to show that Harris has a similar level of conviction, with regard to certain scientific ideas, that the religious fundamentalists Harris condemns show with regard to their religious assertions? Based on the quotes offered here (presumably the most egregious examples Fish could find) he shows Harris being quite measured, much more so than any religious fundamentalist I have come across.

Kevin wrote:

The word "reason" begs the question of what counts as a good 'reason.' For a religious person, that is, a good 'reason' to believe in god might be a religious one. Does that count as good reason? (Again, it begs the question of who is judging.)

On the face of it this argument seems to pose a problem for anyone, including Fish, hoping to criticize the reasons given by someone else for accepting some proposition. He doesn’t seem to have much firm ground to stand on from which to criticize Harris and Dawkins. It’s not clear why all the same objections Fish makes toward the beliefs of Harris and Dawkins might not also apply to his beliefs about their positions, making him just as inconsistent as them.

Harris and Dawkins are arguing that the reasons religious people give for believing are bad ones, Fish argues that the reasons Harris and Dawkins are giving for rejecting those reasons are bad ones. The problem with Fish’s objections to H and D’s reasons are not so much directed at H and D’s reasons as they are toward the giving of reasons in general: all theoretical frameworks from which one might work from are a mixture of reason and faith and they are also always circular, capable of judging only by their own lights. Fish’s objections, it seems, would include his own theoretical framework, undermining his convictions with regard to H and D’s arguments. Yet he seems quite convinced that their arguments are bad none-the-less.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

That's GOLD.

Quote:

"It follows then that the distinction informing so many of the atheists’ arguments, the distinction between a discourse supported by reason and a discourse supported by faith, will not hold up because any form of thought is an inextricable mix of both; faith and reasons come together in an indissoluble package.”
[snip]
"My point is only that some of the arguments against faith and religion – the arguments Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens most rely on – are just not good arguments. The three atheists needn’t give up the ghost, but they might think about going back to the drawing board."

"Faith...the final frontier." Very Happy

Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 12:43 pm

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/atheism-and-evidence/

Here is an article by Stanley Fish called "Atheism and Evidence." In it, he discusses the distinction that is generally drawn between 'reason' and 'faith,' and attempts to show that both science and religion rely on as much reason as faith (and that the dichotomy between the two is somewhat false).

He talks, more specifically, about the idea that both science and religion are circular ("but not viciously so") in their reason seeking. The 'reasons' that religious folk come up with come from inside their faith (rather than outside it), and the same for science: the evidence that we say confirms science is gotten by science, and is thus, circular.

I agree with much that Fish says including the following:

The word "reason" begs the question of what counts as a good 'reason.' For a religious person, that is, a good 'reason' to believe in god might be a religious one. Does that count as good reason? (Again, it begs the question of who is judging.)

Also, I believe very much that science and religion are both circular processes (but that this should not worry us). Science confirms its methods by using its methods. If it confirmed its methods by some other process, then we would use THAT process, rather than the scientific one. Similarly, religion confirms its 'truth' by using its spiritual methods. (For example, prayer is confirmation to many religious folks that religion works.) We have all heard religionists say it: "You must believe before god will show himself." Circularity.

I also agree with Fish's more controversial point: that science in the way of Dawkins and Harris can look every bit like a faith as the faiths they condem. Here is a good paragraph from Fish:

Stan the Man wrote:

This is a remarkable sequence. A very strong assertion is made – we will “undoubtedly discover lawful connections between our states of consciousness [and] our modes of conduct” – but no evidence is offered in support of it; and indeed the absence of evidence becomes a reason for confidence in its eventual emergence. This sounds an awfully lot like faith of the kind Harris and his colleagues deride – expectations based only on a first premise (itself asserted rather than proven), which, if true, demands them, and which, if false, makes nonsense of them.

I agree, and I think that this is irresponsible of the authors. If they want to attack faith - "believing with no evidence" - then they should not show such blatant faith-like conjectures. They could say that they THINK that sceince will do ____ in the future, but they should not say so confidently that "it is only a matter of time before science does ______" That is , as Fish suggests, criticizing someone for doing something and proceeding to do the same thing.

Thoughts?

Fish's article is a long winded equivocation fallacy, theistic faith is non contingent, colloquial usages of faith are contingent. Also, there's an enormous difference between "Believe in god, and then you'll see evidence of his handiwork" and "accept this methodology, and you'll see results....

I've never read a Fish article that didn't commit a basic blunder... or two...

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

todangst wrote:

Fish's article is a long winded equivocation fallacy, theistic faith is non contingent, colloquial usages of faith are contingent. Also, there's an enormous difference between "Believe in god, and then you'll see evidence of his handiwork" and "accept this methodology, and you'll see results....

That's a common misconception when it comes to Judeo-Christians.

The concept of faith didn't float down on a piece of paper and land in Israel's camp to become an anchor of their belief in God. The concept of biblical faith is that God personally interacted with people demonstrating His nature and character for all to see. Based upon His past demonstrations of power, wisdom, and love one can trust Him for the future without seeing evidence in the present. Faith is contingent upon God's past actions.

Another way to say it is, "I know what He for me yesterday, therefore I can trust Him for today and tomorrow". That's faith in the God of the bible.

Therefore, "Believe in god, and then you'll see evidence of his handiwork" is a 100% certainty while "accept this methodology, and you'll see results.... " is reliant upon an unproven methodology that may or may not deliver as promised.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 393

Quote:

Therefore, "Believe in god, and then you'll see evidence of his handiwork" is a 100% certainty while "accept this methodology, and you'll see results.... " is reliant upon an unproven methodology that may or may not deliver as promised.

Are you suggesting that the Scientific Method is an unproven methodology? Are you also suggesting that everything that the OT says happened happened? There is absolutely no proof that any of that actually happened. It takes a certain willingness to trust a 4,000 year old document written by superstitious goat herders. That is the faith that todangst talks of. You don't believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a magic horse, so why do you believe in the Great Flood, the plagues of Egypt, or the burning bush? I have a much more simple explanation: the Israelites saw something happen and thought 'god did it'.

Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:22 am

Why are people feeding the troll?

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

Therefore, "Believe in god, and then you'll see evidence of his handiwork" is a 100% certainty while "accept this methodology, and you'll see results.... " is reliant upon an unproven methodology that may or may not deliver as promised.

Are you suggesting that the Scientific Method is an unproven methodology?

Tell me what you know that science can prove with 100% certainty.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 08, 2008 Posts: 27

Quote:

Tell me what you know that science can prove with 100% certainty.

Thats a beauty of science, it steps us towards truth and is also falsifiable. The science of today could be drastically different in the future. Religion just jumps ahead and claims to know truth without any evidence. Hence why "God's Power" has dissolved over time.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore