Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.But things are not going to plan. Human society is facing an epidemic of superstition that impoverishes our culture. Religious fundamentalism is increasing around the world and even in those societies where organised religion is fading new-age-style gurus and paranormal beliefs are highly prevalent. Beliefs (astrology, crystal healing, personal auras, psychic perception, alien abduction etc. etc.) which promote solace in subjective experience at the expense of objective evidence and which allow people to run away from reality.(All phrases from Dawkins)So is the notion of an Age of reason a utopian dream (or nightmare - depending on your perspective) destined to failure because of man’s innate proclivity, need even, to believe in unfalsifiable nonsense of one sort or another? Or is the current situation a temporary blip in mankind's inevitable progress down the road of rationality and reason?GK Chesterton said: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." — Was he right? And if he was what are the implications for New Atheism and the hoped for Age of Reason?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think it is a more complex question than that.On one hand we have the fact that with scientific progress there has indisputably been a move away from the ancient beliefs of old and a move towards secularism of sorts in most of the best educated societies.On the other hand is the fact that even as people embrace science and technology in their daily lives the notion that "there must be something more" on a personal level pertaining to some sort of scientifically unreachable aspect of reality remains incredibly persistent.So - I think despite the current rise of fundamentalism in some parts of the world that this is a "blip" of sorts and that traditional religious beliefs are untenable in the long long term.However the natural inclination of humans to endow themselves a special place in reality and to embrace personally appealing unevidenced nonsense through self-justifying interpretations of evidence is just too innate for a true "age of reason to emerge".

You must surely acknowledge that it is the New Atheists that most effectively advocate the ideal of an "Age of Reason" - No?The idea that any theists are advocating such a thing seems a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Did I.....? Would you like to describe what you mean by an "Age of Reason" and explain how religious/supernatural/paranormal beliefs are compatible with that then? Can you explain why you think it is stupid to counter criticize and expose religion to rational argument? So an age of reason is compatible with not-countering, not-criticizing and not exposing religion to rational argument.....? But only as long as it doesn't get in the way of your unreasonable beliefs? So how do you define "reason"....? Does religious belief qualify as "reasoned" as far as you are concerned?

Yes - Good post.

Well if you cannot explain how an "Age of Reason" is compatible with superstitious/religious beliefs I have no idea why you bothered to post any of your prior entries in this thread.Oh well.....

The more I think about this stuff the more convinced I am that we need to understand that humans are innately irrational and that irrational beliefs, religious or otherwise, are here to stay.This doesn't make them any more sensible. It just means that humans are going to believe lots of things that aren't correct and act in ways that don't really make any sense.It's just who we are.For some examples see Message 15

When it comes to their religious beliefs I would very much say that they are letting faith trump reason. Their faith is shrouded in a sort of glorification of the unknown. But aside from inserting some form of supernaturalism into gaps in our knowledge as humans have been doing for millenia what reason are they exhibiting? Well I would suggest that whatever philosophies we adopt as reasoned need to, at the very least, be able to demonstrate that they lead to conclusions which are likely to be accurate or reliable.Are there any theological method of knowing which lead to conclusions that can be demonstrated as either accurate or reliable? Hasn't every testable theological claim ever made been refuted?

Why does reason have to be about proof? False dichotomy. The universe could be theistically created but in such a way that only the abandonment of reason can lead to that conclusion.

Is love and forgiveness a theological message? Or a human message that has been incorporated into the various religious beliefs that humans are irrationally predisposed to? And let's not be so selective. Because we have the equally human messages of retribution and revenge (An eye for an eye etc.) also tied up in religions. as we would expect if religion is just a product of imperfect but sometimes inspired human beings.Stripped of their supernatural elements most religions have some philosophically sensible things to say and some philosophically less enlightened things to say. Just like most humans.So I don't think you can claim that such things are the result of theism without being desperately selective.

You put too much stock in reputation and authority. There are lots of highly intelligent and well educated people throughout history who have believed in all sorts of nonsense for the simple fact that humans are innately imperfect no matter how smart they may be.Do their theistic arguments stand up? That is the only question that need be answered. Who they are is irrelevant. And the arguments I have seen of those you mention invariably amount to 1) Isn't the world wonderful and mysterious 2) I cannot believe that some particular phenomena is not the product of some pre-existing intelligence 2) This belief cannot be disproven.If there is more to the arguments of McGrath et al than that then I have not seen it. I am saying that reason involves applying methods of knowing that lead to conclusions which are demonstrably accurate and reliable. You cannot prove anything empirically. All the empirical evidence in the world can point to a particular conclusion and in such a case it would be irrational not to draw that conclusion. But (for example) if all the evidence were planted by a malevolent omnipotent undetectable being to fool us into that conclusion then it would still be the wrong conclusion.Proof just doesn't exist outside purely deductive disciplines such as mathematics. And purely deductive logic can not tell you anything about anything that isn't already implicit in the axioms you start with.Science, evidence based investigation, necessarily goes beyond such purely deductive methods. Thus proof is not an option.

But if we accept (as I thought we both did) that man is an innately moral creature then isn't this message you are citing as purely theistic part of our human nature regardless of any particular creed or religion? I don't see why the bad things get assigned to the bias of flawed humans writers whilst the good things get assigned to your particular belief system.I would argue that both elements are present in humanity, that we would expect both to feature in cultural constructs such as religion, and that you are being desperately selective in attributing the things you consider good and bad.

Of course. Which is why it is the arguments and not the personalities that should be assessed. I accept their evidenced conclusions but not their unevidenced beliefs.Is that unreasonable?

That some form of moral philosophy need be included as part of an age of reason I don’t think is in dispute. But what does theology specifically add to this discussion? How we should behave towards one another can be based on reasoned conclusions regarding how we want to live together. Seeking to interpret how some undetectable being wants us to behave by subjectively picking and choosing which bits of a book we should pay attention to seems like a somewhat futile task.Frankly if you torture it for long enough you can make the bible support pretty much any moral philosophy. From gay hating war mongering fundamentalism to peace and love hippy liberalism. It’s just a matter of interpretation.

I don't doubt that I do have some irrational and unevidenced beliefs in some aspect of my life. I would barely be human if I didn't. But I would dispute that my position regarding god(s) as more likely human inventions is unevidenced. As discussed in depth elsewhere — The objective evidence favouring gods as human inventions far outweighs the evidence favouring the actual existence of gods. Indeed. "Evidence" that supports everything isn't really evidence of anything at all. But not all conclusions are equally subjective.Is the evidence favouring gods as being invented by humans really no more objective or abundant than the evidence that they actually exist? Really? If what you say above is true then Collins and Polkinghorne are claiming that their theistic beliefs are objectively evidenced. As far as I am aware neither actually makes that claim at all. What they (and I am more familiar with Collins than Polkinghorne here) seem at pains to point out is that their beliefs are not incompatible with science. But of course if one defines one's god appropriately then this is trivially true. Omphalism isn't directly contradicted by scientific evidence either. But so what? All sorts of beliefs are technically compatible. That in itself doesn't make them sensible. It's just a variation on the unfalsifiability argument that theists seeking to justify their faith based beliefs invariably revert to. Then what would be excluded as unreasoned and on what basis would it be excluded? Is being unfalsified the only yardstick or do you agree that there has to me more to it than that? If so what?