Working for Faith
Neil Van Leeuwen

12 May 2019

I had a terrific time discussing religious “beliefs”—or religious credences, as I call them—with Josh and Kenthis past Sunday.

For those of you not familiar with my research, I’ve been pushing two theses for several years now—the second more controversial than the first.

1. A great many religious “beliefs” are processed differently in people’s minds (that is, psychologically) from garden-variety factual beliefs. So I call them by a different name: religious credence.

For example, a religious credencethat Jesus is alivefunctions differently in people’s minds from a factual beliefthat Tiger Woods is alive, even if we set aside the differences in whom each “belief” is about and other features of content. In philosophical terms,religious credenceandfactual beliefare differentcognitive attitudes.

2.宗教信仰与事实信仰的不同之处，与虚构想象与事实信仰的不同之处在很大程度上是一样的。因此，从心理学的角度来看，宗教实践是一种伪装。

That’s not to say religious credences are nothing more thanfictional imaginings. They do in fact help give people a sense of purpose in life and help constitute people’s communal identities. For example, someone with a religious credencethat Jesus is Godhas a different identity from someone who has a religious credencethat Jesus was a great prophet(基督教和穆斯林)。但这些都与我的第二篇论文不矛盾。相反，宗教是人们用来定义自己身份的一种伪装游戏。

Sohow isreligious credence like make-believe imagining? This brings us to an exchange I had with Ken that I want to delve into further.

One striking feature of religious “beliefs” is that people don’t act as if those “beliefs” are true outside of sacred settings. People act as though God is real in church and on Sundays, but not for most of the week (unless you ask them explicitly, in which case they know to say the right thing). As anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann put it in the Roving Philosophical Report, even devoted evangelicals often “forget” to act and think as if God is real. This is where the telling phrase “once-a-week Christian” comes from: no matter how devout one seems on Sunday, the rest of the week most Christians blithely act as if God doesn’t exist. Or as Dan Dennett puts it, if it’s not Sunday, people do things while “believing” God is watching that they wouldn’t do if their mothers were watching.

Such compartmentalization isn’t just a feature of Protestant Christian psychology either. As I’vearguedelsewhere在美国，它出现在许多其他宗教背景中:从传统的祖先崇拜到天主教再到伊斯兰教。And for me, the striking thing about thisisthe resemblance to make-believe play. In make-believe, you stop acting like what you imagine to be true (say, that you’re a Scottish King) when you stop the make-believe game or when you step off the theatrical stage. In religion, likewise, you stop acting like the contents of your religious credences are true when church is over or when it stops being the sacred day of the week. I call this general featurepractical setting dependence: both imaginings and religious credences, in point of psychological fact, depend on certain practical settings in order to influence behavior.

这就把我们带到了节目中肯在某件事上挑战我，我回应了。我提出这个问题，是因为这种交流值得进一步探讨。

Ken pointed out that, for someone like Kierkegaard, a Christianity that was only active one day a week would be “a lazy Christianity.” On this view (quoting Ken who was paraphrasing Kierkegaard), “True faith is demanding. It’s not a once-a-week thing.”

Ken meant this as a challenge to my view, so it’s important to see why it isn’t. In fact, the point supports what I say, if we examine things more carefully.

Ken’s challenge, fleshed out, goes something like this:Van Leeuwen holds that religious credences are left behind six days a week (in the case of Christianity). But real Christians (in Kierkegaard’s sense) do the demanding thing and act on their faith at all waking times. So Van Leeuwen is wrong about the compartmentalization of religious belief in at least some cases.

The thing to remember, however, is that my big point is that religious credence is different from factual belief. And Ken’s point actually highlights a major difference. Garden-variety factual beliefs don’t requireeffort参与指导行动旧金山在加州，或者电灯泡是靠电才能发光，这种想法根本不需要花多大力气去认真对待。当内容相关时，这些事实性的信念就会自动上线。因此，事实信仰并不“苛刻”，因为它们不需要这样:表现得好像它们的内容是真实的并不难，因为它们只是描述了事情对你来说是怎样的。There might be variousmotivationalshortcomings when it comes to actions that incorporate factual beliefs, but the factual beliefs themselves are just the default representations of reality (the sun is hot,grass is green,dogs have teeth, etc.).

But religious credences are demanding because itishard to maintain them and act on them consistently. Even the most devout must put effort into maintaining and acting on their “beliefs”that there is an afterlife,that certain acts are sinful, orthat God cares about what they do. This is why phrases like “struggling with one’s faith” exist in the first place.

So, with all due respect to Ken, his point shows the opposite of what it was meant to show. He meant it to show that the Knight of Faith’s religious “beliefs” resembled factual beliefs in that they’re not compartmentalized. But the fact that it’s hard and “demanding” to keep them uncompartmentalized—in the very few cases where that actually happens—shows an even deeper way in which they’re unlike genuine factual beliefs. Here’s one more comparison:

It’s not hard to act consistently on the belief that gravity exists. But it is hard to act consistently on the “belief” that God exists. And that’s why that “belief” is a religious credence and not a factual belief.

Image byJ FfromPixabay

Comments(5)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Monday, May 13, 2019 -- 12:00 PM

I can follow and agree with

我可以理解并同意这两个论点。信仰(宗教信仰或其他信仰)对不同的人来说是不同的东西，尽管是书面的圣经文本。而且，假装是人类思想和状态的一个基本方面。绊脚石(为我;也许对其他人来说)是一个语义模糊的短语，事实的信念。虽然人们的许多信仰都是(或可能是)基于事实，但这并不意味着宗教信仰就是事实。这似乎是你关于可信度的第一个论点发挥作用的地方。有些人(包括你本人)说，人类发明了上帝这个概念，是为了让人类在一个不确定的世界中自我感觉更好。已故的肯尼斯•伯克(Kenneth Burke)似乎重申了这一点，他说，决策(作为面向未来的工具)通常包含不确定性。因此，你的论点，就其本身而言，至少和其他许多论点一样，都有坚实的基础。 Dewey's notions about belief were well-put in HOW WE THINK. So goes the tenuous relationship between religion and the rest of philosophy---perhaps this is one reason why, in many university humanities departments, the two are bunked together? Keep up the good work, ladies and gentlemen.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Tuesday, May 21, 2019 -- 11:44 AM

In spite of what philosophers

In spite of what philosophers and Humanists have said about religion and belief, I have long held to the notion that it is good for humans to have something to believe in. Belief typically endows life with purpose, and, without purpose, there is no life as such. (I am not here distinguishing good purposes from bad ones, as this is not about normality vs. abnormality.) Burke said: "A world without metaphor would be a world without purpose." I'm not sure that is exactly right, but, the world WOULD BE a lot more boring. Purpose and belief are mutually inclusive. Kenneth Burke's long, productive life is evidence of that notion. He also noted: "Where someone is straining to do something, look for evidence of the tragic mechanism." This may sound counter-intuitive, until we consider that tragedy and comedy are representative of what it means to be human. So, by any and all means, let the people believe what they will. Purpose and metaphor are world-driven---seems to me...

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Saturday, June 1, 2019 -- 12:30 PM

A group (family, actually) of

A group (family, actually) of Jehovah's Witnesses showed up on my street this morning, they made their way, sequentially, to four of my neighbor's homes, spending, I would estimate, no more than seven minutes at any of those. They were quite pleasant, and when I expressed no interest in their upcoming meeting in Dayton, Ohio, they wished me a good day and left. I repeat, earnestly: Let the people believe what they will...
Everyone has a right to believe in something, even if, to someone else, it has no relevance.

columbus.cooper's picture

columbus.cooper

Saturday, July 13, 2019 -- 11:42 PM

Being an atheist is illogical

Being an atheist is illogical because it requires accepting a position with no supporting evidence. Believing that the are no men on Mars is not the same as believing that there is no God. My belief about Mars is supported by the fact that I can view the planet with a telescope and have seen footage from the Mars rover. While these facts are not definitive, they at least provide the foundation of a fact based argument. In the case of not believing in God, there are no facts that lead me to the conclusion that God does not exist. In fact, the claim that God does not exist only makes sense if I am claiming that God could not exist. This is because, if God could exist he could make himself unseen. Therefore, not seeing God does not prove that he does not exist. If God can exist, the strongest claim a non believer can logically make is that there is no proof that God exists. Being an agnostic has a potential foundation in logic, being an atheist (if God could exist) does not.

In addition to the faulty logic of the atheist position, atheists tend to define God andfaithin way that is narrow to the point of being religious. While they make an attempt to define what they don't believe, what they do believe and why is much less clear.

Those of faith tend to see theearthas a grain of sand in the scheme of things. I am reasonably certain that scientists agree with this assessment of earth in terms of importance and significance in the Universe. Still, there is a significant level of complexity and order that is present in ourworld. Those who argue for intelligent design would say the signature of the designer is obvious. They believe that the order we see is the result of intelligence and the application of that intelligence. That intelligent actor is God.

The position of the Atheist is less clear. There is no credible scientific explanation that explains creation and the complex systems that we observe. Yet, atheists believe in some mystery processes that are responsible for creation. How and why do they believe in these processes without clear evidence and explanations. Without scientific explanations for how and why the complexity that we see, how can any conclusive positions be arrived at. From a practical standpoint any scientific explanation is based on nothing beyond blind mystical faith. I don't believe scientists claim to know how the universe was ordered. If it is not science, what is the source of the atheist conclusion? Without fact can their position be called anything other than faith.

The atheist claim that God does not exist is so weak that if fails to produce astrongargument, even if we accept its premises for how creation occurs. If we assume that creation can be explained by atoms interacting with each other randomly or some similar process, then what are the limits of that process? If you believe that there is a process that can create something with the complexity of a galaxy, how do you reach the conclusion that the creation of a being that can create life and control the physical world is a stretch.

It is possible that human technology could become advanced enough to create life and manipulate matter. One could argue that robotics and AI are the early stages of humans achieving these types of capabilities. How can anyone seeing the potential of the primitive science of humans think that the creation of life by a superior intellect is impossible? How could science oriented individuals assume that there is no technology possible that could enact the creation myth?

当无神论者忽略了上帝成为科学家或工程师的可能性时，他们看起来就像有宗教信仰的人一样。在一个拥有数十亿颗行星和数十亿年历史的宇宙中，我们忽视赋予上帝的能力的原因可能与我们看到的创造其他一切事物的过程相同。只有宗教思维才会忽略这种可能性。因此，上帝不存在的主张暴露了其否定的宗教立场。这种否认不能被合理地声称仅仅是由逻辑驱动的。

A being that can createlifeand manipulate matter/energy seems minor in comparison to a Universe that appears infinite from a human perspective. With this in mind, the rejection of the possibility of such a being seems to contradict the theory that complexity does not require a creator. In fact, If creation is the result of atoms ordering themselves into sophisticated systems over time, then the creation or evolution of God(s) is almost inevitable. A being powerful enough to create a grain of sand like the earth and the creatures that live on it might seem all powerful from the perspective of human understanding only.

神也不必是先动者，也不应该是成为神的必要条件。任何有能力创造生命和秩序人类现实的实体都应该足以声称是上帝。然而，从具有上帝般的能力的实体到先发者，也是一个理性的立场，尽管没有同样的证据。

Why would atheists reject what are plausible outputs of their creation theory to accept a premise for which they lack evidence. There is zero logic or support for the premise that there is no God.

Believing that there is an intelligent designer/creator of the universe is a rational and intelligent view. In fact, there is no explanation for how the universe came to be that does not allow for the the existence of God or Gods. The claim that there is no God is baseless. Such a position can not be argued with any authority. Claiming there is no God has thestrengthof claiming that life only exists on earth.

Underestimating the intelligence of those who believe in God and painting believers as irrational appears to provide somejoy无神论者。我认为无神论者的观点是落后的，他们相信自己的立场需要反思。

Christians are described as "lazy", in their faith and comments about "make-believe imagining" suggests that they are in a fantasy world. This is little better than name calling and shows no attempt tounderstandor respect a different viewpoint.

Christianity consists mainly of a few simple concepts likelove彼此，善待彼此，理解你与对方和造物主的合一。耶稣所说的每一件事，他讲的每一个故事，都是在某种情况下传达这些简单的概念。If you read thewords of Jesusthis is what you will find and this is what Christians are generally attempting to imitate.

It is these few principles communicated by Jesus that have resulted in so many people following this belief. The followers believe that loving and caring for each other is right but recognize the difficultly of doing this in a world with evil,sinandhate. Christians are not lazy and they don't forget on Monday. They are attempting to do something that is hard and they understand that.

Some seem tobelievethat being an atheist makes them superior. Ihope他们会质疑这一点。我认为信徒的信仰应该得到比我在这里看到的更多的尊重。

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Friday, October 22, 2021 -- 7:13 PM

c.c,

c.c,

Neil is “Working for Faith.” Are you? Your reflection is sincere and familiar. Do you take offense to the term “Make Believe”? There is no offense given. I wonder if you have forgotten or ever felt the power of making beliefs instead of taking the beliefs of others for the sake of identity.

Ken and Neil had a good round on religious belief, and you seem to have missed the point altogether. There is a difference between Belief In and Belief That. Western Philosophy as an outgrowth of classical thought has never left the cupboard of Christian beliefs. Jesus talked of Socrates, as did Aristotle, James, Cicero, St. Francis, St. Augustine, Luther, and the council of Nicaea when they established the Christian creed.

Neil’s argument is for religious credence as juxtaposed to make-believe, in the way an apple is to an orange. If you can’t separate the idea here, I would push back that your scriptural reference to King James is vapid. (Note to the reader. King James is a holy text with deep philosophical import and perspective.) Philosophy has no call on religious sentiment, but it can comment on the thought.

Listen to the show, react to the content before sending out links to text that you clearly don’t understand. I take the red letter very seriously in life, love, and philosophy. You write as if you do not care. I would argue that you have stepped off a theatrical stage above in positing your particular practical setting dependence. Can we talk about Neil’s idea here? It goes beyond pettiness and deeper into Kierkegaard’s lazy concept.

如果你不纠结于红色字母，你就是假的。很少有人能像耶稣一样，尤其是耶稣自己。这种斗争就是宗教生活(在任何宗教中)。在这种情况下，宗教信仰就像假装的信仰。一旦你看到帘子后面的人，幻觉就破灭了。我们很难不去看，但如果任何信仰要上升为宗教信仰，我们就必须去看。宗教信仰就像假装的一样，这并不重要。两者都是同样美味和营养丰富的水果。

Tim

一个人可以同时是无神论者和不可知论者，就像一个人可以，像你一样，是一个诺斯替有神论者。我是一个诺斯替派的无神论者，但这是两种情况的一个光谱。我比萨特离你更近。道德对知道它的人是有意义的。我和让-保罗的共同之处是他对人性的热爱和对人文主义而不是神性的信仰。我不知道也不相信任何人是神。你可以做到。我们能和睦相处吗?否则我们就有麻烦了。

I've read and agree to abide by the Community Guidelines

Tags