Faith 2

It's important to know what people mean when they talk about their "faith". It's important to know what they believe about belief!


Do they understand that faith is not reason? Is the apparent inconsistency in their belief(s) due to the abandonment of reason as a requirement for belief, or just bad reasoning?

It is in most cases the latter, since very few people, when pressed, accept that it is perfectly acceptable to believe something for no reason at all. That is, when they really think about it, faith is not an acceptable foundation for a belief. A serious, strongly held belief at any rate.

Are you an atheist?

If someone was to ask me "Are you an atheist?" and by that mean "Do you believe there is no God" and by that mean "Do you reject the idea that there exists an ominopotent, omniscient being that created the universe and everything in it, let alone one that has an interest in and is benevolent towards individual human beings?" I would have to answer "Only in the sense that if you call yourself a theist (or more likely a christian) you agree that you believe God exists, then I agree that I am atheist, in that I don't".

I might give a simpler answer to the question, which would be "In every practical way, yes".

This of course avoids that horribly semantic argument that ignores the weighting of evidence and probabilities, and in which everyone is, technically, agnostic. The argument goes like this:

Are you an atheist?

Yes.

Prove there is no God!

It can't be proven.

(Triumphantly) Then you cannot say there is no God.

This is perfectly true and reasonable. Of course, it applies in reverse, equally well, and thus quickly puts an end to any useful discussion that can be had. In these terms, we are all, theist and atheist alike, equally agnostic.

Dawkins on Q and A

This was on The Punch the other day.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/for-gods-sake-our-mps-should-stick-to-their-day-jobs/

You can watch the QndA episode here:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep05.flv

There were over 200 comments on this article for The Punch. I must admit I didn't read them all so I may have added something that had already been discussed. Oh well. Here's what I wrote:

Weird, David Penburthy. Not sure what had you all riled up that you wanted to kick the plasma! As you observed, this was an excellent session of QandA. Sorry for the late comment; I only saw the show yesterday.

Far from being intellectually belligerent and plain rude, I thought Richard Dawkins was a model of restraint and courtesy. At one point he was attacked by Tony Burke, and lost his cool slightly, but I think he did well, given the nonsense spoken by most of the rest of the panel.

Here's the weird thing about religious beliefs, whether you have them or not! No one wants to talk about them!! Aparently they are personal, not for public discussion, and even more bizarrely, they are not to affect our public behaviour or actions! You say it yourself David, and you're a self confessed atheist: "But many of us in Australia regard politics as the public sphere of life, and religion (or a lack of religion) as very much the private sphere."

I find this plainly bizarre! When Tony Burke was asked to talk about his Christian beliefs on the show, he swallowed nervously and said something along the lines of "I don't want to go there". What's going on here: Is he unsure of his belief? Is he ashamed of it? Why are his theist beliefs, significant as they are in informing his morality and general take on the universe, off-limits for public discussion? Richard Dawkins asked the same question on the show!

I don't agree with Tony Abott about much, including, most significantly his beliefs that are clearly inspired by his Catholism, but I am far more comfortable that he be open and honest about those beliefs, than I am that Tony Burke slinks around with the substance of his Christian beliefs unavailable for discussion or analysis, or even identification. I am amazed and appalled at the amount of Christianity that exists, apparently, in our houses of parliament, but I much prefer to know about it than not.

And the reason that I want to know about these background beliefs is because it's nonsense to say that "private" beliefs about the nature of God should not intrude on the course of day to day decision-making! Of course in an ideal world they shouldn't. But all of us, atheist and theist, we are all informed by our deepest beliefs about the nature of the universe. It's nonsense to say we are not, or that we can suppress that. Thus, I'd rather have it out in the open, rather than sneaking around behind this pretense of objectivity.

Task substitution

It’s my opinion that nursing took a wrong turn back when it became degree-based. There are good and bad aspects to both hospital-based and degree-based nursing training but I’m of the view that everything you can learn about being a fantastic, bedside nurse can be learnt sufficiently, if not in superior fashion, in hospital-based training. Nursing is a practical profession, vital to the effective, safe functioning of any hospital. It’s not to say that there is not a place for some academia in nursing, but that should be an option for those who want to go into reasearch or teaching.

I don’t support independant nurse practitioning! If you want to learn about diagnosis, and wish to order x-rays, and prescribe (as opposed to dispense) drugs, then you want to be a doctor. There is already a training path for this, There shouldn’t be a second one via nursing. The solution to health workforce shortages is not to take professionals from one area of practice, where they are already in short supply, and get them to do the jobs of another group, also in short supply. The solution is to train more of each professional group to do their own jobs, competently.