Philosophy professor’s challenge sparks discussion
Peter Boghossian, a philosophy professor at Portland State, ruffled quite a few feathers last year with his arguments that college instructors should not be afraid to correct a student’s beliefs in things like creationism in the classroom.
His article “Should We Challenge Student Beliefs?” in Inside Higher Ed, an online educational journal, was followed by a lecture open to the public on campus titled “Faith, Belief and Hope: From Cognitive Sickness to Moral Value and Back Again,” which was covered by The Oregonian and various online news outlets.
It apparently started when a student of his proclaimed her adamant creationist belief that the Christian God created the cosmos, including Earth dinosaurs, and humans, about 6,000 years ago. Boghossian tried but was unable to “disabuse” her of that belief on the basis that both the process by which she arrived at her conclusion and her conclusion itself were both fundamentally flawed and wrong.
“I believe our role as educators should be to teach students not just factual data,” Boghossian wrote, “but the importance of critically examining beliefs by exposing them to facts and then revising cherished notions when confronted with reliable but discomforting evidence.”
The student refused to budge an inch and went so far as to write on her final exam that her belief in God and her beliefs about God were “ABSOLUTE” and that no amount of silly things like facts, logic or reason would ever change that. (If that’s really the case, I’m also hoping she never reproduces and thus never has a chance to help pass that deranged line of thinking on to the next generation.)
Critics of Boghossian argue that it’s not really a professor’s place to be foisting beliefs onto students, but he counters by making the very valid distinction between subjective beliefs—those of taste, opinion, and values—and objective ones—beliefs about how the world actually is.
Subjective beliefs are entirely personal and have no real meaning outside of the holder. For example, I believe that pumpkin pie tastes good. That is a matter of taste, and has no consequence for me or the world outside of a few extra gym workouts around Thanksgiving to balance out all those delicious pie-crust calories. He, of course, would be overstepping some boundary by trying to convince me that pumpkin pie does not in fact taste good.
But suppose I believed that pumpkin pie also granted me eternal life. That is an objective belief about how the world works—one that is testable, verifiable and presumably false. Boghossian, or any college professor, would be doing me a disservice by not correcting that false belief.
One might consider them obligated to set me straight, because that belief could be potentially damaging down the road. The same is true for the student’s belief that God created the universe 1,500 years after inhabitants of the ancient Near East were developing the first irrigation techniques that would provide the foundation for all permanent agricultural civilizations in the area.
There is a peculiar American cultural tendency to shield faith-based conclusions (“religious beliefs”) from the same rational scrutiny we utilize in every other area of life. For example, we’re quick to point out that a person who believes another based on the statement “you know I’m trustworthy because I say so” is probably about to be taken for a ride. But when someone says “I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so,” we suddenly withhold judgment. We might even agree with them.
In the interest of fostering a genuinely rational country in which to live, this kind of “tolerance” must stop. A cursory review of the current political climate should be all the evidence one needs. Republican presidential-hopeful Rick Santorum has recently risen to popularity on a largely anti-gay platform.
In any other first world country, his views and those of his supporters would be recognized as completely bigoted and irrational, but instead we consider them at the very least a valid position because they claim to be religious in nature.
Faith-based conclusions formed by processes completely detached from logic and reason seeping into public policy is precisely the area Boghossian maintains its most important to remember the difference between subjective and objective beliefs and the place each has in our lives.
People are free to use whichever thought processes they wish and to draw their own subjective conclusions from those processes. But when a person attempts to translate a logically unsupportable faith-based objective belief about the world into laws that govern everyone, there is a problem.
Aside from the impossible issue of deciding which religious beliefs would be “right” and which would be “wrong” (because there are quite a few rule sets to pick from, even within the same systems), our country is supposed to follow a principle commonly referred to the separation of church and state.
Essentially, the government isn’t supposed to pass any laws that would make the tenets of any religion actual public policy, thus forcibly applying that religion to everyone.
That is exactly why when the federal government passes a law that prohibits same-sex couples from accessing the same legal benefits as heterosexual married couples, we have a problem.
When schools teach ineffective abstinence-only sex education classes, which actually lead to higher rates of teen pregnancy, we have a problem.
When legislators argue about the “sanctity” of microscopic human cell clusters in a Petri dish versus the potentially life-saving benefits of stem cell research for millions of suffering human beings, we have a problem.
There was a time in Western culture when religion ruled every aspect of life, and those with dissenting opinions were instantly put to death. We accurately describe that pitiful time in history as the Dark Ages.
Let’s leave the light on, shall we? ■
…for those who are looking for an intelligent answer, you must have ‘all’ the facts and they can be found within the pages of the included resources here in this post, just to mention a few. If you are brave enough to really search for God, He won’t hid himself from you…
“Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell
“More Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell
“The Bible” by the by the Holy Spirit of the Living God
That which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men’s wisdom, and that which it deems feeble in God is mightier than men’s might. ~ I Cor 1:25
“But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that their day is coming.” ~ Psalm 37:13
TheFactsWin!
@the facts win. Let us know when you post one
They are right there in front of you, Corey, in black and white; but your pride won’t allow you to seem them, because you are looking for something else, not the truth. Be well, God bless.
@corey
So what “evidence” do you have that there is no God? Facts only, please. No conjectures, hypotheses, “science will prove it some day,” etc. Just cold, bare facts.
Disproving the existance of that which does not exist for some reason is difficult. This is why I dont lay claim to myths. The burden is on you. Disprove unicorns. You’ll run in to the same problem. If course this sounds ridiculous to you I’m sure. No you know how my side views your beliefs.
> Disproving the existance of that which does not exist for some reason is difficult.
You seem to be *assuming* that God does not exist. Isn’t that a circular argument?
I hope you don’t need a proof that the world around us exists. Any explanation of its origin? First cause?
Try something original. Why repeat old arguments copied from Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell?
You can do better than that.
These arguments are the result of common sense and reason so I’m sure they sound familiar. Yes I assume god doesn’t exist. And I can see the earth beneath my feet. That’sfar less of a circular arguement then the one the article mentions, “the bible is the word of god because the bible says so,”. Is your arguement a fresh one. No its the same safety net your preacher told you to lay out. I don’t have to point to fossils or actual written history and findings that destroy the time line of the history man and earth that your bible states. Because quite simply I can just look around and see that there is no evidence of god.
I have a suggestion for you, corey: pick a book that disagrees with your views and read it. You may learn something new. Or you may reinforce what you already know. In either case it’s a win. Here’s one I am reading myself, I’ve heard good things about it and so decided to find out for myself:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-God-20th-Century/dp/0020160224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326317787&sr=8-1
It may do you more good than disproving unicorns.
A major problem with having certainty about faith-based beliefs is that there is a large number of mutually exclusive claims and none of them has sufficient evidence to support those beliefs. Also, many of the individual belief systems are internally contradictory, Plus, believers so often believe selectively–for instance, quoting from Leviticus to claim that Hebrew scriptures disapprove of homosexuality while ignoring the vast number of other proclamations in Leviticus that require shaving; prohibit eating of shellfish or of wearing mixed-fiber clothing, and so much more.
If you want to make a case for someone spending time reading these books, give a summary of some of their convincing arguments.
Negative reviews of Evidence That Demands a Verdict http://amzn.to/KNoNTQ, http://amzn.to/MuIM5z that make reasonable points.
Are bibles the word of a god? Surpassing Wonder makes a convincing case that they are the words of men and women.
“The author is quite upfront in warning off readers who will not profit from this book: i.e. those devoted to the concept of Bible inerrancy or otherwise unwilling or unable to broaden their perspectives. Those readers are missing out on a wonderful ride. In a manner reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould (another author I wouldn’t recommend to the blinkered reader), Akenson combines humor, imagination and scholarship to explore the incredible richness of Biblical texts. I was very impressed with his main thesis, which is audacious yet plausible and cogently argued. The book is more than a satisfying intellectual read. It is an invitation to share in the author’s unquenchable joy as he attempt to answer questions central to our understanding of ourselves.” http://amzn.to/Puy15s
An example of the sort of statements and focus you will find in the book: “…The letters of Paul are potentially the most important source, and therefore they are also the most disappointing. Paul almost breaks one’s heart . Paul is a heart breaker because he evinces a lack of interest in the historical Yeshua that borders on disdain. For him, the spiritual Jesus-the-Christ is everything; the physical, historical Yeshua is of scant moment …”
This is a book focused on history, not mythology.
The student refused to budge an inch and went so far as to write on her final exam that her belief in God and her beliefs about God were “ABSOLUTE” and that no amount of silly things like facts, logic or reason would ever change that. (If that’s really the case, I’m also hoping she never reproduces and thus never has a chance to help pass that deranged line of thinking on to the next generation.)
Here’s what Peter Boghossian wrote about it:
The conversation became more heated when I read to the group what the student had written on her final exam: “I wrote what I had to ‘agree’ with what was said in class, but in truth I believe ABSOLUTELY that there is an amazing, savior GOD, who created the universe, lives among us, and loves us more than anything. That is my ABSOLUTE, and no amount of ‘philosophy’ will change that.”
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/07/192/boghossian#ixzz1j26SabzP
Inside Higher Ed
Read both accounts carefully and you’ll notice subtle differences. Too subtle for the Vanguard to care?
Despite my having tremendous respect for Prof. Boghossian on this matter, I disagree for technical as well as empirical reasons that are entirely in step with his rigorous, scientific method for critically examining claims about the world. The professor makes an interesting argument — “XYZ-faith based thinking is symptomatic of ‘cognitive sickness'” — that on closer examination has more visceral appeal than evidence for his untested and categorical “cognitive sickness” construct lacking any peer-reviewed data as to its reliability or predictive validity. Moreover, Prof. Boghossian is now well aware of the substantial, peer-reviewed health psychology and neuropsychiatric literature (Boehnlein, 2004; Murphy, 2011) that describes how certain modes of faith-based practices and spiritual orientations have measurable health benefits associated with longevity, suicide deterrence, enhanced cognitive performance and delayed cognitive decline. So, as long as Prof. Boghossian continues to ignore this line of empirical research it allows him to make many non-contextual claims on the shortcomings of faith to reliably answer specific categorical problems (e.g., how to build a bridge, fix a car or solve a math problem). But that philosophical viewpoint only serves to emphasize the fallacy of categorical reasoning when the questions and problems pertain to more complex and empirical interactions as found in the science of clinical and mental health.
Correction: “(Walsh, 2011)” not “(Murphy, 2011)
Published in American Psychologist, free link==> http://janebirr.com/amp-ofp-walsh.pdf
>There was a time in Western culture when religion ruled every aspect of life, and those with dissenting opinions were instantly put to death. We accurately describe that pitiful time in history as the Dark Ages.
> Let’s leave the light on, shall we?
You are so pitifully ignorant of the history of the last century that it is hard to imagine where to begin an explanation. Count the victims of those enlightened, tolerant, scientifically oriented societies that we know from the other side of the Iron Curtain. Assuming you know what ‘count’ means.
http://askville.amazon.com/people-killed-Inquisition/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3878676
The Inquisition is no doubt a dark chapter in the history of Christendom. However, when you compare the number of its victims (thousands) with over a hundred million of Marxist regimes’ victims alone (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung) you will understand why there is no basis for the claim you made. People with dissenting opinions were not instantly put to death under Inquisition. If that were so, there would have been no Protestant Reformation, for instance. Luther and other Reformers would have been put to death before they had a chance to have any following. They were, however, put to death under those regimes, with no trial in most cases.
It is perhaps fashionable to paint religion as backward and dangerous today, but if you care to find the facts (as you ought to in an academic institution) you’ll find out that your claims are not just unfounded, but completely wrong.
Your other points make as little sense as the one in the ending of your article. Stem cells can be harvested from adults with the same promise of medical benefits, it is not true that they have to be taken from aborted children. And that a “microscopic human cell clusters” are in fact human beings can be shown by demonstrating that their DNA is set at the moment of conception. Biology, not religion, points to the sanctity of life. It’s been a while since Watson and Crick did their part.
Until the sexual revolution and relativism in morality, abstinence and marriage were working pretty well. You can find statistics proving that. Look at teen pregnancy rates in the US after WWII, for instance.
A touch of open-mindedness and research would go a long way.
A 3 day old blastocyst made in a lab and used in stem-cell research is not an “aborted child”
It’s a human being. Because it has human being’s DNA.
What it is then? A carrot? A Christmas tree? A Subaru?
Define a human being if you disagree. Scientifically.
“Because it has a human being’s DNA”
Every cell in a human has a human being’s DNA, but we don’t consider someone scraping their knee on the pavement to be committing mass abortion.
A human being has consciousness, can feel pain, can feel love. A microscopic cluster of 150 cells does not.
TD wrote:
“A human being has consciousness, can feel pain, can feel love. A microscopic cluster of 150 cells does not.”
How do you know it doesn’t?
“How do you know it doesn’t?”
Because to have pain or emotions you need at the very least a nervous system and a brain stem. A lab embryo, which is literally a shapeless clump of cells, has neither.
If you believe that a shapeless clump of cells feels pain, you may as well believe that bacteria does too. (Hint: It doesn’t)
Scraping a knee does not TERMINATE the life, normally. Likewise, taking a few cells from a developing embryo or a fetus to perform a lab test wouldn’t be considered abortion, unless it killed the embryo as a result.
Right after conception, EACH human being is just a single cell. That’s all there is. If you destroy that cell, you destroy human life. There is going to be no human being which this cell would have developed into. The moment when human life begins is conception. That single fertilized cell will develop into a human being, like you and I, unless interfered with. Development and change are with us throughout our life, therefore you can’t say that it’s not a human being until it reaches some stage of development. Today, I am not what I will be tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean I am not a human being.
A developing fetus feels pain very early on. It has a beating heart very early on. And it has human DNA from the moment of conception. Then the cells divide and grow, and differentiate, but the defining moment is conception. Many characteristics of this new human being are fully determined at that moment, although most of them are not visible yet. And a cluster of 150 cells with human DNA is a developing human being, a person.
An unborn child is loved by her mother. Ask a woman who had a miscarriage how she feels about the life she lost. Maybe it was just a blob of cells, but she loved it. A child living in slums somewhere in South America may not be loved by anyone. Would you argue it is not human? Would you argue that an unconscious person is not a human?
Think about it.
IMO it doesn’t matter on which “side” of the argument one falls, but rather that the instructor is ignoring the hypocrisy of his own argument. He feels it right to push facts on her, whereas her belief structure contains all the “facts” she needs/wants to be secure in her faith. At the end of the day, belief in a higher power is all about faith. For an instructor to try and deconstruct that faith is wrong. I also believe it is wrong for people to try and shape or create laws (in America) based upon one’s personal belief structure. Freedom to follow one’s own faith does not equate to righteousness in shoving it down anyone else’s throat. If we start creating political policy based upon extreme (or even mundane) evangelical Christian beliefs we become no different than the jihadist Muslims who we call terrorists. Civil law based on the “word of God” is a recipe for intolerance, hate, bigotry and disaster, and is the first major step in taking away the freedom to practice one’s faith in our nation. You, I or the man down the street may not practice the same religion – we may pray to different gods or to none at all. What gives any of us the right to dictate each other’s faith? Faith quite often has little to do with tangible fact; that’s why it’s called faith. 🙂
That’s what an instructor does, they push facts. The unwillingness to except facts that challenge previous thoughts or beliefs is called ignorance.
The unwillingness to accept “facts” was once dealt with in a place called the Lubyanka prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubyanka_Building
Across the Soviet bloc, religion was scientifically proven to be false, and predicted to go away within a generation, maybe two. Just to be on the safe side, the proof and the prediction were backed by the NKWD.
I have no problem with ‘pushing’ facts, as long as we agree on what ‘pushing’ means…
So what is the unwillingness to think outside of one’s own box called?
Fantastic, you site wikipedia. Quite the scholar. And of course you agree with her. As humanity opens its eyes you will find more and more instructors like this.
Humanity has had its eyes open for a while. Have you heard about Aristotle? Plato? You may want to ponder what those guys wrote.
And many others.
You may or may not know it, but the modern science and the critical scientific method actually arose from the classical Greek background, within the Judeo-Christian frame of mind. A parallel stream of thought, albeit not unrelated, was flowing in the Islamic culture.
But nothing beats the heroes of today armed with their spell checkers!
@joanne
I agree with your comments about the instructor and his attitude.
I am not sure I agree with your comments about keeping beliefs private. I think we need to be careful there. Some things we can accommodate to: I won’t argue whether we should have a day off on Sunday or Saturday. Heck, throw in Friday too. I want to have a glass of beer on the weekend, so no prohibition please. If your religion doesn’t allow it, good for you: mine does. I don’t want drunks in the streets causing trouble though, so I have no problem with laws that prohibit alcohol in public places.
Then there are things we all agree on: we don’t want murder to be allowed (how about abortion or euthanasia?) or should agree on (what is marriage?).
The thing about religions is that they helped keep families and societies together for thousands of years, and pretty happy at that, albeit not perfect. Teen pregnancy rates have skyrocketed in the US after WWII. Any idea about the cause?
So let’s discuss what should and should not be accepted in the public square. Openness and dialog are better than being dogmatic about it, one way or the other.
I think.
But they where pagans I can’t trust what the sat either
Believing the world was created 6,000 years ago is equivalent to believing the Earth is flat. You can’t call believing the Earth is flat “faith” and then somehow have it magically excused; it’s still ignorance/stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I did not say the world was created 6,000 years ago or that I believe that.
It’s selective selective back peddling Tara. It’s very common in Christianity these days. He start to bring up unrelated facts now to divert you from the original topic. That been my recent experience with Edmund. But to me the more dances around the fact or should I say lack of evidence for his beliefs, his argument grows weaker
Corey, you may or may not know that Christians of different denominations hold views that differ in some key details. Some Christians insist on literal reading of the Bible, for instance, which leads to claims like the 6,000-years old earth. Others (like myself) accept that there is some key truths in it which can be known and believed without resorting to always reading it literally. The reasons for such differences and their consequences are beyond the scope of a short conversation like this one, but I’ll be happy to answer questions if you have any. I encourage you to poke around and try to understand those differences so you can actually better understand the viewpoint you are arguing with.
If you noticed any back pedaling (I think that’s what you meant) in my argument please point out exactly where.
The alleged conflict between science and religion is sorely needed by the militant atheists, who “prove” religion wrong by constructing a strawman and then debunking it. Likewise, weird sects and fringe Christian groups are in high demand, far greater than the religious market can supply. Without them many a philosophy professor would be out of job.
There are religious views which are obviously not reconcilable with known facts. If you insist on holding such beliefs, you put yourself in the realm of the unreasonable. But many, likely the majority, of Christians (to speak of my own faith) do not find any fundamental contradiction between the known and proven facts and their faith. But you have to be able to make the distinction between the haughty claims of some scientists, and actual proven facts.