The Modernist and Belief

Posted By Pamela Urfer

My father-in-law is an agnostic, a wishy-washy position, in my opinion. Even atheism is better than such vague confusion. “Make up your mind!” I say to him. “Is there a God or not?”  Yet he always demurs. “Really, there’s no way to know.”

His refusal to commit used to frustrate me, but now I see he’s simply being true to his beliefs – or lack thereof. If he is a naturalist, or a materialist - which he must be, as he’s certainly not a theist - he would naturally harbor a profound lack of confidence in the capacity of his mind to discover truth.

Naturalism is the idea that there is nothing ‘super’natural about the world, that all is ‘natural,’ that humans are just bodies, or some part of our bodies, such as our nervous systems or our brains. But by ‘brains’ we really mean our neurophysiology, certainly not our ‘mind,’ as mind again comes down to ‘beliefs’ (hopes, thoughts, dreams.)

Beliefs are, for naturalists, caused or determined by our neurophysiology, by electrical signals proceeding through the nerves from the sense organs to the brain. In response to these signals, certain muscles contract, thus causing movement and behavior. If we do harbor some impulse which we might think of as a ‘belief,’ we’re simply being deluded, as it’s more likely simply an adaptive behavior useful for ensuring the survival of our species.

Some might say that the healthy state of our species implies that we can trust the validity of those behaviors we call ‘beliefs,’ as they have proved useful to us in the past. But as philosopher Alvin Plantinga points out, “natural selection doesn’t care about the truth or falsehood of your beliefs; it cares only about adaptive behavior.” Your beliefs may all be false. As long as your behavior is adaptive, you will survive and reproduce.

He uses the example of a frog sitting on a lily pad. A fly passes by; the frog flicks out its tongue to capture it. Perhaps the neurophysiology that causes it to do so also controls the ‘beliefs’ the frog has about this action. He may believe “those little black things are good to eat.” Or, he may believe “if I catch the right one, I’ll turn into a prince.” As far as his tummy cares, it doesn’t matter if his beliefs are true or false.

 If naturalism is true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is very low. Certainly it would be difficult to state that rationally. So my father-in-law has a point. There is no way of knowing.

As a naturalist, he must conclude that beliefs cannot be trusted nor have any connection with reality. There are many other things he cannot know: whether the mushrooms he is eating are poisonous, whether the Post Office has delivered his letters, whether his wife loves him. Thus skepticism becomes a way of life.

What's the Point of an Interfaith Council?

Posted by: Pamela Urfer

That’s a question I get asked all the time.

The speaker usually goes on to say, “What good does it do us (fill in the name of your faith group) to associate with Catholics, Jews, American Indians, Evangelicals or Buddhists?” Some even add, “The disgusting, heretical (any name here) are all of the devil anyway! Why do you bother?”

To this, my reply is - “Collective Bargaining!” Yes, it’s true. That’s our main purpose in life.

The best way for any of us on the council to deal with the university is collectively. It would be easy for the U. to dismiss any one of us as nobodies and nuisances. But together we have POWER!

Look at the room reservation situation. Before the U. gave us a way of renting rooms legitimately, we had to slink around outside the SOAR offices trying communicate with students inside through mental telepathy, bribe them into taking onerous classes in bank accounting, and lie through our teeth. Now we are free, out of the closet, and orphans no more! Thank you, Dean Sifuentes!

Strangely, that doesn’t seem to impress my interlocutors. “Who cares about room rentals? These people (fill in name),” they say, “are disgusting! They believe in (demons, no demons, God, no God, sinning.) They have (oppressed us, resisted our oppression, told us off, seduced our children, violated our holy sites.) Therefore, we need to (kill them, expel them, ride them out of town on a rail, take them off our mailing lists.)”

Well, let’s all just calm down a minute! I know some of these horrible people and they’re not so bad.

“That proves it! They’ve seduced you!”

OK. So much for calming down.

Fortunately, not everyone feels this way. As president, I’m operating on the assumption that all members of the UIC are acting in good faith, trying to follow the Supreme Being’s direction as best they can. I’m applying the Buddhist concept of “critical tolerance,” where other people are given the benefit of the doubt. If the Supreme Being doesn’t like what they’re doing, it’s his/her job to tell them so. Right? Not mine. (Wouldn’t do much good, anyway.)

Very few of us believe all religions are fundamentally the same, or lead to the same end. We’re all firmly rooted in our own religious traditions, not agitating for the triumph of the One World Religion or for reducing faith to its lowest common denominator. I’m sure each of us believes that our own religion is the best for pleasing the Supreme Being. Why else would we bother to hold those beliefs?

Nor do we need to prove to each other (or to ourselves) which religion is rightest or wrongest, not for collective bargaining purposes, anyway. The truth is that that sort of attitude doesn’t get anyone closer to God. And that’s what we’re all after, isn’t it? (Remember, we’re the UIC.)

And having another warm body to help us schlepp our tri-fold to the Orientations plaza? Priceless!