This is the eighth entry in the Atheism round of the 2012 Ideological Turing Test for Religion. In this round, the honest answers of atheists are mixed in with Christians’ best efforts to talk like atheists. It’s your job to see if you can spot the difference. The voting link appears at the end of the entry, and you can look at all entries in this round here.

When (if ever) have you deferred to your philosophical or theological system over your intuitions?

Several times, with possibly the clearest example being gay rights: my intuition, when I first became aware that some people were gay, was that this was weird, and wrong, and that gay people clearly had problems if they wanted to do something so unnatural. Or in one word: squick.

On further reflection, however, I realised that:

1. I had no indication that people chose to be gay (and given the treatment they often received, why would they?)
2. I already knew that I wished to treat people fairly regarding characteristics they had not chosen.
3. Therefore I should support equal treatment for gay people even if it made me feel personally uncomfortable, because my discomfort was hardly their responsibility.

I have since become much more comfortable with the variation in human sexuality, but I reached the point of being supportive of Civil Partnerships (as currently available in UK law) when anything other than heterosexuality seemed unnatural to me; and getting further in accepting people for who they are required personal acquaintance with out gay people, whereas the initial conflict was between my intuition and my philosophical commitment to fairness.

Are there people whose opinions on morality you trust more than your own? How do you recognize them? How is trusting them different than trusting someone’s opinion on physics?

Yes, though each source is only useful for some questions! In my moral framework consequences are important, and reaching good consequences in complex decisions can need expert advice. In the example of a proposal to support a resistance group in a foreign country, depending on the situation in that country intervention might be morally wrong, morally permissible, or morally obligatory. Deciding which is the case will require a knowledge of the current regime; the character and methods of the resistance group; their prospects for success; and so on. On all of these questions there will be people much better informed than I, and while I will try to synthesise their data and come to my own moral judgement, I know that my picture will be incomplete, and I may lean on experts’ judgement to some extent.

This is more like trusting someone’s judgement of history than trusting their judgement of physics, in that there are a lot of unreliable sources and often little hard data. One key criterion for me is transparency of reasoning – does an ‘expert’ cite sources and show how these build up to the overarching moral judgement, or do they assert?

Can you name any works of art (interpreted pretty broadly: books, music, plays, poetry, mathematical proofs, etc) which really capture the way you see life/fill you with a sense of awe and wonder? You can give a short explanation or just list a few pieces.

Iain M Banks has written a series of novels set in the Culture. It’s an anarchistic post-scarcity society, where both human and machine citizens have broad personal autonomy. I love it and I want to live there; but in lieu of that, I do use the ‘Culture perspective’ to guide me sometimes; having this almost-utopian benchmark for reference helps to avoid the Oppression Olympics. Rather than thinking “is it really a priority that some people can’t do x when children are starving around the world”, I can think “would the treatment these people receive be acceptable in the Culture?” If the answer is no, then there is a problem that needs addressing, and I should be broadly supportive of people trying to address it. I recognise that there are other ways to reach this position, but this one works for me.
As for a sense of awe and wonder, anything which shows the human and the epic scale together, especially if it shows how actions by individuals can have effects far beyond their own horizons. This can be found in real history as well as fiction, and 1688: A Global History by John E Wills is an excellent example.

Click here to judge this entry, and, once you’ve voted, feel free to speculate and trade theories in the comments or look at other entries in this round.

This is the seventh entry in the Atheism round of the 2012 Ideological Turing Test for Religion. In this round, the honest answers of atheists are mixed in with Christians’ best efforts to talk like atheists. It’s your job to see if you can spot the difference. The voting link appears at the end of the entry, and you can look at all entries in this round here.

When (if ever) have you deferred to your philosophical or theological system over your intuitions?

I think it would be an inherited system or intuition deferring to a developing system. While in college I renounced my belief in a deity. I was deciding, even though I could not have expressed it then, that I had to build my understanding of the cosmos from the ground up rather than from heaven down.

I still value religious institutions philosophy/theology/morality that is rooted in specific traditions. They must, however, be able to grow and mature in order to earn my respect. Most importantly, they must make room for the possibility that other philosophical (or theological) traditions are closer to the mark than they are.

One particular practice common to most if not all religious traditions that I have come to value, once I finally let myself seriously engage in it, is meditation or prayer, not in the sense of raising concerns or asking for something, but in the sense of becoming empty, focusing, and opening to the cosmos. I am surprise by my attraction to this practice. Is it me listening to and realizing the wisdom of my ancestors in passing this down to me? Or is it my age catching up with me?

Are there people whose opinions on morality you trust more than your own? How do you recognize them? How is trusting them different than trusting someone’s opinion on physics?

There are actually several candidates. Once upon a time I would have said my parents, but then I grew up. There was the college chaplain who talked honestly about his own Christian faith journey, his enjoyment of working with folks from different traditions, sharing with them and learning from them. I was a part of two extended exchange programs early in college, leaving the homogenous United States for a diverse (sometimes parochial & sometimes open) Europe. I remember a couple of folks there who challenged my assumptions directly and indirectly. It was a broadening experience. I would prize input from any of these folks. I seek out their council and that of others. But they are not more qualified to make moral decisions than I am. No one can make such decisions for me. But in the end, such decisions must be mine. I would not entrust such decisions to, nor wish them on anyone else.

It is not a matter of trust but responsibility. We have a responsibility to support and reach out to others, to caution, correct and protect one another. We do not have the right or ability to remove moral responsibility from one another. There may be more in common to teaching/learning moral responsibility and teaching/learning physics than we think. In each case the goal of teaching/learning (which requires trust) is to develop the ability to understand, develop and use principles on your own, whether in the realm of morality or physics.

Can you name any works of art (interpreted pretty broadly: books, music, plays, poetry, mathematical proofs, etc) which really capture the way you see life/fill you with a sense of awe and wonder? You can give a short explanation or just list a few pieces.

A couple of ways that come to mind in which I first experienced awe and wonder, and began to develop my own life philosophy. The first is experiencing nature while growing up on a farm. You didn’t mention agricultural arts in your list, so I will move on to the second; reading.

Huckleberry Finn – Mark Twain: Overhearing Huck Finn wrestle with what he had been taught about slaves, and what he knew about slaves by knowing Jim. Seeing Huck develop the moral courage and resolve to question and challenge everything he knew to be right to help Jim escape.

When the Legends Die – Hal Borland: A story of being ripped from one’s world and the ensuing violent inner struggle to claim identity and place, as well as the healing possibilities of rediscovering “the old ways” and remembering who we were once upon a time.

Foundation Series – Isaac Asimov: For me an exploration of the eternal struggle between insignificance and powerfulness, an investigation of finiteness and the ultimate, even a study of being individuals and yet being wholly connected to all that exists.

These are all things I read when I was young, well before I finished high school these decades ago. They were things that I carried with me when I left home and journeyed into the wide world, and helped me interpret what I saw there. Good stuff.

Click here to judge this entry, and, once you’ve voted, feel free to speculate and trade theories in the comments or look at other entries in this round.

This is the sixth entry in the Atheism round of the 2012 Ideological Turing Test for Religion. In this round, the honest answers of atheists are mixed in with Christians’ best efforts to talk like atheists. It’s your job to see if you can spot the difference. The voting link appears at the end of the entry, and you can look at all entries in this round here.

When (if ever) have you deferred to your philosophical or theological system over your intuitions?

When my wife and I were planning our wedding, I wanted a completely secular service with no references to God and did not want a church wedding. She had always dreamed of a princess wedding in her home church, and though she was willing to have a secular service if she could have the service in the church, the minister would not agree to that. To allow her to have the wedding of her dreams, I suffered through a very religious service.

Are there people whose opinions on morality you trust more than your own? How do you recognize them? How is trusting them different than trusting someone’s opinion on physics?

I have become a disciple of Sam Harris since he came out with The End of Faith. I find his argument in The Moral Landscape, that science can tell us how to live our lives in such a way that we can maximize human well-being, compelling. If I have a quandary, I consult his works first.

Can you name any works of art (interpreted pretty broadly: books, music, plays, poetry, mathematical proofs, etc) which really capture the way you see life/fill you with a sense of awe and wonder? You can give a short explanation or just list a few pieces.

Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot is the epitome of art for me; what else in all of art/literature has shown the pointlessness of believing in God?

Click here to judge this entry, and, once you’ve voted, feel free to speculate and trade theories in the comments or look at other entries in this round.