There is no end to the befuddlement that religion can cause to the rational mind, and two recent unrelated stories are perfect examples of why humanists and atheists are often seen walking around in disbelief while shaking their heads at human folly.
For instance, the chief Italian newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, has reported on March 21st about the visit of Pope Benedict to Angola. Besides the predictable nonsense about the “fact” that only Christ can give meaning to one’s life, the pontiff actually said, and I quote: “Tanti di loro vivono nella paura degli spiriti, dei poteri nefasti da cui si credono minacciati” which roughly translates to “Many of them [the Angolans] live in fear of spirits, of dark forces by which they believe they are threatened.” The Pope, in other words, exhorted his Catholic missionaries to help free the locals from superstition! I am not making this up. The head of a worldwide organization founded on multiple superstitions (they call them miracles), and who constantly threatens eternal damnation by means of an evil spirit (they call it the Devil), actually had the stone face (faccia tosta, in Italian) to criticize the local variety of superstition as irrational and bad for people’s mental health! It doesn’t get any more bizarre than this.
Or does it? Three days later the BBC reported that an Italian court of law had convicted the pilot and co-pilot of a Tuninter (a Tunisian airline) plane, as well as several others including the head of said organization. In the case of the pilot, the charge was that he acted irresponsibly during an emergency landing situation, crushing the plane into the Mediterranean and killing 16 people.
What happened, back in 2005, was that the Tuninter plane ran out of fuel in midair, because the wrong fuel gauge had been installed (that’s why the head of the airline was convicted). But the pilot, instead of beginning standard emergency procedures and directing the plane toward a nearby airport, started to pray out loud! Apparently, god wasn’t listening, and the turboprop crashed into the sea, killing several passengers.
What I think is particularly distressing about these two episodes (and countless others like them) is that the sometime silly and occasionally lethal superstition was displayed not by poor and ignorant people, but respectively by one of the most educated people in the world and by a trained airline pilot, presumably not a complete slacker in the brains department. Which brings us to the crucial question: how is it that intelligent, educated people can hold to such silly notions as eternal punishment and intercessory prayer?
Before the smug atheists among my readers indulge in too much gloating, let me remind you that I’ve also seen a fair share of irrational atheists, people who reject the existence of gods but cannot really articulate the reasons, or who nonetheless hold all sorts of other unfounded beliefs, beginning of course with the rather simplistic idea that all religious people are stupid.
All of this seems to point to the conclusion that the relationship between reason and rational belief is anything but straightforward. Plato famously said that to know something is to hold to a justified true belief. That is, for instance, to claim (even tentative) knowledge that there is no god I need to first of all really believe that there are no such things as gods (that is, I can’t just pretend) and second that it has to be the case that there really are no gods (very likely, seems to me). But I also need to be able to give reasons for why I believe what I claim to know. If the latter component is missing one cannot claim reasonable knowledge, but only a belief held because of faith or someone else’s authority — which isn’t that much better than the Pope believing that Christ is the lord and savior of humanity (hey, at least the Pope claims to actually be an authority in the matter, indeed the ultimate authority on earth!).
By that Platonic standard, I’m afraid we are in deep trouble. It is easy for most of us to laugh at the (staggering) statistics indicating that a large percentage of Americans don’t know that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. But, if asked, how many Copernicans would actually be able to explain why they believe the heliocentric theory? If they can’t, then they are simply repeating something they heard from authorities or read in a book (which amounts to the same thing).
Of course most of us don’t have the time to go around learning about the evidence behind most things that we accept as true or likely true. We have to rely on someone else’s authority, and the question then becomes the by no means less tricky one of how to assess whose authority to believe. At the very least, this should make us rationalists a bit less smug about dismissing other people as “obviously” irrational.
Then again, there is plenty of everyday empirical evidence that nothing fails like prayer, so the next time you board a plane it may be prudent to ask the pilot what he would do in the case of an emergency...
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
You could have easily mentioned evolution here, too. All too often I ask someone why they are skeptical or do not accept evolution, and they either don't have reasons, or have reasons that are based on extreme misunderstandings of the field or even science in general. When you look at the evolutionary acceptance numbers in the U.S., and the sun-earth numbers you suggested -- on top of all the other data out there, like belief in Satan or Jesus' return -- perhaps we really are in an intellectual emergency.
ReplyDeleteMassimo,
ReplyDeleteYou said that the pope decrying the superstitious beliefs of the Angolans was bizarre but that doesn't seem bizarre at all.
I think this very well illustrates why atheists and theists have a hard time talking honestly about their different world views. It is certainly reflective of my talks with my dad on the issue. I throw every rational argument in the book at my dad and his response is always that he has some deep connection with god that allows him to know god exists.
It is this deep feeling of connection that needs to be taken into account when talking to theists or pointing out contradictions like this. For atheists, rationality and empirical evidence are the foundations of our world view but for theists, it is this deep, profound, and satisfying idea of a personal relationship with the greatest being possible that allows them to feel like science is just another human endeavor.
So your right, theists aren't stupid. This feeling of connection is more profound and personal than simple intellectual arrogance or anything like that. It cannot be reduced like that and the appeal of connection with the all-powerful does not come out of typical human desires of wealth or eternal life. It is a large part of the reason why perfectly intelligent people still hold religious beliefs (there is, of course, no one reason).
Human happiness comes out of creating value, accomplishing something. I play video games not because I love seeing blood and guts but because it is a challenge and I can feel really great accomplishing it. That is a tiny example of course. A better example is that I worked hard writing this trying to say something insightful because if I do say something insightful I would feel a very satisfying feeling of accomplishment. When people work at something it is not money or a good grade that they are going after, not really, it is a feeling of success. Where could a better feeling of success come from than being in communion with the one-true-god?
I very heartily recommend reading this article: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/may-june-magazine-contents/can-money-buy-happiness
Incidentally, this is a large part of the reason I find Libertarianism a very attractive political philosophy.
So, in closing, if we want to convince theists their beliefs are wrong (by, say, pointing out the way the Pope contradicted himself) we cannot appeal to rational arguments such as science proves creationism false but we have focus on the heart of the matter, their deep personal feeling of belonging. How can we do this? I don't know, but I’ll be sure to come up with a way by my next discussion with my dad.
We can't believe that religious people are stupid without first establishing what "smart" means. And that is a rather difficult task.
ReplyDeleteBut what I think we can safely say about them, is that most of them are rather irrational.
actually, the Pope didn't say that the superstitions of the Africans were FALSE: it actually said that Christ had DEFEATED the bad spirits (so, he -the Pope- CONFIRMED the truth of the superstitions... he only was selling a 'still better' product)
ReplyDeleteI wrote previously: “Where could a better feeling of success come from than being in communion with the one-true-god?”
ReplyDeleteLooking back on it, I’m not sure this follows. The explanation that developing a “communion” with god can provide you with a feeling of success does not really make sense. I’m sure it can but when I play video games my success is very tangible and the same cannot be said of religion. The explanation just isn’t powerful enough. So scrap that. The more important point is that faith requires you to believe things without having a good reason and that is silly. So Massimo, the point I should be making is that the Pope (our hypothetical Pope in case Jesus Zamora is right- I haven’t looked it up) was saying that the Angolan’s beliefs are made up but his aren’t. So I guess I have not said anything new.
Hope you saw the debate on "Does Satan Exist" on Nightline last night.
ReplyDeleteHad the feeling that many in the audience felt that they had vanquished Deepak Chopra.
Deepak never seemed so rational (yeah, I know).
I, of course, had to laugh in an ironic sort of way when I first read the Pope's statement. How can it be so obvious to us that he (and the church in general) is substituting one mythology for another yet the Catholics don't seem to 'get it'?
ReplyDeletesomeone.or.another wrote about that "deep connection with god" that theists profess to have. I remember as a teenager sitting in church and realizing that I didn't have that feeling. I would look around and try to figure out if everyone else had it or if there were some who were faking it like me. When I was young I thought it was something wrong with ME. By now I've come to realize that there's something wrong with THEM.
And back to the Pope; jeebus kreist on a bicycle, doesn't he realize how stupid his comment was? That combined with his comment about condoms making AIDS worse... Ok, making stuff up about God and Jesus is one thing but contradicting easily proven facts about viral transmission and infection rates seems not only stupid but counterproductive. On the other hand, I kind of like it when religious authorities have to say something stupid in order to stick to doctrine. I always hope that it makes a few more theists realize the contradictory nature of religion (esp. christianity).
Regarding justified true belief: Atheists who would say, "I do not believe in God.", will have a much easier time than those who say, "I believe there is no God." That is, "I'm not convinced there is a God.", vs. "I'm convinced there is no God.". These statements are often conflated, but the latter demands a much higher standard of justification, doesn't it? Evidence for the former could simply be "prayer doesn't work." But that doesn't justify the latter any more than saying "I've never seen a quark" justifies saying they don't exist; athiests who make the latter type of claim are accepting the burden of proof. But when people claim to have personal experiences of God, you can only argue that they are, in your opinion, confused. To those people, you'll seem like a blind person trying to prove to the sighted that there is no such thing as light.
ReplyDeleteI have had experiences that seem like a connection to God, but I guess it's just part of being human to have those feelings sometimes. It doesn't necessarily stem from a need to belong; it's more like feeling that there is a purpose to existence, which I'm quite willing to admit might be an illusion. But I do find the fact that anything exists at all amazing.
DA "...is substituting one mythology for another yet the Catholics don't seem to 'get it'?"
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists hail back to Greek mythology pretty regularly. Half man /half ?. Tho genetically speaking that is an essentially senseless idea, evolutionists will tend to try and make it fit anyway.
The god of chaos, randomness and whatnot. All in the order of Greek mythology.
Not quite sure what kind of light you're going to be able to shed on the Catholic Church then.
There is an assumption in your comments here, Massimo, that prayer is intended to get people what they want. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes God may bend or adjust physical laws, but not because we will and want it but because God wills it.
ReplyDeleteAND...
Do try to remember how much you don't like the "God in the gaps" argument when you want to only assign responsibility for something negative. If He is truly responsible when something goes wrong...it only follows that He must be credited as well when something goes RIGHT.
"If He is truly responsible when something goes wrong...it only follows that He must be credited as well when something goes RIGHT.."
ReplyDeleteThe question I would pose to you, caliana, is how would your life be different without God's power--not the idea of God, or the power of belief, but God Himself. When things are up, it's God's blessing. When down, it's a trial or a necessary means to some higher purpose. Are you sure that you're not just overlaying a story on top everyday statistics? What about proponents of The Secret?
Way back in high school, when I was applying to university, there was a problem in mailing my transcript. My parents suggested that it was God's way of telling me not to go. I said it was God's way of telling me to try harder. If God's will is inscrutable... how can you ever claim to know what it is? How can you live your life by it?
(I apologize if this is antagonistic. My intention is to spur discussion.)
I think this very well illustrates why atheists and theists have a hard time talking honestly about their different world views. It is certainly reflective of my talks with my dad on the issue. I throw every rational argument in the book at my dad and his response is always that he has some deep connection with god that allows him to know god exists.
ReplyDeleteIt is this deep feeling of connection that needs to be taken into account when talking to theists or pointing out contradictions like this. For atheists, rationality and empirical evidence are the foundations of our world view but for theists, it is this deep, profound, and satisfying idea of a personal relationship with the greatest being possible that allows them to feel like science is just another human endeavor.
I agree. At the risk of abusing Kuhn, I think there's a problem (on both sides) of incommensurable paradigms, because it's not just a matter of competing theorems--God exists vs. God does not exist. There's also a difference of values, methodologies, and authorities: faith vs. reason, personal experience vs. unbiased evidence, the Church vs. the scientific community.
I'm not sure how this can be resolved. Perhaps the most atheists can hope for is to beat back the theists when they venture into "materialist" territory--claims about condom effectiveness, for example.
Ian,
ReplyDelete"The Secret" is a book of "what ifs". And what ifs do not have anything to do with facts.
"The question I would pose to you, caliana, is how would your life be different without God's power--not the idea of God, or the power of belief, but God Himself."
You know, I wrote out this longish explanation of clear examples of God's power in my life and around me and then I got this impression to just get rid of it.
People, I think, have got to want to know "The" God for themselves.
...but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness, in the eretz: for in these things I delight, says the LORD. Jer 9:24
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=9&v=24&t=KJV#comm/24
Some of the atheists aboard here have entirely missed Massimo's point about the Appeal to Authority Fallacy - a logical error, which is a necessary part of rational life, if one assumes that someone, somewhere, really did experience evidence of the existence of a quark.
ReplyDeleteRationality is not defined by Materialism, it is defined by First Principles that are not testable, not Material, yet incorrigably "true". Out of these First Principles emerges coherence as a test of rationality. Not Materialism, coherence.
After 40 years of Atheism and Materialism, I tested all my "axioms" against the First Principles, and found that neither Atheism nor Materialism withstood the test of internal coherence.
I suggest that all untested personal Materialist "axioms" be honestly and rigorously coherence tested for actual rationality. If you have not done so, you are under the control of beliefs, not rationality.
ON PASSING THE PLATONIC STANDARD
ReplyDeleteJUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEVE
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A PTOLEMAIC AND A COPERNICAN
PTOLEMAIC: It is my firm believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that it is stationary as it is written in the bible. Why do you, Copernican, believe otherwise?
COPERNICAN: I believe it because of empirical reasons.
PTOLEMAIC: But what is your reasoning behind it?
COPERNICAN: Well, before I can believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun and rotates on its axis I must have a justification (evidence) for it to be true. My justifications for making my statements true are the following: 1) Taking my position on Earth as a point of reference, I can observe that stars appear in the sky at the same time and position every year; this implies that the earth rotates on its axis and moves through space; 2) the changing altitude and rising position of the sun at specific calendar dates during the year; and 3) that the planet Venus goes through phases as the Earth’s moon does which can be better explained by having the Sun at the center of the solar system.
PTOLEMAIC: But how do I know that these justifications are true?
COPERNICAN: By observations which anyone can make and having made those observations be able to conclude that the best explanation is that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun.
PTOLEMAIC: Still a hard thing to believe.
COPERNICAN: Still, justifications provided make the statements true or at least highly probable which allows me to believe them. I could never believe a statement based on authority only unless the statement comes from expert opinion and there is agreement among the experts.
Trying to pit reason against religion is like pitting a tank against a submarine. They are not evening operating in the same environment, and as such, can have little affect upon one another.
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDelete“Rationality is not defined by Materialism, it is defined by First Principles that are not testable, not Material, yet incorrigably "true". Out of these First Principles emerges coherence as a test of rationality. Not Materialism, coherence.”
I’m not sure I understand, could you explain further?
The Humanist,
“Trying to pit reason against religion is like pitting a tank against a submarine. They are not evening operating in the same environment, and as such, can have little affect upon one another.”
That’s a funny way to put it. Hmm, what is the divide really? Atheists look to science as the ultimate (if not only) way to explain the world. Theists look to god and consider science just another (admittedly useful) way to explain the world. Wherever science and (their) religion clash, religion wins. So far so obvious but here is the important point, atheists cannot make headway unless they show why, fundamentally, the view that there is a “revealed truth” is false. Massimo did exactly that his post, “Revealed Truth, a Logical Fallacy”. That was a great post; I should have read it before just now. Atheists and theists have a hard time debating honestly when they each try to argue against the other by showing why their opponents world view is flawed within their own world view and not trying to show why their opponents world view is flawed within itself.
H "Trying to pit reason against religion is like pitting a tank against a submarine. They are not evening operating in the same environment, and as such, can have little affect upon one another."
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. My husband and I have both prayed for atheists who have made a turn around.
One guy an atheist that my husband prayed for(my husband asked him if he could pray for him) became a believer. No doubt about it. Another guy would not attend church with his wife for the first 40 years they were married, he began attending this year and is showing a sincere interest in things of God and the Bible.
These are people who have allowed us to pray for them or their spouse has asked for prayer. I say that because I know in terms of debate that some people have used that "I'm praying for you!!" as a parting shot to win.
The presumed sanctimoniousness of other people, however, will not be an excuse before God when we die. Even some us who are believers have had people who claimed be believing wrong us. But be clear about this, their missteps in dealing with others and their sins DO NOT do away with my sins before God.
I find it curious and disappointing that so many people insist that there are gods or a god. Why do people expect that all questions, especially the "biggest" questions (i.e. "why are we here?" and "why is the universe here?) have answers?
ReplyDeleteIt's much more satisfying to understand that we (humans) do not have answers to everything and the things we cannot explain should remain as questions, as unknowns?
Logic and the scientific method (empirical observation and measurement, repeatability, etc.) are the only reliable tools we have to figure out things.
People who need religious explanations to everything probably hold their beliefs because they "work" in some way for them - probably by reducing anxiety they might feel by "not knowing".
The biggest "unknown" for most people is "death" and all religions claim to have answers to "what happens after death?" It's silly but comforting to many people to believe in "afterlifes" even though there is no emprical evidence to support this notion.
The Tunisian airline pilot (in Massimo's story) is not praying to save the plane but to save his soul. He held some superstition that by performing this ritual he would be saved in an "afterlife". It's a very common belief.
That said, this tendency for people to attach "god" answers to unanswerable questions may, in the final analysis, be a form of intellectual laziness. Pursuing science is frustatingly time-consuming and demands critical discourse, peer-reviews, and endless "testing". It's much easier to avoid this hard work and just follow someone else or some belief system.
Sadly, "god" beliefs don't help us deal with real problems. It's far better if our pilots, instead of praying, applied the "tested" solutions to the "out-of-fuel" scenario. We would enjoy greater safety if pilots were atheists.
Advisor,
ReplyDeleteIn your post you provided two reasons that people believe in god.
"People who need religious explanations to everything probably hold their beliefs because they 'work' in some way for them - probably by reducing anxiety they might feel by 'not knowing'."
and
"That said, this tendency for people to attach 'god' answers to unanswerable questions may, in the final analysis, be a form of intellectual laziness."
We need to avoid this approach. This is what I'm trying to get across, people believe in god because they don't see that science and rationality are our only tools for discovering truth. I was a Christian for a long time (it was the way I was raised). I switched to atheism because of all the sexism and the like that is condoned by god in the Bible. I had said that I would be a Christian if those lines weren’t in there. Now I see that even then the Christian god is no god I would ever want to believe in, because he condones the most useless and dangerous thing of all, faith. Faith advances human knowledge not one bit and leads people to do stupid things (a la, praying instead of trying to land a plane). We should fight faith and not religion itself (as Massimo has said). What you say is true, people find comfort in belief in god and it is an easy cop-out, but the real problem is they (like what I did myself) do not recognize the problem of faith. Finding comfort and being intellectually lazy are reasons people believe in god but you will never get anywhere unless you make it clear the faith their religion is based off of is foolish. That is the fundamental problem that needs to be tackled.
Also, you said:
"The Tunisian airline pilot (in Massimo's story) is not praying to save the plane but to save his soul."
This is not necessarily so and it is an unfounded criticism.
"We would enjoy greater safety if pilots were atheists."
LoL
"I have to disagree. My husband and I have both prayed for atheists who have made a turn around."
ReplyDeleteCal,
Have you prayed for me? I am still an atheist. And if you haven't prayed for me, shame on you!
What about Massimo, have you prayed for him?
Sheldon, she preys for you and Massimo everyday :)
ReplyDeleteKnowing what I know and have observed about these things, it probably does make a difference if a person, even an atheist is willing to submit themselves to someone praying for them. That's a small step of humbling that many may not even want to take. In a sense, I think that their will is already at least half inclined to hear something if God were either speaking to their spirit or showing them something of himself.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess Valera and Sheldon, if you're letting me know that you're not there, I believe you.
To answer your question, I pray for quite a few people I meet real time and not real time.
prayed for a woman who walked by me on the temple mount in Jerusalem a month ago...she was probably Muslim. If it is impressed on me to do so, I'll pray for anyone, anywhere. They don't have to be atheist...but then, they might be.
Since there's nothing to it,(this prayer stuff) you guys have nothing to be worried over....
Someone.or.another said: "That’s a funny way to put it. Hmm, what is the divide really?"
ReplyDeleteI doubt we'll ever really know, since the human mind is the most complex thing known in the universe. We'll probably only have theories. Here is mine...
I think some people, perhaps even most, for whatever reason (either genetic or environmental, or more likely a combination of the two), have a very strong emotional need for certainty, and an equally strong aversion to uncertainty. This makes evolutionary sense, because knowledge is power. The more you know, the more likely you are to survive. I hypothesize that this evolutionary "need to know" instinct is the driver behind both human curiosity (the "itch") and supernatural belief systems (the ultimate "scratch"). I would guess that this "need to know" instinct is stronger in some people than in others. For some people, it's a "want to know" but for others, it's a "need to know." I think everyone would "like to know" what makes the universe tick, what happens after death, etc., but some are able to admit they don't know and that they probably will never know, while many others find this unknown to be repellent and frightening. Since science and secular belief systems cannot provide ultimate answers, they can never make the pain of uncertainly go away, so the definitive balm of supernatural beliefs is adopted to end the pain. Now that I have written this out, it sounds a lot like Marx's idea of religion being the opiate of the masses, so I guess I am not so original on this matter. Oh well.
The first part of this post reminds me of a paper I have been looking for. I believe it is by Dennett. It is an argument that it was the Catholic Church that popularised or promoted the term "supernatural" as a pejorative used to condemn all other regions as being based on supernatural beliefs, whilst the Catholic Church's beliefs were natural. This might explain - but not excuse of course- the logic of the Pope's thinking in making his point here.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know the article I am talking about? Anyone have a link to it? (I have of course pursued the usual channels google etc.)
There's a show I watch once in awhile called
ReplyDelete"It's Supernatural".
My husband, quite honestly regards the show as
"It's Unbelievable". :)
All I know is that this last week I happened to be watching the show, sitting on the couch holding with my other hand the area between my left collar bone and shoulder (I think I wrenched something out of place months ago, maybe weight lifting?) I haven't been able to like reach for things on top of the fridge, or I had a hard time getting a tee-shirt over my head, etc.
The twelve year old girl in this video on Sid's site:
http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&abbr=tv_&page=NewsArticle&id=7961&security=1041
pointed out and then prayed for someone with a bad shoulder,
and instantly, from there on out, I have had LIKE NO PAIN in that shoulder.
I check it and hardly believing it myself. Have gotten use to favoring it, but have found out that it not necessary to do that anymore.
My husband is looking at me like ...Hmmm. He's wary of people who claim signs and wonders. Now he's wondering about me.
Marriage is grand, isn't it. ;)
and this loosely translated gem from Bill Maher: "Preparing for an emergency landing, the pilot said a prayer which included Mohammad and Allah, two names not exactly associated with air safety.
ReplyDelete"But the pilot, instead of beginning standard emergency procedures and directing the plane toward a nearby airport, started to pray out loud!"
ReplyDeleteYou might think so given how media reported the event, but the official report after the accident gives a very different picture:
http://www.ansv.it/cgi-bin/eng/FINAL%20REPORT%20ATR%2072.pdf
The pilots did what they could, they didn't just break down and pray. There was no airport close enough for them to reach.
While it may be convenient for an Atheist to blame religion, it seems the pilot was sentenced to ten years in prison for "driving while black".
Thomas, the report you link to doesn't mention anything at all about anyone praying. I'm not an expert on such reports, but maybe it doesn't need to? It identifies the technical issue that caused the engine failures and states that the pilots and the crew did not follow all the procedures they were supposed to follow. It's the court's job to determine how much, if at all, the pilot is to be blamed for. And that's when the information regarding his praying might have come up.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, what's your take? Are you claiming that either BBC or the court is making up the info re. the pilot praying?
valera, there is also a recording available from the cockpit:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7911667eca
You can hear some mention of God, but then that's hardly shocking. If someone in a stressful situation prays "Please God, help me" while trying to get out of it that's hardly a crime. I'm sure the report of the causes of a crash would have mentioned the praying if it had been significant in causing the crash. These reports are, after all, designed to find the causes so they won't be repeated.
I suspect this this was miscarriage of justice, and that BBC and this blog just reported the verdict without bothering to check the story. I'm also pretty sure that an Italian Catholic would never have been convicted for praying.
Thomas,
ReplyDeletelet me get this straight: you are accusing the Italian government of miscarry of justice, and the BBC of either wilful or reckless reporting, on the basis of an anonymously uploaded partial video with alleged translations of a language you probably don't understand, clearly made by someone with an agenda (see the last writing when the video fades)? Hmm, hardly an example of critical thinking, no?
And did Il Corriere also make up the quotes about the Pope, or you think that was accurate reporting?
Massimo, my primary source is the report I linked to earlier.
ReplyDeleteThomas,
ReplyDeleteas Valera pointed out, that is a technical report that does not clear at all the issue of the pilot's praying. The very word isn't mentioned, and one would need access to the court's proceedings -- which I'm sure are public, but probably available only in Italian -- to settle the matter.
Massimo, BBC claims "Prosecutors say that after both the plane's engines cut out, the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures and then opting to crash-land in the Mediterranean instead of trying to reach the nearest airport".
ReplyDeleteThe official report states on page 197 that Palermo was the nearest airport. Contradictions like this make me believe that the BBC story is wrong, and if it is wrong in that respect, it is likely wrong in others.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI don't follow your argument. First, I don't see the contradiction in what the BBC says ("nearest airport") and the fact that the nearest airport was in fact Palermo.
Second, even if the BBC report is incorrect about X, it doesn't follow that it is incorrect about Y. By that reasoning, if the New York Times, say, spells my name incorrectly (i.e., makes a mistake) then one shouldn't believe anything it says about me? I don't think that would be a reasonable conclusion.
Massimo, the plane was heading for Palermo, it just didn't get there before it dropped into the ocean because it didn't have any fuel. Realizing they couldn't reach an airport the pilots chose to ditch the plane as close as possible to some ships they saw, which to me seems like a rational approach.
ReplyDeleteIf a story get something significant as this wrong you may suspect that there isn't much research behind it and thus that other aspects are equally suspect. On the one hand we have a detailed official report on the other hand an obviously unreliable news story. Why do you chose to believe the latter?
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI don't choose to believe unreliable stories. I simply trust the BBC (and others) as a source of news because of their record If they don't get something right, other sources will point that out, that's the way it works in an open society.
That said, it still seems to me that you are making equally questionable assumptions about the reliability of your sources (for instance the audio clip you linked us to), or their completeness (such as the technical report, which is clearly not designed to adress the question at issue here).
Of course, one way or the other I doubt that the specifics of this case are going to change my (or, I presume, your) worldview, which is presumably based on more than a single incident.
"Of course, one way or the other I doubt that the specifics of this case are going to change my (or, I presume, your) worldview, which is presumably based on more than a single incident."
ReplyDeleteWe know that. But God is still God to each person individually, and as long as there is one breath left in you (or others) there is hope.
In Capt Sullenberger's case, had wondered if he was a committed believer for him to have such a miraculous outcome to the landing which could have been a real catastrophe. Turns out, it was someone else on that plane praying. (Maybe a few someones) He was one of the first, or the first, to open an emergency exit. Few seconds later, a lady ran right by him out to the wing and jumped in the river. He ran after her with two seat cushion type flotation devices and jumped in after right her.
Now there's a REAL man. ;)
Massimo, your statement "such as the technical report, which is clearly not designed to address the question at issue here" seems to me to be completely wrong. A report like this is designed to describe the accident and everything that contributed to it, and that would certainly include the pilots behaving inappropriately. It is, for example, complete enough to mention that the flight attendant at one point became too agitated to answer questions from the passengers (p 25), a much less significant event.
ReplyDeleteBBC, on the other hand, only relied on second or third hand sources, which are much less reliable.
After the airline crash-landed safely into the Hudson River in January, a cartoon circulated on the internet showing two gigantic hands descending from the clouds, cradling the plane and lowering it gently into the water. I suppose the message was that God saved the passengers and crew; however, there is another message in that cartoon, that whatever good training, coolness, and bravery the pilot and crew showed were totally irrelevant; either the Giant Hands do show up, or they don't. The plane could have been flown by a 14 year old drug addict and if the Giant Hands showed up, all would have been safe. I am sorry that no Giant Hands showed up for the poor pilot of the Tunisian airlines plane, despite his frantic prayers; but Americans who think the pilot deserves punishment should remember that many in this country believe that skill, training, and qualities of mind are worthless in an emergency, and all we can do is wait for the Giant Hands.
ReplyDeleteThomas,
ReplyDeleteaccording to this:
http://fromtheskies.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/condanne-per-lincidente-tuninter/
the ANSV report says that the pilots could have reached Palermo, had they implemented the necessary procedures.
Here are three other sources, besides the BBC, that relate how the pilot panicked, left his post, and started to pray:
http://sicilia.travelnostop.com/News.aspx?id=61909&titolo=Tuninter,%2010%20anni%20ai%20piloti%20colpevoli%20tragedia%20Atr%2072
http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009/marzo/24/tragedia_dell_Atr_mare_Piloti_co_9_090324032.shtml
http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?storyid=85403
I'm sure you can find more by googling the story...
C,
ReplyDeleteYou've not ever seen this giant hand before?
Giant 'Hand' Reaches Across Space
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512767,00.html
for whatever reason this appeared, it is rather interesting looking. :)
Massimo, I don't read Italian, but the technical report does say that simulations show that in theory the plane should have been able to reach Palermo if handled perfectly. It also states that given that they had lost power to some of the instrumentation this was not something you could expect a real pilot to manage. They would have had to find the optimum descent rate by the seat of their pants.
ReplyDeleteDoes any of your Italian stories about praying refer to some independent evidence, or are they all just accounts of the verdict in the trial? Having the same story appear in several papers is not in itself confirmation.
Thomas, the stories obviously refer to the trial proceedings, which are the pertinent source here. I don't have access to the proceedings themselves (nor, frankly, would I have time to go through them), but the technical report is only part -- and I am guessing a small part at that -- of the evidence brought in front of the judge.
ReplyDeleteBack to philosophy, I strongly advise against using Platos definition of knowledge. Simply because even if we can judge justified belief, we cannot judge truth. The very usage of the word truth for abstract stuff is doubtful. What we have are criteria about theories being better than others. The good news is: Thats enough.
ReplyDeleteAlternative: Knowledge is justified belief in a justified theory. And a theory is justified, when there is no better one.
(For a start. To make this complete, this comment field may be a bit short ;-)