Skip to main content

Plato's Cave Allegory and Faith

By John W. Loftus ~

Plato's cave allegory is a good one applied to the issues that separate believers and non-believers. I know I'm in a culturally derived cave. So I can reflect on that which I have been led to accept since I realize I'm in it, and this makes all the difference in the world. My conclusion is that I can only trust science to tell me what I should accept. Doing so allows me to think outside the cave, to question the reality I was raised to believe. Believers raised in their respective religious cultures are in the cave and in denial. They have accepted and now defend what they were raised to believe using a double standard, one for their own faith and a different one for the faiths they reject. But the problem is faith. Believers all defend the merits of faith even though faith has no method.

Sometime ago in the past in that cave during a dispute between prisoners, one of them said, "Let's test the idea," and the test solved the issue in dispute. Then as time went on human beings learned this is how to settle disputes, and science was born. With it arose the idea that we should think outside the cave, outside of our perceived realities, our culturally inherited ones.

The world got bigger too. People met and interacted with other cultures who had come to believe different realities with the same level of assuredness. Taken together, when we reflected on both science and a global world we began thinking outside the cave. We questioned our own culturally inherited beliefs in the face of different religious cultures, and we used science to solve the questions that separated us. It produced doubt, what I call the adult attitude.

You just want to have believers travel all over the world and debate their own religious faith against the myriad numbers of religious believers who defend their own culturally inherited faith, so they can see this for what it is. But even then that may not be enough, since believers can still look others in the eye and think they are deceived, or they need a "fulfilled" religion--the one they inherited from their own religious culture. Depending on their faith they'll even think these other believers will be condemned to hell for what they were raised to believe, simply because they were raised to believe it, which is at the heights of delusionary thinking.

When asked, Christians will say, "Only God can judge others," even though Sunday after Sunday most of what is preached is that only by faith in Jesus can someone be saved, and that non-believers will be condemned to hell. Listen, either they think God correctly revealed how he will judge people or they don't. Either they believe what is preached or they don't. And if they don't believe it then they should not attend churches where this false message is preached. I have never heard one single Christian look a good non-believing friend of theirs in the eye and say, "You are going to hell," which is the logic of what they hear preached. Not one. Christians always say to these friends, "Only God can judge." What, do they change their minds all of a sudden in the face of the harsh realities? The logic is there based on what they hear preached. So say it. Rejoice in it. God is good, kind, and just, right? Tell your non-believing friends the truth based on the logic of what you believe.

People of faith will also denounce science, saying that science has no method. But that is at the heights of delusionary thinking too, the likes of which I can only shake my head at. It's humorous to me. There are three responses to such a delusional attempt to level the playing field between science and faith.

The first response is that if science has no method then believers have the burden of proof to show us how it advances without one, and how faith solves anything. That cannot be done, just try it.

The second response is that if believers demand we prove with certainty that science has a method by poking a tiny pinprick of doubt about it, then this emphatically does not mean there is any parity at all between science and faith. It is simply amazing to me how believers accept things based on little or no evidence, things a child could easily deny, and in turn invoke a double standard upon people of science to prove with certainty what we have come to conclude. This is why I maintain believers must be shown their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever conclude it is improbable, and that is an utterly unreasonable standard. It is, however, the standard of faith, because faith is unreasonable.

The third response is that science is a human endeavor, and like any human endeavor there is a human element to it. So if science proceeds with theory laden data, probabilities rather than certainties, and is not done by completely objective scientists, then that is not the problem of the scientific method itself. Science proceeds because the evidence has a way of eventually changing people's minds. It is self-correcting by nature.

By contrast people of faith reinvent what they believe in every generation because of the need to continue believing in the face of scientific evidence and the harsh social realities. As human beings live longer it will become more and more obvious that that's what believers do. I've seen it in my lifetime. Science continues to advance while faith continues to retreat.

People who refuse to doubt are almost always fearful of looking at the evidence squarely in the face. They are like the prisoners in Plato's Cave. Fear and ignorance result when faith reigns. Faith imprisons people within their cultural realities, so to speak. It refuses to see them for what they are. Believers are fearful of leaving the comfort of their perceived social realities. They are fearful of displeasing their perceived divine realities. Because of this they are forced to deny what is clearly obvious. They must even deny science. It's time to wake up and think. It's time to grow up and become adults. It's time to throw off fear and superstition.


Popular posts from this blog

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi