Cheap shot skepticism, courage and cowardly ‘free thought’
| May 23, 2011 | Posted by Anthony under Blog, Creationism, evolution, General, philosophy, scientism, Secular Humanism |
Today I am enjoying the privilege of sitting in on some high school senior religion classes (through virtual conferencing software) and taking the role of non-believer, challenging the students on what they believe, especially in regards to the resurrection.
Some may think it difficult to take the role of the skeptic but I find it to be astonishingly easy. So easy, it reminded me of some observations about skeptics and their arguments- or more precisely, the wind that carries them- that I’ll share now.
It’s easy to be a skeptic because it is much easier to not believe something as to believe it. Skepticism has no non-arbitrary stopping point. That is, full blooded skepticism will naturally morph into cynicism. There is no objective point where any kind of argument, piece of evidence, or logical deduction must coerce belief. This is a point I raise in this post. Many skeptics construe their skepticism as an act of courage, as though being willing to question everything shows a brave streak that others do not have. To a point, there is courage… and in a way, yes, there is something to that.
However, if it is brave to question everything it is braver still to believe anything. Let me illustrate.
Let’s say we are debating the location of a particular car. Person ‘Bob’ says the car is in location X. Person ‘Steve’ is not convinced. Now, there are an infinite number of places that the car actually could be but there is only one place that it actually is. If Bob points to location X, Steve need only only retort that it might actually be in location Z or Y or BB, or H, or ALKJDKLJDF, ad infinitum. Steve can strictly only be refuted on any particular point by traveling to one of those points to see if it is actually there or not. If it isn’t, Steve”s worldview is left basically intact, because rather than conceding the point he can always raise the possibility that it could be somewhere else.
Bob, on the other hand, is making a definitive statement that he is prepared to back up. In sum, negative assertions exist in infinite numbers but positive assertions are bound to narrow, finite realities.
Now, I know that you are saying that in this scenario Bob can make his case simply enough to Steve by showing him to location X, and thus Steve will be compelled to stop his dispute. This would be rational, but this would not be the spirit of skepticism that I’ve observed related to discussions of God and Christianity. If a person does not want to accept something, pure skepticism allows them an infinite number of escapes.
So, Steve, upon being given the exact location of the car and the opportunity to examine it, can still say such things as…
- “Maybe the car only appears to be there. It could be a hologram.”
- “The car could be a hallucination that we are sharing.”
- “Perhaps we are both encased in a life sustaining device ala the Matrix where in reality we THINK we can feel and touch the car, but in fact, this is just a trick of our mind.”
- “Space aliens have implanted this experience because they want us to reveal technological secrets to them so they can invade us.”
- “Given a nearly infinite amount of other, parallel universes, it could be that the car is actually located in another of the universes but because of some, yet undiscovered, quantum law, an image of it is able to present itself to our minds but it is physically located in some other universe.”
- “The car is not here. You are not here. The universe is not here. It is all a function of my singular mind- solipsism is actually true, and there are many who agree!”
And so on and so forth. If this sounds ridiculous, you are looking at variations of skeptical arguments that I have actually heard. For example, I had an atheist tell me that even if Jesus really did rise from the dead, this could be explained as an alien abduction. Note, he didn’t actually believe this. His point was simply that he could come up with a naturalistic explanation and any naturalistic explanation is preferred over a supernaturalistic one. And how many times have the implications derived from contemplating the ‘agreed’ facts about the origin of the universe- apparently at a discrete point in time in our history, from nothing- been parried by the skeptic by invoking the multiverse?
As a case in point, consider Stephen Hawking’s recent determination that ‘something can come from nothing.’ Ie, the universe could have just ‘popped’ into existence, uncaused.
Well, obviously if someone is prepared to believe such a thing, than believing anything about anything and nothing about everything is welcome. For example- you think you are reading this post… in fact, the universe just popped into existence a micr0second ago, replete with the appearance of age and the illusion that you have been living out a life this whole time. In fact, it just ‘popped’ into experience, fully formed with its mature nature and your recollections- uncaused.
Why not?
This isn’t bravery or courage when one has descended to that level of thinking. If anything, it is the opposite- it is pure cowardice. The really brave thing would be to admit that by all appearances, the universe had a discrete beginning and its madness to think that it came into existence without a cause. Everything else we know with beginnings have causes- why the exception for the universe? Gone is the day when the atheist could posit that the universe is eternal. The scientific evidence points to something else, but as we see in this scenario, the skeptic can still find a way to question and doubt and as this example illustrates, is perfectly willing to go well beyond science and well beyond what we could ever, in principle, know as an empirically verifiable fact.
In saying all this, I do not contend that all belief is warranted or that arguments for belief in a particular thing are very good or well substantiated. I don’t mind rigorous evaluation of truth claims. However, I am saying that the skepticism of the atheist is only courageous insofar as there is a realistic place on the spectrum of questioning where he would be willing to settle on something definitive as true and real. As a corollary, someone who is willing to finally make up their mind that something is true and real and is ready to change their life to reflect that conclusion also exhibits courage and bravery, and this courage and bravery is of a different character than the courage of questioning. The latter, as I have argued, can go on and on forever, while the former must eventually choose a hill to stand on, and on that hill, possibly ‘die.’
I said early on that there is no non-arbitrary break between free wheeling skepticism and outright cynicism. I stand by that (bravely). To keep someone from becoming a simple cynic one will have to pick a place where one will be willing to give their provisional assent. And then… and this is key… hold firm to that, consistently, wherever it leads you and whatever consequential implications follow from doing so.
For example, if you choose to accept as true that which is empirically verifiable, and reject that which is not, then you know that things that have beginnings have causes- and the universe had a beginning. Will you accept this implication or will you chuck out your standard now that it has produced a conclusion that threatens your atheism?
I give this as an example of what I mean, and it should not be construed as exhaustive. For example, I might also ask: what of the things you believe are true and real that you have not demonstrated empirically?
Ok folks, be brave out there.
This is the default footer layout. You can easily add or remove columns in the footer.
“If you won’t answer Stathei’s question (“Is god the designer or not?”), will you at least tell us why you won’t answer the question?”
Tim, I already answered it. Thrice.
First time:
“Anyway, I would just like to point out that you are also being unreasonable in citation of your ‘perfect designer’ thing. I didn’t follow the previous conversation, waiting for a response to specifically to me. I gather, though, that you have leapt immediately to a demand that if one is going to logically infer design, well, gosh, that inference can’t be trusted because we maintain a ‘perfect designer.’ This is absurd. This is like walking into your room of ‘poorly designed’ power cords and determining that since one is so long you don’t know what anyone would do with it, they must not have been designed by anyone.
There is no reason to consider the particularly Christian ‘issue’ of how to reconcile apparently ‘poor’ design with a special creation at this point. The inference to a designer is not contingent on that designer being ‘perfect.’ See again your long power cord. The issues can be taken separately and in my opinion, though EB was right on his assertions, he should never have accepted the terms of your debate. The notion that ‘if there is a designer it must be perfect’ does not come from a Christian worldview. Ie, this notion is imported from your worldview.”
Second time:
“Linked does not mean indistinguishable. I stand by my statement that if one will not even concede that design is present, poor or not, it is useless and pointless to speak to the identity of that designer. Baby steps.”
Third time:
“Nonetheless, the two issues are separate and distinct and I for one see no point in discussion the option of ‘God as possible designer’ when it isn’t even yet conceded that there IS design.”
Somehow the fact that I already stated my answer to that question three times passed unnoticed. That is astonishing to me, but I think I have an explanation. I don’t think you are getting the point I’m making about making sure we keep presuppositions and assumptions and conclusions out of our pool of empirical data (ie, the B material). This view influences my answers given three times, but I can only conclude that you don’t think I believe what I’ve been actually saying. So let me spell it out a little vis a vis the ‘identity of the designer’ issue.
1. If there is every going to be any progress on understanding various viewpoints- never mind coming to a point where one’s mind is changed!, just understanding them!- we’re going to have to have to track things back to the point where we share common ground. This means, for the sake of the discussion, dispensing with as much of the ‘A’ and ‘C’ material as possible and focusing on the raw data (‘B’ material) as much as possible. In short, one cannot debate the interpretation of the data without agreement on the nature of that data.
I firmly believe this, and my own approach is geared towards facilitating taking the conversation in that direction. I personally believe that conversation that doesn’t occur on ‘common ground’ as useless. Therefore, I will not engage in it. Someone is welcome to disagree, but they cannot compel me to expend my precious time on discussions that virtually by definition can go nowhere.
2. Whether or not something is designed is obviously much closer to ‘common ground’ material. There is no sense in discussing the identity of a designer if one will not concede the actuality or possibility of design. To illustrate,
Imagine coming upon a dead man in a room. I believe it is a homicide, you believe he died of natural causes. Moreover, it is known between us who I believe actually committed the murder. You think my suspect is ridiculous, and view all of my arguments for why it is a homicide and not natural death through the prism of my belief on who the ‘suspect’ is. But this is not the way real life works. If this were a real life situation, if it was determined that the death was from natural causes, the discussion about suspects would end. The latter is contingent on the former, not the other way around.
Let me say that again. If it was not believed to be a murder, discussion of suspects is improper, out of place, useless, and flat out irrational. Likewise, if it is determined that something is not designed, then one need not discuss prospective designers. If however it is agreed that there was a homicide then one can begin discussing the relative merits of different suspects.
Your approach is, “Your idea of who the suspect is is stupid, therefore the idea that it is a homicide is ridiculous.”
I believe that approach is unreasonable. I believe it can’t be anything but fruitless. A waste of my time and yours. I may be interested in persuading you of the existence of my ‘suspect’ but I understand that the first step is to come to an agreement that there was a ‘crime.’ You cannot have a suspect if you don’t have a crime.
3. Finally, you are engaging in the same logical fallacy I protested before, but from the other side. You will recall that conclusions derived from a naturalistic framework were employed against conclusions derived from a framework that did not share those presuppositions. I made it clear at the time that your approach effectively was, (Statement A) “I shall now begin to interpret the world as if there is no God” but my approach was NOT the exact converse. That is, I was not saying that my view and approach is, (Statement B) “I shall now begin to interpret the world as if there is a God.”
My approach is, (Statement C) “I shall now begin to interpret the world and derive the best account for it that I can, and if that leads to the conclusion that there is a God, so be it, if it leads to the conclusion that there isn’t a God, so be it.”
This is the objective, neutral, fair away to approach things.
But by your insistence to conflate the putative identity of the designer with the evaluation of design, you are acting as though my view reflects Statement B. More to the point, you yourself are the ones considering my perspective based as though the option on the table was Statement B.
Please see above where YOU said: “Why on earth should we assume he exists?”
But I had never said anything of the sort, and in insisting on conflating the issue of design with the identity of design, it is YOU assuming for the sake of the discussion that he exists. If that were my view, I’d be undercutting my own position throughout this whole exchange. But it isn’t my view. My view was stated explicitly in response to my quote of you:
“I didn’t say you should. I’m only insisting that you don’t assume he doesn’t.”
So I reckon the chief task before you is to decide whether or not I believe the things that I say I believe and then to recognize that if I do, I will act as though I do.
That is the fourth time I have answered this question.
There will not be a fifth.
“Oh, I don’t know… because you couldn’t find the invisible quotations?”
I understand sarcasm doesn’t always translate well over forums, but for some people it seems neither does whats actually written.
“I’m so glad to hear you admit this, EB! Are you going to post your evolutionary acceptance speech here or somewhere else?”
Don’t see why I should, given evolution is the perfect example of what I’m talking about – moderately intelligent people speaking to things they don’t know about, or CAN’T even know about even in principle. This is seen by the simple fact that so much of evolutionary beliefs that conflicts with Christianity are imagined historical accounts rather than observable science.
I’ve yet to hear anyone accept the challange of producing “millions of years of evolution” in an observable and repeatable manner in order to meet the scientific requirement.
Anthony,
Thanks for your detailed response. There are a number of things I want to address, but my response might have to wait until the weekend. Hope you can wait that long.
In the meantime, did you see my question above? Namely, how do you reconcile your admitted mockery of Stathei above, with Christ’s plea for Christians to turn the other cheek?
Do you see such mockery as throwing the moneychangers out of the temple? Or do you now feel it is un-Christ- like behaviour that you now regret?
Tim
yep, I can wait, no problem.
Yes, of course I saw your question. I won’t be answering it one way or the other but look forward to your reply this weekend or longer, if you need the additional time.
peace
As before, if you won’t answer the question (and of course you don’t have to answer it), would you mind at least explaining why not?
It would be hard to explain why I won’t without it turning into an unproductive- but entirely predictable- conversation.
What if I promise not to respond?