March 27, 2004

Religious polemics? To the hatchet-mobile!

Posted by Curt at 02:26 PM in Ramblings | TrackBack

My brother’s opinion on the merits of a statistical argument for atheism pretty much suffices; the argument is wholly without merit and ought to be a source of embarassment for those who employ it. It is almost as bad as the “scientific” or “historical” proofs of atheism which try to use biology, physics, the archaeological record, etc. to prove that the events of scripture could not have occured as described. This is clearly missing the point, even though I do not for a minute go in for the weak-kneed religious defense that all the scriptural stories are actually metaphorical and are not to be taken literally. That is clearly hogwash: these were the explanatory stories about the world for entire cultures through many epochs, and it is only since the truth of scriptures have come under questioning scrutiny that their adherents have begun using this argument for the, shall we call it, poetic merits of scripture. Nevertheless, proving the ridiculousness of certain points of scripture does not bring us any closer to the proposition that God does not exist, any more than a belief that God does exist requires one to accept each one of those dogmatic points of scripture.

In any case, both the statistical and “scientific” arguments are equally based on the deplorable literalism which also characterizes religious fundamentalism, which is to say that they take the words of the sacred books to be the most important issue, rather than the status of the wider theological question, a point that I tried to make as an addendum to my fulminating about “The Passion.” One other point, which is somewhat implicit both in what I have just written and in my brother’s response to the statistical argument, is that atheists do not simply, as the e-mailer claims, “question a claim,” presumably that God exists; if they did, they would be like my brother and I, agnostics. Instead, the posit a counter-claim, “God does not exist,” which is no more logically defensible than the converse and possibly ethically less so. In fact, the very statistical argument which the e-mailer so confidently predicts will validate his atheism would actually indicate that atheism is almost certainly wrong, because whatever particular sect people adhere to, the vast, vast majority of humanity believes in the existence of some sort of God/deity/supreme being/whatever, while only a small number are actually atheists. So the dilemma for the atheist who wants to use the statistical argument is that it is either a) invalid or b) valid, but actually indicates that atheism is wrong. Obviously I think that the argument is crap, so it should simply be dropped, but the difference (all too often forgotten by atheists) between belief in the existence of God and adherence to a particular sect at least deserves notice. Further, almost every one of the skeptical arguments regarding the existence of God (i.e. humans are not equipped to know the truth of the matter, etc.) apply equally well to the atheistic counter-proposition, as far as I know.

Of course, in defense of both theists and atheists, the existence of God is a question upon which it is difficult to remain neutral, regardless of whether it is a matter upon which one can have any rational insight or knowledge. Further, as anyone who reads Hume knows well, if one really really applies the principal of empirical skepticism rigourously, only accepting that which logically obtains from experience, well, the result is solipsism, because one can not really know or prove the existence of anything except one’s own thoughts (and maybe not even those, grazie a Freud). And Hume seems to suggest that it is inevitable that we accept the existence of the outside world despite ultimately having no rational grounds for doing so; one could even suggest further that if the employment of reason exclusively truly results in solipsism, and gives no grounds to know anything except one’s thoughts, than reason is perhaps not always the best means of evaluating the objects of the world. It may be that way with theism, too: one may not be able to justify belief in the existence of God logically, but that does not in itself prove that logic is the supreme criterion for judgment on the issue, hence does not prove that faith is necessarily a bad criterion for belief. Since most people who listen to people like Richard Dawkins nod and smile and go on merrily believing in God, I can only suspect that this is a common subconsious line of thought (although, pace Tolstoy, that does not necessarily argue for the merits of this way of thinking either). And in any case, even if atheism really were a skeptical view, like agnosticism, one cannot be skeptical about everything. Even we agnostics are dogmatic in our own way: we are like the truth-seekers in Nietzsche who subject every idea and belief to scrutiny except the existence and value of the truth, which passes as an a priori value.

And so all things in moderation: skepticism and belief are really twin poles of abstraction. One cannot be entirely skeptical any more than one can believe whole-heartedly, I don’t think. I suspect that the most fervent devout catches himself possessed by doubts about his central points of belief just as often as the avowed skeptic catches himself in the course of his day passing uncritically through the world, but if the devout is healthy-minded he will not flagellate himself for these doubts but will welcome the chance to reassess his beliefs and either return to them strengthened in conviction or abandon them, counting himself fortunate for being rid of his illusions, just as the self-honest skeptic will realize that to apply his skepticism universally and constantly is not only an impossibility, but a misery, the misery of uncertainty and unrest about everything. I think we all have to learn to live with the persistence of the unexamined belief just as we do the gnawing doubt that surrounds even the things which seem most certain to us.

Comments

You two guys gave that subject the one two punch. I felt like I was ringside. Thanks.

Posted by: John Venlet at March 27, 2004 04:27 PM

One pedantic objection (which I only mention because it's been lodged against me countless times): strictly speaking, an "atheist" is someone who isn't a theist, so self-described agnostics like you and I technically fall under the atheist rubric. A classic connotation/denotation problem.

People who take this whole thing way too seriously (usually overheated zealots desperate to prove that their more reasonable argumentative opponents are really atheists; as if that proves anything) prefer to speak of "hard" and "soft" atheists. Of course, anyone can recognize that this usage casts the agnostics in a negative light, since being a "soft" atheist carries the connotation of fuzzy thinking, soft-headedness, etc. This is a favorite tactic of foaming-at-the-mouth atheists, but a good number of theists do the same thing.

These semantic games are amusing, but ultimately frustrating, since they simply represent an attempt to redefine the terms of discourse so as to favor a particular viewpoint.

Your basic point still stands, of course. Re: history and scripture, one important thing to keep in mind is that a good bit of the Old Testament derives from an oral tradition of myths; as with any other orally transmitted stories, it would be fallacious to seek an exact correspondance between them and actual events. As we're all familiar with in our daily interactions, most orally transmitted stories relay some essential truth without necessarily cohering to the specifics, and this goes doubly so for stories heard at third hand. So that's the better standard by which to evaluate those parts of scripture which are based on oral traditions. One other thing to keep in mind is that those traditions were codified at some point (by the deuteronomists in most cases) by people with their own religious, historical and political prejudices, so what we actually read are likely to be rather heavily edited versions of the original.

Okay, end tangent.

Posted by: shonk at March 27, 2004 05:59 PM

I can understand the semantic point, but I don't think an atheist could actually use it as a legitimate argument, for three reasons:

1. The OED and Webster's both define an atheist as: "One who denies the existence of a God."

2. People that don't believe in the existence of a God generally identify themselves as agnostics, not atheists. It is simply a matter of clarification to define one's terms such that the term atheist applies only to those who positively disbelieve in the existence of God, while the term agnostic is reserved for those who neither believe nor disbelieve, and it is the atheists defined as such with whom I am concerned.

3. If the atheists whom I am addressing were agnostics I would have no quibble with them, but it is pretty clear that people like Dawkins actively believe there is no God, which is a positive propositional belief, and I can criticize them for holding that belief no matter what they call themselves.

Posted by: Curt at March 27, 2004 06:47 PM

Well, my Oxford American defines an atheist as "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or god", which would include agnostics. But, of course, none of this has any impact on your main points; I just thought I would point it out.

Posted by: shonk at March 27, 2004 10:22 PM

I don't see why we would reject the inputs of our senses on the grounds of Reason when there is vast, almost unanimous agreement on the data the senses produce: the classic example is the redness of apples, rejected only by those who suffer some physical deficiency.

- Josh

Posted by: Wild Pegasus at March 28, 2004 11:09 PM

Solipsism does not mean that one rejects all of the input of the senses, but it does mean that one remains chronically uncertain regarding their nature and existence. This all ultimately traces back to Descartes' epistemological question, the question of what we can and cannot be certain of. And by certain I mean not the very tepid conditional acceptance of scientists dealing with experimental data but certainty which allows for no doubt whatsoever. Of course Descartes concludes that only the existence of our thoughts cannot be doubted. This is simply because any argument for or against the existence of thought in effect presupposes the existence of thought, because it is itself a thought. Anyway, only thoughts can really meet this criterion of certainty, because there is nothing outside of our minds whose existence a) cannot be doubted, i.e. cannot be conceived of as not existing and b) is implicit in our very thinking about them. If one thinks that our perceiving of the external world establishes its existence conclusively, one ought to consider dreams for a moment. Anyway, Descartes goes on to accept the existence the world on a provisional basis because of his belief that God would not deceive him; Hume does not. But the point is, both of them conclude that the existence of anything except the thoughts cannot be ascertained absolutely by the principle of no conceivable doubt, and this is the inevitable conclusion of the most rigourous empirical standard. If one finds it ludicrous that we cannot be certain of anything but our thoughts, well, I would not necessarily disagree with you. That was in fact in essence my point. Clearly we stake our very lives on a number of ambiguous assumptions about the nature of the world every day, which is a subconscious form of certainty which belies the protestations of the most avowed skeptic. Nevertheless, the empirical, rational problem of knowledge and certainty regarding the external world most certainly exists; one cannot dismiss that.

Posted by: Curt at March 29, 2004 12:36 AM

Curt: Solipsism does not mean that one rejects all of the input of the senses, but it does mean that one remains chronically uncertain regarding their nature and existence.

Solipsism means that YOU are “God” and no one else exists in the same manner that YOU do.

A Solipsist has the power of “free will”; the figments of his imagination do not.

Curt: This all ultimately traces back to Descartes’ epistemological question, the question of what we can and cannot be certain of.

Sure … I think therefore I am only proves that YOU exist. But as far as you know “I” don’t “think”.

Curt: And by certain I mean not the very tepid conditional acceptance of scientists dealing with experimental data but certainty which allows for no doubt whatsoever. Of course Descartes concludes that only the existence of our thoughts cannot be doubted. This is simply because any argument for or against the existence of thought in effect presupposes the existence of thought, because it is itself a thought.

Right … so if this is true, and you only perceive information then why assume “Matter”?

I guess that x-tra step is what makes Atheists x-tra logical?

Instead of calculating the statistical chance that “God” exists I’d like to see some “smart” Atheist calculate the chance that “Matter” exists in reality.

Curt: Anyway, only thoughts can really meet this criterion of certainty, because there is nothing outside of our minds whose existence a) cannot be doubted, i.e. cannot be conceived of as not existing and b) is implicit in our very thinking about them.

Ohhh, now don’t be such a nay-sayer. Every goose-stepping “superior” Atheist with a brain knows that Matter makes Consciousness!

Of course maybe the Atheist reading this post is the only one to actually exist?

Curt: If one thinks that our perceiving of the external world establishes its existence conclusively, one ought to consider dreams for a moment.

Do the objects in your dreams have material substance?

If your mind can create the reality of your dreams what makes you so certain that it isn’t creating this world right now?

You see these words … ? A few moments ago your subconscious mind conceived of them, and now your conscious mind is perceiving them. But “I” didn’t write this post. … “I” don’t exist.

Curt: Anyway, Descartes goes on to accept the existence the world on a provisional basis because of his belief that God would not deceive him; Hume does not.

Instead Hume assumes that Matter exist independent of Observation. (in other words, Hume assumes that Time is still Time even when it is unperceived.)

Descartes simply assumes that the Information has a source. He calls that source “God” (note that according to Descartes the “source” (i.e. God) could still be his own subconscious).

Curt: But the point is, both of them conclude that the existence of anything except the thoughts cannot be ascertained absolutely by the principle of no conceivable doubt, and this is the inevitable conclusion of the most rigourous empirical standard. If one finds it ludicrous that we cannot be certain of anything but our thoughts, well, I would not necessarily disagree with you.

All you can be certain of is your own thoughts? What about Information? Can you be certain of the existence of Information?

What about Logic? Can you be certain of Logic, or does “Logic” count as a “thought”?

Curt: That was in fact in essence my point. Clearly we stake our very lives on a number of ambiguous assumptions about the nature of the world every day, which is a subconscious form of certainty which belies the protestations of the most avowed skeptic. Nevertheless, the empirical, rational problem of knowledge and certainty regarding the external world most certainly exists; one cannot dismiss that.

Yet Atheists do it every day.

Because while they may not have the answer yet they are absolutely, positively, unequivocally certain that a Superior consciousness (i.e. “God”) is not the source of the information.

Just don’t ask them how they know this. It is a secret, they just know it. Don’t ask stupid questions.

Posted by: The Serpent at March 29, 2004 12:21 PM

Do you think that it's logically untenable to assert that Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Unicorns, etc. do _not_ exist?

It seems to me that we have no problem with such assertions because we know that each of these things were dreamed up by men with no basis in fact or reality. Well, do we not pretty much know exactly the same thing about religious myths?

Posted by: Richard Nikoley at April 5, 2004 08:36 PM

It seems to me that we have no problem with such assertions because we know that each of these things were dreamed up by men with no basis in fact or reality. Well, do we not pretty much know exactly the same thing about religious myths?

On what basis do you make that claim? Most religious myths derive from a long, oral tradition leading to a long, written tradition. This means that few religious myths were created by any one man or any small group of men. Now, that doesn't exclude the possibility of their being pure fiction, but it makes it much harder to pinpoint exactly _where_ and _when_ they were created (if, indeed, they were created rather than learned). In turn, the very longevity of the traditions and the sheer number of people involved in their development makes it much more unlikely that they were consciously fictional in their content.

Now, certainly it could be argued that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are also the products of cultural traditions rather than, say, the products of individuals intentionally creating fiction, but both Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, in their current forms, have been recognized by all participants in that tradition as fictional, which makes them markedly different from the religious myths. Certainly, one could correctly go on to argue that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy both owe a considerable debt to religious myths of their own, especially pagan ones but also, at least in the case of Santa Claus, Christian ones. Again, though, the transition from, say, St. Nicholas to Santa Claus is one recognized even by those effectuating and perpetuating the transition as being a shift, a movement away from the portrayal of something true or at least possible to something fun and entertaining, but fictional.

I guess my point is simply that, despite their superficial similarities, to dismiss religious myths on the same grounds that one dismisses cultural fictions like Santa Claus is a dangerous thing to do.

Posted by: shonk at April 6, 2004 12:10 AM