Twilight
Anthony Grayling replies to the archbishops.
In the foreword to the confused document produced by the religious thinktank Theos this week the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster…iterate the claim that “atheism is itself a faith position”. This is a weary old canard to be set alongside the efforts of the faithful to characterise those who robustly express their attitude towards religious belief as “fundamentalist atheists”…We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, so a simple lesson in semantics might help to clear the air for them on the meanings of “secular”, “humanist” and “atheist”. Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply “faith” in anything, and that it is not possible to be a “fundamentalist” with respect to any of them.
An inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation – that’s not bad. Made me snicker anyway.
People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a “faith” in “the non-existence of X” (where X is “fairies” or “goblins” or “gods”); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions…”Faith” – specifically and precisely: the commitment to a belief in the absence of evidence supporting that belief, or even (to the greater merit of the believer) in the very teeth of evidence contrary to that belief – is a far different thing…for faith at its quickly-reached limit is the negation of thought.
Well, yes. It’s considered bad form to say so, but that is after all what the word means. It’s sometimes a good thing in personal relations and in social and political commitments, but it’s never a good thing in epistemology.
Even some on my own side of the argument here make the mistake of thinking that the dispute about supernaturalistic beliefs is whether they are true or false. Epistemology teaches us that the key point is about rationality. If a person gets wet every time he is in the rain without an umbrella, yet persists in hoping that the next time he is umbrella-less in the rain he will stay dry, then he is seriously irrational. To believe in the existence of (say) a benevolent and omnipotent deity in the face of childhood cancers and mass deaths in tsunamis and earthquakes, is exactly the same kind of serious irrationality.
So – never go out without your umbrella, and be careful in the inspissated gloaming.
I, like many, I suspect, had to look up inspissated. What a lovely word. I now have to find a way of using it.
I think it is way too easy to regard atheism as “just another” faith position, and I have problems with applying the religion moniker to beliefs professing the absence of a Deity. It seems to me that they try to establish a level playing field between religion and atheism and cut corners in doing so. I think such a level playing field can be established, but in a more subtle manner.
On the other hand, it seems clear to me that an atheist position does proceed from hidden or overt beliefs about the cosmos which may or may not be more simple, rational, etc. than corresponding theistic positions but which are just as unprovable by direct evidence. It does seem to me that the most rational position from a skeptic point of view is agnosticism. It’s just that the most rational position here is not particularly interesting.
I think Grayling cuts some corners himself in the last passage you quoted. His implication is that the existence of a benevolent Deity is negated by the evidence of childhood cancers, mass death, etc. and that therefore believing in such is irrational, but it seems to me this is not a purely epistemological point. It proceeds from questioning the possibility of what is (or is not, or cannot be). And while I myself would agree that there is serious difficulty positing an omnipotent and benevolent Deity of the kind I think Grayling is thinking of for the same reason, the arguments are anything but simple, and I think Grayling is too hasty to dismiss them as irrational.
“Thank you God, if you exist,
For making me an atheist.”
OB: I think then it’s merely a question of definition. I would define atheism as the belief in the proposition that God does not exist, with agnosticism as a lack of commitment to the question of God’s existence. However, if one defines atheism as simply the lack of a positive belief in God’s existence (perhaps you do?), my previous remarks are irrelevant.
Dave: it is indeed true that for a “believer” in metaphysics, all beliefs are contained within it. This would include, however, Davophysics, were you to develop such a thing. Ultimates are ultimates, and metaphysics deal with them. In other words, Davophysics would be just another metaphysical system, and probably a much more complicated and less coherent one than, say, physicalism or Platonism – and rejectable on that grounds. Sorry.
I’m sympathetic to Peirce’s position: “Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any metaphysics – not by any means every man who holds the ordinary reasonings of metaphysicians in scorn – and you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with which they are packed. We must philosophize, said the great naturalist Aristotle – if only to avoid philosophizing. Every man of us has a metaphysics, and has to have one; and it will influence his life greatly. Far better, then, that that metaphysics should be criticized and not be allowed to run loose.”
I’d agree that you cannot escape philosophizing – because very basic, commonsense beliefs such as the existence of an objective reality, or the existence of other minds, are metaphysical ones. And are prerequisites for inquiry. On the other hand, I grant that it is possible for one to accept very basic assumptions such as these but to remain extremely sceptical towards more holistic, all-encompassing metaphysical doctrines.
Heh.
Well I can see claiming that metaphysics can’t or shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, and so on, but it does seem odd to take it for granted. For one thing it underestimates our mere capacity for – what – passivity, shoulder-shrugging, going no farther. For just not asking why there is something rather than nothing. For another thing it underestimates our capacity for just saying ‘who knows’ and leaving it at that. Or, perhaps that is what Merlijn means by agnosticism, but that’s why I say atheism can be and often is the same thing.
Then again maybe I just lack a chip for metaphysics or Davophysics or OBophysics.
Oops, cross-post.
Gotcha, Merlijn. Yes – at least, I define atheism as both. It can be the belief in the proposition that God does not exist, but it can also be simply the absence of a positive belief in God’s existence. And I suppose I also think it necessarily at least includes the more noncommittal meaning, and that that meaning should always be part of such discussions, unless otherwise stipulated. I think it’s an irritating ploy of theists to pretend to think that atheism always and necessarily means a dogmatic belief or (more often) certainty that god does not exist. That ploy is irritating partly because it’s so ploy-like, so prejudicial; and partly because it’s so unreasonable to assume that non-X has to have any positive (let alone certain) content at all.
“On the other hand, I grant that it is possible for one to accept very basic assumptions such as these but to remain extremely sceptical towards more holistic, all-encompassing metaphysical doctrines.”
Right. That’s pretty much what I mean about the passivity and the ‘who knows’ possibility.
We don’t disagree then!
Merlijn writes:
And while I myself would agree that there is serious difficulty positing an omnipotent and benevolent Deity of the kind I think Grayling is thinking of for the same reason, the arguments are anything but simple, and I think Grayling is too hasty to dismiss them as irrational.
May I second that. At least in the Abrahamic religions, the Director-General of the Universe is not only omnipotent and benevolent, he is also punitative. And sometimes he has to be cruel to be kind..
Look at Sodom and Gomorrah – where people sodomised and gomorrhized a lot. Then some real shit happened, like an earthquake. And then a prophet arose and said unto them: you had it coming, you upset the Director-General, and you’ve been punished – oh and he regrets the collateral damage to the 95% of you guys who didn’t sodomize or gomorrhize, but you can’t make am omelet without breaking eggs etc etc. But God had you best interests at heart and he regrets any inconveniences caused.
The people who believe the prophet are not in the slightest irrational. They are certainly not smarts, they are certainly not rocket scientists, but they are trying to make sense out of a heartless universe that is indifferent to their suffering. What could be more rational than to assume that some supernatural agent has been displeased with some misconduct and has felt it necessary to take corrective action? Perhaps if we’re nice to him and prostrate ourselves before him he will be less moody in future? Perhaps if we pray, that will help?
Religion has always thrived on human suffering – on pain, on bereavement, on life’s finitude. So many people find that reality sucks and that faith offers them a better deal. And obviously, from their subjective angle, it does. As long as there is suffering, religion will flourish – and by the looks of things, the outlook is pretty good.
Those forking italics!
Puhleez Puhleez give us preview mode!
Metaphysics? Well, it might be a tad extreme, but Hume (as usual) has an apposite comment:
“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, ‘Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?’ No. ‘Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?’ No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”
David Hume (from his Treatise Concerning Human Understanding)
:-)
I’ve told you – the webmaster is busy, I don’t want to ask him to squander time on something as non-essential as a preview function. Just don’t use the dang italics. And if you do use them and forget to close one, close it in a following comment.
Of the two definitions of atheism (1: Belief that no gods exist and 2: Absence of belief in existence of gods), most atheists today accept the latter, while religionists try to force them to accept the first.
Accepting the second definition (which I believe is the right way to go) doesn’t mean that one is out of the “gloaming” yet, however. Then the theologian will come back with the traditional “rational proofs” for the existence of at least one god. Then one has to point out the flaws in those arguments, and in addition one can suggest that there would be quite a gap between the “god” which would be proven to exist *if* those arguments were valid and the particular god X the theologian is interested in talking about, rather than the other gods Y, Z., … that proponents of rival religions believe in.
In other words, the “belief” gap — belief with no rational basis — would still be there. A theologian like Aquinas covers it up by claiming “And this all men call God,” which had a chance of flying in the Europe of his day, perhaps, but no longer.
Basically, believers will continue to believe no matter what we say to them. Disheartening in a way, perhaps, but I don’t see any way around it.
“What could be more rational than to assume that some supernatural agent has been displeased with some misconduct and has felt it necessary to take corrective action?”
Oh, please; lots of things. The “punishments” are far too random and badly directed for that notion to be rationally explanatory (especially at a time when plate tectonics and viruses are well understood). Why misery for everyone in New Orleans while Memphis and Dallas and Boise are unscathed? Why birth defects? Why childhood diseases? Because god is annoyed? Give me a break.
Merlijn — I knew you were going to say that, my Davophysical insight predicted it…
BUt seriously, whatever did happen to good old-fashioned Pyrrhonian scepticism?
“Nothing can be known. Not even this.”
“Basically, believers will continue to believe no matter what we say to them.”
That’s okay. Not great for their epistemic functioning, maybe, but okay. The problem is that they keep demanding that we believe too, and forcing their belief-based laws on all of us, and insisting that ‘because God said so’ is a good enough reason to persecute gays and subordinate women and ban abortion and keep the death penalty. The fight is not of our making, but we’re stuck with it.
Ophelia,
It’s God’s inscrutable will, of course. Look, I’m trying to put myself in other people’s shoes — not in my own. And those shoes pinch an awful lot.
I’m the one who needs a break, not you.
“The problem is that they keep demanding that we believe too, and forcing their belief-based laws on all of us, and insisting that ‘because God said so’ is a good enough reason to persecute gays and subordinate women and ban abortion and keep the death penalty.”
Indeed. If only they would keep their beliefs to themselves. The trouble is that a key part of their belief is that their beliefs *should* be pushed on everyone. Note that this is not true of all religions: when was the last time you saw a Jain proposing a law to make it illegal to eat root vegetables or kill insects? It’s primarily the Abrahamic religions, especially some variants of Christianity and Islam, that give the trouble. They believe that their god gives them a divine right to control all of society.
“when was the last time you saw a Jain proposing a law to make it illegal to eat root vegetables or kill insects?”
You could make that question even shorter – when was the last time I saw a Jain? I have no idea! Could be never, for all I know!
But, less facetiously, that applies somewhat less to Hinduism and Sikhism these days – especially in India but also to some extent in the US and UK. Behzti, Asia House closing down an exhibit, the California textbook affair, etc. In great part, precisely because the Abrahamic religions do so much of it; others don’t want to get left behind in the scramble for attention.
Merlijn: “I would define atheism as the belief in the proposition that God does not exist”
If we accept this for the sake of argument then it is a small ‘b’ belief, acceptance of a proposition based on the available evidence. It is a falsifiable position, not a faith position or a faith, a big “B” Belief.
If a theist said “so if you saw God would you still not believe in Him?” they would illustrate the problem with phrasing atheism as a Belief rather than as a belief.
JonJ: “Then the theologian will come back with the traditional “rational proofs” for the existence of at least one god.”
My favourite proof is the one that shows that a non-existent God is the most perfect. I think that one is better than the other proofs because it makes God more perfect, and of course God is perfect.
Is he taking the spiss ?
Heh. Lot of good laughs this morning (nearly evening over there).
I have not yet encountered a proof that a non-existent god is the most perfect, and I hope that dirigible can be persuaded to rehearse it for us.
My own response to the Anslemic argument for the necessary existence of god was to invent a rabbinical student of Lvov, named Mlesna. It seemed to Mlesna that if god is that than which no greater can be conceived, then satan must be that than which no lesser can be conceived.
But if satan enjoys existence, then he must be greater than that least which cab be conceived. Thus, the argument which purports to prove the necessary existence of god also proves the impossibility of the adversary.
What think you?
So Anselm came from Vovl then? I didn’t know that.