http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsCLxUQvUJo&feature=watch_response
Why is the freedom of expression important? Because it is the freedom to make one’s views public. Why does that matter? Because one’s views matter.
This freedom and its various manifestations are essential to democracy. One cannot have democracy without them. People are going to have different views simply as a result of being different people.
Without the freedom of expression, these views don’t go away. They are simply driven underground. Disagreement is found among any group of people anywhere, anywhen. It exists in every system of government, but among these, democracy is the healthiest and most honest because under democracy, this is out in the open where it is subject to examination.
This includes morality. The fact remains that no two people who have ever existed have had exactly the same views about what’s right or wrong. If there is one objective moral standard, this means that, maybe, at some point, someone has held views which were just right, but otherwise no. This would make that one person morally superior to everyone else, which would make everyone else morally inferior. If this is the view one is going to hold, that one person is just more moral than others—morally superior to others—then one might as well give up all pretences of favoring equality and supporting (democracy) rule by the people.
This is the main problem I have with what is commonly referred to as “moral absolutism.” The secondary problem is that this choice of words (moral absolutism) is nothing more than a euphemism; a weasel word. The concept actually being described here is moral dichotomy which is a psychological trap. This term indicates the fundamental psychological difference between the more prejudiced and the more tolerant. The more prejudiced are more inclined toward moral dichotomy. That is they are more inclined to approach any given situation with the assumption that there is one way to be which is simply right and other ways to be are simply wrong.
The false dichotomy is a logical fallacy, but moral dichotomy is a psychological trap, and calling it “moral absolutism” conceals the trap beneath a canopy of verbal foliage. Why in the world would someone do such a thing unless to aid others in falling into that trap?
Ah, but wait. This psychological trap is predicated upon another logical fallacy. You see, when the Pope rails against moral relativism in the promotion of moral absolutism, he’s saying not only that one objective standard exists, but that it just happens to be the one promoted by Catholicism. One cannot make this case without implying that Catholics are morally superior to pretty much everyone else; that the morality of Catholicism meets a higher standard than the morality of all other denominations of Christianity, as well as all denominations inclusively of Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc, to say nothing of atheism. In this act, one wipes away all the differentiating mechanisms between all non-Catholics, lumping them together.
“There’s Catholic morality, and there’s everyone else’s.”
I give you the false conflation. (“...everyone else’s.”)
“I don’t accept evolution because I believe in God.”
This falsely conflates evolution with atheism, as well as theism with monotheism.
“I don’t accept evolution because it’s clearly absurd to suggest that life came from rocks.”
This falsely conflates evolution with a strawman of abiogenesis. Of course it’s absurd to suggest that life came from rocks, when it says right there in the Bible that it came from dirt.
“I don’t accept evolution because it’s clearly absurd to suggest that the universe simply popped into existence out of nothing.” This conflates evolution with the utterly baseless assumption that there was once a time when the Universe didn’t exist.
“I support the war in Iraq
“Richard Dawkins actually believes that there is nothing beyond the material universe. So clearly atheism is not just an absence of one particular belief.” This conflates a single alleged characteristic of one particular atheist with the one detail which defines him as an atheist. Consider this one for a moment. You see most atheists also don’t believe that vampires exist, but this clearly plays no part in defining us as atheists.
Most atheists in the world, presently, also happen to be post-Christian, but this is clearly not defining either. There are also a few to be found who happen to be post-Jew, post-Muslim, post-Mormon, and I even know of one who is post-Buddhist.
Most atheists have no reservations whatsoever about saying, “There is no god,” but again, this is a very common characteristic among atheists; not a defining characteristic of atheism.
Now personally, I do have reservations about saying this, for a reason that most Christians, Muslims, and to my personal chagrin, a number of atheists, are likely to overlook. It’s predicated upon a false dichotomy. This is not a question of whether there is a god, but whether there are any gods. Gods! Plural! Atheists, please stop slipping into this false dichotomy.
Now, do I have any reservations about saying that no gods exist? No. Why not? Why don’t I have any reservations? Because there is no evidence of any gods. Isn’t it possible that there is evidence I have overlooked? I suppose. Isn’t it also possible that there is evidence of the existence of dragons and unicorns I have overlooked? To be completely honest, yes. But until such evidence is presented, I have no compunctions about saying that no dragons, unicorns or gods exist. Why have reservations on one count (gods), but not the other two (dragons and unicorns)?
The day that such evidence is presented and forms a firm enough basis to constitute proof, I will have to admit that I was mistaken. Is this a disgrace? No. I am human. Being human means being mistaken sometimes, and being honest with oneself and about oneself means being willing to admit it. If it is a disgrace to have to admit being mistaken about something, then it is a disgrace to be human and honest.
By the same token, when I say, “There are no gods,” I am expressing the position I hold. If some day, someone actually unearths proof of this, that, or the other god and this proof holds up under scrutiny at least as well as, say, gravity and evolution, and the proof that the world is round, I am ready to say, “Oh. I guess I was mistaken.”
But if this god is indeed the maker of humanity, then He, She, or It made us this way. If this being disapproves of me being mistaken, then I have to ask, “What do you expect? You made me finite and imperfect. That I would err about something at some point you, yourself made inevitable. Don’t you dare hold that against me.”
Recently, I came across a document online which defined atheists as people with no supernatural beliefs. This argument is inaccurate only because it conflates one characteristic which is very common among atheists with the one characteristic which actually defines us as atheists. It conflated a state which establishes atheism with atheism.
Someone identified as an atheist is someone about whom only one fact can be concluded deductively as definitely true while a long list of details about this individual can be inferred inductively as probably true. This is definitely someone who doesn’t hold any god beliefs, and probably someone with no supernatural beliefs of any kind. It’s highly likely that this is someone who doesn’t believe in astrology, phrenology, parapsychology, feng-shui, homeopathy, acupuncture or acupressure. It’s highly likely that this is someone who values reason more than ideological comfort. It’s highly likely that this is someone for whom the act of seeking truth is more important than the state of having it.
If the atheist in question understands English, this is probably someone who finds the song, “Our God is an Awesome God,” a little cheesy. This is someone who probably finds the “reasoning” put forward by the likes of Pat Robertson wanting and the arguments predicated thereupon offensive.
If an election is taking place and one of the candidates has had a divorce at some point, any atheists considering voting for this individual are a lot less likely to take offense to that. When this candidate’s opponents try to turn this against him or her, the atheists in the crowd are a lot more likely to say, “So what? All things end, including marriages. Sometimes, two people just grow apart. But how well does this candidate understand the issues and the various arguments entailed, and where do this candidates loyalties lie? Do they lie with prospective constituents or corporate sponsors?”
In his interview for the documentary The God who Wasn’t There, Sam Harris argues that faith is a conversation-stopper. I absolutely disagree. It seems pretty clear to me that the invocation of faith is right where the religious argument breaks down in the most easily demonstrated way. This is where one pulls out one’s pocket existentialism.
Ah, but wait a minute. What does that mean?
It’s a curious trait about philosophical concepts. One tends to understand them more readily when seeking a gist—a general sense—of the concept, instead of a precise definition. Existentialism is, basically, the practice of seeking that precise definition. The existential question usually follows the pattern of, “What exactly is (fill in the blank)?” So ironically enough, to understand what existentialism is, one must avoid practicing it, at least at that particular moment.
Pulling out one’s pocket existentialism in response to the invocation of faith—getting existential on faith—means asking, “What is faith?”
Usually, whoever has made this invocation will be given pause by this question.
“Can you give me a definition or any synonyms or antonyms?”
More pause.
“I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of Dan Barker?”
Probably not.
“That’s not too surprising. He’s kind of obscure. He used to be an evangelical preacher. Now he’s an atheist and the president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. He has written a couple books, including one called Losing Faith in Faith.
Now have a look at this title. It uses the word “faith” twice, differently each time but accurate in both cases. In the first case “faith” is clearly a synonym for “confidence.” In the second, it’s one for “religion.” “Losing faith in faith” means “losing confidence in religion.”
“One can have faith in faith, one can lose faith in faith, one can accept faith on faith, one can have faith in the faith one accepts on faith, and one can lose faith in the faith one no longer accepts on faith. But whatever the case, referring to two concepts as fundamentally different as confidence and religion with the same term, thereby creating the impression that they are the same concept or mutually complementary does not logically establish that they are. It is, in fact, entirely possible to have plenty of either without the other. That is, someone may have faith which is simultaneously absolute and nonexistent.”
At this point, they’ll usually see your point.
Common is the argument that the average atheist is just as much a being of faith as the average theist. To back this up, it is common to cite “faith” in science and reason. This is an equivocation because it falsely conflates more than one sense of the word “faith.”
In the same way and by the same token that “losing faith in faith” means “losing confidence in religion,” having “faith” in science and reason means having confidence in them. Referring to confidence and religion with the same term falsely conflates the two to make it seem that they automatically go hand in hand. It is entirely possible to have plenty of faith (confidence) but no faith (religious beliefs), and vice-versa. Associating the two linguistically does not associate the two logically or phenomenologically. It does not make them the same thing. This conflation is absolutely false.
So when someone talks about the importance of taking something on “faith,” he or she is talking about taking it on the basis of this false conflation between confidence and religion.
“You’ll see. One day, you’ll encounter God, and you will fall to your knees to beg forgiveness for your blasphemy, but it will be too late.”
This one is absolutely packed to the gills with false conflations. First, accepting that any gods exist is a far cry from accepting only one, let alone one in particular. Second, accepting the existence of any gods is a far cry from accepting the existence of any involved gods. Third, simply accepting the existence of one particular, involved god stops a long way from accepting the existence of an afterlife. It’s also a far cry from accepting that the god in question gives a damn one way or the other about whether He, She, It or They are worshipped by the tiny specs inhabiting this pail, blue dot we call home.
Furthermore, let’s not overlook the difference between, “Oh. Apparently I was mistaken,” and “I WAS WRONG!!! I’M SORRY!!!” That’s a pretty clear difference.
There are probably more in this particular example, but you get the idea.
“Joseph Stalin was an atheist!”
This falsely conflates atheism with communism.
“Adolf Hitler believed in evolution!” (and gravity)
This conflates acceptance of the fact that life changes over time by way of mutation and natural selection with Nazism.
Here’s a good one:
“Science will prevail over organized religion. WOW. It's great stuff!
“I'd love to live long enough to see it happen. Perhaps, some very ingenious atheist scientist will discover the immortal gene, then we can all live forever. Oh happy happy day that would be, indeed, when godless humanist pride prevails over "religious backwards ignorance".
“But until then, lets all do what humans are here to do best: waste time, gather wealth, puff up with pride, and best of all wait for our turn to die.”
“I'd love to live long enough to see it happen. Perhaps, some very ingenious atheist scientist will discover the immortal gene, then we can all live forever. Oh happy happy day that would be, indeed, when godless humanist pride prevails over "religious backwards ignorance".
“But until then, lets all do what humans are here to do best: waste time, gather wealth, puff up with pride, and best of all wait for our turn to die.”
My goodness this one’s loaded. This one falsely conflates atheism with arrogance, greed, self-importance and to top it off, ignorance of one’s own mortality. It also conflates science with pride; ironic coming from people who “pride” themselves simultaneously on their modesty and being God’s people.
Now before I close, it would be only reasonable of me to admit to having committed this one myself in my video about special pleading. In that video, I identified an atheist as someone who recognizes god belief as irrational. Yes, it is true that such a person will be an atheist, but an atheist will not necessarily be such a person. One who recognizes that god belief is irrational will abandon it, thereby fitting the definition of an atheist, but just because someone has abandoned god belief does not mean that this is the reason. All rational roads lead to atheism, but not all roads which lead to atheism are rational. It seems I also affirmed the antecedent.
So there we have it, and I’m sorry about that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment