God exists because God exists because…
I’m fine with the idea that reason doesn’t underlie everything— I may have my reasons for calling myself an atheist, but I didn’t reason my way into liking chocolate or disliking eggplant. That is not to say there aren’t underlying physical causes as to why I like or dislike something, but I don’t try to argue people into understanding or sharing my reasons for liking chocolate or disliking eggplant, I just do. They are non-rational preferences.
That’s why, after participating in debates like this and this, I am left mystified as to why many religious apologists feel the need to engage in pseudo-science and pseudo-reason in a vain attempt to shore up what is, at its core, simply a statement of faith— completely non-rational and unfalsifiable. In religion they find an ethical meta-framework, a culture, a comfort— in short, a flavor they like. But then, rather than let it stand on its own as a respectable preference, they feel they must actively begin to act like logicians and scientists and reason other people into agreeing with them.
I base my life on the idea that everything is open to question (including the proposition that everything is open to question!) This gives me the freedom both to hold beliefs I have found valuable, and discard beliefs that no longer have value. In this regard, I have found that experience, reason, and science are excellent tools in deciding what to keep and what to discard. But is it fundamentally logical that I think this way? Perhaps it has some evolutionary survival value, but that really doesn’t matter much to me as an individual— I really just like to think this way. It gives me peace and happiness to think this way. But don’t call it faith— “faith” as it is commonly used implies the willingness to hold some beliefs unconditionally. I do have beliefs, but my beliefs are provisional.
But for the faithful, reason and science are not very good tools for finding support. Throughout history we see that to the degree that free inquiry has flourished, religion has become marginalized and the church as a social institution has been diminished. To survive, religion has continually adapted, and one major survival tactic has been to try to assimilate reason and science as it has assimilated so many other heathen institutions. But while this works to some degree when it comes to assimilating other religions, it ultimately backfires for science and reason, because religion is not based on science or reason, but on non-rational preference.
So my modest proposal is that believers, particularly those who hold to some form of presuppositionalism, finally come clean and publicly declare that they believe for no reason at all, and that they will henceforth no longer attempt to use reason, science, or anything that looks like them to back their claims. It is time for them to proudly assert that their claims not only need no backing: their claims, their articles of faith are axiomatic, and no evidence or argument can ever refute— or support— them. They just are.
Believers, accept your inner fideist and come out of the closet!
I’ll still share my chocolate with you.
Update: T-shirt of the design Circular Reasoning now available.
August 11th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
So my modest proposal is that believers, particularly those who hold to some form of presuppositionalism, finally come clean and publicly declare that they believe for no reason at all, and that they will henceforth no longer attempt to use reason, science, or anything that looks like them to back their claims. It is time for them to proudly assert that their claims not only need no backing: their claims, their articles of faith are axiomatic, and no evidence or argument can ever refute— or support— them. They just are.
I like this proposal, however, however unlikely it is to come to friuition.
I had a long discussion this past Friday with a co-worker regarding the nature of their presuppositional stance with regards to the Bible. It was sometime into the discussion when I realized I had brought to light one point that gave her a moment of pause. She stumbled a bit and I could see the rational side of her mind trying desperately to examine what I had just said.
My statements were centered around the many reasons why the Bible is completely fallacious and unable to provide a stable set of standards for anyone to fashion their lives around.
She commented how in parts of the Bible it was not only accepted but commonplace for men to have multiple wives and even concubines, while later the concept of a single life partner was promoted. She attempted to present me with the rationalization that the New Testament changed everything.
My only comment was, when and where did this specific situation change and why? She was stumped. I was glad to have presented something worth examining for her. She chewed on this mentally for a bit and as suddenly as the light had come on, it switched off.
I now have first hand knowledge of just how powerfully presuppositionalism rules over the human intellect. For these fideists faith is the only evidence they will ever need. Not only is it all they need, it is all they want. Because making such an admission as you’ve proposed would mean coming to grips with the illusions under which they labor.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:40 am
elementalmuse,
The problem as I see it is not that these people are fideists, it is that many of them dissemble about that fact by donning a disguise that mimics science and reason in order to “defend” their faith. Essentially, they hide “in the closet” and do damage to the good names of science and reason in the process.
The main illusions I want to dispel here are 1) that faith can in any way benefit from a defense (it cannot), and 2) that the faithful are willing to follow reason where it leads: they are not, because faith does not submit to reason: it is not reasonable.
So my call to action for believers to come out and admit their fideism also carries with it an implied call for those of us who do submit our beliefs to reason and evidence to “out” the fideists who will not come out themselves.
The first test to apply to suspected closet cases would be to ask, “What evidence can you imagine that would, at least in theory, convince you that your fundamental religious beliefs need serious re-thinking?” If they can conceive of no such evidence then they are probably fideists, and any attempt they make to use reason or science on the subject of their beliefs should be rejected on the grounds that their beliefs are unfalsifiable from the start and therefore not proper subjects for reason and science.
And lest any readers think that there is some shame in admitting to fideism, I want to share part of an e-mail I received today:
August 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Ironwolf,
Let’s think about this statement for just a moment. We are talking about people that have decided, for whatever reasons, to adopt a belief system that the majority of people with average intelligence can plainly see has been proven time and again to be a complete fallacy. In other words, they have started from the point of having their proverbial heads stuck in the sand, so to speak. Defense of such a posture is nothing more than a primal survival instinct. The more intelligent a believer is, the more compartmentalized their thinking processes must become in order to uphold the delusion that is their belief. These same people mimic such rational behavior because their instincts tell them that they are fighting for survival. What more primal attitude to take than fighting fire with fire? Unfortunately the farce that is their reasoning process pales by comparison to true inquiry and seeking of factual knowledge that might benefit all. They are, in essence, fighting for their own intellectual survival at whatever the cost. Many believers would come unhinged at the seams if their reality shifted so greatly as to lose the crutch of their religion.
Your call to action is no doubt a sorely needed one. Consider though, that our own language, coupled with a huge amount of linguistic interdependency, is part of the problem when even broaching the subject with any believer, fideist or not. The idea of admitting that the very foundations of who you are and what shapes your life could be false is inerrantly taken as an insult to their intelligence fueling a loathsome competition of wills. That very state of mind, commanded by emotional reactiveness slams the door shut on many of us that would love to discuss the topic in an otherwise amicable manner. Though, I will openly admit and agree that not all believers behave in such a fashion, just as your e-mail correspondence demonstrates, I must also add it has been my experience that the vast majority do.
Bearing in mind where I live, and the sheer volume of fundamentalist attitude I swim in from day to day, I often feel angry. More than that, helpless to turn the tides of idiocy that dominate our society, even in this golden age of education and information availability. I do so hope that your call to action will be answered.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:06 am
What the hell is wrong with you…EGGPLANT HATER! Eggplant is delicious and full of nutrients. There’s a special place under the table for people like you!
August 21st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
RickU,
I’d rather eat the pizza crumbs under the table than be forced to eat eggplant for all eternitydinner.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
With characteristic combative verve, Kierkegaard grasps the nettle of fideism only to fling it in the face of all the “insubordinate” who employ reason:
“They would have us believe that objections against Christianity come from doubt This is always a misunderstanding. Objections against Christianity come from insubordination, unwillingness to obey, rebellion against all authority. Therefore, they have been beating the air against the objectors, because they have fought intellectually with doubt, instead of fighting ethically with rebellion…So it is not properly doubt but insubordination” (Lowrie 122).
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:20 am
Comment deleted due to preaching.
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 am
hahahaha, that’s hilarious. so my only option was to say that I believed for no reason at all? haha. And if I disagreed with your idea, then I was deleted?
September 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Jarrod,
No. Your comment was deleted for preaching. Or can’t you read?
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
It is precisely BECAUSE they have such little empirical basis for their belief that theists go through such baroque logical contortions to prove their point.
“Believing” has already been decided upon as a good thing, so you just do everything you can to make sure you have some basis for believing, no matter how tenuous.
It’s the same reason the faithful go mad with hope everytime Jesus or Mary appear on the side of a mountain or in a burn pattern on a grilled cheese sandwich.
Great post.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Great post! How’d I not know about this earlier? Anyway, I have it now and bookmarked for posterity. Perfect graphic, too.
Kudos also to A for “baroque logical contortions”.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“come clean and publicly declare that they believe for no reason at all, and that they will henceforth no longer attempt to use reason, science, or anything that looks like them to back their claims.”
Well, that’s nice, but since we know they NEVER give up on an argument (see: no transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, why are there still monkeys?, etc) then why would you expect them to give up arguing these scientific points? Don’t get me wrong… I totally agree with you. Belief is based solely on faith, not on empirical evidence.
Philly - you didn’t know about this post because, like me, you’ve refused to follow the link that SI has given us a number of times. We finally did it, and it was worth it!
May 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Thanks for “I’ll still share my chocolate with you.”
I’ would also like you to share my chocolate of intellect with you.
Here is part of my chocolate.
What are your comments on this.
Comment removed: off-topic, preaching
May 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Yes, all of that are GREAT examples of circular logic, in other words, nonsense. Well played, harji!
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
Thanks Phillychief!
How about this then,
Comment removed: off-topic, preaching
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Harji,
Mu.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
Thanks for the chocolate Ironwolf,
Sorry no comments on this one, but instead, would love your tasty chocolate of enlightenment, on this one.
What are your comments on this one.
Comment removed: off-topic, preaching
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
Um, how about…
They became believers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began envisioning a Truth, so much so that they denied reality and claimed that all this universe was purposeful and planned, despite any credible reason to do so - a purposeful entity with balance and poise.
or
In their misguided blindness and bewilderment they are like blindfolded people groping right and left in a world full of wonders they never allow themselves to fully see and appreciate. They envision an architect, creating and arranging things around them in some kind of intelligent design. If something exists that can satisfy their need, they assume that’s evidence of some sort of underlying ingenuity, and they may reprimand those who fail to see this, when the failure lies in these blindfolded folks’ refusal to really see.
Have a nice day
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Harji,
I see. Very insightful.
… And why are they blind in the first place?
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Well done!
Bravo!
But Ironwolf, what happened to the link I gave? - for a more in-depth look, read this
did you deleted it? so if I now say I am muslim, will you also delete this word “muslim ? whereas words like “believers, christianity etc. are still hanging up there? be fair Ironwolf, I share your chocolate, would you not do the same?
Comment removed: off-topic, preaching
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
What exactly is the point of that link, harji? Is that supposed to convince me of anything, or did you want a literary critique of the fiction there?
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Harji,
I didn’t delete any link [edit: I did later after he proved to be a troll], but I did think it rather Zen that you would say “read this” and then have nothing after it.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Harji,
I think it’s basically off-topic, as is pretty much everything you’re posting here.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“Is that supposed to convince me of anything”
O no no…. PhillyChief, How could I? with your eloquence and intelligence showing above? You are intelligent enough to decide for yourself, rather I wanted to share some more chocolate with you, may be it has some more sugar and probably with some nuts inside, but if you did not like it, no offence! I would still share your chocolates.
Ironwolf, Thanks,
as for “it’s basically off-topic, as is pretty much everything you’re posting here” No, It is about you sharing your chocolates, and others sharing their chocolates with you, now why would I spend hours blogging, if I did not learn something from you. Your blog is nice, If you put only side of chocolate, its borring and testeless. There should be choices. its more fun and fair.
You doing fine Ironwolf!
keep it rolling!
your sincere well wisher.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Harji,
Fun and fair? Fair? Fair is: it’s a big Internet, so get your own blog if you want to preach, or engage in non-sequitur ranting. Keep it on-topic or keep it quiet.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Comment removed: off-topic, preaching
May 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Try harder.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Comment removed: off-topic, preaching
May 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
What would help would be addressing the point of the original post.
First you failed to do that.
Later, after being told to address the point, you still failed to do so.
Finally, after being told yet again, you failed to do so.
Once, even twice can be mistakes. Three times is willful, which is rude and makes you a troll.
Goodbye.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Comment removed: off-topic. Not preaching, just off-topic.