Recently I attended a lecture on science and religion at the University of Auckland. As is normal after such talks students stayed and discussed issues raised by the presentation. One student brought up a fairly common chestnut, he objected to the claim made by some Christians that their religion was true and that other religions were false. It was not the first time I have heard someone contend that it is arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc to claim that Christianity is true in the face of pervasive religious pluralism. Frequently I have been accused of these things for making similar claims.
This objection is often exasperated by another stance I hold to. In an earlier column (“God, Proof and Faith,” Investigate, Oct 09) I argued that one is rational in accepting certain Christian beliefs even if one cannot prove that they are true to a sceptical inquirer. The fact that so many other people do not hold these beliefs, and often hold contrary beliefs, often attracts accusations of arrogance. Isn’t it arbitrary for Christians like the student at the talk and me to assume that our particular faith is true and everyone else’s worldview is incorrect?
I think the answer is no.
However, before I explain my reasons for this assessment let me first address one assumption that sometimes undergirds it. It is not unusual to hear that affirming that one’s position is right and that those who disagree are wrong is itself arrogant. However, this belief is not only mistaken, it is incoherent. My wife, Madeleine Flannagan, put it well in a blog post entitled “Of course I think I’m right!“
“The statement, “you think you are right” is always asserted by someone who themselves thinks they are right to assert that I think I am right. However, if their objection is cogent, then I should reject their objection. This is because the person who objects that I think I am right is suggesting that I adopt an irrational stance, that I should believe something that I think is incorrect; but if I think it is incorrect then I am not going to believe it.
No sane person holds to a belief they think is wrong or inferior to other viewpoints. I mean, why would you? You would hardly rank the differing views and then decide to hold the second or third most plausible view. You hold the view you think is the most plausible – the correct view – and by doing that you tacitly reject the other views.”
So merely saying you are right and others are wrong by itself is unremarkable, we all do it. I find though that objectors like those I encountered at the science and religion talk frequently want to say more than this. They contend that it is arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc to believe that your position is right, in the absence of proof, if numerous other people do not agree with you.
I think there are two problems with this contention.
First, note that the contention itself is one that many people do not hold to; hence, if the claim is true, it is arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc to believe it without proof. Further, the proponent of this contention has not offered any proof – simply asserting we should adhere to this contention is not proof – so it must be arbitrary dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc for the objector to accept this contention.
Turning to the second problem, suppose I do accept this contention and I (wanting to avoid being arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc) cease to believe the Christian faith is correct. In doing so I will be adopting a stance that is contrary to that held by numerous other people – Christians. It seems that I cannot escape the problem. Unless I can offer proof that Christianity is wrong, I will be being arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted and so on.
The reality is that in the pluralistic world we live in, a person cannot avoid taking a stance on ultimate questions, such as, “does God exist?” “What is the place of human beings in the cosmos?” What is ultimately real?” “Is there life after death?” “Is there such a thing as sin?” “Is there a highest good for human beings?” “What is it?” And so on. Even being agnostic or apathetic is to take up a stance towards these questions, it is to implicitly hold that they are unimportant or if they are important that one has insufficient grounds for getting an accurate answer. Not only is taking a stance unavoidable, it is also unavoidable that any stance taken will differ from that taken by numerous other people, and that any stance taken will be such that one cannot prove it from premises that all people accept. In this respect religious perspectives are no different from secular ones and it is arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted to pretend that they are.
I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled Contra Mundum. This blog post was published in the Nov 10 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.
Letters to the editor should be sent to:
ed*******@in*****************.com
RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents
Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism
Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters
Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life
Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament
Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus
Tags: Contra Mundum · Investigate Magazine · Pluralism8 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
“Further, the proponent of this contention has not offered any proof – simply asserting we should adhere to this contention is not proof – so it must be arbitrary dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc for the objector to accept this contention.”
Come on Matt – you have read enough epistemology to know that many philosophers hace offered, if not *proof* at least well thought out arguments for why knowledge should be aquired in some ways and not others. This is a weak effort – and I am sure you can do better in the comments!
If all you meant is that people you bump into on the streets do not offer proof or argument for their epistomological stance then I would agree – but this is a *much* weaker claim.
1) “2 + 2 = 4” : accepted as truth based on shared conceptual base
2) “Fermat’s Last Theorem is Correct” : fairly solid deductive proof exists but not accessible to layman
3) “Hawking has disproved God using M-theory” : faith based assertion, not even based on inductive evidence.
I think the evidence for the truth of Christianity lies somewhere near (2) above. There’s a wealth of inductive evidence and it’s not hard to understand. There are also some moderately complex logical arguments based on some simple facts of existence. Why didn’t these same people accuse Hawking of being irrational, bigoted, etc? In fact when Hawking was criticised the usual suspects applauded his tendentious speculations and dismissed all criticism without really comprehending it.
Max, perhaps I am not getting your point here. I agree with you that there are “well thought out arguments for why knowledge should be acquired in some ways and not others.” But I am not sure I was denying this.
I am not suggesting that we can rationally aquire knowledge in anyway we like. I am simply suggesting that a particular conception of what counts as a rational belief is false. This is the conception where by a belief is rationally believed only if its either accepted by everyone, or there is a valid argument for its truth from premises accepted by everyone. I think this conception is incoherent.
Isn’t the postulated situation/argument trivial and therefore your whole article trivial and pointless:
1: The claim “a belief is rationally believed only if its either accepted by everyone, or there is a valid argument for its truth from premises accepted by everyone.” could never be real as the inevitable variability in our species would prevent such a situation ever occurring. I think you need to change “everyone” to “majority”, “most” or “commonly” is a specific society for the case to have any reality.
2: What does “rational belief” actually mean. It seems to me that all belief is to some extent irrational – after all “belief” incorporates (sometimes) knowledge and emotion. Emotion is an integral and important part of belief. Objective truth is not.
3: “rationally believed” implies that there has been some sort of logical process of justification before the belief is accepted. While this might be argued I suggest that “rational” consideration by human minds has problems – because of subjective selection of premises, selective mistakes in logic, the limitations of logic/common sense, confirmation bias and the ever present emotional content. We of course will rationalise, but usually to justify a belief after the event.
4: I am suspicious of the term ‘rational”. However if our beliefs are based on real evidence, and tested against reality, I think we can have far more confidence in calling then “rational” or reliable.
But we should always be willing to change beliefs as new evidence comes in.
You say:
“the proponent of this contention has not offered any proof – simply asserting we should adhere to this contention is not proof”
My point was merely that no one just asserts this without any reason as you claim. You can argue that this conception of knowledge is incoherant if you like – but it would be more convincing if you did so by addressing the argument used by those who hold to this definition of knowledge rather than just claiming that no such arguments even exist.
Max, Ok got you.
You say “but it would be more convincing if you did so by addressing the argument used by those who hold to this definition of knowledge rather than just claiming that no such arguments even exist.” Here I perhaps should have been clearer, what I should have said is that there is no argument for the conclusion from premises which are accepted by everyone. I don’t think any philosophical argument for any substantive position is infered from premises that everyone accepts regardless of their philosophical, religious, perspectives.
The problem is I am only justified in accepting the argument if I am justified in accepting the premises, and if the conclusion of the argument is correct I am not justified in accepting the premises until they can be demonstrated from premises everyone accepts.
[…] Century Western Liberal? Contra Mundum: In Defence of Santa Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism Contra […]
[…] POSTS: Pluralism and Being Right Of course I think I’m […]