Philosophy has a major problem, namely, the number of people who
consider themselves capable of doing philosophy with any amount of integrity.
I’ve got news for those of you who think you’re doing philosophy when you’re reading jokers like Aristotle or Kant:
You’re not doing philosophy. Doing philosophy is reading Aristotle or Kant and
thinking about why they are right or wrong (Aristotle or Kant are both wrong on
several accounts, but what philosopher isn’t?). Instead, what appears to happen
is that a person reads something from someone like Aristotle or Kant that
sounds clever or that they agree with (because they already thought the same
thing) and end their thinking at that point. In cases where they don’t end
their thinking about a given philosopher’s assertion or general idea on the
table, their thinking is routinely searching for arguments to strengthen what
they already agree with, dispensing with the skepticism that is necessary to do
good philosophy since any amount of skepticism will probably undermine what
they are comfortable believing. Presumably this is due to the need to believe something at some point, which often results
in sloppy thinking.
I routinely challenge the assertions of so-called rational
atheists on atheist-related threads and what happens on a routine basis are ad
hominem attacks against me simply because I choose to challenge what they
believe or the reasons why they believe certain things. Basically, if you don’t
kowtow to the party’s line, you’re evil in their view. As we all know, this is
what theists do to outsiders and what many atheists proclaim to hate about
theists. Meanwhile, many atheists do the exact same thing and don’t even seem
to realize it. Not a socially uber-liberal femi-Nazi supporter? Evil. Support a
single viewpoint with an opposing political party? Evil. Don’t think theists
are necessarily worse people than atheists? Evil. But, people are arrogant and
love nothing more than to proclaim their righteousness no matter how wrong they
may be; atheists are no exception. And like the attitude of theists atheist
claim to hate, so-called rational atheists are just as pig-headed and stubborn,
unwilling to budge on their beliefs.
If you don’t believe me, ask a so-called rational atheist what it
would take to change their mind about the existence of God. (Atheists often
employ this kind of question against theists. What’s good for the goose is good
for the gander, someone once said.) Their answer is always the same as a
theist’s when such a question is posed to them: nothing. Why? One answer would
be that they have no way of telling a god apart from a sufficiently powerful or
knowledgeable alien. That is, if the god in question appeared to violate the
laws of physics in some way, we as a species do not possess sufficient enough
knowledge to know whether the laws of physics have actually been broken (which
harkens back to not knowing how much a knowledgeable alien knows). Another
answer would be that even if said being could prove they created us, creation
does not entail that the entity in question is a god. (Do we program or even
expect robots to view human beings as gods because we created them? Only in the
movies.) The point is, you cannot call yourself rational if you are unwilling
to change your mind.
This is where any so-called rational atheist will roll their eyes
because no one is willing to change their mind that one plus one equals two. It’s
a stubborn belief because it appears so rational to the point it is intuitive,
but one can easily think of counter-examples if one takes one plus one out of
its prevailing mathematical context. Sure, one plus one equals two, but one has
to rely on context to make that assertion true. Not changing one’s mind on the
existence of God is much the same way as many atheists view God existence in
the same context, as that of a (supposedly) physical being like you or me. Myself?
I am willing to change my mind on God’s existence, which upon internal
examination would have more to do with me wanting to believe in a god than the
arguments for God’s existence, almost all of which I find specious. Perhaps as
an exercise in critical thinking, a future blog will try to come up with
arguments in favor of God’s existence. You will not see any so-called rational atheist
taking on such an assignment, though. It’s because they are not the
philosophers they think they are.
Here’s a quick test that strengthens my assertion. Ask a so-called
rational atheist if they are a Humanist. (Some will answer “yes,” some will say
“no.”) For those that answer yes, ask them if they subscribe to the Humanist
notion that all people have inherent worth. (They must, if they identify as a
Humanist.) Now ask them where that inherent worth comes from. They cannot say;
their belief that all people are born with inherent worth is simply what they
wish to believe. Or are they going to say that worth is inherent from the mere
act of being born? Really, says who? Is that some kind of instinctual desire,
not unlike the instinctual desire to beat stupid people about the head? It’s a
nonsensical belief backed by no scientific evidence or rational reasoning. But,
like the theist who will not admit they’re pretending to know something they do
not, the so-called rational atheist does the same thing, just with a different
belief.
This is what makes some people asshats. Take George W. Bush for
example, when asked who his favorite philosopher is, answers, “Jesus.” Jesus
was not a philosopher – he said such-and-such is the way it is and there is no
room for doubt. That’s not philosophy and that’s why GWB is an asshat. So the
next time you think you’re doing philosophy and you think you’ve come to some
concrete answer, it’s no longer philosophy; you’ve either entered the realm of
science or are completely wrong. My money is on the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment