The Asshats of Philosophy

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.

My Beef With Boghossian

Does religion make people behave maliciously? Does religion make people evil? Do we need to rid the world of religion because it makes people malicious and evil? The answer to these questions is a resounding “yes,” or at least that is the answer rather strongly implied by the work of Portland State University’s Dr. Peter Boghossian. Boghossian’s new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a rallying cry to what Boghossian calls “street epistemology;” basically atheist evangelicalism that seeks to divorce theists from their supernatural beliefs by attacking a theist’s theory of knowledge. In being a rational person, Boghossian says that there should not only be evidence to support beliefs but a proper chain of reasoning to come to certain conclusions. I certainly agree with Boghossian that faith is a failure of epistemology and I agree that the more outrageous a belief claim the more extraordinary evidence is required to make certain inferences. The problem is that if there should be evidence to support beliefs, whatever they may be, then Boghossian and his merry band of followers do not appear to be playing by their own rules. 

[Before going any further, I must disclose that I have never met, taken a class with, or otherwise talked to Dr. Boghossian. So, I cannot say how much of his beliefs or the beliefs of the presumably rational atheist community that I will now discredit they have personally examined or what rationalizing – different from rationale – they have used to come to certain conclusions.]

First, we have to understand what motivates the Boghossian and the current nu-atheist movement. (Hint: It’s the same as the old motivation.) What motivates a pseudo-militant atheist* like Boghossian is their belief that the world suffers, and has suffered throughout history, from the theistic beliefs that are rampant in almost every culture on Earth. Boghossian and his followers believe that if only people could be cured of their “faith virus” and turned towards atheism (which by-golly must be, by default, rational) the world would be a much better place. I know this is the premise these presumably rational atheists are working from because I used to think exactly the same thing a few years ago. And then I grew up.

[*A pseudo-militant atheist seeks to engage you in conversation with a measure of compassion but has an ulterior motive. But, hey, theists do the same thing, so why not?]

As a true, bona-fide philosopher who is not a Scotsman – philosophical humor; move along – I had a belief that was open to revision. (All beliefs must be so, according to Boghossian, or you’re not rational; agreed.) I found that the more people I met throughout life, I would come to categorize an individual as a good person by about a 4-to-1 margin regardless of whether they were theistic or atheistic. [Meaning, for every 4 good theists or atheists I met, there was 1 bad theist or atheist. Certainly, we could argue over my criteria for what makes for a good or bad person, but let’s focus on the subject at hand right now.] I found that in dealing with people, religion or lack thereof seemingly had no bearing on whether or not someone was nice to me. Of course, my personal experiences with people are anecdotal evidence that religion plays no part in what makes a human moral, and anecdotal evidence is generally frowned upon in philosophy. (Nevermind that it is often admissible in a court of law, but, whatever.) So, in order to tear down the premise from which presumably rational atheists are working from, perhaps we should examine history.

The presumably rational atheist works from the premise that historically speaking, religion has been the spark for untold amounts of suffering. Problem is, is that if we examine, say, the deaths caused by religion throughout recorded history, what presumably rational atheists say about religion simply isn’t true. For example, noted historian and chronicler of atrocities, Matthew White, concludes in his latest book The Great Big Book of Horrible Things that of the worst 100 atrocities in recorded history, only 13 of them are the direct result of (or assumed to be the direct result of) one religious ideology pitted against another. If we do the math, that leaves 87 atrocities in which religion played a secondary or little to no role in armed conflict. Obviously then, the presumably rational atheist is wrong about religion in terms of the amount of violence theists inflict upon others due to their theistic beliefs, so what do they mean when they say religion is the cause of untold amounts of suffering? (More on that in a moment.) Quickly, a question arises: Why aren’t presumably rational atheists examining the evidence for their own beliefs? A lack of evidence is the point Boghossian is hammering theists on, but why isn’t he applying his methodology to the beliefs of the members of his own community? Isn’t the premise presumably rational atheists are working from “something they are pretending to know,” as Boghossian would put it?

It may be the case that the presumably rational atheist senses there is an amount of harm done by religion that is psychological. Although they rarely cite this as the meaning behind their basic assumption about religion, they still have no evidence that the psychological manipulations perpetrated by theists upon other people (shaming, for example) is caused by the theist’s religious beliefs as opposed to, say, Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Is there perhaps a biological imperative that drives people to try and control others through any means available? Where is the evidence pointing one way or the other? Despite the lack of evidence – which is required to rationally believe something – the presumably rational atheist typically clings to the premise they began with, that religion is bad and that a world full of rational atheists would be better. Even if this were true, look what happens when we take the second part of their premise to its logical conclusion.

Let’s imagine for a moment that the presumably rational atheist is right (because there is supporting evidence) and the world would be better if it were full of rational people, given that rational people are less violent and not quite the psychological terrorist theists are. If it is concluded that rational people are morally superior, might there be sub-categories of rational people who are less violent and less psychologically manipulative than the group as a whole? Woman are often regarded as less violent than men and rightly so because that’s what all available evidence indicates. Moreover, evidence indicates that homosexuals as a group are less violent than women. If we take the presumably rational atheist’s original premise to its logical conclusion, the world would be a whole lot better off not under the direction of rational people, but under the direction of rational, atheistic lesbians. But you’ll never hear the presumably rational atheist come to such a conclusion because they haven’t looked at the evidence. They haven’t played by their own rules. 

Nor do they apparently want to. I cannot relate to you how many times I walked the halls of Portland State University as a student and saw flyers for the latest meeting extoling the virtues of Communism. This, despite the fact that all historical evidence indicates that Communism is a complete failure in practice.

This is not so much an attack on Boghossian as it is an attack on the beliefs of the latest, growing crop of atheists in general. After all, although I noticed the failure of theistic epistemology over two decades ago, Boghossian has pointed out this flaw in theism with more wit and flair than I ever could. And I would fully support his endeavor to de-convert people from their faith if only the evidence indicated that religion corrupts individuals and has been a detriment throughout history. But the evidence isn’t there. And therein lies my beef; don’t require of others evidence for their beliefs if you’re not going to apply the same standards to your own.

I'd like to believe that no one likes a hypocrite. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise.