My Christian interlocutor Rhology and I have been continuing our ongoing debate in one of his “comboxes.” Because the extent to which my readership is identical to his is certainly questionable, I shall publish our most recent exchanges here. The overarching topic at hand is faith, and the degree to which I—an evidentialist—am dependent upon it.
On Monday, September 15, 2008, Rhology published a post entitled “No faith, just faith.” In it, he writes:
Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with "faith is the best way to discover truth"? Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that? Why go with what failed him in this most important, overarching question of First Principle?
That pithy provocation warranted an immediate response, quoted below:
You have raised this point on at least three occasions, so, rather than letting the question fester, I shall address it presently.
You are correct in saying I take evidence’s usefulness in human approximation of truth as a supposition or a postulate. (You use the loaded word “faith” in order to try to rouse discomfort in me; nevertheless, at least in this instance, I shall grant your biased word choice.) You attempt to equate my “faith” with the superstitions of Christians, seeming to say, “See? We are bound equally by blind faith!” In actuality, however, this similarity is much overstated.
Eventually, the following analogy breaks down (at least with respect to the practical realities of construction), but, nevertheless, it remains instructive. For me, faith is most accurately analogized as scaffolding, defined as “a temporary framework used to support people and material in the construction or repair of buildings and other large structures.”
In order to confront, analyze and interrogate the world in which one finds oneself (the world of experience, whether such is “really real” or a Cartesian Demon’s construct), one must begin somewhere. I call this analytical starting point the Philosophical First Principle (hereafter “PFP”). Because a PFP is foundational—a human’s first step toward interrogating the world in which he finds himself (that being, the world of experience)—it cannot be discovered or independently proved from other propositions. It is taken as a supposition or a postulate…as a point of faith.
I employ faith as scaffolding. Only with this scaffolding in place can I lay my building’s foundation, which is “Evidence is the best, most reliable way for humans to approximate truth.” With this foundation laid, dried and completely solid, I have no further need for my scaffolding (which, again, in this analogy, is faith). Instead of faith appeals, I continue erecting my building upon the dry, solid foundation (in my case, evidentialism).
I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.
You repeatedly ask, “Since he (the Jolly Nihilist) has chosen a faith-based position for his First Principle, why not just go with ‘faith is the best way to discover truth?’ Obviously evidence failed him in this question and faith resolved the problem. Why not just stick with that?”
You might as well ask a Fortune 500 executive, whose company soon shall reside in a new
The scaffolding is temporary, existing only to allow the building to be built. And for me, faith is mere scaffolding, permitting me to erect
Rhology quickly retorted with the following:
I am not equating our faith positions, actually. My faith position has actually quite a lot of justification for it, while yours does not. Your faith is blind, while mine is informed. So no, I wouldn't call them equal really.
Yes, one must begin somewhere. You begin with faith. Then you later have the gall to criticise me for having faith. It's very cheeky of you.
Nihilist: “Because a PFP is foundational—a human’s first step toward interrogating the world in which he finds himself (that being, the world of experience)—it cannot be discovered or independently proved from other propositions.”
Rhology: I hate to keep doing this, but you have said many times in the past that, for example: “If you believe those bare facts of reality require external grounding, I suggest you attempt to demonstrate such.” and “evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting.”
I honestly don't know which of these you actually believe.
Nihilist: “I use faith once…as scaffolding…to lay my building’s foundation. This hardly equates to a life rife with faith appeals.”
Rhology: Why not use it more than once? If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere? And you appeal to faith to form your very first principle. Thus all your life is based on faith - I'd call that “rife”, actually, yes.
Nihilist: “why he does not simply arrange all the desks on the scaffolding.”
Rhology: On the one hand, I see what you're saying.
However, the switching in and out of “faith is good and useful” to “faith is bad and useless” seems completely arbitrary. On what do you base your decision to switch building materials? What guides it?
My rejoinder reads as follows (with some minor modifications):
Rhology: “Yes, one must begin somewhere. You begin with faith. Then you later have the gall to criticise me for having faith. It's very cheeky of you.”
Nihilist: I suppose the factuality of your statement depends upon what you mean when you say, “begin with.” Faith is not my First Principle; faith is not the foundation upon which my worldview is erected. Instead, faith was merely the scaffolding that permitted me to lay down my foundation, which is evidentialism.
Also, I do not necessarily criticize you for having faith. You are a devout Christian and I am content to let you live a devoutly Christian life. I criticize those Christians who attempt to impose their values and moral viewpoints on others, who ought to be permitted to confect their own worldviews and live in accordance with them. After all, Rhology’s Metaphysical Foundation is precisely that; it does not overarch the world.
Rhology: “I hate to keep doing this, but you have said many times in the past that, for example: ‘If you believe those bare facts of reality require external grounding, I suggest you attempt to demonstrate such.’ and ‘evidence (relevant facts) can be marshaled to demonstrate evidence’s utility. Because of this, my postulate is self-subsisting.’
I honestly don't know which of these you actually believe.”
Nihilist: I shall respond to those quotes in reverse order.
When I say I can appeal to evidence to demonstrate evidence’s utility in the approximation of truth, I am not defending evidence with “other propositions.” Rather, I am defending evidence with evidence—defending one proposition with the very same proposition. This is why you often accuse me of question begging. However, my purpose in “begging the question” is different from what you might expect. I do not mean to confirm evidence’s utility via circular proof, but rather to show that evidentialism is a self-subsistent First Principle. The “question begging” exercise is a simple demonstration of self-subsistence. Faith (to yield, once again, to your biased word choice) is still required to lay my initial foundation.
When I reference “the bare facts of reality,” I am talking about the world of experience…the world in which one finds oneself. That world—the world of experience—simply is. It might be genuinely real or, indeed, it might be the fabrication of a Cartesian Demon. I cannot rule either possibility out. However, the world in which I find myself, irrespective of its veridical nature, is manifest, and I seek to interrogate it, using my chosen evidentialist First Principle. In short, with respect to the line you quoted, I have little patience for those who refuse to recognize the world of experience as simply existent.
Rhology: “Why not use it more than once? If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere? And you appeal to faith to form your very first principle. Thus all your life is based on faith - I'd call that ‘rife’, actually, yes.”
Nihilist: You are conflating two ideas here, I think. When you say, “If it is good for a foundation, why is it useless elsewhere?” you seem to be referencing faith, even though faith is not my foundation—evidentialism is. Faith was merely temporary scaffolding, permitting the building to be built. It was transitory…not part of the finished structure.
Why do I not appeal to faith except to pave the way for my First Principle? Because, once I have selected a First Principle, it makes little sense to overthrow it for some other one, such as appeal to faith. If I laid a foundation for a skyscraper, why would I start building things elsewhere, rather than on the foundation I just established? Once I have a First Principle, that is to what I appeal. Faith was of utility only before the principle had been established…when I needed a place to start.
And, my life (and, implicitly, my understanding of the world) is not based on faith. Scaffolding was needed to lay my foundation, but, once that foundation was laid, my analytical processes became a natural extension of it. I appealed to faith once, to lay my groundwork; I now appeal to my principle.
Rhology: “On the one hand, I see what you're saying.
However, the switching in and out of ‘faith is good and useful’ to ‘faith is bad and useless’ seems completely arbitrary. On what do you base your decision to switch building materials? What guides it?”
Nihilist: There is no switch of building materials in my analogy. The scaffolding used to enable a building to be built, by definition, is temporary. It was always meant to be used and then removed. In order to lay down my evidentialist foundation, faith was required. So, for that period, faith was “good and useful.” Once the scaffolding was no longer required—because a solid foundation had been laid—it was taken away. This does not mean faith becomes “bad and useless” but only that its purpose had been served and it was no longer required. Faith was needed when there was no foundation of which to speak; now, I have evidentialism as a solid foundation upon which to build. Why revert back to the temporary framework?
Again, I recognize my scaffolding analogy is flawed, but I am trying to explain a point that practically invites misapprehension, even by those of sincere intent.
Conclusion: Faith indeed played a role in permitting my foundation—evidentialism—to be laid. However, once in possession of a foundation upon which to build, the temporary scaffolding (faith) became outmoded…no longer needed.
In sum, then, scaffolding was deployed, used and, finally, duly removed.
The "poetry of the possible" is that things are organized without an organizer. [...] The spontaneous emergence of social cooperation - the emergence of a system vastly more complex, responsive and efficient than any government could organize - is not universally acknowledged or appreciated.Am I the only one who finds it weird that conservatives always accept this argument in economics, but never in biology? If life requires an "intelligent designer" for explanation, why not markets?
It has been about a week since the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was switched on at CERN, and managed to circulate its first beam of protons in a complete circle. When the very powerful LHC is in full operation, accelerating opposite beams of protons to shattering collisions, it should yield tremendously exciting findings. These are expected to include answers to a number of outstanding questions in physics, including: 1. why matter has mass (if the LHC proves sufficiently powerful to detect the Higgs boson, believed to be responsible for providing sub-atomic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons with their observed masses); 2. the nature of dark matter (the majority of the matter in the universe, which mysteriously interacts only via gravity with the universe we detect via both light and gravity); 3. why our universe contains so much more matter than anti-matter. It also seems quite likely that investigations with the LHC will yield completely unexpected results, which will further increase our understanding of the nature of the universe.
I envisage supernatural belief as akin to a thick layer of dust in a room, composed of the dictates of organized religion, covering the truth about the nature of the universe. And in that metaphor, science consists of brooms, that over many years have swept the dust of these supernatural beliefs into an ever-constricted corner of the room, thence to be discarded in the dustbin of history. Removal of the dust through scientific inquiry is gradually yielding the bright, hard, polished floor of knowledge about the world and its creatures. It is to be hoped that the confounding dust of organized religion will eventually all be swept up and discarded. The LHC may prove a powerful broom indeed in this eventual conquest of scientific knowledge over out-moded supernatural beliefs.
Prayer list.
Put the things you'd like [myself and my roommate] to pray for, and we'll pray for them. Leave your name or be anonymous, God knows who you are.
…are greatly exaggerated! I haven’t been blogging much lately. Initially this was because I was devoting my literary creativity to a work of fiction, latterly because my passion for writing had diminished due to other things in my life, but mostly because I’ve been playing a MMORPG to death!
In the coming days and weeks I plan to get back onto the regular blogging scene, but I hope to make my posts shorter and more current-affairs based, instead of detailed essays that cover general issues. This is mostly because I feel I’ve already written about almost every important matter in great detail.
Today I’d just like to mention a complaint several colleagues were having over new congestion charges in Manchester. The Council is introducing charges merely to enter the city by road, and further congestion charges aimed at reducing car use, pollution etc etc. Most people who know me are aware of my political stance, which is an application of my morality, and my morality from my philosophy, so on this occasion I didn’t bother entering the discussion.
The interesting thing is that only last week we were discussing government interference in the market. The typical mixed-economy supporter believes government should interfere in a market where there is a genuine “life-or-death” need, such as healthcare, food and drink, or power. One of the usual arguments in favour of government interference in the departments of Water and Power is that is lowers prices and ensures competition, when actually the exact opposite is true; government endorsement of one or two companies is actually the ONLY way for coercive monopolies to exist, and even if the cost to the consumer is apparently cheaper, higher taxes and inflation are the result (e.g.: the NHS).
Of course, the very question that mixed economists don’t (and cannot) answer is this: what gives government the right to interfere in the transactions of private businesses and individuals? There is no legitimate political answer to this question, because there is no moral justification for it. Government’s sole purpose is to protect the Rights of its citizens, not to deny the “haves” in order to supply the “have-nots”.
This is why the same mixed economists who complain about yet another needless tax are reaping the seeds of their own doing. They want a government that has arbitrary power to violate the Rights of its people, yet they complain when it actually does so! But of course, they only complain when THEIR rights are violated! Who cares about the businessman, whose creativity and industry provides the foundations of society, because he has money anyway? Who cares about the people who take care of the bodies through good health practices and rarely require healthcare, because they obviously have too much money in the first place? Who cares about the profitability of companies who can provide water and power, because people “need” these things? The mixed economists don’t care – they want it THEIR way. But of course, the only way to force other people to suit you regardless of the cost is by government force, a two-edged sword. So when inflation soars and government needs even more money to fill the hole created by its interference in the market, it looks to squeeze even more money from its citizens by ridiculous fines and charges.
The mixed economists don’t even question the absurdity of charging ANYONE for using their own property, regardless of what the alarmist environmentalists threaten will happen (which changes from year to year, decade to decade). Compare the pollution caused by cars to that of enormous power plants. If polluting the air is wrong (it’s negligible anyway) let’s close the power plants. Instead we’ll just light fires to keep warm. But wait, burning fuel releases carbon dioxide, and we can’t have that…
Anyway, the point is to highlight the contradictions inherent in any socialist’s politics. A typical socialist wants government interference, and doesn’t want it. A socialist wants government to have enormous discretionary power, and then complains when HIS rights are violated. This is because a person’s politics are derived from their morality, and the morality of the socialist (which is the true name for a mixed economist) is that of collectivism and altruism. And the collectivist denies that any man has a right to live for his own sake; that his sole purpose for living is to serve others. They must believe this, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be collectivists, and would necessarily embrace the ONLY political system that totally respects individual Rights: capitalism.
So before you moan about more taxes and congestion charges etc, check your politics, check your morals.
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Q. Tell us a bit about yourself. Where did you come from? What are you doing now? Where you're going?
Hello, thank you for this opportunity. I am Moiz Khan and I was born in Pakistan 18 years ago. My parents were married for around five years at the time, and they already had two children. After applying for their Visa's multiple times they finally got their chance in 1992 and they took it. We moved from Lahore, Pakistan to New York City. There were two main reasons for this, education and my father's lifelong hate for hot weather. By 2000, we moved again, about 60 miles east of the city to the suburbs. As you can see, change has always been part of my life. Right now I am attending Stony Brook University for a double major in History and Philosophy. I love the world of the academia, so that is exactly where I am headed. I want the ability to teach people how to think for themselves and without fear or dogma as I have learned through a long struggle.
Q. What made you decide to blog about atheism of all things?
I actually began my blog while I still was a religious person. The original purpose of my blog was just politics (I was always very liberal) and to have a little fun writing. It was never intended to become what it did, though I am quite glad it has. From December 2006 to September 2007, it was mostly inactive. I was just too busy with schoolwork to give it much time. I then posted "My 'Spiritual' Journey" on October 5th, 2007 (that is actually around the time when I abandoned my Muslim faith for the Atheistic worldview). By November, I had wrote the second part of "My 'Spiritual' Journey." Almost right after posting these two blogs, I received an overwhelmingly positive response via email. People told me of their similar journeys, and this gave me the reason to continue. From that point on, I posted about my personal Atheism, Politics (as it effects all of us) and my other love, Music.
Q. How long have you known that you are an atheist?
I can't actually pinpoint the exact date, as it was a gradual process. However, for much of 2007 I was an agnostic and somewhat on the fence. I think around mid 2007 is when I became an anti-theist and atheist. So I suppose I have been an atheist for a little over a year.
Q. Having gone through a difficult and slow progression from a young Muslim to a blogging atheist, what advice would you give those that are afraid of coming out, or aren't sure what they really believe?
The first step is to actually understand the faith. When I was growing up, I could recite the Quran in Arabic, but knew nothing of what those Arabic words actually meant. We were told to accept it because it was true by our parents and other elders. For the millions of Muslims who don't actually know Arabic, I would suggest reading the Quran in their language. It contains certain material that can make any reasonable person sick to their stomach. Don't cherry pick which parts you like and which you don't either. If it is the supposed word of an all-powerful god, I doubt god would put in useless material. Then, read on the incompatibility between modern science and religion. Once you understand that science and religion simply can't coexist in an intellectually satisfying way, read about evolution. So in that process you will have, first rejected religion, second understood that religion and what we now know about the world can't be combined. Finally you will learn of the beautiful alternative (evolution by natural selection) that is far more intellectual satisfying.
Q. You actively speak out against Islam on your blog. What do you think the biggest problem with Islam is, and what do you think the atheist community can do to help stem the tide of the worlds fastest growing religion?
The major problem with the Islamic world is its clash with modernity. When Muslims move to Western countries, they rarely assimilate into the culture. Rather, they stay far away from it. They are essentially living in their own worlds even when they are in modern societies. The children grow without understanding the other culture, and they continue the cycle with their children. In Europe, there have been quite a few movements that clashed with organized religion. The Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment come to mind. These movements had two major effects, water down Christianity and advance the idea of the godless (or at least no personal god) world view. In the Muslim world, there are no comparable movements. Islam has never been watered down, only grown more extreme in certain cases. I rarely meet a Muslim who even considers that part of the Quran might be metaphorical. Most Muslims really do believe in the literal truth of every single word in the Quran...this gets even more complicated because most of those don't even know Arabic. So they are brainwashed by their local mosques and elders to believe the particular brand of Islam that their community follow. Thus, the biggest problem of Islam is the lack of movements against it from within.
Partially due to the British and now American imperialism of the Middle East, most of those countries are in a state similar to most Western Countries were 100-200 years ago. So I believe the best course of action for Atheists at a national level in the Western world is to urge their governments to end their grapple hold over Middle Eastern politics. Such as support for the tyrannical kings in Saudi Arabia, a focal point in the Islamic world. The US has supported military dictators and Islamic extremists (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan) for many years, and this has effectively stopped the already weak secular and atheistic movements in the Middle East. Another major thing is I think Atheists should be more vocal in their criticism of Islam. Most Atheists mainly criticize Judaism and Christianity, and this allows Muslims who are guilty of equally disgusting crimes to go under the radar.
Q. What excites you most about the current state of atheism? What are you optimistic about?
The level to which we are beginning to get organized. We currently are a rather large minority (and probably larger than the statistics due to folks in the closet) and we are growing quickly. I am helping start a club at my university called, "SBU Freethinkers" and we already have somewhere around 60 members. Many of these members are incoming freshman and sophomores. It seems that atheism is growing quickly amongst the younger generation. With regards to optimism, in America, I want to reach the point where major politicians don't have to praise god in every speech. Also, I still hold out hope for the Middle East. As I said earlier, the Islamic world clashes with modernity. Sooner or later, this clash will become too large to be avoided by those Muslims, and hopefully it heads in the right direction, the secular direction.
Q. How has your blogging affected your life?
It has made me gain interest in the Atheist and Secular cause. In America, we face the possibility of heading closer to a theocracy or heading towards a more secular state, as intended by the founding fathers. Both of these roads are possible and it all depends on each individual citizen to their part. I personally will work within my local community to help further science education (to me, the most essential education). Without blogging I would have most likely not become so passionate for the secular cause. I also would have become some sort of lawyer instead of my current plan to become a professor.
Q. What advice would you give those that are new to the idea of atheism, that aren't quite sure what they believe, and could use some direction?
Don't be afraid to let it all go. Fear is one of the main reasons why many stay with religion. Of course, the fear comes in many different shapes and forms. Some are afraid of a possible community backlash, or their family, or death. But fear is pointless for it only restricts us. This is the only life that you will get, and you might as well make the most of it. Socrates said it best,"The pursuit of truth can only begin once you start to question and analyze every belief that you ever held dear. If a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept and defended. ….If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but you must also then question why you were led to believe the erroneous information in the first place." I believe that the pursuit of truth is the only road to true happiness.
Here's a good place to start: When she was mayor of Wasilla, Palin charged sexual assault victims or their insurance companies for ordering rape kits. Apparently she and her government didn't want to put a "burden" on the taxpayer. [...]That, plus Quaylin's record (startlingly long, for such a brief political career) of corruption, cronyism, nepotism, and generally being the tinpot dictator of Bumfuck, Alaska, who tolerated no free speech and regarded the post as her personal fiefdom, to say nothing of McCain's long history of corporate cronyism going all the way back to the Keating 5 scandal... the rethugs hand us so much ammunition, it would be criminally negligent not to use some of it. (There isn't enough airtime to reference more than a tiny fraction of it.)
Imagine a young girl who's been raped and not only has to come forward and deal with the complicated and often humiliating process of a rape allegation, but who has to pay a couple hundred dollars for proof of her attack, or ask her parents about their insurance plan?
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
