Confusing the Issue
by Joseph Rowlands
One problem with arguing with a theist about god is that their position becomes increasingly more abstract. As an example, this god thing starts off omni-benevolent and omnipotent. You counter that by showing that there are evils and tragedies in the world. To explain their deity's inaction, they have to say that he works in mysterious ways. Why not act directly? Well, our mere minds can't understand his motivations. And what's this guy like, anyway? Big guy sitting on a throne? Puff of air? Floating brain? Beyond our ability to imagine!
No, this isn't an article about theism. I want to focus not on the content of that argument, but on the method. When the current explanation for something seems to fail, the supporters of that theory try to find a solution. It makes sense, and isn't bad in itself. If you have reason to believe something, and it doesn't seem to make sense under certain circumstances, you try to refine the idea.
The problem above is that the refinements come in the form of obscurity. When a detail is attacked, the proponent shrugs off the detail as unimportant. With each successive attack on the theory, the details become more and more lacking. This only serves one purpose. To have the idea escape criticism. That's why a god inevitably must be "unimaginable" to us, because anything we could imagine is something we could criticize.
This is an example of a larger class of arguments. This class of arguments is aimed at preventing criticism of ideas, and not actually explaining them. It comes in many different forms. Sometimes people attack our reasoning ability. By saying that your thinking is necessarily flawed, and you can't be sure of anything, they escape the wrath of a logical mind. Sometimes people attack language. They say that language is only an approximation, and you can't really communicate anything to anyone else. That saves them from you analyzing their statements, by telling you that whatever you find flawed in their statement is only your own inability to understand them.
What else can be attacked in order to invalidate your arguments? How about the validity of the senses? How about logic? How about concepts? In fact, every element of epistemology can be attacked. This is why skepticism suddenly becomes popular when someone is losing a philosophical war. If the mind is invalidated, any whim is immune to judgment. Want other examples? You can readily find examples of this type passing as philosophy in universities.
There are countless ways of deflecting critical judgment. These are just a few examples. But they all have that one thing in common. They're used to save an idea from the facts of reality. It's for when the belief of an idea becomes more important than the truth. It's not the bright light of reason they're trying to shine on the ideas, but the darkness of confusion.
Discuss this Article (15 messages)
|
