A couple of Saturdays ago, Peter Boghossian and Tim McGrew took part in a discussion on Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable programme, chaired as usual by Justin Brierley. The debate centred around definitions of the word faith, notably Peter Boghossian's secondary definition: 'pretending to know what you don't know'.
I was sent the link to the debate by a theist kind enough to reply to one of my tweets. He opined that I might find it interesting. I certainly did, but not because it in any way strengthens the Christian case. And before anyone accuses me of unwillingness to change my mind, let me repeat (as I have done so often before) that compelling evidence for the existence of god would cause me to change my mind on the spot. By evidence I mean information which is public, credible and repeatable. More on that later.
James Lindsay has already published a crystal-clear analysis of the discussion. My layperson's response to the debate has only one point of overlap with Dr Lindsay. I humbly concur with all of the other points he makes.
Definition of faith
The first part of the debate - a substantial chunk - was concerned with Boghossian's secondary definition of faith, quoted above. McGrew took issue with this, claiming that Boghossian's inaccurate definition invalidated everything predicated upon it in his book. After several exchanges, Chairman Justin Brierley stepped in and 'moved the debate on', effectively disallowing further discussion on the definition of faith. Ironically, after a break in which an advertisement for Biola University was aired, Brierley reintroduced the debate by quoting, as its subtitle, the very definition he'd told the protagonists not to discuss further. Such an action must of course be ethical and proper, because it was taken by Christians.
As for me, I prefer a slightly different definition of faith, which I attribute to the late Christopher Hitchens: claiming to know that which one cannot possibly know. If anything this might be more confrontational to Christians than Boghossian's definition. Nevertheless, I hereby assert that it is exactly what they do. Examples abound. Last Easter a Facebook friend posted the status update 'He is risen' on her timeline. I assumed she was not documenting her husband's getting out of bed, but asserting that Jesus had come back to life. How exactly does she know that? And if she doesn't know it, what business has she in stating it? (The same friend opined, after the dreadful Sandy Hook shooting, that the tragedy occurred as a direct consequence of the constitutional separation of church and state. I commented that I hoped the bereaved families would not be exposed to such stuff.)
Tim McGrew claimed that faith is 'trusting and holding on to and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of difficulties'. I am not sure he meant this. I think he meant what one would wish to be true in the face of evidence that it is almost certainly false. Is there evidence that Christianity is false? Yes, lots of it. The central doctrine of Christianity is self-contradictory and incompatible with reality. Moreover, its thesis of vicarious redemption is downright immoral and its empty promise of eternal life is mere childish wish-thinking.
When Boghossian asked if he had faith that Islam is false, McGrew attempted to dodge the question, asking, 'Why use the word faith if I'm venturing nothing?' As Dr Lindsay has pointed out, as a religious believer McGrew is venturing rather a lot by dismissing the existence of the divine Allah and denying that Muhammad (pbuh) is his messenger, conveyor of the final revelation to mankind and guide to the one true path to paradise. On his own terms, McGrew is risking an eternity of torment. It would suit McGrew's belief system if Islam were false - i.e. he would wish it to be false - and so he professes that it is false. I too think Islam is false, but I don't need faith to support my assertion, because I am not seeking to replace it with another, equally arbitrary set of beliefs.
McGrew asserted that evidence can be 'personal or internal'. No, not where truths that concern us all are involved. Evidence for matters of supreme importance - such as the existence, intentions and instructions of an omnipotent creator and dictator - needs to be publicly accessible and repeatable if it is to be taken seriously. Private revelation is OK regarding matters that concern oneself only, and as such it should be kept to oneself, if only because public disclosure renders it no longer private. The old claim that it's private (i.e. not open to question) but nonetheless public (i.e. admissible as a debating point) is typical of the playground tricks theists attempt to use in support of their assertions.
Chairman Justin Brierley attempted to play the offence card, asserting that Boghossian's secondary definition of faith is not part of a civil discussion. Underpinning this assertion is the assumption that questioning a set of ideas is the same as criticising the person or people holding those ideas. As a set of ideas, Christianity is ridiculous. It is something of a mystery to me as to how people can take Christianity's claims seriously having examined them critically, and I tend to assume that believers have made no such examination (at least not a rigorous one), but I do not see it as a personal insult when I decry someone's beliefs. Johann Hari put it well: 'I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.' As Boghossian was quick to point out, negative feelings are a by-product of engaging ideas. Being offended is something you have to expect if you wrap up your persona in a cloak of unfounded myths, and publicly claim those myths to be true. Personal offence is not a debating point. It is irrelevant. Get over it.
McGrew accused Boghossian of labelling people of faith as intellectually inferior. Boghossian does no such thing. Rather he seeks answers to the question: How can people go through life actually believing this stuff? It is a very important question and it demands inquiry, for the answer is far from obvious. My own suspicion is that the answer is wrapped up in human reproduction and the long-term dependence of children upon their parents, together with the importance of meme systems in aiding survival. And no, I am not claiming that a religious world view confers a survival advantage (although in some parts of the world it is still suicide to claim atheism or apostasy). I think that the human brain is wide open to religious infection, given the right conditions during childhood. But I digress (although McGrew's summary of his biography, declaimed early in the debate, makes this train of thought more than slightly relevant here).
Boghossian made the important point that apologetics is not a valid way of seeking truth. His point was that apologetics starts with the answers and seeks 'evidence' in their favour, ignoring anything contrary (confirmation bias). I would like to add this - why does science have no apologetics movement? Why are there no apologists for the history of the Spanish Armada? Because in both those cases a wealth of evidence is available. Apologetics is needed only to (attempt to) shore up baseless assertions.
Boghossian was thanked and dismissed from the discussion, and then McGrew was invited to make his closing comments. James Lindsay has dealt with the ethics of that in his response.
Theists have commented on social media that McGrew gave Boghossian 'a drubbing' and that Boghossian was no match for McGrew. That is true, if the aim is to convince oneself (and delight one's followers while doing so) that silly things are in fact the case. However, if clear thinking and intellectual honesty are the success criteria, the outcome is very different.
I was sent the link to the debate by a theist kind enough to reply to one of my tweets. He opined that I might find it interesting. I certainly did, but not because it in any way strengthens the Christian case. And before anyone accuses me of unwillingness to change my mind, let me repeat (as I have done so often before) that compelling evidence for the existence of god would cause me to change my mind on the spot. By evidence I mean information which is public, credible and repeatable. More on that later.
James Lindsay has already published a crystal-clear analysis of the discussion. My layperson's response to the debate has only one point of overlap with Dr Lindsay. I humbly concur with all of the other points he makes.
Definition of faith
The first part of the debate - a substantial chunk - was concerned with Boghossian's secondary definition of faith, quoted above. McGrew took issue with this, claiming that Boghossian's inaccurate definition invalidated everything predicated upon it in his book. After several exchanges, Chairman Justin Brierley stepped in and 'moved the debate on', effectively disallowing further discussion on the definition of faith. Ironically, after a break in which an advertisement for Biola University was aired, Brierley reintroduced the debate by quoting, as its subtitle, the very definition he'd told the protagonists not to discuss further. Such an action must of course be ethical and proper, because it was taken by Christians.
As for me, I prefer a slightly different definition of faith, which I attribute to the late Christopher Hitchens: claiming to know that which one cannot possibly know. If anything this might be more confrontational to Christians than Boghossian's definition. Nevertheless, I hereby assert that it is exactly what they do. Examples abound. Last Easter a Facebook friend posted the status update 'He is risen' on her timeline. I assumed she was not documenting her husband's getting out of bed, but asserting that Jesus had come back to life. How exactly does she know that? And if she doesn't know it, what business has she in stating it? (The same friend opined, after the dreadful Sandy Hook shooting, that the tragedy occurred as a direct consequence of the constitutional separation of church and state. I commented that I hoped the bereaved families would not be exposed to such stuff.)
Tim McGrew claimed that faith is 'trusting and holding on to and acting on what one has good reason to believe is true in the face of difficulties'. I am not sure he meant this. I think he meant what one would wish to be true in the face of evidence that it is almost certainly false. Is there evidence that Christianity is false? Yes, lots of it. The central doctrine of Christianity is self-contradictory and incompatible with reality. Moreover, its thesis of vicarious redemption is downright immoral and its empty promise of eternal life is mere childish wish-thinking.
When Boghossian asked if he had faith that Islam is false, McGrew attempted to dodge the question, asking, 'Why use the word faith if I'm venturing nothing?' As Dr Lindsay has pointed out, as a religious believer McGrew is venturing rather a lot by dismissing the existence of the divine Allah and denying that Muhammad (pbuh) is his messenger, conveyor of the final revelation to mankind and guide to the one true path to paradise. On his own terms, McGrew is risking an eternity of torment. It would suit McGrew's belief system if Islam were false - i.e. he would wish it to be false - and so he professes that it is false. I too think Islam is false, but I don't need faith to support my assertion, because I am not seeking to replace it with another, equally arbitrary set of beliefs.
McGrew asserted that evidence can be 'personal or internal'. No, not where truths that concern us all are involved. Evidence for matters of supreme importance - such as the existence, intentions and instructions of an omnipotent creator and dictator - needs to be publicly accessible and repeatable if it is to be taken seriously. Private revelation is OK regarding matters that concern oneself only, and as such it should be kept to oneself, if only because public disclosure renders it no longer private. The old claim that it's private (i.e. not open to question) but nonetheless public (i.e. admissible as a debating point) is typical of the playground tricks theists attempt to use in support of their assertions.
Chairman Justin Brierley attempted to play the offence card, asserting that Boghossian's secondary definition of faith is not part of a civil discussion. Underpinning this assertion is the assumption that questioning a set of ideas is the same as criticising the person or people holding those ideas. As a set of ideas, Christianity is ridiculous. It is something of a mystery to me as to how people can take Christianity's claims seriously having examined them critically, and I tend to assume that believers have made no such examination (at least not a rigorous one), but I do not see it as a personal insult when I decry someone's beliefs. Johann Hari put it well: 'I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.' As Boghossian was quick to point out, negative feelings are a by-product of engaging ideas. Being offended is something you have to expect if you wrap up your persona in a cloak of unfounded myths, and publicly claim those myths to be true. Personal offence is not a debating point. It is irrelevant. Get over it.
McGrew accused Boghossian of labelling people of faith as intellectually inferior. Boghossian does no such thing. Rather he seeks answers to the question: How can people go through life actually believing this stuff? It is a very important question and it demands inquiry, for the answer is far from obvious. My own suspicion is that the answer is wrapped up in human reproduction and the long-term dependence of children upon their parents, together with the importance of meme systems in aiding survival. And no, I am not claiming that a religious world view confers a survival advantage (although in some parts of the world it is still suicide to claim atheism or apostasy). I think that the human brain is wide open to religious infection, given the right conditions during childhood. But I digress (although McGrew's summary of his biography, declaimed early in the debate, makes this train of thought more than slightly relevant here).
Boghossian made the important point that apologetics is not a valid way of seeking truth. His point was that apologetics starts with the answers and seeks 'evidence' in their favour, ignoring anything contrary (confirmation bias). I would like to add this - why does science have no apologetics movement? Why are there no apologists for the history of the Spanish Armada? Because in both those cases a wealth of evidence is available. Apologetics is needed only to (attempt to) shore up baseless assertions.
Boghossian was thanked and dismissed from the discussion, and then McGrew was invited to make his closing comments. James Lindsay has dealt with the ethics of that in his response.
Theists have commented on social media that McGrew gave Boghossian 'a drubbing' and that Boghossian was no match for McGrew. That is true, if the aim is to convince oneself (and delight one's followers while doing so) that silly things are in fact the case. However, if clear thinking and intellectual honesty are the success criteria, the outcome is very different.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be moderated so please be patient. All reasonable comments written in a clear, polite manner are welcome. Please include a name or pseudonym so we can distinguish commenters.