December 9, 2002

• Reason to Believe

  
  

  Tim just kept on being good to me yesterday.  After he took the kids to church yesterday morning, he took them out to lunch.  Then last night we all went back to church for a special closed circuit broadcast of a debate between Dr. Michael Newdow (the atheist who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance before the 9th Circuit Court) and Chris Knechtle, a Christian apologist.

  
  

  I had been hoping they would debate the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance phrase, but instead they debated the existence of God.  Since Dr. Newdow proclaimed himself to be an atheist, he was invited to offer the reasons that supported his belief with equal time given to Knechtle to answer the evidence it was assumed that Dr. Newdow would offer.  Instead, he offered no evidence and the debate turned into a debacle.  Newdow proclaimed that because he couldn't find persuasive evidence for the existence of God, he could only assume that Theists believed because they had been conditioned from childhood to believe without questioning.

  
  

  After a short time, it became obvious that he was doing the thing he accused theists of - defining as evidence only that which would fit his hypothesis.  Instead of responding to his opponent's arguments, he characterized the evidence offered by Knechtle as "gobbledygook."  In philosopohical circles this is known by it's technical name "intellectual dishonesty."

  
  

  Dr. Newdow resorted to the old and snide arguement - if God exists why doesn't He show up to prove Himself at my demand?  He asked all members of the audience to pray that God would appear and then declared that God had not done so and therefore did not exist.  That was the end of his argument.  From that point he behaved like a small child with his fingers in his ears saying "I can't hear you."

  
  

  Next time such a debate is sponsored, I hope they find a better atheist.  The audience members who questioned the men after the debate did a better job of raising tough questions regarding God and Christianity than Dr. Newdow did.  We all need to ask ourselves the hard question - What constitutes a "reason to believe?"  A good debate can be a excellent springboard into examination of beliefs.

  
  

  Sound reasons for belief include such things as:

  
  

  X is reasonable.  There is nothing odd or inappropriate about believing propositions which seem reasonable to us.  For example, I have experienced human beings as both loving and hateful.  So when I hear the claim made by some that human beings are basically good, my doubt mechanism is triggered.  A person making such a claim will have to have solid evidence to demonstrate that my belief that humans are a complex mixture of good and bad is mistaken.

  
  

  X is logical.  Laws of logic stated briefly and simply are
      1. X is X (law of identity)
      2. X is not both X and non-X (law of noncontradiction)
      3. Every declarative sentence is either true or false (law of the excluded middle.)

  
  

       For example, A lead pencil is a lead pencil.  A lead pencil is not both a lead pencil and not a lead pencil (crayon, computer or some other object.)  The object touching my hand either is a lead pencil or it isn't.

  
  

  Logic serves as a rational check on one's reason.  If certain elements of a person's belief, when elaborated, are found to be contradictory, then one or more of those elements are untrue.  Logic does not tell which of any two or three elements are false, it merely locates the problem.  Its function is vital, nonetheless.  Violation of the laws of logic constitute intellectual dishonesty and delusion.

  
  

  There is empirical evidence for X.  Empirical evidence is that which can be discerned with the five senses.  Empirical evidence may point toward the existence of God but still say nothing about the character of God.  The claim that the evidence is not evidence (Dr. Newdow's position) because it does not answer every question is simply silly.  There is no single piece of evidence for any phenomena that will answer every question that may be related to that object or event.  For example you may see in my refrigerator a styrofoam box containing the remnants of a TexMex dinner, find in Tim's wallet a receipt from Tumbleweed dated Dec 8, and you may note that the gastro-intestinal systems of the members of my family contain matter than is consistent with a burrito consumed 12 hours ago.

  
  

  Empirical evidence will not answer the questions, did you enjoy the meal, was there anyone present other than your family, was the cook married, did the server need a haircut, was the dinner served in a timely manner, did you get exactly what you ordered, was the temperature of the restaurant comfortable etc.  The fact that the empirical evidence fails to answer all these questions does not mean that the questions have no answer.  Some answers may be unavailable to us, marital status of the cook, some answers may be available per my testimony, we had a guest at dinner, and some questions may be unanswerable because they are subjective in nature, the temperature of the restaurant was comfortable to me but not to my husband. 

  
  

  Application of the law of noncontradiction answers Dr. Newdow's objection.  Data is data.  Data is not both data and non-data.  Confusion exists not because it is data to one person and non-data to another, but because the data simply is, it doesn't become non-data if it fails to address every question that might be raised.

  
  

  I have experienced X.  Some types of experience are repeatable, conditions underwhich the experience occurs are controlled and may be duplicated.  Most types of experience are non-repeatable they are unique.  Anyone who has ever given birth can testify that the birth process happens within certain parameters of possibility, but every experience of birth is unique, not merely from individual to individual but from birth to birth.  Statistically a woman labors with her first child for 14 hours.  The second child is statistically born within 8 hours.  But, it would be a foolish birth assistant who chose to schedule a half hour appearance from 13 hours 45 minutes to 14 hours 15 minutes into a first labor and expect to be present for the birth.

  
  

  I may have dinner many many times with the same people, and the experience of our dinner may consistently occur within set parameters of possibility, but each meal we share will be unique.

  
  

  I may have many conversations with a friend, but while the conversation may be consistent within the parameters of the langauge we both speak each conversation will be unique in most respects.  Even if we both held a script of a previous conversation and read it back to each other, the second experience would differ from the first in tone, inflection, and pace. 

  
  

  Individual experience even when it is non-repeatable (not subject to scientific experiment) may be a valid reason to believe.

  
  

  X gives the best explanation.  Rather than standing alone, this reason attempts to put together all the other "good" reasons into one all encompassing "best" reason.  THe characteristics of a "best explanation" include:
      * accounts for all data we hold to be relevant - historical, scientific, personally "experiential"
      * is internally consistent
      * is consistent with all the other matters we hold to be true
      * provides along with our other beliefs a more coherent picture of the world, ourselves and others than any alternative.

  
  

  Two things are obvious about these criteria.  First, they are intended to be exhaustive.  A "best explanation" must meet a very high standard.  Second, it may be difficult to discern just when this standard has been met.  Some aspects of the standard are more easily met than others.  Self-consistency, for example, is more likely than accounting for all the data or even having all the relevant data at hand.

  
  

  Maintaining a healthy skepiticism guards us against delusion and deception.  What I heard last night from Dr. Newdow was not skepticism, but cynicism.  Rather than offering evidence to support his proposition, there is no God.  Dr. Newdow retreated behind a mask of sarcasm, illogic and refusal to reason about the topic at hand.  It would be wrong to conclude that because Dr. Newdow's performance was so weak reasonable people cannot doubt the existence of God.  But, he certainly demonstrated that the ability to hold to an untested belief is not a trait limited to religious fundamentalists.

  • 9:59 am
  • 20 Comments