I will not spend a great deal of time
arguing for atheism or even naturalism here, but they are certainly
givens to our best understanding of the world. I found someone
circling this old argument for atheism, and I have always thought it
is the strongest case to be made. It is the problem of the
contingency of any religious belief someone holds. Not surprising,
it follows one of the main themes of this blog which is trying to
understand how our own beliefs and attitudes arise in our selves. The
argument then asks whether we should continue to believe facts or
continue to reproduce certain habits given where they come from.
I do not know if there is a better way
to put this, but there is a traceability problem. I can examine any
proposition or especially any proposition that I believe in, trace it
to its roots, generally speaking, and I can find an answer that makes
intuitive sense. If I believe the New York Yankees (hypothetically
speaking) are the greatest team ever, I can trace that to my
childhood, location, and parents. Maybe, in the end, I accept that it
is less of a proposition and more just my tribal loyalties, and stop
worrying about my cheering for the Yankees.
For other propositions of a more
general nature that traceability becomes more salient, such as the
sun is the center of the solar system. We can trace that to
scientific agreement of coherence, reproducible experiment (etc.).
We may have the historical contingency problem that any particular
scientific belief has, but, for us good naturalists, we have to shrug
off that kind of contingency, mark it and move on. When it comes to a
proposition such as “God blesses the cracker and awards me for
taking in it,” the traceability of the problem simply dead-ends in
some brute historic fact. This is of a contingent factor that seems
empty to most reflective minds, simple statement by some priest,
tribe, or council that simply gives us a belief about the world. As
we trace one of our particular beliefs to this kind of
belief-creation, I think most people (say atheists) are troubled by
such odd creation of that belief.
For a simpler example, it would be as
if a 15yo has had someone question her belief that “black holes are
made of toads,” a proposition that she believed because she was
born into strange parents in a very strange cult. As outsiders tell
her that her belief in this piece of information is contingent on the
accident of her cult years ago, the traceability goes back to an
insane cult leader who simply stated it out of the blue, the
traceability arrives at a brute statement that seems problematic. As
she learns some other facts of the world according to physics,
understands how they arrive at their answers and why in general their
origination seems more respectful than the idea that a cult leader
said it 20 years ago or that it had simply been traditional beliefs
for 2000 years, facts that trace themselves to a more reflective
and empirical nature will come to enjoy greater respect in her mind,
because she is a budding common-senser.
Lastly, you have conglomerate problems. Religion gives all sorts of propositions, beliefs, and prescriptions
whose contingency seems problematic, seems localized, and when we
trace them they end up in these empty brute fact statements by some
priest. The majority of religious propositions that have ever been
espoused are regarded as nonsensical to any individual, and thus as
we trace various beliefs to their origins we find some tribe or priest
simply stating it or misinterpreting some phenomena. So, not only
does one's own specific religious proposition dead-end into an empty
brute statement or creation by a given people, but those of all
religious propositions do, most of which we all readily agree are wrong. It becomes difficult to maintain the justification of one's own
brute creation of one's own proposition, especially when they seem a
little odd, especially when I turn to faith to justify my answer for
such a belief.
So, there goes that.
No comments:
Post a Comment