the faith of unbelief. how to be a morally responsible skeptic
irresponsible disbelief
readiness to disbelieve w/o inquiry, knowledge, responsibility
we also have to be morally responsible believers
one reason it is so hard to lead today is b/c people are not responsible for their disbelief in the leadership
disbelief is regarded as a virtue
the person who doubts today is thought to be smarter than the one who believes
there is a healthy skepticism
but don't just doubt beliefs and believe doubts; believe beliefs and doubt doubts
in our intellectual history, because of cultural requirements (oaths, creeds, etc.), believers became the bad guys and belief came to have to bear the burden of proof
Holocaust blamed on believers, people with certainty
never mind that normal Germans were cultivating unbelief so they didn't have to face it
[same thing as Dawkins after 9/11: believers fly planes into buildings]
(which is just as dogmatic of a belief, impenetrable by reason)
there are plenty of things that are important to us that we won't settle for lack of information. we don't just cop out and say 'I'm agnostic'
it's not ok for a doctor to say, e.g. regarding a new treatment, 'Sorry, I don't have any information on that or beliefs about it.'
WK Clifford: we are morally responsible for our beliefs
e.g., owner of a ship that sinks
William James, The Will to Believe
you stand as much a chance of losing truth by failing to believe as you do by believing in a way that turns out to be false
the main function of belief is to integrate us with reality
in today's world people constantly disbelieve irresponsibly and feel no burden for it
How to be a morally responsible skeptic
assume the burden of proof for your disbelief
much if not most of the unbelief found in the intellectual world today is morally reprehensible faith posing as a scientific worldview or something of that sort
being able to tell the difference b/t truth and falsity is part of basic human competence
usually people will be scrupulous about standards w/i their own discipline
[they have to. there's a massive amount of self-interest]
in more general areas, we are operating blindly
[and we're happy to do so]
we don't have good reasons for our beliefs and rarely seek them
[we're in this place where people can believe almost anything they want]
one reason we don't seek them is we have despaired of ever finding them
people should assume the burden of proof for their unbelief in the objective status of truth
[and there is counter-information of the kind Dallas has already given: examples from real life where truth and knowledge are vitally important
you just can't get away from the self-interested part of unbelief: if people were to believe, there are moral consequences]
irresponsible disbelief
readiness to disbelieve w/o inquiry, knowledge, responsibility
we also have to be morally responsible believers
one reason it is so hard to lead today is b/c people are not responsible for their disbelief in the leadership
disbelief is regarded as a virtue
the person who doubts today is thought to be smarter than the one who believes
there is a healthy skepticism
but don't just doubt beliefs and believe doubts; believe beliefs and doubt doubts
in our intellectual history, because of cultural requirements (oaths, creeds, etc.), believers became the bad guys and belief came to have to bear the burden of proof
Holocaust blamed on believers, people with certainty
never mind that normal Germans were cultivating unbelief so they didn't have to face it
[same thing as Dawkins after 9/11: believers fly planes into buildings]
(which is just as dogmatic of a belief, impenetrable by reason)
there are plenty of things that are important to us that we won't settle for lack of information. we don't just cop out and say 'I'm agnostic'
it's not ok for a doctor to say, e.g. regarding a new treatment, 'Sorry, I don't have any information on that or beliefs about it.'
WK Clifford: we are morally responsible for our beliefs
e.g., owner of a ship that sinks
William James, The Will to Believe
you stand as much a chance of losing truth by failing to believe as you do by believing in a way that turns out to be false
the main function of belief is to integrate us with reality
in today's world people constantly disbelieve irresponsibly and feel no burden for it
How to be a morally responsible skeptic
assume the burden of proof for your disbelief
much if not most of the unbelief found in the intellectual world today is morally reprehensible faith posing as a scientific worldview or something of that sort
being able to tell the difference b/t truth and falsity is part of basic human competence
usually people will be scrupulous about standards w/i their own discipline
[they have to. there's a massive amount of self-interest]
in more general areas, we are operating blindly
[and we're happy to do so]
we don't have good reasons for our beliefs and rarely seek them
[we're in this place where people can believe almost anything they want]
one reason we don't seek them is we have despaired of ever finding them
people should assume the burden of proof for their unbelief in the objective status of truth
[and there is counter-information of the kind Dallas has already given: examples from real life where truth and knowledge are vitally important
you just can't get away from the self-interested part of unbelief: if people were to believe, there are moral consequences]
we have decided belief has to be justified, but doubt does not
belief is a disposition or readiness to act as if something were so
when we sit on chairs, we believe they will hold us. we trust them.
faith is not a wild, irrational leap in the dark
belief governs life and we always act on it
sometimes we do have to deny or ignore consequences, like not think of all possible consequences
belief and doubt carry the same moral responsibility
way to be responsible is to be rational
will attempt to reason soundly
try to make sure premises are true and that those premises require the truth of the conclusion
it's not just a method, but a commitment, like binding arbitration
commitment to seek best kinds of evidence from every possible source
listening is very important
are we ready to find that our beliefs should be changed
don't try to defend what we already believe. we're not defensive. we don't hold them sacrosanct
if there is a better way, Jesus would be the first to say take it
do we think Jesus is smart? the smartest man ever?
we have lost confidence on reason as a common ground on which to stand
reason is treated as ideological
rationality includes peace of mind, patience, good will, humility
rationality has been prized in Western society more and for longer than anywhere else and our university system was built on that b/c of confidence in a rational, loving Creator God who created us a rational beings to work live and work in love with one another
gave people the courage to be rational
now every 'truth' is equal and society is being torn apart by interests that can only be influential in terms of political power
Nietzsche, Hegel (in his way), Marx, Sartre, Freud are in one way or another irrationalists, deeply suspicious of rationality
[b/c, again, a commitment to reason would bring a commitment to some kind of morality]
Plato said people come to hate reason b/c it represents a boundary which they won't pass b/c it's repressive and they want something founded on their will
since early part of 19th c., volunteerism, emphasis on will, has dominated and that will increase unless we find rational basis for belief in God who created a world where you can be rational
willful ignorance (e.g. WRT nature of faith and belief in God) runs rampant in universities, clothed in authority of doctorates, publications, tenure
are you imposing your morality on others?
I never impose anything on anyone. If you say the house is on fire, you're imposing the truth on people. that's the nature of truth
people want to dress beliefs up as truth and say 'true for me'. it's just baloney.
we believe that 'believers' are responsible for their beliefs, but not that doubters are responsible for their doubts.
part of the motivation there is to free people to do what they want. there's no responsibility left. just do what you believe. and if you don't believe anything, do what you want.
every belief system is motivated, at least in part, by the moral ramifications. we know if we commit to a belief, there will be moral consequences. sometimes this part of the decision making is unconscious, but it is still there
we understand how people can wind up thinking they're not responsible for what they don't believe, for their doubts or their skepticism. but, despite almost complete cultural pressure, we are still responsible.
Rom 1 still pertains: all are without excuse
even in philosophy, every undergrad knows knowledge is justified true belief. and the implication is, reinforced by cultural norms, if you don't have knowledge, you don't have to have justification, truth or belief. and then you don't have any moral responsibilities.
so all we teach people is to deconstruct (not in the strictly postmodern sense, though that applies), belief, not to actually build up justified true belief.
it's like the problem in psychology: focusing on dysfunction instead of pro-function (so to speak).
beliefs can integrate us with reality, or reality becomes what we bump into when we are wrong.
'Who did you have in mind? People never say Bertrand Russell or Sartre.'
Those guys can criticize, but they can't build. Philosophy has become a province of critics.
No comments:
Post a Comment