William Lane Craig: Some atheists suppress and deny their belief in God

Image for Craig's newest podcast episode

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "William Lane Craig: Some atheists suppress and deny their belief in God." Read the first paragraph below. Click the above link for the full article.

In the newest episode of the Reasonable Faith Podcast titled "Does Reason Lead to Atheism or Theism," William Lane Craig argues that some atheists actually believe in God although they deny their belief. Craig explains that sin and complexities of human psychology can lead atheists to suppress their belief in God.

Epica: Epistemology and Subjectivity

Epica's fourth full-length studio album

This post was inspired by the Wiley-Blackwell 'Philosophy and Pop Culture' series. I am a huge fan of Epica (and the Wiley-Blackwell series!) and thought that a post like this would be a fitting overview of some of Epica's music and an introduction to the topic of epistemology - particularly in regards to the notion of subjectivity. Throughout this post are references to Epica's songs. The headers are lyrics from the song "Monopoly on Truth" from their fifth full-length studio album "Requiem for the Indifferent."


I see what you mean

The music of the Dutch symphonic metal group Epica is interesting not only because of their mixing of harsh and clean male vocals (including grunts and screams) with mezzo-soprano female vocals in addition to elements of heavy metal blending with elements of classical music (in some cases a 40-piece orchestra and a 30-piece choir), but because it leads listeners to reflect on various philosophical themes - a welcome departure from much of what is considered to be 'pop music' in the United States. For Epica, the music is not the only thing that can be described as 'bombastic' because the lyrical themes are similarly profound.

Recurring philosophical themes in Epica's songs -- which can easily form a long list which should attract listeners with varying interests and curiosities [I will list only a sample of themes and songs here] -- range from concerns about the environment ("This is the Time" and "Deep Water Horizon"), dangers of organized religion ("Cry for the Moon" and "Living a Lie"), fate ("Dance of Fate"), the nature of consciousness ("The Phantom Agony"), love ("The Obsessive Devotion"), martyrdom ("Safeguard to Paradise"), the nature of truth ("Monopoly on Truth"), religious pluralism ("The Divine Conspiracy"), isolation ("Blank Infinity"), addiction ("Chasing the Dragon"), the implications of scientific research and the conflict between science and religion ("Beyond Belief"), and freedom of speech ("Martyr of the Free Word"). Various songs also touch on events current to album releases; for instance, "Facade of Reality" includes spoken words by Tony Blair concerning the September 11, 2011 attacks in New York City and the song "Internal Warfare" was dedicated to the victims of Anders Breivik.

Epica's website heralded their most recent album, "Requiem for the Indifferent," with the following - a very clear indication that philosophically-minded individuals aren't just drawing implications from their music:

This title refers to the end of an era. Mankind can no longer stick their head in the sand for the things that are happening around us. We are facing many challenges. There is an enormous tension between different religions and cultures, wars, natural disasters and a huge financial crisis, which is getting out of control. More than ever we will need each other to overcome these problems. As we are all connected; the universe, earth, nature, animals and human beings, this period in time will be the prelude to the end for those who still don't want to, or simply won't see it. A Requiem for the Indifferent but also a possibility for a new beginning with great new chances!

It's clear what you say

The title track of Epica's 2005 album "Consign to Oblivion," while not necessarily advocating or arguing for particular philosophical positions, raises a large deal of philosophical concerns surrounding -- just to name three -- psychological egoism [the idea that all human behavior, even that which would be considered altruistic by many, ultimately stems from and is primarily concerned with self-interest], metaphysics [a domain of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality], and epistemology [a domain of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge].


The "Consign to Oblivion" lyrics which raise metaphysical and epistemological issues, while perhaps quite apparent to Epica fans, are contained here for the 'indifferent:'

No we can't understand the universe by just using our minds. We are so afraid of all the things unknown. We just flee into a dream that never comes true.

Too much thinking goes at the cost of all our intuition. Our thoughts create reality. But we neglect to be! So we're already slaves of our artificial world.

Philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753) is popular for the notion of idealism - that material substances [largely referred to today as matter] do not exist, but rather reality -- or at least the objects which make up reality -- is ideas in minds of people who percieve. Physical objects, then, do not exist, on this accounting of reality. Berkeley's ideas, though, have fallen to the wayside in light of modern science and modern philosophy which both largely consider the idea of material objects existing independently of minds or observers as an obvious fact - and perhaps for good reasons (which I won't discuss here).

While ideas of idealism have drifted away by the 'force of the shore' and 'the tides of time,' what can be said, then, of subjectivity and facts about individuals? Perhaps a tenable version of "our thoughts create reality" can be had in some respects?

The truth isn't just a derivative of your views


The phrase 'perception is reality' is quite popular in current times. Following advances in science (perhaps particularly in the field of quantum physics) and movements of postmodernism across various disciplines, people have questioned the nature of truth - to the extreme untenable and self-refuting stance of 'there is no such thing as truth' (that statement itself appears to be a statement of truth). While it may be impossible to reach a certain truth on many matters (especially when considering that the notion of certainty is shaky and might have little to do with a justified true belief), there seems to be no compelling reason to 'resign to surrender' as far as epistemology is concerned.


People, though, often think of justified true belief as a matter of 'feeling' or 'gut thinking' (I just happen to believe this certain way because it seems right 'to me') as opposed to considering or thinking (whether they think in terms of these categories or not -- ideas of justification, warrant, coherence). For some, if something is believed and perhaps 'felt,' doubt simply can not or does not enter the picture. Self-reflection, then, is tossed to the side in favor of over-reliance on one's own views on a matter just because, as it seems, one happens to hold particular views or 'feel' a certain way. Can some beliefs, though, be justified in a very hasty manner because one might just happen to believe a certain proposition without much thought or needed reasons?

Various non-controversial claims such as 'the table is red,' 'it is raining outside,' 'I will experience pain if I kick that table,' etc. may as well be warranted simply by the fact that one holds the belief and the belief is not coupled with a good reason for an observer or the person holding the belief to doubt it. We understand, through past experience with a realization that our five senses are not faulty, and perhaps -- for the more advanced -- Bayesian analysis that such non-controversial beliefs are justified true beliefs although Hume may throw a wrench in the machine.

Truth is a fiction of your views

Non-controversial beliefs aside, what can be said of people who -- expressing certain feelings about a certain matter -- appear to be acting in a fashion contrary to an appraisal of a certain situation by outside observers? A person, Jane, might believe that all of her actions end in failure while holding a superstitious belief that the world is 'out to get her.' Despite a friend -- Jack -- discussing facts about Jane (who happens to live in a brand new home, has a secure well-paying job, two healthy children, and an affluent and happy spouse), responses of 'this is how I feel' are the answers to anything Jack proposes. Jane, in this situation, believes that because she holds a particular belief or 'feels' a certain way, her belief is a justified true belief.

Does simply 'feeling' something, then, make a belief true? It seems obvious that in this case the answer should be 'no.' One would be foolish, though, to deny that this person believes a particular proposition (and the person who is presenting contrary evidence certainly is not doing so) despite protestations from the person who may continue to utter phrases like 'you are telling me how I feel' or 'you are telling me I don't have a right to believe a certain way' - conversation-stoppers which are not relevant to the discussion or are otherwise distortions of what a conscientious objector with good intentions may hold. The belief and the 'feeling' is acknowledged by the person who presents evidence contrary to a certain belief (even though there is disagreement) - the dispute, though, lies not with one's 'right to believe' or whether one is 'entitled' to feel a particular way, but rather with whether the belief is a reasonable one for a person to hold [given contrary evidence].

Protestations of one lacking open-mindedness or empathy are similarly conversation-stoppers and unwarranted assumptions. A version of open-mindedness 'worth wanting' is one in which a person is willing to amend beliefs provided new information is presented, not, as some would think, a cognitive shift that takes place merely because someone asserts something to be true. One can be justified, in many cases, as should be obvious, in not changing a belief because the information presented was not sufficient enough to warrant the change. Similar is the case with empathy. One can listen to what someone says and even understand a particular perspective but also happen to disagree with a person's evaluation or reasons for holding the belief.

Your fury can no longer stand

Perhaps people are quick to respond to objections concerning matters they find to be personal and believe to be very evident (even though much evidence to the contrary might exist) because they hold positions in which they envision their beliefs as 'parts of their person' instead of viewing propositions as a result of particular stimuli and reflections (taking a 'disinterested perspective' a la Thomas Nagel's "The View From Nowhere"). A person such as this might then view disagreement, even if voiced by others in a very civil and non-attacking manner, as disrespectful in that a person voicing an objection to a particular [cherished] belief is acting in an immoral fashion.


Persons with an attitude like this aren't acting in intellectually virtuous manners or employing what is often referred to as an attitude of skepticism (not to be confused with the classical philosophical notion) in which one is willing to modify any belief considering sufficient argument, evidence, and reason is presented to justify a modification. Instead of engaging with objections to their ideas -- as detailed above -- persons with this unhealthy attitude levy personal attacks at their detractors assuming sinister motives when there may not be any good reasons to do so.


This hauteur will come to an end


It is healthy to apply a reasonable measure of doubt to certain beliefs one may hold - especially when said beliefs can be 'beset in gold.' Since our beliefs can (and do) very often inform our actions, it should be important to 'just think it over now' and consider 'another point of view'. Instead of responding to detractors -- especially when they seem to be expressing genuine concern while being thoughtful and charitable -- with 'no discussion,' one should take the words of Epica's "Monopoly on Truth" to heart and sing along saying, "It's time we realized our errs." As the song goes, "If you look around and you see all the things that are not meant to be, then you know it's time to let them go."

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 2

Episode two of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now online!

Podcast Topics:

The second episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast will cover the discussion topic on religious faith and commentary on local news articles.

Cast:

• Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member
• Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Chairman of the Board)

Producer: Jason

If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to Justin Vacula at jvacula@nepafreethought.org

Books/Authors Mentioned:

• Shick and Vaughn's “How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking in a New Age”
• Roberts and Wood's “Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology”
• Richard Taylor's “Metaphysics”
• Jonathan Kvanvig's “The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding”

News Stories/Articles:

• “Pope Expresses Shame for Christian Violence in History”
• NEPA Freethought Society's Public Debate Challenge
• “Why has no one taken up debate challenge on religion”

Music Featured:

• Artist: Theatre of Tragedy
  Song: “And When He Falleth”

Disagreement, not Disrespect: Attacking Beliefs, not Persons

During many discussions about 'hot-button issues,' no matter what the specific topic is, people often feel that disagreement and scrutiny of arguments is a 'confrontation' and people are being attacked. This, I feel, is one of the greatest misconceptions I believe people have had in the many discussions I participated in during the last two years. In this post, I will argue that people should not interpret disagreement and critiquing of arguments as a sign of disrespect toward a person. I will also explore the psychology behind belief including why people hold beliefs and interpret disagreement as an attack on a person's character.

When an argument is being discussed in a respectful manner, one party generally advocates a particular position and a person who does not hold the same belief offers counter-arguments and reasons why the claim being made is faulty. Consider, for instance, a proposition that an all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god exists. A person may state that this belief is problematic because of [the frequency of] natural disasters in the universe, no good reason such a being would sit by idly and allow gross moral evil to occur, etc [View my problem of evil posts here]. At this point, the discussion can go many ways. In a civil and reasonable discussion, the person who claims that an omni-god exists would answer the counter-arguments, show why the counter-arguments fail, and he/she may raise some new points. The discussion will go back and forth until the parties end the discussion for whatever reason.

The above example was a general sketch of a civil discussion, but instead of this, the original claimant (or really any party) can see disagreement as some sort of attack or might believe that the person who disagrees thinks that the claimant is stupid. There is no good reason to interpret the situation in this manner unless someone is clearly being a jerk or levying personal attacks. Disagreement in a respectful manner should not be construed as a personal attack.

Disagreement should not be thought of as a complete character evaluation of a person. For example, I might posit idea x and you might disagree with idea x. My reasons for believing idea x may be recognized as faulty by you, but this should [generally, but with some reservations] not lead anyone to the conclusion that my stance on one issue shows that I am, 'across the board,' an idiot. It is important to realize that many people hold beliefs for various reasons including rationalization of certain ideas, lack of exposure to counter-arguments, lack of skepticism, and fallaciously applying different standards of skepticism to different ideas (special pleading).

Many intelligent people can hold some unsubstantiated beliefs and the reasons for holding these beliefs can be really bad ones. For example, one of the smartest living scientists, Francis Collins, interpreted a triune waterfall as a sign from God and, seemingly because of seeing this waterfall, he believes that the Christian god exists. I can formulate a list of various reasons why the reasons for this belief are deeply flawed, disagree with Collins, and have a discussion with him. Although we disagree, this does not mean that I think he is a complete idiot and I am not attacking him in any manner.

Some people might hold beliefs simply because they have not simply are not skeptical or do not have 'critical thinking toolkits.' This was the case, I believe, with me in my childhood to my later teen years. I was not a skeptic and held many beliefs because of what I now think to be grave errors in thinking that I was unaware of. I believed in the Christian god, I think, because it was the 'default good,' I was taught to believe that faith was a permissible and worthy quality, and various authority figures held this belief. Because of this belief, I committed various lapses in thinking such as believing that God healed a sunburn I had and diminished the pain after I prayed (post hoc ergo propter hoc/false cause fallacy), a communion wafer tasted really bad because I ate it before I should have eaten it...and the later ones tasted better (placebo effect, false cause), and God sent a sign that my dead friend was in Heaven after I saw someone who spoke with me the next day wearing a shirt with an obscure band on it that I listened to.

I would not call my earlier self stupid or find him blameworthy because he simply did not know better. Now, with an understanding of logical fallacies and critical thinking skills, I recognize these errors. Another problem with my earlier self is that I never heard or considered serious objections to my belief in God until I was about 16. Soon after hearing objections, I determined that holding justified true beliefs was paramount and I embarked my quest to atheism and skepticism. I understand that many people, while they may be old or young, were and are just like I was; they were largely ignorant of contrary ideas to their positions and believed all sorts of fallacious claims. [Read more about my 'backstory' here.] Mainly because of this, and many other factors outlined in this post, I do not think people are stupid because they hold certain ideas that I disagree with.

Some people may compartmentalize belief; they apply rigorous standards/skepticism to almost every area of their lives, but they don't apply rigorous standards/skepticism to some beliefs they hold. For example, a person can understand that homeopathic 'remedies' are merely diluted substances that have no effect whatsoever and psychics have no real abilities to see the future, but they go to a chiropractor who alleges that he realigns spines with God's ultimate intentions and that asthma and long-term medications lead to a sicker body, amongst many other claims. A person like this, instead, should apply skepticism globally, but he/she does not. He/she may rationalize such a belief and utter statements like "My life was horrible until I went to a chiropractor and I was much better after!" (false cause fallacy, possible placebo effect) without realizing the logical fallacies.

Voiced disagreement rebutting the claims of the chiropracty endorser should not be construed as a personal attack, but rather a situation that both parties (and perhaps more in an 'audience' of sorts) can profit from. A good intentioned person who critiques an argument, instead of attacking the person, is actually doing the person a favor by disagreeing and having a discussion because involved parties are able to test their own beliefs by defending them in an open fashion. Justified true beliefs matter. Those who are able to critique their own beliefs and those of others engage in healthy 'cognitive exercise' and can walk away from a civil and productive discussion fulfilled. Instead of disagreement being thought of as disrespect, it should be thought of, if done in a respectful manner, respect. By taking the time to voice disagreement, I am helping others evaluate their ideas and care enough to voice my criticisms. While it is not always the case that discussions are motivated by good discussion, civil discussions can end as productive and fulfilling.

Some people also believe that disagreement without someone is being disrespectful because people are failing to 'respect beliefs.' In my two years of blogging, public discussion, and commenting in various mediums, I have yet to hear one person give a solid definition (despite my constant asking) of what I believe to be an utterly incoherent concept that is fundamentally mistaken. This phrase is further confusing because the motivations for this phrase are hard or impossible to discern. Does the person really think that no beliefs a person holds should ever be criticized? Does the person think that some topics should be utterly left alone while others are 'fair game'?

I usually, after asking what 'respecting beliefs' means, note that beliefs have no cognition and can't possibly be disrespected, so this phrase makes no sense. I also note that disagreement does not entail that a person is being disrespected (as I've done several times in this post). I firmly believe that all topics should be open to be critiqued and that discussion about important and 'personal' matters should especially discussed. As a society, we do ourselves a great disservice when we fail to discuss important topics.

There is a huge difference between 'attacking ideas' (I'm using this very figuratively here) and attacking persons. When I am attacking an idea, I am noting the weaknesses of the idea, pointing out possible logical fallacies, and noting counter-objections. There is, at no time, and disrespect toward a person...and the person really is only involved as the other party presenting arguments because the idea is what is being discussed. If I were to attack a person, I'd hurl insults, possibly physically harm a person, or talk about how stupid the person is being/is.

Perhaps our language needs to be more careful in order to better 'separate beliefs from persons' and not give people the impression that they are being attacked when there is disagreement (and I need to work at this myself). More use of language should address the argument and not the person, perhaps by saying "I disagree with this argument because" instead of "I disagree with you because." Perhaps the phrase "This argument commits the *insert logical fallacy here*" instead of "You commit the *insert logical fallacy here."

This endeavor, though, is a tremendously difficult one for people who don't already understand that disagreement is not disrespect. Since people hold beliefs, people think of their beliefs as being a part of their character, a result of careful thought processes, and generally place them on a high throne. Very important and cherished beliefs, when challenged, can lead a person to utter rage and a vitriolic manner. Instead of thinking of disagreement as criticism of an argument, some people frame disagreement as a character attack by thinking: "Who are you to disagree with me?" , "You are saying that I am wrong?" , and "Since you disagree with me, you must think that I am stupid."

We can, at the end of the day, walk away from critical discussions as friends. We need not all agree about every given matter in order to be friendly and respect other persons. While living together is more important than agreeing, this should not, for one moment, be a reason to never critique a belief. Persons should welcome discussion and see discussion as an opportunity to put their beliefs to the test instead of viewing discussion as 'argument' and an attack on one's character.

Logical Fallacies - Non-Sequitur: "Anything Can be Taken Apart and Criticized"

"Anything can be taken apart and criticized" is a non-sequitur. In the 'world of logical fallacies,' this simply means that 'this does not follow." The person who utters the non-sequitur of "anything can be taken apart and criticized" often uses this as a reason to avoid discussion, hold faith, justify a belief, discredit criticism, etc, but this 'move' is not a legitimate one at all. I often also hear this as 'philosophical sour grapes' when people try to discount philosophy by saying things like "There are just so many ideas out there and it's just a matter of how you look at things. Philosophy gets us nowhere because it just shows us that anyone can argue that everything we think is wrong."

In a recent Facebook discussion, someone posted what is called 'The Argument From Desire' by popular Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. I typically don't respond to others' statuses, but felt the need to do so this time and hoped for some productive discussion. After noting several objections, a person resorted to the defense of "I just have faith and don't debate. Anything can be taken apart and criticized." I've written a 26 page paper for my Philosophy Capstone class addressing faith and reason, so I won't go into much of what I've already written and discussed here, but rather will discuss why "anything can be taken apart and criticized" is fallacious in this post.

"Anything can be taken apart and criticized" is no good reason to hold a belief, defend a belief, or not hold a belief. When we're concerned with holding justified true beliefs, as all of us hopefully are, we should evaluate the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions after examining what people say who hold contrary opinions to own own, examining our own reasons for holding beliefs, and a fair amount of general research.

While statements or beliefs can be take apart and criticized, this does not entail that there is a lack of good reasons to justify beliefs. Many people, known as anti-vaxxers, 'take apart and criticize' the idea that vaccines are safe and a great idea for children, but this does not make their opinions legitimate or force us to be agnostic on the issue of vaccines. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to suggest that vaccines are effective and the case, mostly started by Andrew Wakefield, has been profoundly discredited. The evidence should lead us to a well-justified conclusion; vaccines do not cause autism and are safe. We should be concerned with whether the criticisms are good ones that have merit. Anyone can criticize ideas, but this should not undermine reason.

Interestingly enough, Lewis' argument (and many others with conclusions of "The Christian god exists" or even "a god exists") are giant non-sequiturs or contain non-sequiturs. Popular arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the Fine-Tuning Argument have, again and again, been demonstrated as being profoundly fallacious, but even if we were to accept that the premises are true, it does not follow that the Christian god or any god exists. Why should we believe that the Christian god or any god created the universe as opposed to some extraterrestrial intelligence, a time traveler, or something else? Furthermore, 'something created the universe' does not entitle us to posit a god just because it seems to fit into the gap that we don't understand.

"Anything can be taken apart and criticized" is a non-sequitur; nothing follows from this premise...and certainly not "Therefore, I have justification in holding this position and one opinion is not worth any more than any others." Instead of making excuses for the beliefs we hold and trying to evade discussion, we should provide reasons for the beliefs we hold or at the very least understand our own reasons, search for others' opinions, and value justified true beliefs. It's a very good thing that many things can be taken apart and criticized because this means that we have the opportunity to revise our beliefs , think why we hold beliefs, and discuss ideas in open forums like this one.

For more discussion, please visit the following links and other posts in my "Logical Fallacies" series:

Do we have the "Right to our own opinion?" Philosopher Dr. David Kyle Johnson discusses.

My Capstone Philosophy paper, "A Defense of Reason"

Other blog posts of mine dealing with logical fallacies:

The Slippery Slope

"Dr. Oz is Full of Logical Fallacies"

The Genetic Fallacy

"Critical Response to John Haught's Speech at King's College" (Evolution and Faith: What's the Problem?)

"Taoism and the Naturalistic Fallacy"

"Equivocating Faith"

William James' "The Will to Believe" : Critical Response

Here is my essay written for my Modern and Contemporary Philosophy class. I argue that William James' criterion presented in "The Will To Believe" are untenable and one should not believe a proposition just because it makes them happy. True belief should be the goal and persons should not intellectually resign and let their emotions lead them to belief. Happiness can be had a a result of a rigorous intellectual process in which one is firmly grounded in belief. This paper was to only be around eight pages, so I didn't get a chance to object to Clifford's arguments (although I have done this a bit here) and otherwise had to limit myself. I would have also liked to talk about intellectual virtues and what it means to be a fulfilled epistemic agent, but I didn't have the chance in this essay. I could have also elaborated more on absolute certainty and more about the benefits of critical thinking.

Will to Believe: A Critical Response

Background and Further Reading

James' Will to Believe

Clifford, William K. "The Ethics of Belief." 1999. Web. 31 Mar 2011. .

Pascal, Blaise. "Pensees ." Web. 31 Mar 2011.

God, Moral Obligations, and The Problem of Evil

I've touched on the problem of evil in previous posts, but I'd like to specifically craft an argument here that demonstrates that God should have moral obligations to prevent and stop evils just like we would expect humans and superheroes to stop evil. If God is all-loving, we should expect him, to stop evil. Would we also expect to see a hostile universe to humans if an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful (omni-god) created it?

It's very difficult to counter all objections and answers to the problem of evil, but I'll raise some arguments and respond to some that I would expect.

The problem of evil is one of the greatest challenges to belief in an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful [omni-god] being. The problem of evil is as follows: evil that occurs in this world is imcompatible with belief in an omni-god; an omni-god should stop evil from happening because the omni-God loves humans. Christians believe in an omni-god who created the universe with humans in mind, but the evidence of egregious and pointless avoidable natural and moral evil that exists in this world makes belief in an omni-god irrational.

Theists argue that belief in an omni-god is rational because God might have reasons that are unknown to us for permitting moral and natural evil. There may be “greater goods” that will be attained either in the future or in the present because such evils exist. God's unknown reasons and the attainment of greater goods would justify the presence of evil in this world.

Atheists argue that if there are unknown reasons God might have, why wouldn't he create a universe in a different manner so that these unknown concerns could be attained (he is all-powerful and all-knowing after all)? If a theist would argue that there are unknown reasons for some evil in this world, the atheist would object, why do we not say this about all evils that exist and employ some moral skepticism?

I will argue that in light of tremendous evils in the world, belief in God is irrational. To defend this conclusion, I will argue that God would not design a universe without natural disasters and human defects; God would design humans without the inclination to commit horrendous crimes; God has a moral obligation to stop evil and does not, so he almost certainly does not exist; and respond to theistic objections.

Consider natural disasters, disease, stillbirths, and genetic defects that have nothing to do with human action. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods destroy tremendous amounts of property and kill numerous amounts of people. Diseases cause tremendous amounts of harm and even cause human beings to die. Stillbirths cause fetuses to die in the uterus and lead to grieving mothers and families. Genetic defects cause humans to die or live lives of tremendous discomfort. A world created by an omni-god with humans in mind should not contain these natural evils. We would expect to see greater human flourishing in a universe that is not so hostile to human beings if an omni-god created it.

A theist may argue that this is the best of all possible worlds when responding to natural evil. The best of all possible worlds objection fails because God could create the world in any manner he wants to if he exists because he is all-powerful. I can easily think of a better world than this (one without natural evil, much more space for humans to live, etc) that God would be able to create. A theist might also object and say, “We need evil to be compassionate and to have good.” This objection doesn't work because we can be compassionate and do good without natural disasters and human defects. Besides, if something is needed for us to be compassionate and do good, God can surely trigger compassion and the propensity for us to do good without having natural disasters and defects.

Humans typically don't want to eat other live human beings, rape family members, or gouge their eyes out with screwdrivers. If there is a god that created humans, this god must have created us with the propensity to commit these previously mentioned actions. Humans also can't breathe underwater, fly unaided, or read others' minds. It's very clear that humans are limited and don't have the “free will” to choose any action. An omni-god could have easily created humans without wanting to rape anyone, murder babies, or kill their children, so why would he not do this? If God exists, he didn't design humans with the ability to breathe underwater, so why wouldn't he design humans with no desires to commit horrible crimes?

If God exists and has the ability to stop evil, but does nothing, he should not “get off the hook” for just sitting by and watching the evil happen. We should expect God to stop evils if he exists. Since God does not stop evil, we can safely assume that he does not exist. If I saw a baby drowning in a shallow lake, was able to save the baby, would not be in any danger, and would not be inconvenienced by saving the baby, people would expect me to save the baby. Theists, though, would say that God had reasons for not saving the baby or perhaps would utter “God works in mysterious ways.” If I didn't save the drowning baby, theists would not accept these defenses from me. Only a lunatic would think that I was morally right and justified in not saving the baby if I said “I'm mysterious” or “I have reasons for not saving the baby.” Since God cannot be inconvenienced, harmed, or put in danger by saving the baby, we would expect him to stop all evil. God should have many more moral obligations than humans because he can stop all evil quite easily, much unlike limited and finite humans. We should expect God to stop evil, but evil is not stopped. Our expectations of God stopping evil are not met, therefore it is irrational to believe in God.

Imagine that a human, let's call him Earthquake Man, had the power to stop earthquakes from ever happening again simply by thinking for ten seconds. This power would not harm him, harm others, upset the natural course of the planet, and would lead to no destruction. If we confronted Earthquake Man and asked him to stop future earthquakes, we would expect him to do so because he has the ability to do so, this would alleviate a great deal of human suffering, and he wouldn't be heavily taxed by it. If Earthquake Man said "I won't stop the earthquakes," we would think that he was a monster for saying no. Would we accept him saying "Well, earthquakes cause humans to be compassionate, so I won't stop them" or "Well, I think that we can be motivated to help others when cities get devastated, so I won't stop them." If Earthquake Man existed and was an all-loving being, we would expect him to stop the earthquakes. Since earthquakes are not stopped, we have no good reason to suggest that Earthquake Man exists (not to mention that we have no other evidence for him anyway.) God's in the same boat here. If he exists, he has the power to stop earthquakes, he's all-loving, and he cares about humans. We don't see earthquakes stopping, though...

Some theists may argue that there are greater goods that are attained by evil and that God might have reasons that are unknown to allow evil to happen. Such greater goods that would be attained (whatever they are) could surely be attained by an omni-god without having natural and moral evil in this world. Do thousands of people need to die as a result of earthquakes or tsunamis in order for greater goods to be achieved? Why couldn't the greater goods be achieved by an omni-god via another manner? The “unknown reasons” objection leads us to moral skepticism and a state of panic. Imagine saying, “Well, the student who was raped last night shouldn't be so sad about her situation because there might be an unknown reason why she was raped and there can be some benefit in the future that she will reap.” Would we praise bystanders for not stopping the rape because there might be a future good? Why say that God might have reasons for allowing evil, but not say that humans have unknown reasons for not stopping evil?

It is irrational to believe in an omni-god because anyone can look at the world and see a tremendous amount of moral and natural evil that can be stopped by God. If God existed, we would not expect to see a universe that is hostile to humans and we wouldn't see humans who had the inclination to commit horrendous crimes. Theistic responses to the problem of evil are inadequate.

Why Good (and bad) People Do Wrong to Others: From Aristotle to 2010

I've composed the following essay about something from Aristotle for my philosophy class and would love to share it with my readers.

Introduction

What can drive people to harm others in a society where most people are generally well-meaning and moral individuals? Why would someone intentionally break the rules, cheat, and act with malice? How can upstanding individuals who have never committed a crime break the public trust? Chapter twelve in book one of Aristotle's Rhetoric addresses the motives that drive people to wrong others. Although it might be impossible in practice to address the motives for every instance of wrongdoing, Aristotle was well ahead of his time and provided reasons explaining why people would behave poorly. Contemporary understanding, in addition to Aristotle's arguments, can provide many explanations as to why people misbehave, harm others, and commit crimes.

What Aristotle had to say applied to modern times

Two of Aristotle's first reasons explaining why people misbehave boil down to people thinking that they won't have to pay the consequences of their actions; “they can do it without being found out, or if they are found out they can escape without being punished” (Aristotle 1). Committing a crime and thinking that a person won't be caught is self-explanatory. An accountant, for example, may decide to embezzle money from a business and “cook the books” to make it appear like no money was stolen so that he/she would not get caught. The same accountant may think that even if he/she would be caught, he/she would not have to pay the consequences. Foe example, the owner of the business might never question the bookkeeping because he would be afraid of possible retaliation, more embezzlement, poor job performance from the accountant, or the accountant quitting the job.

Another one of Aristotle's reasons for a person to do wrong to others is “that if they are punished the disadvantage will be less than the gain for themselves or those they care for” (Aristotle 1). A politician may decide to bribe another politician to vote a certain way to ensure that a motion is passed. The politician offering the bribe may feel that the punishment for bribery is far less than the gain; the passing of the motion is far more important than a small fine that the politician might have to pay. A person might also judge the reward and potential benefit from crime to be worth taking the risk of being caught or punished. The homeless man might have little to lose if he is punished for robbing a liquor store and might even be content with going to jail. The money is enough incentive to commit the crime and would be a huge benefit in comparison to the punishment of going to jail.

People might also commit crimes with the mindset that they are great rhetoricians, have great lawyers, are famous and would not be convicted, and have a great deal of money to avoid punishment if brought to court. Celebrities and politicians in this category might decide to break the rules because they feel that they can get out of any possible situation if charged with a crime. A police officer may act in an unjust and illegal fashion toward a downtrodden individual who – in the eyes of the officer -- has no money, lawyers, or intelligence to appeal in court. Aristotle mentions that the confidence of evading punishment is greatest when an individual has the qualities as opposed to that person's friends.

Criminals might feel safe when committing a crime, Aristotle says, when they are on good terms with their victims or the judges. Child rapists in this category might feel immune from prosecution because they often know their victims and feel that they would never be punished because of that close relationship. Abusive men might also batter their wives or girlfriends with the idea that they would never be prosecuted because the female would never confess, press charges, or jeopardize their well-being by turning in their significant other. The wronged persons might also make arrangements with the criminals outside of the legal system. Criminals, as Aristotle mentions, might also know the judges who prosecute criminals. Although judges are supposed to be neutral toward the person who they are trying in court, some criminals might feel that they will get some sort of special treatment from familiar judges.

People might commit crimes because they feel that their appearances contradict the punishments that they might face and not fit the stereotypical viewpoint of the particular criminal. People might not suspect a twenty-six year old nurse, for example, to molest a senior citizen in a nursing home. People might not expect respected priests to rape and torture children. Defying expectations of individuals in society might lead a person to be more likely to commit a crime. People don't expect females to partake in armed robbery nor do they expect females to rape.

Aristotle notes that people might do wrong because they expect to “stave off a trial, or have it postponed, or corrupt your [their] judges: or if you [they] are sentenced you can avoid paying damages, or can at least postpone doing so for a long time” (Aristotle 1). Local county commissioner Greg Skrepenak and his lawyer attempted to delay and reduce sentencing because they felt that Skrepenak's obligations toward his children would allow for some sympathy. Eventually, his sentencing was reduced because of medical problems, cooperation with officials, previous charitable works, and obligations toward his children (Skrepenak 1). People with power, prestige, and money can easily postpone trials and sentencing while destitute and common people are disadvantaged.

Aristotle mentions despots who may commit crimes because “their punishment is nothing more than being called bad names” (Aristotle 2). Leaders like Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot, for example, had very little to lose when they committed atrocities. Who could find corrupt despots guilty of crimes and prosecute them? People who make the laws can violate the laws or change the laws to suit their agendas if no system of checks and balances is in place. Laypeople may revolt, but when a leader has a tremendous amount of power, protection, and a secret police force, revolt is almost impossible. The government in 1984 is a great example of an unassailable power that was free to do whatever it wished because punishment would never be levied.

People may continue to commit crimes because they have “escaped detection or punishment already; or by having often tried and failed; for in crime, as in war, there are men who will always refuse to give up the struggle” (Aristotle 2). Drug dealers hiding from police may feel motivated to continue selling crystal meth because they feel that they won't get caught. Drug dealers might also appear in court and found not guilty, leading them to think that they can never face punishment for their crimes. Some chronic criminals may also continue to commit crimes regardless of being punished in the past because, as Aristotle says, they refuse to give up the struggle. Some people who grew up in oppressive environments might enjoy committing crimes or feel that crime is the only option to get ahead.

Weakness of will is another reason that Aristotle gave for why people commit crimes. Some people might not be content with what they have and wish to act in unethical manners to get ahead. Greedy politicians might decide to lie and accept money from special interest groups in order to move to a higher office. Athletes may take illegal performance-enhancing drugs in order to compete with their peers and vanquish their opponents. Students might cheat on tests because they feel that they should not have to study because others cheat, because they are on sports teams, or because cheating is far too easy.

Aristotle notes that people whose “victims may be far off or near at hand” can be motivated to commit crimes (Aristotle 2). “If they are near, he gets his profit quickly; if they are far off, vengeance is slow, as those think who plunder the Carthaginians.” (Aristotle 2) Charles Keating, the man behind one of the largest loan scandals in the United States, defrauded many senior citizens in order to attempt to make a huge profit. Many of his victims were very near to him, so he was able to quickly amass wealth (Keating 1).

“A man may wrong his enemies, because that is pleasant : he may equally wrong his friends, because that is easy.” (Aristotle 2) When people are charged with violent crimes or possession of child pornography, people are often very quick to want to exact vengeance or call for violence against the person who is charged. Although the “eye for an eye” mentality makes the whole world blind and might be cruel and unusual punishment (should we rape rapists?), people are quick to endorse it and feel no sympathy if a person who is charged and not even convicted is beaten in a prison. In more general terms, people want to wrong their enemies because of jealousy, spite, or even a good reason by taking the law into their own hands and attempting to punish others. Some people may find it easy to wrong friends because friends don't expect to be wronged and because it's much easier to wrong friends than strangers because friends often let their guard down.

Aristotle mentions that “there is something fine and pleasant in wrong such persons [who do violence to others], it seems as though no wrong were done (Aristotle 3). This “eye for an eye” mentality might lead a female's father, for example, to harm an abusive boyfriend and feel that nothing was wrong when this happened because the victim was previously doing the harm. This might even prevent future harm and serve a greater good in the eyes of the father. People who lost friends as the result of violence might also go after the criminals because they feel that avenging their dead friends is morally justified.

Beyond Aristotle

Physicist Steven Weinberg once said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Many of our beliefs inform our actions. People often shape a great portion of their lives with religious beliefs and accept what holy books say and what parties of gods say simply because they were told to do so or feel that doing so is moral. While religious beliefs can cause some people to do good, religious beliefs can often cause people to perform atrocious acts. The suicide bombing community, for example, is almost entirely religious. Children, from an early age, are filled with propaganda and hate from extremist religious groups and are led to believe that suicide bombing is a perfectly moral action. Because of religious beliefs, some people are also led to murder abortion doctors because they feel that their actions are morally justified.

Religious organizations such as the Knights of Columbus have contributed over one million dollars to fund proposition eight (the initiative to stop gay marriage) in California (Knights of Columbus Contribute 1). The Knights of Columbus also recently produced a DVD that was sent to Catholic households in Minnesota in addition to donating 1.4 million dollars to the National Organization for marriage, a group that wants marriage to remain as “one man, one woman” (Birkey 1). In addition to all of this, Knights of Columbus members also marched in the Philippines in attempt to cease governmental distribution of contraceptives (Knights of Columbus Rallying 1).

Another example of misplaced moral concerns is Mother Teresa's campaign against abortion and contraceptives. One of Mother Teresa's main moral concerns was preventing abortion, what she called the “greatest destroyer of peace” and a “direct murder” in her Nobel Peace Prize speech (Mother 1). Mother Teresa also gave speeches in Ireland encouraging the ban of abortions and contraceptives: “Let us promise our lady who loves Ireland so much that we will never allow in this county a single abortion [pause] and no contraceptives” (Hell's).

It's very easy for our moral priorities to be confused because of religious belief. Absolutist beliefs are very difficult to hold when faced with complex situations and conflicting moral priorities. Recently, a woman was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because she performed an abortion on a woman who wanted the abortion and would have died if she did not have the abortion (Nun). This situation seems quite simple. Many Catholics believe that abortion is wrong and would not want to perform or endorse an abortion, but in this case, if there were no abortion, the mother and potential child would have died. If the abortion were performed (and it was), the mother would not die. Should you save one life or lose two? Clearly, the good action was to perform the abortion and save the life of the mother, but some thought that the mother should have died. After this incident, the nun was excommunicated for saving her life.

Returning to humans in disadvantaged situations, some may choose to commit crimes because they calculate risks, determine that since they are living in a situation with a low life expectancy, and realize that there is no or little chance for financial improvement. People may choose to commit crimes when there are huge discrepancies between the rich and the poor because there is a big payoff that is worth taking the risk. Although it may certainly be immoral to murder, steal, and harm others, crime can be an adaptive rational response to high-risk situations and a vision of low life expectancy.

The Twenty-Sided Die Thought Experiment

Consider the following thought experiment: Someone presents a twenty-sided die, verifies that the die is fair, and says, “I have one million dollars in a bank account and would like to present a wager to you. If I roll a one or a two on this die, I will give you one million dollars. If the die result is three to twenty, you allow me to kill you instantly.” People may decide to think about this risk and determine that a 10% chance to win one million dollars is worth wagering their own lives while some people might think that a 90% chance to die is not worth one million dollars. Imagine that the chances are changed to 50% of winning the one million dollars? Would many people then choose to roll the die and determine that a 50% chance of winning one million dollars is worth gambling their lives?

Criminals may consciously or subconsciously weigh the risks of being caught when considering to commit crimes just like people who are presented with the twenty-sided die. Crime is certainly more advantageous when there is little risk of being caught because the criminal would not have to pay the consequences and might be able to commit more crimes. This is similar to how it is more advantageous to roll the die when there is a greater chance of winning the one million dollars. Criminals may not choose to commit crimes when they are more likely to be punished while they may be more likely to commit a crime when punishment is unlikely.

Conclusion

Aristotle provided many reasons explaining why people do wrong to others. Despite the fact that most of us generally behave well, have respect for others, obey the laws, are not psychopaths, and have very good reasons to behave well, people do wrong to others for various reasons. The temptation to do wrong is ever-present and always possible, but many of us choose to refrain from doing wrong because we don't want to be incarcerated, we care about our reputations, and we don't want to harm others. If we identify and reflect upon Aristotle's reasons for why people do wrong, we can be more aware of ourselves and maximize our potential to do good.

No Atheists In [Chilean] Mines?

(Thanks, ThinkingAtheist) :)

I was going to refrain from posting anything about the Chilean miners, but Bill Donohue changed my mind. As usual, Bill Donohue is making himself look very foolish in a very recent Catholic League news release:

"The miraculous rescue of all 33 Chilean miners is difficult to understand from a purely secular perspective. In this day and age of militant atheism, coupled with relentless assaults on Roman Catholicism, it is refreshing to read about the central role that Catholicism played in helping these courageous men survive, and of their enormous gratitude to God.

To those who cling to the superstition that there is no meaning to life beyond sheer material existence, we ask them to reflect on the following testimonials. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no atheists in trapped mines. Click here for some inspiring comments."

Actually, Bill, the "miraculous" rescue wasn't some divine intervention and it's very easy to understand. People came together and used naturalistic means (technology) to rescue the trapped miners. The miners' faith may have helped them prevail, but faith alone certainly would not have saved them (God did not teleport them out). I'm so sick of the equivocation with the word miracle. An improbable totally naturalistic event is not a miracle...and you can't attribute God to something just because it is "against all odds."

We can read about the role that belief had in doing good here, but what about all the bad, Bill? You certainly can't have it both ways; if you want to look at the good that is a result of belief, you also have to account for the bad. How about the great role that Catholicism is playing in hindering embryonic stem cell research, telling Africans that condoms can make AIDS worse, and contributing to anti-gay sentiments in this nation that lead to the deaths of homosexuals? All that aside...

It's nonsensical to say that atheists "cling to a superstition that there is no meaning to life beyond sheer material existence." What does this even mean, anyway? Atheists like myself do not believe in any gods who set up some goals that we have to strive for. Everyone is different, though, of course, but many say that we can make our lives meaningful by being a good person, educating others, doing what we want to do, and not harming others. My life is tremendously meaningful...and I don't need to believe in any gods to establish meaning. I think Bill is confusing materialism with nihilism and atheism here. Materialists (most atheists) will say that nothing exists beyond the physical world, but this doesn't entail a lack of meaning. How is lack of belief a superstition anyway, Bill?

The idea of "no atheists in foxholes" is nonsense. Bill should do his homework and think about the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers and maybe even read this article.

I'm tired of hearing about the faith of these Chilean miners. I'm tired of God getting all of the credit for the rescue. Chile doesn't need more superstition and reinforcement of religious belief. People are going to flock to this in all credulity and God will be thanked...but never mind all of the Haitians who died in the recent earthquake, all of the people who die of AIDS, tsunami victims, or children who die at a very early age because of disease and other maladies. God will help rescue the miners, but he won't worry about the rest of the world. Give me a break. If God really cared so much about the miners, why were they even trapped in there in the first place?

God always gets the thanks, but is never blamed. Baseball players always thank God for the World Series wins and home runs, but they never say, "God, screw you for letting me strike out!" Football players never flip off God when they fumble the ball. Hockey players don't blaspheme when they miss scoring a goal on a breakaway.

What we should take away from this rescue is this: people who come together with a common goal can work together and accomplish great things. Although many people behave poorly and often lack compassion, we can accomplish a great deal by working together to achieve a common good...and we don't need to believe in any gods to prevail through difficult times.

I thought that God hates miners, anyway?

Ethics of Belief/Should We Leave Others Alone?

"Leave Me Alone!"

Many theists (and atheists) commonly say, “Why don't you just leave people alone and let them believe what they want to believe if it makes them happy?” Although this sentiment may seem attractive, it fails tremendously for various reasons. I will argue that it is intellectually dishonest and immoral to hold [religious] beliefs without justification, asking for people to not challenge religious ideas is something only done for matters of religion and almost nothing else, and people and beliefs have no right to be immune from criticism. I've touched on these issues in previous posts, but would like to focus on them here.

W.K. Clifford, in a classic essay, argues that “It is wrong, always, everywhere,and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”

T.H. Huxley says that “It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”

Brand Blanshard says that “where great human goods and ills are involved, the distortion of belief from any sort of avoidable cause is immoral, and the more immoral, the greater the stakes.”

Clifford's argument is basically this: A ship's owner checks his ship to ensure that the vessel is sturdy and safe for people to voyage in. He finds no good evidence to support his idea that the ship is safe and believes, without evidence, that the ship is sturdy and sends the ship on its way. The ship's owner is acting immorally in this case because he is putting people in danger [and is also intellectually dishonest]. If a belief-based action could potentially harm someone, the person holding the belief should have sufficient grounds for the belief being justified before holding and professing it. If beliefs lead to actions (as they very often do), all beliefs based on bad evidence could harm others; we should not hold beliefs without sufficient evidence, lest we are acting in an immoral fashion.

I find some exceptions to Clifford's argument: beliefs needed for survival that cannot harm others. Imagine that you're hiking down a dangerous snowy mountain and an avalanche threatens your life. In order to escape the avalanche, you must clear a crevice, but you know that you're not a good jumper...so you believe that you're an Olympic athlete before jumping in order to survive. Imagine that doctors tell you, right after a surgery, that you only have a 5% chance to live and may die tomorrow. Despite this, you believe that you have a great chance to live and fight on instead of resigning. These exceptions may be questionable, though. In case one, perhaps holding this false belief may cause you to fail the jump and you could just honestly think that you must clear the crevice in order to survive without believing that you are an Olympic jumper. In the second case, you can still have a positive attitude despite your chances of survival.

Clifford further argues “Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintainence and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to […] But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit for believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.”

The second part of Clifford's argument is very important. Praising faith, for example, and belief in the supernatural because of personal experience weakens us and establishes some idea that it's permissible to believe a claim without adequate evidence. This idea is counter to searching for truth, education, and being intellectually honest. We should hold beliefs because of good reasons that we can present, as Huxley argues. The Bible even prompts Christians to give reasons for why they believe in God when they are asked...and to prepare a defense for such belief (1 Peter 3:15).

It's very clear that our actions are often informed by beliefs and that we don't live in moral vacuums. Our actions and beliefs affect others – not only ourselves – even when we may not realize it. We should have greater intellectual honesty and have a more important duty to justify our claims when the belief is more important and has a great potential to affect others and ourselves.

If unjustified beliefs can cause harm to others, people who realize that the beliefs are wrong, can establish a case for why this is, and have the ability to debate well, these people are doing a moral thing in trying to dispel false and unjustified beliefs.

It's very seldom that we say “don't challenge beliefs” in life. This phrase is typically only reserved for politics and religion, but why is this the case. Sure, both areas are controversial, deeply-held, and often define a great portion of a person, but this does not mean that we should withhold from honest criticism and disagreement with others. Religious beliefs, or any beliefs, should not be beyond criticism and placed on a pedestal.

We shouldn't leave people alone just because they hold a certain position. I challenge religious beliefs because they're often responsible for a great deal of harm and they are unjustified. My position as an atheist is very justified because there is no good evidence suggesting that any gods exist. Religious beliefs often inspire people to ignore facts in other areas of life and hold a crazed position in matters of abortion, capital punishment, science, birth control, etc.

We need to throw out faith and stop promoting the idea that belief without evidence is a good thing. We need to have conversations. We need to be intellectually honest and only hold beliefs because they have a high degree of warrant. Forget comfort, tradition, pleasing others, or sticking to what you grew up with. It's time for society to grow up, start promoting critical thinking, start encouraging honest discourse, and for people to challenge beliefs of others that are often harmful.

Absolute Certainty

I've been putting this post off for quite some time for various reasons, but I finally want to author it and eliminate a great deal of confusion and misconceptions that people have pertaining to knowledge. In all areas of knowledge, people often utter phrases like "You can't be certain," "You can't be 100% sure that x is not the case," and "You can't know for sure." Certainty, knowledge without an chance of error, is an impossible standard that no person should ever demand, hold, or expect. To demand that we need to be certain about anything would severely undermine our knowledge because we couldn't be "certain" of many things except for logical absolutes and the idea that we're thinking.

We don't need 100% certainty to accept claims, but we do need good justification for accepting claims. If a claim is supported by evidence that places it on a level in which reasonable doubt is not justified, we should be happy. Claims are beyond a reasonable doubt when they provide the best explanation for something, are testable and falsifiable, open to examination by everyone, doesn't raise more questions than it answers, etc.

Some people think that certainty is a prerequisite for knowledge, but this isn't the case. Knowledge is based on evidence, reason, and argument that we have acquired.

We can have a tremendous amount of evidence to support a belief, but it's impossible to be certain for many reasons:

-1) Something may change tomorrow.

-2) Wild skeptical possibilities (Life is an illusion, We're living a dream, This is the matrix).

-3) We could almost always be mistaken and/or deceived.

Reading up to this point may place someone in a philosophical quagmire and may lead someone to unjustified conclusions such as "we have no basis to believe anything," but this isn't the case. I'll expand on points one and two. Point three is self-explanatory.

1)The idea that something might be the case in the future does not entail that all of our knowledge is incorrect or that a certain proposition is true because it might be true in the future. We must admit that knowledge is based on what we currently know about the world. Great. If we find new information and this information turns out to be justified, we revise our beliefs...but just because this may be the case does not allow us to jump to conclusions about any claim. Sure, we might find out that people can talk with dead people (and get answers) tomorrow, but we've no rational reason to believe that today. Unless we have rational reason to believe something today, we should not believe it. The idea that something might be true in the future does not threaten our current base of knowledge or allow us to believe in things that might be true.

2) It's possible that we're living in a world that is programmed by some intergalactic overlord and the "game" of this life is to be as rational as possible and reject all supernatural claims. It's possible that we're actually experiencing life on earth, but we're really husks on the planet Krebulub. It's possible that we're all a part of a "dream of life" in which we really feel alive here on earth, but aren't. It's impossible to disconfirm all of these wild hypothesis, but we can feel comfortable in saying that there's no rational reason to accept any of these scenarios. These threats alone undermine certainty, but that's okay. The mere possibility of error is no good reason to doubt knowledge that is reasonably justified to a point in which only a fool would rebut. In other words, the possibility of any of these skeptical claims should not lead us to doubt that water freezes at zero degrees Celsius.

Can we be certain about historical events in the past? Historians want to determine what probably happened by using various standards and gathering evidence. Historians want to find various accounts attesting to an event or person, contemporary sources from that time period, and disinterested sources. We can't be certain that there was or was not a man named Jesus who was the focus of the New Testament, for example, but we can look for evidence to come to a conclusion based on the evidence we find (or don't find). If you still want to hold on to the idea of certainty being a prerequisite for knowledge, you'll have to abandon almost all that we know from about 1900 B.C.E. to the beginning of time...but this obviously isn't the case. We have good amounts of evidence to suggest that Julius Ceaser existed, for example. We can't be certain about it, but we can be justified in believing that he did exist.

What about the phrase "You can't be certain that x doesn't exist?"

Hopefully by now I've convinced you that we should throw out the concept of certainty because certainty is impossible and an unfair standard to place on someone. If this is the case, I don't need to argue farther...but I'm sure there are some out there who still don't understand the burden of proof and the idea of disproving something, so I'll continue.

It's ridiculous to demand that a person "disprove" something. It's unfair to demand that the non-believer in claim y scour every inch of the universe and come to a conclusion that claim y is not supported by evidence/ there is no good reason to believe claim y. If we have no evidence for something, we simply should not believe in the something. Absence of evidence does not entail that claim y is plausible; evidence is needed to justify a claim. You certainly wouldn't accept me saying, "I believe in ESP because it hasn't been disproven" or "Until you prove that ESP doesn't exist, I'm justified in believing in ESP." Regardless, the burden of proof for a claim being made is on the person making the claim, not the person who doesn't accept it...and just because something hasn't been conclusively refuted doesn't mean that it's true.

Certainty is an impossible standard to attain and should be removed from argumentation. The mere idea that we can't be certain does not undermine our knowledge and does not allow people to believe whatever they want just because there is no certainty. Hopefully this post was convincing and will allow for an end for people bringing up certainty in debates.

As always, feel free to comment and criticize. I could have focused on other topics dealing with knowledge in this post, but wanted to limit the scope of this post.