There are some religious believers who learn these
ideas and run completely off the rails with them, mistakenly thinking that
they’ve gotten hold of some knockout blow to evidence-based inquiry.
The purpose of this post is to explore the arguments
that believers often make based on these ideas, with the intent to show exactly
where believers go wrong.
After all, in conversations between believers and
skeptics, it is very common for the skeptics to request evidence for the wacky
claims that believers make (since, obviously, nobody has any reason to think
that a claim is likely true unless there is evidence for it…and since the
believer actually does accept the claim under discussion, the believer must
implicitly think there is evidence for it).
Sometimes this request is met with honest effort on
the part of believers. They’ll point to things that they mistakenly think are
evidence. Other times, believers will try to redefine what is meant by
“evidence,” either honestly misunderstanding or purposefully and dishonestly
confusing the issue. They’ll claim that their subjective feelings are somehow
“evidence” for the existence of powers or beings that, if these powers or
beings were real, would have a detectable effect on the world outside of these
believers’ heads.
But on some occasions, the believers will question
the very idea that evidence and reason are useful tools in the first place.
“What evidence,” they sometimes ask, thinking
themselves clever, “do you have that all claims require evidence?”
Another way to phrase this objection is, “What’s
your rational argument for thinking that reason is an effective tool? Oho! You
can’t do it without being circular!” The implication is that any rational proof
of reason’s effectiveness has to begin from the presumption that reason is
effective, thereby begging the question (since it assumes the thing that it’s
trying to prove).
In other words, their argument boils down to “You
can’t prove reason with reason. Therefore, God.” [Or whatever nutty claim
they’re making]
What’s happening here is that the believers in
question have learned a small bit of philosophy. But, as I’ve noted elsewhere,
a little philosophy can be a dangerous thing. Their half-comprehension of this
issue leads them to all kinds of confusion.
Read on for a full explanation.
