I linked to this by the by in my previous post, having discovered that it was up while I was looking for something else, but it really deserves its own: Edward Tingley has a stellar article in Touchstone called “The Skeptical Inquirer: If Only Atheists Were the Skeptics They Think They Are,” which I commend to your reading. It is, drawing on Pascal, a devastating frontal assault on the idea that the absence of scientific evidence for God is an argument against the existence of God. As Dr. Tingley says, “Skepticism raises the question, Is there any way forward after we have given up on material evidence? It certainly doesn’t answer it.”
Here are a few brief excerpts from the essay to whet your appetite:
Unbelievers think that skepticism is their special virtue, the key virtue believers lack. Bolstered by bestselling authors, they see the skeptical and scientific mind as muscular thinking, which the believer has failed to develop. He could bulk up if he wished to, by thinking like a scientist, and wind up at the “agnosticism” of a Dawkins or the atheism of a Dennett—but that is just what he doesn’t want, so at every threat to his commitments he shuns science.
That story is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. . . .
There are skeptical theists; Pascal was one. Skepticism and theism go well together. By a “skeptic” I mean a person who believes that in some particular arena of desired knowledge we just cannot have knowledge of the foursquare variety that we get elsewhere, and who sees no reason to bolster that lack with willful belief. . . .
Evidence is just not available to demonstrate the existence of God, said Pascal, who called himself one of those creatures who lack the humility that makes a natural believer. In that, he was of our time: We are pretty much all like that now. Three hundred and fifty years ago he laid out our situation for us: Modern man confronts the question of God from the starting point of skepticism, the conviction that there is no conclusive physical or logical evidence that the God of the Bible exists. . . .
This is where the modern person usually starts in his assault on the question, Is God real or imaginary?
This is base camp, above the tree-line of convincing reasons and knock-down arguments, at the far edge of things we can kick and see, and it is all uphill from here. Thus, it is astounding how many Dawkinses and Dennetts, undecideds and skeptical nay-sayers—that sea of “progressive” folk who claim to “think critically” about religion and either “take theism on” or claim they are “still looking”—who have not reached the year 1660 in their thinking. They almost never pay attention to what the skeptic Pascal said about this enquiry.
Instead, the dogmatic reflex, ever caring for human comfort, has flexed and decided the question already, has told them what to believe in advance of investigation and rushed them back to the safety of life as usual.
The modern thinking person who rightly touts the virtues of science—skepticism, logic, commitment to evidence—must possess the lot. But agnostics are not skeptical, half the atheists are not logical, and the rest refuse to go where the evidence is. None measures up in these modern qualities to Pascal.
I encourage you to read the rest—it’s truly a superb piece.
Actually, I think TIngley’s piece is laughably bad. Here’s my response to it:
http://tinyurl.com/4l7xfl
Jeffrey Shallit
The only thing your response shows is that you haven’t understood Tingley’s piece. –No, actually, that’s not quite true: it shows you have no interest in understanding it, only in using superficial mockery to fend it off.
Or perhaps I’ve understood it all too well.
Why does my example with Odin fail?
It’s purely superficial, lacking any actual connection to the premise and argument of the piece.
Pascal: “If this religion boasted that it had a clear sight of God and plain and manifest evidence of his existence, it would be an effective objection to say that there is nothing to be seen in the world which proves him. . . . But . . . on the contrary it says that men are in darkness. . .” (427).
Tingley: “Ask any sensible person if it is possible that God exists, does not present himself to us by way of material evidence, and yet seeks our acknowledgment on some other basis, one in which we are more deeply invested. Could there be a God who does not want to be known the way the facts of nature are known or sums are known? The rational person will say, ‘Yes, it is possible.’”
In other words, this article is talking about skepticism as it relates to a certain type of divine behavior–or perhaps we might say, divine strategy. The argument of this article cannot be intelligibly deployed in defense of any religion that claims to have “a clear sight of God and plain and manifest evidence of his existence.” To attempt to discredit that argument by applying it to such a religion is incoherent.
Other failures of understanding in your brief, superficial post:
–describing the article as an “attack on skepticism and atheism,” and “insulting skepticism.” Neither of those things is true; in fact, the article is an argument for skepticism against the dogmatism of atheists. It’s certainly a challenge, but it isn’t an attack.
–“Tingley seems to concede that there’s no evidence for the Christian god.” Nope. What he says is, you can’t prove the existence of God by hard scientific means.
Why do you think believers in Odin have evidence of His presence?
If you don’t like Odin, feel free to substitute any other god that likes to hide.
I continue to think Tingley’s article is an attack on skepticism. Of course, it’s an attack on skepticism-as-nearly-everyone-understands-the-word, not skepticism-as-Tingley-defines-it. But by changing the commonly-understood meanings of words, Tingley can achieve any goal he wants.
What evidence, scientific or not, does Tingley produce for his god?
Finally, most atheists aren’t dogmatic; they simply do not believe in gods because they haven’t seen any convincing evidence. That’s not dogma, any more than bare feet are a kind of shoe.
1) I don’t. That’s why belief in Odin died out, because the premises of faith in Odin required it; which is, in turn, why your substitution seems to have force at a superficial level.
2) Don’t ask me to fix your argument. You fix it. (Of course, to attempt to do so in any intelligent fashion would require you to actually know something about religion.)
3) “Finally, most atheists aren’t dogmatic.”
In my experience, that statement isn’t true; from what I can see, most atheists like to think of themselves as not dogmatic, but that’s not at all the same thing.
4) “I continue to think Tingley’s article is an attack on skepticism. Of course, it’s an attack on skepticism-as-nearly-everyone-understands-the-word, not skepticism-as-Tingley-defines-it.”
Hmm . . . here’s Webster’s:
____________________
Skepticism
Skep”ti*cism, n. [Cf. F. scepticisme.] [Written also scepticism.]
1. An undecided, inquiring state of mind; doubt; uncertainty.
That momentary amazement, and irresolution, and confusion, which is the result of skepticism. –Hume.
2. (Metaph.) The doctrine that no fact or principle can be certainly known; the tenet that all knowledge is uncertain; Pyrrohonism; universal doubt; the position that no fact or truth, however worthy of confidence, can be established on philosophical grounds; critical investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles.
3. (Theol.) A doubting of the truth of revelation, or a denial of the divine origin of the Christian religion, or of the being, perfections, or truth of God.
Let no . . . secret skepticism lead any one to doubt whether this blessed prospect will be realized. –S. Miller.
____________________
Aside from “denial,” Tingley’s article isn’t an attack on that; rather, it’s a twofold assertion: 1) that that is properly compatible with theism, and 2) that it is not in fact manifested by agnostics and atheists, who have in fact foreclosed investigation (and have done so on other grounds, as he demonstrates through copious quotation). His assertion is entirely consonant with my own experience, on both counts.
Oh, I don’t think belief in Odin died out because it required evidence of his existence. Religions die for all sorts of reasons, including conquest. There are lots of religions that still exist that say they have evidence of a supernatural presence, such as Christian Science. They’re not gone yet.
Many forms of evangelical Christianity claim physical evidence for supernatural events, and they seem to be doing a lot better in attendance than Catholicism these days.
You didn’t respond to my challenge for what evidence Tingley actually provided. I guess that’s because there isn’t any.
I don’t think agnostics and atheists have “foreclosed investigation”. I think they’ve looked at the paltry evidence there is and concluded it’s not convincing. After all, you and I are both atheists with respect to Artemis, Baal, Chac, Demeter, and a thousand other gods that people have proposed. Why couldn’t these all exist and be hiding, too?
I’m perfectly willing to concede the possibility of a god that hides his or her own presence. But if such a thing exists, how could we know, and why would it deserve our interest? And how could we possibly know what it wants?
As for knowing something about religion, I was raised as a Christian, and I spend a lot of time reading religious claims. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’m not entirely ignorant either.
What is consonant with my experience is that most theists like to claim superiority over non-theists. TIngley is no exception. Yet his arguments amount to handwaving.
1) No, he didn’t provide evidence. That wasn’t the purpose of his essay. Neither did he “concede” that there isn’t any.
2) “I’m perfectly willing to concede the possibility of a god that hides his or her own presence. But if such a thing exists, how could we know, and why would it deserve our interest? And how could we possibly know what it wants?”
If you actually want answers to those questions, I know a great article that would serve as a starting point . . . if you’d actually read it for what it’s trying to say, this time.
3) “What is consonant with my experience is that most theists like to claim superiority over non-theists.”
Sad but true. And vice-versa. Pride and arrogance are highly generalized human faults.
4) “There are lots of religions that still exist that say they have evidence of a supernatural presence, such as Christian Science. They’re not gone yet.
Many forms of evangelical Christianity claim physical evidence for supernatural events, and they seem to be doing a lot better in attendance than Catholicism these days.”
That’s actually a non sequitur. (The last two sentences are also demographically untrue, while the first one betrays remarkable ignorance of Christian Science.) It does not in fact apply to the argument of the article. I will say this, however: as it regards evidence for the existence of God (which Tingley doesn’t raise because that isn’t his purpose–again, it’s not that there is no evidence, but that the evidence is insufficient for proof), there are healings and other miracles which would qualify.
5) “As for knowing something about religion, I was raised as a Christian, and I spend a lot of time reading religious claims. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’m not entirely ignorant either.”
I know a lot of people who grew up in the church and came out of it knowing nothing about Christianity. What’s one more? The understanding you evince is purely superficial; if you have a deeper understanding of Christian faith, it hasn’t yet shown up in your argumentation.
6) As this illustrates: “you and I are both atheists with respect to Artemis, Baal, Chac, Demeter, and a thousand other gods that people have proposed. Why couldn’t these all exist and be hiding, too?”
Because that’s contrary to the nature and premises of faith in those gods: pagan faith is essentially founded on a performance contract. The fact that you can ask that question with any sort of seriousness shows that you have yet to understand, let alone actually grapple with, Dr. Tingley’s argument. You call it “handwaving” because you have yet to understand what he’s actually saying.
7) Beyond that, all I hear from you is a lot of “I think . . . I think . . . I think . . .” Not terribly convincing, sorry.
Ok, I’m all ears. How, precisely, does my discussion “betray remarkable ignorance of Christian Science”. You keep denigrating my state of knowledge, but you don’t actually provide any evidence for your insults.
As for demographics, the Hartford Institute reports that “Sociologists have also found that larger evangelical Protestant churches appear to be growing, while smaller churches posted smaller growth. Based on data from the Faith Communities Today survey, evangelical churches with more than 1,000 people posted the largest gains over the past five years: 83 percent.”
I would dispute your claim that “pagan faith is essentially founded on a performance contract”. This does not seem to be true, for example, of Navajo religion. The idea that such a characterization could apply to all faiths outside the monotheisms seems absurd.
1) Christian Science doesn’t claim evidence of a supernatural presence; it claims that nature itself, the physical, material world, is an illusion. The claim of this or any Quimby-descended sect isn’t of supernatural healing, but rather that sickness and death are illusory results of false belief, and that when we see through the illusion, they will vanish.
2) There are still a lot more Catholics out there than you think.
3) “I would dispute your claim that ‘pagan faith is essentially founded on a performance contract.’ This does not seem to be true, for example, of Navajo religion. The idea that such a characterization could apply to all faiths outside the monotheisms seems absurd.”
As a generalization about paganism, it’s valid. NB: I said paganism, not neo-paganism; neo-pagan religions are modern reinventions of paganism, and thus have been influenced by modern Western thought in ways that classical paganism, of course, wasn’t. (Similarly, Buddhism as most in the West know it is actually a fusion of classical Buddhism with Western-style creedal religion, courtesy of a lapsed Presbyterian minister who journeyed to India in the latter decades of the 19th century.) That said, for any generalization, there may well be exceptions; I’d be interested to hear what you know about classical Navajo religion.
Also, not “all faiths outside the monotheisms” are pagan. There’s at least one other category, that of the great Eastern religions (something of a misnomer, since both Judaism and Christianity are also Asian): Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, for example. My sense is that Shintoism would qualify as an Eastern pagan tradition, but the others are not so classified.
4) “‘evangelical churches with more than 1,000 people posted the largest gains over the past five years: 83 percent.'”
And how many of those churches “claim physical evidence for supernatural events”? At a guess based on personal experience, less than half. An awful lot of those are white-bread mainstream-America seeker-sensitive places like Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek, Rick Warren’s Saddleback, Joel Osteen’s Lakewood, and Ed Young’s Fellowship.
Well, we’re moving pretty far away from the original discussion, but:
1. I am well aware of the beliefs of Christian Scientists. I have even written an article that mentions their beliefs, and in particular their view that sickness is the result of “error”. You can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/5ldguf
But this doesn’t contradict what I wrote. Their religion is based on a supernatural presence (the god of the Bible) and their “healing” is offered, in Christian science testimony meetings, as proof that their religious view is correct. After healings are claimed to take place, God is thanked. So it is not a stretch to say that the healing is ultimately based on a supernatural presence. I will concede, however, that my comment should have been a little more carefully phrased.
2. Oh, I’ll concede that there are lots of Catholics. But statistics about Catholics are suspect because of the Church’s practice of almost never removing a person from their rolls.
3. I don’t agree that your generalization about “paganism” is valid. I gave you a counterexample: the Navajo religion. And as far as a “performance contract” goes, the same could be said of some Christian beliefs. I’m sure, since your knowledge of religion is so vast, that you know about the “prosperity gospel”.
As for me instructing you on the Navajo religion, now we’re really moving far afield from the original argument. Surely you can do some reading on your own?
4. Many of the popular evangelical churches claim evidence of supernatural intervention into daily life, such as the Pentecostals. The Assemblies of God, for example, have exhibited about a 2% per year growth, higher than most mainstream denominations.
But, as I’ve said, we’ve moved rather far from the original discussion. You apparently concede that Tingley didn’t offer any evidence for his views, as I’ve asked you several times about it, and you said nothing. You prefer, instead, to denigrate my knowledge. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or ignorant.
Have you read Brams, Superior Beings? Now that’s a book that actually comes to grips with the various strategies that a supernatural being might use. I think Brams is much more profound than TIngley’s drivel.
1) Their religion is based on a supernatural presence (the god of the Bible) and their “healing” is offered, in Christian science testimony meetings, as proof that their religious view is correct. After healings are claimed to take place, God is thanked. So it is not a stretch to say that the healing is ultimately based on a supernatural presence.
As proof that their religious view is correct, yes; as proof of the existence of God, no. And when healing doesn’t happen, it isn’t evidence against God, but against the faith of the believer. Thus it’s not merely that your comment should have been more carefully phrased–it’s that, for the purposes of the argument, it didn’t apply.
2) statistics about Catholics are suspect because of the Church’s practice of almost never removing a person from their rolls. . . .
Many of the popular evangelical churches claim evidence of supernatural intervention into daily life, such as the Pentecostals. The Assemblies of God, for example, have exhibited about a 2% per year growth, higher than most mainstream denominations.
True. Operationally, though, there are more people who attend Catholic churches of a Sunday morning than there are who attend charismatic/Pentecostal Protestant churches. (And of course, there are a lot of charismatic Catholics out there, too.)
3) I don’t agree that your generalization about “paganism” is valid. I gave you a counterexample: the Navajo religion.
Nice to know you disagree. If your reference to Navajo religion is contemporary, it doesn’t apply to the point. My comment wasn’t a request for education, but rather to see if you’re referring to Navajo religion in its contemporary neo-pagan form, or to classic Navajo paganism.
Plus, generalizations don’t have to be without exception to be valid as generalizations.
4) And as far as a “performance contract” goes, the same could be said of some Christian beliefs.
No question; but things like the prosperity gospel are, properly, Christian heresies.
5) You apparently concede that Tingley didn’t offer any evidence for his views
Nothing of the sort. I concede that Tingley didn’t offer any direct evidence for the existence of God–because, as I’ve said, that wasn’t the purpose of the article.
6) As for denigrating your knowledge, in this conversation, you have consistently treated “religion” as a bloc, showing no sense of or feel for the differences between religions, referencing non-Christian faiths as if they could be challenged or falsified on the same bases as Christianity, and generally arguing at a superficial level (as you did in your initial blog posting); so, yes, as someone in the field evaluating someone with no training in my discipline, I’m unimpressed by your level of knowledge.
Thought experiment: I post something describing an article in the Journal of Integer Sciences as “laughably bad,” followed by a handful of dismissive paragraphs explaining why this is obviously the case. You challenge my statements, and point out that they’re based on false assumptions and erroneous interpretations of the points of the argument in the article; along with that, you suggest that I really don’t understand the field of computer science as well as I think I do. I respond,
“As for knowing something about computer science, I was raised in a home with a computer, and I spend a lot of time reading computer magazines. I also have several friends who are computer scientists, and I talk with them a lot. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’m not entirely ignorant either.”
How impressed, exactly, are you going to be?
you have consistently treated “religion” as a bloc, showing no sense of or feel for the differences between religions, referencing non-Christian faiths as if they could be challenged or falsified on the same bases as Christianity, and generally arguing at a superficial level…
On the contrary, I brought in several different religions, such as Christian Science and Navajo religion.
I think all religions share certain features, such as the reliance on claims without evidence, that make them challengeable and falsifiable in the same way.
If the arguments are superficial, it is because religion is superficially falsifiable.
As for your example about my Journal, it is trivially wrong because (a) the Journal is not about computer science, but rather, mathematics and (b) the standards of mathematical correctness are rigorous and generally-accepted, whereas the standards of what constitutes good theology or religious argumentation are not. For example, Christians can’t even agree on the most basic doctrines, such as whether good works or faith are sufficient for salvation.
You didn’t bother to answer my question about Brams, so I assume you haven’t read him.
I continue to think Tingley’s article is drivel, excellent for making the faithful feel morally superior to those stupid atheists, but not making any interesting or valid points. Your tepid defense has not been very enlightening.
As for your example about my Journal, it is trivially wrong
Nice job ducking the question. Yes, I made an error; yes, I knew better. I don’t always do a perfect job proofreading in this tiny little comment box. Mea culpa. Taken all in all, however, I think your response still proves my point–your disciplinary arrogance still comes through quite clearly.
On the contrary, I brought in several different religions, such as Christian Science and Navajo religion.
Precisely my point: you did so “showing no sense of or feel for the differences between religions, referencing non-Christian faiths as if they could be challenged or falsified on the same bases as Christianity.” You then go on to further support my point, insisting that
all religions share certain features, such as the reliance on claims without evidence, that make them challengeable and falsifiable in the same way.
That’s the sort of error made by somebody with little fundamental understanding of religion, or of the various disciplines involved in understanding it; and it’s the sort of error which is only made that blithely by somebody who doesn’t care to understand it.
the standards of mathematical correctness are rigorous and generally-accepted, whereas the standards of what constitutes good theology or religious argumentation are not. For example, Christians can’t even agree on the most basic doctrines, such as whether good works or faith are sufficient for salvation.
So we have just demonstrated that the study of religion isn’t scientific. How profound. I will say this, however, that neither “the standards of what constitutes good theology or religious argumentation” nor “Christians can’t even agree on the most basic doctrines, such as whether good works or faith are sufficient for salvation,” are actually factually true.
You didn’t bother to answer my question about Brams
No, actually, I missed it (there was enough else to respond to) . . .
so I assume you haven’t read him.
. . . but your assumption is nevertheless correct.
I continue to think Tingley’s article is drivel, excellent for making the faithful feel morally superior to those stupid atheists, but not making any interesting or valid points.
That’s because you continue to (willfully?) misunderstand the entire thrust of his argument. Were that not the case, you might notice that–for instance–he never once says, or even implies, that atheists are “stupid.” How you can judge his points not to be interesting or valid when you haven’t actually engaged with them (preferring instead to fence with a straw man of your own stuffing), I’m not sure.
Your tepid defense has not been very enlightening.
To find something enlightening, you have to be open to being enlightened. You might not have found my defense enlightening in any case, but on the evidence, we’ll never know one way or the other.
Actually, on further reflection, I have to challenge your terminology on one point: I haven’t mounted a “defense” of Tingley’s argument, because you haven’t even engaged his argument. All you’ve done is mischaracterize and dismiss it.
Here’s a hint: though the current crop of celebrity atheists affect a pose of “an undecided, inquiring state of mind . . . the doctrine that no fact or principle can be certainly known; the tenet that all knowledge is uncertain . . . critical investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles,” they are not in fact accurately representing the source of their conclusions, which are rather rooted precisely in “the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles,” namely that scientific evidence is the only real kind, and that God does not exist (both of which they admit to be a priori commitments, not conclusions arrived at by a process of reasoning). Tingley’s purpose is to point that out and to argue for another approach they might take, were they in fact the skeptics they claim to be. As it is, they aren’t skeptical at all: they’ve come to exactly the dogmatic conclusion to which they wished to come.
Also, just one side comment re: your evident assumption that we can know more about God via mathematical investigation (even in as interesting a form as game theory) than via personal knowledge: try that with the people you care about and see how well it works.
When you say scientific evidence is the only real kind, and that God does not exist (both of which they admit to be a priori commitments, not conclusions arrived at by a process of reasoning), I can only conclude that you haven’t read the atheist works in question. No one says “scientific evidence is the only real kind”, and no one “admits” the nonexistence of your god is an “a priori commitment”.
Tingley, in fact, does not point out any other line of investigation other than seeking with “the heart”, but he doesn’t explain what this means, nor does he grapple with the fact that people who claim to have sought with “the heart” have come to wildly different conclusions.
And when you claim that the lack of agreement about whether good works or faith are necessary for salvation is not “factually true”, I can only assume you inhabit a planet different from mine. Does the word “Reformation” mean anything to you?