The Real Threat Is “Absolutism” — Yes, Absolutely!
| February 22, 2006 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
Slumming at Talk.Origins (go here), I ran across the following remark in reference to the Ruse-Dennett Briefwechsel (discussed on this blog here):
I wonder if Ruse has actually watched “The Root Of All Evil?”.
And if childen were indoctrinated with the most extreme forms of racial
bigotry by parents who were Nazis or supporters of apartheid, would we
not consider that to be abuse? Is it not abuse only where we agree
with the doctrine which is being imposed on the child?The only point on which I would differ with Dawkins is that his focus
on religion is too narrow. The real threat is absolutism – the
unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth,
be it religious faith or political ideology, which justifies any act,
no matter how vile, in its furtherance.Ian H Spedding
Is “the real threat of absolutism” itself absolute? If not, why consider absolutism a threat at all? Can you say “fallacy of self-referential incoherence”? In plain English: If you’re going to make a test, be sure you can pass it yourself.
46 Responses to The Real Threat Is “Absolutism” — Yes, Absolutely!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear Dave T.,
I think your distinction between universal and absolute is helpful—also for expressing the point Valerie is making, which is, as I understand it, this: “it’s not claims that are supposed to be universally valid that are the problem, but claims to advanced with an a priori confidence that the claims are simply unrevisable.” Thanks for bringing your usual clarity into the discussion.
I do think, though, that it’s POSSIBLE for someone to make such a point and still be guilty of a self-referential fallacy, that is, insofar as he or she thought that the truth of this point is unrevisable. But you’re right: if someone were simply arguing that absolutism has had a historically bad track record, then that wouldn’t involve any self-referential fallacy at all. And if that was what Valerie was really doing, then I’m just wrong.
I also think that there is a certain “ABSOLUTISM,” and not just universality, having to do with the form of propositions, but, again, that has to be distinguished from the sort of “psychological absolutism” that Valerie is worried about.
All of which simply underscores the important point you are making: rather than condemn blanketly all forms of absolutism—which, I would still insist, does at least OPEN one to the self-referential problem I just mentioned—it’s better to distinguish between good and bad absolutisms. So I go back to my POW example, which illustrates the distinction.
So, Valerie, if I have read your tentative claim about historical phenomena as an intended non-revisable claim about absolutism, I apologize. I hope you will look past my lack of subtlety—which the rapid ping ponging of weblogs tends to reinforce—and consider instead the more important point that Dave T. raises about distinguishing between absolutisms.
Thanks.
Adrian
Dear Dave T.,
The form of propositions suggests a kind of absolutism, insofar as when you predicate X of Y, the predication is supposed to hold so true that it absolutely excludes its contradictory. This kind of formal absolutism has nothing to do with universality: the same absoluteness attaches to singular propositions, such as “Dave T. clarified the problem.” Of course, this formal absolutism is different from the psychological certitude that one won’t be proven wrong (or however you would define such psychological absolutism). But it does make it appear that, when you say “absolutism (in the psychological sense) is generally bad,” you are contradicting yourself, because the form of that statement has the kind of formal absoluteness just mentioned.
Cordially,
Adrian
reminds me of a cartoon i saw years ago of graffiti on a wall. someone had written “QUESTION AUTHORITY” then afterward someone else wrote “SAYS WHO?”
Adrian,
You made my point better than I made it myself. Also, the distinction between the universal and the absolute doesn’t help answer this difficulty you pointed out:
“Because, when you say, “absolute claims are to be greeted with a certain suspicion,†you’re making an absolute claim that you don’t think needs to be greeted with any suspicion.”
Even if meant merely universally rather than absolutely, that only implies that we should first be suspicious of greeting absolute claims suspiciously.
A pleasure to hear your voice again.
Cheers,
DT
Dear Dave T.,
Thanks. This exchange has left me with some interesting epistemological questions which I’m looking foward to thinking about a bit more, and I’m grateful for that.
You know, one of the main reasons I read UC is actually your comments, which are invariably crystal-clear, fair, insightful, and original in their approach to problems. Maybe you should start up your own blog (or have you already?).
Cordially,
Adrian
jacktone
http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org......hority.gif
Adrian,
You flatter me… I don’t have my own blog, and there are already plenty of blogs out there run by people smarter than me. But if you feel like continuing the conversation, or want to discuss anything else philosophically, drop me a line at [email protected]. I’m always game.
Cheers,
Dave T.
More quotes from Bertrand Russell or Two Can Play the Quote Mining Game:
In all affairs it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
Passive acceptance of the teacher’s wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position.
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way
Almost everything that distinguishes the modern world from earlier centuries is attributable to science, which achieved its most spectacular triumphs in the seventeenth century.
I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn’t wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.
I’ve made an odd discovery. Every time I talk to a savant I feel quite sure that happiness is no longer a possibility. Yet when I talk with my gardener, I’m convinced of the opposite.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.
No; we have been as usual asking the wrong question. It does not matter a hoot what the mockingbird on the chimney is singing. The real and proper question is: Why is it beautiful?
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.
We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought
How do any of these contradict the earlier quotes against absolutism?
Valerie,
You are correct if Spedding is ONLY saying that “absolute truths†are a “threat”. However, if he is saying they shouldn’t or don’t exist, then he is in logical trouble. Wouldn’t you agree? I must confess, it is difficult to decipher in his words which one he believes. As a materialist, however, why would we be lead to believe that he thinks there is absolute truth?
Also, I noticed you like to quote Bertrand Russell. Can you pick out the error in this particular argument made by Russell? “I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.â€Â
Saxe
Saxe,
Spedding doesn’t say that absolute truths themselves are a danger. He says the danger is the “unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth.”
Someone who is unshakeably convinced that a particular truth is absolute has no reason to listen to opposing evidence or arguments, and will have no qualms about acting on the basis of that “truth”.
And why do you think materialists should be reluctant to accept the existence of absolute truths? Opinions differ, of course, but I am sure that most materialists accept the statement “1 + 2 = 3″ as an absolute truth.
Valerie,
Spedding sure seems to have an “unshakeable conviction†that he possesses the “Absolute Truth†when he states that it is dangerous to possess an “unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth.†He therefore, by his own logic, is a dangerous man. Apparently you are also dangerous because you believe with conviction that 1+2=3. ☺
I myself, for example, possess an “unshakeable conviction†and hold as an “absolute truth†that murder is wrong. Am I necessarily dangerous?
I must clarify an earlier position. I believe materialists cannot account for moral absolutes.
I’m not sure how you came to believe that anyone “[unshakably] convinced†in a particular truth, possesses no reason to listen to opposing evidence. Wouldn’t it logically follow then that no one holding this view has ever changed his or her mind. I don’t think you actually believe that.
By the way, were you able to catch the flaw in Russell’s statement I posted above?
Saxe
saxe17 wrote:
“Spedding sure seems to have an “unshakeable conviction†that he possesses the “Absolute Truth†when he states that it is dangerous to possess an “unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth.—
I (and presumably Spedding and Russell) would be happy to change my opinion of the danger of absolutism were someone to present a strong argument against it. If it can be changed, it’s not “unshakable”.
“Apparently you are also dangerous because you believe with conviction that 1+2=3.”
I’ll listen to contrary arguments, if you have any. My belief is not unshakable, but the contrary evidence had better be pretty strong.
“I myself, for example, possess an “unshakeable conviction†and hold as an “absolute truth†that murder is wrong. Am I necessarily dangerous?”
Not necessarily, but possibly. Suppose you had the opportunity to kill an evil person whom you knew was about to perpetrate a great horror (say, Hitler before the Holocaust). Your unshakeable conviction that it would be wrong to kill him would certainly constitute a danger to the Jews in Europe.
“I’m not sure how you came to believe that anyone “[unshakably] convinced†in a particular truth, possesses no reason to listen to opposing evidence. Wouldn’t it logically follow then that no one holding this view has ever changed his or her mind. I don’t think you actually believe that.”
If she changes her mind, she wasn’t unshakably convinced in the first place.
“By the way, were you able to catch the flaw in Russell’s statement I posted above?”
Sure. The problem is in Mill’s statement that the question “Who made me?” cannot be answered. The answer is that noone made me (or my species), at least not directly. Evolution provides an answer with no need to invoke a “who”.
Valerie Wrote:
“I (and presumably Spedding and Russell) would be happy to change my opinion of the danger of absolutism were someone to present a strong argument against it. If it can be changed, it’s not “unshakableâ€Â.â€Â
My point was that Spedding and apparently yourself, by his definition, must categorize yourselves as dangerous for holding this belief we’ve discussed above. I would agree that some absolutism is dangerous. But to claim all absolutism is dangerous is defining yourself as dangerous for any conviction you may have. That seems to me a radically dangerous worldview.
“If she changes her mind, she wasn’t unshakably convinced in the first place.â€Â
Or perhaps she didn’t have all the facts or evidence at her disposal. Why should “unshakably convinced†mean blind or oblivious to any contradictory facts? I don’t see the link.
“Sure. The problem is in Mill’s statement that the question “Who made me?†cannot be answered. The answer is that noone made me (or my species), at least not directly. Evolution provides an answer with no need to invoke a “whoâ€Â.â€Â
Actually Russell’s argument was flawed when he based his argument upon the premise “If everything must have a cause…†It is a gigantic error to base your argument upon a false premise. By definition, a cause is a cause when it has an effect. Every cause, by definition, does not require a cause. Russell saw the First Cause argument as a fallacy, but actually he misstated the definition of a cause. Russell looks pretty foolish to me in this instance.
By the way, you would have to be god in order to say universally “who made me†couldn’t be answered. You would have to possess all knowledge at all times of all things and all time and space. I don’t recall you ever claiming deity. Perhaps, however, it will be answered one day for you or someone else. It has already been answered for me. To me seems arrogant to make a universal negative claim of this nature. This type of claim, by the way, is impossible to prove.
Regards,
Saxe
Saxe wrote:
“My point was that Spedding and apparently yourself, by his definition, must categorize yourselves as dangerous for holding this belief we’ve discussed above.”
Why? We don’t hold it unshakably. We’re open to argument. We therefore don’t meet Spedding’s definition of absolutism, and we need not categorize ourselves as dangerous.
“I would agree that some absolutism is dangerous. But to claim all absolutism is dangerous is defining yourself as dangerous for any conviction you may have. That seems to me a radically dangerous worldview.”
Where does Spedding state that his belief is unshakable? Look at what he says:
Spedding:
“The real threat is absolutism – the unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth, be it religious faith or political ideology, which justifies any act, no matter how vile, in its furtherance.”
We are talking about the mentality that led to the “God said it; I believe it; That settles it” bumper sticker.
“Why should “unshakably convinced†mean blind or oblivious to any contradictory facts? I don’t see the link.”
That’s what unshakable means. Why would Spedding have used the word “unshakable” at all if he didn’t have fixed beliefs in mind?
“Actually Russell’s argument was flawed when he based his argument upon the premise “If everything must have a cause…†It is a gigantic error to base your argument upon a false premise. By definition, a cause is a cause when it has an effect. Every cause, by definition, does not require a cause. Russell saw the First Cause argument as a fallacy, but actually he misstated the definition of a cause. Russell looks pretty foolish to me in this instance.”
Defining a cause as something that has an effect does not tell you whether every cause is an effect of another cause. You need a different argument to show that not every cause requires a cause.
“By the way, you would have to be god in order to say universally “who made me†couldn’t be answered. You would have to possess all knowledge at all times of all things and all time and space. I don’t recall you ever claiming deity.”
Saxe, it was a *joke*. I was tweaking you by assuming the truth of evolution in my answer, knowing full well that you would never accept the assumption. I guess I need to insert smileys from now on…
Valerie wrote:
“Why? We don’t hold it unshakably. We’re open to argument. We therefore don’t meet Spedding’s definition of absolutism, and we need not categorize ourselves as dangerous.”
So materialists are able hold convictions that are not unshakable but others cannot, is that correct? How do we then determine who’s convictions are unshakable? For example, Antyony Flew just converted to deism. Would you actually argue that Antony Flew’s absolutes were not “unshakable†when for 50 years he was the spokesman for atheism? In other words, if someone is presented with evidence that changes their mind, you seem to be saying their convictions then must not have been “unshakableâ€Â. How do you or Spedding identify an “unshakable†conviction? It seems rather arbitrary.
“Defining a cause as something that has an effect does not tell you whether every cause is an effect of another cause. You need a different argument to show that not every cause requires a cause.â€Â
I suggest you check the rules of logic. According to those rules, defining a cause has nothing to do with whether it is or isn’t the effect of another cause. No where in logic will you find a rule that states every cause must have a cause. By definition, every cause has an effect. Also, by definition, every effect has a cause. There is NO rule in logic that defines a cause as you have attempted. Therefore, if there is an infinite being that always was and always is, He could then be the first cause. Logic doesn’t require Him (a cause) to be caused. Notice how neither “infinite†nor being a “first cause†violates any rule of logic.
By the way, I’ll keep an eye out for your smiley faces. ïÂÅ
Saxe