Sam Harris is one of several people that have come under the term "New Atheism" (Richard Dawkins is another) they represent a dangerous shift in attitude towards any religion. Dangerous because while he deplores the violence that he has attributed to religion his solution is, as The Guardian, quotes Harris as saying "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." So even at the outset his “ethical beliefs” may justify violence. (See Wikipedia)
Harris:
While he identifies himself in the above dilemma he purports to be entirely reasonable and consistently rational with beliefs based on the neutrality of evidence. What Harris fails to recognize in his own position is that while he argues for "rational" belief and "empirical" (scientific) evidence he assumes the neutrality of his view and his competency to judge. But if he was questioned closely about the foundations of his own beliefs, his own innate bias would show loud and clear.
Harris posits that in order to be useful, beliefs must be both logically coherent, and truly representative of the real world. Insofar as religious belief fails to ground itself in empirical evidence, Harris likens religion to a form of mental illness…
Harris fails to appreciate that the empirical method adopted by science and increasingly adapted and applied in philosophical situations is not epistemologically neutral. Science makes assumptions about reality that are dictated to it by its metaphysical assumptions. These assumptions have been a coalescence of ideas handed down to our present culture by the popularisation of ideas originating in such philosophers as Immanuel Kant.
The very assumption of the neutrality of facts by Harris is already biased against the idea of God. His understanding of facts is that they are just out there somewhere in the universe and he can pluck them out and assess them, neutrally. This is the basic presupposition of science- the empirical system. This presupposes that the facts are not already interpreted or systematized; this presupposes that the intelligibility of the universe is completely due to the intelligence of mankind, rather than a universe completely comprehended and made intelligible- and made according to- systems designed by God. A neutral position with regard to facts as simply being there (as people such as Harris espouse), has already assumed God does not exist and therefore God has not pre-interpreted those facts. All of the categories of fact have, according to Harris, been categorised by the action of human intelligence. For the empiricist who claims neutrality he has already laid claim to being the only authoritative voice that gives meaning to the universe, but what is worse he has done so based on un-proven metaphysical claims. (Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.)
For the empiricist the claim of the neutrality of "brute" fact is not perceived as an unproven, presupposed bias. In this respect the imperical method fails miserably in its ethos of neutrality, logic and good science.
To be clear, the empiricist position Harris speaks of claims neutrality and says “whatever reality doesn’t fit this shoe ain’t a foot.”! And that statement itself is a metaphysical statement unable to be proven by emperical means. It reaches beyond the defined scope of emperical science and is therefore a metaphysical statement and itself must be proven with metaphysical methods or simply assumed as a given with no pretence of neutrality.
It is essential to understand this point. Take the fact of gravity- we presuppose (in our utter and un-ashamed bias) God exists. Therefore we take the fact of gravity as it relates to God and see it as His way of holding the universe together, through our understanding of His ultimate nature. Harris and his ilk take the fact of gravity and, because he presupposes (in his utterly prejudiced bias) the Non-existence of God, gravity must (in his presupposed worldview) be a completely neutral fact that cannot speak to him at all about the reality of God.
Harris’s position as an anti-theist demands that all facts are “neutral” because of his commitment to anti-theism. His supposed neutrality is simply a mask by which his commitment to a purely “chance” universe can make a show of rationality. His worldview which has a prior commitment to anti-theism means he is unable to apprehend any fact as already being interpreted by a transcendent being. To Harris the Universe is “open” to mankind’s interpretation, because the source of all facts is that great metaphysical “black hole” called chance. And so being an “open” Universe we must be also “open- minded” as to whatever may come. (So long as any fact does not come already interpreted by God) We must treat all facts as bare facts or brute facts awaiting interpretation by the self-recognized arbiter of all reality- mankind. Here the inconsistency of Harris is apparent. We must be “open-minded” and yet the very parameters of his empirical method preclude the possibility of a fact -any fact- being pre-interpreted by the revelation of God, speaking (as it were) through that fact. In his rush to openness he has chosen a method that already excludes God totally, all this in the name of “neutrality and openness”!
In other words “meaning” (predication) is, (according to anti-theism) universally and entirely the work of intelligent mankind. To be neutral implies that system (built in order) is non-existent. And herein lies the innate contradiction in Harris’s adopted system. By alluding to an open universe, one that is entirely ruled by chance, how then does he rationally support the indubitable system, coherency and design apparent in the same universe? How can he be consistently open and neutral when the presupposition of a chance universe is never proven or even challenged? That is the predefined parameter endemic to the nature of the empirical method. Also if it is purely a "chance" universe, then it is a totally irrational universe from which two other problems arise:
a) How is it that man (as part of an irrational universe) is found to be rational?
b) How could rational man possibly apply rationality to an irrational reality? (These problems will be looked at in more detail further on)
These are not word games these are real problems for Harris's worldview.
To be neutral the idea of God would have to be within Harris’s system in order for him to be excluded by that system, but that cannot be the one and only true God since by definition he is the source of all system and necessarily outside of (greater than) that system.
The consistent theistic position is that mankind thinks God’s thoughts after him- and we have that ability because- being made in his image we are able to follow the stamp of his intelligence on the intelligibility of the cosmos.
The Jewish People along with Christians hold that there is but one ultimate reality- the God of scripture. Now, that being true, it is impossible that any "fact" or "empirical evidence" could be interpreted as "speaking" against the reality of God because He is the source of them all. From what I have just said one may argue that assuming the existence of God as I have just done is begging the question, but has not Harris in his assumption of a chance universe, done just the very same thing?
Harris’s principle of interpreting reality is and must be as biased "against" the revelation of God as is ours is biased "for" the revelation of God. Neutrality is an illusion. Put another way he wants us believers to begin from his "so-called" neutral starting point because if we accept his point of reference we would have to finally acknowledge the same conclusion. His "neutrality" consists of a bias against bias. Neutrality as he perceives it is a myth in absolute terms, or at best only neutral from the preconceived ideas of his worldview. So- relative to his worldview- he can manage neutrality but that is only by taking his worldview as an accurate coherent representation of reality. In other words he, like the theist is begging the question. We must probe further and expose the undergirding system by which he makes these assumptions. Has he not in his treatment of the “facts” and “evidence” assumed the non-existence of God? Has he not plucked facts and evidence out of a worldview that presupposes the non-existence of God? If it was truly a “chance” universe then the existence of God would only be,(in atheistic terms of reference) at best, an equally valid thesis that could only be debated with reference to the evidence- but consistent theism is already at odds with the idea of a “chance” universe so cannot in good conscience agree with the relative “neutrality” of the anti-theist. In this we see that the idea of God is already compromised and disadvantaged when spoken of in the context of “ultimate” chance. In its forced juxtaposition against the idea of “no-god” it appears to be neutral but what is not appreciated is that in doing so chance is made supreme prior to any discussion of the evidence. The anti-theist whether realizing it or not has already fiddled with the evidence when he talks of the neutrality of his system, he has in advance determined it is a “chance” universe where the facts must be originally interpreted by mankind. He has made himself the judge in this “Supreme Court” and aritificially “forced” the idea of “God” to compete on an equal footing with the “no-god” idea. It has the appearance of being fair and equitable but in reality if theism concedes this point “Chance” is already crowned “God”! When God is “handcuffed” this way by unthinking theists who mistakenly agree to these terms it is then relatively easy for the evidence to be treated arbitrarily. God has already, on these terms, given over his “Ultimate” crown to chance.
So what we do have is two basic and fundamental views of reality (theism/antitheism) and people are committed to one or the other, there are frankly only two choices and a person is already committed to one or the other. And of course with the commitment comes the bias- it goes without saying.
As far as we have gone so far I hope it is evident that neutrality is impossible unless we agree from the outset that it is indeed a “chance” universe, which consistent theism- taking its facts from the revelation of God having created the Universe- could not agree to.
While the unbeliever does not offer a rational account for the preconditions of intelligibility he cannot be relied upon to give a valid account of facts.
There is much more to belief in God than what is often conveniently called “blind faith”. So far we have seen that Harris’s interpretation starts with the assumption that it must be a chance universe but his faith in that proposition also has to be proved. Otherwise he is the one operating on “blind faith” The position I take is that our view is proved from the impossibility of the contrary.
What I hope is evident from the above is that the position of Sam Harris and of whoever takes a similar line is not at all neutral and that such appeals as he and many others make to the “scientific method” and to such terms as “reason”, “rationality” and the like don’t automatically qualify as unbiased views of reality.
To recap the position we have arrived at is that both Sam Harris, and myself as representative of Anti-theistic and Theistic worldviews are not un-biased. We both have made assumptions on the nature of reality that we have pre-supposed from the outset.
Now, by frankly dismissing Harris’s presumption of neutrality, by showing in his very gathering of knowledge he is already guilty of weighting the evidence in favour of his worldview, we have gained a point, only to lose it again (apparently) when we honestly admit our own presuppositions. But this is not the case. What we have now is a more honest and certain base from which to forge ahead.
To put a philosophical slant on it, we have both been engaged in circular reasoning. I believe the Bible, it tells me God exists and is not only responsible for the Bible but the whole universe and for me as part of it. It is circular, in that it is self-authenticating, that is- the authority on which we trust the Bible- comes from the Bible itself. In defence of this though, I would add that in the nature of the case it would be impossible to be otherwise.
Now, the anti-theist, in order to appreciate this position needs to put his feet in my shoes. Just for arguments sake- if my view was absolutely true, how could any subordinate authority give an absolute and ultimate commendation or affirmation of that authority? I might for instance say (as a mere man) the Bible is the Very Word of the Very God and is therefore the Ultimate Authority. Even with capital letters my authority is such that anyone could just tell me to go whistle. The only way that an ultimate authority could possibly testify to ultimate authority in an ultimate sense is by testifying of itself. To put things around the other way, any ultimate authority cannot point to another as the ultimate authority because if it were true the one pointing could not be ultimate. It is self-defeating. One does not use the light of a candle to manifest the light of the sun, rather it is the light of the sun through which all other light is made manifest. So rather than dismissing the Biblical worldview as illogical because of circular reasoning, we find that its self-attesting nature is in fact entirely reasonable and logical in the nature of the case. I therefore give my allegiance to this view of reality (but not for that reason alone).
Such is not the case for Harris.
Harris on the other hand has indulged in circular reasoning also. Harris believes in reasoning, the empirical method, science and evidence and such like. But how, you ask, has he been reasoning in a circle? Suppose you were to ask Harris what justified his belief, his “faith” in reasoning, science, the empirical method etc. “Well”, he’d say, “It’s like this…” And he would wax lyrical on the virtues of reason, science, and the empirical method, and the laws of logic, deduction, induction inference, etc. But after a while it will suddenly strike you* that he is using his “reason” to justify… what? His reason!
It is in fact unavoidable, no matter what worldview one accepts; foundational to that worldview will be presuppositions that are unproven, taken for granted, assumed as givens. So we frankly admit our bias from the outset, and we expect the same of Harris but he is not so forthcoming.
By this time I hope there is some appreciation for the importance of understanding final authorities and what part they play in our knowledge gathering enterprises, how they affect our interpretation of that knowledge. A wise sage once said, “the heart has reasons, that reason cannot know”. In a similar way “What we believe is determined by why we believe it” The study of how we gain knowledge is called epistemology.
It is evident from our foray into these two widely divergent worldviews that it’s pointless to start assessment as to the validity of either without reference to what they each refer to as their final authority, and without looking at the integrity of the knowledge gathering exercise.
Suppose you and I were conversing, I said, “ See that boy there bouncing a ball? Put down on paper a line representing the absolutely true movement of the ball”.
Now you being a thoughtful person said “Well that isn’t so easy- if I just repeatedly draw a short line up and down on the same place on the paper relative to the length and scope of the balls’ movement it wouldn’t be accurate.”
“Why not?” I said. “The fact is”, you respond, “we are, all three of us on a moving bus therefore I must account for that movement as well” “Great”, I said, “go ahead”. Satisfied, you draw a line expressing a wave movement across the page. The repeated vertical movement expressing the bounce, and the movement across the page showing the forward movement of the bus, which ends up looking something like the line on a heart monitor. And, it’s true- this is a better interpretation of that reality.
We’re both looking at this line when suddenly we both look at each other at the same time and laugh. “Whoa…there”
We both recognize at once there are more movements to be accounted for. Each one on a different scale. The bus has just entered the belly of the Inter-Island Ferry and is rocking gently from side to side. The ship is in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. New Zealand is from the perspective of a stationary satellite whizzing past at… how many thousands of kilometres per hour? But what is the speed and direction of Earth in relation to its orbit round the Sun…? And we could go on and on… But I won’t… suffice it to say that the most accurate objective account for reality has to come from a point beyond that reality. (Incidentally the first representation- that of a straight line back and forth on the same line is an absolutely true representation relative to the circumstances, just as a wavy line would be true from the perspective of a person standing on a footpath watching a ball bounced in a moving bus. Either perspective is true from a relative position- but neither are true in an ultimate or final sense.)
In this we see that Harris is justified in claiming reason to be on his side when he speaks of the validity of the scientific method so long as his claims are relating to the natural realm. But when the bias and unjustified assumptions of his worldview are taken into consideration, his logic and reason as to facts which are beyond the scope of the empirical method disapear back into the “black hole” of chance from where they originated. From this we understand the manipulation of reason and logic enables false views to gain respectability so long as the prior assumptions remain unquestioned. In watching the ball bouncing Harris has assumed that from his vantage point (that of emperical reasoning and the scientific method) he can thereby speak of an ultimate reality. Clearly he cannot. For Harris “reason and the laws of logic” are his final authority but he cannot offer any transcendent ultimate cause as to why they should be accepted on his basis, he cannot offer a reasonable account of these metaphysical realities.
In fact the only possible position from which it is logical to speak of an objective absolute is if you are absolutely and completely outside of that reality. (We recognize God- as the ultimate personality- to be in this “pole” position.)
The perennial problem of philosophy is- how do we get outside of ourselves to get a purely objective view? As we admit- wherever we go we take our baggage with us. The scientific method is undoubtedly successful when it is used within the legitimate scope of its magisterium or sphere, but the moment it is used to justify metaphysical claims- realities outside the physical realm- it runs into problems. And one cannot, as Stephen Jay Gould, endorses- completely separate the two if you want a more unifying concept of reality. If one is going to make statements beyond the physical realm, involving such concepts as purpose, intentionality, intelligibility, meaning and value- then one cannot legitimately invoke the imperical method as being even remotely adequate.
As Albert Einstein said:
The atheist can, at best, only offer a limited view of reality, and even that limited view from within his framework is not adequately justified from within his own terms. In a word he is pretending to show an exhaustive panorama of the scene from the base of the mountain!
Is there any hope then, of objectivity?
Yes there is, we can indeed place ourselves in the position of the absolute (in a finite sort of way) and that is by thinking the thoughts of the Absolute, (not in an original sense) but as it were thinking these thoughts after Him. As theists, (and here I do not elucidate further but there is only one form that I subscribe to) we believe in the ultimate personal reality of God from whom and through whom and for whom all created reality exists. And, just by a cosmic stroke of good luck ;-) he has given us the blueprint for reality by giving us his thoughts on paper.
I had asked that Harris (and those like him) step into the shoes of the theist in order to understand our justification for assuming the ultimate authority of our God and thereby offering a good reason for the use of circular reasoning in this instance.
Now we step into Harris’s shoes and in so doing, seek to demonstrate why circular reasoning in his case is disastrous. Also, by following the basis from which he reasons, provide a way of seeing that upon his epistemology he has no true basis from which to reason about anything let alone the existence of God.
In his repeated challenges to theists to bring forth solid evidence, empirical substantiation, and rational reasons- we start by asking questions about his epistemology. We ask upon what basis does he trust in empiricism and rationalism? In order to set the background to this discussion we look at what Harris has assumed prior to his judgement of theism.
In his worldview he treats facts as “brute facts” which are according to Wikipedia: "a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable". (The more common but less technical definition of brute fact)
They are by definition irreducible, but not only so, no origin of facts is given apart from a nebulous idea that they are just there in and against a background of pure possibility, or pure chance. In fact one of the over-arching postulates of this worldview is that all of reality is summed up in this equation:
By presuming all facts as out there floating around unrelated, he has, by prior definition, assumed that it is an irrational universe- which then, by necessity must be given or made rational by the categorization of science. Mankind, through the scientific enterprise, usurping the traditional role of God as the all conditioning, ordering potentate has become, as it were, God himself, putting the puzzle together in an original sense. The order he sees is a consequence of his ordering mind, not order in and of itself. (Thank you Immanual Kant!)
Imagine all the “brute facts” of the universe of which mankind is one as well. Because they happened randomly they are unrelated. Mankind, the master logician (in Harris's view) sees reality as an endless number of jigsaw pieces which he begins to put together, and lo! He does so with singular success. Notice he has faith that they are parts of a puzzle which he expects, assumes, (has "faith") that they will come together in orderly fashion, But he succeeds at the expense of his prior commitment to chance, and this would be patently obvious if he was consistent and honest in his approach.
If indeed it is a random, chance universe, then it would be like an infinite number of jumbled jigsaw pieces- each individual piece (representing a fact) coming from an infinite number of different jigsaw puzzles each with its own unique shape- impossible to find coherence in because it is (by human decree) an incoherent puzzle. This raises the issue of the intelligibility inherent in the Universe.
Dogmatic atheists ignore this point, whereas consistent and more reasonable atheist scientists are constantly and (from their perspective) justifiably amazed at the co-incidence.
An example of this is found in Einstein who said:
What defines a real jigsaw puzzle is the fact that they are made from an original whole or unitary piece (from one mind) and cut up into little pieces which must of necessity fit back together, because they correspond perfectly with one another. The resounding success of the scientific method makes it impossible to cling tenaciously to a random universe and perversely find that things do indeed fit.
In the first few pages of his book Sam Harris speaking of the (apparent) inconsistency between faith and reason says:
A person can be a God-fearing Christian on Sunday and a working scientist come Monday morning, without ever having to account for the partition that seems to have erected itself in his head while he slept. He can, as it were, have his reason and eat it too.
We are of the view then that a God-scoffing scientist needs to go home and eat some humble pie. In his view of reality he partitions the universe off as irrational at the same time as he (as a part of that irrational system) accepts himself as a rational being and then proceeds to prove its rationality without ever accounting for why it does indeed prove to be so. He has had his reason and eaten it too (twice)!
We have been looking at two worldviews, theism and what is commonly called atheism. It may not have gone unnoticed that the term anti-theist is used more often than not. It is in consideration of this term to which we now turn.
As spoken of earlier “what we believe is determined by why we believe it.” At first glance this may appear a somewhat audacious statement. Most, as exemplified by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, prefer to think that what we believe is determined by the facts and which way the evidence points. What is ignored or downplayed are the choices people make as to where they get their evidence. In other words the choices they make as to which direction they turn and how they gauge and prioritise the value in the data gathering exercise plays a large part in determining what their reason will conclude at the end of the data gathering.
Suppose, as has happened recently, a man was found dead and investigations showed he was poisoned. The experienced investigator knows that most murders involving poison are attributed to women, and arguably by jilted or jealous women. She must therefore guard against her bias in concluding that therefore it must be a woman. (Just as we must guard against the assumption that the investigator would be a man!) The direction of her enquiries therefore will be determined by how strongly she determines the likelihood of it being a woman and other factors. In this case the accused was of the same ethnic origin and the poison involved was virtually unknown to the country in which the murder took place, but was known in the country of common origin. So the accused was shown to have the means, the motive and the opportunity.
As an historian of Science who also contributed to the philosophy of Science, Thomas Kuhn has torn the mask off the idea of total neutrality.
Rightly then it is clear the subjective element of anyones observations must be allowed for in consideration of any scientific enterprise (or, for that matter any endeavour related to truth or reality such as philosophy and faith). As Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has said:
Consequently the objective truth of the work is declared a success or failure in just so far as the work has succeeded in allowing for this in-built bias.
The scientist, the philosopher and the man of faith are all searching for truth but as the popular song has it:
At this point we turn our attention to the scientist, the philosopher and the man of faith who all, in their individual endeavours, are searching for truth and ask of them- do they have an axe to grind? As individuals they may all have prejudices and biases in opposite directions or they may have some prejudices in common. But for the purpose of our enquiry, what possible prejudice could we all have in common? What bias exists that would be common to all mankind? It is widely accepted that internal bias exists but that is still a far cry from speaking of a universal bias. Herein lies a difficulty, how do you speak of a universal bias if, on the basis of its universality, no-one is excepted from it? How then can any individual prove it- if everyone is subject to it? How could anyone possibly be even aware of it, much less demonstrate it to another?
It is akin to the idea that every individual is visualizing reality with eyes that distort things in a totally identical manner and degree, making things, for example, look taller than reality. It does no good to use a standardized tape measure because as they hold it to an object- it too is distorted to the same degree. Short sighted and longsighted wear corrective lenses but because the distortion mentioned above is by its universality, indetectable, their sight is only enhanced in the direction of clarity, so they see things more clearly but nonetheless distorted. It may even happen that those who claim to see clearer take it upon themselves to point out the defects of others while they themselves are still subject to the universal distortion. So Thomas Kuhn is, rightly clear in his mind that subjective bias exists in science, and may even demonstrate that bias- as it happens when two scientists observing the same facts using the same criteria come out with different conclusions. But Thomas Kuhn cannot demonstrate a bias to which he also as an individual is subject to, being one of the “universal” set to which this distortion is appliccable. (unless he accepts this from an ultimate authority outside of the human condition).
Blake understood that, human nature being what it is now, with this unshakeable internal bias, sees nothing as it really is if he accepts everything at face value without perceiving the problem in his own perception.
In order then to account for the internal bias, which is well documented, the preconceptions of differing worldviews must be addressed. If anyone (like Harris) immediately and without hesitation dismisses as preposterous (or even childish) the idea of God, is it not a demonstration of that bias at work? If the idea of moral depravity as spoken of in the Bible is true(such that we are able and motivated to distort reality to our own advantage) wouldn’t the atheistic attitude and preconceptions exemplify this universal trait? Havn’t we also, even as believers, been aware of a natural squeamishnes about speaking frankly about God or religion to unbelievers, even to the point where in the sanctity of our own minds we prefer not to think too much about it? Is this not also a sign of a universal negativity towards God? What did Adam and Eve do after they decided to interpret all of reality on their own terms?
They attempted to hide themselves.
What this clearly entails then is the need to be aware of the moral state of the person gathering the information. Science then as a fact gathering exercise is not a morally neutral endeavour at all. If the scientist gathers and interprets the facts from the view that mankind is the ultimate mind, (Mankind being the measure of all things), that all of reality will conform to his thinking, then he will, in fact he must- conceive of the world as random and arbitrary in order to exclude God; on the other hand the theistic scientist in his gathering of the facts must, to be true and consistent to his worldview, relate every fact as it falls out of the hand of God.
If, as we propose, mankind in general has an anti-God bias, this is made manifest by his knowledge gathering habits. This bias is demonstrated by his refusal to go in a certain direction for fear that his inner motives will be discovered, and therefore his heart exposed. He knows instinctively that any valid proof of God will immediately and irrevocably affect his claim to autonomy, his claim to interpret reality on his own terms. It will, as he is only too aware deep down, influence him in all of his choices- not the least his moral ones. It is therefore not, as he claims, the lack of evidence to justify the existence of God, but his suppression of the truth by which he attempts to deny it. He has a distinct motive for doing so. And he does this by deliberate mismanagement of what is clearly available to epistemologically aware people. Mankind is self-deceived.
In summary then as one wit once said:
Let’s look at the agnostic for a moment. The agnostic claims that even if God were true there could be no way of knowing this. Rather than claiming (like the atheist) the knowledge that there is no God, he claims to know that we cannot know God even if he does exist. How does he know this? It is clear from both claims that they are making absolute statements. Something that mankind cannot make unless he admits/pretends total knowledge. He has absolutized himself in making these claims. In short he is playing God in his dreams.
One other point regarding the agnostic position as it relates to bias. While he claims there can be no certainty of knowing if God exists, how does he live? He (in principle) lives totally and consistently as if God does not exist and that is, to him, the final reality to which he pays homage. While claiming to be neutral as to the existence of God he betrays his neutrality in practice by living precisely as if there were no God.
It may appear then that things have reached a logical impasse but is that really the case?
Are we really not in a position to speak of objective truth? Are we truly subject to an all-pervasive bias, which has warped our every attempt to arrive at a proper perspective? How would anyone know this?
Possibly the only way to confirm a universal prejudice would be if we had a word from outside our space-time continuum, and from outside the human condition.
It is our contention that just such a word exists and that it does indeed speak of a universal bias, in accordance with our previous references to human subjectivity. When taken as an ultimate authority this word not only offers a cogent and coherent basis for understanding reality but it gives us the only basis for a world-view that does not eventually undermine coherence and rationality itself. Without assuming in some way this authoritative view, ultimately nothing can be made sense of at all.
It is the Word of God and it speaks of “fallen” humanity.
Fallen in the sense that originally man knew, and was in touch with reality objectively in as far as he knew and accepted the authority of God as the ultimate and final reference point in relation to any fact. Mankind “fell” when, on bad advice, he first acted and interpreted any fact from the perspective of himself as the final and ultimate authority. And this is the definitive and complete problem of mankind. This is the source of the internal bias. Those that are familiar with the Hebrew Bible will understand that this alludes to the scene played out in the “Garden of Eden” where human “beginnings” are explicated.
Now the atheist, who from his standpoint, does not even accord God with existence- will of course not agree with this view of mankind, how then do we proceed?
The problem of bias has been the subject of much research and is a commonly recognized human trait. In their book “The Dawkins Delusion”, Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath come to grips with Richard Dawkins' dogmatic assertion of Atheism:
The reformer Martin Luther also alluded to this inertial resistance to change:
In a report of 26 of the most common forms of cognitive bias this comment was posted at the bottom:
Correctly it acknowledges the impossibility of: accurately observ(ing) a system you’re part of. But the statement fails- when it fails to qualify itself. To be truly honest the qualifier should be:… you’ll never be able to truly gauge any of the biases you might be operating under since it’s not possible to accurately observe a system you’re part of …unless there is someone outside of that system who can speak to you authoritively and with perspicuity.
If the original statement was taken seriously it would, in practical terms, mean one should not go to the doctor! (Is he not a part of the biological system?) Even more tellingly if this were taken seriously it would utterly destroy the basis for any communication whatsoever! (Isn’t my speaking part of a system of language of which your hearing is another!) This whole idea of relativism needs to be qualified or all rationality is destroyed. All of these things would indeed be rendered senseless if it wasn’t for an ultimate objective reality of which theists speak, and by reason of which, consciously or not these people have to smuggle in to their reasoning in order to keep a semblance of reason.
It is the claim of consistent theism that unless somehow God was assumed in every world-view even if he is smuggled in inadvertently, eventually every rational argument eventually falls to the ground. By an indirect argument the proof of God’s existence is assured. How? As has been hinted at, if every other argument that supposedly shows the non-existence of God can be seen to destroy itself by following through its logical implications- it then proves by default that God exists. In other words if, in the course of his arguments against the existence of God the antitheist destroys (for instance) rationality, then immediately it follows that the argument has destroyed its own basis from which it argues. It falls to the ground like dust.
It is obviously beyond the scope of this present work to follow through on every argument but we may work partly through some of the arguments.
In this example let’s look at the antitheist claim to a “chance” universe and its implications. Antitheists claim “chance” as the origin of all reality, and therefore the idea of God has to “fit” into this realm, alongside every other possibility with equal weight -supposedly an equal opportunity system! Therefore this includes the possibility of there being no God. Whereas consistent theists are already at odds with that assumption. They hold that “chance” is subservient to God, that God alone is the source and ground of all possibility. After all if God is to be God at all, then he must be God of All! Including chance or possibility. C. S. Lewis rightly pointed out the hubris of the thinking here, God is in the dock and mankind, as his Judge, has put him there and he is given an “equal” hearing alongside his arch enemy “no-god”!
The inference is clear; if chance is the author of all, and we therefore are children of chance, then all the mayhem that follows is but the fulfilment of its promise- it is merely the natural conclusion to that thinking. It must necessarily follow
· There can be no basis for self-awareness, selfconsciousness
· There can be no objective basis for morality.
· No sense of beauty
· If chance is at bottom of all, then there is no basis for rationality
· No basis for the intelligibility of the universe
· No basis for natural law which assumes the uniformity and continuity of nature
· No basis for the use of statistics, which are based on the general uniformity of the universe.
· No basis for language
· No basis for mathematics
· No basis for embedded informational language such as DNA
· Finally, mankind as the arbiter of all reality is doing no less than worshiping himself, in making chance the Ultimate reality.
The non-Christian has God-denying presuppositions, which he first assumes, and then uses to interpret the facts so as to prove that his denial of God is correct. But then, all of the points above, (contrary to his worldview, if there were any sense of consistency) he does not deny. How then does that worldview manage to acknowledge these realities while at the same time denying any logical basis for them in the assumption of Chance and randomness as supreme? Only by blindly denying them as inconsistent with those assumptions.
The self-deceived, so-called autonomous human cannot help but acknowledge the reality of God deep down because it is stamped upon his humanity. “In his heart of hearts” he is dimly aware of the reality of God. Yet in his rebellion, he, being at war with the same that grants him life, self-consciousness and every good thing that is necessary for life and fulfilment, will set up himself as the arbiter of all reality and deny the giver of it all. But he cannot do so without exposing the inconsistency of his epistemology.
This behaviour is analogous to extreme autism, except the analogy doesn’t go deep enough. The deeply autistic person is dependent totally on the caregiver for sustenance, daily- minute by minute care, love and attention but the person is totally ignorant of anything outside his own sphere of reality never once even acknowledging any other reality other that the self of his own world. A sense of gratitude is not only absent, but not even a glimpse of recognition is forthcoming. In taking whatever the “caregiver” graciously hands him he never once catches his eye. When he looks at his caregiver he sees straight through, without so much as a glimmer of recognition. Only the “autistic” in this case is personally responsible for his own condition.
Will you take the time to think this through?
Harris:
How is it that, in this one area of our lives, we have convinced ourselves that our beliefs about the world can float entirely free of reason and evidence?
While he identifies himself in the above dilemma he purports to be entirely reasonable and consistently rational with beliefs based on the neutrality of evidence. What Harris fails to recognize in his own position is that while he argues for "rational" belief and "empirical" (scientific) evidence he assumes the neutrality of his view and his competency to judge. But if he was questioned closely about the foundations of his own beliefs, his own innate bias would show loud and clear.
Harris posits that in order to be useful, beliefs must be both logically coherent, and truly representative of the real world. Insofar as religious belief fails to ground itself in empirical evidence, Harris likens religion to a form of mental illness…
Harris fails to appreciate that the empirical method adopted by science and increasingly adapted and applied in philosophical situations is not epistemologically neutral. Science makes assumptions about reality that are dictated to it by its metaphysical assumptions. These assumptions have been a coalescence of ideas handed down to our present culture by the popularisation of ideas originating in such philosophers as Immanuel Kant.
The very assumption of the neutrality of facts by Harris is already biased against the idea of God. His understanding of facts is that they are just out there somewhere in the universe and he can pluck them out and assess them, neutrally. This is the basic presupposition of science- the empirical system. This presupposes that the facts are not already interpreted or systematized; this presupposes that the intelligibility of the universe is completely due to the intelligence of mankind, rather than a universe completely comprehended and made intelligible- and made according to- systems designed by God. A neutral position with regard to facts as simply being there (as people such as Harris espouse), has already assumed God does not exist and therefore God has not pre-interpreted those facts. All of the categories of fact have, according to Harris, been categorised by the action of human intelligence. For the empiricist who claims neutrality he has already laid claim to being the only authoritative voice that gives meaning to the universe, but what is worse he has done so based on un-proven metaphysical claims. (Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.)
For the empiricist the claim of the neutrality of "brute" fact is not perceived as an unproven, presupposed bias. In this respect the imperical method fails miserably in its ethos of neutrality, logic and good science.
To be clear, the empiricist position Harris speaks of claims neutrality and says “whatever reality doesn’t fit this shoe ain’t a foot.”! And that statement itself is a metaphysical statement unable to be proven by emperical means. It reaches beyond the defined scope of emperical science and is therefore a metaphysical statement and itself must be proven with metaphysical methods or simply assumed as a given with no pretence of neutrality.
It is essential to understand this point. Take the fact of gravity- we presuppose (in our utter and un-ashamed bias) God exists. Therefore we take the fact of gravity as it relates to God and see it as His way of holding the universe together, through our understanding of His ultimate nature. Harris and his ilk take the fact of gravity and, because he presupposes (in his utterly prejudiced bias) the Non-existence of God, gravity must (in his presupposed worldview) be a completely neutral fact that cannot speak to him at all about the reality of God.
Harris’s position as an anti-theist demands that all facts are “neutral” because of his commitment to anti-theism. His supposed neutrality is simply a mask by which his commitment to a purely “chance” universe can make a show of rationality. His worldview which has a prior commitment to anti-theism means he is unable to apprehend any fact as already being interpreted by a transcendent being. To Harris the Universe is “open” to mankind’s interpretation, because the source of all facts is that great metaphysical “black hole” called chance. And so being an “open” Universe we must be also “open- minded” as to whatever may come. (So long as any fact does not come already interpreted by God) We must treat all facts as bare facts or brute facts awaiting interpretation by the self-recognized arbiter of all reality- mankind. Here the inconsistency of Harris is apparent. We must be “open-minded” and yet the very parameters of his empirical method preclude the possibility of a fact -any fact- being pre-interpreted by the revelation of God, speaking (as it were) through that fact. In his rush to openness he has chosen a method that already excludes God totally, all this in the name of “neutrality and openness”!
In other words “meaning” (predication) is, (according to anti-theism) universally and entirely the work of intelligent mankind. To be neutral implies that system (built in order) is non-existent. And herein lies the innate contradiction in Harris’s adopted system. By alluding to an open universe, one that is entirely ruled by chance, how then does he rationally support the indubitable system, coherency and design apparent in the same universe? How can he be consistently open and neutral when the presupposition of a chance universe is never proven or even challenged? That is the predefined parameter endemic to the nature of the empirical method. Also if it is purely a "chance" universe, then it is a totally irrational universe from which two other problems arise:
a) How is it that man (as part of an irrational universe) is found to be rational?
b) How could rational man possibly apply rationality to an irrational reality? (These problems will be looked at in more detail further on)
These are not word games these are real problems for Harris's worldview.
To be neutral the idea of God would have to be within Harris’s system in order for him to be excluded by that system, but that cannot be the one and only true God since by definition he is the source of all system and necessarily outside of (greater than) that system.
The consistent theistic position is that mankind thinks God’s thoughts after him- and we have that ability because- being made in his image we are able to follow the stamp of his intelligence on the intelligibility of the cosmos.
The Jewish People along with Christians hold that there is but one ultimate reality- the God of scripture. Now, that being true, it is impossible that any "fact" or "empirical evidence" could be interpreted as "speaking" against the reality of God because He is the source of them all. From what I have just said one may argue that assuming the existence of God as I have just done is begging the question, but has not Harris in his assumption of a chance universe, done just the very same thing?
Harris’s principle of interpreting reality is and must be as biased "against" the revelation of God as is ours is biased "for" the revelation of God. Neutrality is an illusion. Put another way he wants us believers to begin from his "so-called" neutral starting point because if we accept his point of reference we would have to finally acknowledge the same conclusion. His "neutrality" consists of a bias against bias. Neutrality as he perceives it is a myth in absolute terms, or at best only neutral from the preconceived ideas of his worldview. So- relative to his worldview- he can manage neutrality but that is only by taking his worldview as an accurate coherent representation of reality. In other words he, like the theist is begging the question. We must probe further and expose the undergirding system by which he makes these assumptions. Has he not in his treatment of the “facts” and “evidence” assumed the non-existence of God? Has he not plucked facts and evidence out of a worldview that presupposes the non-existence of God? If it was truly a “chance” universe then the existence of God would only be,(in atheistic terms of reference) at best, an equally valid thesis that could only be debated with reference to the evidence- but consistent theism is already at odds with the idea of a “chance” universe so cannot in good conscience agree with the relative “neutrality” of the anti-theist. In this we see that the idea of God is already compromised and disadvantaged when spoken of in the context of “ultimate” chance. In its forced juxtaposition against the idea of “no-god” it appears to be neutral but what is not appreciated is that in doing so chance is made supreme prior to any discussion of the evidence. The anti-theist whether realizing it or not has already fiddled with the evidence when he talks of the neutrality of his system, he has in advance determined it is a “chance” universe where the facts must be originally interpreted by mankind. He has made himself the judge in this “Supreme Court” and aritificially “forced” the idea of “God” to compete on an equal footing with the “no-god” idea. It has the appearance of being fair and equitable but in reality if theism concedes this point “Chance” is already crowned “God”! When God is “handcuffed” this way by unthinking theists who mistakenly agree to these terms it is then relatively easy for the evidence to be treated arbitrarily. God has already, on these terms, given over his “Ultimate” crown to chance.
So what we do have is two basic and fundamental views of reality (theism/antitheism) and people are committed to one or the other, there are frankly only two choices and a person is already committed to one or the other. And of course with the commitment comes the bias- it goes without saying.
As far as we have gone so far I hope it is evident that neutrality is impossible unless we agree from the outset that it is indeed a “chance” universe, which consistent theism- taking its facts from the revelation of God having created the Universe- could not agree to.
While the unbeliever does not offer a rational account for the preconditions of intelligibility he cannot be relied upon to give a valid account of facts.
There is much more to belief in God than what is often conveniently called “blind faith”. So far we have seen that Harris’s interpretation starts with the assumption that it must be a chance universe but his faith in that proposition also has to be proved. Otherwise he is the one operating on “blind faith” The position I take is that our view is proved from the impossibility of the contrary.
What I hope is evident from the above is that the position of Sam Harris and of whoever takes a similar line is not at all neutral and that such appeals as he and many others make to the “scientific method” and to such terms as “reason”, “rationality” and the like don’t automatically qualify as unbiased views of reality.
To recap the position we have arrived at is that both Sam Harris, and myself as representative of Anti-theistic and Theistic worldviews are not un-biased. We both have made assumptions on the nature of reality that we have pre-supposed from the outset.
Now, by frankly dismissing Harris’s presumption of neutrality, by showing in his very gathering of knowledge he is already guilty of weighting the evidence in favour of his worldview, we have gained a point, only to lose it again (apparently) when we honestly admit our own presuppositions. But this is not the case. What we have now is a more honest and certain base from which to forge ahead.
To put a philosophical slant on it, we have both been engaged in circular reasoning. I believe the Bible, it tells me God exists and is not only responsible for the Bible but the whole universe and for me as part of it. It is circular, in that it is self-authenticating, that is- the authority on which we trust the Bible- comes from the Bible itself. In defence of this though, I would add that in the nature of the case it would be impossible to be otherwise.
Now, the anti-theist, in order to appreciate this position needs to put his feet in my shoes. Just for arguments sake- if my view was absolutely true, how could any subordinate authority give an absolute and ultimate commendation or affirmation of that authority? I might for instance say (as a mere man) the Bible is the Very Word of the Very God and is therefore the Ultimate Authority. Even with capital letters my authority is such that anyone could just tell me to go whistle. The only way that an ultimate authority could possibly testify to ultimate authority in an ultimate sense is by testifying of itself. To put things around the other way, any ultimate authority cannot point to another as the ultimate authority because if it were true the one pointing could not be ultimate. It is self-defeating. One does not use the light of a candle to manifest the light of the sun, rather it is the light of the sun through which all other light is made manifest. So rather than dismissing the Biblical worldview as illogical because of circular reasoning, we find that its self-attesting nature is in fact entirely reasonable and logical in the nature of the case. I therefore give my allegiance to this view of reality (but not for that reason alone).
Such is not the case for Harris.
Harris on the other hand has indulged in circular reasoning also. Harris believes in reasoning, the empirical method, science and evidence and such like. But how, you ask, has he been reasoning in a circle? Suppose you were to ask Harris what justified his belief, his “faith” in reasoning, science, the empirical method etc. “Well”, he’d say, “It’s like this…” And he would wax lyrical on the virtues of reason, science, and the empirical method, and the laws of logic, deduction, induction inference, etc. But after a while it will suddenly strike you* that he is using his “reason” to justify… what? His reason!
The non-Christian has God-denying presuppositions which he first assumes, and then uses to interpret the facts so as to prove that his denial of God is correct.
Rev. Archbald -Faith in Focus /NZ Reformed Church August 96 / Copyright 1996
It is in fact unavoidable, no matter what worldview one accepts; foundational to that worldview will be presuppositions that are unproven, taken for granted, assumed as givens. So we frankly admit our bias from the outset, and we expect the same of Harris but he is not so forthcoming.
By this time I hope there is some appreciation for the importance of understanding final authorities and what part they play in our knowledge gathering enterprises, how they affect our interpretation of that knowledge. A wise sage once said, “the heart has reasons, that reason cannot know”. In a similar way “What we believe is determined by why we believe it” The study of how we gain knowledge is called epistemology.
It is evident from our foray into these two widely divergent worldviews that it’s pointless to start assessment as to the validity of either without reference to what they each refer to as their final authority, and without looking at the integrity of the knowledge gathering exercise.
Suppose you and I were conversing, I said, “ See that boy there bouncing a ball? Put down on paper a line representing the absolutely true movement of the ball”.
Now you being a thoughtful person said “Well that isn’t so easy- if I just repeatedly draw a short line up and down on the same place on the paper relative to the length and scope of the balls’ movement it wouldn’t be accurate.”
“Why not?” I said. “The fact is”, you respond, “we are, all three of us on a moving bus therefore I must account for that movement as well” “Great”, I said, “go ahead”. Satisfied, you draw a line expressing a wave movement across the page. The repeated vertical movement expressing the bounce, and the movement across the page showing the forward movement of the bus, which ends up looking something like the line on a heart monitor. And, it’s true- this is a better interpretation of that reality.
We’re both looking at this line when suddenly we both look at each other at the same time and laugh. “Whoa…there”
We both recognize at once there are more movements to be accounted for. Each one on a different scale. The bus has just entered the belly of the Inter-Island Ferry and is rocking gently from side to side. The ship is in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand. New Zealand is from the perspective of a stationary satellite whizzing past at… how many thousands of kilometres per hour? But what is the speed and direction of Earth in relation to its orbit round the Sun…? And we could go on and on… But I won’t… suffice it to say that the most accurate objective account for reality has to come from a point beyond that reality. (Incidentally the first representation- that of a straight line back and forth on the same line is an absolutely true representation relative to the circumstances, just as a wavy line would be true from the perspective of a person standing on a footpath watching a ball bounced in a moving bus. Either perspective is true from a relative position- but neither are true in an ultimate or final sense.)
In this we see that Harris is justified in claiming reason to be on his side when he speaks of the validity of the scientific method so long as his claims are relating to the natural realm. But when the bias and unjustified assumptions of his worldview are taken into consideration, his logic and reason as to facts which are beyond the scope of the empirical method disapear back into the “black hole” of chance from where they originated. From this we understand the manipulation of reason and logic enables false views to gain respectability so long as the prior assumptions remain unquestioned. In watching the ball bouncing Harris has assumed that from his vantage point (that of emperical reasoning and the scientific method) he can thereby speak of an ultimate reality. Clearly he cannot. For Harris “reason and the laws of logic” are his final authority but he cannot offer any transcendent ultimate cause as to why they should be accepted on his basis, he cannot offer a reasonable account of these metaphysical realities.
In fact the only possible position from which it is logical to speak of an objective absolute is if you are absolutely and completely outside of that reality. (We recognize God- as the ultimate personality- to be in this “pole” position.)
The perennial problem of philosophy is- how do we get outside of ourselves to get a purely objective view? As we admit- wherever we go we take our baggage with us. The scientific method is undoubtedly successful when it is used within the legitimate scope of its magisterium or sphere, but the moment it is used to justify metaphysical claims- realities outside the physical realm- it runs into problems. And one cannot, as Stephen Jay Gould, endorses- completely separate the two if you want a more unifying concept of reality. If one is going to make statements beyond the physical realm, involving such concepts as purpose, intentionality, intelligibility, meaning and value- then one cannot legitimately invoke the imperical method as being even remotely adequate.
As Albert Einstein said:
'New frameworks are like climbing a mountain - the larger view encompasses rather than rejects the more restricted view.'
The atheist can, at best, only offer a limited view of reality, and even that limited view from within his framework is not adequately justified from within his own terms. In a word he is pretending to show an exhaustive panorama of the scene from the base of the mountain!
Is there any hope then, of objectivity?
Yes there is, we can indeed place ourselves in the position of the absolute (in a finite sort of way) and that is by thinking the thoughts of the Absolute, (not in an original sense) but as it were thinking these thoughts after Him. As theists, (and here I do not elucidate further but there is only one form that I subscribe to) we believe in the ultimate personal reality of God from whom and through whom and for whom all created reality exists. And, just by a cosmic stroke of good luck ;-) he has given us the blueprint for reality by giving us his thoughts on paper.
I had asked that Harris (and those like him) step into the shoes of the theist in order to understand our justification for assuming the ultimate authority of our God and thereby offering a good reason for the use of circular reasoning in this instance.
Now we step into Harris’s shoes and in so doing, seek to demonstrate why circular reasoning in his case is disastrous. Also, by following the basis from which he reasons, provide a way of seeing that upon his epistemology he has no true basis from which to reason about anything let alone the existence of God.
In his repeated challenges to theists to bring forth solid evidence, empirical substantiation, and rational reasons- we start by asking questions about his epistemology. We ask upon what basis does he trust in empiricism and rationalism? In order to set the background to this discussion we look at what Harris has assumed prior to his judgement of theism.
In his worldview he treats facts as “brute facts” which are according to Wikipedia: "a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable". (The more common but less technical definition of brute fact)
They are by definition irreducible, but not only so, no origin of facts is given apart from a nebulous idea that they are just there in and against a background of pure possibility, or pure chance. In fact one of the over-arching postulates of this worldview is that all of reality is summed up in this equation:
Time + Matter + Chance =Reality
By presuming all facts as out there floating around unrelated, he has, by prior definition, assumed that it is an irrational universe- which then, by necessity must be given or made rational by the categorization of science. Mankind, through the scientific enterprise, usurping the traditional role of God as the all conditioning, ordering potentate has become, as it were, God himself, putting the puzzle together in an original sense. The order he sees is a consequence of his ordering mind, not order in and of itself. (Thank you Immanual Kant!)
Imagine all the “brute facts” of the universe of which mankind is one as well. Because they happened randomly they are unrelated. Mankind, the master logician (in Harris's view) sees reality as an endless number of jigsaw pieces which he begins to put together, and lo! He does so with singular success. Notice he has faith that they are parts of a puzzle which he expects, assumes, (has "faith") that they will come together in orderly fashion, But he succeeds at the expense of his prior commitment to chance, and this would be patently obvious if he was consistent and honest in his approach.
If indeed it is a random, chance universe, then it would be like an infinite number of jumbled jigsaw pieces- each individual piece (representing a fact) coming from an infinite number of different jigsaw puzzles each with its own unique shape- impossible to find coherence in because it is (by human decree) an incoherent puzzle. This raises the issue of the intelligibility inherent in the Universe.
Dogmatic atheists ignore this point, whereas consistent and more reasonable atheist scientists are constantly and (from their perspective) justifiably amazed at the co-incidence.
An example of this is found in Einstein who said:
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
What defines a real jigsaw puzzle is the fact that they are made from an original whole or unitary piece (from one mind) and cut up into little pieces which must of necessity fit back together, because they correspond perfectly with one another. The resounding success of the scientific method makes it impossible to cling tenaciously to a random universe and perversely find that things do indeed fit.
In the first few pages of his book Sam Harris speaking of the (apparent) inconsistency between faith and reason says:
A person can be a God-fearing Christian on Sunday and a working scientist come Monday morning, without ever having to account for the partition that seems to have erected itself in his head while he slept. He can, as it were, have his reason and eat it too.
We are of the view then that a God-scoffing scientist needs to go home and eat some humble pie. In his view of reality he partitions the universe off as irrational at the same time as he (as a part of that irrational system) accepts himself as a rational being and then proceeds to prove its rationality without ever accounting for why it does indeed prove to be so. He has had his reason and eaten it too (twice)!
We have been looking at two worldviews, theism and what is commonly called atheism. It may not have gone unnoticed that the term anti-theist is used more often than not. It is in consideration of this term to which we now turn.
As spoken of earlier “what we believe is determined by why we believe it.” At first glance this may appear a somewhat audacious statement. Most, as exemplified by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, prefer to think that what we believe is determined by the facts and which way the evidence points. What is ignored or downplayed are the choices people make as to where they get their evidence. In other words the choices they make as to which direction they turn and how they gauge and prioritise the value in the data gathering exercise plays a large part in determining what their reason will conclude at the end of the data gathering.
Suppose, as has happened recently, a man was found dead and investigations showed he was poisoned. The experienced investigator knows that most murders involving poison are attributed to women, and arguably by jilted or jealous women. She must therefore guard against her bias in concluding that therefore it must be a woman. (Just as we must guard against the assumption that the investigator would be a man!) The direction of her enquiries therefore will be determined by how strongly she determines the likelihood of it being a woman and other factors. In this case the accused was of the same ethnic origin and the poison involved was virtually unknown to the country in which the murder took place, but was known in the country of common origin. So the accused was shown to have the means, the motive and the opportunity.
As an historian of Science who also contributed to the philosophy of Science, Thomas Kuhn has torn the mask off the idea of total neutrality.
“Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full "objectivity" - we must account for subjective perspectives as well”
Thomas Kuhn- Wikipedia
Rightly then it is clear the subjective element of anyones observations must be allowed for in consideration of any scientific enterprise (or, for that matter any endeavour related to truth or reality such as philosophy and faith). As Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has said:
It would be excessively naive to think that contemporary science is religiously
and theologically neutral, standing serenely above this battle and wholly
irrelevant to it.
Consequently the objective truth of the work is declared a success or failure in just so far as the work has succeeded in allowing for this in-built bias.
The scientist, the philosopher and the man of faith are all searching for truth but as the popular song has it:
"I am a liar with a thirst for truth" and “ the heart of the matter is theHopefully by this time the reader is confident that this post is not about anti-science or about the so-called clash between faith and reason (science) but rather about the virtue of good science and good reason.
matter of the heart”.
At this point we turn our attention to the scientist, the philosopher and the man of faith who all, in their individual endeavours, are searching for truth and ask of them- do they have an axe to grind? As individuals they may all have prejudices and biases in opposite directions or they may have some prejudices in common. But for the purpose of our enquiry, what possible prejudice could we all have in common? What bias exists that would be common to all mankind? It is widely accepted that internal bias exists but that is still a far cry from speaking of a universal bias. Herein lies a difficulty, how do you speak of a universal bias if, on the basis of its universality, no-one is excepted from it? How then can any individual prove it- if everyone is subject to it? How could anyone possibly be even aware of it, much less demonstrate it to another?
It is akin to the idea that every individual is visualizing reality with eyes that distort things in a totally identical manner and degree, making things, for example, look taller than reality. It does no good to use a standardized tape measure because as they hold it to an object- it too is distorted to the same degree. Short sighted and longsighted wear corrective lenses but because the distortion mentioned above is by its universality, indetectable, their sight is only enhanced in the direction of clarity, so they see things more clearly but nonetheless distorted. It may even happen that those who claim to see clearer take it upon themselves to point out the defects of others while they themselves are still subject to the universal distortion. So Thomas Kuhn is, rightly clear in his mind that subjective bias exists in science, and may even demonstrate that bias- as it happens when two scientists observing the same facts using the same criteria come out with different conclusions. But Thomas Kuhn cannot demonstrate a bias to which he also as an individual is subject to, being one of the “universal” set to which this distortion is appliccable. (unless he accepts this from an ultimate authority outside of the human condition).
"This life's dim windows of the soul
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole
And leads you to believe a lie
When you see with, not through, the eye."
-
-- William Blake
Blake understood that, human nature being what it is now, with this unshakeable internal bias, sees nothing as it really is if he accepts everything at face value without perceiving the problem in his own perception.
In order then to account for the internal bias, which is well documented, the preconceptions of differing worldviews must be addressed. If anyone (like Harris) immediately and without hesitation dismisses as preposterous (or even childish) the idea of God, is it not a demonstration of that bias at work? If the idea of moral depravity as spoken of in the Bible is true(such that we are able and motivated to distort reality to our own advantage) wouldn’t the atheistic attitude and preconceptions exemplify this universal trait? Havn’t we also, even as believers, been aware of a natural squeamishnes about speaking frankly about God or religion to unbelievers, even to the point where in the sanctity of our own minds we prefer not to think too much about it? Is this not also a sign of a universal negativity towards God? What did Adam and Eve do after they decided to interpret all of reality on their own terms?
They attempted to hide themselves.
What this clearly entails then is the need to be aware of the moral state of the person gathering the information. Science then as a fact gathering exercise is not a morally neutral endeavour at all. If the scientist gathers and interprets the facts from the view that mankind is the ultimate mind, (Mankind being the measure of all things), that all of reality will conform to his thinking, then he will, in fact he must- conceive of the world as random and arbitrary in order to exclude God; on the other hand the theistic scientist in his gathering of the facts must, to be true and consistent to his worldview, relate every fact as it falls out of the hand of God.
If, as we propose, mankind in general has an anti-God bias, this is made manifest by his knowledge gathering habits. This bias is demonstrated by his refusal to go in a certain direction for fear that his inner motives will be discovered, and therefore his heart exposed. He knows instinctively that any valid proof of God will immediately and irrevocably affect his claim to autonomy, his claim to interpret reality on his own terms. It will, as he is only too aware deep down, influence him in all of his choices- not the least his moral ones. It is therefore not, as he claims, the lack of evidence to justify the existence of God, but his suppression of the truth by which he attempts to deny it. He has a distinct motive for doing so. And he does this by deliberate mismanagement of what is clearly available to epistemologically aware people. Mankind is self-deceived.
In summary then as one wit once said:
The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
While this is true in general, I might add that some thieves do find a policeman- a bent one. A policeman that serves their own agenda and purpose, a "domesticated" and therefore subservient one.
Let’s look at the agnostic for a moment. The agnostic claims that even if God were true there could be no way of knowing this. Rather than claiming (like the atheist) the knowledge that there is no God, he claims to know that we cannot know God even if he does exist. How does he know this? It is clear from both claims that they are making absolute statements. Something that mankind cannot make unless he admits/pretends total knowledge. He has absolutized himself in making these claims. In short he is playing God in his dreams.
One other point regarding the agnostic position as it relates to bias. While he claims there can be no certainty of knowing if God exists, how does he live? He (in principle) lives totally and consistently as if God does not exist and that is, to him, the final reality to which he pays homage. While claiming to be neutral as to the existence of God he betrays his neutrality in practice by living precisely as if there were no God.
It may appear then that things have reached a logical impasse but is that really the case?
Are we really not in a position to speak of objective truth? Are we truly subject to an all-pervasive bias, which has warped our every attempt to arrive at a proper perspective? How would anyone know this?
Possibly the only way to confirm a universal prejudice would be if we had a word from outside our space-time continuum, and from outside the human condition.
It is our contention that just such a word exists and that it does indeed speak of a universal bias, in accordance with our previous references to human subjectivity. When taken as an ultimate authority this word not only offers a cogent and coherent basis for understanding reality but it gives us the only basis for a world-view that does not eventually undermine coherence and rationality itself. Without assuming in some way this authoritative view, ultimately nothing can be made sense of at all.
It is the Word of God and it speaks of “fallen” humanity.
Fallen in the sense that originally man knew, and was in touch with reality objectively in as far as he knew and accepted the authority of God as the ultimate and final reference point in relation to any fact. Mankind “fell” when, on bad advice, he first acted and interpreted any fact from the perspective of himself as the final and ultimate authority. And this is the definitive and complete problem of mankind. This is the source of the internal bias. Those that are familiar with the Hebrew Bible will understand that this alludes to the scene played out in the “Garden of Eden” where human “beginnings” are explicated.
Now the atheist, who from his standpoint, does not even accord God with existence- will of course not agree with this view of mankind, how then do we proceed?
The problem of bias has been the subject of much research and is a commonly recognized human trait. In their book “The Dawkins Delusion”, Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt McGrath come to grips with Richard Dawkins' dogmatic assertion of Atheism:
Dawkins identifies ‘wish fulfilment’ as a global feature of religion. Now, there is a grain of truth in his analysis. The way human beings perceive the world is indeed colored by our agendas and expectations. ‘Cognitive bias’ is indeed a fundamental characteristic of human psychology’ Yet in general this unconscious
bias is manifested not so much in our believing what we would like to be true as in maintaining the status quo of our beliefs. The driving force is not wishful thinking but conservative thinking- that is, thinking that conserves an existing worldview. For example, many people have a positive view of themselves, a sense that the universe is benevolent and that other people like them. They maintain this view by attending to data that fits this view and minimizing that which does not. Others (such as depressed or traumatized people) see themselves as worthless, view the universes as malevolent and think others are out to get them. Once more, they discount or minimize the significance of any data that does not fit in with this view. We thus have a built in resistance to change our position- a resistance that is underpinned by cognitive biases that predispose us to fail to notice or to discount data that are inconsistent with our view. On the whole we do this because it is efficient- it takes effort and is upsetting to have to change one’s mind- even if the change is in a positive direction. The God Delusion is a wonderful case study of exactly this kind of unconscious bias. Without full awareness that he is doing so, Dawkins foregrounds evidence that fits his own views and discounts or distorts evidence that does not.
The reformer Martin Luther also alluded to this inertial resistance to change:
"Learn from me how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the
example of all the world, and which through long habit have become a second
nature to us."
In a report of 26 of the most common forms of cognitive bias this comment was posted at the bottom:
Oh and, by the way, you’ll never be able to truly gauge any of the biases youNotice this statement makes an ultimate claim: you’ll never be able … But is this not itself a bias against certainty?
might be operating under since it’s not possible to accurately observe a system
you’re part of. Now, get out there and delude yourself!
Correctly it acknowledges the impossibility of: accurately observ(ing) a system you’re part of. But the statement fails- when it fails to qualify itself. To be truly honest the qualifier should be:… you’ll never be able to truly gauge any of the biases you might be operating under since it’s not possible to accurately observe a system you’re part of …unless there is someone outside of that system who can speak to you authoritively and with perspicuity.
If the original statement was taken seriously it would, in practical terms, mean one should not go to the doctor! (Is he not a part of the biological system?) Even more tellingly if this were taken seriously it would utterly destroy the basis for any communication whatsoever! (Isn’t my speaking part of a system of language of which your hearing is another!) This whole idea of relativism needs to be qualified or all rationality is destroyed. All of these things would indeed be rendered senseless if it wasn’t for an ultimate objective reality of which theists speak, and by reason of which, consciously or not these people have to smuggle in to their reasoning in order to keep a semblance of reason.
It is the claim of consistent theism that unless somehow God was assumed in every world-view even if he is smuggled in inadvertently, eventually every rational argument eventually falls to the ground. By an indirect argument the proof of God’s existence is assured. How? As has been hinted at, if every other argument that supposedly shows the non-existence of God can be seen to destroy itself by following through its logical implications- it then proves by default that God exists. In other words if, in the course of his arguments against the existence of God the antitheist destroys (for instance) rationality, then immediately it follows that the argument has destroyed its own basis from which it argues. It falls to the ground like dust.
It is obviously beyond the scope of this present work to follow through on every argument but we may work partly through some of the arguments.
In this example let’s look at the antitheist claim to a “chance” universe and its implications. Antitheists claim “chance” as the origin of all reality, and therefore the idea of God has to “fit” into this realm, alongside every other possibility with equal weight -supposedly an equal opportunity system! Therefore this includes the possibility of there being no God. Whereas consistent theists are already at odds with that assumption. They hold that “chance” is subservient to God, that God alone is the source and ground of all possibility. After all if God is to be God at all, then he must be God of All! Including chance or possibility. C. S. Lewis rightly pointed out the hubris of the thinking here, God is in the dock and mankind, as his Judge, has put him there and he is given an “equal” hearing alongside his arch enemy “no-god”!
CreedSteve Turners poem “Creed” is a cogent demonstration of this inconsistent thinking.
by Steve Turner
This is the creed I have written on behalf of
all us.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of
hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before,
during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe
that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that
taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better
despite
evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can
prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like
Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we
think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically
the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love
and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven,
hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is
not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in
Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is
normal.
What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We
believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans
should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to
follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior
that lets him down.
This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of
conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each
man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt
accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We
believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no
absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering
of individual thought.
"Chance" a post-script
If chance be the Father of
all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites
go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping
his maker.
The inference is clear; if chance is the author of all, and we therefore are children of chance, then all the mayhem that follows is but the fulfilment of its promise- it is merely the natural conclusion to that thinking. It must necessarily follow
· There can be no basis for self-awareness, selfconsciousness
· There can be no objective basis for morality.
· No sense of beauty
· If chance is at bottom of all, then there is no basis for rationality
· No basis for the intelligibility of the universe
· No basis for natural law which assumes the uniformity and continuity of nature
· No basis for the use of statistics, which are based on the general uniformity of the universe.
· No basis for language
· No basis for mathematics
· No basis for embedded informational language such as DNA
· Finally, mankind as the arbiter of all reality is doing no less than worshiping himself, in making chance the Ultimate reality.
If he were fully consistent, he would do no science, study no history, engage in no woodwork - in fact, he would be left with nothing to say about anything.
The non-Christian has God-denying presuppositions, which he first assumes, and then uses to interpret the facts so as to prove that his denial of God is correct. But then, all of the points above, (contrary to his worldview, if there were any sense of consistency) he does not deny. How then does that worldview manage to acknowledge these realities while at the same time denying any logical basis for them in the assumption of Chance and randomness as supreme? Only by blindly denying them as inconsistent with those assumptions.
The self-deceived, so-called autonomous human cannot help but acknowledge the reality of God deep down because it is stamped upon his humanity. “In his heart of hearts” he is dimly aware of the reality of God. Yet in his rebellion, he, being at war with the same that grants him life, self-consciousness and every good thing that is necessary for life and fulfilment, will set up himself as the arbiter of all reality and deny the giver of it all. But he cannot do so without exposing the inconsistency of his epistemology.
This behaviour is analogous to extreme autism, except the analogy doesn’t go deep enough. The deeply autistic person is dependent totally on the caregiver for sustenance, daily- minute by minute care, love and attention but the person is totally ignorant of anything outside his own sphere of reality never once even acknowledging any other reality other that the self of his own world. A sense of gratitude is not only absent, but not even a glimpse of recognition is forthcoming. In taking whatever the “caregiver” graciously hands him he never once catches his eye. When he looks at his caregiver he sees straight through, without so much as a glimmer of recognition. Only the “autistic” in this case is personally responsible for his own condition.
Will you take the time to think this through?
