optimist

A few nights ago I found a op-ed piece titled "How can anyone possibly believe in God?" A week later in the same paper a response op-ed piece appeared in the paper titled "Belief, unbelief can be debilitating if we lack humility." Here are the links to the two pieces -

Atheist Op-Ed
<a href="http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.sartwell03jan03.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlin es" target="_blank">http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.sartwell03jan03.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlin es </a>

Theist Response Op-Ed
<a href="http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.god09jan09.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines" target="_blank">http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.god09jan09.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines</a>

Once you have read those I would like to here your comments on the letter i plan on sending the paper on Monday in response to the theist's op-ed. I doubt the paper will carry on this philosophic debate much longer but... anyway here is my piece-


(My Response)

Late one night—sitting in the dim glow of my computer screen, coffee in hand—I struck upon philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell’s op-ed piece “How can anyone possibly believe in God?” I found it remarkable that a newspaper might take the risk of publishing a point of view so very controversial. While the subjects of politics, abortion, and morality may be controversial, only religion is controversial. However I knew a countering editorial would surely follow a few days later, and it did. Six days passed before philosophy professor Stephen Vicchio’s response appeared.

Vicchio’s article was the second time since the September 11 attacks that the concept of “epistemological humility” has popped up in the media. The first time was in a speech given by former president Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. He defended a mild religious view as opposed to a fundamentalist view when he said, “We are incapable of ever having the whole truth. They [Islamic terrorists] believe they got it. Because we don't believe you can have the whole truth, we think everybody counts and life is a journey." Clinton went on to remark that the dividing line between Islamic and Western culture is the healthy dose of “epistemological uncertainty” we have, and most Islamic cultures lack.

Epistemological certainty entails being completely sure of something, and this is indeed dangerous. Once someone knows moral truth, someone can become a moral monster. When you are sure you possess the truth, you can morally cleared to go to any length in order to defend that truth. When you are sure that God himself has commanded you to kill American “infidels,” then you can do it, and do it with a completely clear conscience. Being sure ennobles us humans to do things we might not normally be able to do.

Had the September 11 terrorists not have been so sure of God’s commands then they might not have taken the drastic measures to carry out God’s commands that we all horrifyingly witnessed early that one September morning. This makes this concept of “epistemological uncertainty as a virtue” sound very appealing. If we can convince the world to be uncertain of their beliefs, then maybe we can avoid religious terror and holy wars in the future. But is this really the answer? To teach our children to believe in God, but not to believe in God too much.

How far does this epistemological uncertainty reach? At night should I say my prayers to Jesus, then to Mohammed, then to Yahweh, then to… Where does the uncertainty stop? Should I pray to every God in history and even make up some more just to be safe? Should I not be to sure that money does not grow on trees and go out to check the tree branches in my front yard for money?

I have just as much reason to believe in the Christian God as I do the Greek Gods, and so why Vicchio wants me to have “epistemological humility” about the Christian God but not the Greek Gods I do not know. Why former president Clinton wants the terrorists to be “epistemological uncertain” about their cause, all the while wageing a surly just war on the Taliban is beyond me as well. In fact, this whole “humility” and “uncertainty” thing is beginning to look a little like the last resort of some scoundrels who have run out of arguments. If you lose an argument you can always just say that humans can never be right and just leave it at that. Can we be sure September 11 was tragic?

Well Clinton and Vicchio are right. Humans can never be totally sure, but we can be sure to a point. I must say I am almost surely right that invisible unicorns do not exist. Not 100%, but almost. I am also just as sure God(s) do not exist. If Vicchio wants me to be uncertain about God’s non-existence then I must be just as uncertain about invisible unicorns non-existence too (and goblins non-existence, and fairies, and aliens...). This, however, would lead me to madness. Every time I go outside I could not be certain that the sunrays will not melt me. Every time I go in my room I could not be certain the walls will not collapse on me.

The way out of course is to say when something has reached the certainty level in which the non-existence of unicorns sits, then I may act just as I would if I where sure they did not exist. The reason terrorists should not kill people is because I am sure killing innocent civilians is wrong, not because the terrorists should be more epistemologically humble. And while I am not 100% certain that September 11 was one of the most tragic and heart wrenching events in human history, I am 99% sure. If someone wants to complain I should be more uncertain about that and of God’s non-existence, I will respond, “It is as certain as it gets for us humans, and that is the best one can ask for.”

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

Those were two interesting pieces that you linked too. I'll have to keep the first one, written by Crispin Sartwell, handy to pull out from time to time. The second, written by Stephen Vicchio, was certainly eloquent. It didn't seem much like a rebuttal to the first (I don't know if it was intended to be), and seemed to lead to the ironic conclusion that, unless you just accept that god and human suffering can somehow coexist logically--without thinking about it beyond that--you'll go mad. I call that conclusion ironic for two reasons: first, in my book at least, those who accept as true things that logically cannot be are those who should really be considered mad; second, someone who calls himself a philosopher is advocating that we don't think too hard about it.

After reading the two, it seemed that no response was really necessary. The first article gave a very convincing argument from the viewpoint of the atheists. The second was poetic, to be sure, but far from convincing of any validity to the existance of god. If left to stand as they are, the two articles clearly chalk up 1 point to the atheists, non to the Christians.

However, your article is quite well-written itself, and I think gets another important angle across. So just consider whether you want to continue to open the can of worms and invite more responses from the other side, or just leave well enough alone.

If you decide to submit your piece, I would simply recommend the following:

- Though you might have purposely imitated Vicchio's opening with your "Late one night—sitting in the dim glow of my computer screen..." intro, I would do away with it. Rhetorically it may shed light on your piece as a rebuttle to Vicchio's, but it might also cast a first impression that you are unable to compose your own intro device.

- Just check for proper spelling and usage of certain words (for example "to sure" should be "too sure"). Nitpicky, but even a few of those can sour an otherwise eloquent and persuasive piece.

Anyhow, it's a good piece of writing; good luck if you decide to submit it!

Toto

Your reply is good, but it seems a bit long for a letter to the editor, unless it is going to be printed as an op-ed essay. Letters usually have to be short and to the point, and if you want it to be published you need to be pithier. I would recommend making it much shorter and punchier. For example, here is how I would rewrite it, on a first pass:

(begging your pardon in advance for tampering with your prose - I just think that this is more likely to be published as a letter.)

BTW - Crispin Sartwell has published other pieces on atheism. He has an interesting<a href="http://www.crispinsartwell.com/" target="_blank">web page</a> with an <a href="http://www.crispinsartwell.com/atheistcorner.htm" target="_blank">atheist corner</a>. He seems to be sort of a post-modern, punk, anarchist.

optimist

I have to leave for the weekend (Drill weekend for the Army Reserves) but I did some quick revisions of my letter. I plan on incorporating more of your, Toto and DarkBronze’s, advice but this is all I had time for so far. It is long, but I thought I might send a short version if they want a letter and a long version if they would publish it as an editorial.

It’s interesting how you give writing advice Toto, I do the same thing. I just rewrite what people give me. It just seems easier for me to do that way. If you or anyone else has any advise, please be honest and brunt. No niceties required. I plan on fixing the grammer (then and than) later but if you see anything please point it out so I
do not miss it.

In the first paragraph some of the "controversial"s are in italics and it is hard to see what I am saying without the italics so I put &lt;i&gt; before and after words in italics.

God, War and Certainty

What could be stranger than to find a philosophy debate in the columns of a newspaper? And yet there it was, philosophy professor Crispin Sartwell’s op-ed piece “How can anyone possibly believe in God?” I found it remarkable that a newspaper might take the risk of publishing a point of view so very &lt;i&gt;controversial&lt;i&gt;. While the subjects of politics, abortion, and morality may be controversial, only religion is &lt;i&gt;controversial&lt;i&gt;. However I knew a countering editorial would surely follow a few days later, and it did. Six days passed before philosophy professor Stephen Vicchio’s “epistemological humility” response appeared.

Vicchio’s article was the second time since the September 11 attacks that the concept of “epistemological humility” has popped up in the media. The first time was in a speech given by former president Bill Clinton at Georgetown University in November. There Clinton defended a mild religious view as opposed to fundamentalism when he said, “We are incapable of ever having the whole truth. They [Islamic terrorists] believe they got it. Because we don't believe you can have the whole truth, we think everybody counts and life is a journey." Clinton went on to remark that the dividing line between Islamic and Western culture is the healthy dose of “epistemological uncertainty” we have, and most Islamic cultures lack.

Epistemological certainty entails being completely sure of something, and indeed this is dangerous. Had the September 11 terrorists not have been so sure of God’s commands then they might not have taken the drastic measures to carry out God’s commands that we all horrifyingly witnessed early that one September morning. But is uncertainty really the answer? To teach our children to believe in God, but not to believe in God too much.

How far does this epistemological uncertainty reach? At night should I say my prayers to Jesus, then to Allah, then to Yahweh, then to… Where does the uncertainty stop? Is murder surely wrong? Should I not be so sure that money does not grow on trees and go out to check the foliage in my front yard for currency?

Of course not, what Clinton and Vicchio are asking us to do is be more skeptical about our certainty only when other people’s interests are on the line. I can believe God is quietly watching me from the sky, and that belief does not hurt anyone or anything; but it is something total different when I believe God wants me to murder my fellow human beings.

I must agree, but this increased uncertainty does not prevent us from believing any thing that would affect others. For example our belief that Bin Laden masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks has led us to conduct a war. That belief affects others. This makes me question why the former president wants the terrorists to be “epistemological uncertain” about their cause, all the while supporting a certainly just war on the Taliban. In fact, it makes this whole “humility” and “uncertainty” thing look a little like the last resort of scoundrels. If you lose an argument you can always just say that humans can never be right and just leave it at that.

Again I agree, but only to some extent. Humans can never be totally sure, but we can be sure to a point. I must say I am almost surely right that invisible unicorns do not exist. Not 100%, but almost. I am also just as sure God(s) do not exist. If Vicchio wants me to be uncertain about God’s non-existence then I must be just as uncertain about invisible unicorns non-existence too (and goblins non-existence, and fairies, and aliens&#8230 ) . This, however, would lead me to madness. Every time I go outside I could not be certain that the sunrays will not melt me. Every time I go in my room I could not be certain the walls will not collapse on me.

The way out of this paranoia is to say when something has reached the certainty level in which the non-existence of unicorns sits, then I may act just as I would if I where sure. The reason terrorists should not kill people is because I am 99% sure killing innocent civilians is wrong, not because the terrorists should be more epistemologically humble. And while I am not 100% about the justness of this war, I am 99% sure. If someone wants to complain I should be more uncertain about the war and of God’s non-existence, I will respond, “It is as certain as it gets for us humans, and that is the best you can ask for.”

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: optimist ]</p>

theophilus

The problem with talk about "epistemological humility (we can't know for sure) is that it is self-referentially incoherent - it defeats itself. If we can't know anything for certain, then we can't know that for certain. If we can know that for certain, then we can know things for certain.
As to your response, it is rather too long to publish. Try editing with a view to eliminating the poetic: "while sitting the the glow of my computer monitor..."

Makai

It sounds good, I'll look for it to be published in The Sun (I assume that's the paper you're talking about). Gl on it

-Makai