James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 15:02 (5441 days ago) @ David Turell

David Turell, quoting Bruce David: "Imagine that you have grown up into a smug atheist, secure in your beliefs, looking down your nose with benign condescension on those benighted souls who, being either ignorant, stupid, insane, or (dare I say it) wicked, persist in believing in that ancient superstition, the existence of a Creator. Now imagine that suddenly, without warning, science itself has begun to turn on you [...] all this evidence for the existence of a Creator will not just be a threat to your beliefs, it will be a threat to what you imagine is the very core of your being." [The ellipsis contains evidence for the existence of a Creator.] - Let me first state the obvious: if you substitute "smug theist" for "smug atheist", and "non-existence" for "existence", the pattern will be equally apt. Any evidence that runs contrary to one's beliefs will be seen as a threat, and there are certainly just as many smug theists as there are smug atheists. - Bruce David says that "there are two kinds of people in the world: those whose highest value is truth, and those for whom being right is more important than anything else." He admits, however, that this is a vast oversimplification, and I would say that it is so oversimplified as to be practically worthless ... though providing good material for discussion. As I see it, people with solid convictions, whether theistic or atheistic, are bound to believe that they "know the obvious truth of things" and will therefore dismiss contrary evidence as unworthy of consideration. Bruce David's thesis implies self-deception or even dishonesty on the part of his second category (by which he means atheists), but this is like saying that anyone who does not share his beliefs is too proud to admit that they are wrong. I would call that smugness. - You ask whether agnostics are anywhere in this comment. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would say that being right scarcely enters into the equation. How can you pretend, let alone think you are right when you admit you don't know? But there is unquestionably a different danger which may apply subconsciously to all of us. We get used to our beliefs or non-beliefs. This can easily be rationalized, since there is ample material to back beliefs and non-beliefs of all kinds. I don't think it is a matter of "being right", so much as staying within our comfort zone, particularly as we get older. The idea of turning to God may demand a complete change of lifestyle, and conversely abandoning one's faith may mean losing an essential means of support. That is one reason why the case of Antony Flew is so notable and so admirable. But whether his conversion from atheism to deism represents the "truth" or not is another matter.