It's common to hear that non-believers are taking too much of a risk in not believing, so they should adopt the safer course of believing "just in case." What's not so common is the argument that non-believers are applying an inconsistent standard in their measurement of risks -- that they adopt other decisions based on much weaker information than they are willing to accept for belief. Is this a valid argument?
Maximo Hudson writes:
Non-Believers are powerfully prejudiced towards assumptions related to spirituality. For such assumptions they demand a 100% verification of the matter in order for it not to classified as some sort of naive wishful-thinking.
What we are talking about here is an example of risk assessment and management for which a Non-Believer sets an extremely cumbersome standard. Yet when it comes to assumptions in their own daily lives not related to spirituality, their standards are not nearly so high.
Examples of such common assumptions include starting up an engine without first checking the oil, crossing over an overpass without first ascertaining its structual integrety and making plans for a future date.
[original post]
One clear problem with this argument is that the analogy is so poor. On the one hand, we have the act of taking a risk (like crossing a bridge) based on a lack of personal certainty (we didn't inspect it ourselves). On the other hand, we have an act that isn't defined as a risk (some sort of belief in something spiritual) that we aren't taking based on reasons other than a lack of personal certainty (reasons vary, from a lack of evidence to support the claims to strong evidence against them).
Another problem is that belief isn't an act. My beliefs aren't acts that are performed based upon the assessment of risks or benefits. My beliefs are apportioned to the relative evidence and support that they have -- I believe that my chair exists and fairies don't because of the evidence I have, not because of any risk assessment or risk management.
A third problem is that a starting premise is simply false: I've yet to meet any non-believer who says "I need 100% personal verification of your claim or I'll call it naive wishful thinking." Perhaps there are some who adopt such an attitude, but it's certainly not true of all or even most so it's illegitimate to ascribe it to all.
Far more common is the approach which I've already described: "I'm not going to accept your claims as true without sufficient evidence and I might even declare them to be false if I find sufficient evidence against them." That, however, can't be analogized to the sort of risk assessment and management people do in their daily lives, thus destroying the argument entirely.
What other flaws do you find in the above argument? Why do you think that anyone would even bother trying to make an argument so flawed?
No comments:
Post a Comment