His argument this time: philosopher Leo Strauss once argued "that neither religion nor purely secular philosophy can disprove each other." As such,
His conclusion is that since neither system can be be conclusively proven, the choice of either must be based on faith. Others would revise it to be that the choice of either must be based on non-rational reasons, such as tradition and personal predilections including faith.
What a mind-numbingly...mind-numbing argument. First, what's this abstract dichotomy of "religion" and "philosophy" being unable to disprove each other? I have not read Strauss, but this type of vagueness seems like meaningless hand-waving.
Second, Gil once more retreats into the sort of argument I have mentioned before. Instead of "X is true," he argues "I have the right to believe X without justification." This is intellectually lazy and, frankly, intellectually repulsive. Imagine the conversation:
"Why do you believe in Mormonism?"
"Oh, because I think you could still say that it's possible and plausible if you try hard enough."
"But why do you believe it?"
"Oh, because my personal predilections and upbringing lead me to believe in it as long as it hasn't been unquestionably disproven somehow."
"That's an explanation of why you believe in it, not a reason why you would believe in it."
"Er...Yes."
5 comments:
> "That's an explanation of why you believe in it, not a reason why you would believe in it."
What’s the problem with that? As long as the person recognizes his reasons for believing, recognizes that his reasons don’t justify a claim to absolute truth, and so doesn’t bother anyone else about it, what’s wrong with him clinging to beliefs that make his life more comfortable?
I'm saying it's irrational and a faulty argument, not ethically wrong or something. It's not recognizing a reason for believing, it's recognizing an explanation of why one believes. That's pretty different--I can recognize how I came to believe something while recognizing that it's not a reason to continue believing.
Also, if you look in the comment thread, Gil defends his right to criticize as sinners those who don't believe as he does. So, he doesn't exactly end up with "I'll believe what makes me happy, you believe what makes you happy."
> Gil defends his right to criticize as sinners those who don't believe as he does
Now that’s interesting. I wonder how he justifies that.
When running short on time, I go by the rule: If Strauss said it, it's wrong.
When running short on time, Gil goes by the rule: If the truth makes me uncomfortable, it's wrong.
Post a Comment