Short Rant On Relativism In Standards of Proof
A recurring argument I'm seeing fairly often from theists lately is that everyone can just agree to disagree, because "you have your standards of proof and I have mine." Ostensibly, what this argument attempts to accomplish is to take all the strength out of what are widely considered the standards of proof----or truth measurement---in science. In doing so, the theist attempts to dodge the responsibility of reconciling his position with scientific standards of truth. Through this relativistic argument, his "science-based" opponent is using one method of measuring truth, while he is simply using another. And, hey, if that's the case, we're just arguing over inches versus centimeters, right? I'm right by my standards, and you're right by your standards, so everyone is happy.
Well, not really.
This argument ultimately undercuts itself. Claiming to have your own standards of proof is not helpful, because if we adopt relativism in our standards of proof, then ultimately everyone is right, relatively speaking. But also, everyone is wrong, relatively speaking. So playing the relativism card in an attempt to shoot down scientific proof is to turn the gun right around and shoot yourself in the face. It only leaves us with a bunch of meaninglessness.
Granted, there are a few questions where we can afford to be more or less relativistic, such as non-factual questions (e.g. Is pre-marital sex morally wrong?). But when we're talking about factual issues, such as whether or not the room in which we're sitting has a window, we're playing a completely different ballgame. If Mr. Smith says that the room does have a window, and if Mr. Jones says the room does NOT have a window, then one of the two is wrong. We can't simply say, "Well, Mr. Smith has his standards of proof and Mr. Jones has his own standards of proof, and so let's just live and let live, okay?" No. Unfortunately, Mr. Jones is wrong, no matter what his standards of truth are, and we are doing him a disservice by entertaining his so-called proof standards.
The God question is not special.
We're not talking about a non-factual question when we ask whether or not there is a God out there. It's not like asking whether 80s music is better than 90s music. It's like asking whether a room does, in fact, have a window. There is a definite right answer and a definite wrong answer, even if we don't immediately know which answer is the correct one. But we're not going to get anywhere if we entertain this idea that anyone can employ whatever "standards of proof" or "standards of truth measurement" they wish.
The scientific standards of proof are what they are because they have demonstrated themselves to work. More importantly, they have demonstrated themselves to work in regard to ALL questions, not just one specific question. And if you choose to discard the scientific standards of proof in exchange for your OWN standards of proof on the grounds that proof standards can be relative, then you are necessarily discarding ALL proof standards, which leaves us with nothing.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
- Archeopteryx's blog
- Login to post comments
Have you thought about
Have you thought about adapting this to the NOMA thread?
I think it would be a fantastic addition.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Hm, I guess I hadn't
Hm, I guess I hadn't considered that it might apply to NOMA. It does seem to have a similar sort of dishonest "let's all just be friends" thing to it, as NOMA does. I'll be honest, though, I haven't seen the NOMA thread on this site (or if I have, I don't remember). I'll maybe Google it this week.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Quote:Granted, there are a
I maintain that science will bear out the truth that morality is a fact-based scientific question. I'm not suggesting that there are "absolute morals," but that we can scientifically examine the validity of moral claims based on their objective outcomes. We can ask the question this way: To what end is abstaining from sex before marriage a good thing?
At this point, we are forced to create a real, verifiable statement of cause and effect. IF we abstain from sex before marriage, THEN, on balance, we will (FILL IN THE BLANK).
Once that statement is made, we can examine it for objective truth. Will we be more satisfied with our marriage? Fine, we can check that against the numbers. Will we have less VD? We can check that, too. Will we be more likely to remain faithful? etc, etc, etc.
A lot of people don't get that science allows wiggle room in morality while still maintaining the ability to examine it scientifically. That is, we can reach the objective conclusion that it probably doesn't matter much whether you decide to remain celibate before marriage, but that too is a scientifically testable claim.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It's a good point, Hamby;
It's a good point, Hamby; and I admit I was hesitant to use a moral question as an example of a non-factual question.
Reading over this again, I think I need to rewrite it anway, because I think I could make the point more clear. As it stands, it's kind of rambly, and I'm afraid my main point is too easily confused with a mere defense of scientific proof. I'll remove the moral question in the revision. Thanks to everyone who glanced it over.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
nail on the head
Yes!! The scientific method is a standard of rightness for ALL questions, I completely agree. A point that so many religious types disregard is that it's the only standard of rightness with any track record to speak of. Questions of good and bad are matters of taste. Questions of right and wrong have definite answers.