Chapter One
Street Epistemology
Over the next several posts, I intend to deliver a critical
response to the claims made in the new book, “A Manual for Creating Atheists.”
I will begin with the first chapter on Street Epistemology and weave my way
through all nine chapters. Since one of the central principles of the book is
that Christian faith is antithetical to critical thinking, I will undoubtedly
be subjecting the claims of this project to some critical examination of my
own. My central proposition is that only Christian theism as a worldview can
provide the necessary preconditions to make this atheistic project possible
from the start. In other words, the only reason that such a project on atheism could
possibly exist is because the state of affairs are what Christian theism says
they are. Before the atheist can even get started on their own quest to subject
the believer to a fusillade of critical questions, the believer should turn the
tables on them. My aim is to not only refute the claims made in this book, but
also to help you interact with the scenarios in kind of a role-play
methodology, if you will. The game that the atheist is taught to play in the
book presupposes that which atheism itself cannot possibly justify, namely, knowledge
apart from God. Since we know the atheist will be asking leading questions, we
will challenge the basis for the presupposition behind the question before we
answer it. In other words, there is a presupposition that serves as the basis
for a leading question. And every one of those presuppositions rests upon some
ground. We answer a question with a question in an attempt to identify and then
annihilate that ground. We engage in the tactic of meta-questioning. We
challenge the very basis of the question to begin with and the knowledge it
presupposes.
When Peter told us to be ready to give an answer to anyone
that asked us to give an account for the hope that is in us, he was not
implying that we had to prove to the unbeliever, through rational argumentation,
that the reason for the hope that is in us must meet the demands of unbelieving
standards. We have no such obligation. The atheist may demand it but Scripture
does not! Our command is to provide the atheist with a biblically faithful
answer, not one that comports with the unbelieving demands of godless criteria.
In addition, we must also keep in mind, as my pastor would say, that we are to
avoid casting our perils before the swine. This is a very ominous command and
one that Christians would do well to integrate in their evangelism.
The Christian must take the Street Epistemologist to the
epistemological woodshed, and remind him that justification remains the central
difference between us rather than the lack of sound argumentation or evidences.
You see, the atheist demands justification for every belief. The presupposition
is that every belief is ‘justifiable.’ However, what happens when we subject
the idea of justifiability to the process of critical thinking? We have to ask
what kind of statement is the statement that “justifiability is a necessary
component for rational belief.” And we conclude that such a statement is a
belief. Moreover, since such a statement is a belief, it seems right, for the
sake of consistency, that it also must come under the ‘justifiability’
requirements the same as any other belief. However, if the atheist says that
justifiability is self-justifying, we must then ask how they offer
justification for the belief that some beliefs are self-justifying. You see, a
self-justifying belief does not require evidences or sound argumentation. Self-justifying
beliefs are uncontroversial and obvious to human thought. An example is the
belief in other minds. I realize that for many Christians, this line of
reasoning may sound like a foreign language, but it really isn’t as difficult
as it seems. It is only difficult because you may not be used to some of the
language or the pattern of thought that is being employed. I encourage you to
stick with it and in time it will become second nature.
Human beings form beliefs on the basis of other beliefs.
However, sooner or later, we run out of beliefs that justify our other beliefs.
I view it like the chain that runs from the ship to the anchor. There has to be
an end somewhere along this chain of beliefs. Otherwise, we could never have
made our way to even the idea of belief. The concept of belief simply would not
exist. In case you are thinking about the consequences of such a state of
affairs, you should be thinking that in such a scenario meaning would be
impossible. That is the point. Along this chain of beliefs, we eventually get
to the anchor. You see, a worldview is a system of beliefs that are eventually
anchored to something or nothing at all. The anchor is analogous to
self-justifying beliefs. These beliefs are the end of the chain. They do not
rely on other beliefs for justification.
“A Manual for Creating Atheists (MCA hereafter)
offers practical solutions to the problems of faith and religion through the
creation of Street Epistemologists – legions of people who view interactions
with the faithful as clinical interventions designed to disabuse them of their
faith.” (Ibid. Loc. 216, KE) The arrogance of intellectual autonomy is apparent
at the outset of the project. From the beginning, it is difficult to take the
writer seriously. The first chapter seems more like an encouraging sermon, a
pep-rally if you will with Boghossian as the cheerleader, to fellow atheists,
attempting to convince them they really do have the upper hand.
Chapter one of MCA begins with a discussion about the kind
of atheist and the method the author seeks to create. He calls this kind
of atheist a Street Epistemologist. It is supposed to be a direct, blunt,
straight-talking atheist that can bring a sharp, articulate tone to the
conversation with the faithful who are really sick and in need of
clinical intervention. There is a humanistic tone of compassion emanating from
the rank arrogance of it all. The language really would be humorous if it wasn’t
so blasphemous.
Boghossian, the author, tells us “Street Epistemology
harkens back to the values of the ancient philosophers – individuals who were
tough-minded, plain-speaking, known for self-defense, committed to truth,
unyielding in the face of danger, fearless in calling out falsehoods,
contradictions, inconsistencies, and nonsense.” (MCA, 187) These are
characteristics that are very admirable indeed. I hold them in high esteem
along with the author. However, the challenge we will put to the atheist
repeatedly will be to account for such values in a universe of pure chance,
where there is no rational or scientific justification for connecting these
particulars with the general. There is no basis for induction in a chance
universe. In a world of chance, tough-minded is nothing more than one way to behave
no different from weak-minded. To move from us to ought is beyond the reach of justification.
The “Street Epistemologist” is going to have to show how reason, or science or
experience can provide any rational ground for why some behaviors are admirable
and worthy of honor while others ought to be avoided.
The idea of the Street Epistemologist is a mixture of an
intellectual MMA tough-guy who at the same time, after he bashes your faith to smithereens,
opens his satchel and applies the ointment of reason, science, and evidence to
make it all better. This tough guy atheist operates with a moral code, a set of
values from within. So we begin our journey with the god-hating blasphemer, Peter
Boghossian, to see exactly how tough and how smart he really is.
Mr. Boghossian, can you please provide justification for your
view that all beliefs ought to be justifiable?
 |
| Atheist Street Epistemologist |
.jpg) |
| Faithful Christian |
No comments:
Post a Comment