The
first part of this essay is a heavily edited excerpt of an
article of the same title by Lee McIntyre published in the New York Times,
Nov. 7, 2015. I have shortened it and removed
a few pejorative comments that reflect, in my mind, the sort of thinking the
author critiques. The purpose of this essay is to explore how
theology copes with skepticism and denialism (an awkwardly constructed word!). One could easily conclude this is a "God of the Gaps" essay, but that is an easy, facile conclusion to a complex matter.
The ideas of opinion and fact sit at the core of this essay. One can maintain any opinion one chooses. Opinion is a
volitional, subjective act that may or may not be based upon reason. For
example, to answer “yes” to the question, “Is 5 larger than 15?” is an act of
opinion, not fact. In a theological context,
we must admit from a secular perspective faith is akin to opinion.
On the
other hand, you may not alter facts to buttress your opinion. By “facts” I mean
information about the world that rational evaluation holds by consensus to be
“true.” For example, when you touch a red-hot stove you get burned.
Scepticism and Denialism
We can distinguish skepticism from denialism as the instance when we believe or disbelieve something based on high
standards of evidence. Denialism is the instance when we simply engage in motivated, biased reasoning that permits our opinions take over.
When we suspend belief
because the evidence does not live up to the epistemological standards of science,
we are skeptical. When we refuse to believe something, even in the face of interpretive
consensus of compelling evidence, we are in denial. Denial often comes about
because at some level it upsets us to think that the compelling consensus is
true.
Do these comments reflect
skepticism or denial? :
- "The rest of the world “just doesn’t get it.”
- "We are the ones being
rigorous."
- "How can others be so gullible in
believing that something is “true” before all of the facts are in?"
One warning denialism is
overtaking skepticism is realizing we have a self-righteous feeling about a belief because
it is more valuable to us emotionally than the preservation of good standards
of evidence that suggest our feeling is in error. Whether one is willing to admit it or not, publically or
internally, denialists often know in advance what they would like to be true.
But where does that leave
the rest of us who think that our own beliefs are simply the result of sound
reasoning?
Daniel Kahnemann ( “Thinking Fast and Slow”)
points out the human mind has wired-in cognitive shortcuts that can feel an
awful lot like thinking. The phenomenon, confirmation bias, is the basis of an
entire field of academic inquiry (behavioral economics) that proposes to explain
much human behavior on mental foibles.
If we wait for a scientific
theory to evaluate the evidence, it is probably too late (theory almost always
follows empirical evidence, often by years). Alternatively, if we take the easy path in our thinking, easy thinking eventually becomes a habit. For example, if we lie to others, sooner or later
we believe the lie ourselves.
The real battle is learning
to embrace a sound attitude about belief formation.
We hear a lot of people identifying themselves as climate change “skeptics." They begin, “Well, I’m no
scientist, but …” and then proceed to rattle off a series of evidential demands
so strict that they would make Newton blush. A telltale mark of denialism is
the use of different standards of evidence for those theories
that they want to believe (even cherry picking a few pieces of data
against climate change ignoring the body of evidence they oppose) opposed to those that wish to deny.
Other marks may be comments
such as “the facts are not yet settled,” “there is so much more that we do not
know,” “the science isn’t certain.”
The problem with this attitude is that it is is based on a grave misunderstanding of science
(which in a sense is never settled), and what it means to be a skeptic.
Doubting the consensus of
scientists on an empirical question such as likely causes of global warming by
relying on ideologically motivated “evidence” is not skepticism. Some suggest
it is the height of gullibility because it claims that it is much more likely
that there is a vast conspiracy among thousands of climate scientists rather
than that they have all merely arrived at the same conclusion because that is
where the evidence leads.
Scientists
nonetheless can be wrong. The history of science has shown us that any
scientific theory (even Newton’s theory of gravity) can be wrong. In fact, most theories are expected to be disproved or modified eventually. It is helpful
to remember that not every field that claims scientific status — like certain
branches of the social sciences — necessarily deserve it. But this does not
mean that one is a good skeptic merely for disbelieving the well-corroborated
conclusions of science because we hope some long-shot hypothesis comes along in
50 years to show us why we were wrong.
Scientific reasoning
relies upon the idea of warrant or justified belief. We believe, or
interpret what the evidence tells us even while using the good scientific
protocol also to try find a flaw in the given theory.
Science sometimes errs, yet
its epistemological decision-making structure yields a time-proven, successful track record for
discovering the facts about the empirical world. Scientific error in the face
of new facts from research and research techniques not previously available
provides no basis to prefer opinion over facts. Opinion may lead to a
successful theory, but only in the face of supporting fact.
True
skepticism must be more than an ideological reflex; skepticism must be earned
by a careful mental attitude to be convinced only by evidence. If we insist on withholding
belief long after evidence supports a scientific “truth,” we have wandered out
of the realm of reasoned skepticism into the realm of ideology.
Theology
Theology is a philosophical ideology. It based
on faith not evidentiary reason. One of the great spokespersons for Christianity
(Paul) actually maintains
that a rational evaluation labels Christian theology as foolish. How do we defend such
a theology against this dilemma of skepticism and denialism?
In the two
hundred years after the Reformation (circa 1520) Christianity followed two
fundamental paths. One path can be argued to be the path of the denialist.
Nothing trumps the inerrancy of the Biblical record.
The other
path can be argued to follow the path of skepticism. The inerrancy of the
biblical record lies in its acknowledgement of the fallibility of humanity and
reliance on the record as an “algorithm” for proper decision making based deliberative consideration of the evidence before it. This is the
heart of Reformed theology.
The greatest strength of Reformed
theology is its greatest weakness. It is subject to the error
of human reason. In this way it stands as an equal to a Science that
acknowledges the possibility of error even when sufficient present “facts”
provide a warrant for belief and practice. The best practitioners of Science
and Theology embrace humility along with belief, not egotism.
No comments:
Post a Comment