Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole (13 page)

God, some Theists maintain, has provided them
direct and
certain knowledge
of his existence. So, they suppose, they don't have to
assume
God exists. They
just know
he does (see “
I Just Know!
”). Armed with this certain knowledge that God exists, such Theists can now go on to justify their reliance on logic and their senses. For the good God they just know exists would not allow them to be deceived by logic and by their senses. But the atheist, such Theists suppose, has no such justification. So the atheist remains mired in skepticism.

Such a Theist might be tempted to respond to her atheist critics by saying, “Ah, you are
attempting to use logic against me
, but of course, unlike me,
you are not entitled to—are you, are you
?” In fact, this is one of the main argumentative strategies of one well-known commenter on various religious and atheist blogs who, in response to any rational criticism of his particular extreme, Bible-literalist brand of Theism, typically ignores it, saying something like this: “I submit, that your worldview cannot justify the universal, abstract, invariant, laws of logic, which YOU presuppose in all of YOUR arguments, whereas mine can, and does.”
²

Notice that, although this particular Theist is playing the skeptical card, he is not, strictly speaking,
Going Nuclear. Going Nuclear
involves bringing all positions down to the
same
level of rationality. The claim made here is that
only
the atheist ends up mired in skepticism. Our Theist plays the skeptical card in order to undermine the arguments of his atheist critics. However, our Theist (he supposes) achieves a literally miraculous escape from skepticism himself. With one bound he is free—saved by the grace of God, whom, he supposes, provides him infallible knowledge of God's existence, knowledge that our Theist can then use to justify his own reliance on logic.

This way of dealing with criticisms of Theism also fails. Whether or not our Theist is right to claim the atheist is mired in skepticism, he's still obliged to deal with the atheist's arguments and objections. Suppose an atheist appears to have provided what looks like a cogent argument that our Theist's God does not
exist, or good evidence that this Theist is deluded in supposing that he “just knows” his God exists. For our Theist to just ignore such arguments and say, “But you are using the principles of logic, which you can't justify, whereas I can!” is pure evasion. Whether atheists can ultimately justify the principles of logic is entirely beside the point. If the atheist's argument is cogent according to the principles of logic, then our Theist's beliefs are, by his
own
lights, refuted. So the onus is still on the Theist to show that what he has been presented with
isn't
a cogent argument. And of course, if the Theist can't do that, then he's dumped back in the skeptical swamp himself.

RELATIVIST VERSIONS OF
GOING NUCLEAR

We have looked at two skeptical versions, one based on skepticism regarding reason, the other based on skepticism about the external world. However, there are also nonskeptical versions of
Going Nuclear.
Typically the nonskeptical versions are based on the thought that truth is
relative.

Relativism about Truth

Relativism is the philosophical view that what is true is relative to believers. There's no objective Truth with a capital “T” out there to be discovered. Rather, truth is a construction—
our
construction. There's your truth, my truth, his truth, her truth. There is, in short, not one Truth, but
many truths.

In its simplest form, this sort of relativism says that what is true is what the
individual
believes to be true. Suppose I believe we are visited by angels. Then, says such a relativist, for me it
is
true we are visited by angels. If you believe we are not visited by angels, then for you it's true that we're not. There's no fact of the matter as to which of us is actually correct.

Another form of relativism about truth makes truth relative not
to individuals, but to
communities.
Most scientifically minded Westerners believe that stars and planets have no astrological influence on our lives. But in other cultures it's supposed that the stars and planets do have such an influence, and that astrologers can use star charts to accurately predict the future. According to this kind of relativist, that the stars and planets have such an influence is false for such Westerners but true for those other communities. Truth is a
social
construct. Scientific truth is just one truth among many, all of which are equally “valid.”

Appeals to relativism about truth are popular in certain circles and might provide Mike with another get-out-of-jail-free card. If Mike finds he is losing the argument about the ability of astral plane therapy to cure disease, he might say: “Well, that astral plane therapy cures disease may not be true for you, but it's
true for
me!”

The implication is that what's true about astral plane therapy is a matter of what certain individuals or communities happen to believe about astral plane therapy. Mike's opponents not only have to figure out what Mike means by this cryptic remark, they're now faced with the job of refuting the relativist theory of truth to which Mike has, in effect, signed up. These are complicated tasks that will require time and patience to achieve. In the meantime, Mike's out the door, leaving his opponent bogged down in the philosophical mire he has created.

Notice that this is also a version of
Going Nuclear
, because, like the skeptical version, it
brings every belief down to the same level, rationally speaking.
Every belief is ultimately as “true” as every other.

The Absurdity of Relativism

It's worth making a detour at this point to explain just why this kind of relativism is absurd. One reason relativism can seem attractive is that there a few beliefs for which it might actually be true. Consider wichitee grubs, for example—the large larvae
eaten live by some aboriginal Australians. Some aboriginals consider the grubs a delicacy. Most Westerners, on the other hand, find them revolting (when Jordan, the British glamour model, was challenged to eat several large squirming grubs on a reality TV program, she said the experience was “worse than childbirth”).

So what's the truth about wichitee grubs? Are they delicious or are they not? The truth, perhaps, is that there is no Truth-with-a-capital-“T” about their deliciousness. For those who enjoy the taste of wichitee grubs, it's true that they're delicious. For those they don't, it's false. That's because the property of being delicious is ultimately rooted not objectively in the grubs themselves but rather in our subjective reaction to them.

So, yes, a small band of truths may be relative, but not all (for then, as Plato pointed out, the truth that all truths are relative would itself are relative, which entails that, if I believe it's false that all truths are relative, then I'm right).

One or two people might genuinely believe that individuals create their own reality—that reality is whatever the individual takes it to be. Perhaps actress Shirley MacLaine is an example. She writes: “I have learned one deep and meaningful lesson: LIFE, LIVES and REALITY are only what we each perceive them to be. Life doesn't happen to us. We make it happen.”
³

Such relativist views of reality often crop up in New Age circles. Another variant says that reality is not what we
perceive
or
believe
it to be but what we
want
it to be. One psychic, concerned about a disagreement between herself and a fellow psychic (who had told her she was about to receive a new “evolved” soul), consulted her spirit guides, who informed her they were
both
right:

I was told that there is no absolute truth. I was told that “truth” is a very personal, subjective thing. Something that is “true” = a perception or a belief that serves us personally.

My guides then explained this, using the law of attraction to illustrate it. They said:

“You know that your beliefs create your reality and that you can create any reality you want by changing your beliefs. If you focus your attention on something and hold it as a belief, whether you like it or not, you will begin to see evidence of it being true, all around you. Therefore, you must only believe things which feel good to you. Truth is that which feels good to you; that which serves you.”

So, according to my guides:

Truth
= something you have focused on, something you decided you want to experience = it shows up in your reality.

Untruth
= something you reject, something you don't want to experience = it doesn't show up in your reality.
⁴

This is an extraordinary quotation (particularly from a website called Psychic but Sane). Initially, it's suggested that
belief
creates reality. You should believe only what you want to be true, as whatever you believe (even if it's something you don't want) will become real. But as the quotation progresses, the author seems to switch from the view that reality is what you
believe
it to be to what we might call the
Disney theory of truth
—the truth is what you
want
it to be. In order to make something come true, you need only wish (on a star, perhaps) for it. If your wish doesn't come true, that's your own fault: you obviously didn't wish hard enough. The Disney theory of truth entails that if you get struck down with a horrible disease, then at some level you must have
wanted
to get ill.

Clearly, the MacLaine-type view that reality is whatever we perceive or believe it to be can't be correct. I cannot make it true that I can fly just by supposing that I can. Suppose I jump off this tall building, convinced I'll soar skyward by flapping my arms. Even if, as I jump, it seems to me I'm flying, the sad fact is I'll still end up a crumpled heap on the pavement below. Even if I jump off holding hands with my community, every member of which is convinced we'll fly, we'll still all plummet to our deaths. To suppose otherwise is, surely, to take the “power of positive thinking” too far.

Before Copernicus, was it true that the sun really went around the earth, because that's how it looked to people? Had Neil Armstrong and enough others believed the moon was made of cheese, might the
Eagle
have landed on a sea of Camembert? No. When it comes to whether we can fly by flapping our arms, whether the sun goes around the earth, or whether the moon is made of cheese, how things appear, and how things really are, can, and do, come apart.

The Selective Appeal to Relativism

The view that all truth is relative is supposedly widespread. According to academic Allan Bloom, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”
⁵

Actually, I doubt almost every student really believes this. What I don't doubt is that many students have learned that relativism offers them a useful get-out-of-jail-free card when they find themselves cornered in an argument. They have learned that by saying, “Hmm, well, that may be true for you, but
it's not true for me
,” they can raise enough intellectual dust to make quick their escape.

This is precisely what Mike does above, of course. Like the majority of people who play the relativist card when cornered, Mike doesn't
really
suppose the truth is whatever we believe it to be. If pressed, it would almost certainly turn out that Mike doesn't
really
accept the absurd view that if he really believes he can fly, then he can. Nor will Mike play the relativist card while the argument seems to be going his way. Mike's relativism is merely a convenient guise that he selectively adopts whenever he's on the losing end of an argument.

The relativist version of
Going Nuclear
is not popular with mainstream religious traditionalists who think that there is but One Truth and that their particular religion has privileged access to it. When such religious traditionalists
Go Nuclear
, they usually
opt for the skeptical version. Relativist versions of
Going Nuclear
are more popular with New Age-type belief systems.

The “What Is Truth?” Smokescreen

To finish, I'll mention a related argumentative strategy. Rather than playing the relativist card, you might, if cornered, simply ask
what truth is.
Truth is a philosophically thorny notion, and it is by no means clear how to define it. So, if Mike finds that his New Age belief system is taking a pasting, intellectually speaking, he could try saying this to his critics:

Ah, you claim these things are true. You think you can show they are true. But let me ask you a more fundamental question
—what is truth?

Mike's opponents will no doubt be disoriented by this sudden change of direction in the conversation and will be baffled by the thorny philosophical question they have been set, giving Mike enough time to head out the door.

This very tactic seems to have been employed by Pontius Pilate, who served as judge at Jesus's trial. When he interrogated Jesus prior to the crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed, “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (John 18:37). Pilate replied, “What is truth?” and left. As philosopher Francis Bacon put it in his essay “On Truth”: