Comparing God and Taste

First off let me apologize for my last post. It was something I felt compelled to write about, but I think it fell below the standard that I try to maintain. There are some redeeming qualities about the post and the comparison between denialism and skepticism will be a future full length post. Anyway, onwards and upwards.

I talked before how it is useless to make arguments about taste. No one ever changes their opinion, the forms of the argument are fallacy filled appeals with nothing real to appeal to, and despite what people think the matter really isn't important for the most part anyway. Now I was thinking of how the argument for God's existence is similar enough to provide a comparison about it. In this comparison I will forgo any claims of evidence of proof of God's existence (the design of the universe, the first cause and arguments like this) and limit the talk on the claims are unverifiable by their nature.

Arguments about taste and arguments about Gods existence can be categorized as the same through the types of appeals they make, appeals devoid scientific evidence. People can support why they like a certain movie like Crash, with an appeal to the awards it won and the critical acclaim that it received. They can also point to its popularity and appeal to people who have taste that I respect (i.e. Roger Ebert liked the movie you should too).

The problem is that despite all that I still think the movie was hallow and reduced the characters motivations to purely racial interactions. I was horrified when it won best picture, and further horrified when they showed it in a political science class I was taking. Taste just appeals to how one person feels or how many people feel about the subject and this is the same, for the most part, with the appeals claiming God's existence.

This similarity can be shown in the way people justify their belief in God.  Proponents of Gods existence note that 92% of Americans have a belief in God, and that respected scientists from Copernicus to Einstein believed in god. They are supporting their views in the same way that they support the issues of taste by using appeals to popularity or authority.

So, God is a matter of taste? Well no. The problem with putting belief in God in the realm of a taste decision is where taste and the belief in God differ. The difference is that in arguments of taste there are a few accepted points that necessitate the argument, the main one being that the there is something to like or dislike that is agreed upon by both parties.

When someone of inferior intelligence says that Crash was a good movie and I say that they are sorrily mistaken, and both us agree that Crash exists. Further we agree that the movie we are both taking about is the same movie. Of course I may be referring to the 1996 film Crash, but if I am then we really aren't arguing with each other, we are instead having a misunderstanding.


When someone says that they believe in God (whatever they think that is), there is a contention to be had  with the subject matter before any issue of support can be brought up. To talk about appeals is to skip the level of agreement about the existence of the subject.

So when someone says, "I believe in God and it is my choice." they are not saying anything like, "I like the band Primus." They are making a statement of belief, but that statement isn't akin personal taste. It is more like an appeal to the existence of extraterrestrials, bigfoot, or the Easter bunny, because the subjects existence isn't already agreed upon.

When someone says, "I like Crash" I dislike their taste, but really can't criticize them too much about it. They just enjoyed the film and that's fine, although  I think there are good reasons for not liking it as well. When someone says something that isn't built on any foundation and the subjects existence can't be shown then there is a real reason to say that the belief is unfounded. You are no longer questioning a persons taste, you are rather looking into their logic for believing in something and their ability to weight evidence. I think a good future post will be a comparison between ethical beliefs and beliefs in God done in this same sort of manner.

Thanks for reading,
-the moral skeptic

Richard Dawkins: Activist or Philosopher?

I'm back after the long weekend and ready to post. This topic came to me through an unresolved argument that I had with one of my professors, who was teaching a medieval philosophy class. It was a one on one class, where I still had to do a presentation on at least two topics. As one of those topics I chose Aquinas's proofs for the existence of  God, which for the most part can be found here.

The start of the presentation went pretty well and I broke down the arguments and talked about them, but then I ran into a problem that really wasn't anticipated. I started giving quotes from famous people today and their reasoning for belief in God, and compared them with Aquinas's proofs. This was an attempt to show how the discussion really hasn't progressed very much in the past centuries, then I pointed out how Richard Dawkins still felt the need to respond to some of those proofs in The God Delusion. Well this was apparently was a direction that the professor felt the need to criticize heavily. His main point of contention was that Richard Dawkins was someone arguing from a pre-dictated position; he was an activist or proponent and not a philosopher. Richard Dawkins lost creditably to this professor by being a reputable biologist!

I'm not sure what the ultimate consequences were for being a activist or proponent, but I can assure you that it meant in the very least that this professor didn't feel the need to take him seriously in the realm of philosophy. He obviously felt that there was something disingenuous with the position Dawkins was taking and because of that the message he was presenting could be belittled, something I couldn't disagree more about.

He was arguing that Richard Dawkins scientific background was making his philosophical views and that he couldn't have any other kind of view because of his background; Science was poisoning the well.

This is like the burden between a denialist and a skeptic.  A denialist can write arguments off for things they know aren't and cannot be true. Have you looked at Dean Radins research into peoples ability to change the randomness of a random number generator? No, people can't affect machines like that, Dean Radins a crank! While a skeptic has to look at each argument and evaluate it on individual merit no matter where it comes from.  Have you heard about Sheldrake's work with dogs knowing when their owner will return? Yes I have looked into it and it seems interesting, but I don't think it really proves anything and there were some methodological contentions that I have with the work that was performed.

There is a wold of difference between these two positions and it really shows what the burden of being a skeptic is.  As a skeptic I can't write off a belief someone else has without looking into it myself, or looking up information other people have gathered. The belief then has to pass a reasonable level of a burden of proof the differs depending on the belief. My professor was a denialist; he didn't need to listen to Richard Dawkins because of the background he was coming from, and he is much worse off for taking that position.

Not only does he not get the experience of seeing and thinking about the arguments Dawkins is bringing up, he is also losing some of his intellectual integrity. He is achieving the intellectual dishonesty he is accusing Dawkins of by becoming a denialist.

Is Richard Dawkins an activist or philosopher? The answer really irrelevant. His methods are rigorous and his thinking is well thought out. He has done enough to at least earn a place at the table and to be listened to. 

Thanks for reading,
- the moral skeptic