I recently attended an event put on by the U of M student group CASH - Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists. The event is basically a discussion between non-theists and theists about their differences and how they came to believe what they do. I've gone for a couple years (I am a theist), and have greatly enjoyed it, but something really struck me about it this past October.
During the discussion, I realized just how evidently different my beliefs were from some of the CASH members. It is not as though we have similar worldviews with respect to everything but the existence of God, but rather that the very axioms for our respective epistemologies (theories of knowledge) were radically different. For instance, one of the non-theists was discussing his issues with a Christian doctrine, and justified his statement by saying "if there is no evidence for something, then you can be 99.9% sure it's not true." I stopped him and commented that, even before we discuss the doctrine, we needed to discuss that statement, because I think it's patently false! The more and more I discuss issues with non-theists, the more evident it is that what we need to be discussing is our epistemologies, and not the existence of God. Otherwise, how will you ever convince someone of your position? Is it not impossible, if your axioms for justification of knowledge are different? You cannot even begin to argue a position unless you and your "opponent" hold certain common premises.
This is something that I really wish more people would realize. I often see much wasted time in discussions because two people are unaware that the central issue is not a statement of knowledge, but that they and their "opponent" justify knowledge differently. First let us look at how we reason. Then let us reason together.
I love your closing statement. Your posts bleeds with what needs to be realized and as you said it seems as if no one has realized what needs to actually be done to get anywhere in the argument. This just reminds me of so many people in my hometown. Everyone has an opinion and often it is a strong one. They get into arguments and try and reason with others when they don't even know their own topic in such a way they COULD actually do some serious convincing. I think everyone should know their beliefs in depth so they actually know and understand why they believe it and not just accept it as their beliefs because it's what their parents raised them as.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeletePhil, I agree with you. The problem is that what you are asking of people is rather ambiguous. Do we have to become scholars in our faiths in order to discuss them? I was raised Christian (Lutheran). Actually, since I was the only one who got up in the morning and went to church, I was raised Agnostic. My mom believed that the only thing people cared about at church was how nice you were dressed and how much you were placing into the offering basket, so she never attended except at Christmas. I always craved some kind of spirituality. I made an informed decision to convert to Islam after studying it for a year. My husband (who was Muslim), never spoke to me about it unless I asked him. When I told him that I wanted to convert, he didn't support it. He said that he loved me the way I was and that I didn't have to become Muslim for him. He said that I should imagine if we divorced or he was dead-then would I still want to convert? LOL. Anyway, I am not a Muslim scholar. I became Muslim because I liked a lot of the viewpoints and practices. Today I am not a very strict Muslim. I am more a Muslim via identity rather than practice. I could not defend the viewpoint of Islam because I do not know enough about it all. I guess I would not ever try to defend something unless I was really well-versed on it, so I guess I am doing what you believe too-just not discussing it. ;)
ReplyDeleteHi Bethany,
ReplyDelete"The problem is that what you are asking of people is rather ambiguous."
I actually am not so sure that what I am asking is ambiguous. In a sense it must be, because I am speaking to a general crowd (EVERYONE who reads this), and for my request to be applicable to a diverse group, it will look very different when applied to each reader individually. However, this doesn't mean someone can't take my general request and generally apply it to their individual life. Let me explain:
You ask: "Do we have to become scholars in our faiths in order to discuss them?"
I would say: Maybe! (i don't know exactly what the word "scholar" implies to you, but i do think it very possible that you would have to study Islam a bit to have effective discourse with an atheist). If you were to talk to a CASH member, Bethany, you WOULD need to be aware of his presumptions and axioms. For, if you don't know anything about your beliefs or how you formed them, how can you possible discuss them with someone?
Also, I am concerned from your last comment:
"I guess I am doing what you believe too-just not discussing it."
Bethany, my blog was not a push for an absence of discourse about your beliefs, but rather a push for the presence of discourse about your beliefs IN CONJUNCTION AND PRECEDED BY a knowledge and discourse about your and your "opponents" epistemic beliefs (first assumptions). VERY big difference. My point is not for you to abstain from discussing Islam. My point is for you to be aware of the different assumptions you and a Christian will begin with.