Short post today - just a personal gripe. One of the most common "popular" arguments against religion in general is to complain that no "free thinking" person would believe in it. The insinuation is that people of a religious bent are not free thinking, but are "indoctrinated" by institutions that "control" what they are allowed to say or believe.
In contrast, the "free thinker" is liberated from these institutional controls to pursue truth wherever reason or science or whatever truth-mechanism they follow would lead them.
This shows up in television (shows as different as House or Battlestar Galactica), and in real debates (it was forwarded as an argument against a Jesuit professor by an atheist scientist on "60 Minutes" just a few months ago). The implication is that institutional bias compromises religious thinkers and therefore makes their beliefs (including their religious ones) untenable, at best, if not laughable.
I have several issues with it:
1) It assumes that membership in the institutional religion predated warranted belief, rather than warranted belief causing membership in the institution. In other words, I am Orthodox because I believe (freely) what Orthodoxy teaches. This assumption, then, is a fallacy.
2) It assumes that IF membership predates warranted belief that membership PREVENTS warranted belief. Put simply, it assumes that members of an institution cannot ask critical questions or seek warrants for the beliefs of that institution. This assumption, then, is a fallacy, as such an assertion is clearly false. Members of institutions (like Orthodoxy) regularly question, critique, and seek to understand the teachings of the faith (even IF we are pre-committed to accepting the church's teachings). The ONLY difference is that if reason presents us with something contrary to the Church's teachings, we don't hastily throw out what we have recieved. Rather, we continue to seek, trusting in the God who is Truth. We do not subject the doctrines of the Church to human reason, but we (as humans) cannot help but attempt to use human reason to explain, defend, and understand the doctrines of the Church.
3) This is an ad-hom fallacy. It attacks a person's characteristics (membership in a group) rather than the argument being made. Why should it matter if I'm a member of an organization IF my argument is still sound? Does the syllogistic proof of a finite past (several posts ago) change if the person uttering it is a Buddhist, a Christian, or an Atheist? It might sound strange coming from the mouth of a non-theist, but it would be no less valid or accurate.
4) This is a red-herring fallacy, changing the debate from the validity of the arguments to the institution making those arguments. That's not a way to refute someone's point - you can't just change the subject as a way to avoid dealing with an argument.
5) This logic would exclude non-theistic academics (i.e. some scientists or professors) since the majority of them are members of overtly secular humanist institutions (universities, research labs, etc.). Does their membership in a secular institution pre-commit them to secular conclusions? Generally, yes. So, by their own logic, nothing they say should be counted as valid but rather discounted as mere "secular bias." Clearly THEY want to be taken seriously, and should extend the same courtesy to those with whom they disagree.
[/rant]
In Christ,
Macarius
No comments:
Post a Comment