Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Real Threat Is “Absolutism” — Yes, Absolutely!

William Dembski
February 22, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Slumming at Talk.Origins (go here), I ran across the following remark in reference to the Ruse-Dennett Briefwechsel (discussed on this blog here):

I wonder if Ruse has actually watched “The Root Of All Evil?”.

And if childen were indoctrinated with the most extreme forms of racial
bigotry by parents who were Nazis or supporters of apartheid, would we
not consider that to be abuse? Is it not abuse only where we agree
with the doctrine which is being imposed on the child?

The only point on which I would differ with Dawkins is that his focus
on religion is too narrow. The real threat is absolutism – the
unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth,
be it religious faith or political ideology, which justifies any act,
no matter how vile, in its furtherance.

Ian H Spedding

Is “the real threat of absolutism” itself absolute? If not, why consider absolutism a threat at all? Can you say “fallacy of self-referential incoherence”? In plain English: If you’re going to make a test, be sure you can pass it yourself.

Comments
This issue is something that has always puzzled me about atheists. Whenever I have observed them confronted with the question of morality, (in other words, why be moral?) they always seem to respond with an attitude of incredulity, as though only a total imbicile would ask such a question. I don't remember ever seeing any kind of reasoned response to the question, most often just a sort of dumfounded blankness.jacktone
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Dear Valerie, Re: the Bertrand Russell quotes. It's impossible, really, to be a perfectly consistent relativist. For, as soon as you say "there are no absolute truths, including the one expressed by this sentence," you are making a claim that, by its very form, is supposed to be simply, that is, absolutely true, even if the content of the claim is that there are no absolute truths. This is a fortiori true of the Russell quotes, which actually advance a weaker claim than "there are no absolute truths, including the one expressed by this sentence." What Russell is really saying is: "look, dogmatism is dangerous, let's stick to the scientific method." It seems to me that if you want to argue for that position, you'd do better NOT to tie it to the claim that there are no propositions that are absolutely true. Of course, someone may insist on defining absolutism as "unverifiable belief in some arbitrary Absolutre Being," but that definition just obscures the issue. The issue is simply where there are any propositions that are true simpliciter and, if so, what sorts of propositions might they be. Obviously, there are fanatics who would rather see the world blow up than compromise on their principles. But we'd be setting up a straw man if we claimed that the only people with non-negotiable principles are dangerous fanatics. To illustrate: if you were a prisoner of war whom the enemy believed had valuable information---just to take a random example---in whose hands would you rather fall: (1) those of an enemy officer who is an absolutist about not torturing prisoners of war or (2) those of his colleague who considers not torturing prisoners of war a rule of thumb that may be broken when one of them has valuable information? Cordially, Adrianadrian walker
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Not so much a formal fallacy (in my thinking) as running afoul of the law of non-contradiction. Yes, consistent Darwinists/atheists would be moral relativists. No, I know of no consistent atheists.geoffrobinson
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Dave T., you wrote: "The key clause is the last one, which I have capitalized for emphasis: 'The real threat is absolutism - the unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth, be it religious faith or political ideology, WHICH JUSTIFIES ANY ACT, NO MATTER HOW VILE, IN ITS FURTHERANCE.'" Spedding has no beef with Christianity, then, but with how it has been used to justify vile acts, correct? Jesus: "Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you."Lutepisc
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
The logical extreme of moral relativism is an anything-goes, anarchist culture. There's no escaping this. Darwinism and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, since Darwinism teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. But in reality, are there ever truly moral relativists? Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child? I think most people would conced that the former is the "right" option. There seems to always be an absolute objective standard.Scott
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
It would be interesting to post a response to the talk.origins quote and see what happens. It has been my experience that when these obvious logical fallacies are laid bare, the response is usually something like "you're just playing word games" or "that's just so much sophistry" or something like it. People tend to hang on to their dogmas at any price... including the surrender of logic and reason. This reminds of something that I wrote a few years back in a rare fit of creativity. Perhaps some of you will find it amusing. As Right As You Wanna Be Hey there truth seekers! Tired of having your arguments kicked in the teeth? Does having your arguments refuted get you down? Distressed every time your conclusions are declared fallacious by the logic Nazis? Are you plagued by logic envy? Do you feel like the equivalent of a 90 pound logical weakling when others kick the formal rules of logic and first principals of reasoning in your face? Are you in agony when the formal rules and first principals become an unscalable wall preventing you from reaching the conclusions you want? Well…fret no longer!! With Bonco’s amazing new As Right As You Wanna Be Philosophy Kit, your logic worries are OVER! In less than 30 days you will be able to dazzle your friends and critics with amazing leaps of logic never before seen…assume any consequent you desire…build an invincible army of straw men…declare anything as both ‘A’ and not ‘A’. No longer live in fear that the metaphysical presuppositions upon which you base your entire life will be blown away by “superior” reasoning! Working covertly in an underground philosophy lab, a small group of seekers discovered the secret that has revolutionized logic and reasoning as we know it. “The process is so simple it’s amazing no one has ever thought of it before”, said one of the research team members. “All we did was re-imagine the formal rules themselves!” Now you can assume any consequent you desire with impunity. Take any leap of logic as high as you wish to go. Contradict the law of non-contradiction itself! And no one could EVER declare you wrong! “I was amazed at how easy and effective a circular argument could be” B. Russell, London, England. “I never thought building a straw man could be this easy” R. Pennock, Ewing, N.J. “I was able to leap tall fallacies in a single bound” R. Dawkins, London, England “Thanks to this kit, I and my followers can justify any action”, O.B. Laden, Location, Unknown. “Finally my metaphysical presuppositions and I can live together in perfect balance”. D. Dennett, Boston, MA. Hurry now and call 1-800-I’M RIGHT and order your As Right As You Wanna Be Philosophy kit today. Only $39.95 or four easy payments of $19.95 per month (don’t like our math? Prove us wrong!). Operators are standing by. Call in the next 30 minutes and we’ll throw in our Peace and Tranquility kit absolutely FREE! Visa/MasterCard/American Express accepted. Rationality and Reality sold separately!DonaldM
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Can such a liberal perspective be held liberally? The paradox of freedom shows that complete freedom is not viable. Instead, maximal freedom is typically regarded as an optimum. Is such an optimum to be held absolutely?William Dembski
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Some relevant quotes from Bertrand Russell: "The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology." "Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false." "Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred." "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."valerie
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
I maybe wrong but wasn't it G.K.Chesterton that said something like'an open mind is like an open mouth, only any good if you close it on something.'? Where does a lack of Absolutes lead? Is relativism a better option -with 51% vote deciding whats right, for that moment? When there are no absolutes there has alays been something that has acted like an absolute to take its place -just think of the failed Communist experiment's in Russia,China & North Korea to name a few. Without Absolutes there is no true Truth and so there is no value in anything in the long run -no value in suffering or any other pursuit. Oh Im getting all Poetical.. a sea without a shore.WormHerder
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
The key clause is the last one, which I have capitalized for emphasis: "The real threat is absolutism - the unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth, be it religious faith or political ideology, WHICH JUSTIFIES ANY ACT, NO MATTER HOW VILE, IN ITS FURTHERANCE." There is nothing wrong about having an unshakable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth. I am absolutely, unshakeably convinced that 2+2=4. I'm also unshakeably convinced that man possesses certain natural rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is because of that conviction that I am unshakably convinced that no legitimate political or religious program can justify dissolving or ignoring those rights. In other words, it is an absolute, unshakeable truth that the rights of man are absolute. The danger is not absolute truth, but the conviction that there might be ends that justify any means, no matter how "vile". And this only becomes a possibility when we consider the rights of man as merely relative rather than absolute. Relative to a particular culture, a particular politics, a particular philosophy, or a particular religion. The proper response to ideological absolutism is not relativism, which is merely philosophical unilateral disarmament, but the confident assertion of the rights of man as absolute. Cheers, Dave T.taciturnus
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
As I have heard: 'There is no dogma like no dogma'antg
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
I will not tolerate intolerance!DaveScot
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT
I fail to understand why is absolutism (in Spedding deffinition) a threat. Don't we all hold some things as absolutely true? And how does possession of an Absolute Truth or Truths, lead one to "justify any act, no matter how vile, in its furtherance."?Srdjan
February 23, 2006
February
02
Feb
23
23
2006
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT

William Dembski wrote:
"Is “the real threat of absolutism” itself absolute? If not, why consider absolutism a threat at all? Can you say “fallacy of self-referential incoherence”? In plain English: If you’re going to make a test, be sure you can pass it yourself."

This objection is itself incoherent. Spedding's belief that the threat of absolutism is not an absolute truth doesn't oblige him to regard absolutism as innocuous.

I believe men landed on the Moon. Is that an absolute truth? No, it's possible (though unlikely) that I am mistaken. I am open to evidence and argument against my belief. Does that obligate me to believe that they *didn't* land on the Moon? Of course not.

Spedding is perfectly justified in considering absolutism to be a threat. Logic allows it, and history has amply demonstrated it.

[[I'm afraid not, Valerie. The objection is eminently coherent. If the threat of absolutism is not absolute, then there are forms of absolutism that are okay. Spedding gives no indication that any form of asolutism is okay. If some forms are okay, then how does one distinguish between those that are and those that are not? Would such a criterion for distinguishing forms of absolutism be itself absolute? There is an absolutist regress here. But beyond that, ask yourself, since Spedding is keying off of Dawkins, Is there any form of religious belief that Dawkins regards as valid or healthy? Other than Darwinism, which he would deny is a religious belief for him (though not as Michael Ruse would attribute it to Dawkins), I'm unaware of any. Are you? --WmAD]]valerie
February 22, 2006
February
02
Feb
22
22
2006
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
"The real threat is absolutism - the unshakeable conviction that one is in possession of an Absolute Truth, be it religious faith or political ideology, which justifies any act, no matter how vile, in its furtherance." I understand the logic behind this, but I'm also scared of the lack of absolutism--the belief that there are no absolute moral laws, thus making any act, no matter how vile, permissible.crandaddy
February 22, 2006
February
02
Feb
22
22
2006
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
What an interesting fallacy, kinda' like the old "there is no such thing as absolute truth" fallacy. Joseph C. Campana Founder and Webmaster, ResearchID.org jccampana@gmail.com http://www.researchid.org/JosephCCampana
February 22, 2006
February
02
Feb
22
22
2006
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply