[image: Classic, 2014, JA Van Devender]
Location: Old Mt. Royal train station, Baltimore, MD.
Ezekiel 36:23 (NKJV)
23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.
From today's NYT: (here)
These 17th century debates remind us that if you have an unshakable belief in something, then no amount of evidence (or lack of evidence) can convince you otherwise.
Poor old Galileo, will they never let him rest in peace? In this NYT article the highly amusing, if it weren't so serious, account of Donald Rumsfeld's fencing match with the press over the suspicion of WPD's in Iraq, brings about the above quote. Rumsfeld is classed as being in the same category as the inquistors of Galileo and how such ideological certainty becomes an impregnable barrier to new arguments and closes the mind to evidence.
Yeah, maybe, but.....
Just a few brief notes on Galileo. Yes, his heliocentric (sun-centered) model of the universe did in fact prove to be the 'truth.' However what often goes unremarked is that Copernicus' theory of the planetary circular orbits did not improve the interpretation of observed data. Cumbersome as it was, "epicycles" were still necessary to explain the observed data and it wasn't until Kepler and Newton came along that "certainty" about the Copernican system and, indeed, the heliocentric nature of the universe was attained. Galileo proved to be right but it wasn't a slam-dunk at the time.
Next, what about this "unshakeable" belief in something that immunizes a person against "evidence"?
This is the kind of smugness that so characterizes much of modern thinking. If there ain't some something that can be seen, touched, smelt, tasted or heard, with appropriate helps and instrumentation, then it doesn't exist. This is the essential premise that undergirds the smiling, patronizing, confidence of those like the writers of the NYT article and also the reporters who questioned Rumsfeld. (note bene - I am not a Rumsfield apologist by any stretch of the imagination... never did care for him much as Secretary of Defense or any other of his offices.) Rumsfeld was "playing" with the reporters, he knew it, they knew it... he didn't want to answer the question and didn't. But they used the occasion to brand him an ideologue and therefore to be classed along with all those other fundamentalist zealots who are to be side-lined and considered irrelevant in civilized discourse.
Using the "evidence" of their own position, one could observe that such people have an "unshakeable belief in evidence." This ideology is called "positivism" and it is just that, an ideology. Call it "science" if you will but it assumes a certain set of presuppositions that have been seriously questioned ("critical theories of knowledge") by more than just religious fundamentalists. The most famous critic was Descartes, of course, but he was one in a long line and not the original.
Is there a dimension to "knowledge" that does not originate in experience? Well, yes and no... If we limit the idea of experience to that common shared experience of "objects" (if they really exist - e.g. The Matrix), then "yes, there is a dimension to knowledge that does not originate in experience." But if we make the idea of "experience" more inclusive and thereby include "subjective" events that are not, by definition, verifiable by other people, then "no, all knowledge originates in experience in either or both subjective and objective categories."
All this means is that even "positivists" assume, daily, that things they have not directly experienced are "true." The testimony of other human beings, the reports of witnesses, constitute the great majority of "facts" which even these folks class as "certain." Not one in ten people who claim that evolution, for example, is a "scientific fact", can defend the position with any clarity. The idea of evolution fits into their world view, they have heard that it has been proven, and therefore, it's a fact, at least as far as they are concerned.
If there is a supernatural dimension to the universe, one that lies beyond the "objective" experience of any individual, but which has been "subjectively" experienced by some reliable witnesses, then their testimony has just as much claim to the "way things are" as does those other "scientifically established facts." To deny them based on positivist claims, that the claim itself cannot be true because it does not conform to the positivist presupposition, is no less ideological than the religious claims that these folks so despise. Their own inherent hypocrisy in this regard appears, to me, to be so self-evident that it is only wilful obstinacy that doesn't at least grant the two edged sword its sharpness.
If old Galileo's trial must be interminably resurrected, then we ought to at least consider the possibility that it is the "positivists" who are the inquisitors and the supernaturalists who are being unjustly denied their hearing.
The existence of God, as He Himself said through Ezekiel (above), is manifested and made known through the "experience" of His people, who then demonstrate His hallowing Presence in their collective body. The "fact" that such a people has been present in the world since recorded history began, is a sociological datum that has to be evaluated in all its facets. Yes, the positivist sociologist might seek to explain it away by pointing toward some hypothetical religious gene in man's DNA and say that "religious" experience is just one more Darwinian characteristic that aided the species in survival at one point but now is to be put away" (we are so much more enlightened now, you see). But the other argument... that this datum might indicate an actual experience of the transcendent supernatural element of the universe..., ought to at least be given its due privilege. It is one possible explanation that is consistent with the datum and, based upon other presuppositions, is just as logically valid as the other.
So... let's cut back on the sneering... OK? Not knowing what we don't know (Rumsfeld's argument) might not be such a silly conclusion after all.
Comments