Q&A: The Trait We All Share
The Trait We All Share
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I built an argument that I find interesting and posted it on an atheists’ forum, and the purpose of the argument is to show why relying on the scientific method as the only method for investigating truth is fundamentally mistaken. I’d be glad to know what you think about the way I arrived at the question, and whether in your opinion this is an objective and rational enough argument that can show an atheist something that is very hard for him to see on his own.
Two main different worldviews lead the atheist and the believer into an endless debate.
1. The view that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena.
2. The view that the universe was created by a designer, who designed those same natural phenomena.
I thought of opening a serious and mature discussion on the subject: are babies born atheists?
If atheism is defined as lack of belief in God/gods, which is the accepted definition, there is no argument that proves that babies are born atheists.
Any argument on the subject falls into the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Because the statement assumes in advance that babies are born without belief in God, and in that way it gets the result it is trying to prove.
Obviously, it may be that the way we interpret the state of babies in this context depends on our own views.
While there are atheists who would say that babies are born without religious belief, and there are believers who would say that babies are born with a soul that arrives with some kind of prior awareness/memory in one way or another, it can be argued that the most correct way to describe the state of babies is epistemic neutrality (lack of knowledge and lack of ability to form an opinion).
Babies do not hold beliefs because they do not have the cognitive tools to develop such opinions.
In this way, can we really know which of the possibilities is more correct?
Will we ever be able to decide between the two ideas—that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena versus a universe created by a designer?
I invite you to share your opinion regarding the question, and to consider the possibility that babies’ epistemic neutrality is a starting point for a deeper understanding of the discussion taking place between the atheist and the believer.
So I’ll begin:
The starting point that I think is right to relate to at the moment is very clear—a blank slate.
Why a blank slate? Because the starting point of every human being ever born is basically neutral, as I noted.
Even though we cannot determine that this is the state of reality, we have nothing more basic and balanced to hold onto than that—since the trait of inborn epistemic neutrality is attributed to all of us alike.
If so, the question is: which method is best suited for us in the investigation of truth?
Given the scientific method, its advantages, and the excellent way it functions in our reality.
And given the fact that this same scientific method is based on a fixed foundational assumption that says, “There is nothing wrong with casting doubt.”
Do you think it is possible to arrive at the investigation of truth through the scientific method?
When there is a method that advocates ongoing doubt as a constant principle?
And if so, how can one arrive at the investigation of truth when truth is put in doubt as a foundational assumption according to the current definition?
In this thread, it’s important to me that you try to give answers that come from a clean place on the subject, since the proof most suited to the initial state of all human beings is “neutrality” as a starting state.
I am of course working from the assumption that investigating truth is equally important to all of us.
Answer
Good morning. I don’t agree, or I don’t understand. Here are my comments briefly, in bold.
1. The view that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena.
A more correct phrasing: the world is random natural phenomena. “The product of random natural phenomena” raises the question of who created the phenomena of which the world is the product.
2. The view that the universe was created by a designer, who designed those same natural phenomena.
I thought of opening a serious and mature discussion on the subject—are babies born atheists?
Why is that interesting? Just some random topic? They can be born X even if X is not true.
If atheism is defined as lack of belief in God/gods, which is the accepted definition, there is no argument that proves that babies are born atheists.
Any argument on the subject falls into the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Because the statement assumes in advance that babies are born without belief in God, and in that way it gets the result it is trying to prove.
I didn’t understand. Hopefully it will become clearer later. Still, let me clarify an important point. I’ve already explained several times that begging the question is not a fallacy. Every logical argument assumes what it seeks to prove. Beyond that, even if there is indeed begging the question here, so what? At most, it means this uninteresting question cannot be decided. What does that say?
Obviously, it may be that the way we interpret the state of babies in this context depends on our own views.
While there are atheists who would say that babies are born without religious belief, and there are believers who would say that babies are born with a soul that arrives with some kind of prior awareness/memory in one way or another, it can be argued that the most correct way to describe the state of babies is epistemic neutrality (lack of knowledge and lack of ability to form an opinion).
Why is that the most correct? Just because both sides are biased, it does not follow that both are wrong.
Babies do not hold beliefs because they do not have the cognitive tools to develop such opinions.
If someone is born with something, that means I don’t develop it myself. It is built into me. So why does it matter that they don’t have the tools to develop any beliefs? Did they develop the blank slate, then?
In this way, can we really know which of the possibilities is more correct?
Will we ever be able to decide between the two ideas—that the universe is the product of random natural phenomena versus a universe created by a designer?
I didn’t understand the connection between the question of how babies are born and the question of what the truth is.
I invite you to share your opinion regarding the question, and to consider the possibility that babies’ epistemic neutrality is a starting point for a deeper understanding of the discussion taking place between the atheist and the believer.
So I’ll begin:
The starting point that I think is right to relate to at the moment is very clear—a blank slate.
Why a blank slate? Because the starting point of every human being ever born is basically neutral, as I noted.
As I said, this is not necessary at all, for many reasons. You might perhaps say that methodologically it is preferable to begin from that assumption, with no connection to the question of how babies are born.
Even though we cannot determine that this is the state of reality, we have nothing more basic and balanced to hold onto than that—since the trait of inborn epistemic neutrality is attributed to all of us alike.
This statement sounds like what I suggested (to assume this methodologically for the discussion, rather than arguing for it because of biases on both sides, as you did).
If so, the question is: which method is best suited for us in the investigation of truth?
Given the scientific method, its advantages, and the excellent way it functions in our reality.
And given the fact that this same scientific method is based on a fixed foundational assumption that says, “There is nothing wrong with casting doubt.”
This is too general a claim. There is nothing wrong with casting doubt on what? On the scientific method itself? On our initial intuitions? There are quite a few things that science does not cast doubt on.
Do you think it is possible to arrive at the investigation of truth through the scientific method?
When there is a method that advocates ongoing doubt as a constant principle?
And if so, how can one arrive at the investigation of truth when truth is put in doubt as a foundational assumption according to the current definition?
So how does science itself arrive at the claims it adopts? At the laws of nature.
In this thread, it’s important to me that you try to give answers that come from a clean place on the subject, since the proof most suited to the initial state of all human beings is “neutrality” as a starting state.
I am of course working from the assumption that investigating truth is equally important to all of us.
Discussion on Answer
All my comments still stand.
I’ll try to clarify myself.
I agree with you regarding begging the question; the point is that atheists don’t accept that, and for the sake of the discussion I don’t mind playing their game and accepting the “fallacy of begging the question.”
And if we accept that, then it cannot be proven that babies are born atheists.
So I’m trying to find the most objective place one can get to, which is the absence of inclination to either side and presenting the most objective opinion possible on the subject of a newborn baby.
Simply because the most accurate explanation is that a baby is born lacking knowledge and lacking the ability to form an opinion, and it sounds fairest to me to present it that way because that is the only thing that doesn’t fall into a logical fallacy if we want to define the starting point of babies, and really of all human beings.
So it’s true that babies did not develop the blank slate, but because this is the most basic thing we can hold onto, since it is impossible to prove it one way or the other without falling into the fallacy, I propose it as a starting point for a deeper understanding in the discussion—not because I agree with the “neutral” idea.
I accepted your comment about trying to take the argument in a methodological direction instead, and broadly speaking that sounds more sensible to me, but in my opinion if one chooses to accept the fallacy of begging the question and conduct the discussion on their terms, you can get a message across to them here, not necessarily a proof.
As for science, science casts doubt on everything, on every conclusion really.
Science thinks the world began with the Big Bang, but it still casts doubt on that, for example.
Because it does not rule out the possibility that there is another, deeper explanation for the beginning of the universe.
And those same atheists rely on this method as the only method for investigating truth, and that is the problem I’m trying to present to them—namely, how can one arrive at the investigation of truth when truth is put in doubt as a foundational assumption in that sole method that they choose to accept?
They don’t rely on feelings or rationality in a way similar to us when they form a worldview.
They accept science’s explanation for the formation of the universe, claim that the explanation is sufficient, and therefore they do not extend their thinking to the possibility that the world is intelligently designed, because in their eyes adding additional information is an unnecessary and mistaken move, and from there they invent that religion is a human invention and so on.
Hope you understood what I’m trying to do in order to get the desired message across.