In and of itself, it is irrational and asinine to believe in anything apart from absolute certainty, which is only found in logical axioms, introspective states, and what logically follows from either of these things. So many people will claim to care about rationality, only to admit to believing in a host of idiotic things like the idea that one can logically prove that other people exist or that scientific laws will remain consistent in the future. Issues like God's existence are generally taken more seriously in an epistemological sense, but only in that non-theists might try harder to avoid the assumptions and irrelevant ideas that they choose to believe when it comes to believing something such as their sensory perceptions having some inherent, wholly knowable connection with the real external world.
Many people want absolute certainty for God's existence--which is both philosophically valid and entirely achievable only for the basic existence and nature of the uncaused cause, not its hypothetical moral nature, potential creation of angelic beings, and so on. The issue arises when these same people either do not discover that it is logically impossible for there to not be an uncaused cause, and thus that the existence of an uncaused can be proven with absolute certainty, or they believe in other things apart from intentionally using reason to reach absolute certainty wherever possible. There is nothing epistemologically special about God's existence that makes it require a higher level of proof than something like "knowing" that one is not an extraterrestrial living among humans or not living in a simulation projected from the actual external world. There is only proof or objective uncertainty, and all knowledge is derived from logical proof.
In other words, this kind of non-theist is an epistemological hypocrite who does not know consistency nor have the sincerity to embrace it. One irony of this is that an uncaused cause, even if it is only me myself, is actually one of the only things that can be proven to exist because logical necessity reveals it [1]. Another irony is that there are also people who pretend like God's existence, rather than being some arbitrary "exception" from the pathetic standard of persuasion that falls short of absolute logical proof, is somehow the one thing, or at least one of the only things, that can be "legitimately" believed on faith and not rationalistic proof. There is always the potential for there to be fools who are not consistent with their own epistemological stances, whether or not those stances are otherwise true or not embraced due to assumptions.
People who pretend like they cannot fathom the depths and necessities of absolute certainty, or who truly are too lazy and stupid to even get to rationalistic awareness of the basic self-evident nature of logical axioms and their own conscious existence, are fit for little besides mockery, being most useful as examples of fools to despise or oppose. They are all, no matter how comparatively rational they are next to each other, deluded intellectual insects who are too shallow, irrational, and self-blinded to do little more than selectively brush up against truth by accident. The vast majority of theists and all atheists (not temporary agnostics, but people who actually believe that there is something logically impossible about all theistic concepts or who believe that no deities exist because of assumptions or preferences) are fools who would not know if their beliefs about theism are true one way or another because they are only assuming certain beliefs.
Absolute certainty is an inherent requirement for all knowledge, as otherwise one cannot know a thing. Short of absolute certainty, a person can believe and assume something is true or want it to be, but he or she does not know if it is true. This is as true of the most trivial things, like where a missing TV remote is, as it is of grander issues like God's existence. To believe that there are any exceptions to the epistemological requirement of absolute certainty is to imagine an arbitrary, false line for the sake of protecting a belief that is held only because of subjective persuasion or preference. In other words, irrationality and intellectual hypocrisy motivates every person who thinks that some things can be known without absolute certainty (the idea that things can be known without actually knowing them very blatantly refutes itself) and yet select things require it. Only stupidity or personal biases would be behind this inconsistency.
No comments:
Post a Comment