Why philosophy sucks (by a philosophy major)

I am a philosophy major. Philosophy sucks. Here’s why.

• Nothing is accomplished (vol. i)

Philosophy has been around since forever, and what have we accomplished? If we’re aiming for certainty, if we’re searching for truth, what instances can we point to in which we’ve found it? The endeavor is flawed – nothing is certain. We can accept lots of premises to get to certainty, but ultimately everything rests on a few basic assumptions which are completely unverifiable. Most importantly, is it true that human reason is a valid means of inquiry? We have no way of knowing. By extension, anything we do with it is also questionable at best.

• Nothing is accomplished (vol. ii)

Philosophy in large degree has no practical application whatsoever. So while we’re not getting anywhere, we’re also not doing anything. Some might argue that branches of philosophy have application – ethics, for example, in solving medical or ecological dillemas. But even there, these philosophers seem to do nothing but spout convoluted language that in effect does little more than convert lay opinions into academic papers. Furthermore, there is little if any agreement among any of these philosophers – for every academic opinion there is usually a counter-opinion that has an equally sizeable following. In short, philosophy as a field is nothing but people sitting around arguing.

• It’s incomprehensible

Even if we dismiss the two concerns above and accept philosophy as unproductive both by itself and in the real world, philosophy is still in terrible shape. The arena of philosophy is muddled with vast arrays of terrible arguments. Philosophers, rather than seeking clarity and precision, betray the most basic tenents of their profession by spewing forth vast quantities of bullshit. Never have I read a philosopher who communicated his ideas clearly and effectively. Philosophical texts should not require interpretation – for an entire field dedicated to certainty, philosophy does a terrible job at promoting it.

This is the second hit when you search "philosophy sucks" on Google Images

 

Be sure to check back soon for my exciting rebuttal to this post, “Why I’m a philosophy major anyway!”

As predicted, psychics are full of shit

Today, against my better judgment, I visited a psychic.

You might ask why I, a proponent of reason and rationality, would sink to such depths. It was for two primary reasons: One, I was not paying for the reading, and two, I quite frankly had nothing better to do.

I went, as is expected, with as open a mind as I could muster. My disbelief was held at bay in part by a secret desire for this reading to be a transcendental experience of some kind, for this woman to really have some remarkable intuition regarding my life. She claimed to have done readings for several billionaires, to have solved crimes for the police, she even had a photograph of herself with the Bush family in the White House. (Photoshop works wonders…)

However, from the moment she started her reading I had lost all confidence. I was careful to not offer her any hidden clues that might corrupt the legitimacy of her reading, and indeed, without these, she seemed quite lost. When, out of sympathy for the woman, I offered up a few nuggets, she seemed unable to accurately tell anything about them. For instance, I used to be a petsitter; she described several dogs that she “saw,” and felt I had some kind of telepathic connection with; yet I had not cared for a single dog that fit the descriptions she offered. She told me about an individual named “Dr. Edwards” who had “been with me from my very first breath, and gave me books to read,” yet even neglecting that I know no one named “Dr. Edwards,” still no one in my life fit that description.

The rest of the reading consisted of an analysis of an astrological chart, based on my date of birth. Here there were a few things which corresponded with things in my past, and many things which didn’t (in particular she seemed to think that I had moved around the country, and persisted in this view despite my objection that I have lived in the same city my whole life). Following that, she attempted to convince me of her own legitimacy by telling of clients who had great successes that she predicted, and gave me very general sorts of advice (“think positively,” “do what you believe is right”).

Indeed, Wikipedia’s article on psychics offers up a study that corroborates my experience:

In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences gave a report on the subject that concluded there is “no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.”^[8] 

In conclusion, psychics are very talented people – talented, that is, in the art of separating fools from their money.

Why I strongly dislike religion

The Progressive Believer often claims that their religion is not harmful but in fact beneficial, especially on a small scale, and that The Atheist’s hostility towards it is unjustified, dogmatic, and cruel. After all, if I, The Atheist, hate the believer so much just for believing, have I not reduced myself to the same level as the militant Islamic leaders, who hate everyone else just for not believing? When The Progressive Believer harms no one, rejects dogma and perhaps even the more organized forms of religion altogether, and has informed, thoughtful ideas about spirituality, what rationale could there possibly be for this hatred?

It is to this question that I wish to respond. First, however, I must remedy several common misconceptions regarding my views as a somewhat representative Atheist. Firstly, I do not hate The Progressive Believer. Nor, in fact, do I hate The Non-Progressive Believer, nor even The Televangelist; in fact, my Atheistic viewpoint in itself does not lead me into any sort of hatred. If I hate anything, it is behavior and belief: behavior that causes harm to one’s fellow man, and belief in propositions which are not true.

Secondly, by no means do I advocate ending religion by force. As an Atheist, I place a higher value upon freedom – to believe and think what one will, not what one is told. Indeed, to forcibly secularize anyone is no better than forcible conversion. As such, I have no problem with The Progressive Believer’s (or anyone else’s) freedom to believe Progressive Beliefs, or Non-Progressive Beliefs, or any other beliefs, so long as they don’t lead to harmful behavior.

With these two things in mind, then, I wish to move to the Progressive Believer. Our representative Progressive does not believe every word of the Bible; she does not believe that her spiritual path is the only correct path; she may not even be entirely convinced of the existence of God. She merely wishes to suggest that perhaps there is something out there, beyond our mundane condition of physical humanity, beyond the confines of human reason and scientific inquiry.

Why is this problematic?

Allow me a brief detour in my response to this question, in the distinction between “true” and “useful.”* There are some beliefs that we hold for which we also hold supporting rationales. The belief that I exist, for instance, is supported by the rationale that there is no other conceivable way for me to have this belief. Other beliefs are less watertight. That I am typing this sentence, for example, may be true – it is supported a posteriori, by my experience, though I might just as easily be dreaming. However, this belief still has numerous means of support.

Other beliefs, while not strictly speaking true, are still useful. Newtonian physics, for example, has long been replaced by the more accurate and more descriptive advances of general relativity and quantum physics. Although the way in which Newtonian physics accounts for the behavior of physical objects is not correct, it is still useful. If I throw a baseball, Newtonian physics can describe its behavior perfectly, even though on the atomic level the system is wrong.

The average belief system of the Progressive Believer, I wish to argue, is neither true, supported by reason, or useful.

1. Why Progressive Beliefs are not true

To briefly summarize, in the famous words of Bertrand Russell, “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence!” However, for more in-depth examinations of my reasons for rejecting any kind of theism, including Progressive versions, see the rest of this blog.

2. Why Progressive Beliefs are not useful.

This (at least in the context of this blog) is a more novel claim. The Progressive Believer, even if we have managed to convince her of the highly probable falsity of her beliefs (which sadly, I doubt we ever will), may go further and make the claim that although it cannot be shown that her beliefs are true, that they are still useful – they perhaps provide tranquility, serenity, peace, a sense of hopefulness and common ground with others. The Progressive Believer might also cite the benefits of prayer and meditation, the wisdom of the various holy texts, a sense of oneness with the world – insert your own vague allusions here. Either way, the claim is clear – Progressive Beliefs, even if they are not true,  are still beneficial to their Believer.

Let me outline a few ways that these benefits might be outweighed by the costs of Progressive Belief. First up:

Trust in science

Having lived with a representative Progressive Believer myself for quite some time now, and being acquainted with many more, I am consistently dismayed at the lack of trust in scientific inquiry. Science, they claim, is not infallible; science has been wrong; science lacks human warmth, empathy. Science cannot explain _______, says the progressive believer (pick your favorite: the cosmos, beauty, love, etc). Perhaps the Progressive Believer does trust science; perhaps the Progressive Believer even considers science as important an inquiry as spirituality, but believes that the two should work together, to complement each other. But compare this to me, The Atheist: I, too, trust science, but believe that this addition of religion is a detriment.

I acknowledge that scientific inquiry is far from infallible. I acknowledge that science has made innumerable errors and taken innumerable wrong turns. I might even go so far as to acknowledge that considerable harm has been done to humankind in the name of science. Despite these problems, however, science is the best we’ve got. Keep in mind - science put a man on the moon; science got you from home to work in the morning; science got you the hot shower and the cup of coffee; science developed everything from the polio vaccine to the artificial heart.  The rigor, discourse, and thoroughness of science as a discipline account for why we live the absurdly comfortable lifestyles we’ve grown accustomed to. Religion certainly can’t say the same; for much of history, in fact, religion did nothing but slow down or interfere with these developments.

(For a more in-depth look at the harms of discounting science, see Michael Specter’s recent book, Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens Our Lives – [New York Times review] [Amazon])

Appreciation of Life

Even besides useful gadgetry (if hospitals and the like can be demoted to mere “usefulness”), science is the best means we possess to investigate and explore the world around us. The Progressive Believer looks at the world, and feels the need to reach for something else, almost as though the physical world is not good enough. It seems to me, anyway, that the beauty of the world is better appreciated if one isn’t constantly reaching for something beyond it. I feel that we must recognize the brevity of our time on Earth, and make as much of it as we can, rather than continually putting it to one side in favor of all manner of afterlives and higher powers. Appreciation and wonderment at the world just beyond comes from learning about it, from investigating its workings, from marveling at its complexity. Progressive Beliefs limit our scientific inquiry – at least in some cases they propose pessimistically that the true nature of the universe can never be explained by science, that science has limitations, that there are gaps that only spirituality can fill. But of course, this view is absurdly narrow and ill-informed! Two thousand years ago, all the same things were said about seemingly fundamental things – the orbits of the planets, for instance, or the nature of distant stars. Two thousand years from now, I can only hope that science will have pushed through most of this fog of spiritual conjecture, and further reduced these knowledge gaps that Believers everywhere cling to.

What I am saying is, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to what benefits, if any, Progressive Beliefs provide. It seems to me that they function only as a psychological security blanket. In severe cases, this blanket has the tendency to obscure one’s immediate view of the outside world.

To conclude, then, I have tried to convey three points:

1. Replacing “God” with “Higher Power” lends no additional legitimacy or weight to any theistic view.

2. Such views, “Progressive Beliefs,” are accordingly erroneous.

3. In addition to being erroneous, these beliefs are also harmful in that they slow the journey of scientific progress and in some cases can interfere with the individual’s appreciation of the world around them. Even if this is not the case, they have as far as I can tell no legitimate benefits – they are both false and useless.

Responses are encouraged – comment below or send me a rebuttal at beyondtheflock [at] gmail.com

*Credit for this idea and example goes to Dr. Rulison.

Stop forcing faith on children – petition

From the petition:

Children have the right to their own thoughts, including their thoughts on religion. Because of religious hegemony around the world, children are herded into temples, churches, and synagogues without their consent and forced to endure dogma and superstition. The decision to take up a religion or remain free of religion belongs to an adult mind fully aware of the consequences such a decision will have. Usurping the right of a child to remain free of religion until they are adults is unethical, no matter the motivation of a parent.

Here’s the link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop_forcing_faith/?e

Philosophy as Science and Art

Philosophy as a discipline is often criticized for being purely speculative, totally abstract and without practical application. The philosopher is one who simply thinks, while contributing nothing of any practical value to society.

This is obviously a misconception, and herein, I wish to explore why, by looking at philosophy both as science and art.

Philosophy as Art

Art is a broad subject. It spans eons, cultures, and formats and has few defined boundaries. Admittedly, I know very little about art. I would argue, however, that one of the central tenants of the discipline is meaning.

It is hard to picture an object of art being considered art if it were not endowed with some meaning or significance. Le Penseur, or “The Thinker,” for instance, can be seen as depicting man’s mental struggle in the search for truth; it has the capacity to produce certain ideas to which the observer can relate. This is both the artist’s skill in crafting a work with this capacity, as well as the observer’s ability to find meaning in what would otherwise be a chiseled slab.

What makes art great, perhaps, is its level of significance to observers. If I take a snapshot of my front yard, it has a small amount of significance for me: it is my yard, after all. To anyone else, though, it’s merely a picture of an unkempt lawn, which carries little meaning. The observer also finds it difficult to find his own meaning in such a snapshot. What gives rise to this capacity for significance, I’m not sure, but it’s clear that it relates in some way to what makes art important.

Philosophy, in the broadest sense, is the search for truth. While philosophical works lack the capacity for interpretation that is inherent in works of art, the discipline is the epitome of the search for meaning. Philosophy is the organized search for meaning and truth, and the expression and distillation of that meaning in the purest form possible. Perhaps philosophy then stands at the pinnacle of artistic pursuits; philosophy is the crystallization of artistic expression.

Philosophy as Science

Science, on the other hand, is concerned with the material world, and with the systematic discovery of certainty within that world. This might seem to be the complete opposite of philosophy, which tends towards the abstract, reasoned evaluation of things, rather than empirical data.

However, philosophy seems to me to be science taken to new levels. All branches of science take it as self-evident that our senses don’t deceive us in their representation of an outside world. Given this premise, science seeks to explain phenomena that the senses present. We see, for example, that things fall to the ground when we drop them. Science asks, why? Philosophy, then, is the next level of inquiry; it asks, for instance, how do we know that things fall to the ground when dropped? Can we be sure of the existence of objects, or of the ground? What sort of thing is a physical object?

The same rigor that’s present in science, of testing and retesting hypotheses, is also present in philosophy. Various theories are debated. The unsatisfactory ones are discarded, and the more secure ones are retained. Over time, we can indeed see that progress has been made.

Philosophy’s not simply abstract theoretical speculation. It’s just as rigorous as science, just as meaningful as art, and a decidedly important discipline.