FAITH April, 2011
The Language Of God – Collins (A Christian Evangelical Evolutionist)
*The Will to Believe* - William James
The Varieties of Religious Experience - William James
Collins.
Where to begin with this one? I suspect that our last class of the year will be heated. The Language of God was enjoyable reading and Collins does have some interesting arguments, although many of them would not hold water against an articulate and aggressive atheist. At least, generally speaking, atheists come across as having better arguments and more reason than theists. Part of that might be due to the “rational” society we’ve lived in our whole lives and the fact that the “agnostic hypothesis” is more alive than the “theist philosophy” in many of us. Conversely, any atheist’s arguments can be attacked by a Biologos believer like Collins since his start point is at complete odds with his opponent’s: Atheists do not believe in God while theists do. (As James states in “The Will to Believe”: “When the Cliffords tell us how sinful it is to be Christians on such ‘insufficient evidence’, insufficiency is really the last thing they have in mind. For them the evidence is absolutely sufficient, only it makes the other way. They believe so completely in an anti-christian order of the universe that there is no living option: Christianity is a dead hypothesis from the start.” Clearly, there can be no clear-cut winner in such an argument. One must listen to his soul (or his inkling, I should say, for the atheists out there).
Generally, I find it somewhat presumptuous when people claim to know why god created the universe and what our purpose in the cosmos is. Some of the reasons Collins’ gives for his stance are not very sound, at least on my first reading of his book. One of his claims is that Moral Law (the distinction between right and wrong) *somehow* means we are suffused with some divine force. He does say that some (like myself) may object that “the Moral Law is simply a consequence of evolutionary pressures” (p. 24), and that this objection “arises from the new field of sociobiology, and attempts to provide explanations for altruistic behaviour on the basis of its positive value in Darwinian selection.” (p. 25). I like how he stressed that sociobiology is a “new” field almost as if to discredit it. (He did not mention that Darwinian selection has been going on for billions of years and that he is a supporter of Natural Selection...something he talks about later on in the book). Behaviourally speaking, if certain ant species know that it is “right” to build tunnels in a certain way, or that bees know instinctively to build honeycombs, (millions of years of evolution drilling the “rightness” of this action into their DNA through Natural Selection), is it so far of a stretch to propose that certain emotions - like being able to feel the pangs of guilt when knowing that one has done something unfair, or the feeling of love itself - are evolutionarily generated? I don’t quite understand his example that the feeling of guilt one might get from telling a little white lie on a tax return is evolutionarily inexplicable because it doesn’t hurt another identifiable human being. Sure, but it does hurt the larger community of (unidentifiable) human beings, not to mention the fact that knowing that everyone else is properly filling out their tax forms makes one an outsider, so to speak. Brought down to a evolutionary behavioural level, this feeling makes sense: An animal who does something that threatens the wealth and health of other members will be punished. Such behaviour is witnessed in primates. Also, as stated in On the Origin of Species, Darwin himself provides plenty of evidence in support of Natural Selection acting on entire populations, not individuals. (On the Origin of Species, Chapter VII).
I also disagree with his views of “agape” or “selfless love”. Such acts can be ego-driven and can produce feelings of smugness and superiority in individuals and potentially result in behaviour that will benefit them in the long run. It might give one enough mojo to actually procreate…
OK, I know I’m stretching it here, but my point is that Collins is wrong to discount the impact that millions of years of evolution has had on our brains and how we think, function and feel emotions. Moreover, some people might even say that Collins’ use of Mother Teresa as an example of someone who acted out of selfless giving shows his narrow-mindedness: Mother Teresa did live in poverty, she did open missions all over the world, there’s no doubt. What neither she or the Vatican did was use the millions upon millions of dollars sent in donations to upgrade her hospices to provide its patients (many suffering from extraordinary pain) anything more than an Aspirin for stomach cancer, for example. So Mother Teresa might have given selflessly, it is true. She, (and the religious institution that took advantage of her image), could have and should have given so much more (how much more, no one knows as there is no accounting of her missions’ finances).
It is a fascinating topic, but not one that I’m researched on. However, I think that Collins did not do research into the many elegant theories out there as to why and how humans came to adopt notions of right and wrong. Author Marc Hauser wrote a book Moral Minds, subtitled “How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong”. I’m sure it’s longer than the few pages Collins dedicates to his contention that Moral Law is something generated from the “divine”.
Here is but one interesting example that supports the notion that neurochemistry can account for some of the most ecstatic sensations and emotions (like love) that we experience:
"The desire to commit to someone is strongly linked to oxytocin. Oxytocin is released by the pituitary gland and acts on the ovaries and testes to regulate reproduction. This hormone is important for forming close social bonds. The levels of this chemical rise when couples watch romantic movies, hug, or hold hands. Prairie voles, when injected with oxytocin, pair much faster than normally. Blocking oxytocin prevents them from bonding in a normal way. This is similar in humans, because couples bond to certain characteristics in each other. This is why you are attracted to the same type of man or woman repeatedly. In general, levels of oxytocin are lower in men, except after an orgasm, where they are raised more than 500 percent. This may explain why men feel very sleepy after an orgasm. This is the same hormone released in babies during breast-feeding, which makes them sleepy as well.
"Oxytocin is also related to the feelings of closeness and being 'in love' when you have regular sex for several reasons. First, the skin is sensitized by oxytocin, encouraging affection and touching behavior. Then, oxytocin levels rise during subsequent touching and eventually even with the anticipation of being touched. Oxytocin increases during sexual activity, peaks at orgasm, and stays elevated for a period of time after intercourse. ... In addition, there is an amnesic effect created by oxytocin during sex and orgasm that blocks negative memories people have about each other for a period of time. The same amnesic effect occurs from the release of oxytocin during childbirth, while a mother is nursing to help her forget the labor pain, and during long, stressful nights spent with a newborn so that she can bond to her baby with positive feelings and love.
"Higher oxytocin levels are also associated with an increased feeling of trust. In a landmark study by Michael Kosfeld and colleagues from Switzerland published in the journal Nature, intranasal oxytocin was found to increase trust. Men who inhale a nasal spray spiked with oxytocin give more money to partners in a risky investment game than do men who sniff a spray containing a placebo. This substance fosters the trust needed for friendship, love, families, economic transactions, and political networks. According to the study's authors, 'Oxytocin specifically affects an individual's willingness to accept social risks arising through interpersonal interactions.' ...
"What happens in the brain when you lose someone you love? Why do we hurt, long, even obsess about the other person? When we love someone, they come to live in the emotional or limbic centers of our brains. He or she actually occupies nerve-cell pathways and physically lives in the neurons and synapses of the brain. When we lose someone, either through death, divorce, moves, or
breakups, our brain starts to get confused and disoriented. Since the person lives in the neuronal connections, we expect to see her, hear her, feel her, and touch her. When we cannot hold her or talk to her as we usually do, the brain centers where she lives becomes inflamed looking for her. Overactivity in the limbic brain has been associated with depression and low serotonin levels, which is why we have trouble sleeping, feel obsessed, lose our appetites, want to isolate ourselves, and lose the joy we have about life. A deficit in endorphins, which modulate pain and pleasure pathways in the brain, also occurs, which may be responsible for the physical pain we feel during a breakup."
Some may say that this neurochemical explication for the feeling of love displays the amazing and graceful work of evolution as it explains such a diverse range of feelings (and remember, we are only talking about one chemical, here: oxytocin). Others may say oxytocin is merely the physical result of the feeling of love from one’s “divine heart”. Well what came first - the chicken or the egg?
However, some might argue that not believing in god is to live without conscience and we simply do whatever we want, and besides, who needs to live as a child with an oppressive father watching his every move? They say that live in the most atheistic of all human eras and consequently the most bloody in terms of conflict... is there a correlation here? Again, what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Perhaps my “Theist” hypothesis is “dead”, but Collins lost all credibility when he stated: (p.38) “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: weel, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probably explanation is that I was made for another world. Could it be that this longing for the sacred may not be wish-fulfillment but rather a pointer toward something beyond us? Why do we have a God-shaped vacuum in our hearts and minds unless it was meant to be filled?” Does one even have to bother commenting on this? The whole premise of the argument, to me, sounds terrifically infantile. Some people (like me) might call this a desire for "the transcendent", for “beauty”... I personally get a sense of the ineffable from playing my violin. I get a far more peaceful and "satisfying" feelings from this than going to church. And as far as the “God-shaped vacuum” that needs filling, this could be the result of our brains working at a far higher order than most animals. We can create art, so perhaps we desire it. We want to be transfigured through it, we want to live and taste it. To say that this must be a “God-shaped vacuum” is silly, quite frankly. For some this vacuum might be satisfied by relationships, a good meal, skiing, hiking, ...depending on who you are, you tap into it on different levels. Could it be that people who deem this desire as one for "God" just have no other idea how to articulate it or have not found something in life that gives them that feeling? I dunno. So what came first, the chicken or the egg?
A fascinating experiment would be to raise a population of people in a society absolutely disinfected from “God” in all shapes and forms. Would a specific and inherent desire for God be wished for by those raised in such a community? Would they articulate a vacuum within them that can only be filled by something described as “God”? Everything we know about religion is what is told us; we are socialized with it. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing inherent or congenital about it.
I’m just recording my initial reactions here. I don’t propose that my rebuttals are adequate as I’ve not really developed them much. I’m also sure that Collins did not want to get too philosophical in his own arguments and could probably say more to what I’m saying now.
However, I’ll continue to jot down my reactions to some of his statements, like: "...Big Bang cries for a divine explanation..." (p. 67) What!? Why? Because it's inexplicable? Because our primitive brains are not well-developed enough to understand it or even fathom it? Might not Collins have said the same thing for the mystery of heredity, only to be found in the genome? The Big Bang could be something else completely; something that science has not yet - and may never - elucidate. It may be something we cannot yet grasp but it may very well still be part of our natural world (not the divine world). IF “the universe is not only queerer than we suppose but queerer than we CAN suppose” (J.BS. Haldane), then it’s likely that nature on its own came up with a way of creation and causing the Big Bang. Nature’s explanation might make perfect sense on its own without us copping-out and attributing it to the divine for the sole reason that it is currently beyond our comprehension. Our reptilian brains are not quite "there" yet. Perhaps eventually, through evolution, these mysteries will be understood. Our brains need to evolve further. And on another cosmic note, regarding the "Drake equation" (p. 70), there are so many stars and planets in this colossal universe that it cannot be that far-fetched to believe that we are here solely by chance.
A friend of mine mentioned the other day that he is envious of people who are religious – many of life’s difficult questions are answered, they are nicely packaged and formatted so that we can understand. Not only that, but religious folk can go about their days with less worries, believing that someone is watching over them and that there will be a happy ending.
Collins writes something important on p. 81: “The God hypothesis solves some deeply troubling questions about why the universe seems to be so exquisitely tuned for us to be here.” This is true. I’ll take it a step further and say that this God hypothesis solves a lot (as in ALL) problems. I agree. “God is, as it were, the sewer into which all contradictions flow” (Hegel)
Maybe one day our brains will evolve enough so that we may understand more, but for now, we simply do not, we cannot. Just as a worm or a monkey (probably) cannot contemplate the existence of god, that state of inability might be ours in terms of our full understanding of the universe and how and why it was created. Just as a fish might not have the brain capacity for sentience, WE don't have the capacity to understand why we are here and how the Big Bang occurred. A lot can happen in 15 billion years. It just might be (even though Collins disagrees) that we are simply very very lucky to be here. It is most probable that far, far stranger things have happened in our universe than that. However, those promoting certain beliefs are too self-centrered to be open to the possibility, and perhaps like to feel that they have a connection to divine knowledge. On the notion of “chance”, Collins gives a pretty good argument in favour of it when he argues for the creation of life and for humans and apes having a common ancestor (p.138-9).
So many complex human ideas and beliefs - especially those of religion - serve the same purpose of explaining what we cannot explain. They speak to the core of our need to know - be that through Christians and their afterlife, the Buddhists and their cyclical beliefs, the Hindus and their equally cyclic Mandalas, the Armaggedonists, the Fundamentalists... these very different belief systems seem very different when viewed from afar but when once collapsed onto each other and brought to a point, they fundamentally address the same elementary concept. And on p.149, Collins goes on again with "Moral law and universal longing for god". These ideas can be easily explained OR at least, it does not necessarily point towards the existence of god. But my biggest issue with Collins is from his statement: “When it comes to the meaning of life, fence sitting is an inappropriate posture for both scientists and believers.” (p.158). (May I ask WHY!?) He doesn’t seem to answer this question, he just states it as a fact. I disagree completely. I can sit on the fence all I like and be perfectly content in life knowing that there may not be a god and that there also may be one. Why should my believing in something make any difference to god? Why should he reward me if I do and punish me if I don’t? (Is that idea so different from Santa Claus rewarding the children who believe in Him?) Well, if this is the case and my undeveloped brain cannot conceive the reason why – and that there is a “divine reason for it - maybe it is for the best. I can live in ignorance.
(p.168): “…But agnosticism also runs the risk of being a cop-out.” Interesting that Collins should criticize the notion of “copping out”. Doesn’t believing in God amount to the same thing? You cannot explain something, therefore, let “GOD” explain it; be it what you call a miracle, something you feel (love, Moral Law…)
“…To be well defended, agnosticism should be arrived at only after a full consideration of all the evidence for and against the existence of God.” But Collins doesn’t really give much but conjecture on this point! “It is a rare agnostic who has made the effort to do so. (Some who have, and a rather distinguished list it is, have unexpectedly converted themselves… agnosticism conveys a certain tinniness. Would we admire someone who insisted the age of the universe was unknowable, and hadn’t taken time to look at the evidence?” Well then, let us talk about EVIDENCE, then, Mr Collins (and what do you mean by “tinniness”?)
On the topic of Jesus, Collins states (p.221) “He also claimed to be able to forgive sins, which seemed both exciting and utterly shocking”! These words jumped out at me. Collins’ words and reaction seem equally ridiculous. The ability to forgive sins - “utterly shocks” him? Well, it is no more silly than the idea of a priest forgiving one’s sins as he has some divine connection with God. That someone can be so accomplished and so utterly gullible I find shocking in the extreme. The role of confession, as I see it, is purely psychological. Just by verbalizing what one is feeling, one can have the weight on one’s shoulders lightened. If under any other “umbrella” someone stated a similar belief, they might be referred to a psychiatrist for an assessment.
And still on the notion of a historical Jesus: p.223 “But the more I read of biblical and non-biblical accounts of events in first-century Palestine, the more amazed I was at the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.” Hmm. No references. I wonder what Collins thinks of Thomas Harpurs book, The Pagan Christ, which argues that Jesus is an archetype of man and likely never existed. (It’s an excellent book and lists loads of evidence suggesting that Jesus did not exist. I remain a fence-sitter on this, despite what Collins might think of one taking this position). Here’s a documentary on CBC Doczone (“The Pagan Christ”): http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/paganchrist.html
I also wonder what Collins would think of the following list of traits shared by many archetypal and divine figures (“Heroes”), described numerous times in mythologies that predate the age of Jesus Christ. (Oedipus gets full marks21/21, while Jesus shares 15 of these 21 criteria (…71%; not too bad)). (Reference: Lord Raglan’s book: The Hero, A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama (1936).
1. The hero’s mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far away country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor, and
13. Becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully, and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later he loses favour with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill.
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchures.
Christianity borrowed themes from the Romans, and before that the Greeks, and before that the Babylonians... there is nothing new in Christianity, really. …and Pope John-Paul II was brought in from Poland to invigorate Catholicism among the Eastern European countries. It is really hard to buy into any religion when so often those holding the reins are so corrupt and self-serving. There’s a lot of plagiarizing going on here!
In the end, I absolutely agree with Collins and James: one should listen to one’s heart. Be authentic; Follow your heart! I am not one to believe that you would be committing a crime against yourself if you were to believe something for which there is no absolute scientific evidence (as Clifford might - (read below)). Everyone should believe whatever they want but the argument that religion itself is purely a step in our human evolution is appealing.
Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.
(Bertrand Russell)
The Will to Believe - William James
- “Moral skepticism can no more be refuted or proved by logic than intellectual skepticism can.”
Francis Collins is a case study of what James was referring to in his lectures. I have quoted some important and striking passages from James’ work and have commented as well:
I
“…if I were Dr. Nansen and proposed to you to join my North Pole expedition, your option would be momentous; for this would probably be your only similar opportunity, and your choice now would either exclude you from the North Pole sort of immortality altogether or put at least the chance of it into your hands.”
I can’t help but feel uncomfortable at the analogy here… can one really compare a trip to “heaven” with one to the North Pole? And is “believing” in heaven tantamount to accepting to go on a trip? What if one is incapable of belief? What if one tries, but everything within his being is telling him no! no! I just cannot believe! Is he barred from the gates of heaven?
II
“A game is going on between you and the nature of things which at the day of judgment will bring out either heads or tails. Weigh what your gains and your losses would be if you should stake all you have on heads, or God’s existence: if you win in such a case, you gain in eternal beatitude; if you lose, you lose nothing at all. … Why should you not? At bottom, what have you to lose?”
Well, this presumes, first of all, that the God James is speaking of is so vindictive that he punishes those who do not believe in him… even though he loves them completely, go figure. It also suggests that if you go through the motions – even if you don’t really believe – you can gain “eternal beatitude”.
“…And that delicious enfant terrible Clifford writes: “Belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer… If a belief has been accepted on insufficient evidence [even if the belief be true] the pleasure is a stolen one… It is sinful because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind.”
III
“This very law which the logicians would impose on us … is based on nothing but their own natural wish to exclude all elements for which they, in their professional quality of logicians, can find no use.”
IV
The thesis I defend is, briefly stated, this: Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, “Do not decide, but leave the question open,” is itself a passional decision and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.
V
When the Cliffords tell us how sinful it is to be Christians on such “insufficient evidence”, insufficiency is really the last thing they have in mind. For them the evidence is absolutely sufficient, only it makes the other way. They believe so completely in an anti-christian order of the universe that there is no living option: Christianity is a dead hypothesis from the start.
VI
Shall we espouse and endorse [our absolutist instinct]? Of shall we treat it as a weakness of our nature from which we must free ourselves, if we can? I sincerely believe that the latter course is the only one we can follow as reflective men. Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?
VIII
Science has organized this nervousness into a regular technique, her so-called method of verification…It is only truth as technically verified that interests her. The truth of truths might come in merely affirmative form, and she would decline to touch it.
Human passions, however, are stronger than technical rules [perhaps, but they have a tendency of being unreliable] “Le coeur a ses raisons,” as Pascal says, “que la raison ne connait pas” and however indifferent to all but the bare rules of the game the abstract intellect may be, the concrete players who furnish him the materials to judge of are usually, each one of them, in love with some pet “live hypothesis” of his own.
IX
The question of having moral beliefs at all or not having them is decided by our will. Are our moral preferences true or false, or are they only odd biological phenomena, making things good or bad for us, but in themselves indifferent? [In the end, they make us feel GOOD…this is EVOLUTION in the psychological/social sense! Religious beliefs are just another step of the human evolution… there may be a day when we grow beyond the need for it and look back at our “crazy ways”…]
Do you like me or not, for example. Whether you do or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you half-way, am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. The previous faith on my part in your liking’s existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt, as the absolutists say, ten to one your liking never comes. [It’s called “taking a chance” and being a social animal we have to take this chance and have experiential evidence - based on events that actually happened - that chances of “sociable” reciprocation are good. And if there is no reciprocation of friendliness, it is a “trivial” loss in the end. It is not a “momentous” loss, as James himself might put it.]
[Regarding the example of a trainload of passengers attacking a few train-robbers/highwaymen]: “There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless preliminary faith exists in its coming. And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the ‘lowest kind of immorality’ into which a thinking being can fall. Yet such is the logic by which our scientific absolutists pretend to regulate our lives!” [This is a tangible example, though, that of a train robbery. How can it be compared to the belief in the existence of god?]
X
In truths dependent on our personal action, then, faith based on desire is certainly a lawful and possibly an indispensable thing. [To compare the two (above, last part of section IX to faith-based desire) is quite a stretch.]
We are supposed to gain by our belief and to lose by our nonbelief a certain vital good. [I wish he would define this better… Yes, I suppose we could gain an illusory existence where we can go about our daily lives believing that there is a meaning to the seemingly amoral universe… but deep down, how can one not feel like a dupe, given the overwhelming support for there not being a higher being? Our heart, for example, may only have this desire to know the “great maker” only because it longs for answers that only such a being might provide…]
Better risk loss of truth than chance of error - that is your faith-vetoer’s exact position. [Not necessarily - it could just be that in view of the lack of evidence, I will stand on my own two feet and make the most reasonable decision; I will NOT be brainwashed by anyone that this unverifiable truth is an option…OK, my argument is getting hackneyed and it has been repeated several times here. My argument is from the “dead hypothesis” standpoint and I’m sure James would therefore disregard anything I say. I look forward to learning more about his standpoint, though, as his arguments for the existence of god are more intellectual and appealing than Collins’.]
“I, for one, can see no proof; and I simply refuse obedience to the scientist’s command to imitate his kind of option, in a case where my own stake is important enough to give me the right to choose my own form of risk.” [Enough is known about psychology to understand how humans can deceive themselves and how institutions - religion being the first to come to mind - behave as brainwashing societies]
[James compares the situation of the individual taking a risk of befriending someone, not knowing whether the friendly feelings will be reciprocated with that of jumping on the wagon of a religious belief system because the end result makes one feel good. The crucial difference is that we are social animals and evidence that most other people are abounds. The problem with the religious belief system here is that it is essentially no different from “Santa Claus” in that it provides comfort to those who believe; it answers all of one’s existential questions and concerns that make death a gray cloud over one’s head.]
I don’t find religion to be a completely dead hypothesis but have yet to hear a decent argument for it… Being an agnostic, I’m still on the fence.
The word “Sophist” came to my mind while reading James. At no other passage was this idea more apparent than when he states, in section VII: “There are two ways of looking at our duty in the matter of opinion,--ways entirely different, and yet ways about whose difference the theory of knowledge seems hitherto to have shown very little concern. We must know the truth; and we must avoid error,--these are our first and great commandments as would-be knowers; but they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws. Although it may indeed happen that when we believe the truth A, we escape as an incidental consequence from believing the falsehood B, it hardly ever happens that by merely disbelieving B we necessarily believe A. We may in escaping B fall into believing other falsehoods, C or D, just as bad as B; or we may escape B by not believing anything at all, not even A.” (from section VII)
Uh… Chicken or the egg?
