I disagree on the most fundamental aspects of philosophy with nearly all those who are religious. I do not see virtue in faith, and while I can love and respect my fellow man who does not appreciate skeptical values, I can also tell him that I think he is wrong. There is no arrogance in this; there is only honesty and respect for my fellow man’s intellect.
But in this field of rhetorical pugilism, one will come across another type. This type of thinker is the post-modernist, the classical skeptic, the pyrrhonist, and if anyone has ever tried to have a coherent debate with this type, one will realize how pointless it is.
The post-modernist asserts that because none of us can know anything for sure, all those who try to pick a side to lean on are guilty of arrogance, yet the post-modernist also fails to realize that this idea is in itself picking a side to lean on. The post-modernist accuses all of those who pick sides to be reaching their conclusion on insufficient evidence, while he himself claims his position of ignorance is somehow the most honest worldview. But, where is the evidence for this? You’ll often find the post-modernist has none, but only has the excuse, “You don’t know anything more than I. Thus, I’m right and you’re wrong.” To everyone else, this contradiction is glaringly obvious.
I’ve heard some claim there is a fifty percent chance that you are wrong or right about what happens after death, your beliefs are either true or untrue, and because this chance is split fifty-fifty, everyone regardless of their beliefs is on equal footing. The fundamentalist Christian and the secular naturalist each have equal chances of being right.
Where does this fifty percent chance figure come from? Is it derived from the fact that our linguistics have only produced two options: afterlife or no afterlife? To claim to know the probability is a huge ordeal. I don’t think it is as simple as saying there are two options, and two sides, so the chances of one being right are split down the middle. To the post-modernist this sounds like a clever setup, and that it is one that avoids putting one belief over the other on insufficient evidence, but this is not the case. This setup puts the post-modernist on top, and is a celebration of ignorance.
I am an atheist because I do not believe in God. There could be a God, but I’ve yet to see a reason to entertain the idea. I would never claim to have probability figures on whether he exists or not. Only the post-modernist could misunderstand the fundamentals of the theory of probability so severely. To make a percentage figure, you need data. Where could we derive data concerning the chances of the existence of the afterlife? Any who claim to have such data, religious or non-religious, are practicing the proliferation of nonsense.
As for the origin of existence, I remain agnostic on the subject. Why there is something rather than nothing is the deepest question ever asked, but it has no answer as of yet and it might never have one. I make no claims about things I have no evidence for. I have no evidence for God, so I do not concern myself with the idea. It is the post-modernist’s job to explain to me why the probability for God’s existence is fifty-fifty, or why there even is a chance in the first place, but alas he cannot do this. He condemns us for taking sides, while at the same time saying we should take his.
Believers and non-believers, deists, atheists, and theists, let us unite against the post-modernist. He does not value anything other than the fact he has convinced himself nothing can be known. While we contribute to the intellectual world, he berates us for even having one. While we solve problems and move on to new ones, he says we shouldn’t even bother as he reaps the benefits from our solutions. The post-modernist is a contrarian. He wants to be unique, but he only comes out as uniquely foolish. “Nothing can be known!” he cries, as he is so sure he knows this fact.
(I welcome all to argue with me over the definition of the post-modernist philosopher. I think I’ve made it clear which kind of thinker I’m offering dissenting views against, but I would like to settle on a definition we can all agree on. From what I can tell, post-modernistic philosophy, classical skepticism, and pyrrhonism are the schools of thought I seem to be addressing. If you digress, please rebuke me. I want my ideas to be the focus of this post, not semantics, and if I can find a better word to fit the definition, so be it.)