Contentious debates must be approached cautiously. When two irreconcilable views are presented, they should initially be treated as symmetric, as equal and opposite. Then, by careful consideration, the arguments can be dissected and their asymmetries revealed, their inconsistencies exposed, and their relative strengths and weaknesses brought to light. Perhaps the most important example of such a disagreement is the one that most sharply divides many societies, and has done so for as long as historians have been equipped to report on it. Broadly formulated, the question asks, “Is our observable world shaped by supernatural forces?” Deists say yes, atheists say no (agnostics shrug their shoulders). Spiritualists say yes, skeptics say no. According to the latest census1, about 85% of the US population says yes. Michael Shermer says no.
Shermer2 is a founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, and is one of the leading figures supporting a movement6,7 against faith in the unobservable. The movement lobbies for public opinion by, sometimes antagonistically, citing empiricism as the ultimate source of knowledge, and reason as the only means of extrapolating new knowledge, and denigrating anything else. Personally, I don’t disagree with the idea, but I sometimes find its proponents needlessly caustic and suspiciously defensive in tone.
Shermer is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. In the February 2011 issue, Shermer’s column3 related an anecdote (red flag number one) involving Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame) and Harry Houdini, the famous illusionist. Conan Doyle, the story goes, was a spiritualist who was fond of séances and the like. He visited Houdini at his home, where Houdini demonstrated a magnificent illusion. At its conclusion, he said:
Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion… I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily “supernatural,” or the work of “spirits,” just because you cannot explain them…
Notice that Houdini did not reveal the mechanism of his illusion (red flag number two). He asked the credulous Conan Doyle to take it on faith that Houdini accomplished the feat by easily explicable, natural means. He probably did, but that’s not the point: Houdini tried to convince Conan Doyle to question spiritualism on the grounds of hearsay. There was no appeal to logic or empiricism here. Quite the opposite in fact: Conan Doyle was encouraged to disbelieve his eyes and reject his intuitions.
Back to my earlier remark about symmetry. A powerful argument for atheism must reveal the logical fallacy of a particular dogma, providing an analogous account that is sound, reasonable, and does not invoke the supernatural. Shermer’s argument is mirror-symmetric to the rhetoric he so fervently abhors; it reads like the recounting of a miracle. Just hold it up to a mirror and see:
Sir Michael, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this miracle… I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure divine omnipotence. I did it by perfectly divine means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Michael, do not jump to the conclusion that all things you see are necessarily “natural,” or can be explained by “physical laws,” just because the universe appears to operate according to principles…
I don’t entirely disagree with Shermer’s agenda, but I think he has done it a grave disservice with his overly emotional, logically flimsy argument. The appeal for reason sometimes sounds like an appeal for sanity itself as we confront discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, American Congressmen citing the story of Noah’s Ark when asked about energy policy4, the teaching of pseudoscience in schools5, and many other fruits of religious indoctrination.
That is not to say that faith has no place in our culture. Science has not provided us with answers to any of the most fundamental philosophical questions regarding the origins, purpose, and nature of our existence. Faith provides answers, and for many, this brings solace in the face of an uncertain and often harsh world. Faith can be a beautiful thing between consenting adults, but it has overstepped its bounds when it tries to dictate social policy. Our pleas for rationality in the structure of society must be carefully constructed and dispassionate if they are to be taken seriously and, hopefully, someday soon, succeed.
