Search This Blog

Thursday, June 14, 2012

I suppose that foolish is as foolish does

William Vallicella, exposing (once again) his foolishness (*): "Which is worse? To deny that there is truth or to suppose that one is in secure possession of it? Either way inquiry is at an end and the road to truth blocked."

The sentiment that Vallicella expresses above (for, I cannot bring myself to call it a rational thought) is of a piece with another wrong-headed and anti-rational belief which he is fond of asserting, namely that "[t]here are no compelling arguments one way or the other when it comes to God ..." (most recently here).

To paraphrase Chesterton, just as the whole point of opening one's mouth is to close it on something substantial with which to nourish the body, so too the whole point of 'opening one's mind' is to close it on something substantial with which to nourish the mind/spirit. The point of inquiry is not the "road", but the destination: the point of inquiry is not neverendingly to ask a question, but rather to put "inquiry [] at an end " by finding the truth. And, having found the truth of the matter, "one is [indeed] in secure possession of it", and thus to continue to ask the question is to play false to reason, it is to be unreasonable and irrational; it is, in fact, to be anti-rational.

Contrary to Vallicella's frequent assertion, there are multiple compelling arguments showing that the proposition "God is" is true, and that the proposition "God is not" is false. That human beings -- being agents, being free wills -- are free to deny the truth of these arguments without ever even attempting to show that they are flawed or erroneous does not make the arguments uncompelling. And, in fact, this freedom itself leads directly to a compelling argument against God-denial.

(*) and his hypocrisy ... but I repeat myself.


Interstellar Bill said...

It's been some years now since he kicked me off his page, when I chided him for his gloomy agnosticism.
I cited humanity's instinctive fear of contagion being in tune with the scientific truth of the invisible microbial causes of disease, even though premodern people no more knew about microbes than about H2O. Nonetheless they believed that tiny contagions could grow, rather in tune with microbial reality.
So too, I argued, our instinctive belief in God is a similarly correct tuning, albeit as unconscious as our instinctive fear of microbes, a tuning to another invisible reality, namely divine reality.
No open-mindedness there, I thought as I saved all my posts and never linked again.