Here’s my view about those pesky “secular progressive” agendas on campus:
Philosophers often struggle and strive to create logical arguments to get at the truth of a particular subject or so the claim is. In philosophy classes, students are bombarded with various forms of logical deductive and inductive arguments, so that they know what qualifies as a genuine argument. The students are trained to avoid logical fallacies, and they write many a paper, where they will lose many a grade point if they fail to make a logical argument and avoid these fallacies. Still, doing real philosophy is not this simple. I would argue, that philosophers are often “biased”.
This is not to say that philosophers aren’t, for the most part, making logical arguments. The problem is that even a logical argument can potentially be wrong, if new information arises. For example look at this argument:
- All white bears are polar bears
- X is a bear
- X is white
- Thus, X is a polar bear
That argument is logical, but it is also wrong. Non-polar bears can be, of course, white. But, if someone had never heard or seen a white non-polar bear, this argument would seem reasonable, wouldn’t it?
And, this brings us to the next point. Philosophy and logic are absolutely indispensable, but logic alone is not enough to bear the weight of the burden of proof in many cases. If someone had never had a science class or lived a long time ago, it would make sense to them that the sun went around the earth. Why? It seems patently obvious to the naked eye. Both modern knowledge and logical argumentation is necessary to prove that the earth in fact goes around the sun and the like.
One of the problems philosophy faces in arenas outside science and instead in arenas such as morality and religion is to get past the “obvious.” It is obvious to some that God exists, and it is obvious to other that he/she/it doesn’t. Many a premise and conclusion are made to prove both sides of this debate correct, but the debate still rages. For example, when people make the claim that something can’t come from nothing, this will seem obvious to many people, but has anyone ever dealt with absolute nothingness? Could we be wrong about the obvious? I’m not trying to claim the answer one way or the other, but the point is, how would we really know? These philosophers and lay people are relying on the obvious which is in reality a bias!
Nevertheless, it is not just religious philosophy that suffers from the problems of the bias of the obvious. For many the idea of maximizing happiness as a moral system seems obvious, not that there aren’t arguments for this, but should we be digging deeper? Sure being happy and causing others to be happy seems “nice.” However, it is tempting to ask if happiness and pleasure are really the highest aims to being human.
There are many other cases and examples I could have used in philosophy. I hope to have used some relatable ones. The problem with philosophy, sometimes, is that it is often trying to answer questions before we have enough knowledge, or it is trying to answer questions where superior knowledge will never be found. Often the bias of the obvious is used, so I beseech you to notice this when you are doing your own critical thinking.
Thank you for reading. Feel free to like and comment!
It has been my personal experience that theists like to treat atheists as a homogeneous group. At least where I’m at, theists seem to think that if someone is an atheist, they have to be a secular humanist, a liberal progressive, are angry, and desperately wanting to take their religion. There are more stereotypes, of course. If you aren’t an atheist, here a helpful list.
1. We are not all secular humanists.
2. We are not all progressive liberals.
3. Many atheists couldn’t care less about your religion.
5. There are certain atheist sects of Buddhism and Hinduism, so some atheists are actually religious.
6. Not all atheists are materialists.
7. Not all atheists are New Atheists.
8. Atheists have not crowned Richard Dawkins as their pope.
9. Atheists can have a moral center.
10. (This one, actually, shocks the hell out of me.) Not all atheists accept evolution. (I’ve run into a couple.)
11. We are not all angry.
12. Atheism =/= socialism/communism.
13. Returning to point 8. Not all atheists even like Richard Dawkins.
14. We did not all leave God due to a tragedy.
15. We are not all going through a phase.
* I’m not saying whether or not an atheist should/should prescribe to items on the list. I’m saying we are not a homogeneous group. Treating all atheist is the same is like thinking every theist is a Christian conservative.