Short and Sharp: What if you're wrong?

If you are familiar with the evangelical style of Ray Comfort and Kurt Cameron, then you will be familiar with the question “what if you’re wrong?”. For those of you who are not, it is a tactic that attempts to highlight in the minds of atheists the repercussions if they are wrong about the existence of the god that Comfort and Cameron believe in (i.e. that the atheist will go to Hell). I have seen many refutations of this argument (which is essentially Pascal’s Wager), however, I am going to actually do the opposite; I think it is a valid question in certain contexts and should be answerable by any person about any belief that they hold.

To demonstrate why I think this is the case, I would like to modify a scenario used by Richard Carrier in his book, Sense and Goodness Without God;  

Suppose a friend told you they had purchased a new car, would you believe them? As this is a fairly unremarkable claim (many people own cars), it would require very little evidence for you to believe them, perhaps even just their word alone. However, suppose now that you were relying on this friend to drive you to a very important meeting. Would you be willing to rely on just their word or would you require more evidence now that the claim has the potential to impact upon your life? If you believe them, and they are wrong (either by lying or just being misinformed; say they thought the car would be ready for their use on that day, but it was delayed), you are now stuck without a way to get your meeting.

The point that I am trying to drive at is that the amount of evidence needed to support a claim is not simply just how ordinary or extraordinary the claim is, but also how much of an impact the claim’s truth or falseness will have. Claims that will have very little effects require less evidence than claims that will have profound effect, all other things being equal. The way in which Comfort and Cameron use this question is still wrong; in that, they are essentially throwing in a possibility, Hell, which has such a low probability of actually existing that it isn’t worth considering. As such, the question is only valid when used in the context of known negative outcomes. However, when used in this way, it is very useful at highlighting how effects can impact upon our evidential standards.

Short and Sharp - Basic Beliefs

In the essay ‘Is Belief in God Properly Basic?’ Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God does not require evidential proof, as it is a properly basic belief (1). By this, he means it is a belief that cannot be based on any other belief. Another example of a basic belief is our memory; the belief that I have a memory cannot be based on any other belief; it is properly basic. Plantinga contends that belief in God is the same.

It should be noted that I agree with Plantinga’s foundationalism approach to epistemology; in that, I think that every belief we have can be boiled down to basic beliefs, which are self-evident and therefore do not require proof. For me, these basic beliefs are our senses, emotions, thoughts and memory (henceforth referred to as experiences). This is different from saying that our beliefs about our experience are properly basic; just that the experiences themselves are properly basic. This is known as basic empiricism and is discussed by Richard Carrier in his book ‘Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism’ (2) or in this web article (3).

This is an important distinction to make as I believe this is primarily where Plantinga’s argument for God as a properly basic belief fails. There is a difference between experience and our interpretation of experience. Think acknowledging that you are having an experience compared to what that experience actually means. The first is undisputable; the second is quite easily disputable. To show the difference further, here are the examples that Plantinga uses to demonstrate basic beliefs:

1. I see a tree.
2. I had breakfast this morning.
3. That person is angry.

The problem is that none of these are basic beliefs; they are interpretations of experiences and, therefore, can be wrong. The tree could be a realistic fake; you could have dreamed you had breakfast this morning and mistaken it for reality; you could not understand how that person displays anger. If you construct a foundationalist epistemology that is based off incorrect basic beliefs, you’re going to be wrong a lot of the time (even by the standards of your own epistemology). 

References

1. Cottingham J. Western Philosophy: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub.; 2008. (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies).

2. Carrier R. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defence of Metaphysical Naturalism. Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse; 2005.

3.  Carrier R. Defending Naturalism as a Worldview: A Rebuttal to Michael Rea's World Without Design; 2003 [27/03/2011]; Available from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/rea.html.