CRITICAL RATIONALISM IN ATHEISM


The purpose of this essay is to briefly review the philosophy of Critical Rationalism and
present some of its implications for atheism.
     It is argued that faith is as intellectually respectable and as philosophically well
founded as science because both are dependent upon a commitment to (faith in) a principle
whose truth cannot be demonstrated.  If we think of science as reasoning based on
experience, it is thought necessary to show that the method itself is philosophically
unassailable in order to differentiate it from faith.  I believe it was Hume that first pointed
out, however, that reasoning based on experience cannot prove that it is reasonable to
reason based on experience, except by an appeal to experience.  It is necessary to assume
the truth of what is to be proved in order to prove it, which, of course, is no proof at all. 
If no appeal to experience is made, other difficulties appear.  It seems that science is built
on a foundation of sand.
     Based largely on the work of Karl Popper, a number of philosophers have put
together a different philosophy of science.  This philosophy has a number of names
depending on the specific details adhered to, many of which are well beyond the scope of
this introduction, as well as being at the limits of my understanding, but for sake of
reference I'll call this philosophy "Critical Rationalism."
     The basis of much philosophy and especially the philosophy of science prior to this
century was rationalism of one form or another.  The goal of rationalism may be taken as
the building of a system of thought founded on premises that cannot be doubted.  This goal
has proved elusive, to say the least.  It is now taken for granted by most philosophers that
this goal is impossible to attain, because either the necessary premises can always be
questioned, or circular reasoning or an infinite regress are produced.
     Rationalism assumes that things need to be proved or justified in order to be
believed.  It is this assumption that has been overturned by Popper.  Rather than rationally
justifying what is to be believed, he argues that it is necessary, and enough, to expose our
hypotheses to testing.  Those hypotheses that survive the tests can be provisionally retained. 
Bartley has generalized this "scientific method" to apply to other forms of belief, and, in
place of scientific experiments has substituted criticism.  Thus, he and others argue that we
are entitled to believe whatever can survive criticism; but it is necessary to seek out and
answer the most severe and sophisticated criticism if our beliefs are to be called "rational." 
Hence the name "Critical Rationalism."  Through the process of criticism and revision, the
beliefs are refined and improved.
     There are, of course, innumerable details that need to be considered, and I cannot
cover all the bases here.  Is it possible to criticize "2+2=4"?  Not really; the method is
therefore restricted only to "synthetic" statements, and not "analytic" statements.  However,
there are "synthetic" statements that nevertheless cannot be doubted, such as Wittgenstein's
"Cats don't grow on trees."  I'm not clear on how these are handled.  Is it possible to
criticize the philosophy of Critical Rationalism?  Yes.  In this process there are difficulties
with circularity that I cannot address at this time, but I believe these difficulties have been
answered.
     For me the most attractive feature of Critical Rationalism is how it neatly ties in with
cultural evolution and certain theories of cognition--all are evolutionary processes.  The idea
of cultural evolution is that concepts, hypotheses, ideas, etc., in a culture are in competition
and that the "fittest" survive, in a method very comparable to the competition and survival
of genes.  In cognitive science there is a theory that the mind works as a "Darwinian
machine," with random generation of variations in thoughts, and selective retention of the
best, again, an evolutionary process.
     Given this development in epistemology, true believers who point to the atheist and
say, "You too" are no longer on firm ground.  The atheist can reasonably say that he rejects
belief in God because that belief cannot effectively answer the best criticism.  The atheist,
when asked why he "believes in rationality" can safely say that he does so provisionally, and
not dogmatically.
     I think, too, that I now can answer my own most severe doubt.  How can I know that
I am proceeding wisely in favoring one system of belief over another?  In other words, given
my limited lifetime, how long do I have to suspend judgment until I can make an informed
choice between belief and unbelief?  How much evidence do I need to look at, how many
books must I read?  Must I understand evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics as well
as become an expert in one or more particular faiths?  My life will be over before it can be
put on the kind of solid philosophical foundation I want it to have.  The answer to this is
twofold.
     First, provided that my beliefs are always subject to revision in light of better
arguments and new evidence, I can feel confident that I am fully "philosophically entitled"
to believe what I believe right now.  Given the bible thumper's protectionist attitude towards
his own beliefs and his refusal to unevasively face his critics, I don't have to pretend that he
is my equal in rationality.  I have the properly reasonable attitude towards my beliefs, and
he does not towards his.  I am in the position of strength, I am on the solid philosophical
foundation I seek:  provisional belief plus ongoing criticism.
     Second, I have believed for several years that, because few of us can become
authorities in science, the philosophy of religion, etc. (and I certainly don't claim to be an
expert), and thereby judge for ourselves the comparative strengths of various positions, much
of our most important decision making therefore must be comparatively uninformed
decision making.  Seemingly, I must take the pronouncements of either scientists or priests
on faith, not being able to decide all questions myself.  Having no better guide, I am most
often compelled to give the nod to tradition and culture when making life-value decisions. 
I think now that religious belief is "on the run" in a cultural sense.  Many have turned away
from the old faiths.  Many more are believers in name only.  I am in line with the dominant
culture of this country when I rely on scientists instead of priests.  In other words, cultural
evolution is proceeding, and the superior concepts and beliefs are ascendant.  Congress may
open its sessions with a prayer, but then the priest is hustled out the door and they get down
to business.
     In summary, I believe that the philosophy of Critical Rationalism strengthens the
skeptic's position by refuting a long-standing counter-argument.

Recommended reading:

     W. W. Bartley, III, The Retreat To Commitment
     Gerard Radnitzky and W. W. Bartley, III, eds., Evolutionary Epistemology,
Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge
     Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
     Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained