A Response to Dr. Charles Negy

Dr. Charles Negy is a psychology professor at the University of Central Florida, who became well-known in recent weeks for an email he sent out to his cross-culture psychology class, which went viral on the Internet. Several news sources have already written approving pieces on what seems to be a fine example of academic admonishment from a professor to his students. But is it?
In his email Dr. Negy chastises a few Christian students who, during his lecture on American culture and religious bigotry, demonstrated flawlessly and “precisely what religious bigotry is.” According to Dr. Negy, “bigots – racial bigot or religious bigots – never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct.” He even thanks the Christian students, who claimed that Christianity is “the most valid religion,” for “demonstrating to the rest of the class what religious arrogance and bigotry looks like.” The good professor also makes it clear that Christianity, among other religious beliefs, is grounded in fantasy without any logic or evidence.
I found several things about Dr. Negy’s email troubling. I wish I could sit down with him and talk some of these out in person. (Who knows?) But for now I think it’s worth taking note of a few prefatory issues.
What came to my mind most immediately as I read Dr. Negy’s email was the ironic fact that in accusing his students of “bigotry,” Dr. Negy essentially convicted himself of the self-same crime without being aware of it. To summarize Dr. Negy’s position, the Christian students who spoke out in his class and sought to validate their personal views are “religious bigots” because they assume their Christianity to be true while attempting to invalidate the views of others (i.e. of Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, etc).
But, that frankly doesn’t seem too different from what Dr. Negy was doing himself in his email. Dr. Negy was also invalidating Christianity on the basis of his own atheistic assumptions, namely, that the only way to know God is by means of human efforts (e.g. logic and evidence) and not by God’s grace (e.g. revelation and inspiration), or that God has not already provided sufficient empirical evidence of his existence in creation and history. (Romans 1:20)
Well, does this mean we are all “bigoted” one way or another depending on who’s pointing the finger? Not necessarily. As Dr. Negy wrote himself, “it typically is not the case that all views are equally valid.” So I don’t wish to accuse Dr. Negy of anything like relativism or subjectivism. What I am concerned about, however, is his misunderstanding of the terms “bigotry” and “intolerance.”
After all, we should really define what “bigotry” means before we use them. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries describe a “bigot” as someone who is “obstinately” convinced of one’s own beliefs, that is, stubbornly holding onto one’s convictions while ignorant of contrary evidence. In other words, “bigotry” is the refusal to examine the validity of one’s beliefs, or rejecting others’ beliefs without examining their validity. If we define the word this way, then it’s quite difficult to discern what exactly constituted as “religious bigotry” on the part of the Christian students. I may be splitting hairs here, but it seems to me that while the students asserted the validity of Christianity, they did not assert their unwillingness to change their minds or listen to any contrary evidence (as far as I can tell none was presented). The only one who refused to counter-argue the validity of an opposing view was Dr. Negy, who simply resorted to ad hominem attacks.
Theologian D.A. Carson notes that the modern understanding of a related term, “tolerance,” has led to similarly relativistic applications and has departed far from the most standard dictionary definitions. Today, “tolerance” is no longer considered as ‘the acceptance of the existence of different views,’ but rather it is ‘the acceptance of the validity of different views.’ In other words, being “tolerant” is not only recognizing others’ rights to hold their beliefs without suppressing them, but it is also agreeing with those views. Now, Dr. Negy may not have demanded his Christian students to accept the validity of other religious views, but he did demand that they accept the validity of his own atheistic assumptions by which he concluded that religion in general is invalid. (See The Intolerance of Tolerance for more.)
But is that what our university education is all about, to demand of us (albeit inadvertently) the blind acceptance of everyone else’s personal assumptions, and then label those who fail to meet that demand “intolerant”? A Christian professor would be ridiculed if he demanded his atheist students to use the Bible to validate their atheistic beliefs. So why is Dr. Negy’s demand of his Christian students to essentially validate their Christian beliefs according to his atheistic presuppositions considered upstanding pedagogy?
What really surfaced in Dr. Negy’s class that day (and in the email) were not just a few students’ intolerant religious views, although that may have been the case. But what’s more telling than that is what may happen to all our institutions and lecture halls if these mistaken ideals of uniformity without diversity continue to spread, all because we fail to grasp the virtues of true “tolerance” and “diversity.” That’s one tragic trend that needs reversing.
Dr. Negy concluded his email with the following reminder:
Universities, including UCF, have special policies in place to protect our (both professors’ and students’) freedom to express ourselves. Neither students nor professors have a right to censor speech that makes us uncomfortable. We’re adults. We’re at a university.
I agree. But, hindering students from bringing a diversity of views and assumptions into the classroom does not facilitate this “adult” dialogue. Our educators shouldn’t label their students as “bigots” for not sharing their personal assumptions, and neither should they turn the pursuit of truth into a pursuit of some formless uniformity. Teachers and students of all levels of education need to bring a mind that is both open and self-aware into the classroom.
And, perhaps, a portable dictionary might come in handy, too.
*Last edited 12/6/12.
Incredible post. I have an exam in his class tomorrow. His tone (arrogance) in the email is carried over in class as well with many (condescending) statements-whether I agree or not-that need not be said.
Thanks. I wonder how he would respond to this post. What do you think?
I’m in his class and I have to disagree. He is a great professor and to believe your religion is superior to others is in fact bigotry, why it seems like a hard concept to comprehend for some…Dr.Negy is correct.
Hey Ginni. Thanks for your comment. I guess what I’m having trouble differentiating is how you’re not doing the same thing when you imply that your lack of religion is superior to any religion that claims exclusivity. Care to elaborate on that for me?
I believe you are confusing validity with superiority. Objectivity is always more valid than subjectivity.
Examples you ask?
Two equally valid beliefs: Eggs are disgusting/Eggs are delicious.
Both are based on equally subjective tastes.
Two equally valid beliefs: Islam is the one true religion/Christianity is the one true religion.
Both are equally based on an single religious text.
Two unequal valid beliefs: White people are more intelligent than Black people/White people have the same capacity for intelligence as black people.
One is based on subjective anecdotal evidence, the other is based on objective research and study.
Someone might claim that their belief that eggs are disgusting is right and everyone else is wrong, but both beliefs are equally valid. Right and wrong do not enter into it. If I were in a cooking class and the teacher went into how to use eggs, it would be foolish of me to stand up and say, “Eggs are disgusting, I won’t cook with them! Everyone else should stop cooking eggs too!” The class is not about me eating eggs, its about me learning to cook. (Hopefully , that analogy isn’t too far off base.)
The information that is used to support a belief is what lends it validity. Ready for a very confusing sentence?
The belief that Islam and Christianity are equally valid is more valid than the claim that one is more valid than the other. Why? Because both Islam and Christianity are founded on essentially the same amount and equally supported information. One belief is not superior or “right”, it is about validity.
Negy’s point of view is more valid because of the setting and the purpose of the class. To request his students to exhibit objectivity while studying is more valid that the refusal to be objective. The class is not about asserting religions dominance, it is about learning about other cultures.
I agree that is comment about fantasy vs. reality was a bit over the top, but the unwillingness to accept the validity of opposing viewpoints has nothing to do with the threat of homogeny in higher education.
Tolerance does not have to do with agreeing, it has everything to do with accepting. Negy was not telling his students that they had to agree with Islam, but that they had to approach the study with tolerance; to view the faith of that culture with objectivity.
I have a feeling that Negy is completely tolerant of his student’s beliefs, and if their beliefs include not being objective when studying a subject he is more than tolerant to allow them to leave the class or drop out. This is not rhetoric or hyperbole although it may sound like it. That, in my opinion, would be completely tolerant of him.
It is the same if I was studying a class on Historical Christianity, I would not interrupt the class by saying that the Bible is all made up and that I demand the teacher to accept that the Bible is made up. If he tells me to shut up and approach it as if the Bible were factual, that would not be bigoted because that is the class.
Hopefully, my point is half-way clear.
“Religion… bringing comfort to people in a world torn apart by religion.”
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I must say you’re seriously misinformed in saying, “Because both Islam and Christianity are founded on essentially the same amount and equally supported information.” But if you know of any serious academic scholarship that supports your sweeping claims (that there’re equally compelling evidence for the historicity of the Quran as there is for the Bible), I’d really love to see it.
And if you’re suggesting that Dr. Negy presented any such evidence to establish his “objectivity,” then I’m afraid you’re equally mistaken on that point too. It was purely by means of his preconceived assumptions, not by objective evidence, that Dr. Negy called those Christian students “arrogant bigots.”
Also, if you think being “tolerant” of a belief amounts to calling your opponent names, and not rational dialogue, I think you’re mistaken about the definition of “tolerance” as well.
Judging from your blog, I have many similar beliefs as you. However, I am making a very concerted effort to be objective in my observations and my arguments.
My point of view is based on two principles:
1. That which is based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence is more valid than that which is not.
2. Objectivity is desirable, if not necessary, for academic research and study (as well as public policy/laws but that is not entirely relevant to this discussion.)
If you do not agree with these two statements, please let me know how and why. If you disagree with these, then a different discussion may be in order.
I made no claims regarding the “that there’re equally compelling evidence for the historicity of the Quran as there is for the Bible.”
Religions are not based on history they are based on the belief in God. Historical accuracy has vary little to do with the belief in God. Both Islam and Christianity are based on the belief in God. I do not believe this is a sweeping claim, if it is incorrect please indicate how so. For that reason I am not providing academic papers as you requested, not because there are none, but because it is not the claim I made (albeit probably poorly worded). That, and being raised in the Church I am well aware of the accuracy(and inaccuracy) of the Bible, but am woefully ignorant as to the specifics of the Qur’an as I have only read it once. (Out of curiosity, how many times have you read the Qur’an?)
Back to the subject. Please note, when I refer to Jesus I am not referring to his being a human being that lived. I am fully aware that there is falsifiable evidence that he existed just as there is evidence that Mohammed existed. However, I am referring to the belief in the existence of Jesus’s divinity. Also, when I refer to evidence I am referring to falsifiable evidence, not anecdotal or critically unsubstantiated.
My point I originally made (and worded poorly) is that Islam and Christianity both rely on a single source (Bible/Qur’an) for their claims regarding the existence of God/Jesus.
Both have the exact same amount of falsifiable evidence that God/Jesus exists. To my knowledge there is none. The onus is on the claimant, if there is evidence of the existence of God/Jesus, please let me know if you feel it is pertinent. I am not arguing the existence of God, I am arguing the existence of evidence.
When it comes to academic/scientific research and study, that which is based on falsifiable evidence is more valid. I am not saying it is more true. Until a few years ago there was no evidence of the existence of the Colossal Squid. To claim that the Squid existed was just as valid as saying it didn’t exist. Then specimens/evidence was found, then the view of its existence had more validity. If I made the claim that the Tasmanian Tiger still existed, I would have to back it up with evidence or it won’t be considered a valid claim.
“It was purely by means of his preconceived assumptions, not by objective evidence, that Dr. Negy called those Christian students “arrogant bigots.””
I have a few specific questions regarding this and a few other comments you made. I would appreciate being answered.
1. By what reasoning to you feel that the Christian belief in God is more valid that Islam’s belief in God? (I would prefer objective reasoning but faith, including my own, is rarely objective, otherwise it would be fact.)
2. In consideration of the subject matter of the class and keeping in mind the necessity of objectivity in research/study, how do you think Negy should have responded? And, do you believe that if Negy had provided a thoughtful, well laid out, and factually based answer as to why objectivity was needed that the student would recant or back down?
3. Final question, I promise! I agree that with Negy calling religion a “fantasy” he reveals his bias/bigotry. But, to avoid false hypocrisy or ‘tu quoque’, do you think that Negy’s position of demanding his students attempt objectivity as wrong/incorrect/counter-productive? Regardless of Negy’s behavior, do you think the student was or wasn’t being an “arrogant bigot”? If no, why were his actions (stopping class and demanding that other students not participate) not arrogant or bigoted for the circumstances (being in that class)?
Regarding tolerance, allow me to wax rhetoric for a bit. I know this is a poor debate tactic but I think it will illustrate my point.
Do you disagree or agree with WBC’s protests of soldiers funerals, thanking God for murders and rapes, and their use of the word “fag” to describe everyone not in their church? Would you call them hateful? Bigoted? UnChristlike? Irrational? How would you begin to have a rational conversation with them? Now, would you want to limit their 1st Amendment rights to free speech?
I may find WBC despicable but I am perfectly tolerant of their existence and would fight against any effort to deny them their right to free speech. That is what tolerance is to me. I can consider them ignorant, backwards and bigoted but I would not limit their right to believe what they want. “A fair, permissive attitude for those ideas which differ from your own.” or, if you like, “freedom from bigotry.”
There is an inherent paradox as many people claim that bigotry against bigotry isn’t tolerant of bigotry, but that is silly semantics meant to cloud a conversation and strengthen views that may be difficult to defend. That paradox does not change the original bigotry being judged. Being bigoted against the the student’s bigotry against non-Christianity may have been bigoted, but it doesn’t change the fact that the student was being bigoted in the first place. True, I fully agree with you that Negy revealed his anti-religious bigotry in the mass email, and in the regular world I would hold that against him. The claim that there is no God is no more valid as saying there is a God. However, in my opinion, in the academic world and as the instructor of the class he was perfectly justified to demand his students to observe and study with objectivity and to call his students out on their subjectivity especially when they stop class in the way described.
Still, I maintain a lot of the specifics of what actually happened are left out of Negy’s letter and I am sure the student being addressed has a very different account of what happened.
I have tried to be as polite as possible, but I thought I should let you know your phrasing of “you’re seriously misinformed” and “the definition of tolerance” sentence are a bit hyperbolic and could be misread to be condescending. To assume my point of view comes from ignorance can be construed as an insult. I am fully aware of what the definition of tolerance is and consider myself rather well read when it comes to religion and the Bible (both in my personal faith and from a historical aspect) although I would never claim to be an expert.
Also, regarding your original statement:
“Today, “tolerance” is no longer considered as ‘the acceptance of the existence of different views,’ but rather it is ‘the acceptance of the validity of different views.’ In other words, being “tolerant” is not only recognizing others’ rights to hold their beliefs without suppressing them, but it is also agreeing with those views.”
I disagree. Your paraphrasing does not, in my opinion, correlate. Accepting the validity of a different view is not the same as agreeing. Example: The belief that personhood begins at conception has the same validity as life begins at the first heart beat. I still believe that life begins at conception but I accept (or tolerate, if you will) the validity of the opinion that life begins at the first heart beat. Technically, the concept of the beginning of life can also be argued that life begins at birth, that still is an equally valid view that I tolerate and accept. I disagree, wholeheartedly, but my reasoning and basis of my disagreement is entirely subjective and based on a gut feeling and my religious beliefs.
To say that acceptance and tolerance now means to agree does not, in my opinion, reflect an accurate view of how the words tolerance and acceptance are currently used.
You can read more in my (far too) rhetorical analogy in my other response regarding my opinion.
Hey Brandon,
Thanks for the followup. I think that was very helpful in showing me where you’re coming from.
You did pose a lot of questions, and given the limited time I have I’m going to try my best to answer the ones that I think encompass most of the others.
First, you said,
“1. That which is based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence is more valid than that which is not.”
This principle seems to suggest that if a falsifiable study/experiment/evidence shows some finding to be true, then any other principle or belief contradicting that finding would be invalid.
The problem with this principle is that it itself is not “based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence,” and therefore cannot be trusted as valid. It’s a dogmatic proposition that gives studies/experiments/evidence metaphysical grounding.
Take the proposition that the Law of Non-Contradiction is valid, i.e. X cannot be Y and not Y at the same time. This proposition must be assumed to be true in order for anyone to either verify or falsify it. Such truths are self-evident and require no evidence, while giving evidence rational grounding.
So needless to say I have some serious reservations about your first principle.
This ties into your naturalistic assumptions about monotheistic beliefs. Unless you come to grips with the fact that self-evident truths can exist, it would be pointless for me to try to talk about God with you, because we have a fundamentally different worldview about the existence of self-evident truths.
I hope that’s a good starting point for our next exchange. I will wait for your response on this.
As for my views on WBC, and other ignorant/intolerant religious fanatics who use the name of Christ in vain, I want to share this post I wrote a while ago that contains my notes from a sermon I gave to a very conservative church congregation here in Florida. Hope it’ll give you some idea where I stand.
http://thegalatian.com/2012/07/23/how-i-might-share-the-gospel-with-a-homosexual/
PS – I apologize for the hyperbolic comments earlier. That was based on my misunderstanding that we share a common view on self-evident truths. But I think we’re on better terms of understanding now, and I look forward to your response. Thanks.
Very interesting.
I will admit that I am approaching this with the following subjective assumptions:
1. That all people are equally entitled to hold their opinion but that not all opinions are equally supported.
2. That a common ground must be established in order to discuss complex issues.
3. That people (including myself) make mistakes.
4. That people are naturally subjective.
5. That people have the ability to adapt and change to new situations and information.
6. That faith and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.
If you find these assumptions incompatible with this conversation, please let me know. I am unlikely to change on these six points.
Please note. I called my two opening concepts “principles” but they were intended to find common ground and a common vocabulary. When I speak of “validity” I am not speaking to what is true. I am speaking to what is valid when discussing interactions between groups or differing opinions.
My original phrasing was “That which is based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence is more valid than that which is not.” I did not mean to suggest that “any other principle or belief contradicting that finding would be invalid.” Less valid does not mean invalid.
Again, refer to my overused Colossal Squid Analogy. Just because the belief that it existed was no more valid than the denial of that claim in no way affected the fact that it always did exist.
I am assuming by your lack of comment that you agreed with my “principle” #2 that objectivity is desirable (if not necessary) for academic research and study. If so, then I assume you also agree that an objective means to quantify and value subjective concepts would be necessary in order to achieve that objectivity. The only means by which to be truly objective is by falsifiable study/experiments/evidence. If there is another means by which to be objective let me know. I have used the word “valid” to denote an objective ‘value’ system by which to gauge subjective concepts. The only alternative is to use words like “better” which adds a subjective and emotional value and provides little, if any, common ground.
Example: Saying “the sun is too bright” is less valid than “the sun is bright enough to blind the average man.” They both indicate similar concepts except the more valid phrase is one that uses objectivity in its description.
To continue I have two questions/requests:
1. If you disagree with anything I have said here, please indicate what, how, and provide an example of an alternative if applicable.
2. Please provide an example of a self-evident truth/fact. For the purpose of this conversation, I would prefer one that has no evidence and/or one that you would consider more valid than a contrasting falsifiably evidenced claim. (Simple existence is the only self-evident truth/fact that I know of and even that can be considered an assumption. That things exist is the basis for human understanding. The only alternative is strict solipsism and even that presupposes that your mind exists. However, my writing this parenthetical brain fart does not serve the conversation at hand and gets into a weird realm of logic. How about we just assume that things exist?)
————
I am a bit flummoxed by two things.
Your mention of The Law of Contradiction (I have also heard it called “The Only Absolute”.) This presents an absolute dichotomy between things that are mutually exclusive and does not deal with degrees nor validity (as I have been using the term). The only option is yes or no. I fully accept that there are ‘some things that are and some things that aren’t’ but this concept cannot be applied to everything in between existence and non-existence. Are you short or tall? These two things are mutually exclusive but you can be both at the same time. To an NBA player you are short and to a child you are tall and both are equally valid points of view.
The attention you paid to the paradox (“The problem with this principle is that it itself is not “based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence,” and therefore cannot be trusted as valid.”) is true. However, I do not see how this is relevant. It seems only to serve to complicate the issue and stop the discussion. It could also be argued that, as humans, we relate to the world in a subjective way and so, the very definition of the word “objective” is subjective thereby making objectivity subjective. While this reasoning is logical, it does nothing to aid the conversation at hand.
Crap… another post script. Apologies for being long winded.
You said:
“The problem with this principle is that it itself is not “based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence,” and therefore cannot be trusted as valid. It’s a dogmatic proposition that gives studies/experiments/evidence metaphysical grounding.”
The very nature of the metaphysical is that it is non-falsifiable. How does it make the falsifiable not falsifiable? Having a hard time processing the meaning of that last sentence.
Hey Brandon,
Sorry about the late response.
I’m afraid you haven’t really responded to the point I was making, and at this point I feel like we’re digressing from the main topic at hand.
First, I’ve asked you to present objective evidence that Christian beliefs are not grounded in any empirical evidence, but you’ve refused to do so and resorted to making assertions. Then I granted the point and moved onto a more principled discussion, i.e. whether there are objective claims that cannot be proven by scientific evidence. And I gave you the Law of Non-Contradiction as an example of a self-evident truth that requires no such evidence, but rather makes such evidence meaningful. Then you asked me for an example of a self-evident truth when I just provided you with one. Again, you cannot operate scientifically without first assuming certain principles of logic and laws of physics. These principles and laws are not “proven,” but assumed to be self-evident.
Then you went onto argue that something as absolute as the LNC has nothing to do with religious claims. But this is also a mistake. To say that God of the Bible exists in reality is not like saying “John is short” or “John is taller than Bill.” It’s rather like saying “John is 6ft tall” or “John is 5ft tall.” John is either 6ft or 5ft. Only one of these are valid. Jesus either lived, died, and resurrected from the dead, or he didn’t. Only one of these are valid claims about what really happened in history. To say that because it’s not falsifiable by scientific evidence and it therefore cannot be objective either way would be like saying that the Law of Non-Contradiction is not objectively true or false because there’s no way of falsifying it. Of course, the absence of scientific evidence for certain claims of the Bible doesn’t make them true, but it certainly doesn’t make them purely subjective either.
You can continue to assert that “the only means by which to be truly objective is by falsifiable study/experiments/evidence.” But you’re (once again) stating 1 as if it is an objective statement when the statement itself is not falsifiable by studies/experiments/evidence. So how can you state 1 objectively? Isn’t it just as much a faith position as a Christian’s belief about the existence of God?
This is the hinge piece in our discussion so far, so I think it’s important we stay on this topic.
Thanks.
I’ve tried to simply my response to get this moving forward.
1. Please provide your quote when you “asked (me) to present objective evidence that Christian beliefs are not grounded in any empirical evidence.” I am having a hard time finding that request.
2. Unsure of how to prove a negative. Could you provide the method for providing evidence that evidence doesn’t exist? Perhaps you could assist me by illustrating the method you would use if I challenged you to “present objective evidence that Muslim beliefs are not grounded on any empirical evidence.”
(Since you disagreed with my claim that Islam and Christianity are “both are equally based on an single religious text” this would help me understand why you feel the Islamic belief in God is less valid that the Christian belief in God.)
3. Since you disagree with my statement, “that which is based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence is more valid than that which is not,” please provide an alternative means by which you rate the validity of two disparate/contrasting concepts (such as Christianity/Islam).
If you have any specific requests to aid in mutual understanding, please let me know.
1. “But if you know of any serious academic scholarship that supports your sweeping claims (that there’re equally compelling evidence for the historicity of the Quran as there is for the Bible), I’d really love to see it.”
2. In addition to falsifiable evidence, you can also disprove the existence of entities by logically deducing their incoherence or self-contradictory attributes. Philosophers have tried this for centuries (e.g. David Hume with the problem of evil).
3. Because I believe self-evident claims are more valid than evidenced claims, I can use evidence to support what I believe with metaphysical certainty. For one, I believe there are serious historical errors in the Quran about the person of Jesus Christ, both in terms of his life and his teachings, and this is verifiable by historical evidence. I also believe there are logical inconsistencies in the Islamic view of Allah, the one-person God who existed for all eternity, who is also loving and kind.
To stay on topic as much as possible, I would like to stick with the previous requests I made but also felt that I needed to clarify my asking for an example of a self-evident truth. I would appreciate your addressing the requests first, if you are so inclined. If you also feel the need to address the following I would appreciate it. If I am being too demanding, please let me know. I am trying to stay on target as much as possible and find this conversation very interesting.
I made the claim “That which is based on falsifiable study/experiments/evidence is more valid than that which is not.”
In rebuttal, you claim that there are self-evident truths and gave the example of LNC. This still does not refute my claim. The validity of the claim made by the LNC is not being challenged by a contrasting claim by which to gauge it “more” or “less” valid. Again, I said nothing of valid/invalid but only claimed the degree of validity by comparison.
Can you provide an example of a self-evident truth that contradicts my claim? Where a self-evident claim is more valid than an evidenced claim?
If you feel the LNC is still an adequate rebuttal of my original claim, can you illustrate how it is made more/less valid in its own right?
Brandon,
Let me just say that I find this conversation very interesting as well. And these are just inevitable limits to having a discussion like this online rather than in person, and preferably over coffee. (Let me know if you ever stop by Florida!)
“Can you provide an example of a self-evident truth that contradicts my claim? Where a self-evident claim is more valid than an evidenced claim?”
All that is required to disprove the claim that what is evidenced is more valid than that which is not is by demonstrating that the claim itself is not based on any evidence, but grounded in non-evidenced claims. So the claim itself is self-defeating. We must assume logic to be objectively true without evidence before we even examine the claim. This is why I brought up the LNC. Not only can we not falsify the LNC, we must assume it to be true before we do anything. So here we have an example of a self-evident claim grounding the validity of evidenced claims, yet it doesn’t work the other way around. So, no, I cannot agree with the claim that evidenced truths are more valid than non-evidenced ones.
Another relevant (but not identical) example to consider would be the first cause of the universe. It is implied by logical inference from objective, cosmological observations (evidence) that our universe began from nothing into everything (non-evidenced), yet this conclusion is not falsifiable by any means (or we wouldn’t be here), and we simply take it by faith in logic that the universe began from nothing with a really big bang. But this doesn’t make the conclusion (i.e. the big bang) invalid, but it rather brings coherence and consistency to the rest of our knowledge about the universe and helps us make sense of it all (just like the way LNC makes sense of your claim about evidence).
The existence of a self-sufficient, eternal, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe is also not falsifiable, yet it gives coherence and meaning to everything we know about us and our universe. Is it possible that the existence of God is just as true and irrefutable as the LNC and the first cause of the universe by means of logical inference and not by evidenced claims? I think so.
So I think I have good reasons not to trust the claim that what is based on evidence is more valid than that which is not. The latter always grounds the former, but never the other way around.
I have two points to make then more questions.
In response to my requests that you fulfilled.
1.“But if you know of any serious academic scholarship that supports your sweeping claims (that there’re equally compelling evidence for the historicity of the Quran as there is for the Bible), I’d really love to see it.” is vastly and significantly different from “present objective evidence that Christian beliefs are not grounded in any empirical evidence.” You are moving the goal post.
Christianity is not based on the historicity of the Bible. The fact that Canaan existed as recorded in the Bible has no bearing on someone being Christian or not. Christianity is based on the belief that there is a God and he sacrificed himself (Jesus) to save us from sin. For that single claim, there is no falsifiable evidence. Disagree? Tell me specifically why using examples.
2. I feel like I keep repeating myself. I have not said any claim is valid or invalid, I have only made claims regarding the level of validity by comparison. I never said that only the falsifiable was valid, nor did I say that everything that was non-falsifiable was invalid. I feel like I am pointing to two light bulbs and saying, “That one is brighter than the other” and you keep replying, “But they’re both on! Stop saying one is turned off!” Ask me questions if my point is still unclear, I feel like I am not expressing myself in an understandable way. Present me with hypotheticals and I will answer, ask away.
———————————–
On to the next round of questions. I have actually written a lot more but have boiled it down to three specifics that I need clarified to aid in my understanding.
You said that you “believe self-evident claims are more valid than evidenced claims”. Based off that:
A. For the purpose of this conversation, what is your operational definition of ‘validity’ and by what means would you measure that validity between two contrasting claims assuming neither were self-evident? Or are two non-self-evident claims equally valid? (along that line, how is objectivity to be obtained by means other than falsifiable evidence?)
B. Can you provide an example of a self-evident truth that is more valid than a contrasting falsifiably evidenced claim? I have asked this several times to which you have not provided an example. Instead you say, “All that is required to disprove the claim that what is evidenced is more valid than that which is not is by demonstrating that the claim itself is not based on any evidence.” Now I am asking you to provide an example supporting your claim. This conversation cannot move forward until this happens. I can provide examples of where falsifiable evidence has disproven an assumed “self-evident truth” and rendered it less valid. Please provide a real world example where self-evidence trumps contradictory falsifiable evidence.
C. What reasoning would you use to determine if something is truly self-evident or fallaciously assumed to be self-evident when it actually is not? Can a self-evident truth be objective? If I disagree with a self-evident truth, is it still self-evident? If no support or basis is needed, how is this different than arbitrarily making an indefensible claim? (I have avoided pointing out that your claim is not self-evident for this reason.)
Have a look at http://nickmalik.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/can-universities-open-the-minds-of-bigots/ for a thoughtful response to Dr. Negy’s email. The post above is simply blind faith cleverly cloaked.
Thanks for the link Tony. Been reading it (it’s really long), and I’ve having a hard time finding anything to be a “thoughtful” rebuttal to my objections… Any specific quotes you want to refer me to? Thanks.
Im sorry it doesn’t matter how much you believe in god or quote the bible. From a strictly emperical view christianity is completely indefensible view. That is not what he was calling out, what he was calling o ut was the i dea that christians were disparaging of others views, and attempting to censor contrary views t o that. When ones response to something that he doesnt like is to ignore it and tell others to ignore it you are attempting to censor things. You can’t quote the bible as proof god exists and point to god as the proof that the bible is true. The thing that you quoted Romans 1:20 (For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.) is in and of itself circular reasoning.