During his recent dialogue with Archbishop Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins invoked the anthropic principle to say that even if the origin of life is improbable, it “had to” happen at least once on this planet since we are here.[1]  At that point the moderator, Anthony Kenny, an agnostic philosopher, asked Dawkins what kind of necessity he had in mind when he said life “had to” originate here.  Kenny noted that there are two kinds of necessity: metaphysical necessity and epistemic necessity.  Metaphysical necessity means it is impossible that some X not exist, whereas epistemic necessity means it is impossible not to know that some X is true.  He went on to explain that epistemic necessity does not entail metaphysical necessity, so while it may be epistemically necessary that we exist (we cannot not know that we exist), it does not mean we had to exist.  Our existence may be contingent, even if knowledge of our existence is not.  As expected, Dawkins clarified that he was not saying our existence was necessary, but only that it there can be no doubt that life did arise at least on this planet since we are alive.  

What struck me about Dawkins’ response was not his answer to the question, but what he said immediately before his answer: “I don’t know the words ‘epistemic’ and so on, so I’m not going to use that.”  Really?  That is a term so basic to the study of philosophy that no student could pass an intro-to-philosophy course without knowing it.  It leads me to believe that Dawkins does not know the first thing about philosophy (which should not be surprising to anyone who is familiar with Dawkins’ arguments).  

I find that this is all-to-typical of scientifically-minded atheists.  They often disparage the field of philosophy as dribble, not knowing the first thing about philosophy.  How can one excel in rationality when they are ignorant of even the basics of rational thought and critical thinking?  It strikes me as bizarre that some of these self-styled “brights” are as dim as night when it comes to philosophical understanding.   

What’s so ironic about this is that these same individuals pride themselves on being rational, and say that they prize rationality.  Do they not realize that philosophy is the discipline that focuses on rationality?  While we use our rational faculties in the sciences, science itself is an empirical discipline, not a rational discipline.  While I do not expect for scientists and other non-philosophers to be expert philosophers, as those who extol the virtues of rationality they should at least have a good command of the discipline of philosophy since it provides them with the tools they need to excel in rational thought.  Their ignorance and disdain of philosophy demonstrates that what they really prize is empiricism, not rationality. 


[1]Conversation starts at about the 1:08:00 mark.

Advertisements