Some may find it odd, or comical, that someone of my education, background and intellect would engage with someone who insists the Earth is flat. In fact, such discussions are right in the wheelhouse of my primary area of interest: epistemology (in a nutshell, the study of knowledge).
Absurd as it may seem, engagement with a sincere Flat Earther (assuming there actually is such a thing) is far more interesting to me than discussing Christian doctrine, dogma or Bible verses. Why it's more interesting is, I believe, relevant to all discussions on religion-themed forums such as this (and is the subject of this blog entry).
Let's be honest: In the eyes of the vast majority of people, Flat Earthers are part of the lunatic fringe. Announce you're a Flat Earther in a job interview and you ain't gonna get the job, simple as that. There are going to be serious concerns about your mental fitness and what other bizarre ideas you might embarrass the employer with if hired.
Flat Earthers and other members of the conspiracy-oriented fringe aren't inevitably (or even typically) "insane" or "delusional" so much as they, for a variety of psychological reasons, rely on an epistemology so flawed and so far outside the norm that it's simply incomprehensible to the rest of us.
As Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder explained in a video I posted (and post again here, down below), their epistemology rejects anything they haven't personally been able to observe or prove. Hence, they reject 2,000 years of rock-solid science concerning the shape of the earth – the same science that we (and they) rely upon every day in every area of our lives.
This is why the only explanation is that psychological factors are actually driving the Flat Earth bus. (No, there really is a Flat Earth bus. It tours the country handing out Flat Earth frisbees to preschool toddlers, often in conjunction with a Flat Earth Story Hour. Here it is)
As with all fringe conspiracists, Flat Earthers believe the scientific community, the media and the educational system are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth about the shape of the earth. It's difficult even to imagine a plausible reason for such a conspiracy, but there you go. Flat Earthers don't need no stinkin' reason.
Discussions such as I recently had (or attempted to have) on the forum with a Flat Earther are interesting and instructive because they illustrate that you simply aren't dealing with a normal epistemology. The point is never to persuade someone who thinks this way – that, in my long experience, is impossible – but rather to expose the epistemology. When someone such as this refuses to engage beyond ha-ha emojis
and declarations of victory, it's the internet forum equivalent of beating your head against a brick wall. (As the old joke goes, "Why do you keep hitting your head with a hammer?" "Because it feels so good when I stop.")
Alvin Plantinga – one of the greatest philosophers of modern times, a leading epistemologist and a strong Christian – has emphasized that the formation of beliefs (religious or otherwise) having epistemological justification presupposes cognitive faculties properly operating as they were intended to operate. When someone claims the late Queen Elizabeth was actually a shape-shifting reptilian alien from Zeta Reticuli, the rational reaction is not "I wonder what evidence she has for that?" or "I wonder how we could disprove that?" but rather "There is something wrong with her thinking, with her belief-forming faculties."
But let's move beyond Flat Earthers and consider religious belief in general. Bear in mind, I am a religious believer myself, so my point is not that all religious believers are the functional equivalent of Flat Earthers. Some are, some aren't.
Almost all the discussions on religious forums are what I call second-level discussions: What does this Bible verse mean? Which understanding of this doctrine is correct? How do we apply this teaching?
The first-level questions are the fundamental epistemological ones: WHY? On what basis do you believe ANY of this? Why is ANY of this even worth talking about? What is your epistemological justification for believing it's not all COMPLETE NONSENSE?
These are challenging questions that most believers choose, intentionally or unintentionally, not to confront. They fall back on something like "faith," which really isn't an answer.
I can insist I believe "on faith" the Earth is flat, but other people are going to see that this is simply a refusal to confront a veritable Mt. Everest of scientific evidence and reasoning and that I'm simply misusing the term "faith" in the sense of "head-in-the-sand blind faith" (which is precisely how many atheists understand religious faith). If I go beyond this and attempt to justify my "faith" with "Flat-Earth science," other people are going to see that this is bogus pseudoscience and that I'm making an even bigger fool of myself than if I'd just stuck with blind faith.
What about belief in a God or specifically the God of Christianity? What is the epistemic justification for thinking either has any reality to it at all?
Indeed, what is YOUR epistemic justification?
I wonder how many people can articulate a reason for belief that is any more substantive than blind faith. "I don't know, I just believe" or "I just choose to believe" – how does this differ from someone choosing to believe the Earth is flat or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the atheists' favorite example) exists? How does this differ from "pretending to believe" or "believing six impossible things before breakfast" as the Red Queen told Alice she did?
This is why I say I have a constructed belief system. It is one constructed plank by plank until I could make an informed leap of faith in a particular direction.
In a constructed belief system, the leap of faith is a logical, rational and informed one. It acknowledges, of course, the possibility of error because in the case of metaphysical questions the correctness of the answers can't be objectively known.
For any belief, religious or otherwise, to be epistemically justified doesn't require it to be true. If every clock in my house says its 12:03 PM, my belief that it's 12:03 is epistemically justified even though, unbeknownst to me, there was a power outage and it's actually 1:12. Likewise, I may have a justified belief in God even if no God actually exists - and vice-versa. I may have a justified belief in Christianity even if Hinduism is true - and vice-versa.
In my case, the primary planks in my epistemology of belief are evidentiary ones. I happen to have been blessed with a high IQ and a very "fit" psychological profile and to have made my living in a highly analytical field, so I have no great concern about the operation of my cognitive faculties (but even so, I do still try to critically examine my own cognitive biases and quirks).
One evidentiary base comprises a sizable number of anomalous experiences, many suggesting the survival of consciousness after death; long and intensive studies of such phenomena; and long and intensive studies of the scientific disciplines relating to the nature of consciousness, the fundamental nature of reality (i.e., as either entirely materialistic or not) and whether the universe is best explained in terms of design or randomness.
Without this evidentiary base, I don't think I'd be religious at all. I might have some vague intuitive sense of an underlying mystery, of Something More, but many atheists have this. It scarcely rises to the level of anything we might call "belief."
This evidentiary base points me in the direction of at least some "spiritual realm" (whatever that might mean), the survival of consciousness (in at least some form), and perhaps a plan or design underlying the universe and human existence. This is the level at which I am "thoroughly religious" (or the proverbial "more spiritual than religious"). I have a high level of conviction.
Another base of evidence is simply 74 years of living in which my life seems to have shown a distinct plan. Not merely a plan or pattern that I'm seeing in retrospect but one that I was aware of as it seemed to be unfolding over the decades. This included a number (perhaps five) of complex, multi-faceted, life-changing sequences of events that almost screamed "providential guidance and protection."
This base of evidence points me in the direction of some sort of providential involvement from the supernatural realm. It's admittedly highly subject to my own interpretation, so I don't attach the same level of weight as to the more objective anomalous experiences.
Another base of evidence comprises 74 years of close observation of myself, of others, of the way the world works. What does it mean to be human? What is human nature fundamentally like? Why is the world the utter mess it is?
We then move from evidence to philosophy, theology, ethics and other intellectual realms. Intensive studies here helped inform my understanding and interpretation of the evidentiary bases described above.
As I've stated, at some 30,000-foot level a personal, providential God such as Christianity posits seems most plausible to me. At some 60,000-foot level, Christianity in its broad outline seems the best explanation of the reality in which I live. Not a perfect or entirely convincing fit by any means, and really not much more convincing than some other religions, philosophies and traditions, so I borrow from them freely and incorporate them into my belief system as I choose. I have what I've called my Stage 5 belief system.
Significantly, I believe, no part of my belief system flies in the face of a veritable Mt. Everest of scientific evidence and reasoning. Yes, it is contrary to the governing materialistic paradigm, but that paradigm is fast collapsing. In this respect, I hold no beliefs analogous to a Flat Earth.
This is all, of course, anathema to an institutional "Christianity" that is hellbent to preserve its economic and power structures. It needs True Believers, not iconoclasts who go their own way. I am the dreaded individual who thinks for himself and decides what makes sense to him and what he is constitutionally able to believe. God hates me, "Christianity" says. I'm destined for an eternity of fiery torment, "Christianity" says. OK, whatever, so be it.
Famed atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell said that if he found himself face-to-face with a God who demanded to know why he didn't believe, he'd say "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." If I found myself face-to-face with the God of Flat Earth, Young Earth, inerrant-Bible fundamentalist Christianity, I'd respond something like "I did the best I could with the material you gave me to work with, Big Guy."
To many, my position sounds arrogant, condescending toward others. I'm admittedly supremely confident in my own intellect and abilities and I know I've damn well done my homework – more homework than 99.9% of believers and atheists of all stripes. But I accept that not everyone has the same abilities, the same amount of time and resources or even the same inclination to be as interested in such matters.
I'm not sure that whatever God there is really cares what we think or believe about any of this – I rather suspect he doesn't, except as it may help inform and guide the way we lead our earthly lives. So I respect any sincere belief system that provides the basis for a kind, generous and more-or-less ethical life – which is what I suspect whatever God there is actually does care about. Someone else's belief system may strike me as baseless, mindless or fantastically improbable, but I am not the judge of any belief system other than my own. I fully accept that materialistic atheism or even Flat Earth, Young Earth, inerrant-Bible fundamentalist Christianity (NO, NOT THAT!!!) might be true or at least closer to the truth.
The Flat Earther with whom I engaged accused me of thinking I had The Truth and failing to recognize that my own beliefs are simply feelings and opinions. Good Lord, literally NOTHING could be further from the truth, NOTHING could more completely misstate my actual position. I have The Truth for me, which may not be The Truth at all. I don't see how anyone could view his or her own belief system in any other way. If you insist you actually have The Truth about metaphysical questions, the answers to which cannot be known (at least in this lifetime), that's pretty much the definition of delusional.
If I regard my Truth as "superior" in any sense, it's only in the sense that I know I've done the heavy lifting most people haven't done. It's an exceedingly well-informed and well-thought-out personal Truth. But it may not be The Truth at all.
The shape of the earth, of course, isn't a metaphysical question. It's a scientific question. It's a scientific question that has been answered to a level of scientific certainty and beyond. To hold the Flat Earth position rationally requires an assertion that (1) the Bible teaches a flat earth (which it doesn't, but we'll let it go); (2) the Bible is the supreme, can't-be-contradicted authority on all matters of which it speaks (which is demonstrably false, but we'll let it go); and (3) somehow, in some way, the Mt. Everest of science is just flat wrong on this issue (even if believing this requires the Flat Earther to posit a weirdly deceptive God, but we'll let it go).
OK, that's an epistemology that will strike most people as flawed and bizarre, but it isn't completely irrational. What it does is – bogusly, most people would say – is attempt to turn a scientific question into a metaphysical (religious) one. The metaphysical (inerrant Bible) justification can't be definitely refuted any more than Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism or Scientology can be definitely refuted. When the Flat Earther steps out of metaphysical mode and attempts to confront the Mt. Everest of science, however, the epistemology collapses.
Anyway, that would be my long-winded challenge to other believers: Can you even articulate your epistemology? Can you even answer WHY you believe what you say you believe? Have you ever even THOUGHT about it?
Oh, here's the video again. If you can watch the tiny, low-altitude Sun illuminating little portions of the flat disk of the Earth like a Walmart flashlight without giggling, you are made of stronger stuff than I. Bear in mind, the Flat Earth Sun is roughly 31 miles in diameter and is suspended roughly 3,500 miles above the Earth. No, really. Ask the bus driver.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DQSM-b2cc&t=592s
Absurd as it may seem, engagement with a sincere Flat Earther (assuming there actually is such a thing) is far more interesting to me than discussing Christian doctrine, dogma or Bible verses. Why it's more interesting is, I believe, relevant to all discussions on religion-themed forums such as this (and is the subject of this blog entry).
Let's be honest: In the eyes of the vast majority of people, Flat Earthers are part of the lunatic fringe. Announce you're a Flat Earther in a job interview and you ain't gonna get the job, simple as that. There are going to be serious concerns about your mental fitness and what other bizarre ideas you might embarrass the employer with if hired.
Flat Earthers and other members of the conspiracy-oriented fringe aren't inevitably (or even typically) "insane" or "delusional" so much as they, for a variety of psychological reasons, rely on an epistemology so flawed and so far outside the norm that it's simply incomprehensible to the rest of us.
As Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder explained in a video I posted (and post again here, down below), their epistemology rejects anything they haven't personally been able to observe or prove. Hence, they reject 2,000 years of rock-solid science concerning the shape of the earth – the same science that we (and they) rely upon every day in every area of our lives.
This is why the only explanation is that psychological factors are actually driving the Flat Earth bus. (No, there really is a Flat Earth bus. It tours the country handing out Flat Earth frisbees to preschool toddlers, often in conjunction with a Flat Earth Story Hour. Here it is)
As with all fringe conspiracists, Flat Earthers believe the scientific community, the media and the educational system are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the truth about the shape of the earth. It's difficult even to imagine a plausible reason for such a conspiracy, but there you go. Flat Earthers don't need no stinkin' reason.
Discussions such as I recently had (or attempted to have) on the forum with a Flat Earther are interesting and instructive because they illustrate that you simply aren't dealing with a normal epistemology. The point is never to persuade someone who thinks this way – that, in my long experience, is impossible – but rather to expose the epistemology. When someone such as this refuses to engage beyond ha-ha emojis
and declarations of victory, it's the internet forum equivalent of beating your head against a brick wall. (As the old joke goes, "Why do you keep hitting your head with a hammer?" "Because it feels so good when I stop.")Alvin Plantinga – one of the greatest philosophers of modern times, a leading epistemologist and a strong Christian – has emphasized that the formation of beliefs (religious or otherwise) having epistemological justification presupposes cognitive faculties properly operating as they were intended to operate. When someone claims the late Queen Elizabeth was actually a shape-shifting reptilian alien from Zeta Reticuli, the rational reaction is not "I wonder what evidence she has for that?" or "I wonder how we could disprove that?" but rather "There is something wrong with her thinking, with her belief-forming faculties."
But let's move beyond Flat Earthers and consider religious belief in general. Bear in mind, I am a religious believer myself, so my point is not that all religious believers are the functional equivalent of Flat Earthers. Some are, some aren't.
Almost all the discussions on religious forums are what I call second-level discussions: What does this Bible verse mean? Which understanding of this doctrine is correct? How do we apply this teaching?
The first-level questions are the fundamental epistemological ones: WHY? On what basis do you believe ANY of this? Why is ANY of this even worth talking about? What is your epistemological justification for believing it's not all COMPLETE NONSENSE?
These are challenging questions that most believers choose, intentionally or unintentionally, not to confront. They fall back on something like "faith," which really isn't an answer.
I can insist I believe "on faith" the Earth is flat, but other people are going to see that this is simply a refusal to confront a veritable Mt. Everest of scientific evidence and reasoning and that I'm simply misusing the term "faith" in the sense of "head-in-the-sand blind faith" (which is precisely how many atheists understand religious faith). If I go beyond this and attempt to justify my "faith" with "Flat-Earth science," other people are going to see that this is bogus pseudoscience and that I'm making an even bigger fool of myself than if I'd just stuck with blind faith.
What about belief in a God or specifically the God of Christianity? What is the epistemic justification for thinking either has any reality to it at all?
Indeed, what is YOUR epistemic justification?
I wonder how many people can articulate a reason for belief that is any more substantive than blind faith. "I don't know, I just believe" or "I just choose to believe" – how does this differ from someone choosing to believe the Earth is flat or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the atheists' favorite example) exists? How does this differ from "pretending to believe" or "believing six impossible things before breakfast" as the Red Queen told Alice she did?
This is why I say I have a constructed belief system. It is one constructed plank by plank until I could make an informed leap of faith in a particular direction.
In a constructed belief system, the leap of faith is a logical, rational and informed one. It acknowledges, of course, the possibility of error because in the case of metaphysical questions the correctness of the answers can't be objectively known.
For any belief, religious or otherwise, to be epistemically justified doesn't require it to be true. If every clock in my house says its 12:03 PM, my belief that it's 12:03 is epistemically justified even though, unbeknownst to me, there was a power outage and it's actually 1:12. Likewise, I may have a justified belief in God even if no God actually exists - and vice-versa. I may have a justified belief in Christianity even if Hinduism is true - and vice-versa.
In my case, the primary planks in my epistemology of belief are evidentiary ones. I happen to have been blessed with a high IQ and a very "fit" psychological profile and to have made my living in a highly analytical field, so I have no great concern about the operation of my cognitive faculties (but even so, I do still try to critically examine my own cognitive biases and quirks).
One evidentiary base comprises a sizable number of anomalous experiences, many suggesting the survival of consciousness after death; long and intensive studies of such phenomena; and long and intensive studies of the scientific disciplines relating to the nature of consciousness, the fundamental nature of reality (i.e., as either entirely materialistic or not) and whether the universe is best explained in terms of design or randomness.
Without this evidentiary base, I don't think I'd be religious at all. I might have some vague intuitive sense of an underlying mystery, of Something More, but many atheists have this. It scarcely rises to the level of anything we might call "belief."
This evidentiary base points me in the direction of at least some "spiritual realm" (whatever that might mean), the survival of consciousness (in at least some form), and perhaps a plan or design underlying the universe and human existence. This is the level at which I am "thoroughly religious" (or the proverbial "more spiritual than religious"). I have a high level of conviction.
Another base of evidence is simply 74 years of living in which my life seems to have shown a distinct plan. Not merely a plan or pattern that I'm seeing in retrospect but one that I was aware of as it seemed to be unfolding over the decades. This included a number (perhaps five) of complex, multi-faceted, life-changing sequences of events that almost screamed "providential guidance and protection."
This base of evidence points me in the direction of some sort of providential involvement from the supernatural realm. It's admittedly highly subject to my own interpretation, so I don't attach the same level of weight as to the more objective anomalous experiences.
Another base of evidence comprises 74 years of close observation of myself, of others, of the way the world works. What does it mean to be human? What is human nature fundamentally like? Why is the world the utter mess it is?
We then move from evidence to philosophy, theology, ethics and other intellectual realms. Intensive studies here helped inform my understanding and interpretation of the evidentiary bases described above.
As I've stated, at some 30,000-foot level a personal, providential God such as Christianity posits seems most plausible to me. At some 60,000-foot level, Christianity in its broad outline seems the best explanation of the reality in which I live. Not a perfect or entirely convincing fit by any means, and really not much more convincing than some other religions, philosophies and traditions, so I borrow from them freely and incorporate them into my belief system as I choose. I have what I've called my Stage 5 belief system.
Significantly, I believe, no part of my belief system flies in the face of a veritable Mt. Everest of scientific evidence and reasoning. Yes, it is contrary to the governing materialistic paradigm, but that paradigm is fast collapsing. In this respect, I hold no beliefs analogous to a Flat Earth.
This is all, of course, anathema to an institutional "Christianity" that is hellbent to preserve its economic and power structures. It needs True Believers, not iconoclasts who go their own way. I am the dreaded individual who thinks for himself and decides what makes sense to him and what he is constitutionally able to believe. God hates me, "Christianity" says. I'm destined for an eternity of fiery torment, "Christianity" says. OK, whatever, so be it.
Famed atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell said that if he found himself face-to-face with a God who demanded to know why he didn't believe, he'd say "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." If I found myself face-to-face with the God of Flat Earth, Young Earth, inerrant-Bible fundamentalist Christianity, I'd respond something like "I did the best I could with the material you gave me to work with, Big Guy."
To many, my position sounds arrogant, condescending toward others. I'm admittedly supremely confident in my own intellect and abilities and I know I've damn well done my homework – more homework than 99.9% of believers and atheists of all stripes. But I accept that not everyone has the same abilities, the same amount of time and resources or even the same inclination to be as interested in such matters.
I'm not sure that whatever God there is really cares what we think or believe about any of this – I rather suspect he doesn't, except as it may help inform and guide the way we lead our earthly lives. So I respect any sincere belief system that provides the basis for a kind, generous and more-or-less ethical life – which is what I suspect whatever God there is actually does care about. Someone else's belief system may strike me as baseless, mindless or fantastically improbable, but I am not the judge of any belief system other than my own. I fully accept that materialistic atheism or even Flat Earth, Young Earth, inerrant-Bible fundamentalist Christianity (NO, NOT THAT!!!
) might be true or at least closer to the truth.The Flat Earther with whom I engaged accused me of thinking I had The Truth and failing to recognize that my own beliefs are simply feelings and opinions. Good Lord, literally NOTHING could be further from the truth, NOTHING could more completely misstate my actual position. I have The Truth for me, which may not be The Truth at all. I don't see how anyone could view his or her own belief system in any other way. If you insist you actually have The Truth about metaphysical questions, the answers to which cannot be known (at least in this lifetime), that's pretty much the definition of delusional.
If I regard my Truth as "superior" in any sense, it's only in the sense that I know I've done the heavy lifting most people haven't done. It's an exceedingly well-informed and well-thought-out personal Truth. But it may not be The Truth at all.
The shape of the earth, of course, isn't a metaphysical question. It's a scientific question. It's a scientific question that has been answered to a level of scientific certainty and beyond. To hold the Flat Earth position rationally requires an assertion that (1) the Bible teaches a flat earth (which it doesn't, but we'll let it go); (2) the Bible is the supreme, can't-be-contradicted authority on all matters of which it speaks (which is demonstrably false, but we'll let it go); and (3) somehow, in some way, the Mt. Everest of science is just flat wrong on this issue (even if believing this requires the Flat Earther to posit a weirdly deceptive God, but we'll let it go).
OK, that's an epistemology that will strike most people as flawed and bizarre, but it isn't completely irrational. What it does is – bogusly, most people would say – is attempt to turn a scientific question into a metaphysical (religious) one. The metaphysical (inerrant Bible) justification can't be definitely refuted any more than Buddhism, Hinduism, atheism or Scientology can be definitely refuted. When the Flat Earther steps out of metaphysical mode and attempts to confront the Mt. Everest of science, however, the epistemology collapses.
Anyway, that would be my long-winded challenge to other believers: Can you even articulate your epistemology? Can you even answer WHY you believe what you say you believe? Have you ever even THOUGHT about it?
Oh, here's the video again. If you can watch the tiny, low-altitude Sun illuminating little portions of the flat disk of the Earth like a Walmart flashlight without giggling, you are made of stronger stuff than I. Bear in mind, the Flat Earth Sun is roughly 31 miles in diameter and is suspended roughly 3,500 miles above the Earth. No, really. Ask the bus driver.
