A while back a friend made the woo-woo suggestion that all
opinions are equally valid and equally true.
Imagine a group of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers stalking a
deer in a wood. The deer spooks and darts off. One of the hunters says it was a
Spotted Pearlsbok, that always goes to ground a short distance away, and that
the group should make loud noises to flush it out. Another hunter says it was a
Spotted Milksbok, that always runs off completely, and that the group should
look for new prey. It really matters to the group which of the two closely
related species they have been stalking, but they are difficult to distinguish
at a distance.
Here is the first point. Both hunters have expressed valid
opinions. They are based on careful observation and objective experience. But
notice an important thing about these two valid opinions – one is wrong, in the
obvious sense of incorrectly describing the world in a significant way. This is
a major pitfall for the irrational. They equate validity with truth, and end up
having to say that valid, but mutually contradictory, claims are in some sense
both true for the claimants. This is quite ridiculous. We might not know the
identity, but the deer was either a Spotted Pearlsbok or a Spotted Milksbok.
There is an objective reality. Both opinions are valid, but one is true and the
other false, and the survival of the hunters may depend on which. Ignorance of the identity does not make both opinions true.
A third hunter cast sticks before the hunt and claims foreknowledge
that the first animal would be a Striped Inksbok. He says that the spooked deer
must be that. Here is the second point. This new claim is not valid in the same
sense as the first two even though it purports to identify the deer. It isn’t
valid in any meaningful way. It is not based on relevant observation, knowledge
of deer, or anything rational of any kind. In fact, it is contrary to the
evidence – two of the hunters saw spots, not stripes. Not all claims are
equally valid.
This is the status of many religious claims. They often say
no more than, “I have been vouchsafed a deep inner conviction that …”.
Sometimes the believer will offer evidence as tenuous and irrelevant as the hunter’s
sticks. Eg It must be true because it says so in my tribe’s holy book.
Sometimes the claim is contrary to what we already know about the world. Eg A
wafer and the body of a dead person can temporarily have the same essential reality.
Or, the planet is no more than ten thousand years old.
One year a teenager joins the older hunters for his first
hunt. He rather precociously proffers opinions on deer identity, and over the
season he turns out to be very good at distinguishing. In fact, he always gets
it right. He begins to imagine he has a special power and starts to claim communion
with the spirit of the wood, and others believe him. Now, he does have a
special power – he has superior eyesight, but you can see how the group might
come to accept false explanations. Palaeolithic people were probably weak at
critical thinking and the scientific method. If the hunter really was in touch
with the spirit of the wood, then he would likely be able to identify deer
without seeing them. So, there’s a simple test that might verify the idea. This
is just an example to show how shamanic traditions might get started, with the
associated claims having little basis in reality. No doubt many religions have begun
like this.
Here are the go-away messages.
- Not all claims are equally valid.
- Not all valid claims are true.
- Be very suspicious of claims offered without independent objective evidence.