on the unavoidability of proof, evidence and justification

Yesterday I had an occasionally heated, but not quite acrimonious discussion with someone about my desire to challenge 'people of faith'. She quoted a friend who said, basically, that she didn't care what wacky ideas people believed in, as long as they were harmless.

It's a familiar position, which can be encapsulated in the phrase 'live and let live.' It has, also, the great advantage of making us feel liberal and tolerant. The sentence, apparently wrongly attributed to Voltaire, 'I don't agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death you're right to say it', which manages to turn the live-and-let-live position into something heroic and gallant, is often quoted in these sorts of discussions.

Many philosophers, though, have pointed to the weakness in this position - not least because it seems to render philosophy obsolete. I'm very much an amateur philosopher of course, but I've read a bit of the stuff, and I know that most introductory texts on the subject will equate philosophy with argument. Whether such arguments are intended to persuade others or to clarify our own positions, or a bit of both, there's surely little doubt that arguments are what philosophy is about.

Ludwig Wittgenstein said that a philosopher who doesn't engage in argument is like a boxer who refuses to enter the ring. An overly pugnacious remark perhaps, but it emphasises the public nature of philosophical argument. It's one of the philosopher's tasks to engage in public debate, to challenge public opinion, to expose flaws in the arguments, opinions and beliefs of others, and to oppose them with stronger arguments and more rationally justified beliefs.

Now, the person with whom I discussed things yesterday would have no problems with any of the above, but her concern is that I seem to want to attack people for holding views which they have every right to hold, even if they're false or absurd. In other words, I'm like the philosopher/boxer who's not so much interested in climbing into the ring, but who wants to punch out the lights of anybody on the street who holds doubtful beliefs, whether they're interested in fighting or not.

There are many responses that can be made here, but two will suffice. First, the limitations of the boxer/streetfighter analogy need to be underlined. 'Anything goes' attacks, including abuse, scorn and the like, needn't and shouldn't be part of the repertoire, but the statement that anybody prepared to express an opinion or belief should also be prepared to justify it is hardly a controversial one. Instead of thinking of the boxer or streetfighter, it'd be more flattering to think of Socrates, who's said to have gone about eliciting the opinions and beliefs of ordinary Athenians, and then pointing out their weaknesses and inconsistencies, and replacing them with firmer and more rational beliefs (thereby earning the undying gratitude of his interlocutors, if the dialogues are to be believed).

A second response would question people's rights to hold or express any opinion they want to. Our federal government has enacted anti-racial vilification legislation, while various states have anti-vilification legislation based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation either on their books or pending. It's a controversial trend, seemingly based on the view that there are publicly agreed limits to the expression of opinions. Further, there's a distinction between having a right to hold or express a certain view and having a right not to have that view questioned or challenged (in an appropriately civilised fashion). Even if we assume that it's fair enough to talk about rights in this context (a big assumption), few would agree that our right to an opinion involves or extends to a right not be questioned on it.

Finally I want to say more on the 'live and let live' position. The obvious weakness in such a position is that it amounts to a sort of pragmatic relativism. Thus, to avoid fruitless argument, let's just say that all opinions are equally valid (even though we don't really believe it) as long as they don't harm us or our world. Such a position discourages debate and analysis, and seems to suggest that the concept of truth is of little value or meaning, and certainly not worth the trouble that arguments bring.

I would suggest that most Christians don't adopt a 'live and let live' position. And rightly so. They believe in their god, and many are none too comfortable with people who don't - as is shown, for example, here. They believe that this god exists, and that his existence is vitally important to our understanding of human nature, the universe etc. These are objective claims. The onus is on the promoters of such claims to provide proof. It's a simple and reasonable challenge. Faith, of course, isn't an argument. Faith, as I see it, is nothing more than a form of hope.