A Case for Obstinacy
Defending Religious Perspectives in the Age of Scientific Consensus
For the majority of the well-educated populace, once the experts weigh in on a topic, discussion on that topic is over, and there is no more conversation to be had. The willingness to stifle objection or opposition by the well-educated and those in the higher social classes is unignorable. While the class of sinecured researchers has only recently begun to lose popularity, it remains the case that the opinion of experts is all too often regarded as uncritically correct without much discussion. In fact, those who spark discussion on such issues are often labeled as “fringe” or some other epithet designed to shut down meaningful discussion. This uncritical acceptance of expert opinions can be harmful, as it stifles meaningful discourse and hinders the development of new ideas. It must be recognized that even a position that is controversial, especially in the realm of religion, may have a deep rational or justified source that is not fully explainable, even though there are well-informed and thoughtful opponents to it. It is a potential tool of tyranny to declare that controversial opinions ought to be done away with altogether, and sometimes, in the realm of discourse, one obstinate minority, through their dogged determination, is able to hold on and make a real difference in the development or direction of any given debate. It is fully reasonable for rational actors to maintain their positions, especially minority positions, in the face of persistent, well-educated opposition.
In an endeavor to defend the obstinate and perhaps the absurd, this survey will examine a few cases of religiously controversial opinions, especially in the modern world where the opinion of experts holds extraordinary sway. These examples will mostly revolve around the intersection of religion and science and primarily consider the debate around the school of thought known as Young Earth Creationism. Certainly, there have been attempts, even amongst scholars who are sympathetic to religious perspectives, to “domesticate” or otherwise declaw the “anti-scientific” parts of religion rather than seeking to put religion into a box that is limited by how far science wishes to stretch its domains and adjusting the frontiers of religion to make a retrograde motion whenever science expands into a new domain. In case that interpretation seems uncharitable, it would be worth noting that this is the idea behind the “God of the Gaps” ideology that many religious groups or factions defaulted to before the modern age. That debate aside, there is still a sizable portion of highly thoughtful and informed people who stand on both sides of the various religious and scientific debates that populate modern discourse, and certainly, both sides possess proofs, opinions, doctrines, and evidence that they believe to be “knockout blows” to the other side’s construction of the historical or scientific record. However, the fact remains that both opinions in these debates remain controversial, no matter how much one side or the other wishes that this was not the case. This survey shall investigate one of the most significant fronts of the debate between the frontiers of religion and science (even though both sides claim their fair amount of crossovers), namely the discussion of the veracity of the events described in the Genesis creation narrative, the literal “Six Day Creation” model known as Young Earth Creationism. This survey contends that both sides of these debates can reasonably maintain their beliefs in a controversial religious outlook, with special attention towards the minority view, which has all the more reason to be worried about disappearing if the “tyranny of consensus” were to win out and has been under severe scrutiny in recent years.
Before addressing some of the arguments and controversies that were mentioned above, it is good to note that there have been countless fronts where science and religion have come to clash, and there has been a victory for one side or the other (even if locally) the most notable of those clashes was the treatment of ethnic minorities throughout the western world, the ulcers of some of these conflicts are still very much festering today, Yet, there was a time in the history of the United States when the institution of slavery was considered if not “morally correct” at least necessary by a lot of professionals in the field of political philosophy (George Fitzhugh comes to mind), science, and religion — who stood opposed by a sect of radical religious fundamentalists in the form of the abolitionist movement, which was mostly inspired by puritanical fervor, based on their interpretation of Christian religious scriptures rather than the seemingly empirical and scientific methods of the day.
It must not be forgotten that the Medical Board of an American State classified Drapetomania, the desire of enslaved Africans to run away, as a mental disorder after a claim was made in an official academic paper delivered by the University of Pennsylvania educated Doctor Samuel A. Cartwright, who believed he had collected sufficient scientific evidence for his point. Furthermore, other racially motivated fields of science, such as phrenology, remained popular into the 1890s when it was replaced by eugenics which met its first decline post-1945 in the wake of the collapse of the Nazi Reich and was further weakened by the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953. Although these arguments provide ample fodder for supporting the minority view, as there were well-intentioned, sincere, educated people on both sides of the issues, these questions introduce too many ethical and emotional concerns that would have to be carefully excised from the debate before taking the remaining pieces and bringing them back together to make a point; all this work would distract from the main point of the survey: holding the line in the face of controversy. Similarly, it is easier to look back at an already settled conflict and play “Monday Morning Quarterback” than to look at a discussion that is ongoing and may not be settled for some time, especially because, in the current period, one can take a look at both sides as living, active, and developing movements rather than static pictures.
Above, the term “tyranny of consensus,” is utilized, which could be likened to a similar term “tyranny of the majority,” but there is something unique about the tyranny of consensus that is not present in what is called the tyranny of the majority; the term consensus in this phrase refers to a professional or academic consensus. Meaning if a large or vocal portion of the experts in the relevant field agree that thing becomes the consensus, this is distinct from the tyranny of the majority because there very well may be a large amount of dissenting opinions from the general populace or from experts in adjacent fields, or in the worst case of tyranny of consensus significant opposition from within the field that is too much pressured or broadly too scared for their careers to voice any major concern, or to mount a spirited opposition to the consensus. The tyranny of consensus can allow an isolated group of outspoken experts to form an opinion that is not representative of their field but attains consensus through fear or publicity. This allows those who agree with them to shut down any debate by merely invoking that that is the consensus, which can shut down meaningful and important debate in any discussion, especially in topics of religion and philosophy where everyone has a vested interest or where the questions may be so substantial that making an authoritative statement at all could be foolhardy.
Young Earth Creationism is a collection of views and beliefs centered on the literal Six-Day creation mentioned in the Biblical Genesis account. Proponents of this view also take the generation timelines and years for those generations literally and conclude that the earth is a little over 6,000 years old; although popular in some countries outside of the Western world, the academic and cultural impact of this view (and its main proponent, Answers in Genesis), is felt in the Western World. This view has been labeled as Pseudo-Scientific and as a branch of Christian fundamentalism particular to the United States. Is there a logical defense to this view? Does that matter? At the intersection of science and religion, there are a lot of sticking points. How do religious and spiritual claims compare to empirical and science-based claims? What kind of claim is the age of the earth, and what kind of claim is the literalism of the first chapter of the Bible? Supporters and detractors of the creationist claims would have different responses to these questions.
This leads to a discussion of the epistemological significance of persistent disagreements and the importance of higher-order and first-order evidence. “First-order evidence for or against some proposition p “directly” bears on the question of whether p” (Pittard 3); first-order evidence comprises experiences, observations, or other items that directly bear on the question, direct evidence, which in a religious discussion can include personal experiences which tend to be more common amongst highly religious communities. Arguments and examination of first-order evidence is an area in which the Christian communities have become very engaged with (the field of Apologetics comes to mind). Observations would be the most controversial of the three because it is where Young Earth Creationism begins to venture a bit into the field of science, creating further controversy. Pittard continues, “[W]hereas higher-order evidence for or against p does not directly bear on the question of whether p but directly bears on the question of whether one has rationally assessed the first-order evidence for or against p.” (Pittard 3) higher-order evidence deals with the process or method used to evaluate the first-order evidence, essentially assessing if the first-order evidence is reliable, or reliably interpreted. The higher-order evidence is where all arguments begin to bog down if they are controversial. For instance, if one learns that a well-informed, rational individual has a different or totally opposite interpretation of the first-order evidence, this calls one’s reasoning into question and may be a cause for re-evaluation of the interpretation of the first-order evidence, or at least a thought exercise to see how the other person or side reached their conclusion. Does this only apply to one side of the argument? This paper suggests that this is not the case; there is no reason that the evidence to the contrary should significantly impact the Young Earth Creationists more than those who choose the scientific interpretation of the creation and development of the universe. Both sides of the argument have a significant first and higher-order understanding of the topic, and thus, the case for either side is still very much alive.
Yet, one may argue that the analysis above is too glib, that is, assumes too much or gives too much credence to one side of the argument or the other. The Old Earth scientist may point to the overwhelming preponderance of geological and evolutionary evidence, and the creationist may point to the Bible as well as other first-order evidence to bolster his argument. “Facts about religious disagreement may pose first-order or higher-order evidential worries (or both) for religious belief.” (Pittard 3); the fact of the matter is that the Young Earther’sinterpretation of the evidence, both Biblical and scientific (more limited in scope for this side) rely heavily on first-order evidence derived from mainly a literal reading of Genesis as well as a purely Biblical view of history. Those in the scientific community who oppose Young Earth Creationism may point to higher-order evidence in the consensus of geology, biology, physics, and other fields to disagree with either the interpretation of the first-order evidence or to overturn the first-order evidence presented by the Young Earthers entirely. This, of course, leads to the major elephant in the room: ought the Young Earth Creationist movement lessen or abandon their confidence in the literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative? Should the scientific consensus overrule their understanding of first-order evidence in favor of the arguments that have been well agreed on in the scientific community? There are two views to take on this: permissivism and conciliationism. The permissivist in this debate would likely argue that there are multiple rational interpretations of both sides of the evidence and that there is a rational way in which reasonable thinkers could interpret both the Bible and the scientific record to support their point of view. Both views, the permissivist might contend, are reasonable responses to the available evidence given one’s own epistemic framework or a priori assumptions. This means that both the Young Earth Creationist and the old Earth scientist could confidently proceed in their view. In this context, being religious and permissivist, both views are rational responses to the evidence available. This contrasts with the view of the conciliationist; under this view, once someone becomes aware of a conflict with someone who is an epistemic peer, that person ought to reexamine their confidence in their interpretation of the evidence, especially if that consensus is strong or overwhelming. The conciliationist view poses the greatest challenge for the defenders of Young Earth Creationism, and the permissive view poses challenges for both sides of the argument, especially if their goal is to convince or otherwise “defeat” the other side in one way or another. If the Young Earth movement chose to recognize the scientific community, or the vast majority of it, as composed of epistemic peers or superiors, the conciliationist view would suggest that they reduce the confidence in their own opinion and their opinion be lessened — especially in the face of massive opposition. Yet, this has the potential to fall into the category of the tyranny of consensus, that an opinion is right or correct merely because of its support amongst those considered superiors or experts in the field, especially given the fact that those who chose to depart from the Older Earth consensus tend to be ostracized from their field, which discourages reasoned debate on a topic in exchange for a dead-consensus, meaning that little to no debate is permitted on a topic, allowing it to languish without further development or consideration.
Obstinacy, the refusal to concede a point in spite of what may appear to be overwhelming proof, may appear like a backward way of looking at a subject. Many would argue that this degree of stubbornness prevents or holds back societal development and may put certain views beyond the borders of rational inquiry and over into the realm of conspiracy. However, this is not a charitable interpretation. Suppose beliefs are truly and deeply held and confirmed by first-order evidence, as well as supported by thoughtful and reasoned arguments and inquiry. In that case, there is no reason to refuse to engage with or put these arguments beyond the scope of reasonable debate. The permissivist view could be applied to the argument between Young Earthers and Old Earthers. Those who are proponents of the Young Earthers often view the Bible as authoritative, and the epistemic framework of the Bible gives that movement the rational basis for interpreting the evidence provided in the Genesis narrative as a justification and as evidence for the Young Earth view. This is not to say that the Old Earth view is completely outside of Biblical interpretation, but merely to say that the Young Earth view is a valid and rational reading of that section of the scriptures. “If full rationality permits a variety of religious perspectives in response to the same evidence, then religious disagreement does not raise worries about the rationality of one’s pre-disagreement religious views and the epistemic deference commended by DEFERENCE would seem to be unmotivated” (Pittard 14) This would be to say under the permissivist point of view that multiple points of view are acceptable, and can be reached by rational and thoughtful actors. This would then also apply to the scientific evidence, as the Old Earth scientist made a religious claim by veering into a space in which religion has been offering answers since its inception. This would mean that on the subject of a religious claim, such as the age of the earth or a counter-creation narrative, it would be incumbent on the scientific community to prove themselves to the epistemic peers or superiors in that space to bolster their religious claim. Conciliation depends on accepting epistemic peers or superiors; in the Young Earth movement, there is no reason to accept Old Earth scientists, especially of the secular variety, as epistemological superiors or even peers from the religious perspective (in this case) the secular Old Earther has neither the correct first-order evidence nor the correct lenses with which to make higher-order claims.
Obstinate positions like Young Earth Creationism keep debates alive, which is key in the realm of science. Forcing the dominant view, what is currently the consensus, to continue to refine its arguments and work towards greater understanding could not be regarded as a negative thing unless the majority viewpoint has latent skepticism about the veracity of their opinion and is concerned with being overturned, charitably assuming that this is not the case there should be no reason for those in the scientific community who side with Old Earth ideology to object to engaging with arguments from the Young Earth movement. Furthermore, Young Earth Creationism embodies faith-based epistemological frameworks, which are, indeed, different from empirical epistemological frameworks but are not inferior. Faith-based frameworks offer a basis for engaging in existential and metaphysical questions. Faith-based epistemological frameworks deserve philosophical respect.
Epistemological frameworks that are based on faith operate with their own assumptions and background information, which form the basis for a coherent and rational system of understanding the evidence. This does not mean that they are empirical; that would be a different approach, but it does not imply superiority of one and inferiority of the other; they are simply different and may not even have the same goal. Secular science, for example, operates within a set of epistemic frameworks that can make no claim to neutrality or universal acceptance. Methodological naturalism and the principle of scientific inquiry make the same kinds of underlying assumptions that the Young Earthers make. Assuming there is a natural explanation instead of a supernatural one encourages those under this type of system to look for natural explanations and not supernatural ones. This dictates how evidence is evaluated and how it is applied proceeding forward in any debate. Starting with the naturalistic assumption can allow one to construct a whole framework of understanding purely based on the evidence derived from the assumption that there are purely naturalistic origins for observable things. The naturalistic framework is not necessarily more rational than a faith-based epistemology; it is simply different. Foundational assumptions dictate how evidence is interpreted and evaluated, and this is something that is true for both sides of this argument — for adherents of Young Earth Creationism, the authority of the scripture is an assumption that overrides methodological naturalism. There is not even a common way for both sides to evaluate first-order evidence. The divergence in foundational assumptions and understanding means that proponents of Young Earth Creationism can rationally reject the authority of the secular consensus while maintaining their faith-based epistemic commitments. For the proponents of Young Earth Creationism, scripture serves not only as a mere source of authoritative first-order evidence but as THE source of first-order evidence. Scripture then becomes the lens through which scientific data or observations are interpreted — this reliance on scripture, which to some may be derided as irrational, is not; it is a different epistemological starting point. “In many religious disputes, then, questions about which qualifications are most important can not be separated from the primary religious matter under dispute”; therefore, “there is no shared theory of epistemic credentials that could ground a dispute-independent assessment of the disputants' qualifications.” (Pittard 18) Taking this to be true, adherents to the Young Earth point of view may reject the credentials of those who are not examining first-order evidence through the frame of the Bible, just as those taking the opposing viewpoint would object to the credentials of the Young Earthers for not taking certain scientific metrics into account. The divergence between these two points of view illuminates the real area, or at least the underlying area, of disagreement. Neither side of this debate can fully defer to the other as superior or equal without abandoning the epistemic foundation of the argument, and to do that would be to give up the debate before it even truly began. This lack of a shared theory of epistemic credentials in religious debates means there is no truly satisfactory way to resolve them.
Obstinacy in the face of an overwhelming consensus is not only necessary to avoid the tyranny of consensus but also essential for maintaining intellectual diversity and integrity across a wide variety of disciplines. The dominant view or structure, if left unchallenged, has the potential to stifle future development and inquiry over any question. This is why a view like Young Earth Creationism must be taken seriously and not derided as superstition. Even though there are significant philosophical arguments for differences in the science, from the Conciliationist point of view, it may be necessary to defer to epistemic superiors when persistent disagreements arise. However, this argument is only sufficiently powerful if it is accepted that the Old Earth scientist is, indeed, the epistemic superior in this question. Suppose the age-of-earth questions are understood to be primarily religious questions rather than scientific ones. In that case, the Young Earther can reasonably and confidently reject the asserted authority of a secular scientist as the epistemic superior. In contrast, Permissivism recognizes that those engaged in thoughtful, rational discourse and inquiry can arrive at differing, perhaps wildly divergent conclusions from the same corpus of evidence — this divergence can become compounded when either side is not only functioning on different assumptions but entirely distinct epistemic frameworks. Young Earth proponents place scripture as their authoritative first-order evidence. Given the different epistemic frameworks, this rationalizes their persistence even amidst widespread disagreement. Obstinacy, when rooted in a coherent epistemic framework, such as the Bible, is not a vice but a philosophical necessity, ensuring that the quest for the truth remains dynamic and open to the possibility that arises from persistent disagreement.1
Pittard, John. “Religious Disagreement.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015, iep.utm.edu/rel-disa/.