Some of humanity’s most profound and enduring discussions deal with the ultimate questions (Why are we here? Is there a God? Why is there something rather than nothing? What happens after we die?). These discussions are not going anywhere anytime soon, and will probably be with us forever. They tend to stir up strong emotions within all of us. Some tend to find satisfaction to these ponderings within their sacred texts, their faith communities, or in personal religious experiences. Naturalists, atheists, agnostics, and the like, will sometimes come to the realization that these questions may never have satisfactory answers. This could lead to an existential crisis (can we really blame them?). Others may acquire a sense of contentment and an appreciation for the brevity of life. I like to think of myself as being part of this latter group.
Given the seriousness of these questions, these discussions can sometimes get heated, and even ugly. Theists and atheists will call each other irrational, stupid, delusional, rebellious, etc. Part of the reason these discussions can lead to these behaviors is the idea that we are all ‘epistemic peers’, that is, that we are all, or at least our interlocutors, in a reliable position to know or understand these issues. At least, this is how most of us tend to see each other when we discuss opposing views with one another. This may very well be the case in an academic setting, but it does not necessarily translate to everyday life.
I recently read an interview done to Louise Antony by Gary Gutting back in 2014 for The Stone. I found the following from Antony profoundly revealing:
“In the real world, there are no epistemic peers — no matter how similar our experiences and our psychological capacities, no two of us are exactly alike, and any difference in either of these respects can be rationally relevant to what we believe.”
I found this profound because it is so obvious yet so easy to miss when having these discussions: the fact that everything up until that moment will have somehow affected the way we see the world and ourselves within it. We’re quick to label our interlocutor as irrational, easily forgetting that none of us think and operate in a vacuum. No one is completely detached and calculatingly rational, especially when it comes to the most fundamental issues concerning the human race.
If there is one thing that I have learned throughout my time reflecting on these things, reading the relevant literature, listening to the experts, etc., it’s that the more I learn about the universe and the fundamental nature of reality, the more I become settled in my non-theism and, at the same time, the more I realize how important it is to develop intellectual humility. Disagreements can be healthy. It’s the way we learn and discover new things sometimes. But, perhaps instead of looking at it as a competition of worldviews with a need to prove others wrong, we can learn to see it as an ongoing conversation. A conversation that humans have been having since the very beginning and probably will have until the eventual heat death of the universe if it does indeed all end that way.
