Radical Skepticism: Evil Spirit Hypothesis (Descartes)

by

Recently I came across a discussion in the comments column of an orthodox Christian website between a certain ‘Daan’ who advertises himself as an ‘atheist’ and a Christian. This Daan triumphantly asked the Christian the question: “How do you know that the Bible is not a conspiracy of the devil? The devil, according to Christians, is cunning and cunning. If charity is morally bad, and the Bible was written by the devil to convince you of it, you can never discover it.”¹ Good is evil and evil is good and you will never be able to know. Poor soul. And you just commit yourself to your neighbor…

Descartes’ evil spirit hypothesis

How can we know that God is not lying or that the devil is completely fooling us? It reminded me of Descartes’ evil spirit hypothesis (see image at the top of the article). The whole world could be an illusion created by an evil spirit (g enus malignum or decepto r). The doubt that the French philosopher and mathematician Descartes (1596 – 1650, see image) raises with this hypothesis is absolute. He is no longer sure about the existence of the material world and even doubts his own existence and the existence of God. After all, the evil spirit is omnipotent and could therefore place anything in its mind. Ultimately, Descartes concludes that from the idea that God is an infinitely perfect being, the evil spirit cannot exist. According to the philosopher, an infinitely perfect being cannot deceive, because that would be a shortcoming.

Descartes’ epistemology
The evil spirit hypothesis was part of Descartes’ epistemology or epistemology. He developed a method that starts by questioning everything we think we know. His skepticism concerned the reliability of our sensory perceptions. How can we be sure that things are as we perceive them? How do we know we can trust our hearing, or our sense of smell?

 

‘No way out’

Once you get into this evil spirit hypothesis, there is no way out. You can give all kinds of rational arguments why God must be good [2] or come up with a theological basis [3], it will do you no good. Descartes’ argument that God must be an infinitely perfect being can also be a delusion inspired by this evil spirit. Descartes was inconsistent, as he continued to trust in the human mind, which was expressed in his famous motto cogito ergi sum (‘I think, therefore I am’) and apparently assumed that the human brain can come to the right conclusions. . He didn’t seem to doubt that…

Does that mean that contemporary philosophers have all embraced skepticism? No of course not. In fact, they came to believe that Descartes’ hypothesis was incorrect. You do not start from a point of total doubt and from there build a system of beliefs that rests on an undoubted foundation. The lesson of Descartes is that such a project is doomed to failure.

Basic beliefs

The American philosopher Alvin Plantinga (1932 -) makes it clear that many of our beliefs are basic beliefs . They are not derived from more fundamental beliefs, but constitute one’s fundamental beliefs. Beliefs that consist of self-evident axioms or are adequately rooted in experience (the senses) are acceptable. It is perfectly rational to have such beliefs unless and until some defeaters undermine the rationality of that belief.[4] We do not start from a point of doubt, but from our conviction of what we do (believe we) know.

The American philosopher Tom Morris (1952 -) notes the following about these basic beliefs in relation to skepticism:

  • “Our current beliefs are like a raft or a boat on which we float and sail across the sea of life. While repairs and adjustments may be necessary along the journey, it can never be rational to leave the vessel on the open sea to destroy it completely in the hope of rebuilding it from scratch, or to do without it altogether and go for a swim.,[5]

 

Five-minute hypothesis

Back to the skeptic’s question. Twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) proposed a radical hypothesis about the past, known as the ‘five-minute hypothesis’.

  • ,The entire universe came into being from nothing five minutes ago, just as it was then, with fossils in the ground and wrinkles on some people’s faces. All other signs of age also came into being at that moment and are therefore completely deceptive.,

This hypothesis is completely at odds with absolutely all my beliefs regarding anything that happened more than 5 minutes ago, and yet I am unable to provide the slightest bit of evidence that that crazy hypothesis is untrue. You can make all kinds of objections, from head hairs that must have had time to grow that long to strata that are packed with perfectly preserved fossils and (should) date from a certain time, but that is all completely consistent with the hypothesis that states that all these things, including their deceptive signs of age, came into existence just five minutes ago as a grand cosmic trick.[6]

Or how about radical skepticism about the present. It was the same Descartes of the evil spirit, who came up with another radical idea. How do we not know that everything we experience, experience, think and feel is not an extraordinarily detailed dream? Descartes also played with the idea that our current life is one big, all-encompassing illusion. Or what about radical skepticism about the future? The American philosopher Jorge LA Garcia (1942 -) came up with the hypothesis called futuristic nihilism , which states that the future does not exist.

Source skepticism

Then there is also the so-called ‘source skepticism’. The skeptic questions the reliability of our sources that underlie our beliefs about the past, present and future. There are basically two types of sources on which we base our beliefs about the past:

  • the statements and testimonies of others, and
  • (if we were there ourselves) our memory.

Physical evidence is sometimes presented as an independent third source, nevertheless it is dependent on the reliability of the two other (primary) sources. In short, all our beliefs about the past depend on testimony, memory, or both, but the skeptic will ask how we can ever know whether these sources are reliable. The question here is not whether memory is always or usually reliable (because memory is certainly not always reliable[7]), but the skeptic wants to know whether human memory is ever reliable. If you try to give an adequate answer to this, you will always find that you end up in a circular argument. If you appeal to memory to justify your trust in memory, you are in a circular argument. If you try to prove the reliability of the memory by appealing to testimonies, you end up in a bigger circular argument. Tom Morris puts it this way:

  • ,But if I can only know that memory is sometimes reliable if I can reasonably believe that testimony is reliable, and I can only know that testimony is reliable if I can reasonably believe that memory is reliable, we are only in a circular argument that is more extensive and through which we have in fact achieved nothing. We have been unable to provide the slightest clear evidence that any of the sources of our beliefs about the past can ever be reliable.,[8]

We can go even further by also examining our beliefs about the present. Then it turns out that most of the beliefs you have about the present moment about things that are happening outside our field of view are based on the testimonies of others. It has just been explained that you cannot provide a shred of evidence for the assumption that testimonies can be reliable. Then we jump to the sensory experience. Testimonies, but also many other things we know about life, come directly to us through sensory experience. But even in the case of the sensory experience that we assume provides the most direct connection to the world around us, the skeptic may ask how on earth we know that it is ever reliable. You cannot rely on memory, because it has not been possible to provide good evidence that memory is ever reliable. But you cannot rely on the sensory experience itself, because then you also find yourself in a circular argument. All in all, you cannot provide a single piece of pure evidence for the assumption that everyone shares and on which the reliability of all our beliefs depends, namely: ‘The sources of our beliefs are sometimes reliable’. Nothing, nakke, nada, you are empty-handed. This also applies to our beliefs about the future. After all, beliefs about the future are based on the past and the present. Since we cannot give valid reasons why our beliefs about the past and the present could be reliable, this ipso facto also applies to beliefs concerning the future.

Why might the human brain come to the right conclusions?
What applies to the reliability of sensory perception also applies to the reliability of logical thinking. With Descartes the emphasis is on the logical, thinking as an instrument to arrive at truth, but we can – with radical skepticism in mind – just as rightly question the human capacity to think. Why might the human brain come to the right conclusions? The choice for rationality cannot, at its core, be rationally justified (because if you try to do so, you become mercilessly entangled in circular reasoning), as the Austro-British philosopher Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) has made clear. We choose to think rationally, but by its nature this is – to use a term that the Dutch biologist, philosopher and theologian WJ Ouweneel (1944 -) often uses – a ‘supra-rational choice’ (note : not ir rational!).[9]

Source skepticism, according to Tom Morris, makes it clear that we are unable to provide even the slightest clear evidence that our basic belief-forming mechanisms can be reliable. And the questions of radical skepticism (such as the ‘evil spirit hypothesis’ and the ‘5-minute hypothesis’) rub additional salt in the wounds. We have no evidence whatsoever to reject these radical hypotheses, even though they are logically incompatible with our current beliefs about essential matters.

Principle of belief retention

So we cannot reject these outrageous hypotheses. We are unable to provide even the slightest positive and decisive evidence to show that these hypotheses are false. However, this does not mean that we should simply assume that these hypotheses are true. For example, there is no compelling reason to think that God is deceiving you or that everything began to exist five minutes ago. It was also Bertrand Russell who said: ,It is undesirable to give credence to a belief if there is no reason to believe it to be true., It is the philosopher Tom Morris who provides an adequate answer to skepticism with the principle of belief retention . The principle of belief retention means (in short) that you reject a proposition as false if:

  • this proposition requires that you reject or doubt a large number of your current (basic) beliefs,
  • you have no autonomous positive reason to reject or doubt all those other beliefs, and
  • you have no compelling reason to believe that proposition to be true.[10]

Now consider the five-minute hypothesis or the evil spirit hypothesis and ask yourself the following questions:

  • Is it rational to believe this hypothesis, which would require abandoning a very large number of your current beliefs? Do you have an autonomous positive reason to deny all these beliefs from now on? Is there a compelling reason to respond affirmatively to the five-minute hypothesis?

I can already guess the answer: ‘No’. Consequently, according to this principle, it is more rational not to give credence to these hypotheses. Nor are there compelling reasons to suspend your judgment in this regard and to be in permanent doubt about a large number of your beliefs. Consequently, it is more rational not to adopt such an attitude. Morris concludes:

  • ,If the reasonable step is not to be convinced of that hypothesis, or to suspend judgment about it, the only attitude left is the attitude of disbelief. So the most rational response to the skeptic’s five-minute hypothesis is the Outright denial. Denial. Rejection. Just say no.,[11]

The principle of belief retention encompasses a fundamental way in which rational people think. And how can you know that this principle is correct, the skeptic will ask. Well, we accept it without autonomous evidence and that is the rational thing to do. There is no independent standard of rationality, Morris makes clear, on the basis of which this principle can be rejected or doubted. It is simply ‘true’, we simply believe it, it is fundamental, it is a basic belief that can be used to justify other beliefs.

What lesson can be learned?
The American philosopher William Lane Craig (1949 -) says about Descartes’ evil spirit hypothesis (and this can be said of all radically skeptical hypotheses):

  • ,At most, it shows that one cannot prove inferentially that one’s fundamental beliefs are true. That’s right; that’s the lesson of Descartes. But that doesn’t imply that our properly basic beliefs are therefore irrational or unwarranted.,[12]

Morris points out that the principle of belief retention also suggests that it is rational to believe any of the following propositions without having direct evidence that they are true:

  • the sensory experience is sometimes reliable;
  • memory is sometimes reliable;
  • testimonials are sometimes reliable;
  • our primary belief-forming mechanisms are sometimes reliable.[13]

Because let’s face it: how could even one of our beliefs be true if we did not believe that sensory perception and the other sources through which you acquired the beliefs can sometimes be reliable? Please note: all empirical and logical evidence depends on these ‘faith principles’. In short: we think reasonably if we rely on the principle of belief retention. The skeptic ‘Daan’ with whom I started the article also implicitly indicated in another discussion that he assumed the principle of belief retention:

  • In a very strict sense, of course, we can never consider anything absolutely proven, because how can we be sure that everything is not an illusion of our own minds? However, that thought leads absolutely nowhere. … Since assuming that nothing exists, and the entire world is just a hallucination of myself, really leads nowhere, I am here making the assumption that the world exists, and that we can learn something about it. I freely admit that. And the assumption is fair, I think most people agree on that. Arguing about anything with those who disagree is impossible.[14]

 

Spitting into the wind

If charity is morally bad, then Mother Teresa has a great debt upon her… Can you imagine? / Source: Túrelio, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA-2.0)

The radical skepticism of the atheist who uses it against a Christian also turns against himself. An atheist could just as easily be the victim of an evil god or an evil spirit, or be part of a world that came into being 5 minutes ago. Now the atheist can counter that he does not believe that God exists and a Christian does. But what would that be? A Christian does not believe in a bad god, so in that sense both the atheist and the Christian take a position of disbelief regarding the proposition that there is a bad god.

Moreover, with regard to radical skepticism, it makes no difference whether you believe in God or not. No one, including the atheist, is exempt from the consequences of radical skepticism, namely that we have no evidence to reject the radical hypotheses. If an atheist asks a Christian in a discussion how he can know that the Bible is not a conspiracy of the devil, he can immediately ask himself how he can know that he is not being controlled by the inspiration of an evil person. mind and that his life is one big illusion. The atheist who puts forward an ‘evil god hypothesis’ or the ‘evil spirit hypothesis’ against a Christian (or another theist) can therefore be regarded as someone who is spitting into the wind.

God as part of the solution

Now the skeptic may maintain that the Christian or theist is in a worse position than the atheist because he believes in an omnipotent God. Because yes, that God can just as easily fool you. However, William Lane Craig makes it clear that a theist is in a better position because of his belief in God:

  • ,But the theist will see in God, not a reason to be sceptical of our senses and thinking, but rather the guarantor of the reliability of our belief-forming faculties. By contrast, the non-theist has no such guarantee. … What does it mean for our beliefs to be warranted, to constitute knowledge? [The] answer is that these beliefs are formed by cognitive faculties functioning properly in an appropriate environment. What does it mean to function properly? Well, to function as they were designed to. The theist is in a position to explain the proper functioning of our cognitive faculties, whereas the naturalist is at a loss to give an account of this crucial notion. Indeed, for the naturalist, since our cognitive faculties are not selected for truth but for survival, there is no basis at all to think that our faculties are reliable, for there is no probability that beliefs that promote survival will be true.,[15]

God is therefore not part of the problem, but part of the solution to the problem that radical skepticism raises.

Nuts

  1. http://www.habakuk.nu/columns/item/3583-de-hel-een-aansporing (last accessed on May 25, 2013)
  2. Emanuel Rutten. Is God good? October 29, 2012, http://gjerutten.blogspot.nl/2012/10/is-god-goed.html (last accessed on May 25, 2013)
  3. A. Ladrierre. God, His nature and His attributes. http://www.oudespoor.nl/Download/Y03.pdf (last consulted on May 25, 2013)
  4. Arguments can be criticized for validity, for the presence of circular reasoning, etc., but this is not possible with basic beliefs. If you want to undermine the rationality of this, you have to come up with defeaters . In epistemology or theory of knowledge, a defeater is the belief B1 that is incompatible with another belief B2, where arguments or evidence for B1 can be used to refute B2. Defeaters are therefore reasons to think that your belief is false or was produced in an unreliable way.
  5. Tom Morris. Philosophy for dummies. Pearson Education Benelux bv, Amsterdam, 6th edition November 2007, p80.
  6. Ibid, p67.
  7. Schacter DL The seven sins of memory. Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Am Psychol. 1999 Mar;54(3):182-203.
  8. Morris, p64.
  9. Willem J. Ouweneel. The God who is – Theistic Manifesto. Medema Publishers, Vaassen, 2005, p10-11.
  10. Morris, p79-80.
  11. Ibid, p81.
  12. William Lane Craig. Does theism foster skepticism? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theism-foster-skepticism (last accessed May 25, 2013)
  13. Morris, p82.
  14. http://www.habakuk.nu/columns/item/3613-toekomstblind (last accessed on May 25, 2013)
  15. William Lane Craig. Does theism foster skepticism? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theism-foster-skepticism (last accessed May 25, 2013)

 

read more

  • The Abolition of Man: CS Lewis
  • Objective moral values and the moral argument
  • Euthyphro dilemma: consideration from a Biblical perspective
  • Evolution as a philosophical argument against naturalism
  • Evolution and Belief: The theory of evolution is a myth, not a fact

Leave a Comment