On absolutism and the model of evolution

As number theorists become fascinated by some of the more charming points of their discipline so I, as a lover and student of English, have fallen in love with its frivolous side. Number theorists over the centuries since Pythagoras have revelled in finding unique numbers or sets of numbers with intriguing relationships that may satisfy certain equations. For me one of the joys of English is inventing words and phrases to suit my needs.

One such need for a word presented itself to me whilst attending a Q&A session with Thabo Mbeki’s biographer Mark Gevisser recently. I required it to describe a certain attitude that I have come across many times in my academic endeavour.

Many of the audience members were virtually shouting at Gevisser whilst berating his subject, President Mbeki, and his presidency. “Mbeki is defiantly a liar, there can be absolutely no logic behind his stance on Zimbabwe, he is certainly not fulfilling his promises etc…” Whether the audience were correct in their assessments or not is irrelevant here. What is of interest is their attitude of certainty on each topic, allowing no room for disagreement or error. It is this attitude that I shall call ‘Absolutism’.

Absolutism is a trap that anyone involved in academic or intellectual debate should be careful to avoid. Absolutism is an attitude that allows for no rational argument. Views are held firm with no willingness or even allowance for a chance of change. It is totally unshakable faith usually based on old, misguided or a lack of evidence.

By putting the term in light of its other uses we may be able to highlight its meaning further. More specifically, to relate Absolutism to its usual uses in governance and in morality. In politics, Absolutism refers to a system where absolute authority is given to a leader. The emperor of Rome or a medieval king. In terms of morality, Absolutism refers to the consideration of a moral idea as universal truth. A truth constantly applicable regardless of any individual or social differences.

From this we can refine our definition by referring to intellectual Absolutism as the lending of an unwavering, absolute credence to a viewpoint regardless of evidence for or against or ideas counter to it.

This is contrary to the scientific method. With this method an idea is posed based on observation and then constantly tested to find where it is fallible. This process is undertaken so that we may gain the most accurate possible understanding of ourselves and the universe around us by finding the gaps in our knowledge and so finding where and how we must work in order to fill in these missing pieces.

Absolutism is not something that can be ignored nor is it simply an academic curiosity for professional intellectuals to mull over and debate. It results in some very real and prevalent dangers to our society.

By its nature Absolutism does not allow for debate or rather it does not allow for any opposing viewpoint to have any impact, or even, to exist. This has serious implications in a number of spheres.

In the scientific world, where debate is critical to progress, the Absolutist slows down advancement by wasting valuable time and resources on ideas that have previously been debunked. As an extreme example, lets suppose we had a percentage of geologists who believed that the world is still flat when clearly from volumes of evidence it is not. They would waste time and resources in the forms of their students’ talents, grant money, research facilities and indeed the time of the geological community in arguing their points. This is not to say that there cannot be evidence for this type of view. There are a plethora of academic and scientific debates where opposing viewpoints are essential but in a case like this the evidence is so clear that to hold a view that the world is flat is clinging onto an unflinching view supported by archaic and debunked evidence. This is the very definition of Absolutism.

As Christopher Hitchens said in The Four Horseman round-table discussion, “The worst thing anyone in our world can say is that there’s no more enquiry needed.” Which is the position of the Absolutist.

In the political realm, the Absolutist can cause serious damage to many people by not compromising in political talks or negotiations. This is obviously most apparent in situations that involve peace treaties or cease-fire negotiations but it has more subtle impacts on everything from national budget setting to laws on alcohol advertising. Thabo Mbeki, for example, may have done considerable harm by not being firmer on Zimbabwe’s Zanu PF government during their recent elections. By refusing to waiver on his policy of quiet diplomacy rather then pressuring Mugabe’s government with economic and political sanctions or the like he may have aided in leaving much of Zimbabwe’s population sidelined.

Absolutism’s most frightening danger, however, appears when debate and negotiation stops and action takes over. Here we must remind ourselves of one of Absolutism’s great strongholds: religion. “God is undoubtedly there, he is defiantly the creator of the universe, morality is impossible without him and the bible is his absolute word.”

Views are held to such absolutes that any serious challenge to or critique of them threatens the Absolutist’s, particularly the religious Absolutist’s, entire “reality”. And they have frequently resorted to violence to protect it. We have seen this end result repeatedly in modern times.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, international Islamic terrorism, Christian-Muslim conflict in Serbia, Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in Cambodia or Nazi Germany and Paul Hill killing an abortion doctor are all examples of how holding Absolutist beliefs can lead to the suffering and killing of many people.

My colleague, Tauriq Moosa, may well have a Fatwa placed upon him in the near future much like writer Salman Rushdie. He may well be killed already should he set foot in a strict Islamic state.

We can draw an example from the recent violence against foreigners in South Africa. This was a topic that came up repeatedly at Gevisser’s talk. People were so ‘certain’ these foreigners were harming their way of life that they were prepared to kill these people who were simply trying to make a living.

In my intellectual endeavour, the Absolutism surrounding religion and creationism is the one I encounter most frequently. In just such a discussion, with a particularly voracious intelligent design proponent, I encountered an all to common response to my challenge on Absolutism. “How can you be certain?”

An obvious and fair question if a less then well thought out one. The answer is that I’m not. Yet from evidence it seems that healthy scepticism leads to progress whereas Absolutism usually leads to stagnation at best and regress and violence at worst.

In our everyday life there are things that we can take as certain. I have legs, hands, a penis, and lungs. I can walk, talk and breathe. Right now I am typing this out on my computer. These things all exist and much of what we encounter daily can be taken as sure. That is until we question the very nature of existence in, for example, a Cartesian styled thought experiment.

In the sciences, legitimate absolutes do exist and they occur in the field of mathematics. Mathematical proof works differently to scientific proof. Mathematical theorems are proved through a logic sequence that, provided there is no error in the logic itself, mean the theorem must be accepted as universally and absolutely true. Pythagoras’s theorem was the first such proof; he was also the world’s first number theorist.

Theories in science are decidedly different. A theory is proposed through observation of experiments. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions of how further experiments under different conditions should result. If the predictions are accurate then the theory is a good one. The greater number of accurate predictions, the stronger the theorem. Of course, this theory may have either its limitations or it may break down entirely. It is this accumulation of accurate predictions that are the ‘mountains of mutually supporting evidence’ often spoken about by campaigners against Absolutism.

There is something to be said about rhetoric and semantics here. Earlier in this article I used words such as ‘certain’, ‘absolute’ and ‘definite’. This was done to highlight the attitude of Absolutism but we must be careful not to be caught out by the semantics. It is the attitude that is of concern not the rhetoric.

The same can be said with reference to non-absolutists, both scientists and others. When it comes to the question of evolution and religion we often see antireligious scientists being challenged because of their own rhetoric. Many creationists will use phrases like “Evolution is just a theory.” The response is often to call evolution a fact; to become absolutist in their rhetoric. Once again we must not become confused between the semantics and the attitude. When a scientist says that evolution is a fact they mean the theory has been tested again and again, with vast amounts of mutually supporting evidence found to support the theory arising from these tests.

Perhaps theory is not the best word to use, as it may seem too weak. There is very little doubt amongst the scientific community about the accuracy of the theory of evolution but as their method requires the upholding of critical doubt, ‘fact’ may (I stress the may as I’m not sure it is) be too strong a word. Perhaps we should use the terminology John Gribbin uses in The Universe: A Biography. He calls all scientific theorems ‘models’ and we should perhaps begin refering to the Theory of Evolution as the Model of Evolution.

We must remember, the Model of Evolution, has as much validity as Newtonian laws of motion or the measurement of the speed of light. There is very little doubt that this model is fact. The only doubt is the necessary sceptical one, the one that avoids Absolutism and allows for progress.

In the words of Christopher Hitchens, during The Four Horseman discussion, “Since we have to live with uncertainty, only those who are certain, please leave the room before the discussion can begin.”

EDIT – I need to add that I was certainly not the first person to use Absolutism to refer to this topic but  I had never used it prior to this article. Richard Dawkins has a chapter in in The God Delusion wIth ‘absolutism’ in its title and I have recently found this quote:

It is the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralyzing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power.

EMMA GOLDMAN, Mother Earth, Feb. 1916