Coursework Title That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens) Do you agree?

Word Count 1600

Supervisor Comments

Candidate Declaration I confirm that this work is my own work and is the final version. I have acknowledged each use of the words or ideas of another person, whether written, oral or visual.

Teacher Declaration I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the material submitted is the authentic work of the candidate and the word count is accurate.

Prescribed Title 5 11That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Christopher Hitchens) Do you agree?

Examination Session: May 2013

Word Count: 1600

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without

evidence." (Christopher Hitchens) Do you agree?

The answer to this question hinges on two knowledge issues: how we interpret the concept of

'evidence' and how reliable this interpretation is; and whether or not there is a qualitative difference

between assertion and dismissal and if so, the nature of this difference. This essay will attempt to deal

with these issues and question whether either is in fact possible. The existence of different faiths -or the

lack thereof- as well as languages, cultures and philosophies in people worldwide points to the

conclusion there must be a divergence in how we perceive and understand the universe. Following this

train of thought, our assertions and dismissals must vary between people. This, as will be explained,

would indicate that there are significant differences in what we call evidence and how we interpret it;

that our propensity to assert and dismiss must differ or some combination of the two. Conversely, there

are 'universals' in knowledge; beliefs that, without being able to avoid the inevitable generalization, few

or no people challenge. This would imply that there must be some convergences in interpreting

evidence in some areas or everyone would interpret every aspect of reality whichever way they pleased

and transform evidence for their own purposes.

To begin to examine whether there is a qualitative difference between assertion and dismissal, the two

terms must be explicitly defined. Grammatically, these words are antonyms, but in practical terms, are

they exact polar opposites? Assertion is putting forward of an idea or belief while dismissal is the

decision to disregard or no longer hold said idea or belief. Instantly dismissal can be seen to have a more

final effect. Assertion seems to leave the idea open for debate, to not hold it as absolute truth while

dismissal implies an unreserved labeling of untruth or inability to uphold the belief. However the first

problem the question presents is the explicit neglect of evidence as a factor for assertion or dismissal.

Assuming evidence to be that which tends to offer validity to an idea or assertion; grounds for belief,

then an 'assertion without evidence' must be one based on no outside stimulus whatsoever or based on

that which does not provide grounds for adhering to the belief. Moreover, it seems that dismissal, while

having the aforementioned more conclusive end-result, is in itself an assertion of the original assertion's

untruth; which would entail a need for evidence and a 'dismissal without evidence' would follow the

same criteria. They differ however, in that dismissal leaves the knower with nothing; that is, no

conclusion which requires (in)validation. But an assertion leaves something which may not be false and

therefore has the potential to constitute knowledge.

With respect to the divergences in interpreting 'evidence' and what constitutes it, the obvious example

to cite is religion, as the title statement's author, Christopher Hitchens was an acclaimed commentator

on the matter and a self-proclaimed anti-theist (rather than simply an atheist, Hitchens has claimed to

be abhorred by the very concept of religious faith and the idea of a higher power)1. Indeed, the quote

comes from his rather emotively titled book 'God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' in

which Hitchens makes 'the ultimate case against religion'2, claiming that there is absolutely no evidence

for the existence of a creator; he dismisses religion unequivocally. Not only that, but Hitchens posits that

the entire concept is an assertion without evidence3. But if, as Hitchens claims, there is no evidence for

the existence of a God, why do people believe in such a being? Is it even possible to believe without

what constitutes to the believer as evidence for this position? From the believer's perspective, the belief

held is actually knowledge and, looking at the Ways of Knowing, there must be basis for this knowledge

derived from emotion, reason, perception language or a combination thereof. Primarily, I will consider

religious belief in relation to perception of the bible and other articles interpreted as evidence for the

religion; and an emotional desire for a creator, afterlife or other aspect of religious belief. It is not an

1 Christopher Hitchens {2010, August). Hitchens on Cancer, God. (Anderson Cooper, Interviewer)

2 Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Atlantic Books, 2007), Blurb 3 Ibid. p150

unfounded generalization to say opinion on the bible is divided. Holding the bible as religious evidence is

an oft-referenced and somewhat exaggerated example of the logical fallacy of circular argument (belief

in God because the bible states such existence; believing the bible because it is God's word). But

regardless, it is a collection of historical writings which people interpret as the word of, and therefore

evidence for the existence of God. So such an existence has been asserted, but how easy is it to dismiss?

To take the issue to the extremes, one could say that as long as anyone at all believes in God, the

assertion for such existence is present, and has not been fully dismissed until there is no one left who

holds the belief. Under this assumption, while keeping in mind the aforementioned differences between

assertion and dismissal, and assuming atheists do not see the bible as conclusive evidence for the

existence of God, the assertion- to atheists as knowers - exists without evidence. However one could

expect that devout holders of religious belief would refuse to relinquish said belief simply due to the fact

that others posit that there is no evidence for what they themselves see as 'knowledge'. Due to, in many

believers, the emotional attachment and comfort derived from the idea of an omnipotent creator and

an afterlife, one could speculate that to renounce their beliefs, a theist would require undeniable proof

of God's non-existence. Due to the intangible nature of a theorized omnipresent being and our limited

knowledge of the universe this is almost impossible to achieve. As such, a world completely devoid of

religion is hard to conceive for the foreseeable future due to the discrepancy in what constitutes

evidence and therefore a basis for knowledge and one could postulate that dismissal without evidence is

in fact different, and indeed much more difficult than assertion without evidence.

With regard to the issue of how evidence is interpreted, aside from what constitutes it, there is also the

matter of inferring the 'correct' conclusion from the evidence. For example in the human sciences, if an

objective observer with no knowledge of human culture were to witness me going to and from school

every weekday, what would sa id observer conclude that this behavior, from a psychological standpoint,

is evidence for? That I am subject to cultural/social expectations? That I am oppressed and forced to do

so by my parents? That I possess a genuine drive to be educated? Would the observer draw this

conclusion of all school attendees my age? If one was doing a study on the happiness and quality of life

of a North Korean citizen and the response to questioning was highly positive, one could conclude that

this is evidence that they are genuinely happy or it could be used alongside pictures of poor living

conditions or footage of government oppression as evidence for an oppressive regime. The point being

made here is that it is very easy to misinterpret evidence, depending on its context and the disposition

of the interpreter. This has significant implications for the title question as if an assertion is made based

on erroneously interpreted evidence it will for all intents and purposes be incorrect without the

knower's knowledge. To be able to reasonably dismiss such an assertion, one would not require

evidence to the contrary, only to show that the evidence could have been misinterpreted. This is

especially apparent in ongoing historiographical debates. For example, with regards to Hitler's foreign

policy, traditionalist/orthodox historians saw his book, Mein Kampf, written during his time in Lansberg

prison as a clear indication and precursor to his later actions. But revisionist historian A.J.P. Taylor

dismissed Mein Kampf as merely "fantasies from behind bars"4 and of no real significance to historical

study; that Hitler was a typical but opportunistic statesmen of the time. Taylor highlighted similarities

between Hitler's policies and those of previous German politicians dating back to 1871 as evidence for

continuity, suggesting that the Second World War was the logical conclusion to German history 1871-

19395. In this example, Taylor offered an alternative viewpoint with evidence to support his position, but

this was not necessary for dismissing the orthodox view, only to show that the original evidence in

question, Mein Kampf could have been misinterpreted. This is just one example of placing too much

importance on 'evidence' without agreement as to the validity of said evidence.

4 A.J.P. Taylor, Origins of the Second World War, (London, 1964), pp. 9-11, p. 27, 223-24, 257-58 .

5 lan Davies, Class discussion

To conclude, truly asserting or dismissing something purely without any evidence from the knower's

point of view is impossible; our beliefs always have some sort of basis that the holder of the belief sees

as evidence for it. However if we widen the scope to others who may interpret what constitutes

evidence for the position or the logical conclusion of the evidence differently, then they may disregard

said evidence and leave the assertion unsubstantiated. But due to the human tendency to become

attached to a held idea, and indeed to want to be correct, this may not be enough to dismiss the

assertion. Having said this, it still stands that until we have a universal, precise method for interpreting

evidence, that which can be asserted without evidence cannot necessarily always be dismissed without

evidence.

Word Count: 1600

Works Cited

Books

A.J.P. Taylor, Origins of the Second World War, (London, 1964)

Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Atlantic Books, 2007}

Richard van de Lagemaat, Theory of Knowledge for the 18 Diploma (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

Other

Christopher Hitchens (2010, August) . Hitchens on Cancer, God. (Anderson Cooper, Interviewer)

Interview viewed on Youtube, <www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgCq2T-v-Mo> Last Accessed 4th

Feb. 2013