"We know too little to prescribe to strict atheism, but we know way too much to commit to any particular religious story".
David Eagleman
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Neuroscientist and best-selling author David Eagleman has invented, and is promoting, a philosophy known as possibilianism. Eagleman claims that his worldview is new and distinct from other worldviews such as atheism and agnosticism. The philosophy is defined as a philosophy which utilises science to explore new unconsidered ideas about the world around us, after we have eliminated the alternatives. Essentially he views debates between atheists and Christians as presenting a false dichotomy. He also believes this is true for all the other worldviews.
Even though it is claimed to be a fresh philosophy on the surface it shares many characteristics with other worldviews. In relation to atheism, possibilianism share in the rejection of all known religious thought and also embraces the view that knowledge can be acquired through science as axiomatic. Possibilianism shares a similar stance as agnosticism and post-modern views regarding the limits and uncertainty of knowledge. However, possibilianism rejects both these views. It rejects atheism because it is too certain about things that we can't know definitively and it rejects agnosticism because it falls upon the scale of what is perceived as a false dichotomy between atheism and theism. Furthermore, David views agnosticism as a stagnant position that does not search for answers. Despite the claims to the contrary, possibilianism should be approached as a variation of agnostic/atheistic thought.
From the Christian perspective it is important to understand that despite the differences to other worldviews, possibilianism is still a rejection of biblical truth. Biblically it can be identified as just another variant of the suppression of the truth (Romans 1:18) and it remains, as Christians, our responsibility to demolish arguments against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Although, intellectual humility and the rejection of atheism, and other religions, is welcome, the movement still consciously rejects Christianity. This is our primary concern.
In advocating the search for new possibilities David Eagleman rejects Christian claims to truth in the same manner as atheists and agnostics who have come before him. The reasons he gives for rejecting Christianity are drawn from the relationship between culture and belief and how it relates to modern scientific understandings. Like many atheists David rejects the Bible based on the limited knowledge of the cultures in which it was written. David also makes the claim that what we believe is just a product of the culture we live in. To illustrate this he compares the Genesis account of creation to a tribal account of creation claiming that each of them sound ridiculous to the other side. Hence, he rejects both. These rehashed arguments are a common threat between modern rejections of the Bible and we should be prepared to give a defence of the hope we have when we encounter these arguments, no matter what source.
This new worldview provides Christians with another opportunity to deepen our understanding of what we believe and how to defend it. This worldview brings into perspective that it is not always sufficient to merely prove opposing ideologies incorrect. Even if an opposing worldview is incorrect this does not mean that the Christian worldview is necessarily correct. With this in mind we should be keen to give positive reasons for believing what we believe as opposed to being reactionary to opposing views. In one sense David is correct in his assumption that we are going to have limited knowledge. However, this is part of the human condition and, in no way, contradicts the Christian understanding of the world. From a Christian perspective the importance of the knowledge is more crucial than how complete our knowledge is. As knowing the answer to big questions is greater than knowing all the answers to the smaller ones.
Because of the inability to answer these questions, in practice followers of this worldview will, in many ways, still revert to lives that are indistinguishable from atheists and agnostics. Although you can avoid saddling up with a particular idea it is impossible to operate independent of a perspective on things relating to ultimate purpose. Like all others the individual is still in the same predicament when presented before our creator. Therefore, despite the humility of the position this should not blind us that this is still a standing that misses the mark.
