1.1.3 The Dilemma of Truth

Version 1.3 March 2013                                (Previous Version)

People with excessive faith in rationality fail to face up to the dilemma of how we choose between two sides of a rational debate.  On what basis do we make this choice, after we have listed all possible reasons pro and con?  Is our choice then random, or is it a result of some other influence?

We phrase our summary conclusions on the dilemma of truth as follows:

No-one can escape this dilemma.  We can debate what is true, and how we determine what is true, but most humans agree it is valid to do so.  Those that don't should leave the conversation, because they don’t think it is valid. 

Our choices reflect our values.  We do choose to seek the truth, so we value Truth.  Most of us do.

 

1.1.3.1 Caused or Chaotic

Our beliefs and our choices are

·       caused (completely or probabilistically determined by our nature and/or our nurture, according to the laws of physics, chemistry and so on, whether we know them or not); or

·       uncaused, which is to say totally random, chaotic, unpredictable and incomprehensible.

If our beliefs are caused, they are not necessarily true. 

·       If we had worn rose coloured glasses all our lives we would think the world was pink.  That belief is caused by the rose coloured glasses.  But the world isn’t nnecessarily pink.

·       In fact all our perceptions are “colouredâ€� by our five senses, limited by the perceptual mechanisms that we are born with.  The visible light that we see is only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum: we cannot see infrared or ultraviolet.  This biases our perception of reality.

Our beliefs and choices arise from our nature or nurture, from our genetics or our environment. 

·       When we are conceived as a single cell, we inherit genetic predispositions in our DNA, almost randomly blended from our biological mother and father.  We have no control over this.

·       As we grow in the womb (or the test tube) the environment affects all aspects of our development into a human being, whether we thrive or not.  We have no control over this.

·       When we are born, the mother’s body, or the attending midwives, doctors and others, control the experience, and we are born into a specific family and community.  We have no control over this.

·       As we learn, from our family, peers, school, workplace, and so on, each new experience arises from the last, and from our original genetic endowment.  We have no control over this.

As we grow, in stages, we acquire the feeling of being more independent and self directed.

·       As infants we realize we are separate identities;

·       As pre-teens we learn concrete reasoning;

·       As teenagers we learn abstract reasoning become even more independent

At each stage, we don't control how we develop: it either happens or it doesn’t, as the case may be.

There is no apparent point at which we escape from our genetics or our environment.  What we are now, what we know, what we feel and what we value now, it linked in an unbroken chain, of cause and effect, or of random events, back to our conception.  Yet we feel as though we are free to choose.

There does not seem to be any way to resolve this conundrum: it is real, not a word game.

Yet most traditional world religions currently ignore it, or try to squirm out of it.

·       Many Christian leaders have in the past accepted predestination, but still tried to find ways to encourage people to live virtuous lives.

·       Buddhists would say that the dilemma is irrelevant, because it is our attachment to our own egos that is the problem – but how can we abandon this attachment?

The fragility of our faith in the truth itself is often unacknowledged in science and religion.

We summarise our conclusion on this issue this way:

1.1.3.2 Yet Some Things Are True

If we cannot know whether our beliefs are true – because they are either caused or random – can we know anything?  This possibility is the sort that we raise in order to immediately dismiss it.  If we cannot know anything, then there is no point arguing about it, so we should stop right now.

In fact we do feel it is worthwhile to discuss what is right and true.  Otherwise we would not have got this far.  We make decisions on what is right and true all the time.

We can't accept that 2 + 2 = 5.  We know it is wrong.  We know 2 + 2 = 4.  If our shared belief in this is caused, then it is not necessarily true.  But 2 + 2 = 4 really is true.  Go figure!

The real dilemma is not that beliefs, like everything in the universe, are either caused or chaotic, but that we still believe in the truth.

Most of us are aware of the feeling that we have free will.  If we reach a fork in a path, we can choose to go one way or the other.  Sometimes our choice is restricted, because we are prevented from going down one path, or because it is hidden from us, or because we just can't see it. 

But if there is no undue pressure, and we can clearly see the alternatives, we seem to have the ability to choose “freely�.  There are two possible explanations of how we make the choice:

Determinism: Our choices may be based on our current situation, our genetic makeup, and previous experience, ie caused, or determined, ultimately by the laws of physics and chemistry.  This is the direction philosophy and science are taking us.

Free Will:        Our choices may NOT be based on any of these things, so they are inexplicable, ie they have no cause at all, which means they are essentially arbitrary, or chaotic.  This is the direction some traditional religions go, but they don't really understand the consequences, and try to squirm out of it.

No philosophers, scientists, historians or theologians have satisfactorily resolved this dilemma.  But many have tried.  We have to live with it.  Many philosophers try to find a way to say that determinism is compatible with free will, but that isn't very convincing.  We can't resolve it either.

 

However, we do need to treat people as though they are responsible because this is an effective tool to modify behaviour.  If you are aware of the apparent contradiction in that statement, then so much the better, but you are also aware that it is probably true.  So it matters little whether we believe Searle is correct about his “formal� postulate, or we just treat people as though it were true but believe in our hearts it isn’t, because that is what works!

Other people look at this differently.  For instance:

We currently phrase our current conclusion this way:

 

1.1.3.3 Some Things Are Wrong

It might seem to be too big a leap, for some of us, to say at this stage that we belief in the truth. 

It’s easier to see that we are sure that some things are wrong – morally wrong and factually wrong. 

·       We all agree, unless we are deranged in some way, that torturing babies is normally wrong.  Some philosophers suggest that it is not logically necessary to believe this: they may be right.  But if we are not sociopaths we feel it is wrong.  Those of us who are sociopaths can understand the reasons why people say it is wrong and they usually go along with it.

·       We all agree, unless we are colour blind, that the sky is not green.  Many philosophers can debate what this means, and discuss universals and particulars and qualia and so on, but they still agree, unless they are colour blind, that the sky is not green.  If anyone insists they don't agree then we can leave them to their own devices and discuss the issue with someone else.

If we are sure that some things are wrong, then we must have at least a vague idea of what is right.  We can say, at the very least, that the sky is not normally green in our experience. 

Here we are approaching the truth from the negative, saying what is not true, but it tells us something, however little.  Perhaps all this tells us is that we can approach the truth, at least by avoiding obvious falsities, even if we don't know what the complete truth is.

This is one of the foundations of science: the notion of falsifiability.  Scientists develop explanation of how things work, then test them against what happens in the real world.  The more an explanation is consistent with what actually happens, the more useful it is, but we can never know if it is the complete truth.  If something happens that is inconsistent with the explanation, we definitely know it is ultimately wrong, or at least, incomplete, even if it is still useful at times.

We phrase our current summary of this issue as follows:

1.1.3.4 Some Things Are True Enough

Our daily experience forces us to acknowledge that we do in fact choose to believe that the truth is attainable to some degree.  We do in fact believe that we can make sensible, rational, day to day decisions in our lives, such as trying to meet our physical needs and avoid suffering.  We drink when we are thirsty, because we believe it quenches our thirst.  We avoid burning our fingers.

We all in fact do choose to act as though at least some kind of truth is attainable. 

Some people may claim that the truth is unknowable. 

·       Offer them a cup of coffee.  If they accept, they will hold the cup and drink, believing it to be real and worth the effort.

·       Surprise them with a loud frightening noise.  They are likely to move or at least flinch, believing there is a possible threat to their well-being and some action is necessary.

No-one can escape this.  We all act in the world.

So even though the ultimate truth may not be knowable, we all do act as though we know a lot of things.  It is perfectly reasonable for us to do so.  In fact we can pay attention what is important to us and learn how to conduct our lives in more fulfilling ways, which may include being more secure, prosperous, connected to others and engaged in life.

Knowledge does not have to be perfect for us to make reasonable choices.

·       Engineers designing bridges and buildings know a lot about forces and materials, but they don't know everything.  When there is some doubt, it is good practice to add a safety factor, “over engineerâ€� to some extent, to make the structure a bit stronger, so that it is safer.

·       When we raise children, most of us only get a few chances (and some get none), and we never have perfect knowledge of how to be the best parent.  We have to make it up as we go.

·       When choosing how to behave, and what we will value, we can only do our best based on the imperfect knowledge we have.  We can't realistically opt out of the game of life.

We must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

1.1.3.5 Theists Believe in the Truth

Theists have the same problem, but they call it the problem of predestination. 

·       If God knows everything (called being omniscient, which means all-knowing), then he knows what is going to happen, because the universe unfolds according to God’s laws. 

·       So every decision we make, to be good or bad, to believe in God or not, is already known to God, and so it seems every decision is inevitable, destined to happen, or predestined.

Theologians find ways to wriggle out of the dilemma that if our beliefs are caused (or random) then they aren’t necessarily true.  They say that somehow God’s “grace� solves the problem, but no-one knows how God’s grace works: from our perspective it appears random, perhaps because it is!  But most modern theologians have found ways to reach the conclusion that we can determine the truth and we must be responsible for our moral choices, within the constraints we live under.

We all come to this conclusion, whether or not we believe in God or in revelation from God, whether we follow one of the traditional religions, or whether we are atheist.

If we believe in God it is because we believe it is true that God exists.  Perhaps we also believe it is true that God revealed himself to us in the Bible or the Koran or a personal experience.  The point is that religious people have to believe in the truth, before they can believe their religion.

We currently phrase our conclusion on this issue as follows: