|
It is difficult to know what really is true. How can we tell whether science or history is right, or which religion to believe, or which political leaders to follow? Do faith and reason apply to totally separate domains, as some people say? Can we be totally rational and ignore emotions and feelings? Aren’t emotions the stuff of life? Can we put our trust in God or in a book, such as the Bible or the Koran? Do we depend on God’s grace to believe? Are our beliefs caused by our genes and how we grew up? Can we be sure about anything? How should we talk about all this? Do the words we use actually make sense? |
1.1
Epistemological Conclusions (Statement 1)
We
live with the dilemma that our beliefs may or may not be true, because they are
either caused by the laws of nature or they are not, in which case they are
random, so:
● No
religion or philosophy can be completely certain they have the absolute truth;
● There
can be no ‘transcendental’ truth, and we all must live with some uncertainty;
● However,
we all follow some guidelines, reason, faith and emotions, to work out what we
do believe.
● Life
is indeed a mystery, but not totally incomprehensible.
● We
can be sure enough, about enough things, so that we can live life, and still be
reasonably content.
● Despite
that uncertainty, we can have faith that reasoning based on the evidence
(including the evidence of our emotions), and reasoning about faith itself, can
provide sufficient knowledge and useful guidelines for us to conduct our lives.
The next level of detail is shown in this box. See commentary further below.
1.1.1 Philosophy doesn’t have a fixed method. Philosophers debate the major questions in life that are not covered by science or history. more (later)
1.1.2 We need to be wary of extreme views everywhere, as well as in philosophy. more (later)
1.1.3 There are useful guidelines we use to work out what to believe – using reason based on the available evidence. If we don’t follow these guidelines we will have beliefs which are unreasonable, or not based on reality, so they may be wrong. more (later)
1.1.4 There is a fundamental dilemma that no religion or philosophy has resolved: we believe some things are true, but those beliefs are either caused or they are not caused, ie random. So they might, or might not, be true. more (later)
1.1.5 If some things are revealed to us by God(s), gurus, prophets, or sacred texts, we still need reasons to decide whether these are true or false revelations. more (later)
1.1.6 We assume the universe is comprehensible, and that reasoning about it works. more (later)
1.1.6 We cannot rely on faith alone or on reason alone. We must have faith in reason, and reason about faith. It would be silly to believe on faith despite the evidence. No system of thought can justify itself, We review our faith in the truth and reason against the evidence so the faith required is minimized. more (later)
1.1.7 To be rational we must take emotions into account. Emotions can be rationally understood. more (later)
1.1.8 There is no “transcendental” truth that is somehow absolute, beyond the universe or outside normal human experience. The “simple” truth is really quite complex. more (later)
1.1.9 We can explain what “truth” means and still be realistic. We need to use some words carefully, because often words imply things we didn’t intend. more (later)
1.1.10 Some things are almost impossible to put into words. That doesn’t mean these things don’t exist, or that we can’t talk about them at all, or that those things are somehow more important than the other things we can talk about. more (later)
The Dilemma of Truth
No-one can escape the dilemma that our beliefs and our choices are
· caused (completely or probabilistically determined by our nature and/or our nurture, according to the laws of physics and chemistry and so on, whether we truly know them or not) or
· uncaused, which is to say totally random, chaotic, unpredictable and incomprehensible.
Either way, if they are causally determined or arise at random, our beliefs are not necessarily true. And this belief itself, being either caused or random, is not necessarily true. There does not seem to be any way to resolve this dilemma: it is real, not a word game.
But …
We all in fact do choose to act as though at least some kind of truth is attainable.
We all believe some things are not true.
If we are to take any action in the world we must, however tentatively, accept numerous “beliefs” about the world and then inevitably live with the consequences of our actions.
We also assume the universe is comprehensible, that it is inherently rational, that if we were clever enough it would make some sort of sense, even if our understanding is incomplete.
The dilemma is not that beliefs, like everything else, are caused or chaotic. The dilemma is that although they must be one or the other, we still choose to believe in Truth, despite the fact that the evidence is self contradictory.
|
Daniel Dennett (Freedom Evolves) acknowledges that although we are subject to natural law (either classically deterministic laws or the probabilistic laws of quantum physics). But he claims that when a system gets complex, like in the computer game of “Life” or in our more complex real world brains, then we use different language to explain complex events, and that using language and thinking about intentions and choices becomes meaningful. Now it is true that the higher level perspective does require higher level language: we cannot explain human behaviour solely in terms of molecular behaviour, even if human behaviour is totally determined by brain chemistry. So that much is OK. But Daniel Dennett seems to skip over the fact that our choices are still, ultimately, caused or chaotic, regardless of linguistic conveniences. It is better to bite the bullet, to stop trying to make free will and determinism compatible, and to more honestly simply say that we face an apparently eternally unresolvable dilemma, and we all choose to believe in the Truth. |
We choose to believe in the Truth and that it is attainable to some degree. We do in fact believe that some things are wrong, that we can learn more and get closer to the truth, that we can make sensible, rational, day to day decisions in our lives and political decisions based on our knowledge of the world. Our choices reflect our values. If we choose it, then we value Truth.
Uncertainty
We also cannot escape the other side of the dilemma: we must accept the possibility that some of our beliefs are wrong, and live with the inherent uncertainty. This uncertainty is a logical consequence of our analysis and the choices we make, so we value uncertainty.
|
This dilemma has been well known to religious leaders for centuries, but they don’t discuss it nearly enough. Some Christian theologians have posited that God is omniscient – all knowing. God knows everything about the universe and about us. He knows what choices we will in the future (otherwise he would not be all knowing). So in a sense, the choices we make are irrelevant, because they are in a sense already made. This dilemma is solved if God is NOT all knowing. |
No rational system is complete unto itself. Gödel (a famous mathematician) showed that for any rule based mathematical system there are true statements that cannot be proved, but are obviously true. There are limits to rationality and reason. We must accept these limits. But Gödel’s insight doesn’t show that reason is useless, only that it cannot solve every problem.
The implication is that it is likely that no coherent system of thought can justify itself.
Reason and Faith
· We cannot prove that the universe is comprehensible: we take it on faith. We cannot prove that the truth is obtainable, in fact there is significant evidence to the contrary, as well as in favour: we take it on faith. We cannot prove that it is reasonable for any one individual to be compassionate and merciful: we take it on faith. We must have faith in reason.
· The analysis of these global beliefs shows that this is not blind faith: we must reason about faith. We must look at all the evidence and apply as much reason as possible, and wherever reason and the evidence takes us we should go. We must not use “faith” to deny what is true based on reason and the evidence. Once we have determined what values will be the basis of our decisions, the vast majority of practical questions we need to resolve do not involve any degree of arbitrariness or “faith”. The following points apply to a smaller number of practical questions and issues of value where reason and the evidence don’t lead to a firm conclusion.
· But sometime reason and the evidence lead inherently to a dilemma: then we must make a choice. This is a judgement that reflects our values, it is evidence of our basic attitudes, and the collection of these choices defines the content of our character.
· Often there is insufficient evidence and no clear chain of reasoning to lead to a definite conclusion. Again, when the world confronts us with the necessity to act in one way or another, we must make choices that reflect our values and define our character. Sometimes we can use general principles that are not directly applicable to guide our choices. Other times we can’t. We have to be aware of our selfish desires. We have to live with the outcomes.
· If we conclude, over time, that our choices appear to have resulted in desirable outcomes, then we could say our faith in these choices increases. But if our choices lead to undesirable outcomes, then we need to re-examine them, regardless of what degree of faith we may have had in them, to look at the evidence now available to us and reconsider the reasons for the choice.
· So our leaps of faith are the choices we make when we face unresolvable dilemmas, or a lack of evidence, and when we use general principles that are not directly relevant to the choice.
· These choices are rather arbitrary, made in the face of a dilemma, or when there are insufficient grounds to decide more rationally.
· It is best is we periodically examine these leaps of faith to determine whether we as individuals or society at large has discovered new evidence or gained new insights into the old evidence, to ensure that we do not continue to make arbitrary decisions that are contrary to reason and the evidence. We must continually be on the look out to minimise the degree of faith required.
· We must reason about our faith, and we must have faith in reason.
Respect
· These arbitrary choices are rather arbitrary, made in the face of a dilemma, or when there are insufficient grounds to decide more rationally, so it is likely they could be wrong. Although we have made them in good faith, others could in good faith choose otherwise.
· This means we must allow for a diversity of opinion and that the views of others may be correct, which means we accord them a kind of respect, to at least some extent.
· But we must also acknowledge that many of the core values most people espouse, those that are based primarily on faith rather than reason and the evidence, are the same as those espoused in these global beliefs: truth, compassion, mercy etc, as we define in other sections. The real grounds for significant differences are smaller than many people believe.