It's an often-observed irony that the more we know the less convinced we become that we can know anything. As children, we knew the grass was green and the sun was hot, and we were convinced that was the whole story; then we learned that the grass is green because it has chlorophyll cells in it, and the sun is hot because it's a giant ball of reactive gas. And then, if we really think about it, we realize that there is no such thing as "green" or "hot" in the first place, because "green" is just a neuron signal triggered by the eye's perception of a certain wavelength of light, and "hot" is likewise just the perception in the mind of nerve cells sensing the intensity of the movement of molecules in the area around the skin. That is to say, "green" and "hot" only exist in the sense that you perceive them; if you did not have eyes, then nothing would be green, and if your nerve cells could not react to temperature, then nothing would be hot.
Of course, dragging this to its logical end, one comes to the realization that everything we think of as truth is really just our perception of some sort of external Truth. Green is our perception of the external Truth (which we do not understand) that we call wavelengths of light, and hot is our perception of the external Truth that we call temperature. The same can be said of sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing, even logical thought: all are approximations of an external reality.
But this means that we fundamentally do not know Truth. We can perceive it, yes, assuming exists (refer to Solipsism), but our perception is not Truth. It is an approximation, and as such can only be described as flawed. Logic can be misunderstood or misapplied, language can be twisted, even our own physical senses can be unreliable (witness sight and touch, for example).
The implication is, then, that we cannot say with certainty if any individual something is true - that is, in line with the external Truth - because we do not know Truth, we only perceive it. Something can appear to us to be true - perhaps we even have an unshakable conviction that it is true - but we can never know for certain what, exactly, composes the external Reality.
Perhaps it is the closest to Truth we can come to say, in the words of Socrates however many thousands of years old, that we know that we do not know.
Intelligent discussion, as always, available in the comments section below.
I don’t really understand your point here. Is ALL truth merely perceived, or, are SOME things/concepts objectively true?
ReplyDeleteAnd, do we fundamentally know that two plus two equals four? Or, do we only perceive it?
Objective Truth, I think, may or may not exist. It is something that cannot be rationally or empirically proven one way or the other. However, I choose to live according to the belief that objective Truth - or, in other terms, a reality outside myself - exists, because there seem to me to be indications that there exist minds outside of my own mind. Namely, other people are so complex and fundamentally unknown to me that it seems more likely they exist independent of my mind, which is similarly complex (as far as I can tell) but very well known to me. So, in other words, I think objective Truth exists.
ReplyDeleteBut, going from the argument above, we perceive this objective truth. (In fact, if we knew objective truth rather than perceived it, we would in effect be gods. We would know everything, have no need for sight or touch or taste.) And, once again, this perception is fundamentally an approximation for objective truth. An approximation, simply by virtue of not itself being the thing approximated, is flawed; for that reason, no one can say they know objective truth, or any truth, with absolute certainty. We can say that some things appear to us to be more likely, and choose to live as though they are true - for example, I think it is very likely I do not know everything, and that it is very likely that the sun will rise tomorrow morning - and so I choose to live as though both were truth.
And, in response to your question about 2+2 being equal to 4: yes, this can be said to be a truth...but only within the system of logic, and within that the system of mathematics. Both, however, are approximations created by the intellect for the external reality. 2+2 is an abstraction, it doesn't correspond to any real objective truth but rather is a logical "truth." As such, we can say that it is "true" that 2+2=4 with absolute certainty if we assume that logic is a truthful approximation for reality. However, logic cannot be used prove/justify itself. My point being that we cannot know that logic corresponds completely, or even accurately, to external truth. It's possible, some of my friends have told me, that external Truth or God, if that's what he may or may not be, doesn't correspond to logic or at least is not bound by the parameters of logic. In any case, we do not know whether or not logic is true, according to that sense. So, fundamentally fundamentally, we cannot say we "know" that 2+2=4. Does that make sense?
Still not following your point, sorry. The concept of 2+2=4 is, to me, hardly “so complex and fundamentally unknown” as to be anything but objectively true, no matter what “logic” one might choose to employ, or not employ. Indeed, I can’t perceive of any “logic” that even the most deranged person might posit to conclude that 2+2 is anything but four.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, if you jump off the roof of the American Airlines Center, what will happen to you? I say that you will fall to the ground, based on the laws - the undisputed truth - of gravity.
Please don’t answer by giving me some silly dancing-on-the-head of a pin comment about, “Well, gee, we don’t know what we don’t know, and what about this and what about that, and maybe this and maybe that.” WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU JUMP OFF THE ROOF?
I’m not interested in a tome on this, because the nature of the question does not warrant anything but a simple answer. You see, whether you know about the laws of gravity, whether you like the laws of gravity, and/or whether you “choose to live as though they are true,” it makes no difference: the laws of gravity exist and bind you, and everyone else.
P.S. A bonus question: Let’s say that you think something is true based on your perception. But, let’s also say that the same exact thing, based on MY perception, is untrue. How do we resolve this dispute? Or, is that your point - that we can both see the same thing, have different perceptive beliefs about it, and, thus, there is no truth and we can’t resolve it?
About 2+2=4: This is an inherently logical statement, because 2, 2, 4, addition, and equality are all abstract logical concepts. They do not exist as objective truth by themselves - rather, they exist within the system of logic. I'm not asserting that 2+2 does not equal four, or that it does for some people but not for others; I'm saying that, within the system of logic it is "true," but logic cannot be proven to be true or false.
ReplyDeleteThe law of gravity is not an undisputed truth. It is a theory, an approximation of reality, if you will, that describes the phenomenon of particles being drawn towards one another, apparently with a force proportional to their masses and all that. You cannot say with absolute certainty that the law of gravity is undisputed truth, because you (unless I am mistaken) are not omniscient and cannot examine every moment of space/time to see if the law of gravity holds... However, I think we agree in saying that it is incredibly likely that the phenomenon of gravitational attraction would hold true if, say, I were to jump off the American Airlines building.
Actually, mind if I talk about your example of the American Airlines building for a bit more? So, I am not currently jumping off the American Airlines building, nor have I in the past. I cannot say with certainty that, if I were to jump off the American Airlines building, I would fall to the ground. I can say that it is incredibly likely - I can believe that I will fall to the ground - but fundamentally I do not KNOW it. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning and that I do not know everything, but I cannot say with absolute certainty that either are true.
Bonus round: So in this situation, there are two people with two different beliefs, each who thinks his is true. If external Truth exists, and if my argument above that nobody knows said Truth is true (or, to avoid hypocrisy, my argument is a close approximation of the Truth), then it stands to reason one person will be closer to the Truth than the other...I think in that case the most important thing to do is to keep an open mind, because either side could very well be wrong. I do, personally, believe this: if I am careful enough, if I doubt everything enough, then I advance closer to the truth rather than farther away from it.
I apologize for writing a tome again, Mr. Smith. I'm just trying to get my point across.
You are still dancing on the head of a pin.
ReplyDeleteI recall learning about “points” on a line, and being told that between every two points, there was another point. I remember thinking that, if this were true, then it would be impossible to get from point A to point B, because that would require crossing an infinite number of points in a finite time. This, by definition, is not possible.
Further, one can’t be “close to truth.” Your are positing a theory that presents a distinction without a difference. Something is either true, or not true. If you add 2+2 and come up with 5, and I add 2+2 and come up with 19, your answer might be “closer” to true than mine, but it’s not relevant - your answer is wrong. And so is mine. Think of it this way: If you miss the plane by 30 seconds, 30 minutes, or 3 hours, what’s the difference? You missed the plane.
Finally, you have not answered the bonus question. You talked ABOUT it and you ANALYZED it, but you didn’t answer it. The question is: How do we resolve this dispute? Do you have an answer?
About closeness to truth - I would say that considering we cannot know truth, closeness is the best we can strive for. In the case of 2+2, for instance. We can say that 2+2=4 (and, to be quite clear, I think that 2+2=4) but that is not the whole story. We have to say, "Well, that makes sense if mathematics is true." We analyze mathematics logically and come to the conclusion that mathematical operations such as 2+2=4 are true according to logic. Then, however, we have to know if logic is true or not, and that is something we can't use logic to figure out... in short, the equation 2+2=4 may be true (according to logic) but it is not THE Truth. The Truth is the external reality that we fundamentally cannot know, only approximate. For that reason, I would say "I choose to believe that logic is an accurate approximation for the Truth." That is, it is close to the Truth, but is not itself it.
ReplyDeleteAnd, back to the bonus question: if I knew how to resolve disputes, then this argument would be finished, haha. My only resolution is to remain openminded, because, by my own reasoning, I can never ever be certain that I'm closer to the Truth than you are. In short, I would say that neither side in the argument is completely right or completely wrong: and if either side is certain that their position is true and the opponent's is false, then they are persisting in ignorance. In any case, the best way to resolve the dispute is to argue with as open a mind as possible, so that the opponent's argument can cause you to doubt your own. The goal isn't to prove the opponent wrong; it's to defeat ignorance.
“If I knew how to resolve disputes, then this argument would be finished.” Excellent, so at least you now admit that you do not know how to resolve disputes, and that if you did, your point would be defeated.
ReplyDeleteYour problem is, you don't really believe what you are writing. Want proof? I hereby declare that I perceive the money in all your bank accounts to be my money. You, I am sure, perceive it differently.
But, since it is not THE truth that the money is yours, and since you cannot otherwise prove me wrong (because, after all, there is no TRUTH), then what will your position be when I take your money?
You see, if you claim the money is really yours, then you defeat your own point because you do not recognize my right to perceive things differently than you.
The point is: You are writing what you are writing, but it’s all just a game. You don’t believe it, and if you THINK you believe it, then you surely don’t live by it. If you REALLY believe what you are writing, then how come you don’t live by it?
I am inclined to say game, set, match...
But, let me ask you one final bonus question: You and I are on an airplane flying across the ocean. Nobody else is on the plane with us - we are flying it ourselves. The plane crashes onto a previously unknown island that nobody knows is there and that is not under any country’s legal or other jurisdiction. It’s truly Gilligan’s Island. We both survive the crash without injury. Luckily for you, you had the foresight to bring a stash of food and drink in a large trunk. I, regrettably, brought nothing. I thus declare your food to be mine, and take it, intending to hoard it all for myself so I can survive and you can perish. Here is the question: By what authority would you claim the food yours? (Please don’t appeal to any governmental laws, because, again, no laws apply to this unchartered island.)
Please understand that I'm not saying there is no truth, I'm saying that nobody knows Truth in its entirety... and, in your situation in which perceptions of the Truth (which, to be quite clear, I believe exists) differ, the resolution comes through debate. Let's say you are to tell me all of my money belongs to you. Well, then, in this situation all I know is my approximation of the Truth, which tells me that I earned this money and it belongs to me. I do not know if you are lying to me on purpose, or are out of your senses and do in fact perceive the money that is mine to be yours. In either case, you DO have the right to perceive my money as your money; however, you do NOT have the right to force onto me your perception of the world, which appears to me to be flawed, and take my money. Now, if you are to argue that it's the same difference because there is no certainty, I would disagree saying that, while there is no absolute certainty, there is likelihood, and there exists (most likely) the court of law in which both your claims to my money and my claims can be analyzed by many different people (who most likely exist) to determine who, most likely, owns the money. There are no certainties, but there are likelihoods, and people, as rational beings, appear to be able to perceive the same likelihoods.
ReplyDeleteNow, in the situation of a desert island in which there are no laws, if you decide that my food is yours, whether or not you honestly perceive it as such, you would try to take it from me. Whoever is strongest would then have the food, and that is the sad reality. Now, were I in this same situation, I would base my course of action on my belief that the other stranded person exists as an intelligent being, and as such has the same right that I do to continue existing for as long as possible.
P.S. Your comment was caught in the spam filter for some reason until I freed it - I think if you used a named account of some sort it might go through.
You’re missing the point. The question is AUTHORITY.
ReplyDeleteBY WHAT AUTHORITY do you claim that the money belongs to you because you earned it? It seems to me that your authority is your own perception of the truth. Is that ALL the authority there is, or is there something else. (Hint: For me, there is something else.)
As for “flawed” perceptions, again, you’re missing the point. BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you declare someone else’s perception flawed? Just because it’s different from yours?
As for “likelihood,” once again, you’re missing the point. BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you declare someone else’s perception less likely than yours? Just because it’s different from yours?
Finally, as for the desert island, yet again, you miss the point. BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you conclude that I have the same right that you do to continue existing? What if MY perception is different - that you do NOT have the same right to continue existing? What AUTHORITY do we use to resolve this conflict. Is it only brute strength, which you seem to suggest is the only thing if YOUR “logic” doesn’t work? Or, is there another authority? (HINT: I think there is another authority.)
You see, you keep making the same point over again, but you don’t base it on anything. You just say, “Gee, well, we may perceive things differently, but since we have different perceptions of the truth, then we have to resolve it through debate.” THE POINT IS: WHAT AUTHORITY GOVERNS THE DEBATE? What if debate does NOT resolve the dispute, then what?
The only thing that I know is my own perception. Fundamentally I cannot judge your perception, because I do not know it. My own perception is flawed; so, I believe, is everyone else's. When I disagree with someone such as yourself, I act on the assumptions that a)you exist, and b)you are rational and perceive reality, like me, in a logical way. So, in short, in a disagreement, I know that both our positions are flawed to some degree, and that either of the positions could be wrong. I'm not saying that my position is more likely or less flawed than yours; I'm saying that it appears to me as though my position more likely, less flawed, a better approximation for the Truth. The "Authority" upon which I base that claim is my own flawed reason. This is why I, and I think everyone else, have to be very careful to doubt all of the things we hold as truths.
ReplyDeleteOh, and in the case of the desert island, I restate my previous point that in the absence of government, right and wrong, whether or not they exist, are meaningless, because there is no force to enforce them. In the case of your desert island, as with the animal world, strength is the only authority, and I don't think you can truthfully argue otherwise.
My point being, I think the only Authority that compels us to do right and avoid wrong is human government, which is founded on reason in order to approximate Truth.
You have come closer to understanding the point. Let me take over now and explain.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, the food on the island is yours and it is wrong for me to take it. Why, or by what authority, do I say this? Answer: Because taking something that is yours, in the absence of a civil authority saying I can’t, goes against natural law. And who created natural law? God did.
So, if I take your food, there are two consequences: (1) an earthly consequence in which you will be deprived of your food and I will have it (bad for you, and good for me), and (2) an eternal consequence in which God will judge me for violating his natural law (likely bad for me). (Note: I make no comment on what God’s consequence will be; just that there will be a consequence.)
You, my friend, deny this eternal consequence. But, that leaves you with the bigger question: What if you are wrong?
There are only two possibilities: (1) there is a God, and (2) there is no God.
Then, there are only two possibilities (regardless of the first): (I) I don’t believe in God, and (2) I do believe in God.
So, this leaves us with four total possibilities:
(1) There is no God, and I don’t believe there is a God;
(2) There is no God, but I believe there is a God;
(3) There is a God, but I don’t believe in God; and
(4) There is a God, and I believe there is a God.
We all live our lives adopting one of these four possibilities as our life view.
If you choose possibility (1) or (2) and you are right, then nothing happens at the end - you just die and that’s it - you lose nothing for adopting the life view you did. If you choose possibility (4) and you are right, you live in glory for eternity, and, naturally, lose nothing for adopting the life view you did. But, if you choose possibility (3) and you are right, then you lose everything for adopting the life view you did.
More simply, if you choose to deny God’s existence, and I choose to accept it, then who does better in the event that the wrong choice is made? If I am wrong, so what? I lose nothing, since there was nothing to be gained in the first place. If you are wrong, however, you lose EVERYTHING; you COULD have chosen to live in glory, but you rejected it.
That, my friend – losing everything – is not a chance I am willing to take.
Paschal's wager is a very cowardly move, if you think about it. It's deliberately subjugating your reason to your desire to potentially and selfishly please a god that may or may not exist... have you considered the possibility that, if god exists, he would prefer it that we attempt to use our reason to courageously question the meaning of the universe? Rather than to passively and calculatedly accept his existence for our own individual gain?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I forgot to mention: in the case of the desert island, could you please explain to me your reasoning behind the assumption that a Natural Law exists?
ReplyDelete1. Have you considered the possibility that, if god exists, he would prefer it that we attempt to use our reason to courageously question the meaning of the universe?
ReplyDeleteYes, I have, and I reject it because it is clearly against everything he actually tells us.
2. In the case of the desert island, could you please explain to me your reasoning behind the assumption that a Natural Law exists?
Yes. You “just know” that my taking your food is wrong - it’s ingrained in you, somewhere and somehow. Just like you “just know” that being mean to kids and old people is wrong and being kind is right; lying is wrong and telling the truth is right; helping people is right and murdering them is wrong, and on and on. This is burned into our ROM, so to speak, and it either is coincidental or not. In other words, laws against murder, rape, armed robbery, etc., didn’t just happen for no reason; they happened because everyone “knows” that those things are wrong. How come everyone knows this, and where did that knowledge come from? I say it all comes from God. If you disagree, then YOU give me another explanation.
More generally, nothing about logic, common sense, human experience, or anything else suggest that the order in the world is coincidental. Indeed, if you subscribe to the “big bang theory” (which, for simplicity sake here I will call the “anti-God theory”), then you’d have to conclude that every explosion in history has led to disorder, except the first one. To think like this is to conclude that if a hurricane blew through a junk yard, it might mix up all the junk and garbage and then a perfectly functioning Lexus would be the result. Sorry, can’t buy that.
I had a doctor friend once tell me “If you hear hoofbeats, don’t think zebras.” You, my friend, are hearing hoofbeats and looking for zebras.
1. Mr. Aubert, that is circular reasoning. You are assuming that god exists and that he tells us things.
ReplyDelete2. The fact that we "just know" to obey certain moral codes seems to me to be more likely a result of our upbringing in society, not from reflection on nature (i.e. the Natural Law) - if we reflect on nature, in fact, it would seem that murder and robbery are perfectly OK, as it happens all the time in the animal world.
Your argument about the big bang and the jet plane and all that assumes that the universe is ordered. Can you justify that assumption for me?
1. No, it is not circular reasoning. Let me explain: The Bible exists; on that we can agree. And, the Bible says what it says; on that we can also agree. The question becomes, then, is the Bible what it claims to be, or, is it something else?
ReplyDeleteThe events in the Bible are supported by historical record. To conclude that the Bible is true, therefore, is supported by external and extrinsic evidence. To conclude that the Bible is not what it purports to be requires one to (a) ignore all external and extrinsic evidence, and, instead, decide the contrary without any evidence at all.
Think of it this way: The question is: “What did Fr. Paul have for breakfast today?” On one hand, he says he ate an Egg McMuffin; you have six witnesses who say, “I saw him eating and Egg McMuffin“; he has a receipt for an Egg McMuffin in his pocket; and an X-Ray of his stomach shows an Egg McMuffin sitting in there. On the other hand, someone who was not there says, “Well, I can’t believe that Fr. Paul likes Egg McMuffins, so, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I reject that he had an Egg McMuffin for breakfast.” What do you conclude Fr. Paul had for breakfast?
Based on the evidence, I conclude that he had an Egg McMuffin. You, apparently, are perfectly happy rejecting the evidence and concluding that he did not. If you think that makes sense - to reject all the evidence and decide the contrary without any evidence - nothing I write here will persuade you of anything else.
2. I didn’t say “reflection on nature.” Please stop twisting my points.
3. You want me to justify the assumption that the universe is ordered? If so, that would mean that you think the universe is disordered; else, you wouldn’t need justification for something you already believe. That said, God reveals his power through the complexity of his creation. How many examples would you like? How about DNA - is it just happenstance that virtually everyone has unique DNA? How about fingerprints - is it just happenstance that virtually everyone has unique fingerprints? How about the rhythm of the earth manifested in the seasons - is that just coincidence? How about photosynthesis? How about the way our bodies react to changes in eating? How about the fact that Einstein showed us E=mc2 - if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would have been violated by the creator, as some energy from outside is apparently required (unless, of course, you reject Einstein). Again, my friend, if you reject things that are obvious and taken for granted by pretty much everyone, then nothing I write here will persuade you of anything.
I’ll leave you with a couple of thoughts: You deny the order of the universe, yet you live by it. I’ll bet that you agree that today is Monday, April 18. Why do you think that?
Second, your comments are, with respect, awfully pedantic and arrogant. Just words, without much deep thought; and just questions without analysis or support, beyond arguing from a pre-selected result (there is no God). True scholarship is not pre-designing the result; it’s following the evidence where it leads, no matter the consequence.
Third, you may find this link very interesting: http://thereasonforourhope.org/meet_father/listen.php?id=359
God bless you.
1. Well, in the example you gave me of Fr. Paul's egg McMuffin, I would agree with you in saying that it is very likely from the evidence that Fr. Paul did, in fact, eat that egg McMuffin. However, in the case of the Bible, I am told that things happened that are physically impossible - rising from the dead, turning water into wine, etc., etc. Even if the Bible is an otherwise credible historical source, I do not think it likely that these things happened simply because they are in the Bible. In fact, I think it likely that they did not happen because they appear to contradict the physical laws that govern the universe. Once again, this is completely independent of the Bible's credibility as a historical source. If I were to read any other history book and it told me that a man was born of a virgin and rose from the dead I would be similarly skeptical, because, unlike the ingestion of an egg McMuffin, both of those occurrences appear to me to be impossible.
ReplyDelete2. My apologies. To clarify, could you define Natural Law, in that case?
3. None of those things seem indicative to me of any kind of order. Compared to the rational world created by humanity, in fact, they seem absurd. And, to be clear, I'm making no judgments about the beginning of the universe here, if it has one. Today's calendar day is an order invented by humanity, not created by any intrinsic order in the universe. I think that today is April 18th because that is the commonly established Gregorian calendar day for today - it is ordered according to the system of the Gregorian calendar, which was designed by the reason of humanity.
You may find this link very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Weird, that link above is wrong. THIS is the correct link: http://thereasonforourhope.org/meet_father/listen.php?id=359
ReplyDeleteHeisenberg Uncertainty is wrong? Or do you just not find it interesting? And, yes, I did listen to the sermon. However, I didn't find it that applicable to my situation - I certainly don't doubt Christianity because of Christians. There are very many Christians for whom I hold utmost respect. I doubt Christianity because it appears unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteI've been attempting to write a comment on this post for about 20 minutes. There's just so much fun to address.
ReplyDeleteI'll just go with the following:
a.) Isn't a sermon a bit of a biased "source"?
b.) I hope that when I'm Mr. Aubert's age I make better use of my time than arguing with an 18-year-old about matters of opinion on a personal blog.
c.) TROLOLOLO
(This is not Mr. Aubert)
ReplyDeletea) It doesn't matter how "biased" or "unbiased" the source is, this is an argument in which the two sides obviously don't agree, is it not?
b) What is the point of an online blog, I ask you? To simply put in words one's personal convictions, not expecting anyone to read it? If Michael wanted to simply write down everything that's on his mind, why didn't he do it in a journal at home?
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
About that quote: believing in something doesn't make it true.
ReplyDelete...unless you're arguing an extremely relativist position here, haha.
All arguments are arguments in which two sides obviously don't agree. I don't see your point. If someone doesn't even see the point in getting legitimate sources for facts they (ab)use, they should learn to think for themselves before they go and argue with others.
ReplyDeleteAnd the quote you gave was the entire point of the post. I'll show you another by Bukowski:
"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can’t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don’t remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable."
You all might find this link interesting: http://patrickmadrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TURNING-THE-TABLES-ON-ATHEISTS.pdf
ReplyDelete