“Why would an atheist insist on the validity of his own empirical observations while at the same time asking me to deny my own experience?”
Do you mean by this that by holding this belief in ones own empirical observations that an atheist denies you to believe in your own? Isn’t it possible for people to hold different belief systems? Or are you speaking about a specific atheist? I’m probably missing something here.
(By the way, I tried to copy and paste that quote and this time my computer wouldn’t allow me to do that. Any ideas as to why, anyone?)
I’m not sure I understand your question, but in general, some atheists (not all) insist that, for example, reason is valid by virtue of their experience, or empirical observations. Well, I have experienced God, and do so daily. Some atheists will say, “Since I have not experienced what you have, your experience is invalid.” It is a classic double standard.
I don’t know there aren’t any purple ravens. Reason tells me that there are likely no purple ravens, but makes no guarantees .
If I say, “There can be no purple ravens”, that is a statement with an element of faith.
However, it is not neccessary for me to say “There can be no purple ravens”. It is enough to say, “No purple ravens have been shown to exist, therefore, it is likely that there are, in fact, no purple ravens.”
As Spiritus said, the lack of certainty is a flaw I can live with. Reason has been shown to be a very valuable tool. In fact it’s greatest strength may be that you don’t have to take it on faith. Evidence for its validity is all around us. What evidence is there for the validity of faith?
Actually, I think a reasonable atheist would say “Since I have not experienced what you have, your experience alone is not a sufficient proof of God’s existence.” Reason requires that the experience be repeatable and universal. If I say “I have seen a purple raven”, then you would be justified in doubting me since you have not seen it yourself. If 100 people say they saw the purple raven, perhaps you begin to accept it, but not without reservation. If I have a picture of a purple raven, then you have some direct evidence. If I have a purple raven on my shoulder, then you have seen the purple raven for yourself. Can you show me God?
As you have stated it, the position of the atheist is arrogant and illogical. What does this have to do with reason? If one atheist can be shown to be unreasonable what have you proven?
The evidence is that you accept the Induction Axiom without proof.
Nothing. That was a side issue.
The issue of this thread is that faith (in your axioms and your undefined terms) underpins reason, and that validating reason with reason is as tautological as validating the Bible with the Bible.
(Not quoted here for any particular reason, I just really like the way that looks)
Of course. One cannot know anything except as a result of constructs that are ultimately built on faith. One has the faith that one’s own felt sensory experiences, including the discovery of predictability and pattern within them, really do bear a relationship to a world that exists outside of our own imaginations. Solipsism is an explanatory theory of the “world” that can only be rejected by faith in the alternative. So we believe that what we think of as “empirical data” and eyewitnessed events and chunks of matter that we can hold in our hand is factually real and present, and we proceed from there. On faith, to be sure.
I think not everything believed on faith is by any means equally valid. There are people who believe things not so much because such a belief makes an elegant explication of observed phenomena and meshes neatly and nicely with the rest of what they believe, but because it distracts them from having to consider major failures of portions of their world-view to fit crisply and convincingly (i.e., faith in a belief or belief system that neither explains & makes sense of nor continues to be supported by everyday and historical observations). I am NOT saying that any belief system that cannot be consciously and logically derived from a formal system of observations is invalid, but I am saying that some people cling to a ‘mythological’ belief system because doing so is less emotionally threatening to them than being rigorous in their attempts to reach a genuine understanding of the world. I would say furthermore that in many cases the ‘threat’ involved here is the worry that they will conclude that the world LACKS coherent meaning in some important sense (i.e., better to cling to fairy tales than stare into the hellish face of an arbitrarily existent world that has no emotionally satisfying reason or meaning to it).
I think you have Descartes (cogito, ergo sum) confused with Berkeley(esse est percipi). I don’t have time to write as long a post as I would like, but the gist is that Descartes,
doubting his senses, looks for what he does know for certain. That he is there to ask the question, proves that he exists, and from that point he proceeds to rebuild his epistemological universe. He uses reason as a heuristic tool to clear doubt of the reality of the evidence of his senses.
I think that reason and faith are not in conflict because they answer different questions. Reason is a useful method for testing the validity and logic of statements. Faith deals with things on a subjective scale, like honor, love, and hope.
You’ve stood the argument on its head. Descartes, through an elaborate process, arrived at the conclusion “I think, therefore I am.” However, this does not imply that something which does not think does not exist. I think that’s the logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. I realize that I am using only logic here, but it’s the best I got.
Descartes was one of the first to tackle this problem. That his argument is insufficient is clearly obvious–we’re still debating it, aren’t we? I think he did a pretty good job, though, for a rookie.
Don’t get mathematical on me. Mathematics requires no faith. Just because you accept the rules of the game and manipulate the axioms and definitions, doesn’t mean that you have to believe in the absolute existence of your conclusions. I’m sure you’re aware of pairs of mathematical systems in which some axioms are directly opposite of each other. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to accept one, and then the other.
Can mathematicians exhibit beliefs that require faith? O Lord, yes.
Good stuff, there. And more fuel for the assertion that epistemology is just another ethic. After all, we have discussed only knowledge thus far; we haven’t even begun to tackle meaning.
Father
I wouldn’t presume to contradict you, but all I am saying is that, within whatever arbitrary reference frame, you must indeed believe in three things: the meanings of your undefined terms; the truth of your axioms; and the validity of your implications. In other words, if your conclusion is that parallel lines intersect, then your axiom must be that the plane is not flat.
Yes, you may discard flat planes and work with curved ones instead, but that is no different than faith in anything else. Within my journey of faith in God, the axioms are always changing, as I comprehend new things. Until recently, I thought that only theists were “qualified” for eternal life. Then, God told me that He is unknowable by the brain, and that a theist-atheist dichotomy is beside the point. A fundamental axiom then changed, resulting in a fundamental shift in my world view.
Obviously, “In other words, if your conclusion is that parallel lines intersect, then your axiom must be that the plane is not flat” should have read, “In other words, if your conclusion is that parallel lines do not intersect, then your axiom must be that the plane is not flat.”
Tautological it may be, Lib, but that’s the nature of definitions, as you like to point out now and again. To say that “reason is a faith-based epistemology” is true, but completely meaningless. Awareness is a series of acts of faith! Belief in the continuance of the universe and its physical laws is the basic act of faith that all living creatures exhibit; it cannot be proven, but it is accepted as a condition of existence.
It is a given that all epistemologies are faith based, to the extent that the foundation for all systems of thought is the single article of faith that “this will continue.”
What really matters is the yardstick one chooses to validate one’s epistemology. Some may choose “beauty”, some “tradition”, some may even choose “whimsy”. The more pragmatically inclined choose utility as the yardstick, and thus reason as the foundation for their beliefs.
There are equally utilitarian epistemologies besides reason. Utility depends, I suppose, on what end we seek. A scriptural epistemology can serve the purpose of political domination, for example. This very interesting tie between knowledge and ethics might also have another, namely, reaity. What is real? What we perceive? If so, how do we know we are not living in The Matrix?
In the end, it seems that we choose both our knowledge and our reality based on our ethic.
Ah, you’re correct, of course. I shouldn’t assume the goal is neccessarily “understanding” in all cases. A better pragmatist’s utility yardstick might be: “To what extent does [insert epistemology of choice here] produce consistent, repeatable and falsifiable conclusions?”
Actually, I am afraid that I pointed out no such thing. What I was trying to explicate is my position that reason cannot be demonstrated as valid. Faith, also, cannot be demonstrated as valid. Nor can any other epistemology.
The set of valid epistemologies is empty until the first member is set axiomatically. Therefore, no epistemology can be said to be valid in an absolute sense. At best, we can search for the set of epistemologies which most reliably maps our phenomenological experiences.
Many great minds have spent an inordinate amount of time examining epistemologies without (IMO, of course) understanding the basic nature of the problem which they addressed.
However, the above is not equivalent to saying that “the epistemology of reason must be accepted on faith”. I, for instance, have no need for reason to be valid (in the rigorous meaning – which is, of course, defined within the context of reason). I trust reason because it has proven reliable within my phenomenological existence. That trust is strong; it is not absolute. I have no guarantee that reason is “valid”, nor do I have a guarantee that it will continue to be useful.
I do not need any such guarantee. Which is good, because the Universe will not give me one no matter how much I ask. I could make up my own guarantee. If I did so, I would be accepting it on faith. (please note: “make up my own” refers specificaly to the act of axiomatic acceptance and has no relationship to any external truth value.)
BTW, yes Lib, your geometry was right the first time. Where mathematics fails as a model of faith, though, is in the mapping of a mathematical field to the “real” world. Euclidian and spherical geometry have fundamental axioomatic differences, yet it is not necessary to accept one and reject the other in order to e consistent. Neither field pretends to explain the Universe. In fact, no mathematical field necessarily holds any relationship to an external expression. We use mathematics to model reality because it has proven useful for us to do so. That fact is not related to the mathematics itself.
What a ridiculous definition. I was dead-on-right with my first post. The problem is that you are trying to create your own language. Reason has never been defined as an epistemology, but instead as a tool. Well, here is my answer: Potato reign speaker into the mouse. In your tradition, I won’t bother to define any of the words until later.
I would also like to say that without the above definition, the implication is that the religious have rejected reson. That is just plain insulting. Society (including the religious and the non-religious) have a word for people who do not believe in cause and effect–they are insane. People who believe that “Reason is a valid epistemology because ice cream has no bones” are not considered in good mental health by anyone.
Spiritus and Xeno have already zoomed in on the essential distinction: it’s not “believe,” it’s “use.” Mathematicians don’t have to believe in anything, they can get away with just using things. That’s the reliance on utility, mentioned elsewhere.
Have you read Stephen Jay Gould’s Rocks of Ages yet? It’s about the non-overlap of science and religion.
Sorry about your nervousness.
(It truly didn’t induce delight, that only offends.)
[/quote]
At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
[/quote]
Emphases mine.
Spiritus
I’m afraid I have grossly misjudged you. I apologize.
Father
Yes, I do get that point now, thanks. The point remains, however that you believe it is useful based on empiricism, and that is no different than my own faith in God.
