Very briefly, we would be fools to limit ourselves to empirical evidence alone. It is certainly compelling, but faith in the empirical is not the primary foundation of argument. The first assumption in most rational argument is that things exist. Consider for a moment: Do you hav direct evidence that the physical exists? Really? All our data is second hand, analog rather than digital if you will, passed on through the senses. I can see that this thing exists, you cry! Really? And how are you sure that your physical senses exist? If you try to empirically prove the existence of your own senses you will be engaged in a circular argument: "I know my senses exist because my senses inform me of their presence." Sorry, not good enough.
That's why the existentialists have a point: I can only be absolutely certain of the existence of my own mind (That's what Cogito ergo sum means: I think therefore I am.) Everything else beyond my own bare existence is uncertain. You can't prove your physicality since the only thing you directly experience are your own thoughts; your senses could be imagined. And that's something we can't disprove. So much for empiricism, since it can't fight us out of this particular wet paper bag.
And it is a wet paper bag if we're willing to turn to something that offers proofs which are non-physical: logic. Sartre tells me that I can only know my own thoughts? Fine. Logic then can do the work that empiricism can't.
For example, I can use logic to point out that my five senses seem to exist because they all have a different basis (apparently) yet they all give the same data. Things that look round also feel round. Of course, the existentialist will point out that these could also be imagined. Very well. But Hume, God bless his Scottish soul, provided some limitations to existentialism. If all that exists is the mind, then where did it come up with the idea of a tree, or a rock, or notions of trigonometry? How would it come up with a frame of reference without that any of these things exist? It is, if you ever study philosophy, a compelling point.
But the mind can also accomplish this, which is the Catholic answer. You say I cannot "know" anything with what you call "certainty?" That's fine. There are any number of things we believe that can neither be proven nor disproven because they can't be directly measured, weighed, put under the microscope. Things like love, God, freedom, mercy, goodness, evil, the human will. Yet we have faith in these things, so it doesn't bother us if we add the whole of physical existence to the mix. Faith, after all, is an act of will, choosing to trust that a thing like love or God's salvation exists. We trust God that He is there. So I trust my senses as I trust my wife's love, two things I depend on, neither of which I can prove empirically.
So, frankly, philosophy is more useful than science and empiricism rests on a philosophical assumption and not on hard facts.
If we argue God's existence, then, let's rely on rational argument and not a flawed and doomed addiction to physical proof (this, by the way, is the error of both Dawkins AND the Intelligent Design crew that try to prove God through science.)
28 comments:
Let us confuse the issue a little more. Phenomenological speaking, can we even assume that what we experience from our senses is "empirical"? What one person may perceive as "spicy" in terms of food may be lame and bland to another person.
Two people in the same place sometimes give different accounts to what would appear to be the same experience. Why? The human condition is one to assimilate experiences into archetypes in which already exist within our mind.
I think it's important to question what we see as truth because is truth the same for all people? Can we even know something like this? Again, this adds more fuel to Johnson's empiricism argument.
One more question: why does this blog always make your name into lower case? Just curious.
lowercase...because we're cool and down wid it
phenomenology - getting in a twist about whether we all experience exactly the same thing when we see the colour "blue" is a waste of time. We should be amazed instead that we have anything in common at all. Any kind of epistemology that isn't Thomistic detracts from the common experience and the richness that is a shared heritage of humanity.
Crosbie, you make a good point. And Johnson, you keep mentioning Thomistic philosophy, and I read about it in Chesterton, but I'm not really sure what it really is. Could you clarify it?
Jeremy W.
Jeremy-
ok. I'll try to sum up Thomism some time next week.)
Johnson, you're too quick to shoot down the importance of Crosbie's comment. I'd say that because he's right and there is no proof of any common experience between human beings, historical events, along with current accounts could be considered completely subjective. Philosophy itself, although already a subjective concept, could be considered genius or worthless depending on perspective.
In my opinion, Crosbie's point can't be narrowed down to a color or a smell, but instead to an idea or philosophy that we tend to adopt through subjective views.
Remember, Karl Marx's last words and the irony that lies in them:
"Of one thing I am sure: I am no Marxist!"
Ok, Ben. That's it; it's comin' down!
First, re-read my original post. The whole point is that not even the senses are empirically provable. Nothing is. Nothing, except the fact that you're currently experiencing thoughts.
Second, you say: philosophy is subjective? Oh really? Says who? Your stereotype of philosophy that you've picked up along the road might suggest it is, but your assertion isn't enough. 2=2 is a logical statement, and therefore philosophical. 2+2=4 is similarly philosophical.
Third, what exactly does your quote prove? Particularly since it seems to be out of context. If he had said "I am not Marx!" I might be curious.
"Genius or worthless based on perspective." Really? How?
One thing I reject about Corsbie's argument is that we experience things and apply them to pre-existing archetypes in our mind. Lots of people believe this (hell, I might) but it's a religious statement, even if you're a Jungian, because it's taken on faith.
So, this isn't really a good response. But Ben, you make huge claims without any particular argument to support yourself.
I agree that we can't be 100% certain of anything because of Cogito Ergo Sum but we sure as heck can be almost completely certain of the existence of stuff in our world. I know with 99.99999% certainty that my keyboard exists because I'm typing on it and words appear on the screen and I can call up my friend to go look at what I wrote on his computer. To deny the existence of my keyboard and other physical matters in the universe that we can touch, smell, determine via the scientific method is no more than philosophical nonsense. To deny the existence of God, however is not nonsense because we don't have ANY of these "almost certainties" to base this belief on.
It's futile to try arguing the existence of god using "rational arguments" because as I said before in one of my previous comments people can think up a great many ideas that seem like they could be possible or exist even though there is nothing in our world that actually shows us that they are or do. We have no added in baloney detector to know if we're wrong or not with anything so we must be especially cautious when dealing with the things that we have no evidence for.
I disagree Keith with your last paragraph. If something has no proof, I don't believe it should really be a touchy subject. There is no grey area. Its a matter of choice, with two possible actions. Either you believe and accept it or you don't. Really its not even too much of a matter for debate, at least not in the irrational scream fest people get in about the debate of God.
Jeremy
By "cautious" I meant that since there's no real way to find out if anything is true without evidence we should be especially discerning of things for which there is zero evidence, like God. Sure you can believe in something with absolutely no evidence whatsoever simply because it seems plausible to you and provides answers for questions that we haven't discovered the answers for yet. You can believe in all the unevidenced things you want and I won't care. But I will tell you this: someone who doesn't believe in deities has at least the same chance of being right as someone who believes in them.
Keith said: "But I will tell you this: someone who doesn't believe in deities has at least the same chance of being right as someone who believes in them."
What a lovely assertion, sir, and spoken just boldy enough to hope that we're convinced. Would you care to substantiate or otherwise back up that claim? How do measure the odds on something like that anyway? At LEAST as likely? Keith, I love you, but of the two of us I'm the only one appealing to logic instead of an "Oh yeah? Well I still think this..." sort of rebuttal.
Now, try engaging the argument. Try engaging what I said in class about Creatsio ex Nihilo and the Big Bang. And please, don't attribute things to me that I never said. Just attack the argument.
Even just looking at the scientific FACT that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate provides the basis for the assumption of some higher power at the very least. A deity if you will. I won't use God, because I dont want to offend anyone. Actually thats a lie. I will use God. And the debate of whether a God exists sort of gets summarized into which flavor is better, chocolate or vanilla? This arguement will never be solved, but I think over time, the God one will because there is ever increasing, not quite evidence, but facts, that lead to logical assumptions. Who knows, maybe scientists will discover eating Vanilla icecream instead of Chocolate will lead to immortal life!
(My icecream preference aside, please look at my argument with a little bit of gravity)
Jeremy W.
"Keith said: "But I will tell you this: someone who doesn't believe in deities has at least the same chance of being right as someone who believes in them."
What a lovely assertion, sir, and spoken just boldy enough to hope that we're convinced. Would you care to substantiate or otherwise back up that claim? How do measure the odds on something like that anyway? At LEAST as likely? Keith, I love you, but of the two of us I'm the only one appealing to logic instead of an "Oh yeah? Well I still think this..." sort of rebuttal."
My point is that someone who is religious is more likely to be wrong in what they believe than an athiest because there are so many different religions out there to chose from. This means that if one religion is actually true then all the other religious people and atheists are wrong but if there is no god(s) than all the religious people are wrong.
"Now, try engaging the argument. Try engaging what I said in class about Creatsio ex Nihilo and the Big Bang. And please, don't attribute things to me that I never said. Just attack the argument."
I already addressed those several times. I said that just because we don't know the explanation of why and how something happened doesn't mean it is from God. Making the assumption it is because of God is rather naive and overlooks the fact that people have always used gods and mythology to explain what they didn't understand and gradually these beliefs were replaced by facts and science as we learned more about the nature of the universe.
"replaced by facts and science as we learned more about the nature of the universe."
More platitudes from the hive mind. I'll talk to you in class, Keith. And I'll also try to post at greater length about the multiplicity of religions. They are in no way necessarily an argument against God.
I realize that the conversation is no longer on the topic that I brought up, but I wish to resurrect it in an attempt to lift the Johnson Hammer from my spine. Don't worry, this post won't be as long as I would like due to the fact that I already wrote it once and then didn't post it properly... OH THE HUMANITY.
And yes, I do realize that my original post was completely irrelevent to the topic at hand, I would however like to revert back to Vatican Studies where we kind of manipulated topics to fit what was on our mind. It seemed to work well for me at the time haha.
So here's the thing:
Because no humans share identical experiences (physically perhaps, but not emotionally or psychologically), no two opinions can be identical or based on identical sources. For this reason, all philosophy is subjective. It is based on accomodations to the philosopher. If you can honestly argue that existentialism or utilitarianism are not completely accomodating then you will have won. Unfortunately for you, those are arguments that simply can't be made. Existentialism cures a simple mind, or mind without much argument. "I think therefore I am" is way to convenient. Utilitarianism is even worse (which you already know).
This is why I say they can be considered genius or worthless based on perspective. All humans are flawed, as flawed human beings we will continuously manipulate in our favor.
My other point about Karl Marx was vague, but I was simply trying to show that humans manipulate all philosophies, ideologies and beliefs around their perspectives or immediate needs.
2+2 is undeniably 4 Johnson, unfortunately men are not so simple.
Ben;
That's a much better attempt. I'd like you to chew on this though. Existentialism etc. (including your subjectivity based on the uniqueness of each individual experience) are onyl valid if we assume that the mind really is trapped within itself, with only the flawed senses acting as a bridge to the outside world.
Chew on this: What if the mind is not the only instrument of apprehension? What if the soul is also part of our awareness, and is in fact one of the sources of our certainty on things?
Crosbie mentioned archetypes and I poo-poohed them as Jungian. But what if they exist within us because they are written into the very stones by God?
IF there is a God and we are spiritual as well as physical then these obstacles don't have to be insurmountable. Subjectivity doesn't have to be the only answer.
Ben. Thanks for the restatement. I think it was an opportunity for me to give a better answer.
Well the entire idea of existentialism IS that the mind is trapped within itself. If we assume that, then of course we are being subjective but we are also being close-minded and, I'd argue, agraid, because we lack all acknowledgement of a higher power or even of some sort of control. That's one of the main reasons i dismiss existentialism so quickly: humans NEED control, they strive on it. It's part of our free will and I believe the the need for control is part of human flaw. Existentialism argues that all the control we gain is actually in our own mind, "I think therefore I am", so even in our minds we can't always gain control? Although I like the concept of not always being in control within ourselves, philosophies such as Existentialism are hypocritical. (I know you were not arguing against that, I just thought I'd add that for my own benefit.)
"What if the mind is not the only instrument of apprehension? What if the soul is also part of our awareness, and is in fact one of the sources of our certainty on things?"
I have no argument against that. In fact, I'd argue that controversies such as religion could actually prove such a theory. I would, however, say that if this was true then we were not made with free will as we believe to. If our soul lies with us from before birth and we grow with it, it controlling some of our deepest certainties or theories (religion being my main argument) then we do not TRULY possess the free will and liberties that God gave us. Mainly for this reason, I cannot accept that the soul is the source of our certainties. I would say, instead, that we form our souls based on personal experiences and opinions. This thought would lead me back to my opinion of human subjectiveness.
I do not deny that I am cynical, I would actually say that my experiences have led to me BEING a cynic. I would argue, however, that my arguments do hold substance and that some part of you has to accept the subjectivity of man.
Johnson, I wasn't referring to archetypes in the Jungian sense. I was referring to archetypes as something typical of a particular concept/object, etc. I am sure you know what I mean. So no need to "poo-poo" on me.
In reference to archetypes being into our souls by God--I think it has more to do with experience and assimilation/accommodation than something already intrinsic within us by the grace of God. Although it would be neat. I think something are given to us by God, but I also think we cannot discount the role that human experience takes in shaping who we are today and who we'll be tomorrow.
Cheers one and all. Great thread! Even if I don't agree with what someone is saying, I think it takes courage to put it out there in a public forum like this.
"If our soul lies with us from before birth and we grow with it, it controlling some of our deepest certainties or theories (religion being my main argument) then we do not TRULY possess the free will and liberties that God gave us." Yes, but when we look at philosohpy which has shaped the Catholic view point, Aristotle specifically, he argues that we have an essence. Catholic teaching is that this essence is in fact our soul, which, in time and exercise, can be trained, much like a muscle, or piano piece, till it becomes stronger, and automatic, without really thinking about it. I think there may be a small archtype hardwired in us, kind of like classes for Warcraft or Age of Conan. But these are not completely overruling as nurture by parents also plays a huge portion to it to. Therefore these "classes" can be formed to suit the individual needs, thereby us having free will. Personally, I think these archtypes are more geared towards talents, such as music or arithmatic or languages, rather moral codes. I personally think we are very much hardwired from the beginning to be good people, but our experiences, actions, and influences by parents, peers and society turn us astray. My thoughts.
Jeremy W.
"I personally think we are very much hardwired from the beginning to be good people, but our experiences, actions, and influences by parents, peers and society turn us astray."
See now, everything you said until that point made sense to me. Unfortunately, I bare the opinion that all men are born with initial flaw. The flaw isn't anything specific: perhaps arrogance, ignorance, pride (major one), aggression, instinctiveness. All that kind of stuff, I believe, we are born with as initial human flaw. It is our experiences and the world that we are brought up in that either subdue that flaw and teach us to overcome it, making us stronger people, or the environment exploits it. An example of exploitation of a human flaw would be high school fights. Yes they are petty and unreasonable, but as men, it is a natural reaction for many of us to fight when we are offended. This could be the flaw of aggression, instinctiveness, arrogance or pride. No matter the flaw, it leads us to the final conclusion of pain. While others choose not to partake in these fights, they suppress their instincts.
Hope that wasn't too confusing.
Just my opinion.
I can see where your coming from. Now yes high school fights are petty, but as you say, we need to prove our manhood somehow. But that I believe is just a chemical reaction combined with hormonal changes and the amount of testosterone in us. Besides, males were initially hunters. It was we were born to do. We are naturally more aggressive or we wouldnt survive. Now there is nothing wrong with that. Its not a personality flaw, its just male nature, in combination with hormones that makes us the way we are. If you can think of another example please share. But I just think your outlook is a rather bleak one. I believe humanity is essentially good, and that its worth saving, no matter how frustrating it becomes at times. The world has only just recently become the way it is. And its turned to somewhat a bleak place because it has run very contrary to human nature. Using your fighting example, I personally don't think there is anything wrong with a competition of skill between men. We have always done that, we need to exert ourselves when our territory is being invaded. Defending yourself is just a natural reaction, and a normal one. As long as we don't let feelings of absolute rage and anger overcome us and lead us down a darker path.
Jeremy W.
in response to ben, it would seem that you view that initial human flaw, the Fall as it were, as the only thing to the human soul, not as how a vein should be to a piece of stone. just a thought.
My thoughts on initial human flaw basically extrapolate from the human condition. I'd almost go as far as to compare it to Absurdism, but never as far as to compare it to Nihilism or Existentialism. I am by no means an Absurdist, but I do understand the concept behind it. It is, unfortunately, given a bad name because of its more pessimistic tendencies, but the points I focus on are the following:
Absurdism does believe there is a meaning to life and that there is most likely a God or some higher power. It believes that every individual has meaning in their lives but that it is not necessary to life. The part that gives them a bad reputation is that they do not believe that searching for a meaning in life is necessary. They do not believe that a search for belief is necessary.
The latter two points, of course, rely on the "Human Condition" as its basis.
The fact is, we are all human. We are all flawed, the difference between my beliefs and Absurdism is that Absurdism does not believe that we can change who we are or manipulate the basic flaws we are given. I, on the other hand, argue that, yes, we are all born with basic flaw BUT we are able to better ourselves.
Jeremy:
You say I am being a pessimist, and I agree. That is unfortunately the conclusion I have been able to construct based on the society that we live in.
Your other point was about competition and male dominance. I have a whole load of opinions on both. And I agree with you on those matters. Competition and male dominance are healthy. I enjoy them. If I hadn't told you in the past, I'll tell you now, I am a boxer and I enjoy getting in the ring. There's something very pure about two men fighting, I would argue that fighting in the ring is more noble than fighting in a field behind Festival Place, but that is neither here nor there.
However, as much as I enjoy competition, and as much as I enjoy fighting and watching fights (in the ring or out), the theory of "male dominance", I would blame on more than chemicals and hormones, but instead revert once again to initial human flaw.
Oh the beauties of being stubborn.
Whipple, I think you had some good points. I think man is more or less born good. Well, perhaps not good so much as not bad.
I know we are all a combination of nature (our genetics) and nurture (how we are raised). What proportion is nature and what proportion is nurture is different for each person.
One thing I do not agree with Jeremy is what he mentions that we are all born good (I sort of agree with this) but through experience in society we become less good. The problem that I have with this is that it negates the very free-will that God has given us. We all have the ability to make choices, whether good or bad. We also have the choice to be good or bad people.
One only need look at people who were raised in moral, rational families with proper values and then know that some people still turn out to be "evil". That being said, that would take away from the nurture side of the debate and give more credence to the nature side. However as I said, I don't think people are born inherently bad. Also, knowing that we are all created in the image of God, what could be more true to the image of God that a baby that has been untainted by others and outside influences? It'd be difficult to look at something as pure as a baby and see anything other than purity.
Obviously the entire debate is complex and worth continuing to examine.
Thank you for agreeing with me Crosbie. You said you think it negates the free will that God gave us? On the contrary its precisely the free will that allows us to become evil. When we make bad choices, with the freedom that God gave us, we are giving in to evil. And what influences us on our decisions? Media, society, parents, etc. So believe people can still become evil, but its choice.
Jeremy W.
some are born to do it better than others.
Technically yes Garvin, but most of the time, we label them clinically insane or mentally deranged. They usually have some brain synapse problems and end up in Alberta Hospital. But they are not making a choice. They lose control of their body, so they are not predesposed to do evil, but their genetic make-up gives them the likely hood to do bad things without consciousness.
Jeremy W.
with all due respect, you missed my point, as i was not talking about all those that the science worshippers profess they can "cure".
Post a Comment