My Reason For Hope; 1 Peter 3:15

Sunday, June 6, 2010

- Philosophy, Section Summary

In this section we learned:

We can know there is truth because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

Truth is what is real, because the definition of insanity is the loss of touch with reality.

We do not only know things scientifically because a person cannot prove through repeatable testing that we can only know things scientifically.

We can know that truth is absolute not relative because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

We can know we exist (I exist), as one must exist to ponder one’s possible nonexistence.

We can know the universe is real because real entities (us) can only exist within something real rather than something only imagined.

If we can know anything about the real world, even if all we know is that it is unknowable, then we have proved that we can in fact know something about the real world.

All philosophical and religious beliefs cannot be right (true) because philosophical and religious beliefs contradict each other and two contradictory claims cannot both be true.

What does the Bible say?
We expect people to tell the truth not only on a witness stand, but expect truth from each other. The Bible says, “‘These are things you shall do: Speak each man the truth to his neighbor; Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice, and peace; Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; And do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,’ says the LORD.” - Zechariah 8:16-17

Philosophy may be defined as the study of and search after wisdom. Not only are the certain books within the Scriptures considered books of wisdom, but the Bible itself is an introduction to and revelation from our creator, the source of all wisdom. Therefore I’ll close this section with the well known admonition, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” Proverbs 9:10

Up next
Origins

- Aren’t all philosophies and religions ultimately right?

Nowadays, some people think there are multiple ultimate realities. It demands we answer:

- Aren’t all philosophies and religions ultimately right?

Our first question… “What do you mean by that?” (Mean face)
Our second question… “How did you come to that conclusion?” (Magnifying glass)
Our action… Listen and ask follow-up questions. (Big ears)
Let me propose using Bill Faye’s questions from my first chapter as two ultimate questions. First, “If you died right now, where would you go, heaven or hell?” Second, “If what you believed were not true, would you want to know it?”

We’ve already shown that if statements contradict each other that both may be false, but if one is true the other must be false. Different spiritual belief systems teach differently about what happens to us after we die. If there are contradictory beliefs, one may be true, but the others must be false.

What are those beliefs? Some atheists believe in nothingness after death; but the Judeo-Christian scriptures teach we continue to exist after death. Some hedonists believe in separation from God, but a long party in hell; but the scriptures teach that hell is a place of torment. Some believers in reincarnation think that we keep coming back until we get it right; but the Judeo-Christian scriptures teach that once a person dies, their spirit continues in either separation from God (hell) or fellowship with God (heaven). Catholic traditions teach purgatory as a place where Catholics may go after death to pay for their sins; but the scriptures clearly teach that Jesus paid our debt and that anything we might do is like dressing in filthy rags. These are contradictory beliefs.

Is there nothingness after death or something after death? Are we appointed to live and die once or do we live and die more than once? Is Hell a party or not a party? Was Christ’s death sufficient or insufficient?

Rather than considering arguments for or against any one particular view, let’s logically consider that the different religions do in fact hold – not just different views – but contrary views. The views contradict each other concerning the ultimate question of what happens to us after we die.
The logical argument (syllogism) is:

Aren’t all philosophies and religions ultimately right?
All philosophical and religious beliefs cannot be right (true) because philosophical and religious beliefs contradict each other and two contradictory claims cannot both be true.

- Can we know anything about the real world?

So what? Even though we and the universe are real, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) felt that only the phenomena of the mind could be known, not the noumena, which was his term for the real world.[1] Trying to work this out, the person may think:

- Can we know anything about the real world?

We ask the other person, “What do you mean by that?”
Then ask for their evidence, “How did you come to that conclusion?”
Listen and ask follow-up questions. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.)
A follow-up might be: If the real world is unknowable, then don’t we now know something about the real world?

Norman Geisler argues “First, if Kant claims that he can’t know anything about the real world (the thing in itself) then how does he know the real world is there? And second, his view is self-defeating because he claims that you can’t know anything about the real world while asserting that he knows that the real world is unknowable!”
Yes, I know this:

Can we know anything about the real world?
If we can know anything about the real world, even if all we know is that it is unknowable, then we have proved that we can in fact know something about the real world.

[1] Italics in original: Page 61, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

- Is the universe real?

I’ve heard people wonder:

- Is the universe real?

What do we find out? “What do you mean by that?”
Then ask for evidence, “How did you come to that conclusion?”
Listen and ask follow-up questions. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.)
Ask: If the universe can be either real or illusionary, how is it that a real person exists within an illusion?

What is the truth? Does the universe exist? Let’s look at it logically.

Something that seems to exist but doesn’t really exist is called an illusion. Illusions may be either “false illusions” or “real illusions”. We just determined that we exist when we addressed the question “Do I exist?” We exist and we do so within our universe, also called "the cosmos". Since real entities exist within the cosmos, then the cosmos cannot be a real illusion because the entity is within and part of the cosmos while perceiving it. Therefore, “the cosmos is an illusion” is illogical and the opposite is in this case true: the universe does exist.

My suggested syllogism is:

Is the universe real?
We can know the universe is real because real entities (us) can only exist within something real rather than something only imagined.

- Do I exist?

Another philosophical question a person may honestly ask is:

- Do I exist?

“Who said that?” Okay, that’s the rhetorical question if we want to be funny.
Seriously though, do we exist? Of course, but let’s review.
We first ask… “What do you mean by that?”
We then ask… “How did you come to that conclusion?”
We continue to listen and ask follow-up questions. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.)
If the person claims they do not exist, ask “How does someone who does not exist question their existence?”

If you even suspect you don’t exist, you can know you do exist because you must exist to ask the question. If you didn’t exist, you couldn’t question your existence. To know you do not exist requires you to exist to know this as fact. Therefore, existence is necessary to question non-existence. (My head hurts.)

René Descartes (1596-1650), in his Discourse on Method (1637) summed up the answer to whether or not we exist when he concluded, "I think, therefore I am" (Original French, "Je pense, donc je suis"; Latin, "Cogito, ergo sum"; English "I am thinking, therefore I exist").

We can reach the same conclusion through deduction. A deductive argument if formed by reasoning from the general to the specific. The tool we can use is the syllogism which is constructed with a general proposition (called the major premise), a more specific proposition (called the minor premise), followed by the conclusion. A syllogism that would support Descartes’ conclusion might look something like this:

(major premise)

(minor premise)

(conclusion)

We could say the same thing a little differently:

Let me make a quick note here: Fictional characters may be said to ponder their existence, however it is not the fictional character that ponders but their non-fictional human creator. For instance, Popeye said, “I yam that I yam, and that’s all that I yam.” But the cartoon character Popeye only existed in the mind of his creator and readers.

Do I exist?
We can know we exist (I exist), as one must exist to ponder one’s possible nonexistence.

- Isn’t that true for you but not for me?

It is not uncommon for people to think that all religious beliefs can be true at the same time in the same respect. People are thought to be “too hard” if they think there is only one way that is true.

The “modern” moral relativism of Edward Westermarck (1862-1939) and G.E. Moore (1873 – 1958) has firm foundations in the ancient Anekantavada (Many sidedness) principle of Mahavira (c. 599 – 527 BC) which is a Jainism teaching. This assumes not only that “reality is perceived differently from different points of view” but also “that no single point of view is completely true”. Also believed is the assertion by Protagoras (c. 481 – 420 BC) that “man is the measure of all things”. As today’s philosophers and social scientists continue to question whether any absolute and objective standards exist pertaining to values, it’s not uncommon in our society to hear:

- Isn’t that true for you but not for me?

What is our first question? We ask, “What do you mean by that?” Let them clarify their own views. Once they have clarified their own claim, what is our second question? We ask, “How did you come to that conclusion?” This asks for their evidence. What do we do then? Listen. Listen to the reasons they provide. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) And what else can we do? Ask follow-up questions. If they are saying all truth is relative, our questions to them may be, “Is that only true for you and not for me?”

In a video produced by Focus on the Family, a Universalist minister was asked about truth. Standing in a church with stained glass windows, she pointed at the windows and said that truth could be understood as something like light from the sun shining on us through the different stained-glass windows. As people sit inside the church each person, depending on their perspective, might see the light differently. In short, she felt that truth was relative to the individual. In relation to our question, she would have us believe that truth may be true for one and not for another.

What she didn’t mention was the source of light on the other side of those stained glass windows. Unfortunately for those in her church building, the stained glass windows were changing the light source so they were not seeing true light but were seeing filtered light. The filtered light represented truth that was true for each individual. In this case, filtered light is used to represent subjective truth, that is, something that is true based on the perception of each subject. However, what her congregation was not seeing was the unfiltered light. The colored glass was a filter between the people and the light source. In this analogy, the source light, the light on the other side of those windows, would represent objective truth. Something is an objective truth because it is true independent of our sense experience.

Another example of the difference between subjective and objective truth might be understood using fire or heat and human skin. We can tell a child over and over again to keep their hand out of a fire or away from something that is hot because touching it will get them burned. They may tell us that our belief about fire and skin is true for us, but not for them. Yet when they reach out and put their hand in the fire or touch a hot pot, they’ll find out pretty quick that we were providing an objective truth.

We can of course think of exceptions by changing the temperature and by changing the person. For instance, the skin of a well seasoned chef who has been handling hot pots over many years would have developed a tolerance for a certain amount of heat. In other words, someone could argue that the burning of skin is relative to the individual. However, there is an absolute point we could heat a pan to that would burn through even the toughest skin. These two conditions are known as objective or absolute truth and subjective or relative truth.

Some hold that all truth is relative. The overall worldview, that is, this way of thinking, is called relativism. It’s founded on the belief that truth is derived from the subject or truth is relative to a situation. You see and hear this view expressed in every part of our society as an attempt to justify a person’s or society’s actions due to circumstances. But, relativism just doesn’t pass the common sense test. As Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl pointed out in their book Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, if you think about it, relativism has seven fatal flaws:

A relativist can never claim another is wrong. This is because the other person can just ask, “Isn’t my belief ‘true for me’?”

A relativist can never complain about evil. Whenever a person does something, isn’t the person just following what they think is morally right?

A relativist can never place blame or accept praise because placing blame mean “it was wrong” and praise means “it was right”. Neither right nor wrong is supposed to be true for the relativist.

A relativist can never make charges of unfairness or injustice. Each requires a moral answer to what is “fair” and “just”. Without a moral compass, neither is supposed to be true for the relativist.

A relativist can never improve your morality. The question, “What is moral?” cannot be logically defined by relativists who holds that morals are relative to the individual.

A relativist can never hold a meaningful moral discussion. This is the same as the last issue. The question, “What is moral?” cannot be logically defined by relativists and still hold that morals are relative to the individual.

A relativist can never promote the obligation of tolerance because to tolerate something would indicate an objectionable action. Nothing should be objectionable to the relativists.

Let’s do a little mental aikido with the belief that “no single point of view is completely true”. If “no single point of view is completely true” is true, then can this point of view cannot be completely true? And if this point of view cannot be completely true, then it is true that, “a single point of view could be completely true”. Finally, if a point of view could be completely true, then the original view that “no single point of view is completely true” must be false. This is another argument that is self-defeating!

We admit that people may be different in their ability to think, may have individual physical capabilities, et cetera. But even though we think of truth as relative to the person (the subject) that particular truth is absolute. The wine connoisseur’s ability to taste certain elements in a vintage will be more refined than someone who has damaged taste buds (subjective truth), but the fact is, the wine does have certain elements in the wine which may be detected by a human (objective truth).

Can something be true for you but not for me?
We can know that truth is absolute not relative because contrary arguments are self-defeating.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." – John 14:6

- Don’t we only know things scientifically?

I was teaching my reasons for hope to some high school students and I asked them if they ever heard people at school saying we can only know things through science or that we could only know things scientifically. They all had heard people say something similar.

The idea that we can only know things by physical perception isn’t new. In the 1700’s David Hume (1711-1776) believed that truth was a meaningful idea and was either true by definition or must be based on sense experience. By sense experience we’re talking about what can be heard, seen, tasted, touched, or smelled. About 200 years later, A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) used these ideas as the basis for his “principle of empirical verifiability” which claims that a proposition can be meaningful only if it’s true by definition or if it is empirically verifiable (known by physical perception). This is why you might hear the same argument nowadays, but phrased something like, “if you can’t test it scientifically, it can’t be true.”

Therefore, people grounded in reality or someone who is familiar with the works of David Hume or A.J. Ayers might wonder:

- Don’t we only know things scientifically?

But don't assume that is where they are coming from; find out what they mean by that question. Let them clarify their own views. Determine how they came to that conclusion. Listen to their answers. (Remember the mean face with covered ears and the magnifying glass.) Ask: “How do you prove the idea scientifically that we can only know things scientifically?" (Hint: They can’t.)

To understand what someone is supposed to mean when they talk about testing something scientifically, we might want to first briefly review the scientific method, also known as Hypothetical Scientific Reasoning. The scientific method is a series of steps used to predict future events. While specific steps vary, in general, the basic steps are:

It is said in science that theories can never be proven; theories can be only disproved.

In other words, we watch the world around us, try to explain why things happen, use that explanation to predict something else happening, and then try the same thing over and over. If the explanation doesn’t hold up we can throw it out or modify it, but if the explanation does hold up we can regard it as a theory or law.

The only problem is that the scientific method is only good for those tests and results which we can physically perceive. Some believe we can only know what is real when we can physically perceive “it”.

Let’s explore this thought of empirical verifiability. As a college student, Norman Geisler was given 20 minutes to discuss the principle of empirical verifiability. In his book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Mr. Geisler says his report consisted of just these words,

[1]

He sat down.

The principle of empirical verifiability is just another argument that defeats itself.

Do we only know things scientifically?
We do not only know things scientifically because a person cannot prove through repeatable testing that we can only know things scientifically.

[1] Extracted from pages 57-59, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek