Let's expand a metaphor I introduced in the last post. Imagine, if you will, you are walking in the midst of a vast crowd of people across a flat open plain. Although different people are moving at different paces, nonetheless everyone is traveling in the same direction, drawn inexorably toward a destination no one seems to recall.
A break in the sea of humanity ahead reveals a huge gash that has been cut in the earth, a yawning chasm waiting to swallow up everyone heading toward it. It is right in your path. Most disturbing, you realize that the powerful external forces compelling you and everyone else will not allow you to turn around or stop in your tracks--you must either plunge headlong into the chasm or find some way to cross safely to the distant rim on the far side.
You turn to some of those around you to mention this startling discovery. Most hardly seem to take notice, caught up in conversations of their own or simply too self-absorbed to care what you have to say.
The precipice draws closer. You notice there are a number of bridges crossing the chasm. They are various sizes, made of various materials with different qualities of workmanship. People ahead are squeezing onto the bridges, attempting to cross safely to the far side. An old woman is tiptoeing her way alone across a thin plank supported by spindly trestles stretching down into the misty depths of the chasm. She doesn't look like she'll maintain her balance for long. A large group of people has moved onto a concrete arch spanning the gap. You notice cracks in the support columns, and even some debris spalling off the aging supports as they strain under the weight of the arch's occupants. Some people simply meander right over the cliff without even trying to find a way across.
Finally, it seems an older man on your left and a young woman on your right have taken notice of the danger. You take the opportunity to solicit their advice. "Which bridge should we take?"
"None," the old man snaps. "They don't lead anywhere. The far side, it's just an illusion, a mirage. This is the edge of the world. There is nothing more."
The young woman seems more hesitant. "I'm not sure. Some look safer than others, but how do I know which is the best one? Besides, what if the man is right and the far side is an illusion? How can I know if it's real or not?"
You look ahead again and pick out a narrow brick walkway that appears to be in good repair. You angle towards it and look toward your traveling companions to see if they will follow.
"Don't waste your time," the old man advises as you pull away.
The young woman shrugs her shoulders, confused. "I just can't make up my mind."
You take your first steps onto the brick walk as you hear the old man begin to shout to everyone around him, "We're all going down no matter what! Your bridges are worthless! Don't worry about changing your direction to get on a bridge, it's easier to just head straight over the edge!" His voice trails off as he plunges into the mist.
With one last glance, you look back over your shoulder and catch a glimpse of the young woman, a strange mixture of confusion and apathy on her face as she takes a step out into thin air and plummets into oblivion.
This story is familiar, for it's the story we all face. Death is the chasm ahead that awaits all of us, spreading it's gaping jaws wide to swallow us up. The bridges are of course the religions of man, metaphysical constructs that attempt to make sense of our world and promise safe passage to the far side, the blessed afterlife, whatever form that might take.
The old man is the atheist. Religions are a waste of time, perhaps even harmful since they cause people to redirect their steps and jostle the crowd around. We are all going to plunge into nothingness eventually and everything is, ultimately, meaningless.
The young woman is the classic agnostic. Perhaps some of the bridges are good, and perhaps the far side is a real place. Perhaps not. Who can be sure? It's all quite complicated, and there's not enough certainty to be able to make a firm decision.
And you? Who will you be? Atheist, nihilist, who decides there is nothing more than what we see here and now? Whatever small meaning you might make out of this life will be swallowed up by the sheer numbness of eternal non-existence?
Or will you be the agnostic, lacking the courage or conviction to make a firm decision? Just allow the end to come without even trying to make an attempt to cross to the far side?
Maybe you'll be neither of those. Maybe you do want to find a bridge of your own. Which one? Do they all lead safely to the Promised Land? Are they all just clever manmade constructs, but ultimately won't hold up under weight? Maybe one or more do have divine origin?
If you care enough to examine them, and you're bold enough to be willing to place your faith, then let's start dissecting them. Let's see if we can find a bridge to the Promised Land.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Faith
Faith. It's simultaneously one of the most beautiful words there is among spiritual people, and one of the ugliest there is among ardent secularists.
But what is faith, really? Simply, it is "the certainty or confidence of something not seen."
Faith is how we live and make decisions with incomplete knowledge. And, as we saw in the last post, basically every question and corresponding decision is based on incomplete knowledge.
How do you know when you crack open that can of Coca-Cola you're going to get the most delicious elixir known to mankind (in my opinion!) and not something else? Faith. How do you know your car is going to start and continue running to be able to get you where you need to go? Faith. How do you know your spouse or your parents love you and haven't just been faking it the whole time you've known them? Faith.
None of these questions would require much faith for most of us, but faith is required nonetheless in order for action to take place. When evidence is the 99.9%, faith is the 0.1%. When evidence is 50%, faith is the other 50%. Without a full 100%, uncertainty remains and a decision is not made. Most decisions we make in the course of our day, we don't even recognize the faith that covers the gap in uncertainty because the gap is relatively small.
Faith can be well-founded or poorly founded. You may have all the faith in the world that you can flip a coin ten times and have it land heads every time, and I may have faith it won't land heads every time. Neither of us knows for sure, but my faith is more likely to be vindicated, because it is supported by more evidence (laws of probability, experience, etc).
I suppose another way of looking at this is faith is only as good as its object. I like the analogy of stepping out over a precipice to cross a huge canyon. There are two ways across. One is a rickety old rope bridge with rotting planks and frayed cords, and the other is a large highway supported by huge concrete pillars stretching all the way to the floor of the canyon. A friend and I are trying to get to the other side. He is a rather brave fellow and has always liked rope bridges, so he confidently sets out over the creaking planks. I am terrified of heights, and even though I'd rather not cross at all, we have somewhere we need to go, so I timidly pass down the center of the highway.
Who had more confidence in their bridge? Who was the one more likely to make it across alive? Faith is only as good as its object.
Faith in religion becomes a tricky matter because the stakes are much higher than coin flips or soda cans. Many people disagree over just what percentage the evidence covers in supporting any particular religion, but that only matters to intellectually-minded people who try to arrive at truth through reason.
Many "religious" people don't worry about evidence too much because for them, faith has covered all the gap that evidence will ever leave. The size of the gap doesn't matter. Intuition and feeling often trump reason. Also, in many cases, religions prize great faith, and great faith is more than capable of closing sizable gaps in evidence. This kind of thought process is why you will hear many people (even from contradicting religions) claim that they know theirs is "the right one." It's not that evidence has demonstrated it 100%, but rather that their faith has helped them reach the 100% to assert it with confidence.
Ok, so where does that leave us? If we can't have 100% evidence to be able to decide conclusively on any system of faith, why bother choosing one? Well, that option does remain open, and it's called agnosticism, a state of perpetual uncertainty on matters of faith. However, I would propose that agnosticism, the inability to place faith in any cohesive worldview, is in itself a choice, and perhaps the most foolish choice of all. We'll analyze agnosticism as well as some other worldviews in the next post...
But what is faith, really? Simply, it is "the certainty or confidence of something not seen."
Faith is how we live and make decisions with incomplete knowledge. And, as we saw in the last post, basically every question and corresponding decision is based on incomplete knowledge.
How do you know when you crack open that can of Coca-Cola you're going to get the most delicious elixir known to mankind (in my opinion!) and not something else? Faith. How do you know your car is going to start and continue running to be able to get you where you need to go? Faith. How do you know your spouse or your parents love you and haven't just been faking it the whole time you've known them? Faith.
None of these questions would require much faith for most of us, but faith is required nonetheless in order for action to take place. When evidence is the 99.9%, faith is the 0.1%. When evidence is 50%, faith is the other 50%. Without a full 100%, uncertainty remains and a decision is not made. Most decisions we make in the course of our day, we don't even recognize the faith that covers the gap in uncertainty because the gap is relatively small.
Faith can be well-founded or poorly founded. You may have all the faith in the world that you can flip a coin ten times and have it land heads every time, and I may have faith it won't land heads every time. Neither of us knows for sure, but my faith is more likely to be vindicated, because it is supported by more evidence (laws of probability, experience, etc).
I suppose another way of looking at this is faith is only as good as its object. I like the analogy of stepping out over a precipice to cross a huge canyon. There are two ways across. One is a rickety old rope bridge with rotting planks and frayed cords, and the other is a large highway supported by huge concrete pillars stretching all the way to the floor of the canyon. A friend and I are trying to get to the other side. He is a rather brave fellow and has always liked rope bridges, so he confidently sets out over the creaking planks. I am terrified of heights, and even though I'd rather not cross at all, we have somewhere we need to go, so I timidly pass down the center of the highway.
Who had more confidence in their bridge? Who was the one more likely to make it across alive? Faith is only as good as its object.
Faith in religion becomes a tricky matter because the stakes are much higher than coin flips or soda cans. Many people disagree over just what percentage the evidence covers in supporting any particular religion, but that only matters to intellectually-minded people who try to arrive at truth through reason.
Many "religious" people don't worry about evidence too much because for them, faith has covered all the gap that evidence will ever leave. The size of the gap doesn't matter. Intuition and feeling often trump reason. Also, in many cases, religions prize great faith, and great faith is more than capable of closing sizable gaps in evidence. This kind of thought process is why you will hear many people (even from contradicting religions) claim that they know theirs is "the right one." It's not that evidence has demonstrated it 100%, but rather that their faith has helped them reach the 100% to assert it with confidence.
Ok, so where does that leave us? If we can't have 100% evidence to be able to decide conclusively on any system of faith, why bother choosing one? Well, that option does remain open, and it's called agnosticism, a state of perpetual uncertainty on matters of faith. However, I would propose that agnosticism, the inability to place faith in any cohesive worldview, is in itself a choice, and perhaps the most foolish choice of all. We'll analyze agnosticism as well as some other worldviews in the next post...
Monday, April 23, 2012
Absolute Truth
Does it exist?
Yes.
If there's anything we can say with an extremely high degree of confidence, it's this. Per my original definition of truth, what we're saying is "there is absolutely an actual state of affairs."
Note what I'm not saying at this point. I'm not making any claims about God or morality or religion, or anything of the sort. I'm simply saying there is a state of affairs, and it applies to everyone, everywhere.
This might be easier to understand in the context of some more specific issues.
Take one I already mentioned--God. He either exists or he doesn't. To say he exists for some people but not others, or under some conditions but not others, doesn't make sense. There are only two discrete answers. He either is or isn't. We may have different opinions on what the correct answer is to this question, and we may have differing levels of confidence about what we think, but I don't think anyone would argue that there is a definite answer to this question. To say otherwise is to defy all conventions of human logic and reason.
Let's dissect further.
Analyze the claim this post is making: "There is absolute truth." Now consider the opposite: "There is no absolute truth."
There is no absolute truth. Really? Is that absolutely true? Think about it and you'll realize that statement in and of itself is an absolute truth claim. The statement is self-defeating--in other words, the claim and its premise(s) are in contradiction. It's like someone telling you "the word 'the' does not exist". You'd quickly respond with, "What are you talking about? You just used the word in attempting to say it didn't exist."
To say "there are no absolutes" is similarly self-defeating.
If you want to make a similar claim that would not be self-defeating, you could say: "The only absolute truth is this--there are no other absolute truths." Fair enough. That could be the case, but my original claim stands unscathed! (Plus, as we'll examine later, no one actually lives their lives in such a pervasive denial of absolutes...to do so would be hopelessly meaningless)
Can we know absolute truth?
No. Not absolutely, anyway.
I think this is where people get confused. With the advent of postmodernism we hear a lot of claims today like "there are no absolutes" or "true for you but not for me". As we established above, these types of statements are complete nonsense and illogical. I think the leg they stand on, though, is that although there must be truth and it must be absolute, we simply can't know it absolutely for sure.
Why not? Because we are finite beings with a finite capacity for thought and observation. For things external to ourselves, we base our conclusions on limited experience and a limited number of observations. Over a lifetime we develop knowledge of the patterns by which the world works, and we deduce certain outcomes based on that. Consider the following questions:
Was George Washington the first president of the United States?
Does the earth orbit the sun?
Will there still be humans living on Earth in a year?
No doubt you were able to answer all of these questions quickly and decisively. And, unless you think quite differently from me, you probably answered "yes" to all of them.
Yes, George Washington was the first president of the US. This is attested to by every credible historian and historical text, as well as documents dating back to that time period. Yes, the earth orbits the sun. We all studied the laws of Newton and Kepler which show why this must be so, and no scientist has questioned this since the laws became widely understood. Yes, there will still be humans living on Earth in a year. We've been around a long time and endured a lot of hardships, and there are seven billion of us now. I am hard-pressed to think of a force that could wipe every single one out that quickly.
If you are willing to play skeptic with me for a moment, though, I think you'll see that we base such obvious conclusions on probabilities and not absolute knowledge. In reality, we don't absolutely know the answers to any of these.
What if a massive ploy by revisionist historians created the persona of George Washington to give us a hero and sense of national pride while hiding a dark secret regarding our nation's founding? What if aliens abducted the man who was once known as George Washington and took his place to lead our country?
What if as-of-yet undiscovered scientific laws establish that the sun really does orbit the earth? After all, for thousands of years people thought the sun orbited the earth. All the evidence they had at the time seemed to point to that fact, until science made advances. How do we know science won't "advance" again and challenge our long-held preconceptions?
What if a new viral strain or infectious bacteria causes a catastrophic pandemic? What if a killer asteroid is lurking out in the darkness of space, on a collision course with Earth? What if the zombie apocalypse is imminent and we are all on the verge of being added to the ranks of the undead?
Ok, so all of these objections are unlikely--some are downright ludicrous--but to one degree or another they are all possible. Does that change my original answers to the questions? Not at all! I know with a high degree of certainty that all three questions can be answered in the affirmative, and I'm not going to spend my life so skeptical that I can't take highly probable assumptions at face value.
I should also clarify at this point that each of the three example questions has an absolute answer (Yes or No), it's only that we don't know what the answer is with absolute certainty. A relativist answer to whether George Washington was the first US president would be "he was for you, but Thomas Jefferson was the first for me". To which you respond, "What?!?! He either was for everyone, or he was for no one! Your answer doesn't even make sense!"
Conclusion
We've argued from logic that absolute truth must exist. However, we don't know anything of the nature of this truth.
We've also discovered that absolute truth cannot be known absolutely (perhaps the source of confusion for relativists) but can at best be known with a high degree of probability. This is true of most questions in life, but eventually we take many things with good evidence at face value, because as finite beings we don't have the time or energy to exhaust all of the evidence.
Yes.
If there's anything we can say with an extremely high degree of confidence, it's this. Per my original definition of truth, what we're saying is "there is absolutely an actual state of affairs."
Note what I'm not saying at this point. I'm not making any claims about God or morality or religion, or anything of the sort. I'm simply saying there is a state of affairs, and it applies to everyone, everywhere.
This might be easier to understand in the context of some more specific issues.
Take one I already mentioned--God. He either exists or he doesn't. To say he exists for some people but not others, or under some conditions but not others, doesn't make sense. There are only two discrete answers. He either is or isn't. We may have different opinions on what the correct answer is to this question, and we may have differing levels of confidence about what we think, but I don't think anyone would argue that there is a definite answer to this question. To say otherwise is to defy all conventions of human logic and reason.
Let's dissect further.
Analyze the claim this post is making: "There is absolute truth." Now consider the opposite: "There is no absolute truth."
There is no absolute truth. Really? Is that absolutely true? Think about it and you'll realize that statement in and of itself is an absolute truth claim. The statement is self-defeating--in other words, the claim and its premise(s) are in contradiction. It's like someone telling you "the word 'the' does not exist". You'd quickly respond with, "What are you talking about? You just used the word in attempting to say it didn't exist."
To say "there are no absolutes" is similarly self-defeating.
If you want to make a similar claim that would not be self-defeating, you could say: "The only absolute truth is this--there are no other absolute truths." Fair enough. That could be the case, but my original claim stands unscathed! (Plus, as we'll examine later, no one actually lives their lives in such a pervasive denial of absolutes...to do so would be hopelessly meaningless)
Can we know absolute truth?
No. Not absolutely, anyway.
I think this is where people get confused. With the advent of postmodernism we hear a lot of claims today like "there are no absolutes" or "true for you but not for me". As we established above, these types of statements are complete nonsense and illogical. I think the leg they stand on, though, is that although there must be truth and it must be absolute, we simply can't know it absolutely for sure.
Why not? Because we are finite beings with a finite capacity for thought and observation. For things external to ourselves, we base our conclusions on limited experience and a limited number of observations. Over a lifetime we develop knowledge of the patterns by which the world works, and we deduce certain outcomes based on that. Consider the following questions:
Was George Washington the first president of the United States?
Does the earth orbit the sun?
Will there still be humans living on Earth in a year?
No doubt you were able to answer all of these questions quickly and decisively. And, unless you think quite differently from me, you probably answered "yes" to all of them.
Yes, George Washington was the first president of the US. This is attested to by every credible historian and historical text, as well as documents dating back to that time period. Yes, the earth orbits the sun. We all studied the laws of Newton and Kepler which show why this must be so, and no scientist has questioned this since the laws became widely understood. Yes, there will still be humans living on Earth in a year. We've been around a long time and endured a lot of hardships, and there are seven billion of us now. I am hard-pressed to think of a force that could wipe every single one out that quickly.
If you are willing to play skeptic with me for a moment, though, I think you'll see that we base such obvious conclusions on probabilities and not absolute knowledge. In reality, we don't absolutely know the answers to any of these.
What if a massive ploy by revisionist historians created the persona of George Washington to give us a hero and sense of national pride while hiding a dark secret regarding our nation's founding? What if aliens abducted the man who was once known as George Washington and took his place to lead our country?
What if as-of-yet undiscovered scientific laws establish that the sun really does orbit the earth? After all, for thousands of years people thought the sun orbited the earth. All the evidence they had at the time seemed to point to that fact, until science made advances. How do we know science won't "advance" again and challenge our long-held preconceptions?
What if a new viral strain or infectious bacteria causes a catastrophic pandemic? What if a killer asteroid is lurking out in the darkness of space, on a collision course with Earth? What if the zombie apocalypse is imminent and we are all on the verge of being added to the ranks of the undead?
Ok, so all of these objections are unlikely--some are downright ludicrous--but to one degree or another they are all possible. Does that change my original answers to the questions? Not at all! I know with a high degree of certainty that all three questions can be answered in the affirmative, and I'm not going to spend my life so skeptical that I can't take highly probable assumptions at face value.
I should also clarify at this point that each of the three example questions has an absolute answer (Yes or No), it's only that we don't know what the answer is with absolute certainty. A relativist answer to whether George Washington was the first US president would be "he was for you, but Thomas Jefferson was the first for me". To which you respond, "What?!?! He either was for everyone, or he was for no one! Your answer doesn't even make sense!"
Conclusion
We've argued from logic that absolute truth must exist. However, we don't know anything of the nature of this truth.
We've also discovered that absolute truth cannot be known absolutely (perhaps the source of confusion for relativists) but can at best be known with a high degree of probability. This is true of most questions in life, but eventually we take many things with good evidence at face value, because as finite beings we don't have the time or energy to exhaust all of the evidence.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Can You Handle the Truth?
Jack Nicholson apparently doesn't think so!
Remember that scene from "A Few Good Men"? Tom Cruise plays the young lawyer investigating the murder of a US serviceman in Guantanamo Bay, and Jack Nicholoson plays the base commander, a colonel.
Nicholson is put on the stand as a witness and Cruise begins to question him rather pointedly, implying Nicholson might have been complicit in the events leading to the serviceman's death. Nicholson clearly becomes agitated and the exchange goes as follows:
Nicholson: You want answers?
Cruise: I feel I'm entitled to.
Nicholson: You want answers?
Cruise: I want the truth!
Nicholson: You can't handle the truth!
As it turns out, Nicholson was involved in the death of the serviceman. He furiously defends his actions even while being arrested for his confession on the witness stand.
I think this exchange bears special significance for our journey. What do you think Nicholson meant when he said "you can't handle the truth"? Have you ever stopped to think about it? I think, in essence, what he was saying is "The truth is not what you would expect. It's something you wouldn't understand and if I tried to explain it to you, you would reject it or misinterpret it. Your preconceived notions of the way the world works would give you such a bias that you wouldn't be able to see my point of view."
If you're familiar with the remainder of Nicholson's confession and how he justifies himself, I think this explanation makes sense.
So what about you? Can you handle the truth? What if it's not what you would expect? Are you approaching the question with such a bias that you're not even willing to consider opposing viewpoints? Do you take for granted that what you've always been told is true, for no other reason than that's what you've always been told? Have you personally investigated the evidence for your own worldview and that of others, to be sure you're actually on the right track?
I must admit this was a stumbling block for me in my own personal journey. My biggest fear was that I was biased and taking for granted what I had always been told. I know there are literally BILLIONS of other people out there who have a different worldview than mine. Are they all simply taking for granted what they've always been told or do they have good reasons for what they believe? The evidence seemed to be pointing me full circle to what I had always been told since a child, but I was worried my own bias was tainting the evidence so much that I wasn't being objective.
This is an important point. I've heard it said many ways but I'll word it like this: "the mind will find the evidence that the heart wants to follow." If you approach a search like this with too much subjectivity, you're going to find exactly what you want to find. If you're only reading the arguments made by others who share your worldview, you aren't getting the full story. You need to consider the best case that each worldview has to offer, then, examining the totality of the evidence, select the one that offers the most consistency and coherence.
Or I suppose you could reject everything that evidence and reason are pointing to, and believe what you want anyway. You have the freedom to do so.
Now is the time to leave ego and bias at the door. If you're not willing to do that, you might as well not read any further because you've already made up your mind.
Can you handle the truth?
Remember that scene from "A Few Good Men"? Tom Cruise plays the young lawyer investigating the murder of a US serviceman in Guantanamo Bay, and Jack Nicholoson plays the base commander, a colonel.
Nicholson is put on the stand as a witness and Cruise begins to question him rather pointedly, implying Nicholson might have been complicit in the events leading to the serviceman's death. Nicholson clearly becomes agitated and the exchange goes as follows:
Nicholson: You want answers?
Cruise: I feel I'm entitled to.
Nicholson: You want answers?
Cruise: I want the truth!
Nicholson: You can't handle the truth!
As it turns out, Nicholson was involved in the death of the serviceman. He furiously defends his actions even while being arrested for his confession on the witness stand.
I think this exchange bears special significance for our journey. What do you think Nicholson meant when he said "you can't handle the truth"? Have you ever stopped to think about it? I think, in essence, what he was saying is "The truth is not what you would expect. It's something you wouldn't understand and if I tried to explain it to you, you would reject it or misinterpret it. Your preconceived notions of the way the world works would give you such a bias that you wouldn't be able to see my point of view."
If you're familiar with the remainder of Nicholson's confession and how he justifies himself, I think this explanation makes sense.
So what about you? Can you handle the truth? What if it's not what you would expect? Are you approaching the question with such a bias that you're not even willing to consider opposing viewpoints? Do you take for granted that what you've always been told is true, for no other reason than that's what you've always been told? Have you personally investigated the evidence for your own worldview and that of others, to be sure you're actually on the right track?
I must admit this was a stumbling block for me in my own personal journey. My biggest fear was that I was biased and taking for granted what I had always been told. I know there are literally BILLIONS of other people out there who have a different worldview than mine. Are they all simply taking for granted what they've always been told or do they have good reasons for what they believe? The evidence seemed to be pointing me full circle to what I had always been told since a child, but I was worried my own bias was tainting the evidence so much that I wasn't being objective.
This is an important point. I've heard it said many ways but I'll word it like this: "the mind will find the evidence that the heart wants to follow." If you approach a search like this with too much subjectivity, you're going to find exactly what you want to find. If you're only reading the arguments made by others who share your worldview, you aren't getting the full story. You need to consider the best case that each worldview has to offer, then, examining the totality of the evidence, select the one that offers the most consistency and coherence.
Or I suppose you could reject everything that evidence and reason are pointing to, and believe what you want anyway. You have the freedom to do so.
Now is the time to leave ego and bias at the door. If you're not willing to do that, you might as well not read any further because you've already made up your mind.
Can you handle the truth?
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Introduction: Truth and Skepticism
What is truth?
If we're going to be embarking on a hunt for it, we would be wise to define what it is we're actually hunting for.
Put simply, truth is "the actual state of affairs". Not the desired state, nor even the apparent state, but the actual state. This is an important distinction to make and one with significant ramifications that we will unwrap in future posts.
What is a skeptic?
A skeptic is "someone who questions the validity of a purported fact" or "someone who maintains a doubting attitude". In my own words, I'll describe a skeptic as "someone who questions or doubts the truth of a matter". If you're coming to this blog questioning or doubting what the truth is and whether you can actually know it, then congratulations, you're a skeptic!
I consider myself a skeptical person. That isn't to say that I am skeptical to the point of not believing in anything. In fact, I do have a worldview and system of beliefs (everyone, religious or not, has a system of beliefs) that I like to feel are based on a reasonable evaluation of evidence. However, I am someone who continually questions the truth of matters. I won't take something as true from someone just because they say so--I need to see good evidence and reasoning to arrive at a conclusion.
I want to share with you how I came to the worldview that I now have. At the end of the day we all have to come to some sort of idea about the world, and ideas have consequences--we'll dig into that later. Skepticism to the point of believing in nothing is no way to live your life. If it was, you'd never sit in a chair (what if it breaks underneath me?), drive a car (what if I get in a wreck?), or love someone (what if they hurt me?). Complete skepticism is complete ineffectualness, so let's move away from complete skepticism and toward a more directed skepticism that asks the right questions and keeps them in the proper context.
To build a complete and coherent worldview is quite a journey, and I hope you have the patience to follow me the whole way. Most worthwhile things in life are not easy, and often they aren't simple either...though I think once I've constructed the whole worldview it will be simpler and more logical than you might expect.
The first leg of our journey concerns the issue of truth, and the myriad questions that tend to revolve around such a broad and crucial concept. Let's get started...
If we're going to be embarking on a hunt for it, we would be wise to define what it is we're actually hunting for.
Put simply, truth is "the actual state of affairs". Not the desired state, nor even the apparent state, but the actual state. This is an important distinction to make and one with significant ramifications that we will unwrap in future posts.
What is a skeptic?
A skeptic is "someone who questions the validity of a purported fact" or "someone who maintains a doubting attitude". In my own words, I'll describe a skeptic as "someone who questions or doubts the truth of a matter". If you're coming to this blog questioning or doubting what the truth is and whether you can actually know it, then congratulations, you're a skeptic!
I consider myself a skeptical person. That isn't to say that I am skeptical to the point of not believing in anything. In fact, I do have a worldview and system of beliefs (everyone, religious or not, has a system of beliefs) that I like to feel are based on a reasonable evaluation of evidence. However, I am someone who continually questions the truth of matters. I won't take something as true from someone just because they say so--I need to see good evidence and reasoning to arrive at a conclusion.
I want to share with you how I came to the worldview that I now have. At the end of the day we all have to come to some sort of idea about the world, and ideas have consequences--we'll dig into that later. Skepticism to the point of believing in nothing is no way to live your life. If it was, you'd never sit in a chair (what if it breaks underneath me?), drive a car (what if I get in a wreck?), or love someone (what if they hurt me?). Complete skepticism is complete ineffectualness, so let's move away from complete skepticism and toward a more directed skepticism that asks the right questions and keeps them in the proper context.
To build a complete and coherent worldview is quite a journey, and I hope you have the patience to follow me the whole way. Most worthwhile things in life are not easy, and often they aren't simple either...though I think once I've constructed the whole worldview it will be simpler and more logical than you might expect.
The first leg of our journey concerns the issue of truth, and the myriad questions that tend to revolve around such a broad and crucial concept. Let's get started...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)