Whether or not life has any purpose is a profoundly important question to answer. As conscious beings, the effect we have upon the world is dependent upon the choices we make and the actions we take. If life has a purpose, and yet we operate in ignorance of it, we run the risk of frustrating that purpose.
Those who believe that life has a purpose view the whole world fundamentally different from those who do not. Those who believe that life has a purpose believe that the universe is fundmamentally ordered. Those who believe there is no purpose believe that the universe is fundamentally chaotic. Observation can be used to support either view. When we look out into the cosmos, we see a universe of discrete objects - galaxies, stars, etc. Matter obeys a consistent set of laws. Everything has order. Yet entropy is a law that seems unbreakable, insisting that chaos constantly increases in the universe, never decreasing, thus guaranteeing an eventual fall into absolute chaos. What purpose could life have in a universe doomed for absolute chaos, and lifelessness? On the other hand, how could order currently exist if entropy was the whole of the law? The existence of order in the universe implies a purposeful creation. And if the universe has order and purpose, then so must self-aware life, arguably the most significant thing in existence.
Among other reasons, I must assume that life has a purpose, because if it does not, ther is no reason for philosophy or reason, or anything at all.
Basic Assumptions: Good and Evil
In the presence of all relevant facts, choices can be accurately and objectively denoted as good and/or evil. Good and evil is not a matter of opinion. Assessment of good or evil is a skill that can be honed to more accurately reflect the objective reality.
All of us recognize the difference between good and evil without being taught. What must be taught is the great value of doing good over the value of serving our lower natures. Guidance is also valuable as we learn to make fine distinctions in the relative value of good choices, and the relative cost of evil ones. This is especially important when every available option is both good and evil to some degree.
Certain things are rather easy. Taking the life of another is evil. There are times when we consider it to be justified, but even so, the killing itself is understood to be evil, and some other good that may come of the death is considered to outweigh the evil. It is in measuring the weight of some good against the weight of some evil where we contend with each other. The most difficult moral decisions are those in which the ratio of good to evil in each option seems very close to one.
One area where we often disagree passionately about what is the greater good or the greater evil, is abortion policy. The most passionate pro-choice advocate recognizes the value of the life of the unborn fetus, and the evil in destroying it. The most passionate pro-life advocate recognizes the value of a woman's freedom to choose, and the evil in taking it. The disagreement begins in the evaluation of how evil each alternative is. And there are many levels of cascading consequences that result of whatever choice might be made. We might consider the quality of life or degree of happiness that child might enjoy or suffer. We might consider the effect of the potential life on other lives to which the child would be closely tied. We might consider how each policy will affect the health of women. We might consider a woman's level of competency in making such a decision under the influence of pregnancy hormones. Each of these things has a weight that affects the overall decision.
In any choice, if we knew and understood more, we could discern more clearly the values of each aspect of the choice and the weight of the good and evil that would be done. The less we understand, the less accurate will be our perceptions of the relative weights of good against evil. It stands to reason then, that if we knew everything, if we were omniscient, we could perfectly discern the weight of good and evil in each possible option. No matter how small the difference in value, we could determine with certainty which choice is best, with perfect objectivity.
Therefore, good and evil is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of knowledge and understanding. There is always one greatest moral option. If we wish to do good, our quest is to discover that correct choice, and make that choice. If we simply choose what we want, and try to justify our choice after the fact, we are playing an entirely different sort of game.
All of us recognize the difference between good and evil without being taught. What must be taught is the great value of doing good over the value of serving our lower natures. Guidance is also valuable as we learn to make fine distinctions in the relative value of good choices, and the relative cost of evil ones. This is especially important when every available option is both good and evil to some degree.
Certain things are rather easy. Taking the life of another is evil. There are times when we consider it to be justified, but even so, the killing itself is understood to be evil, and some other good that may come of the death is considered to outweigh the evil. It is in measuring the weight of some good against the weight of some evil where we contend with each other. The most difficult moral decisions are those in which the ratio of good to evil in each option seems very close to one.
One area where we often disagree passionately about what is the greater good or the greater evil, is abortion policy. The most passionate pro-choice advocate recognizes the value of the life of the unborn fetus, and the evil in destroying it. The most passionate pro-life advocate recognizes the value of a woman's freedom to choose, and the evil in taking it. The disagreement begins in the evaluation of how evil each alternative is. And there are many levels of cascading consequences that result of whatever choice might be made. We might consider the quality of life or degree of happiness that child might enjoy or suffer. We might consider the effect of the potential life on other lives to which the child would be closely tied. We might consider how each policy will affect the health of women. We might consider a woman's level of competency in making such a decision under the influence of pregnancy hormones. Each of these things has a weight that affects the overall decision.
In any choice, if we knew and understood more, we could discern more clearly the values of each aspect of the choice and the weight of the good and evil that would be done. The less we understand, the less accurate will be our perceptions of the relative weights of good against evil. It stands to reason then, that if we knew everything, if we were omniscient, we could perfectly discern the weight of good and evil in each possible option. No matter how small the difference in value, we could determine with certainty which choice is best, with perfect objectivity.
Therefore, good and evil is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of knowledge and understanding. There is always one greatest moral option. If we wish to do good, our quest is to discover that correct choice, and make that choice. If we simply choose what we want, and try to justify our choice after the fact, we are playing an entirely different sort of game.
Basic Assumptions: The Nature of Humanity
God created us in His image and sent us here to a world of imperfection. Thus, humans have a dual nature. They tend to strive for the divine, doing what is right, loving and being selfless. And they tend to be selfish, do wrong, and give in to the lower animal-like instincts of this fallen world.
Why I hold this to be true is deeply tied to my first-hand knowledge of God, and the knowledge that He has delivered to this world. But this is a belief and understanding held by many with vastly different belief systems - even purely secular ones. This concept of the dual nature of man is an archetype that even atheist philosophers recognize and embrace.
I post this here as a root assumption, because so much that is to be understood of people and society depends on understanding what their most basic motivations are. These two are primary.
Why I hold this to be true is deeply tied to my first-hand knowledge of God, and the knowledge that He has delivered to this world. But this is a belief and understanding held by many with vastly different belief systems - even purely secular ones. This concept of the dual nature of man is an archetype that even atheist philosophers recognize and embrace.
I post this here as a root assumption, because so much that is to be understood of people and society depends on understanding what their most basic motivations are. These two are primary.
Basic Assumptions: There Is a God
I cannot prove to you that there is a God. You cannot prove that there is no God. We cannot even establish one belief or the other as substantially implausible in any objective sense, although many try. I will probably, from time to time, dedicate time to debunking some of the more popular or common attempts to disprove God, but I am not likely to spend much time trying to prove that He exists.
I will say this: For myself, I know for certain that God does exist, because I relate to him directly and indirectly on a regular basis. I know that anyone who believes He does not exist is mistaken, because I have insider knowledge, but I cannot copy this knowledge into other minds.
In some ways, knowing God can be a bit like having met Big Foot out in woods. Let's say he invited you over to his den in a mountain cave, and you met his family, eventually learned his language, and know how to reach him any time you're in the neighborhood. But the thing is, Big Foot is shy. If you bring a skeptical friend, Big Foot's not going to show up. That's just the way he rolls. Well, understandably, a lot of people are going to find your story implausible. They don't think Big Foot exists. I mean, the only supposed pictures are really fuzzy, and could just as well be a guy in a big ape suit. And we can point to certain pieces of "evidence" of Big Foot, and clearly show that they were hoaxes propagated by mischievous people. And so on.
If you told me your story, I wouldn't believe you. It would only hurt your credibility with me. Even if you have a few friends that back up your story, and have been there with you, I would strongly suspect that I was being scammed, because the thing is, I know of several others who say the same sorts of things, who are clearly nut cases. The bottom line is that I have a lot of good reasons to believe that Big Foot is a hoax.
But what if it all really had happened? What if you really had experienced those things?
I know this being we call God, our Father in Heaven. If you don't believe me, call me a liar. But I try to sustain a very high level of integrity, as do many many people who make this very same claim. If you are still a doubter, I hope you will eventually see enough reason to doubt your doubts, because the truth can set you free in ways that you can't imagine.
I will say this: For myself, I know for certain that God does exist, because I relate to him directly and indirectly on a regular basis. I know that anyone who believes He does not exist is mistaken, because I have insider knowledge, but I cannot copy this knowledge into other minds.
In some ways, knowing God can be a bit like having met Big Foot out in woods. Let's say he invited you over to his den in a mountain cave, and you met his family, eventually learned his language, and know how to reach him any time you're in the neighborhood. But the thing is, Big Foot is shy. If you bring a skeptical friend, Big Foot's not going to show up. That's just the way he rolls. Well, understandably, a lot of people are going to find your story implausible. They don't think Big Foot exists. I mean, the only supposed pictures are really fuzzy, and could just as well be a guy in a big ape suit. And we can point to certain pieces of "evidence" of Big Foot, and clearly show that they were hoaxes propagated by mischievous people. And so on.
If you told me your story, I wouldn't believe you. It would only hurt your credibility with me. Even if you have a few friends that back up your story, and have been there with you, I would strongly suspect that I was being scammed, because the thing is, I know of several others who say the same sorts of things, who are clearly nut cases. The bottom line is that I have a lot of good reasons to believe that Big Foot is a hoax.
But what if it all really had happened? What if you really had experienced those things?
I know this being we call God, our Father in Heaven. If you don't believe me, call me a liar. But I try to sustain a very high level of integrity, as do many many people who make this very same claim. If you are still a doubter, I hope you will eventually see enough reason to doubt your doubts, because the truth can set you free in ways that you can't imagine.
Basic Assumptions: Only One Objective Truth
It should be obvious enough to say that if something is true, then something contradictory cannot simultaneously be true. People understand this on a logical level, but when it comes to philosophical and religious questions, more and more people are willing to believe that I can have my truth while you have your truth. This is ridiculous. Even if I make a statement like “Green is better than yellow,” it is understood that green is not really objectively better than yellow. What I’m really saying is that I prefer green to yellow. If it could accurately be said that as a matter of fact green really is better than yellow, then that would be that. Another person could not come in and say that yellow is better. One person or the other must be wrong. And in this case, we can see that both are wrong, because this is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
Some people point to the quantum principle of superposition as evidence that two things can simultaneously be true. This argument is evidence that they do not understand superposition. The theoretical principle states that a particle exists both in state A and state B simultaneously until the point of measurement, at which time, the particle then exists in one state or the other. Assuming this is a true principle, there is still only one truth – the particle exists in state A and state B simultaneously. It would be false to say that it exists in state A only, or in state B only. When the particle is about to be measured, we can each place our bet on what state it will be in; maybe you say state A and I say state B. But when the measurement takes place, one of us will be wrong. There is only one truth.
Why would this change in matters of philosophy and religion? If a thing is true, it does not change depending on our perspective or belief. If, for example, in reality, it was true, that there was a deity named Prometheus who visited the Greeks several thousand years ago and taught them how to use fire, then, regardless of whether we can find proof of it, that’s what happened. It doesn’t matter whether you think it happened or not. It was a historical event. Likewise, if it didn’t happen, no amount of belief will change that. Prometheus didn’t somehow visit the Greeks in my reality, but not in yours. Your reality and mine are the same.
Why do people say that it is possible for something to be true for one and false for another? It is a weak attempt at making peace between groups who believe in incongruent stories. You have two groups arguing over facts that are important to them. Both parties passionately believe something absolutely false on the matter. But because they cannot be dissuaded from their lies with any amount of effort, and the disagreement causes disharmony, eventually, some have decided that the higher road is to hand them another lie to hang on to, a lie which allows an exit from the argument without requiring an actual resolution – both parties can be right in their own subjective view. Sadly, this takes us even further from the truth than we were in an irresolvable argument. The important fact to recognize is that people get upset in such arguments precisely because discerning the truth on such matters is terribly important. Rather than trade the noble pursuit of higher truth for an illusion of rightness, we need to be willing to trade our false conceptions for the truth, in spite of our fears.
A statement such as “Your God is real to you and my God is real to me,” is untenable in objective reality. It only approaches sensibility if we try to relegate the question to a matter of opinion or preference. Essentially, what this statement implies in that sense is that the whole question is so meaningless or absurd that it doesn’t matter in the slightest what you believe about it. To me, this seems even more insulting than a heated argument over the matter. The other possible implication is that reality is not real, that perhaps we are each just dreaming our own dreams, which happen to intersect at this point. I have already written what I will about the idea that reality isn’t real in a previous post.
Some people point to the quantum principle of superposition as evidence that two things can simultaneously be true. This argument is evidence that they do not understand superposition. The theoretical principle states that a particle exists both in state A and state B simultaneously until the point of measurement, at which time, the particle then exists in one state or the other. Assuming this is a true principle, there is still only one truth – the particle exists in state A and state B simultaneously. It would be false to say that it exists in state A only, or in state B only. When the particle is about to be measured, we can each place our bet on what state it will be in; maybe you say state A and I say state B. But when the measurement takes place, one of us will be wrong. There is only one truth.
Why would this change in matters of philosophy and religion? If a thing is true, it does not change depending on our perspective or belief. If, for example, in reality, it was true, that there was a deity named Prometheus who visited the Greeks several thousand years ago and taught them how to use fire, then, regardless of whether we can find proof of it, that’s what happened. It doesn’t matter whether you think it happened or not. It was a historical event. Likewise, if it didn’t happen, no amount of belief will change that. Prometheus didn’t somehow visit the Greeks in my reality, but not in yours. Your reality and mine are the same.
Why do people say that it is possible for something to be true for one and false for another? It is a weak attempt at making peace between groups who believe in incongruent stories. You have two groups arguing over facts that are important to them. Both parties passionately believe something absolutely false on the matter. But because they cannot be dissuaded from their lies with any amount of effort, and the disagreement causes disharmony, eventually, some have decided that the higher road is to hand them another lie to hang on to, a lie which allows an exit from the argument without requiring an actual resolution – both parties can be right in their own subjective view. Sadly, this takes us even further from the truth than we were in an irresolvable argument. The important fact to recognize is that people get upset in such arguments precisely because discerning the truth on such matters is terribly important. Rather than trade the noble pursuit of higher truth for an illusion of rightness, we need to be willing to trade our false conceptions for the truth, in spite of our fears.
A statement such as “Your God is real to you and my God is real to me,” is untenable in objective reality. It only approaches sensibility if we try to relegate the question to a matter of opinion or preference. Essentially, what this statement implies in that sense is that the whole question is so meaningless or absurd that it doesn’t matter in the slightest what you believe about it. To me, this seems even more insulting than a heated argument over the matter. The other possible implication is that reality is not real, that perhaps we are each just dreaming our own dreams, which happen to intersect at this point. I have already written what I will about the idea that reality isn’t real in a previous post.
Basic Assumptions: Coherent Reality
The world around us is real and consistent. I don’t have much to say on this topic. The idea that reason is reasonable, logic is logical, reality is real, and observation is generally valid is an assumption I’m willing to make. I can’t demonstrate the reasonableness of this assumption from any platform other than the assumption itself. If you want to challenge any of my philosophy based on the invalidity of this assumption, I guess I would just have to say, don’t bother, because I’m not interested in spending much of my time talking to crazy people.
Basic Assumptions: We Are Not Alone
We can each individually run the mind experiment Descartes discovered quite easily: "I think; therefore I am." We can each observe our own thinking and questioning minds and recognize that because we have a subjective, conscious mental experience, that very experience is solid proof of our own existence, but there can be no similar proof of the existence of others around us. It is theoretically possible that they are all in our imagination, part of a world that exists only in our mind. What if we are the only truly real thing? Well, first of all, if you really believe that no one else in the world is truly a conscious thinking being, then you have an acute case of megalomania. We know such people are crazy because each of us can prove for ourselves that their belief is flawed, by observing our own conscious existence. But we can't prove that to the deranged person.
Nothing can be proven completely other than our own existence without making some basic assumption. In fact, even belief in Descartes’ proof requires a presupposed faith in logic. So how do we make the leap to an assumption that others exist? We have to change our question. Rather than asking what we can prove, we must settle on what is reasonable. Socrates is correct in stating that we can’t really know much of anything for certain. But we might as well move forward with some pretty good guesses and act on them. A life sitting around drooling isn’t very useful or exciting.
If we are going to make an assumption on the existence of others outside of ourselves, what is reasonable? What is functional, or useful to us? I think you could make a case that believing that others don’t really exist could have a limited function. It justifies a person doing whatever they want. He could enjoy a limited sociopathic frenzy of extreme self indulgence, which brings a limited sense of satisfaction. Of course this cannot be sustained for long because eventually he must face the consequences that others will impose upon him. Far more functional of course, is recognizing that others have thoughts and feelings just like you. By recognizing this, we can treat them in ways which will generate good will toward us. It makes our lives happier to follow the Golden Rule.
Similarly, when we recognize that treating people well generates a positive reaction, that leads us to the conclusion that the other people are conscious beings like us. Otherwise, why are they reacting that way? Who shall we suggest is controlling their behavior, if not themselves? If people are in your imagination, you should be able to control their behavior on some level without having to modify your own behavior. If some part of you controls them, which is so unconscious that you cannot access it, well, that might as well be another person. In any case, if some other being is controlling the people around you, then you are interacting with that other being through them. So in essence, this is equivalent to them being real people. Therefore it is both reasonable and functional to believe that other people are really thinking conscious beings like us. The contrary is absurd.
Most of you reading this may find it absurd that we need bother discussing such an issue at all, but the modern rise of atheism demands the discussion of the absurd. Look up references to philosophical zombies (different from the undead in movies) for more information. Here are a few references I have found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1661
Nothing can be proven completely other than our own existence without making some basic assumption. In fact, even belief in Descartes’ proof requires a presupposed faith in logic. So how do we make the leap to an assumption that others exist? We have to change our question. Rather than asking what we can prove, we must settle on what is reasonable. Socrates is correct in stating that we can’t really know much of anything for certain. But we might as well move forward with some pretty good guesses and act on them. A life sitting around drooling isn’t very useful or exciting.
If we are going to make an assumption on the existence of others outside of ourselves, what is reasonable? What is functional, or useful to us? I think you could make a case that believing that others don’t really exist could have a limited function. It justifies a person doing whatever they want. He could enjoy a limited sociopathic frenzy of extreme self indulgence, which brings a limited sense of satisfaction. Of course this cannot be sustained for long because eventually he must face the consequences that others will impose upon him. Far more functional of course, is recognizing that others have thoughts and feelings just like you. By recognizing this, we can treat them in ways which will generate good will toward us. It makes our lives happier to follow the Golden Rule.
Similarly, when we recognize that treating people well generates a positive reaction, that leads us to the conclusion that the other people are conscious beings like us. Otherwise, why are they reacting that way? Who shall we suggest is controlling their behavior, if not themselves? If people are in your imagination, you should be able to control their behavior on some level without having to modify your own behavior. If some part of you controls them, which is so unconscious that you cannot access it, well, that might as well be another person. In any case, if some other being is controlling the people around you, then you are interacting with that other being through them. So in essence, this is equivalent to them being real people. Therefore it is both reasonable and functional to believe that other people are really thinking conscious beings like us. The contrary is absurd.
Most of you reading this may find it absurd that we need bother discussing such an issue at all, but the modern rise of atheism demands the discussion of the absurd. Look up references to philosophical zombies (different from the undead in movies) for more information. Here are a few references I have found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1661
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)