For quite some time I have been thinking about questions regarding meaning, purpose, and value. Ever since I became an atheist back in 2009 I've been operating under the assumption that we have to make our own meaning. It wasn't until this year however that the implications of this really unpacked themselves for me.
During much discussion amongst friends, and in a group that I'm part of at my university, on the topic of morality I came to realise that I am a moral nihilist. I don't think moral facts exist. Morality to me is a useful fiction that allows society to function as a cohesive unit. I even gave a presentation to the group (we regularly hold academic lectures after class time at university, usually from guest speakers, though I gave this talk) on the topic of morality and the is/ought problem. The video of the presentation will be uploaded to youtube soon, and I'll post it here when it is. The crux of my presentation was that morality simply cannot be objective, and to suggest that it is seems like a category error. Morality isn't the kind of thing that can be objective, moral propositions aren't the kind of things that can be true or false, they are something else.
That aside, acknowledging my moral nihilism caused me to look further into nihilism. I realised that I had never really understood what nihilism actually was. I fell for the common misconception that nihilists were people who didn't believe in, or care about anything. This simply isn't the case, it's a caricature of the position. Nihilism is, and always has been the rejection of any inherent meaning, purpose, or value in life or the universe. At this stage I'm uncertain whether I'm willing to go so far as to reject the possibility of knowledge, though I am willing to concede that all of our knowledge of the physical universe is at a base level, drawing off assumptions and intuitions. Take for example the idea that we can trust our perceptions, and that the data we collect about the physical world is real. These cannot be proven, they are simply brute assumptions we have to accept on an intuitive level, though they seem to be useful.
My actual moral positions have not changed as a result of this revelation however. With the possible exception of a heightened sense of (subjective!) value for meaningful self-determination. My nihilism didn't arise out of pessimism, though I certainly express a considerable amount of pessimism at the idea of human progress, but that can wait till another time.
Think about it. I certainly will.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Absurdity of Christ
Today I want to explore the supposed purpose behind the message of Christ. The main message, blood sacrifice, not any of the other things like moral teaching or anything like that. We are told that Christ came to earth to die for our sins, so we can be reconciled to God. One could dispute the concept of sin and would be justified in doing so, I think the concept is meaningless but it distracts us from the more important issue of the actual atonement. I wish to argue that the concept of blood sacrifice and substitutional punishment is outdated, barbaric and illogical.
Firstly, the idea bloodshed will pay for wrongdoings assumes that the god in question desires blood. Believing in the god of the philosophers does not get you to this position. Admittedly, the god of the old testament is such a god, in fact there are passages such as Exodus 29:18 which explicitly state that the smell of burnt flesh is a pleasing odour to God. However this is not the god that modern Christians actually believe in. If it were, then Christians would still be engaging in the practice of burnt sacrifices, not to atone for the sins, because God killed himself in human form for that, but because they would believe it to be pleasing to god. After all, isn't that the reason Christians sing songs of praise to God? To please him?
The idea is outdated because it has no relevance to the modern conceptions of justice. Evangelists like Ray Comfort like to use the following analogy:
You commit a crime, the punishment for which is monetary compensation. Someone else pays your fine for you and you are let off the hook. They claim that the execution of Jesus does the same thing, you committed the crime of existing, and for it you deserve to die, Jesus was executed instead of you, so you are let off the hook. Is justice done in either of these cases? I contend that it is not, in fact that to allow such an event to take place would rather be a perversion of justice, yet Christians want you to believe that this is perfect justice.
Let me also try a logical reconstruction of the Christian theory of atonement as I see it. This is possibly an over-simplification, but it should suffice for my purposes here.
1. You trespassed God
2. Trespassing God deserves death
3. Jesus was killed instead of you
Therefore
C. You are no longer culpable for your actions.
It should be quite plain that such an argument is logically invalid as it is currently written above. In order to make the conclusion follow from the premises, a fourth suppressed premise would need to be added.
1. You trespassed God
2. Trespassing God deserves death
3. Jesus was killed instead of you
[4. Any person who has not trespassed God and is killed in the place of another removes the accountability of the guilty person to their actions]
Therefore
C. You are no longer culpable for your actions.
When it is expressed in this way it becomes quite apparent that such a principle is a blatant perversion of justice. If the same principle was applied in society toward its legal system, the entire social structure would likely collapse, as many innocent, honest persons would be imprisoned or killed, while many manipulative and sociopathic individuals would roam free.
Aside from that extremely contentious suppressed premise I think that premises 1 through 3 are not legitimate either. More than that, I think they cannot be established to be legitimate, they are things which we can only ever be in the dark about (assuming that it's impossible to prove God does not exist).
So in conclusion to all of that, I maintain that the message of Christ is absurd. It is outdated, barbaric and without reasonable support. The conclusions of the atonement will only be seen as viable by those who have already committed belief in Christianity. Perhaps it is possible to formulate a more cogent explanation of the atonement, but I suspect that it too will suffer from many of the same failings as my example.
Firstly, the idea bloodshed will pay for wrongdoings assumes that the god in question desires blood. Believing in the god of the philosophers does not get you to this position. Admittedly, the god of the old testament is such a god, in fact there are passages such as Exodus 29:18 which explicitly state that the smell of burnt flesh is a pleasing odour to God. However this is not the god that modern Christians actually believe in. If it were, then Christians would still be engaging in the practice of burnt sacrifices, not to atone for the sins, because God killed himself in human form for that, but because they would believe it to be pleasing to god. After all, isn't that the reason Christians sing songs of praise to God? To please him?
The idea is outdated because it has no relevance to the modern conceptions of justice. Evangelists like Ray Comfort like to use the following analogy:
You commit a crime, the punishment for which is monetary compensation. Someone else pays your fine for you and you are let off the hook. They claim that the execution of Jesus does the same thing, you committed the crime of existing, and for it you deserve to die, Jesus was executed instead of you, so you are let off the hook. Is justice done in either of these cases? I contend that it is not, in fact that to allow such an event to take place would rather be a perversion of justice, yet Christians want you to believe that this is perfect justice.
Let me also try a logical reconstruction of the Christian theory of atonement as I see it. This is possibly an over-simplification, but it should suffice for my purposes here.
1. You trespassed God
2. Trespassing God deserves death
3. Jesus was killed instead of you
Therefore
C. You are no longer culpable for your actions.
It should be quite plain that such an argument is logically invalid as it is currently written above. In order to make the conclusion follow from the premises, a fourth suppressed premise would need to be added.
1. You trespassed God
2. Trespassing God deserves death
3. Jesus was killed instead of you
[4. Any person who has not trespassed God and is killed in the place of another removes the accountability of the guilty person to their actions]
Therefore
C. You are no longer culpable for your actions.
When it is expressed in this way it becomes quite apparent that such a principle is a blatant perversion of justice. If the same principle was applied in society toward its legal system, the entire social structure would likely collapse, as many innocent, honest persons would be imprisoned or killed, while many manipulative and sociopathic individuals would roam free.
Aside from that extremely contentious suppressed premise I think that premises 1 through 3 are not legitimate either. More than that, I think they cannot be established to be legitimate, they are things which we can only ever be in the dark about (assuming that it's impossible to prove God does not exist).
So in conclusion to all of that, I maintain that the message of Christ is absurd. It is outdated, barbaric and without reasonable support. The conclusions of the atonement will only be seen as viable by those who have already committed belief in Christianity. Perhaps it is possible to formulate a more cogent explanation of the atonement, but I suspect that it too will suffer from many of the same failings as my example.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
God is Not a 'Necessary Being'
It is my contention that a Creator God is not a necessary being; in fact a Creator God would in some sense (or at least some attributes of God) be contingent. I’ll try to explain. Note, I am not addressing the ontological argument here, as I think that would be a facile victory. As far as I'm aware Anselm's ontological argument and its variants are generally ignored these days.
In the general logical form:
1.If P then Q
2.P
Therefore,
C.Q
the argument has it that P is sufficient for Q to be true, and Q is necessary for P to be true. I’ll give an example argument
Example 1:
1.If Bob drinks Beer, then he becomes drunk.
2. Bob drank Beer,
Therefore,
C. Bob became drunk
In the first premise, becoming drunk is the necessary effect of Bob drinking beer. This is a valid logical structure, and given that the premises are true, the conclusion is entailed. However it is not the case that if Bob is drunk, then he must have consumed some beer, he could have consumed rum. In this case, we can say that drinking beer is a sufficient cause for Bob being drunk, but it not a necessary cause.
If we inverted the argument's structure so as to try and work backwards from the drunken state to draw the conclusion that Bob drank beer, it would be an invalid argument. It would fail logically.
Example 2:
1. If Bob drinks Beer, then he becomes drunk.
2. Bob is drunk
Therefore,
C. Bob drank beer
This is a bad argument, so let's apply this to gods.
Example 3:
1. If a creator god exists, then a universe exists.
2. A creator god exists
Therefore,
C. A universe exists
In the first premise, the creation is the necessary effect of a creator god existing. The creator god is merely a sufficient cause of the universe existing, but not a necessary one. This means that at least in some sense, that the creator god is contingent on the existence of the universe. In order for it to be a creator god, it must have engaged in an act of creation, which means that before this 'time' it was not a creator god. A possible contradiction between theistic belief and the bible amigo? That can be a discussion for another time though.
Like in the first example, it is a valid logical structure, and given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true. Similarly, if we try to invert the argument to work backwards from the existence of the creation/universe to prove the existence of the creator god, we encounter logical failure.
Example 4:
1. If a creator god exists, then a universe exists.
2. The universe exists
Therefore,
C. A creator god exists.
This is a bad argument, and it is very similar to arguments that try to establish a god as a 'necessary being'. These arguments are deceptive and should be exposed whenever used.
People like William Lane Craig know this, which is why he opts to use the Kalam Cosmological argument, which does have a valid logical structure, but rests on deceptive or demonstrably false premises. It is my contention that what theists actually engage in is closer to Example 4. They work from the existence of the universe, and under their belief system, their god would have created this universe, and arrive at their predetermined conclusion.
In the general logical form:
1.If P then Q
2.P
Therefore,
C.Q
the argument has it that P is sufficient for Q to be true, and Q is necessary for P to be true. I’ll give an example argument
Example 1:
1.If Bob drinks Beer, then he becomes drunk.
2. Bob drank Beer,
Therefore,
C. Bob became drunk
In the first premise, becoming drunk is the necessary effect of Bob drinking beer. This is a valid logical structure, and given that the premises are true, the conclusion is entailed. However it is not the case that if Bob is drunk, then he must have consumed some beer, he could have consumed rum. In this case, we can say that drinking beer is a sufficient cause for Bob being drunk, but it not a necessary cause.
If we inverted the argument's structure so as to try and work backwards from the drunken state to draw the conclusion that Bob drank beer, it would be an invalid argument. It would fail logically.
Example 2:
1. If Bob drinks Beer, then he becomes drunk.
2. Bob is drunk
Therefore,
C. Bob drank beer
This is a bad argument, so let's apply this to gods.
Example 3:
1. If a creator god exists, then a universe exists.
2. A creator god exists
Therefore,
C. A universe exists
In the first premise, the creation is the necessary effect of a creator god existing. The creator god is merely a sufficient cause of the universe existing, but not a necessary one. This means that at least in some sense, that the creator god is contingent on the existence of the universe. In order for it to be a creator god, it must have engaged in an act of creation, which means that before this 'time' it was not a creator god. A possible contradiction between theistic belief and the bible amigo? That can be a discussion for another time though.
Like in the first example, it is a valid logical structure, and given the truth of the premises, the conclusion must be true. Similarly, if we try to invert the argument to work backwards from the existence of the creation/universe to prove the existence of the creator god, we encounter logical failure.
Example 4:
1. If a creator god exists, then a universe exists.
2. The universe exists
Therefore,
C. A creator god exists.
This is a bad argument, and it is very similar to arguments that try to establish a god as a 'necessary being'. These arguments are deceptive and should be exposed whenever used.
People like William Lane Craig know this, which is why he opts to use the Kalam Cosmological argument, which does have a valid logical structure, but rests on deceptive or demonstrably false premises. It is my contention that what theists actually engage in is closer to Example 4. They work from the existence of the universe, and under their belief system, their god would have created this universe, and arrive at their predetermined conclusion.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Critical Thinking and Statistics
I discovered as I was enrolling for my university courses for 2012 in December last year that I was missing a prerequisite course (statistics) for one of my first semester classes (ecology). I decided to enroll in summer school (I live in the southern hemisphere remember), and to make the most of it I took a philosophy course in critical thinking as well. I wasn't really thinking of the applications of these two disciplines when I enrolled in them, but once I started attending lectures I realised that these two areas of study are perhaps two of the most important things anyone can have a solid grounding in.
I'm not sure about highschools everywhere, but when I was in highschool, there was no philosophy (let alone logic or critical thinking) taught at all and statistics was an elective class one could opt to take in 6th form (age 16-17). I am almost certain that if everybody had at least some grounding in critical thinking and statistics as teenagers, society as a whole would be a more intelligent place. People would be better equipped to deflect bad arguments and to not be duped by deceptive statistics used frequently in marketing.
I'm not sure about highschools everywhere, but when I was in highschool, there was no philosophy (let alone logic or critical thinking) taught at all and statistics was an elective class one could opt to take in 6th form (age 16-17). I am almost certain that if everybody had at least some grounding in critical thinking and statistics as teenagers, society as a whole would be a more intelligent place. People would be better equipped to deflect bad arguments and to not be duped by deceptive statistics used frequently in marketing.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Faith and Intuition
Many Christians laud faith as a virtue, and value intuition and gut feelings as confirmation of their beliefs. I reject all of this as unreliable, and it is my goal to elucidate why.
I will start by defining what I mean by faith, and then respond to some theistic uses of it. I accept the definition of faith in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. So the atheistic definition that 'faith is belief without evidence' is accurate to the definition found in Hebrews. If Christians wish to dispute this they should take it up with the New Testament canon and the anonymous author of the epistle, not with us.
When dialoguing with Christians, I am often scolded for not giving faith a chance and that I'm dogmatically accepting scientific naturalism. I would like to point out that I did give faith a chance, I was raised on faith. I consciously followed the Christian faith and bought into its conclusions for years. I read apologetics and debated online with atheists for about 4 years before jumping ship. I also do not dogmatically accept anything. If it became apparent that scientific naturalism was not producing intellectual progress or contributing to the wealth of knowledge that furthers the advancement of our species, I would abandon it just as I abandoned by former religion. The thing is though, that scientific naturalism is making progress, and we are constantly finding out more and more about the world we live in by scientific methods.
The other common thing that I hear from the Christians that I discuss/debate with is that they think faith is a path to knowledge. This is usually coupled with the two statements in the previous paragraph. When I have asked how faith is a path to knowledge, I am only ever met with distractions and diversions. I don't see the connection between faith as defined in Hebrews and knowledge. How can you learn something from having confidence in what you hope for, or from having assurance about what you don't see? In every aspect of my life I learn things by examining the world around me, or by listening, reading or doing things. I have never learned anything by believing something a priori, without evidence. In fact I contend that doing so is the antithesis of learning, and only takes away from potential knowledge, rather than contributing to it as my theist friends insist. On top of the dodging of this question, I have never received an acceptable answer when I ask what knowledge faith has given them. If as they say faith is an alternative path to knowledge than the rational methods I apply, then surely they could point to an example of knowledge that has been revealed by faith? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
When the issue of morality arises I am met constantly with the view that God instils moral values into our intuitions, or something akin to it. No amount of sociological, evolutionary or neuro-scientific reasoning seems to be able to convince them that intuitions are not reliable ways to know anything. Moral ideas are largely the product of cultural conditioning, and many intuitions come from our evolutionary heritage and are explicable by natural, hormonal or neural means. We have learned so much about how our brain works and the natural world we live in, and as a result we can correct for errors in our cognition and intuition. Similarly, we can correct moral beliefs that are conditioned into us from cultural or evolutionary heritage. Pointing to moral intuition is not a cogent argument for the existence of God, as our moral intuitions are constantly changing as a result of cultural change. Our intuitions and gut feelings are useful tools in every day life, as we often can not afford the time to sit and think rationally about every decision we make, but we must also realise that they are often error-prone and sometimes flat out wrong. If you think God exists because you have a gut feeling that something exists out there it is my opinion that this is but another example of cognitive failure.
I will start by defining what I mean by faith, and then respond to some theistic uses of it. I accept the definition of faith in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. So the atheistic definition that 'faith is belief without evidence' is accurate to the definition found in Hebrews. If Christians wish to dispute this they should take it up with the New Testament canon and the anonymous author of the epistle, not with us.
When dialoguing with Christians, I am often scolded for not giving faith a chance and that I'm dogmatically accepting scientific naturalism. I would like to point out that I did give faith a chance, I was raised on faith. I consciously followed the Christian faith and bought into its conclusions for years. I read apologetics and debated online with atheists for about 4 years before jumping ship. I also do not dogmatically accept anything. If it became apparent that scientific naturalism was not producing intellectual progress or contributing to the wealth of knowledge that furthers the advancement of our species, I would abandon it just as I abandoned by former religion. The thing is though, that scientific naturalism is making progress, and we are constantly finding out more and more about the world we live in by scientific methods.
The other common thing that I hear from the Christians that I discuss/debate with is that they think faith is a path to knowledge. This is usually coupled with the two statements in the previous paragraph. When I have asked how faith is a path to knowledge, I am only ever met with distractions and diversions. I don't see the connection between faith as defined in Hebrews and knowledge. How can you learn something from having confidence in what you hope for, or from having assurance about what you don't see? In every aspect of my life I learn things by examining the world around me, or by listening, reading or doing things. I have never learned anything by believing something a priori, without evidence. In fact I contend that doing so is the antithesis of learning, and only takes away from potential knowledge, rather than contributing to it as my theist friends insist. On top of the dodging of this question, I have never received an acceptable answer when I ask what knowledge faith has given them. If as they say faith is an alternative path to knowledge than the rational methods I apply, then surely they could point to an example of knowledge that has been revealed by faith? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
When the issue of morality arises I am met constantly with the view that God instils moral values into our intuitions, or something akin to it. No amount of sociological, evolutionary or neuro-scientific reasoning seems to be able to convince them that intuitions are not reliable ways to know anything. Moral ideas are largely the product of cultural conditioning, and many intuitions come from our evolutionary heritage and are explicable by natural, hormonal or neural means. We have learned so much about how our brain works and the natural world we live in, and as a result we can correct for errors in our cognition and intuition. Similarly, we can correct moral beliefs that are conditioned into us from cultural or evolutionary heritage. Pointing to moral intuition is not a cogent argument for the existence of God, as our moral intuitions are constantly changing as a result of cultural change. Our intuitions and gut feelings are useful tools in every day life, as we often can not afford the time to sit and think rationally about every decision we make, but we must also realise that they are often error-prone and sometimes flat out wrong. If you think God exists because you have a gut feeling that something exists out there it is my opinion that this is but another example of cognitive failure.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Fabricated Marcus Aurelius Quote
In June last year, I posted a quote that I was led to believe was from Marcus Aurelius Antonius (121-180 CE), after reading Meditations recently, I discovered that quote was no where to be found, and there are no other known writings of Marcus. I must correct my previous mistake.
The quote I posted was this one:
EDIT: If anyone finds another translation that is closer to the quote I have decided is a fake, I'd like to know about it.
The quote I posted was this one:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."The closest thing to that in my copy of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is this:
"Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm."It seems to me like the former quote was fabricated based loosely on the latter, and I have not been able to track down the source of the forgery. Marcus Aurelius was NOT an atheist, the actual quote should show this quite clearly, though much of his philosophy was very practical, and for the most part disinterested in the supernatural.
—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11
EDIT: If anyone finds another translation that is closer to the quote I have decided is a fake, I'd like to know about it.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Exploring Moral Philosophy
I have decided to dip my feet into the waters of Moral Philosophy. What I've read already that could be classified as such only really addresses the issue on a surface level, or gives only a cursory glance to other opposing views. I'll be starting with 'Utilitarianism' by John Stuart Mill, then I may read 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer and then 'A Treatise on Human Nature' by David Hume. If anyone has any other suggestions that explore these issues from another perspective I'd be interested to take a look. I tried reading Kant recently and I'd prefer something that isn't quite so laborious to read.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
I Ordered a Kindle
A few weeks ago I was contemplating buying a new book shelf, as my current one is jam packed. However after a conversation about Kindle's with someone at university I decided to get one of those instead. The initial price is more than a new bookshelf, but I think you can imagine why the Kindle is better. I don't want to sound like an advertisement for Amazon.com, so I'll just list the features that really convinced me to get one.
It should arrive on monday and I'm very much looking forward to reading some of these famous works.
- Free 3G for downloading books
- Ease of use for buying new books (linked to Amazon account)
- Thousands of free books availiable through kindle store
- Long battery life (up to 2 months if wireless is turned off!)
- Able to read in direct sunlight without any glare
- Not backlit so no eye strain!
It should arrive on monday and I'm very much looking forward to reading some of these famous works.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Philosophy of Futility
The other night I found myself having a discussion at a party, and after a while it became rather philosophical, and I found myself having to defend a position that I thought should have been obvious to anyone who had spent some time thinking about the matter. The idea was that the truth is true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. My friends were arguing against this position by saying that this was just my belief, or my perception of reality. However this doesn't even scratch the argument I was making, as I freely admit that my perception could be completely erroneous, yet whatever is real, exists whether I perceive it or believe in it or not.
I got them to agree that if something exists, its existence is not dependent on any mind perceiving it or not, but they wouldn't agree that existence necessarily exists, which I found rather confusing. According to them the fact that existence exists is merely my belief. They also seemed to disagree quite adamantly with the idea of truth that is independent of minds. To me, truth is true regardless of whether it is believed/accepted or not, and this is self-evident. It soon came to the point where I was essentially arguing against a self-refuting circular argument. My friends were essentially arguing from some kind of relativist, solipsist, nihilist, post-modernist position. I did not quite understand exactly what they were trying to argue for, but the message that I was getting from them was that: all perception is false, truth is relative, we can't know the truth and there is no absolute truth.
This position I find to be self-refuting, as it is predicated on a truth claim that says either that we can't know the truth or there is no truth, and an absolute truth statement that says that truth is relative. It's circular and illogical because it attempts to avoid criticism by appealing to its own dogma, which wasn't shown to be true in the first place.
I cannot take a position seriously if it inevitably defines its own demise by asserting self-refuting premises. Any view of reality must presume by default that existence exists, reality is real and truth is true, and belief or perception have no bearing on them. As Johannes Kepler famously said "Once miracles are admitted, every scientific explanation is out of the question". In this situation it is not so much miracles and scientific explanation, but rather once epistemological nihilism is admitted, every single belief, explanation and idea is out of the question, including epistemological nihilism itself.
Not only do I find these ideas to be false in the highest degree, it seems to be a rather depressing and dangerous idea to hold. Once truth in all forms is rejected, everything is futile. From this viewpoint, all inquiry is misguided and useless, life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false. The reason I say that it is a dangerous view is that society simply would not function if it were a widely held belief. It is a philosophy of futility.
Feedback and criticism are welcome.
I got them to agree that if something exists, its existence is not dependent on any mind perceiving it or not, but they wouldn't agree that existence necessarily exists, which I found rather confusing. According to them the fact that existence exists is merely my belief. They also seemed to disagree quite adamantly with the idea of truth that is independent of minds. To me, truth is true regardless of whether it is believed/accepted or not, and this is self-evident. It soon came to the point where I was essentially arguing against a self-refuting circular argument. My friends were essentially arguing from some kind of relativist, solipsist, nihilist, post-modernist position. I did not quite understand exactly what they were trying to argue for, but the message that I was getting from them was that: all perception is false, truth is relative, we can't know the truth and there is no absolute truth.
This position I find to be self-refuting, as it is predicated on a truth claim that says either that we can't know the truth or there is no truth, and an absolute truth statement that says that truth is relative. It's circular and illogical because it attempts to avoid criticism by appealing to its own dogma, which wasn't shown to be true in the first place.
I cannot take a position seriously if it inevitably defines its own demise by asserting self-refuting premises. Any view of reality must presume by default that existence exists, reality is real and truth is true, and belief or perception have no bearing on them. As Johannes Kepler famously said "Once miracles are admitted, every scientific explanation is out of the question". In this situation it is not so much miracles and scientific explanation, but rather once epistemological nihilism is admitted, every single belief, explanation and idea is out of the question, including epistemological nihilism itself.
Not only do I find these ideas to be false in the highest degree, it seems to be a rather depressing and dangerous idea to hold. Once truth in all forms is rejected, everything is futile. From this viewpoint, all inquiry is misguided and useless, life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false. The reason I say that it is a dangerous view is that society simply would not function if it were a widely held belief. It is a philosophy of futility.
Feedback and criticism are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)