Why I am not an atheist

Posted on October 31, 2011 by Steve

I am not an atheist. I wish that I were. Specifically, I wish that I were a physicalist-atheist: Everything is ultimately reducible to physical existence, and nothing exists outside the physical universe; neither Zeus nor leprechauns nor any other mythical being exists; all belief should be based off of science and the scientific method; and everything in the universe (humans included) can be theoretically explained by scientific, empirical, physical knowledge.

I do not believe these things for a number of reasons. I will write about the methodological problems of science/empiricism in the future. This post is dedicated to the big question: does God exist? Get ready.

If you are familiar with the debate at all, you know what a headache it is. There are so many arguments out there, so many bad arguments. If only there were a way to sort through all that nonsense and just focus on legitimate arguments. Oh, wait! It sounds like a good time to apply that methodology which I’ve been writing about for so long! Perhaps logical reasoning can shed some light on the most heated debate around.

Let me be clear: I am not talking about religion. I am not talking about a soul. I am not talking about an afterlife. All arguments which people appropriately use against religion do not apply to the argument for the existence of god. Period.

So, we first define our terms. When I say “God”, I simply mean what Aristotle meant: a prime mover, or an uncaused cause. In other words, something not part of this physical universe which was responsible for it being in motion/existing. That’s it. “God” doesn’t mean an old man with a white beard, or some ethereal being who loves you and intervenes in your life.

To begin, I have to spend considerable time setting up the logical framework for this argument. This is incredibly important, if painstaking. Unless you are in a rush, don’t skip this part.

-The Framework-

Here’s a quick primer on one rule of logic: the proposition “P or not P” is true. Here’s what that means: replace P with any well-formed premise, and that above sentence is true. Crude examples: “It is raining, or it is not raining. I exist, or I do not exist. The cat is on the mat, or the cat is not on the mat.”  (These are not quite completely precise for reasons that aren’t important now.) All of these sentences are true, given their structure. Propositions are true, or they are not true. There is no third option.

The application of this logical rule: God (an uncaused cause) exists or God does not exist. This is true. Now, we can expand this one level further:

If God exists, either:
(A. The universe has an infinite timeline
(B. The universe does not have an infinite timeline

If God does not exist, either:
(A. The universe has an infinite timeline
(B. The universe does not have an infinite timeline

Formally, it looks something like this, where:
God = G
Infinite timeline = I
“Not” = ~

-The argument in symbols-

(a. G or ~G
(b. I or ~I
(c. If G, either I or ~I
(d. If ~G, either I or ~I

Seems straightforward. Why go through this formality? It has to do with the title of this piece. I do not claim that God exists. I claim “not-atheism”. Specifically, my focus is on premise D. If there is no God, there still must be either an infinite timeline or not an infinite timeline. If it can be shown that both of these are unsatisfactory, the logical conclusion must be not-atheism. My belief in non-atheism revolves around whether or not there is an infinite timeline.

So, if atheism, “I or ~I”. I have already written about why “~I” is false. The idea of the universe having a beginning without an uncaused cause is nonsense. This logically whittles the atheist down to one position: if atheism, there must be an infinite timeline. If there is no infinite timeline, atheism must be false. And thus, we would arrive at the conclusion, “not-atheism”.

That is the logical framework of the argument. Let’s get into the meat.

-Why I am not an atheist-

First, the conclusion: there is no movement or progression along an infinite timeline. We experience a finite series of events in the present, therefore, there must be a beginning (a first cause). Sounds too confusing, so I’ll give a few examples:

Example 1: The infinite relay race

Imagine you are in a relay race. You just received the baton from the person behind you. Can you conclude anything? Let’s break this down.

First, what do we know? We know that you just received the baton; this must happen in the present. The “present” is in relation to the immediate “past” (when you know you didn’t have the baton), and the “future” (when you know you hand the baton to the person in front of you).

Let’s say you take a look behind you. Can there be an infinite number of runners back there? Could that baton have passed over an infinite number of hands before reaching yours? Nope. It couldn’t have, by the very nature of what “infinite” means. Here is the nature of that nature:

-Infinity-

Most people don’t understand the word “infinite”. They assume it’s just a really, really big number. It’s HUGE, right? Well, it isn’t. In fact, “it” isn’t a “number” at all. Infinity is a concept. It is a never ending set. This is a 1-minute video which gives you a quick idea about the funny nature of infinity.

So, infinite + 1 = infinity. Infinite times itself infinity times = infinity. How does this apply to the relay race? Simple, if you looked behind you and saw an infinite number of runners (never mind the practical impossibility of this), you could rest assured that the baton would never reach you; it would never even be in sight! Let’s look at it from the baton’s perspective. Why at the point at which the baton is in the hands of the person behind you, is it there and not 100 people further down the line? Why wouldn’t it be 100000 people behind? Or 1000000000000000000 people? It certainly must have passed the hands of all those runners, right? In fact, given the nature of infinity, it would have to progress over an infinite series of runners to reach you. Infinite. Not really big, but never ending. See a potential problem? If this is still fuzzy, don’t worry, we have a few examples to go:

Example 2: The line at the diving board

This will illustrate the point from a different perspective. Let’s say you find yourself in an infinitely long line at the pool, waiting to get on the diving board. How long would you have to wait until it’s your turn? Well, given that infinity is not just a really big number, think about it like the Hilbert’s Hotel situation. There aren’t a billion people in front of you. Not a billion-trillion-trillion. Not even that number raised to the billion-trillion-zillionth power. Not even close. Not even THAT number raised to the zillion-kagillion-fafillion-mamaillion-smellyillionth power. In fact, how ever big that number is (I might have made up some of those words), it is not even a fraction of a fraction of infinity, literally. There is a never-ending amount of people in front of you. Can you ever reach the end of something that never ends? Think logically, not empirically (empiricists would say: “well, we would have to scientifically test such a claim!”). This is the incredible nature of infinity.

Now, imagine you are standing in line as a teammate-baton-holder from the previous example. The diving board represents the real “you”. Will the “real you” ever receive the baton? No, it will never get there. But if it did, you could conclude that the line behind you must not be infinite. One more example:

Example 3: Ball on a plank

Think of a long wooden plank. Now, imagine a ball rolling along that plank. The location of the ball along the plank represents the “present”. As the ball rolls further down the plank, time progresses. You could actually think of time being measured by the location of the ball at a given time in relation to a previous location of the ball.

Now, imagine that plank being infinite in length. With a sharpie, you mark a spot on the plank directly in front of you representing the present. The ball has an infinite amount of distance to go on that plank before it reaches you. Will it ever? Remember, it doesn’t have a really long way to go; it won’t take a really long time. It has an infinite distance to roll. It will take an infinite amount of time. It is like counting back from infinity. It can not be done. You can not even start. That’s right, there is not even a starting place to roll the ball from. To imply there was a start is to deny that it is infinitely long.

Now, what happens when the ball does roll in front of you? Can you logically conclude that it could not have passed over an infinite amount of time or an infinitely long plank? Yes, I think you can. Let me tie this back to the infinite regress problem of the universe:

-Our universe, in the present-

Events happen in the present. (the ball reached us; we got to the diving board; we received the baton; we speak chronologically in the present, etc.) This experience should be follow with the question: “Why did event X happen?”

Why did the domino just fall over? Well, the cause was the domino behind it; it fell. Why did that domino fall? Well, the domino before it fell into it. Why? You get the idea. Can we logically conclude that such an event was merely one in an infinite set? No. Not if it happens in the present. An event in the present could not logically exist without an ultimate reference point: a cause which was not caused by any cause before it. If such a thing did not exist, a present event could never be reached.

Another name for this: God. An uncaused cause. An answer to the infinite regress problem. A “prime mover”, as Aristotle put it (to crudely summarize: he believed nothing could cause its own motion; therefore, there must be a first mover, which was not moved by anything before it).

So let me be absolutely clear, again: this does not mean a prime mover loves you. It does not necessarily follow from this that Allah wants you to submit to his will, and if you do, you get a bunch of virgins once you die. No. It just means there is an uncaused cause. It means there are not an infinite amount of past events, if events happen in the present.

If this argument is sound, it leads one to the conclusion of non-atheism, or at least non-anti-uncaused-cause-ism. At the absolute least, know that it is preposterous to dismiss arguments for the existence of this kind of god. Many people try desperately to ridicule those of us who are integritous enough to believe in a prime mover in the face of mockery. Please, feel ridiculed no longer. There is certainly at least one logical, reasonable argument for the inaccuracy of atheism, regardless of how passionately one tries to dismiss you as a crank for the conclusions this seems to imply.

However, as I will write later, there are still a couple of interesting ways to get around the infinite regress problem and be a reasonable atheist. I don’t find them compelling, but you’ll just have to wait to read and decide for yourself.

Posted in God, How to Think Critically | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Three a week: Feeling

Posted on October 25, 2011 by Steve

You feel? Three questions:

Question 1: What is feeling?

You say you feel a certain way. Please, explain. Your back feels itchy? Don’t you mean there are just little electric signals being shot from your back to your brain? Why does this have to be accompanied by what you call a “feeling”? I can perfectly explain “feeling” by third-person language (nerves, signals, brain, etc.), so why confuse things by claiming there is some experience accompanied all of this?

Question 2: Who is feeling?

It is a preposterous assumption to assume that you feel something. That presupposes, without argument, that you are a thing which exists. To claim that there is a unified center of experience is to claim the existence of mind. This is only a small feat for those who have not studied the issue. Ask your nearest brain scientist if you have a mind.

Question 3: Are you sure?

Can you be absolutely sure of your feeling? I am concerned with what things we can know, and is feeling one of them? Should a statement like, “I know that I taste steak” be held as absolute as “There is no married bachelor”? If you claim both these statements are absolutely true, and that you can know them, what does that say for the process by which we come to know truth? Has our methodology expanded from logical certainty to include some other method?

Posted in Three a week | Leave a comment

Three a week: God

Posted on October 18, 2011 by Steve

It is unfortunate that the debate over the existence of God is so dividing. People too readily dismiss either side’s argument. Three questions:

Question 1: Can we separate arguments for religion from arguments for God?

When confronted with typical arguments for God’s existence, the instinctive reaction of a skeptic is to assume the arguer as an agenda. Nine times out of ten, this is the case. However, it might be a huge mistake to assume that it is impossible to only believe in God if you accept religious beliefs as well. The methodology which leads one to religion is faith. All skeptical people should reject this methodology (for good reasons, not just dismissively). The methodology which has led many people to believe in the existence of a “prime mover” or “uncaused cause” is reason, and it is frankly disingenuous, or uninformed, to claim otherwise.

Question 2: Does the concept of God make sense?

This is a common objection to the existence of God. Atheists claim that a god can not exist because the definition implies a contradiction. Others use Occam’s razor and argue that by positing God, you simply add an additional, unnecessary being to your worldview, so there is no reason to bother believing he exists (same reasoning applies to the existence of Zeus, leprechauns, etc.).

If the concept itself doesn’t make sense, or implies a contradiction, I side with the atheists.

Question 3: Does the concept of no-God make sense?

The universe has either an infinite timeline stretching backward, or it does not have an infinite timeline stretching backward. If it does, it follows that there is no ultimate cause to the universe; event Z was caused by event Y which was caused by event X, ad infinitum. If the universe does not have an infinite timeline, by definition the universe would come from nothing.

If atheism, it is either the case that something came from nothing, or there is an infinite regress of events. Theists ask, “Do either of these make sense? If not, what must be the alternative?” (Update: to see this argument fleshed out, go here)

Posted in God, Three a week | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Deduction and Induction

Posted on October 14, 2011 by Steve

Two methods of reasoning: deduction and induction. If you want to have sharp critical thinking skills, you must understand the difference between these two. It isn’t too difficult to understand, and the benefits are enormous.

Example #1: Inductive reasoning.

A: Every swan that I have ever seen is white;
B: Therefore, all swans are white.

OK, let’s break this down. If I were to claim such a thing, “All swans are white.”, a proper skeptic should immediately ask, “How do you know (what was the thinking-process which led to that conclusion?)”

I would respond, “Well, I have gone out and tested this claim, and every single data point which I have has been a white swan. I have gained empirical data about the real-world, and all of it points to the whiteness of swans.” Simple. 

This way of thinking seems fine, as long as you never find a black swan. As soon as you gather new data which doesn’t conform with your old data, you have to throw out your conclusion. Now, some people say this is a credit to scientific thinking; it is always adjusting to new data, and it doesn’t (and shouldn’t) claim absolute certainty about anything.

I disagree. At least, perhaps our fundamental worldview shouldn’t be build off of such ways of thinking, if there are more accurate alternatives. After all, with inductive reasoning, if you start with true premises, you can still end up with false conclusions (like the example above). Keep in mind, inductive reasoning is the backbone of modern science. This should scare you if you seek truth. But is there an alternative?

Example #2: Deductive reasoning.

A: All men are mortal.
B: Socrates is a man.
C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

As good skeptics we challenge such a conclusion, “How do you know Socrates is mortal?” Let’s break it down.

Premise A rephrased: Every single case where there is a man, it is always a mortal man, without exception. (this is what “all” means)
Premise B rephrased: Socrates is one of the previous cases: a man.
Therefore, Socrates must be a mortal man.

This is the hallmark of deductive reasoning: If it is the case that our premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. How powerful is that?!

Now, as skeptical people, we should challenge the premises. “How do you know that all men are mortal?”

Good question. Some might say it is within the definition of what a man is, that he is mortal. Others (myself included) think this is a more empirical claim, and it really is impossible to have absolute certainty about it.

Well, where does that leave us? Hmm… wouldn’t it be amazing if we could have a premise, which we knew with certainty was true, and then we deduced from there? Wouldn’t it be incredible if our worldview could start with certain accurate beliefs, and use a method of reasoning which leads to certain accurate conclusions? Can we relegate inductive reasoning to practical things (how to build a car, how to put satellites up in space, etc.), and leave deductive reasoning for the most important stuff?

Indeed, I think we can. There are all sorts of necessarily true premises which lead to necessarily true conclusions. There is a whole economic theory based on this way of thinking (sometimes called “axiomatic-deductive” reasoning). If you want to know a few necessarily true premises, discover your presuppositions.

It is important to keep the different reasoning methods at the front of your mind. You will spot endless erroneous conclusions drawn from attempted, but poor, deductive reasoning. More importantly, understanding the flaws in inductive reasoning keeps you intellectually humble. Here’s what I mean:

If I am holding a ball a few feet above the ground, what will happen when I drop it? Will it fall down or up?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

One might respond with a line of reasoning like this:
A: Every time I have seen a thing be dropped in the past, it has fallen towards the earth.
B: Therefore, all things dropped fall towards the earth.

Look familiar? Indeed, it takes a painful amount of humility to say that you do not know whether or not the ball will fall down. Gravity seems necessary (of course, why is this the case? Because all of our personal, empirical data points to gravity being necessary). This does not mean that gravity is necessary. The conclusion does not logically necessarily follow from the premises, likely as we may think “the ball will fall towards the earth” is to happen.

If this is true, if something as ubiquitous as gravity should only be believed without absolute certainty, perhaps our worldview should not conclude much about empirical things. If we seek certain knowledge, not just reasonable beliefs, perhaps empirical claims really should not have much of a role at all.

Posted in How to Think Critically | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

Three a week: Certainty

Posted on October 11, 2011 by Steve

You can’t write about philosophy without writing about the concept of certainty. Three questions:

Question 1: What is certainty?

Before we ask if we can have it, what is it? What is a proper way to define such a thing? Does “certainty” about something mean that there is no chance of a given belief being wrong? Does it mean we have no reason to believe a given belief is false? Can we be truly certain about something that turns out to be false? How is the notion of “certainty” tied to the concept of “truth” if at all?

Question 2: Can true certainty even exist?

Does such a notion even make sense? Given our limited capacity as human beings, can we be so bold as to say we know something with absolute certainty? From what arrogant mind does the concept of perfect certainty arise? What kind of tool would you need to employ to arrive at a certain conclusion? The human mind, perhaps? This leads into the last question:

Question 3: How do we arrive at certainty?

The question of “how”, in my mind, is the most important. The methodology of thinking is more important to get right than any conclusion you come to; it is more fundamental.

How to arrive at certainty? Learn the proper method first. Then, build upon that. Ask yourself, “Am I absolutely certain that I am concerned with the concept of certainty?” If you answer yes, you can be certain. If you answer no, you can be certain that you aren’t concerned. Win-win. Or, more accurately, truth-truth.

Posted in Three a week | Tagged | Leave a comment

Why revisionism is necessary

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Steve

Abraham Lincoln was a bad president? FDR made the depression worse? Ronald Reagan was not a fiscal conservative?! That sounds like revisionism to me! And we all know, that word is bad!

When Socrates challenged dogma, he was killed. When Copernicus challenged dogma, he was punished. When Galileo challenged dogma, he was ex-communicated. When Pasteur challenged dogma, he was ridiculed. It goes on throughout history. Today, we laud the braveness and intellectual integrity of these men. What were they doing that was so respectable? Revising. These were men who were devoted to revisionism, and without them, our pursuit of truth would have never progressed.

So, why was revisionism necessary? Simple: our premises were wrong. The conclusions that we drew from believing the earth was in the center of the universe were wrong. The conclusions that logically followed from the belief in spontaneous generation were wrong. When these men challenged specific premises, they inherently challenged specific conclusions.

But there is more to be learned from these examples. Perhaps we can learn about the proper perspective which we need when addressing our own beliefs. From what standpoint should one challenge the now-outdated belief, “flies are spontaneously generated from meat”? We have a couple options:

A: We might be ambitious and challenge the notion all together: flies are spontaneously generated by old biscuits, not by meat!

B: Perhaps we more cautiously suggest that flies come from a specific kind of meat, steak perhaps.

C: We might posit that, instead, flies are only generated from meat in certain circumstances (when the meat is left out in the open, when it ages for a certain amount of time, etc.).

And so on… the list of questions is infinite.

What should the proper action be to verify whether or not these objections are valid?

Well, by George, you go out and test them! Be a good scientist and go out and test those hypotheses as best you can. Right?

Wrong. In fact, so wrong, that you could call all of these tests a waste of time. Why? Their shared premise is wrong. If it is the case that the whole theory of spontaneous generation is false, then whether or not we test for its existence with biscuits or steak doesn’t actually matter. The bigger picture, the theory, needs revising, and indeed, the conclusions that follow from this revision are going to be completely (categorically) different from those before.

Another example: when people talk about “regulation” of the economy, it’s normally about matters of degree. Should the government intervene a lot, or a little? How high should the minimum wage be? $5.00, or $5.50 perhaps? Should we be blowing up bridges in Iraq and Afghanistan, or just Iraq?

These might all be biscuits-or-steak arguments. (I, Steve, hereby coin the term “biscuits-or-steak argument”.) Perhaps flies don’t even come from food; perhaps we should not have a minimum wage at all. Perhaps what needs revising is the whole theory of economic intervention, not the micro-level specifics of the minimum wage.

Unfortunately, it is the challenging of these big-picture premises which garners the most uproar. How dare we challenge the idea that the earth is in the center of the universe! People have believed that forever, and who are you to say it is wrong? How dare we challenge the entire theory that suggests the state has any role in the economy, states have existed since the dawn of modern man! We couldn’t possibly be wrong about those premises!

Perhaps our treatment of big-picture theory and philosophy should be a little more respectful. If a philosopher can convince scientists, for purely theoretical reasons, to not spend millions testing for square circles, we all might be better off.

How should one go about revising? My suggestion: work forwards, not backwards.

Here’s what I mean by that: you must start from scratch. You can’t assume that any conclusion is true if you have not justified its premise, and its premise’s premise. Deconstruct your worldview to the point where you start from believing in no conclusions, otherwise you might be wasting your time with biscuits-or-steak beliefs. How to know what constitutes a “justified premise”? Good question, difficult answer. A damn good place to start is with logical certainty. I’ll be writing more about the topic in the future.

Then, only then, cautiously work forward and revise. There could be nothing more intellectually integritous than changing (revising) one’s conclusions based on sharpened premises.

As for dialog with others, perhaps it is wise to first focus on the deep, fundamental beliefs (example: does the whole theory of spontaneous generation make sense?), until you have found agreement there. You are likely wasting both parties’ time by doing otherwise.

Posted in How to Think Critically, Objective truth | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Three a week: Nudity

Posted on October 3, 2011 by Steve

Everybody wears clothes. Am I the only one who finds this odd? Three questions:

Question 1: Why do we wear clothing?

Oh, is this question not supposed to be asked? Don’t roll your eyes. We have been desensitized to people wearing clothes (everybody wears them all the time). But if you think about it, little human-animals walking around draping plant fibers over themselves seems odd, especially when put in perspective with the rest of the whole universe (does anything outside of tiny planet earth make sense wearing clothes?).

One might say, “Oh, well we do it to keep warm.” That’s wrong on its face. There are plenty of times we walk around clothed when it is warm enough outside. Another, “We do it to keep from being sunburned.” Well, yeah, but the same problem applies. There are plenty of warm, cloudy days when everybody wears clothing. If you want to make a purely sanitary argument, I think there might be some good reasons there (human fluids can be dangerous). Of course, some will reply, “We don’t want to see those parts of everybody!” Well, this leads into my next question:

Question 2: Why don’t we wear nothing? (Pardon the double negative)

Nakedness is natural, right? Show me an animal that is embarrassed to walk around nude, and I’ll show you a human. To address the claim, “We don’t want to see those parts…”, I have a question for you: do you walk around staring at animals’ genitals? They are naked, and anybody can stare. No, you don’t? Hmm… why doesn’t such public nudity cause a public outcry against the debauchery of animals?

I know why you don’t mind animal nudity: you don’t stare at their genitals. Are we really so juvenile as to think society would fall apart because our eyes would be constantly fixed on the private parts of our neighbors, whether we like it or not? Are we such animals?

Question 3: Is nudity always sexual?

I’ll answer my own question: no, it is not. Of course it is not. Even Western culture can make some crude acknowledgement that nudity in certain circumstances, or with certain people, is not sexual. More importantly, different cultures around the world have not sexualized nudity, and traffic does not come to a halt because of an exposed breast. Do you really think it’s healthy for people to be so reserved that they can’t separate the body from sexuality?

For example, There could  be nothing more innocent than a mother breastfeeding a child, and yet people have the audacity to throw a huge hissy fit (and try to get the law involved) when it’s done “in public”. Granted, if a mother doesn’t feel comfortable with such a thing, fine, but it just seems silly and unhealthy to me to make the human body such an enormous taboo.

Posted in Three a week | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Discovering presuppositions

Posted on September 29, 2011 by Steve

One of the most effective ways to discover truth and falsehood is to be able to identify the presuppositions in an argument. There are obvious reasons for doing this, and not-so-obvious reasons, with the latter having more important implications. In fact, I am going to argue that you can find absolute truth just by identifying your presuppositions. Exciting, yes.

There are two types of presuppositions: contingent and absolute ones. When arguing, it is normal to identify the contingent presuppositions in an opponent’s argument. For example:

Bob: We should have a minimum wage to help the poor.

Not-Bob: You are assuming the minimum wage helps the poor.

Or another example:

Bob: I am sitting on a chair.

Not-Bob: You are presupposing the reliability of your senses.

In both of these examples, Bob’s argument relies on contingent factors. In other words, if it is true that the minimum wage hurts the poor, Bob’s proposition is incorrect. Or, if it true that Bob’s faculties are not reliable (he is on drugs and only thinks he is sitting on a chair), he is wrong. This kind of identification of presuppositions is extremely useful, and common, in everyday debate. I’ll write more about how to do this properly in the future.

I am more interested in a different kind of presupposition, a more exciting and revealing one. It’s subtle, so bear with me.

When Bob makes any argument, the truth of his argument is contingent on the accuracy of his claims, as we have established. If his premises are true, and his argument sound, the conclusion will be true. However, Bob also makes presuppositions which are true, regardless of the accuracy of the premises or actual content. In fact, it can be quite a long list. Sounds crazy, right?

For example, when Bob claims:

“I am sitting on a chair right now.”

He is also making unspoken claims. Like the following:

“I exist.”

“I have the subjective experience of making an argument.”

“I believe there exist true statements and false statements by making an argument. I believe the sentence ‘I am sitting on a chair right now.” is true, and the sentence “I am not sitting on a chair right now.” is false.”

Or how about, “I believe there is a difference between sound waves and words.”

Or, “I am experiencing a phenomenon which I will call ‘time’, or a chronological progression of the words that I speak.”

Or, how about the truth on which a whole economic theory is build, “I act.”

The entire list is lengthy. This list here is quite limited; I have no idea how many sentences like this exist. Notice a trend in all of these sentences though: they are unspoken, but the speaker can introspect and understand them to be true, with certainty.

The speaker must necessarily exist, if he is speaking. He, which only he can know, is also experiencing an experience, if it is the case he is speaking. Or, he must have an inherent sense of right and wrong, if it is the case that he is making an argument. An argument, that is, of course, fundamentally different than random sounds, if it is an argument with words. These words are spoken chronologically, or at least experienced chronologically, which the speaker can know with certainty. Finally, there is no argument which is not an action; to deny this is to affirm it, by acting.

The most exciting part of this is not the absolute presuppositions themselves, but what logically follows from them. If it is the case we can know certain beliefs to be true, sound deduction from those beliefs will yield true conclusions, about which we can be certain as well. This has enormous implications for our pursuit of truth.

Well, what follows from these propositions? Let’s take the best developed one: humans act. Though the mainstream economics profession hasn’t understood this yet, the foundation of economics is based on human action. Indeed, something as pivotal as the law of diminishing marginal utility (that we value less of something the more of it we have) deductively follows from this simple premise. The whole school of Austrian economics is based on such a methodology: find a necessarily true premise and start deducing.

Two more examples that aren’t as clear as economics: belief and time. It is the case that an individual can introspect and know with certainty that he has beliefs, even if he is not sure the reliability or accuracy of the beliefs. If someone were to belief the previous statement to be false, they would be affirming it by believing it to be false. What follows from the existence of belief? Potentially, alot.

A belief is not something physical. It doesn’t have a color or weight. You can’t point to it. Indeed, it does not have to seem a physical existence at all. Beliefs only make sense in a mental context or a subjective context (called “dualism”). Without going into great detail, suffice to say that the existence of such mental phenomenon (or even the existence of a true subjective perspective) are extremely controversial, and the implications could be astronomical, something like the law of conservation being broken, the whole set of the laws of physics being non-determined, the existence of a radical free will, etc. I’ll write more on the topic of belief and non-materialism later.

Another radical argument might follow from the existence of time. Or, specifically, the experience of a progression of events in the present. This is again a premise which someone can introspect about, and can affirm with certainty it is something they experience (regardless of time’s objective existence or not. Just the perception of such a thing is all that is required). Again, without going into too much detail, the conclusions of this might be extraordinary. For example, if time were to stretch back infinitely, with no beginning, it might be the case that one would never experience something in the present. The “progression” of consciousness along such a timeline would never reach such a thing as “the present”, because there are an infinite number of events between events, when we are talking about a real infinity. Sounds confusing, I know, and that’s why I’ll write about it later. It is actually my primary objection to atheism. Because if it is the case that time is not infinite, good luck explaining that without invoking something that is by definition super-natural.

Yes, the absolute presuppositions of any argument might lead to the most powerful conclusions, especially because we can be certain of their truth (if the deduction is sound).  That is so stinkin’ exciting. Or should I say:

“I exist, and I have the subjective perception of writing right now, and I inherently believe that the opposite of what I am writing is false, and… that is so stinkin’ exciting.”

Posted in How to Think Critically, Objective truth | Tagged , , , , | 7 Comments

Three a week: Reason

Posted on September 25, 2011 by Steve

We are rational beings. Few things make less sense. Three questions:

Question 1: What is rationality?

Put “reason” in perspective. On one tiny speck in the universe, there are little creatures who walk around and discern “right” from “wrong”. What an odd situation it is, indeed, to have the existence of something like comprehension. Good luck finding that anywhere else in the universe.

Question 2: Can we trust reason?

If it is the case that humans are entirely physical, that our rational brains are confined to the physical universe, how much weight can we give our own beliefs? If ideas can be reduced to chemicals, why in the world would we think we have access to something like objective truth, when we are completely, inescapably physical beings? Physical things do not have a truth value. A chair is not “true”. Chemicals are not “true”. So why in the world (where in the world) do we get the presumptuous notion that the physical products of our minds, beliefs, have truth values, and can be reliable?

That is, of course, unless the mind is not entirely reducible to physicality.

Question 3: Well, how can we trust reason?

How can one know whether or not a belief is truly objective? Are there unchanging criteria by which we can judge the accuracy of a statement. How can we know?

Of course, what does “trust” imply? If the possibility of being wrong exists, it must be in contrast to being right. Falsehood can not exist without truth. Indeed, by questioning the accuracy of a belief, we are acknowledging and presuming the existence of logic. Logic just might be how you can always judge certain beliefs to be right or wrong.

Posted in How to Think Critically, Three a week | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Reason comes first

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Steve

People are filled with angst and confusion. There are a million things whirling around our heads at any given moment, overwhelming us.

Fear not. There is an insightful reason why humans are so overwhelmed all the time. It is because, whether we know it or not, we are rational beings. Until one realizes this, consistent frustration and confusion are unavoidable.

In fact, I am going to argue that we are not fundamentally emotional, social, spiritual, loving, hopeful, or with faith. If one tries to make these things fundamental, one is destined to live with omnipresent internal confusion, angst, and dissatisfaction. However, many of these “positive” adjectives can (and do, and should) come afterwards, but only after rationality. Sounds radical, right? Allow me to explain:

Emotional: There seems to be a viscous cycle. Mary meets Joe, falls in love, is certain of their destiny together, and gets her heart broken. Happens all the time, every day. Why? Wouldn’t it make sense for young people to exercise caution in the relationship department, after looking around and seeing the constant emotional turmoil of the endless heartbreaks of their peers? Indeed, many have argued that heartbreak is destined to happen, that it is our destiny to be caught up in a whirlwind of emotions. They continue: that is what makes us human, and we should embrace it.

This emotional reality applies not only to human relationships, but to every other area in which humans become emotional, which is a lengthy list. Football to food, intellectual ideas to recreational activities, nearly every facet of human existence seems to involve emotions. We’ll revisit this in a few paragraphs.

Social: The same argument applies when it comes to the social aspect of human nature. We desire so deeply to be social, it seems, that it must be a fundamental property of our existence. If this is truly the case, we are destined for distress. Don’t believe me? How much internal turmoil have you seen people go through in regards to their social status? How much of a young person’s life revolves around “fitting in”? How many cases of social desperation result in a completely destroyed self-image. If a human gets their worthiness for the acceptance of his peers, that is only a recipe for disaster.

But does it have to be? Does it have to be all the time? Before I answer that, another must be explained:

Faith: This topic includes both hope and so-called “spirituality”. Perhaps no topic is more controversial than this. It might have the biggest implications. How many people on this planet could you point to and say, “They have faith in the wrong thing” or, “Their hope is misplaced.”? Most of them? If it’s the case that two religions exist that are mutually exclusive, how can it be that (at the very least) one huge group of people are so ideologically wrong, on such fundamental beliefs as morality. The question, “How should humans interact with eachother?” could not have larger implications for everyday life. And yet, so many people have so many differing beliefs; they can’t all be right. More troubling, most of them must be wrong, if objective truth exists.

How much internal trouble exists within the minds of the faithful, or spiritual (nevermind the death and destruction caused by people who believed they were acting in the name of God)? I can speak personally, having been raised in a Christian household, the ideas of a religion to which I desperately tried clinging simply never gave me a deep satisfaction. I tried to make it work, to force it to work, but it didn’t. I now know why.

There is always doubt in the back of a spiritual person’s mind, whether they acknowledge it or not. Indeed, there is a reason for this. It can be resolved. It might not even require the abandonment of religious or spiritual belief (though it certainly might). When you ask someone of faith whether they are certain or not of their beliefs, most will say “Yes, I am absolutely certain they are true.” Firstly, it is not the case that they are genuinely certain; it categorically can not be (which I will explain later). Secondly, I want to focus your attention to the second half of that innocuous sentence: “that they are true.”

In fact, that’s a good segue.

Truth: In going back over these examples, there is a theme. A very important theme, which can perhaps reveal the core realities of human nature. I’ll give it away up front, then beat it over your head. The common theme is this: truth. Truth. Truth is what you’ll soon realize permeates every facet of our existence; there is nothing more central to the human being than the (nearly always unconscious) search for truth. And here’s the proof:

Emotion revisited.

Let’s revisit the example of Mary and Joe. After the heartbreak, Mary introspects. She might ask a curious question, “What went wrong?” What was the ultimate problem in that example? Truth, or lack thereof. She thought the love would last forever, and this belief was false. Would she have committed herself to Joe if she knew the truth that he would abandon her? No? What does this mean? If the existence of love is based solely on other factors (the truthfulness of whether he loves her back, the truthfulness of whether she trusts him, whether they will have kids, etc.), this makes truth take a dominate position over love. Indeed, we might look back at the situation and think, “If Joe had really loved Mary, there would be no trouble! The situation would have ended completely differently had this emotion been based on truth, not falsehood or deception.”

What about other emotional situations? What about that time Billy cried over spilled milk? Why do we think this is silly? Given normal circumstances (there was no psychopath threatening to kill Billy’s family if he spilled the milk), we would say this emotion is not justified. In fact, we would say it is proper to completely reject and throw out the emotions of shame, guilt, humiliation, anger, hate, fear, etc. over such a situation. Again, one who makes their emotions fundamental, irrespective of the justification for them, is asking for trouble.

Social behavior revisited.

Let’s apply this analysis to the kid who desperately tries to fit in, at great cost to his internal character. A nerd gets called a name by a jock/group of jocks. The kid internalizes this, and becomes depressed, or believes that he is inadequate, or has all kinds of negative thoughts about himself. Simple example.

What went wrong here? What is the problem? Is it with the nerd or the jocks? Perhaps both? I’d say it’s the same error, committed by both parties.

The reason both parties have behaved in such a way is because of the following belief, “It is important to have social acceptance from your peers.” The jock believes this, and that is why he has acted in a way which he believes will harm the nerd. The nerd knows this, and that is why he feels depressed at the fact that he was, indeed, rejected by some of his peers.

How to avoid this situation? Get rid of bullies, of course! No, not really. Cut down every single bully, or every single judgement by anyone, for that matter, at the knees. Instead of assuming that social acceptance matters, question that belief. Perhaps it is justified, perhaps not. I think everyone would agree, if social acceptance is important, it is certainly with caveats.

For example, let’s assume you believe in Islam. Will you feel dejected when the Christian rejects you? When he says you are in peril of the fires of Hell, why aren’t you paralyzed with fear? It is because you do not believe the opposing side’s assumptions are true. When I personally get rejected or mocked when discussing economics by those who have no economic understanding whatsoever, I don’t feel depressed. In fact, I wouldn’t have a reason to. If somebody laughs at you for believing 2 + 2 = 4, will you scurry away with a red face? No? Why? Truth is on your side.

If it is the case that the jock’s criticism of the nerd was unjustified (because he was wearing dorky shoes), perhaps it is not appropriate to internalize such criticism. If a group of people have incorrect assumptions, we should not care about their conclusions, for the same reason we should not care about the person who mocks your belief in mathematics.

If we seek acceptance, we should seek justified social acceptance, from those who are justified in accepting us. It is not the case that blind social acceptance is a good thing. So, we should not worry about being blindly rejected. If this is true, that matters.

Now the really important one: Faith.

Marty has high aspirations. He is a golfer, and is 20 shots behind the leader in a tournament. He has faith that God will help him win; all he needs is a hole-in-one on the next 7 holes. He hopes. Perhaps he prays.

Marty doesn’t get 7 hole-in-one’s, and his faith is shaken. His hopes were dashed, emotions wrecked. What went wrong?

It has to do something with truth. If it were the case that his beliefs were based on truth, let’s say he didn’t need to pull such an impossible feat at 7 hole-in-one’s, he wouldn’t have had an issue. If his faith was justified, he wouldn’t have an internal crisis. If his emotions were not fundamental, but were completely based on truth, he wouldn’t go through such devastating lows.

Marty also has a faith; he is a Christian. He understands that it is the duty of the faithful to put their faith before anything else, in front of rationality if need-be (we’re only limited creatures, after all, right?). He believes he will go up to heaven once he dies.

Let’s assume Islam is true. Marty will not go up to heaven, but will instead be judged by his many Western debaucheries. He will be divinely punished. Well, what went wrong? Yes, after much beating a dead horse, I will give you the same answer: it has to do with truth. Had Marty believed in Islam (what is true in this example), he would not have had such a problem.

But how could he have known?

Segue #2: Reason.

Yes, all of that was a preface to this conclusion.

If it is the case that truth matters so much, is there a proper way to find out what it is? The popular belief is that truth is relative. What’s true for you might not be so for me. Don’t be fooled.

If it is the case that truth affects every single belief and emotion we have, or that it should, there is a way to live a justified life. It is via the use of reason. The absolute devotion to truth requires the highest standards of belief, only made justified, almost by definition, by reasons. Why believe X? Reasons first. Rationality first. If you truly seek to be correct, you can not accept any lower standard. This is in contrast to faith and emotions.

Ask yourself this question, “Do I make sense of something before I believe it, or do I believe something then try to make sense of it?”

If it is the case that you value truth, you must take the former position. The latter, belief without reason, is too easy to be wrong, even if it leads to a self-deceptive certainty of one’s belief. If I assert X is true, without reason, I can feel confident that X is true, regardless of if X is really true. Here’s an example:

I have faith that Muhammad was a prophet. Hence, I know Muhammad was a prophet. I can not be wrong, because the Koran is the word of God, and God doesn’t lie.

Please, substitute “Muhammad” for the spiritual figure of your choice.

Ah, but you might say, “I have reasons for my faith”. Be careful. You have implicitly acknowledged the supremacy of reason over faith. If it were the case that your reasons were lacking, would you change your belief, and are you sure? Are you really sure? If your conclusions are simply based on reasons, what is faith? Why do you add it to the equation? If you believe it is possible, let’s talk on facebook about how you mesh faith and reason, and how you know your faith is true. I am absolutely genuine in saying I am open to being convinced, whole-heartedly. But be warned, if you devote yourself to finding truth, you might find the justification for your faith shaken.

Now, it is perfectly understandable why people claim to have reasons for their faith, and it comes back to what was originally written: humans are rational beings. Of course you seek reasons for your beliefs. So many of the internal confusions and struggles that people have are due to the suppression of our rational faculty. If we want to be happy, we must to use our minds to discern right from wrong. However, you absolutely must acknowledge a hierarchy of knowledge. It is always truth first. Then come reasons. Then comes belief. Emotions and feelings might follow from justified beliefs, but that’s what we would expect, and we can feel fantastic about such emotions.

Never, ever put belief before reasons, if you are honestly seeking to find truth. Unjustified faith only enters into the equation if you can pretend to value feel-good-self-deception over what is true.

Posted in How to Think Critically, Objective truth | Tagged , , , , , , | 9 Comments