This is a blog about skeptic philosophy. Please know there is a serious difference between someone who says, "I'm a skeptic" in the casual sense and someone who says, "I am a skeptic philosopher." Still, if you know the definition of the word "skeptic" then you've got an idea where this school is coming from: there's some serious doubt going on!
To MAJORLY oversimplify and summarize the arguments of skeptic philosophers is to say,"you can't really be sure that you know anything."
To MAJORLY oversimplify and summarize the arguments of skeptic philosophers is to say,"you can't really be sure that you know anything."
For example, if you've ever seen the movie The Matrix, people are living in a pseudo-reality that is generated by computers, giving people a false impression of what is real while machines sap their bodies of life. What people think is real is not really real, but they have no way of knowing that until they are pulled into a world that is actually real. (This is admittedly not a great way to explain skepticism because being hooked into a super-computer that sucks your life from you is far-fetched. However, the principle here will stand true. Bear with me.)
You and I do not KNOW with absolute certainty that we aren't hooked up to a machine that generates a reality for us. And we can't prove it. Any proof that we try to generate can be debunked with some kind of argument.
Of course, you can argue away the simple points I made here, but eventually, the skeptic wins out because he can keep asking more and more questions as to the foundations and justifications for your knowledge (this goes to another branch of philosophy called Foundationalism, but we won't be discussing that here). So long as you can get to a question that someone doesn't know the answer to, the skeptic wins.
This doesn't necessarily make this a popular philosophical idea though because it's irritating and seemingly not-applicable to anything in the real world. And more importantly, few people actually believe that we don't really know anything, at least not to the degree that they are willing to passively suffer pain or even die for such beliefs.
You and I do not KNOW with absolute certainty that we aren't hooked up to a machine that generates a reality for us. And we can't prove it. Any proof that we try to generate can be debunked with some kind of argument.
- History?
- How do you know that those who recorded it are telling the truth?
- That those people were accurate or had access to accurate data or information?
- How do you know that these memories were not implanted in your head and that you never actually lived any of them?
- First-Hand Experiential Knowledge?
- How do you know that you can trust your senses?
- How do you know that your memories of what happened are still accurate?
- If you recorded it, how do you know that you were honest with yourself or that you indeed wrote an accurate description or that how you are interpreting what you wrote then is correct?
- Science?
- How do you know that the biases of the scientists aren't in play?
- How can scientists be accurate when data can seemingly change over and over as we've seen happen a lot (think health sciences or global warming or cooling)?
- What if everything in our world is a deception by some power in charge of things beyond us and we're being made to think what we think?
Of course, you can argue away the simple points I made here, but eventually, the skeptic wins out because he can keep asking more and more questions as to the foundations and justifications for your knowledge (this goes to another branch of philosophy called Foundationalism, but we won't be discussing that here). So long as you can get to a question that someone doesn't know the answer to, the skeptic wins.
This doesn't necessarily make this a popular philosophical idea though because it's irritating and seemingly not-applicable to anything in the real world. And more importantly, few people actually believe that we don't really know anything, at least not to the degree that they are willing to passively suffer pain or even die for such beliefs.
Skepticism is Refreshing?
For these reasons, I actually found this premise of skepticism quite refreshing because it highly emphasizes a wonderful facet of Christianity (and you could apply it to other faiths as well). That is, you can't know anything in this world other than by faith. You can't know that you know anything. If you'd like to prove that you know something, read some skeptic philosophy and you'll find your argument destroyed because at some point down the line, you are going to have to accept that what you know is actually a belief and that you are resting on your faith, not in your actual knowledge.
 |
| St. Augustine of Hippo. In this illustration (done over 1,000 years after his death and therefore probably looks nothing like him), our hero Augustine has been interrupted from writing in a book because he is receiving a burning heart from a glowing orb of light named "Veritas" (Latin for "Truth"). Thank goodness for this TOTALLY SWEET illustration that tells me how Augustine came up with all of those great ideas! |
Augustine's Argument:
For example, to expound on an argument made by St. Augustine, how do I know that my parents are really my parents? Do I know this or do I just believe it? Did I see myself get formed in the womb, or come out of it? If I did see it, do I remember it? Or am I just taking someone's word for this? If I am taking their word for it, how do I know that they are telling the truth?
Of course they are telling the truth, they're my parents! Yes, you are right. But you are taking their word on faith. Many things are in play that cause you to believe that you can rest your faith in them (they've been around for years, have great stories to tell about your childhood, etc.), but you are a believer in them and not a knower nevertheless. It still comes down as a matter of your accepting their testimony with belief, not an actual knowing.
As for me, I love that the world has been constructed like this. To me, it's an evidence or even a calling card for an unseen God, pointing to Himself. It's one of those "built-in's" of the universe that we can't escape. Just like you can't say, "there is no absolute truth" without self-contradicting because to say "there is no absolute truth" is to make an absolute truth statement, you likewise cannot make an argument that you believe fact and evidence when people of faith are full of hooey. To the contrary, every single person is a person of great faith and none of us can live or function without it.
And just as someone with science can make phenomenal arguments with great justifications for their beliefs, so can people of faith (for those that do their homework). Likewise both can be deconstructed.
So then, it becomes a matter of what you will have faith in, not a matter of what you know.
I agree with the first half of this post, but you lose me with the claim that faith is exempt from philosophical skepticism. You'd need to show that faith represents trancendent knowledge instead of simply strong belief, which can't be done.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the existence of a deity would make philosophical skepticism a bigger hurdle because, in addition to the naturally possible matrix or "brain in a vat" examples, you'd also have to deal with possibility of supernatural deceptions. For instance, how do you know a demon didn't invent the Christian God and encourage your faith in Jesus in order to keep you from worshipping the true God?
Grundy, thanks for writing. I appreciate the respect you give me by saying what you agreed with as well as what you don't agree with.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to go back and read what I wrote, but I didn't mean to claim that faith is exempt. It's totally included. I also agree that whole new dimensions of difficulty with belief come into play when you add a spiritual component. No argument there. For me personally, that complexity has helped drive me toward searching for more answers in my faith than it has driven me away (and unfortunately I can't say that church has always been the best place to discover the answer to such mysteries).
The point I was trying to make was that all our "knowledge" breaks down at some point. Especially in a postmodern world where people are having a hard time saying that Absolute Truth exists (or if it does, can it be known by finite man?)... in any culture, religion, or comprehensive philosophy (such as Marxism), we are having a harder time standing on what we know because so many people are breaking it down. People are having a harder time holding on to their worldview (if they are avid readers) because the information and thinking available to them can break down what they "think" they know. Even science seems to be suffering and the growing distrust of the public toward enlightenment and Modernist thinking sometimes makes me wonder if we're headed for another Dark Ages-type society.
Anyways, my conclusion was that regardless of what we know or don't know, it's a matter of faith because you are believing what you are saying. For me, that conclusion pointed back to God (doesn't prove JACK SQUAT though). It's just a shot in the dark here, but judging by your comment, I'm thinking that's not the conclusion you came to. :) I respect that and welcome the dialogue.
BTW, I went to your blog and will be going back. You've obviously got a great mind and a compelling writing style. It's great when somebody can actually make me chuckle because of something they wrote. I'd say that speaks to an excellent sense of delivery and timing. Just sayin.
Thanks for the reply. The only people I've come across who would know what we are talking about in terms of absolute truth are philosophers. Most accept essential truth as given by our consensus reality as valid. I think this is a perfectly valid and pragmatic way to see the world and the scientific method is the most objective means to study it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting my blog. Outside of the memes that are geared toward the bulk of my audience, atheists, I try to be as fair to religious beliefs as I can be.