There is an interesting problem here. If the First Principles are the axioms that make logic, science, philosophy, rational thought, etc. possible, how were those principles known? They were originally known through observation of the universe and its workings, observations of certain traits that seem universal.
The problem here is the word seem, because the observations are of the inductive sort, and are subject to the inductive fallacy. In other words, the universal material traits could change tomorrow, and logic would no longer have a sound basis.
The validation of the axioms is a different story, though. If one asks, “how would the universe be if the axioms (or any individual axiom) were not universally valid?”, then the truth of the axioms becomes clear despite their inductive base.
This still requires faith, in the sense that we cannot know that the universe will not flip over into chaos tomorrow. So we continue to base our lives around logical axioms in the faith that the universe will continue in its consistent path. This faith is not addressed or even understood by those scurrying about the earth every moment. But it is faith, nonetheless, because it cannot be proved.
Now here comes the interesting part. Many, if not all, modern philosophers subscribe to some sort of attack on humans as uncaused causers, largely because that places humans outside the naturalist progression of cause and effect. Being separate from Cause and Effect is a transcendental, non-naturalistic state, and not to be allowed. Cause and Effect is a First Principle. These same philosophers deny that there is any foundational principle, period. Yet they insist on using Cause and Effect as if it were inviolable, even holy premise.
Cause and Effect is seen to be valid only through observation of a non-living universe. It is clearly seen to be not valid when observing humans acting as independent agents.
This is why these philosophers must insist that free will is a delusion, that electric discharge in the cranial neurons is the cause, not the effect, of thought; otherwise they must admit that there is something at play that is outside of naturalist explanatory power.
Yet the products of free will and agency are everywhere to be seen and used daily, even by philosophers, who (hopefully) use toilets and other products of human agency. So these dogmaticians must deny their own observations in order to preserve their dogmatic attachment to an unsustainable principle. That principle is essential for their underlying faith statement: there is no God.
6 comments:
What irks me is when foolish atheists attack the first principles to make sense of their foolish worldview using Quantum Mechanics of seemingly contradictory particles to say they aren't universal/absolute.
If you (anyone) have a reference to a complete argument that uses Quantum Mechanics as a justification for naturalism, philosophical materialism or Atheism, please let me know. I'd like to address such an argument head-on. Thanks.
Stan,
This may be no news to you. But, I've just come across several atheists and their sites in which they provide their refutation of the Transcendental Argument for God: Logical absolutes must have a transcendent source/author . Matt Slick lays it out and apparently there have been quite a few exchanges involving Matt Dillahun of the Atheist Experience and this other fella Theoritcal Bullshit.
Interesting
"Moderns consider reason to be the highest human faculty, but insist that reason can only be applied to measurable fact and so-called "experience". This is the essential nature of both scientific methodology and rationalism. As opposed to this, traditional teaching holds that Reason is a discursive faculty which requires both correct premises and proper logic to come to a valid conclusion.
Truth does not depend on reason but rather, reveals itself and becomes explicit with the help of reason. Thus we do not say something is true because it is logical, but rather that it is logical because it is true. This presupposes a still higher faculty capable of judging whether the conclusions of reason are true.
Modern "philosophers" attempt to get around this problem by speaking of "rational principles" but forget that principles can never be derived from discursive logic. Reason cannot prove its own validity, for principles must be grasped intuitively or supra-rationally.
As Aristotle said, "one does not demonstrate principles, but one perceives directly the the truth thereof".
To make use of medieval scholastic terminology, it is the pure intellect which is habitus principorum, while reason is only the habitus conclusionum. Man then possesses reason, and with it language, only because, unlike animals, he has access in principle to supra-rational vision.
It is this supra rational vision, Intellection or insight, that gives man, not only judgement, but certitude in his own existence as a being, and confidence in the functional capacity of reason. Intellection is a kind of "Seeing" and not a conclusion, and it is this that opens to man the possibility of metaphysical certitude.
This is why Boethius said that a man who thinks he is an animal that reasons has forgotten who he is. Now reason, which is a reflection of this higher Intellet, can receive its content- that which it reasons about- from above and from below, from within and from without. It can receive its premises from Revelation or the senses, from intellection or the subconscious.
These various sources, either individually or in combination provide reason with its "food" and any attempt to exclude one or more of them is arbitrary and irrational............ Man is thus reduced to a rational animal that can measure and feel, but never know. Ockham's much vaunted razor cut our metaphysical throats"
-Rama Coomaraswamy from
The Fundamental Nature Of The Conflict Between Modern And Traditional Man- Often Called The Conflict Between Science And Faith
Stan and/or To Whom It May Concern,
I just got around to an essay written by CS Lewis some years ago that both atheists and theists often refer to - "The Difficulties With Naturalism" It occurs to me that criticism comes in the form of pointing out that "extreme" determinism is not a necessary consequence of naturalism.
Is it logical to posit a real middle ground between determinism and transcendence?
Thoughts?
If Naturalism is true, then Cause and Effect are solidly in place, and no effect is without a corresponding cause and causal chain that regresses to the Big Bang and beyond. To play loose with Cause and Effect would allow "causeless" effects to appear. What is most fearful for the Naturalist is that humans would be thought to be "uncaused causers", a gateway to an inexplicable transcendence which Naturalism absolutely precludes per its dogma.
I think that the Principle of Non-Contradiction applies here: either causation is total (Naturalism), or transcendence is possible. If there is a middle ground it would necessarily include both transendence (physical effects outside the causal chain) and not-transcendence (full causation chain required).
Post a Comment