The Trouble With Truth: Freedom vs. Subservience
Freedom is the advantage of Atheism, while subservience is the plague of religion: that is the message from PZ Meyer last Sunday. The perfect freedom that Atheism provides is a release from authority and obligatory moral tenets. According to Meyer, the Atheist has,
”...no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act”.
The Trouble With Truth: Rebellion
Many Atheists arrive at their Atheism during or after a journey of personal rebellion. Rebellion is part of the adolescent process of determining who one is. An adolescent is captured under rules of behavior that restrict. The restriction is resented. If the person is to be self-sufficient, then those rules made by others are onerous. Many youth rebel, and some rebel against all authority over them. In the manner of a prisoner rebelling against captors, the youth rebels, seeking personal control. In many cases, the youth is released from the restrictions as he reaches legal maturity, and he becomes independent and moves on, having accomplished personal control at last. In others, the resentment lingers, and rebellion continues. For some it continues throughout life. Some never reach the degree of personal control they seek.
So it is no wonder that the ultimate freedom and personal control that Atheism promises is popular amongst the young. And it is no wonder that it, rebellious Atheism, declines with age, along with Leftist, omni-control political leanings. But there remain those who cannot let go of the resentment they felt at the restrictions placed on them during their formative years, who retain the need for personal control over everything to the very end.
Another factor is the type of fathering that the youth received. In today’s distributed families, the fathers very often are not present. The youth are raised in an estrogen-rich environment, one which tries valiantly to provide the needs of the young person, but fails to provide a stable masculine role model. It is now known that male rebellion against the single female parent is a direct link to Atheism, and that faulty fathers produce the same issues in children, especially males.
When Meyer promises the great relief of omni-freedom and personal control via Atheism, he knows what he is doing. Freedom from all constraint is the main offering that Atheism has to bestow. Complete freedom is an attractive feature to a person who has been afflicted with onerous restrictions, real or imagined.
But freedom always comes at a price. Complete, unrestricted freedom costs dearly. It costs the connection to reality through truth, because for the Atheist there is no truth, it is all relative. Relativity gives one freedom to choose, whereas truth can restrict you to predetermined answers.
The Trouble With Truth: Definition
That’s the problem with truth. Or at least one of the problems. Truth has some characteristics that are uncomfortable for the rebel, the seeker of perfect freedom. Because truth, by definition, is uncompromising. Truth is incorrigible, unchangeable by the opinions of humans. Truth is not controllable by humans. Worse, logic and rational thought require that truth exists. And worst of all, truth might not be on the side of the rebel.
Humans are not the source of truth. The universe is not the source of truth. The source of the universe and humans is the source of truth. So controlling truth and bending it to an individual’s personal needs is out of the question for actual, universal truth. Any concepts that are manufactured for personal benefit are opinions, not truth. So it is opinion that is relative, not truth.
How should truth be defined then, in order to capture its incorrigible, universal quality? There are so many definitions of truth, that I have condensed them before;
Here is another condensation:
”Original Truth reflects observable characteristics of the universe that are inferred to be incorrigibly valid and perpetually unchanging within our universe, and which, if not so, would require a different sort of universe than ours in order to accommodate them.”
The Trouble With Truth: The Role of Inference.
Inference of truth is the only possible manner in which it can be apprehended. It is not possible to use empirical scientific methods to generate a truth, ever. This is because of the “inductive defect” and its spawn, the deductive defect, upon which empiricism depends. Truth is known only through the process of observation, inference and introspective examination. Before any objections about using inference for truth are raised, consider the widespread use of inference to declare the truth of the evolution hypothesis. Empirical science also infers a probability of the validity of an hypothesis after performing experiments that fail to falsify the hypothesis. Science is no stranger to inference: it uses it extensively.[1]
Inference of universal truth is different only in that the validity is inferred from the consequences that would be seen if the concept were not true, universally. It would take a much different universe to accommodate realities where a tautology was not valid, where cause and effect was not valid, or where an large, non-quantum object could both exist and not exist simultaneously. Our universe would not be what it is if these concepts were not true.
It is certainly valid to declare that these concepts cannot be proven, especially empirically. But it is not valid to declare them false because of that. Nietzsche did that and invented anti-Rationalism. But rationality remains a desirable characteristic amongst most humans today. In fact, rationality is an inborn human faculty that is well described in Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. If a person denies rationality as a valuable trait, then a rational conversation cannot be had with him.
There are also arguments against introspection, declaring that mental activity such as that is subject to error. But this neglects the fact that all decisions are mental activities which are carried on in the individual mind, and which use the same Lockian human faculties that are exercised when analyzing empirical data. Moreover, introspective conclusions can be compared against those of others who have considered the same issues and have come to conclusions. Differences between individual findings can be considered evidence for consideration, just as is done in empiricism, comparing experimental results. The declaration that introspection and other mental considerations are faulty is a fallacy of failing to consider the full use, and consequences of full use, of the mental faculty and using only data favoring the desired conclusion (Exclusionary Fallacy). After all, Atheism is itself an inference which would automatically fail if introspection and mental agitations are not valid by definition.
The Trouble With Truth: Subservience.
Since it is demonstrable that truth does exist, and that it is incorrigible and its validity is not dependent upon what humans think about it, then it is necessary for human thought, if it is to be valid, to work within the framework of that truth.
I have been lucky enough to have observed and worked with some individuals who were independently brilliant. These individuals all exhibited a singular characteristic: intellectual humility. None of these people considered themselves to be “intellectuals”, especially “Public Intellectuals” endowed with the duty to moralize to the masses. What made them special was their willingness to look into physically abstruse matter with a totally open mind, a mentality that wished to know and understand rather than to control. By objectively exercising causes and observing all – All – the effects, or vice-versa, the truth of the phenomenon being examined could be found.
In other words, the observations were subject to the principle of cause and effect. The entire environment was allowed to be subservient to that principle. And the other First Principles as well, all were assumed as axioms. Valid thought can only happen under such subservience. Rebellion against these axioms produces the Nietzschean anti-rationality, which has no place in science, math, logic or rational discourse.
In fact, one can see that coherent information converges into knowledge, while incoherent information, i.e. noise, disperses into the chaos of more noise. Coherence is the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. Another way to say this is that denying Non-Contradiction produces chaotic thinking. So the total freedom that is the objective of Atheism and Materialism, the open thinking that denies absolutes, that claims control over its thoughts while denying external limits as arbitrary constructs, this total freedom brings only chaotic thinking.
Rebellion against absolutes and external control over the thought process is a faulty mind set, one which prevents the submission of thought to the reality of truth.
The Trouble With Truth: Reality.
Consider this. If there is no truth, then there is no reality, at least none that is stable and consistent. If there are no absolutes governing the universe, then the universe has no stable characteristics that we can call laws. And there is no consistency in an unstable reality that we can use to produce rational decisions, and thus rationality is non-existent.
Are we to believe this? Can this be inferred from any observations of the properties of the universe? Is language merely unintelligible mutterings without any logical meaning? Is there no personal experience with the reality that is described by the First Principles? Are there no absolute principles governing the behavior of the universe in a consistent and stable?
We can only infer answers to these issues. But if Atheism is valid, if there is no meaning to the principles of consistency, if total freedom of thought reigns, then all these things are so: and the consequence of that is another tenet of Atheism – we are meaningless, valueless, irrational creatures in an irrational, valueless, meaningless universe: so anything goes, anything whatsoever.
The Trouble With Truth: Ethics
Which brings us to ethics and truth. The most common ethic of Atheists is Consequentialism which is focused on the masses as Humanism. Here Atheists are forced to consider whether Consequentialism is “truth”, or whether it is merely a tactic.
It almost seems that I needn’t say any more about that, yet I am compelled to point out that ethics are never “truth” for Atheists, who deny that truth exists. So the default is “tactic”. They do claim loud and long that they are moral, Meyer does so frequently. But that resolves to “tactic” as well, since it cannot be truth either. And tactics are what Consequentialism is all about. It is no different than the procedures for carrying on warfare; once again, anything goes, if it produces results.
The Trouble With Truth: Not-Truth
The final yet universal problem for Atheists is that truth, when denied, produces an environment of not-truth. Without truth, only not-truth remains. That is the environment of Atheism: not-truth. In such an environment, as was pointed out earlier, anything goes, including all sorts of denials of the obvious. Atheism cannot be true for several reasons, in this case, the fact that it denies the existence of any arbitrary, uncontrollable, external, incorrigible, absolute… truth.
So it cannot be true.
[1] Note that science does not warrant inferred results to be truth: science, including empirical science, produces only contingent factoids, tentative information that is always subject to further investigation and findings.
6 comments:
I had a strong father, and I can't say that I was especially rebellious. Certainly less so than the typical young person.
The other option is exactly what you said your atheism was: anti-ecclesiasticism (Ugh. Did I spell that right?).
I can trace my atheism to that, and nothing more than that. No reason or logic was involved in my deconversion.
"It is now known that male rebellion against the single female parent is a direct link to Atheism, and that faulty fathers produce the same issues in children, especially males."
Citation?
"But if Atheism is valid, if there is no meaning to the principles of consistency"
Just because things are consistent, does not mean they have objective meaning. Ought from an is.
Consequentialism must be tempered with virtue ethics. That is to say that the ends do not justify the means, if your means are unjust and your ends malevolent. At the other extreme, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Neither framework provides an absolute and ideal moral compass for reasons which should be obvious.
Neither is "truth", they are frameworks for determining what is moral. What atheists deny that Truth exists? That is your conclusion yet it does not seem to rest on any foundations. Unless Truth = God? That would just make the statement a tautology though.
As for me, passive father, dominant mother, early rebellion.
Sam, citation: Paul Vitz, PhD; "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism"; Spence Pub Co, 1999.
"But if Atheism is valid, if there is no meaning to the principles of consistency"
Just because things are consistent, does not mean they have objective meaning. Ought from an is.
Proving the point. Denying that consistency has a meaning for a rationally functioning universe does not mean that such meaning does not exist; it merely means that the obvious can be easily denied.
The discipline of empirical science, however, takes consistency to mean that the universe can be understood precisely because it is consistent and therefore it is governed by laws which are universal, in place and can be discovered using a logic which is consistent with the universal consistency.
"Neither is "truth", they are frameworks for determining what is moral."
That is the point. You take it upon yourself to be the arbiter of what is moral. If I am the arbiter, then I easily am able to declare your behaviors immoral especially if they are not congruent with my ethical determinations. Then I am able to prescribe corrections for your behaviors, and procedures for dealing with you should you choose not to modify your behaviors to my arbited set of ethics which I call morality. You should be happy to receive my wisdom, yes? Especially if I happen to seize power, right?
"What atheists deny that Truth exists? That is your conclusion yet it does not seem to rest on any foundations. Unless Truth = God? That would just make the statement a tautology though."
Log on over at either Pigliucci's site or at PZ Meyer's site and ask what they think about absolute Truth as a determinate factor in ethics. Point out to them that if there is no Truth, there is only "not-Truth" or falseness; good luck.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Useless father, amazing mother. Lots of other strong male role models though.
Stan. That book is based on a select group of famous atheists/theists from history. That's not enough to propose even a casual link.
I see the disconnect is among the terms meaning/value/truth and how they are being used.
If reality = truth, then truth exists. It does not follow that it is reality that it is wrong to kill.
That the universe is consistent obvious means something, but it does not imply ethical values. It is valuable, because it is useful. But it is not morally good/evil.
If we are not the arbiters, then upon what shall we base our morality?
Sam,
"That's not enough to propose even a casual link."
...in your opinion, which is based on what statistical analysis?
"If reality = truth, then truth exists. It does not follow that it is reality that it is wrong to kill."
Nor have I said that it does follow from material origins.
"That the universe is consistent obvious means something, but it does not imply ethical values. It is valuable, because it is useful. But it is not morally good/evil."
Nor have I implied otherwise.
"If we are not the arbiters, then upon what shall we base our morality?"
I suspect that you have adopted a Judeo-Christian ethic. But then I don't know you. Most Atheists have co-opted Judeo-Christian ethics up to the point that their pleasure centers have taken them off into paganism (Hedonism, as G.E. Moore calls it). But the primary set is still Judeo-Christian. It is a rare Atheist who actually behaves as if there really is no outside ethic, as if evolution were the deterministic element in his life, as if personal thriving / pleasure were the only ethic.
Instead, Atheists tend to create subsets of Judeo-Christian culture which are resonant sounding yet deviant (Social Justice; egalitarianism). But they don't live according to these, they just complain that no one else does.
It's not my opinion that he hand picked his samples. If you know anything about statistics, you should know that this invalidates any inference that could be drawn.
You do say that there is a moral/ethical value built into reality. You say there is 'meaning' to the consistency of reality, without establishing a basis (that I can see). You appear to arrive at that conclusion because no meaning would mean there is no truth. But that's an obvious false dichotomy.
You are obviously an intelligent writer, but its a bit hard to actually grasp what you are saying. The key points seem to be wrapped in some ambiguity. Or I'm dense.
I do not have a Judeo-Christian ethical system, although there are some Humanistic values which Christians have co-opted which we would share. Golden Rule springs to mind.
Other values, such as no gods before Me, no graven images, taking the name of God in vain, keeping the Sabbath Holy, are rejected as superstition. Honor your parents, don't kill, steal or bear false witness are covered by the Golden Rule.
Post a Comment