I have been asked two questions recently, questions that have brought me to reconsider my approach to the issues addressed on this blog. Previously I have maintained the position that every individual should honestly and thoroughly examine all and every premise that constitutes his worldview. I said that because that ( based on the Descartes method of total rejection and reconstruction) is what enabled me to discover and reject the false principles in my own worldview. Now I wonder if it is possible for every individual to actually reject everything he thinks he knows and to rebuild from scratch. And if that is not possible, should I lay out in numbered form the exact path of worldview reconstruction that I went through?
Of even more concern is the issue of Ethics and how one makes ethical decisions: I have no moral authority to make such determinations and proclamations. Therefore any criticism of my views on the issue are subject to criticism which could only be valid. Yet because ethical proclamations are really merely human opinions, how could mine be any worse than any other? Especially if mine is offered as merely an opinion?
Still, despite a culture which no longer believes in or values truth, at least truth of the objective, incorrigible kind, there are certain things that are true, really true, even in the incorrigible sense.
One of the problems in relating my particular reconstruction process is that it was long ago, now, taking a long time which was consumed with study. For over a year, circa 2003, I was totally consumed with acquiring the “rest of my education”. I obsessively read four or five books a week, at first without any direction other than the issues which were being raised in my mind, and finally in a more linear path as I developed bottom up structure to my new worldview. I manufactured huge mounds of notes which devoured my desk, and those notes ultimately resolved into a coherent order as my worldview developed.
But the details in the finest granularity are lost to me now. What is important though, remains: Ask, “is there Truth?”, and “how can I know?”. And if there really is Truth, then what things are True?
And then, is logic really valid? How can I know? And the process and principles of logic: what are they? What makes logic True, if it even is true? Can logic even be used to think about Truth? How does logic relate to rational thought? Can rational thought exist without a basis in Truth?
For me it became important to know what the various philosophers contributed to the knowledge of truth. That took some time to sort out.
The process is ill-defined because it is personal. And for that reason I have recommended that each individual accept the responsibility to process his own concepts without bias from me and my process. And what would be gained from outlining my own experience? Would it shorten the process for others? Or would it negate the validity of their conclusions, which are not then their own but are borrowed?
But in actuality the quandary is moot, because the information exists on the website which accompanies this blog. That site contains the results of my queries, if not the messy process which had to be tamed in order to reach those results. I still recommend that every individual go through a process of total rejection of current principles held followed by a considered reconstruction of a true and valid worldview.
And by the way, this is a more honest form of skepticism than the current "Skeptic" fad of sitting outside the intellectual process and taking pot shots at it. The process of denial and reconstruction is a more complete intellectual process than denial followed by pure cynicism.
…
The second question involves how I, personally, make ethical decisions. Do I have a group of objective ethical principles, rules which I use to screen responses? To that question I can provide a somewhat better answer, even without the moral authority to make moral proclamations. That is because I don’t see this as an issue requiring moral authority; it is actually a pragmatic issue.
If one has a valid worldview, and accepts that there is Truth and has based the principles of his life upon that, then there is a direct approach to moral decisions. If a decision is to be made, and any of the options fall outside of the boundaries of my worldview, then those options are off the table. Acceptable options must cohere with my worldview, which must cohere with Truth.
This might be less than clear at first. That would be because I need to explain that my worldview contains subsets of Truth: honesty, integrity, reliability / dependability, truthfulness, personal responsibility, self reliance rather than parasitism, perseverance, and many other personal traits that derive from Truth.
If I am confused about a moral decision I can always go back to the concept of Truth and its subsidiaries, Integrity for example, and ask whether an option is coherent with my worldview.
This is not the same as running an option through a list of rules, and looking for a rule-based answer. Rather it is based on maintaining the integrity of a coherent worldview based on Truth.
This is the opposite of ethical opinions such as pragmatism, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and other rule-based decision processes – all of which have no basis in Truth, but are based on opinions of correct outcomes. Correct outcomes can come with the most onerous of means which are required to accomplish the “ethical” ends.
To the contrary, a Truth based approach questions both the means and the end and asks for the compatibility of those with the Truth based worldview. Integrity and honesty are both considered values in a Truth based worldview, while outcomes are the primary (only?) real consideration in the opinion-based worldviews.
There is another very real distinguishing difference between the opinion-based ethics and the Truth-based. That is this: a Truth-based ethic is for oneself, for keeping one honestly within the boundaries of his own worldview. Opinion-based ethics are for other people. The philosopher’s ethical opinion is that other people should behave in such and such a manner, in order to fulfill the demands of the philosopher’s opinion. It should not require much rumination to determine that opinion-based ethics tend strongly toward totalitarianism, with the philosopher’s elite opinion being enforced amongst the masses.
This is in diametric opposition to an ethic which one uses to control one’s own actions and opinions under the aegis of true and valid principles.
Here are some posts from the past that might be of interest on the subject of ethics:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/08/universal-objective-morality.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2010/03/pz-watch-030310.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/09/source-of-moral-authority.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2008/11/ethics-and-saul-d-alinsky.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/09/intellectual-link-between-atheism-and.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/09/source-of-humility.html
5 comments:
In an essay entitled, "CS Lewis and Naturalism", Austin Cline says :
C.S. Lewis wanted to explain nature on the basis of his supernatural god; as a consequence, naturalistic explanations for nature represented a major threat... Lewis argued against naturalism in a variety of contexts. It plays an important role not just in his discussions about morality, but also in his arguments about the nature of reason....
Lewis argues against naturalism by saying "If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be explicable in terms of the Total System.".....
Lewis appears not to have understood that some events and systems are, even in principle, not explainable despite being entirely natural......
Part of the problem is that Lewis adopts a very limited, narrow understanding of naturalism. For Lewis, naturalism is the same as determinism....The idea of.... rejecting both extreme determinism and supernaturalism is never entertained.
Lewis argues that nature cannot explain the existence of Reason......Because atoms are not themselves rational, then they alone cannot be responsible for rationality because such an irrational foundation cannot be a reliable basis for rational thinking. This absurd reasoning would preclude atoms being responsible for anything at all- atoms aren't visible to the naked eye, so how could they produce anything visible? It's known as the fallacy of composition and is just one more example of Lewis constructing fallacious arguments......
(This part is interesting)
Lewis relied on a bizarre epistemology.... He felt that reliable knowledge depends upon logical reasoning- that we cannot come to have true, justified beliefs about the world without it.
This is a peculiar and extreme form of rationalism, but it's not an epistemology which is compatible with modern science and thinking. It doesn't enjoy wide currency today, even among Christians who accept Lewis' apologetics. If they do not accept the epistemological assumptions he uses, though, they cannot also accept his theological conclusions....
Cline sounds like yet another Atheist who seems to miss the point of the argument.
And he has it 100% wrong about CS Lewis - Lewis turned back to Theism when he realised that Naturalism led to a denial of the validity of human reasoning. It wasn't that he "wanted to explain nature on the basis of his supernatural god" - not at all!
Chris, do you have a link to Cline’s essay? Thanks.
It is doubtful that Lewis meant any of the things that Cline attributes to him. In fact, from this comment anyway - none of Lewis’ text is quoted, only Cline’s interpretation - one cannot determine whether Cline has even read Lewis. It would appear that he has not, since Lewis was “dragged kicking and screaming out of his Atheism”, and had no need to justify any false beliefs. Cline is well known for misdirection and misinterpretation in favor of himself.
”The idea of.... rejecting both extreme determinism and supernaturalism is never entertained.”
I think Cline is right here. The rejection of extreme determinism is only accepted by parts of the Atheist / Materialist community. The reason is that if cause and effect are a necessary part of materialism, then how can cause and effect not be involved in every human transaction? Under Philosophical Materialism it is necessary that life, humans, and reason all have physical causes. If there is a lapse or hole in cause and effect, then there is no explanatory power for describing the effect, which has no cause. It is not acceptable for humans or reason to be thought of as "uncaused causes"; that defeats Materialism at its core. Thus it is radical to think that there might be lapses in the chain of cause and effect. (note 1)
So under Materialism, reason cannot be other than predestined, predetermined by prior physical causes, going back at least to the Big Bang. If Cline has identified a hole in cause and effect, he will be hailed as genius (or apostate) amongst the Materialist Faithful.
Back to Cline’s comment, Lewis probably never considered it because it is not rational under Materialism, nor a part of Materialist philosophy of his time.
”Lewis relied on a bizarre epistemology.... He felt that reliable knowledge depends upon logical reasoning- that we cannot come to have true, justified beliefs about the world without it.
This is a peculiar and extreme form of rationalism, but it's not an epistemology which is compatible with modern science and thinking.”
This explains a lot about Cline and his writings, of course. He has absolutely no comprehension of the logical dependencies of empirical science, clear down to the axioms of the First Principles. And he completely misunderstands the relationship of logic, Rationalism, and Empiricism.
It is common for Atheists to begin in complete ignorance and then to fabricate a universe based that. I wonder how many of Cline’s readers agree that logic is not necessary except under extreme Rationalism which is not compatible with modern science and thinking.
Note 1:
This is an example of blatant rationalization, where the conclusion is deemed necessary, and premises are created to support that conclusion. Perhaps that is why Cline eschews logic (even while claiming logical fallacies in his arguments).
Now let’s look at Cline’s use of the Composition Fallacy.
From the Fallacy Files:
”Some properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will too—for example, visibility. However, not all properties are like this—for instance, invisibility. All visible objects are made up of atoms, which are too small to see. Let's call a property which distributes from all of the parts to the whole an "expansive" property, using Nelson Goodman's term. If P is an expansive property, then the argument form above is validating, by definition of what such a property is. However, if P is not expansive, then the argument form is non-validating, and any argument of that form commits the fallacy of Composition.”
Cline:
”Lewis argues that nature cannot explain the existence of Reason......Because atoms are not themselves rational, then they alone cannot be responsible for rationality because such an irrational foundation cannot be a reliable basis for rational thinking. This absurd reasoning would preclude atoms being responsible for anything at all- atoms aren't visible to the naked eye, so how could they produce anything visible? It's known as the fallacy of composition and is just one more example of Lewis constructing fallacious arguments
Is property P expansive, if property P is “rationality”? No, rationality is not a property of atoms at all. Period. So property P cannot be either expansive or non-expansive, since it does not exist in the object of discussion.
If it does not exist in the object of discussion (atoms), then it will not exist in large aggregates of the objects, either. So intellect and reason cannot be presumed to arise from atoms, because that property does not exist in atoms.
The invisibility of atoms is not a property of atoms, it is a property of the human eye and its resolution, or lack thereof, at the size of individual atoms. This is a misdirection, and is “just one more example of [not Lewis] Cline constructing fallacious arguments.
It is his own conclusion that is absurd, but then absurdity is a term used in logic, which Cline denies as being part of modern thought. Perhaps he has redefined the term, as Atheists sometimes do.
Was Lewis' foray into philosophy as tragic as Cline claims?
Austin Cline's essay at:
atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/naturalism.htm
Post a Comment