When Clayton and I get together, we tend to get into long discussions about “deep philosophical issues.” When I saw my good friend this past weekend, it was no exception. What follows may seem a bit like loquacious rambling, but, as I've thought back to our conversation, these are the thoughts that have filled my head, and now have spilled onto this virtual page. So Clayton and I got into this long conversation about virtues, and whether seeking truth counts among the highest of them. Naturally, long-time readers of this blog will know that I think it does. At the very least, I think we should behave as though the search for truth is the highest virtue.
Truth is foundational. Rational thought and communication can’t occur without the assumption that there is truth and at least some truth can be known (or close enough to known). One cannot deny that there is truth without attempting to assert a truth. One can’t claim “there is no truth” without relying on the assumption that there is, in fact, truth. Otherwise, the claim “there is no truth” wouldn’t and couldn't be true. If there is no truth then nothing is true, including the claim that “nothing is true.” If truth is merely a matter of personal preference or opinion, then every claim is true, and every claim is false. No true communication can be had because, without truth, no one can say anything that can be distinguished from other claims or evaluated – or even understood.
If I say, “the pope is Catholic and the pope is not Catholic,” what have I said? What proposition have I communicated that can be distinguished from other claims? Every declarative statement a person says or writes carries with it the connotative message that that particular declaration is true. For example, when I called my mom and told her I received the package she sent to me in the mail, the connotative message in my statement to my mom is that the statement “I received the package she sent to me in the mail” is true. If there’s no truth, then why say anything at all?
Concerning virtues, if we don’t understand the importance of truth, and if we don’t know what truth is, how can we understand that which is virtuous and not virtuous, or even know the difference between the two? If we don’t know truth we can’t make correct judgments – not just concerning virtues, but about anything – and thus we are left to guess, or pretend we know when in reality we have no clue at all. One cannot utter claims about virtues without assuming one understands some truth about virtues. I considered this as I conversed with Clayton. If he says “love is a greater virtue than seeking truth” (which is what I think he was trying to suggest), then, if his claim is really true, then he must have acquired this truth somehow; moreover, if love is a virtue one must possess (or a behavior one must practice, depending on how one defines “love”), then understanding the truth of this virtue is imperative; moreover still, if one does not understand this virtue, how else will one discover it and subsequently implement it? Hence we see both the importance and the fundamentality of truth-seeking.
Concerning seeking truth, Clayton asked me about starting assumptions, particularly the starting assumption of theism. Clayton questioned: Is it any less correct to begin seeking truth with the assumption that god exists than it is to begin with the assumption that god does not exist? After all, doesn’t a person have to start with one or the other? Here is yet another reason why I am so adamant in defining atheism as "the lack of belief in god(s)." The presumption of atheism à la Antony Flew isn’t the assumption that there is definitely no god; rather, it is the presumption of skepticism: the starting point of withholding judgment until logic and evidence dictate that a judgment be made. Flew wrote:
The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter. [Flew]
Not only does a truth seeker not need to start with either the assumption that god exists or the assumption that god doesn’t, a truth seeker shouldn’t start with either assumption. Judgment should be withheld until one has good reason to make a judgment.
Any time a person fails to follow this principle when formulating a belief, that person exhibits a pattern of thought resembling that of religious faith. What is faith but arriving at a conclusion irrespective of reason or evidence? If a claim taken on faith happens to be true, then it is purely coincidental, accidental and fortunate for the person of faith. Faith must not be given any credit in such a scenario any more than a blindfold should be given credit in a scenario involving a man who somehow managed to drive home without incident while wearing that blindfold.
Faith is the acceptance of a claim independent of any rational examination of evidence or argumentation. People come to faith for many reasons. For me, I accepted Christian theism because I was conditioned to believe it by my environment, culture and context, not because I became convinced by the evidence and argumentation. My faith was cultivated and strengthened by repetition and affirmation. Like most humans, I found stability in predictability, and comfort in convention. Christian colloquialisms and church pews, organ music and hymnals with the distinct smell of age were as familiar as home to me. I had no need to search for truth, for I believed I had already found it.
The problem with living a life by faith is that faith by definition can't rely on any objective foundation. Matters of faith can't be tested; they must only be accepted. Empirical science, on the other hand, has an objective foundation. That's why, when new discoveries are made that antiquate previous theories and concepts, scientists change their views to reflect the best available evidence. Faith, in contrast, is entirely subjective. This leads to the mindset that says my faith is correct because it's my faith. My life of faith - and this is true of so many other people who tried to live by faith - was a life of uncertainty. "What is god's will?" "What does god want me to do with my life?" How can we find the answers to these questions? If the Christian god exists, he's a master of ambiguity. If the Christian god exists, he has provided no observable standard by which to evaluate truth claims. And why should anyone expect this god to provide such a standard? This same god demands faith, after all.
Dead-Logic.com
