1.1 Existence of Truth: Epistemology                                Version 1.1 March 2012

 

 

 

The next level of detail is shown in this box.  See commentary further below.

 

The Dilemma of Truth

No-one can escape the dilemma that our beliefs and our choices are

·         caused (completely or probabilistically determined by our nature and/or our nurture, according to the laws of physics and chemistry and so on, whether we truly know them or not) or

·         uncaused, which is to say totally random, chaotic, unpredictable and incomprehensible.

Either way, if they are causally determined or arise at random, our beliefs are not necessarily true.  And this belief itself, being either caused or random, is not necessarily true.  There does not seem to be any way to resolve this dilemma: it is real, not a word game.

But …

We all in fact do choose to act as though at least some kind of truth is attainable.

We all believe some things are not true.

If we are to take any action in the world we must, however tentatively, accept numerous “beliefs” about the world and then inevitably live with the consequences of our actions.

We also assume the universe is comprehensible, that it is inherently rational, that if we were clever enough it would make some sort of sense, even if our understanding is incomplete. 

The dilemma is not that beliefs, like everything else, are caused or chaotic.  The dilemma is that although they must be one or the other, we still choose to believe in Truth, despite the fact that the evidence is self contradictory.

We choose to believe in the Truth and that it is attainable to some degree.  We do in fact believe that some things are wrong, that we can learn more and get closer to the truth, that we can make sensible, rational, day to day decisions in our lives and political decisions based on our knowledge of the world.  Our choices reflect our values.  If we choose it, then we value Truth.

Uncertainty

We also cannot escape the other side of the dilemma: we must accept the possibility that some of our beliefs are wrong, and live with the inherent uncertainty.  This uncertainty is a logical consequence of our analysis and the choices we make, so we value uncertainty.

 

No rational system is complete unto itself.  Gödel (a famous mathematician) showed that for any rule based mathematical system there are true statements that cannot be proved, but are obviously true.  There are limits to rationality and reason.  We must accept these limits.  But Gödel’s insight doesn’t show that reason is useless, only that it cannot solve every problem. 

The implication is that it is likely that no coherent system of thought can justify itself. 

Reason and Faith

·         We cannot prove that the universe is comprehensible: we take it on faith.  We cannot prove that the truth is obtainable, in fact there is significant evidence to the contrary, as well as in favour: we take it on faith.  We cannot prove that it is reasonable for any one individual to be compassionate and merciful: we take it on faith.  We must have faith in reason.

·         The analysis of these global beliefs shows that this is not blind faith: we must reason about faith.  We must look at all the evidence and apply as much reason as possible, and wherever reason and the evidence takes us we should go.  We must not use “faith” to deny what is true based on reason and the evidence.  Once we have determined what values will be the basis of our decisions, the vast majority of practical questions we need to resolve do not involve any degree of arbitrariness or “faith”.  The following points apply to a smaller number of practical questions and issues of value where reason and the evidence don’t lead to a firm conclusion.

·         But sometime reason and the evidence lead inherently to a dilemma: then we must make a choice.  This is a judgement that reflects our values, it is evidence of our basic attitudes, and the collection of these choices defines the content of our character. 

·         Often there is insufficient evidence and no clear chain of reasoning to lead to a definite conclusion.  Again, when the world confronts us with the necessity to act in one way or another, we must make choices that reflect our values and define our character.  Sometimes we can use general principles that are not directly applicable to guide our choices.  Other times we can’t.  We have to be aware of our selfish desires.  We have to live with the outcomes.

·         If we conclude, over time, that our choices appear to have resulted in desirable outcomes, then we could say our faith in these choices increases.  But if our choices lead to undesirable outcomes, then we need to re-examine them, regardless of what degree of faith we may have had in them, to look at the evidence now available to us and reconsider the reasons for the choice. 

·         So our leaps of faith are the choices we make when we face unresolvable dilemmas, or a lack of evidence, and when we use general principles that are not directly relevant to the choice.

·         These choices are rather arbitrary, made in the face of a dilemma, or when there are insufficient grounds to decide more rationally.

·         It is best is we periodically examine these leaps of faith to determine whether we as individuals or society at large has discovered new evidence or gained new insights into the old evidence, to ensure that we do not continue to make arbitrary decisions that are contrary to reason and the evidence.  We must continually be on the look out to minimise the degree of faith required.

·         We must reason about our faith, and we must have faith in reason.

Respect

·         These arbitrary choices are rather arbitrary, made in the face of a dilemma, or when there are insufficient grounds to decide more rationally, so it is likely they could be wrong.  Although we have made them in good faith, others could in good faith choose otherwise.

·         This means we must allow for a diversity of opinion and that the views of others may be correct, which means we accord them a kind of respect, to at least some extent. 

·         But we must also acknowledge that many of the core values most people espouse, those that are based primarily on faith rather than reason and the evidence, are the same as those espoused in these global beliefs: truth, compassion, mercy etc, as we define in other sections.  The real grounds for significant differences are smaller than many people believe.