Foundations of Knowledge: Part 2 - Rationalism and Belief in God

Rationalism is an epistemological method which attempts to ground knowledge in reason. 

Rationalism is often contrasted with Empiricism, which is the attempt to ground knowledge in sense-based experience. Rationalists argue that the variable nature of sense-based experience, that experiences of the same thing can change according to the perspective of the knower, makes it an unreliable foundation for knowledge and truth (For more on this see the video, “An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills - Part 2).

In contrast reason is said to provide a more objective and reliable basis for knowledge, because no matter where you are in the world or who you are, what is logically and rationally true is always going to be true.

For instance, consider the following syllogism, which is a logical method of deducing a conclusion from what appear to be unrelated premises:

• A - All men are mortal 
• B - I am a man 
• C - Therefore, I am mortal

The basic structure of a syllogism is as follows: A + B = C. Thus we deduce: If the first statement (All humans are mortal) is true, and if I am a man, then logically it follows that C is true (I am human, male and therefore mortal).

Rationalism is also associated with the scientific method. Science largely operates according to the principle that true knowledge about ourselves and the nature of the world can be found by utilising human reason and logical enquiry. Unsurprisingly, with its emphasis on faith, belief, and supernatural revelation, religious knowledge is often considered incompatible with the scientific method and Rationalism.

An example of a so-called incompatibility would be religious beliefs about the origins of life, versus scientific theories of cosmic evolution. For instance, in the Bible in the Book of Genesis, we read how God appears to create the world in the course of a week, whereas cosmic evolution suggests that the emergence of the universe and life took billions of years.

It has been suggested that religious accounts of the creation of life were the product of pre-scientific knowledge: that stories were told to help people find a meaning and purpose in life. Thus, the more humans came to understand the world they live in, the less they needed the religious worldview to explain things and fill in the gaps. All this has added to the view that religious belief and reason cannot co-exist with each other.

But for all that atheists and scientists might want to reject religious belief and the existence of God as the by-product of an unenlightened mind, it is a mistake think that Rationalism has no place for God, or that Rationalists are naturally inclined towards unbelief and atheism.

For example, the Greek philosopher Plato who was very much a Rationalist sets out an argument in “Timaeus” for the existence of a benevolent (or Good) demiurge (god/Creator), who brought the world into existence. Although Plato’s demiurge is not the same God as the one argued for in the various modern Cosmological Arguments, there are clear parallels with these, the most notable being that a Divine presence is the First Cause of everything.

One of the most famous examples of a rationalist methodology being employed to support belief in God is Anselm’s Ontological Argument. In “Proslogion”, Bishop Anselm argues that something which exists is better (or greater) than something which does not, and so concludes that God’s existence is logically preferable to God’s non-existence. This means that God actually existing is the greatest thing we can conceive of God. He also argues that the claim “God does not exist” is logically nonsensical, for to suggest that God does not exist presumes we know what it means to say God does exist (which according to him, means God exists).

One of the more striking examples of where Rationalism and belief in God meet is in the philosophy of Rene Descartes. In his “Meditations” he explores a logical and rational method for establishing true knowledge. He suggests that whilst sense-based experience and certain thoughts about his existence can be doubted, the fact that he is having doubting thoughts cannot. Thus, he concludes that whatever cannot be doubted is true (“Cogito ergo sum”).

However, whilst Descartes was certain that his “method” set out a logical and rational basis for knowledge, he still felt the need to ground it in something other than this; something absolutely guaranteed to be a constant and reliable source of truth. And so with this in mind, the Fifth Meditation concludes: “Thus I recognise very clearly that the certainty and truth of all knowledge depends on… God.’’

Finally, Reformed Epistemology sets out a rational defense of belief in God’s existence by suggesting this belief does not require proof, as many non-believers argue it does. In rejecting the call to provide evidence for God’s existence (Evidentialism), they argue instead that belief in God should be treated as a basic and justified belief. For example, just as the existence of other minds is something we consider to be a rational and logical thing to believe, yet one we cannot actually provide evidence for to conclusively prove is true, then why not regard belief in God’s existence in the same manner? If we’re not insisting on evidence to prove the existence of other minds, then why insist that we need evidence to prove (or justify) God’s existence?

An Introduction to Epistemology: Foundations of Knowledge (Part 1)

Epistemology, from the Greek word episteme (meaning to know), is to do with the science, or art of knowing what we know.

I say “science or art” here because epistemological debates often center around one of the following issues: Do we discover knowledge of things, or do we create our knowledge and understanding of them?

Let’s state this another way: Are our minds passive or are they active in the cognitive, or knowing process? 

When passive the mind plays no active part in the cognitive process. In one sense we might say knowledge is pure, untainted by anything outside or in the mind. There is also a correlation between the thing perceived and our mind’s ability to receive knowledge of it. In the end the mind acts as a repository or a store for the knowledge we acquire, and that is all.

In contrast, when we say the mind is active in the knowing process, we are suggesting it plays some role in deciphering and organising knowledge. For instance, the mind receives sense impressions from things, but these are filtered and organised through an array of social and cognitive (that is mental) filters to give us knowledge.

For example, imagine this coffee-maker is our mind. To make coffee we put water in, which passes through coffee granules in this filter, which fills this jug underneath. If this is our mind then every moment sense-based experiences (what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell) are pouring in, passing through a variety of physical and cognitive filters, on the way to forming knowledge. 

The passive mind model suggests there is nothing affecting the knowledge we acquire, whereas the active mind model suggests there is, and this seems to resonate more with our experience of things. 

For instance, many people enjoy drinking coffee. Their taste buds react positively with the experience and this creates knowledge and a memory that they like to do this. However not everyone enjoys the taste of coffee. For instance, some people, like me, prefer to drink tea!

Now nothing is fundamentally changing in the nature of the coffee to cause someone enjoy drinking it, and me not so much. It is not the case that the nature of the coffee is changing according to the person drinking it. Instead it is each person’s personal preference and taste, which change and influences our experience of drinking coffee (or tea).

Let’s expand this analogy to talk about religious knowledge. 

For someone who believes in the existence of God, sense-experience also passes through the “God exists” filter. For example, if they pray for x to happen and x happens, then they would interpret that experience as God answering their prayers, which for them is also proof that God exists. Of course, some might suggest this is circular logic; that prior to having the experience of answered prayers, one is already assuming God exists and will answer them.

Let’s expand this cognitive model a little more. Just as different flavoured coffee granules can be placed in the coffee maker to give different flavoured coffee, so different social and cultural factors will influence the way our mind acquires religious-based knowledge.

For instance, someone born into a Christian family will most likely understand God as Trinity. A Muslim will experience God as Allah. A Hindu will perceive God to be Brahman, the living presence in all things…. and so on!

Unsurprisingly, the suggestion that the mind is active in the knowing process has led to skepticism and difficult questions about the nature of truth, belief and justification. For instance, can we claim any knowledge to be ultimately true? What criteria is needed to demonstrate true knowledge? Can anyone claim to be truly objective in terms of what they know?

In terms of religious knowledge, a believer might interpret an experience as the product of Divine interference, but an atheist interpret the same experience differently, judging it to be the product of natural causes and that is all. How do we decide whose experience is true?

Ever since the time of Immanuel Kant it has become increasingly popular to view what goes on in the mind as highly influential in the knowing process, and this has tended towards the notion that there is no independent source of knowledge beyond our own realm of sense-experience. But this is not exactly what Kant believed. Although he argued that the mind is active in the knowing-process, he also proposed the existence of a realm beyond human perception (called the noumenal realm) where we find the true nature of things (or things as they are). The problem he left us with is how to attain knowledge of anything as it truly is.

And so we arrive at the crux of the matter: Ontology!

Ontology is to do with the nature of reality. Obviously, logically, reality must have an essential and true nature, but the question is whether we can ever come to know and understand what this is?

If we accept the notion that knowledge is always influenced by social and cognitive filters, then this might suggest we never can never know the true nature of things. On the other hand, if we accept the possibility that mystical experiences or some form of mental training can take us behind the veil of human reason, then it might be argued that (in theory) we can.

An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills (Part 2)

There are over 7 billion people in the world, and with each person on the planet comes a unique perspective on the nature of things.

People are born into different families, different countries and different cultures, all of which shape the way each of us perceive the world.

We are also different from each other in many other ways. Male and female; fair-skinned and black; straight, gay, transgender; disabled, blind, colour-blind. So many things combine to make us very different from each other.

When it comes to thinking about each other’s beliefs and opinions, these too are many and varied. What we think about the nature of the world, reality, purpose of life, meaning of things, morality, religion, and God even, our beliefs are not necessarily going to be the same as what other people think. When we consider the multitude of influences that go into making us who we are, it is easy to see why this is the case.

So with this in mind our starting-point for evaluating another person’s beliefs and opinions must surely be that of asking questions. For example:

• Why do they believe that?
• When did they acquire these beliefs?
• What has led them to continue having these beliefs?
• How are my beliefs different to theirs?
• Where might we agree on this issue?

And so on…

Of course, if we all have our own unique beliefs and opinions then how do we decide which of them are reliable or true, if any?

In his book “The Problem of Philosophy”, the Philosopher Bertrand Russell illustrated this point in the following manner:

“To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound… but as soon as we try to be more precise our troubles begin. Although I believe that the table is 'really' of the same colour all over, the parts that reflect the light look much brighter than the other parts, and some parts look white because of reflected light. I know that, if I move, the parts that reflect the light will be different, so that the apparent distribution of colours on the table will change. It follows that if several people are looking at the table at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view… The same thing applies to texture… and shape.” [1]

So if people are having different experiences of the table at the same time, whose experience is the most valid or true?

Let’s illustrate this point another way using a well-known Indian parable:

In a village three blind men were touching an elephant. They were asked to describe what they were feeling. The first blind man, holding the elephant's leg, said he was touching the trunk a great tree. The second blind man, holding the elephant's tail said he was holding a rope. The third blind man, touching the elephant’s side, said he was standing in front of a great wall. Each blind man was convinced he was right and others were wrong, even though they were all touching the same elephant.

The table and elephant analogies suggest there is no such thing as Absolute Truth; that in fact all truth is relative to the individual and many philosophers will accept that this when it comes to social, moral and religious truth-claims. However, this is not to say we are now living in a world devoid of any truth or sense of certainty.

For instance, we can’t drive up to a gas station and decide to fill up our vehicle’s fuel tank with milk. Everyone at the gas station would agree that in order to make their vehicle work they need to put gas, or petrol in it. A combustion engine will not run on milk. Even if someone insists it does, they will soon come to realise they are wrong, especially when they attempt to start their car and drive off. So although someone next to me may have been born in a different country, have a different skin colour, is the opposite gender to me, and different in all manner of other ways, both of us would agree that we need to put gas into our vehicle in order to continue driving it.

One final point. Sometimes a disagreement between two people is simply about the meaning of the words we use. For instance, consider the person who believes the earth is flat versus the one who believe it is not. Both would say that the earth is “Round”, but both would also clearly mean different things by this.

[1] Taken from chapter 1, “Appearance and Reality”.

An Introduction to Logic and Reasoning Skills (Part 1)

When discussing and evaluating issues it is important to be able to present our opinions in a logical and reasonable manner. 

For example, I am sure you have witnessed this type of exchange in the comments section on YouTube: 

• Person #1: I know the earth is flat but Illuminati’s created the earth round to make people not believe in God
• Person #2: Haha you idiot
• Person #1: Insult is the first proof that someone knows he lost ... He will insult you instead of understanding why
• Person #2: Knows I lost huh. Again, you are a moron
• Person #1: I won’t insult someone that only wants to insult and not look for the truth ... You’d rather trust what others say and not your own self and for that I will block you, but I hope one day you’ll repent for your sins
• Person #2: Go kill yourself

(Actual comments posted on a video “Flat Earth theory & Evidence!?”)

Clearly there are no logic or reasoning skills being demonstrated here. Opinions are stated without qualification, and for no good reason insults traded. No attempt has been made to explain or examine anyone’s opinion, belief or idea.

Depressingly, this sort of behaviour is very common on social media; but there is another way.

In order to avoid unnecessary conflict, and simply as a matter of basic respect, we should engage thoughtfully, critically and logically with the variety of different viewpoints people hold. What might this look like? 

Well, let’s consider the following statement: “God exists because the Bible says so.” For those who believe the Bible is God’s written Word, this obviously justifies God’s existence. If the Bible says there is a God, then it must be true.

Also, they might say if there is no God then where did the Bible come from and why was it written? For them the very existence of the Bible is evidence for God’s existence.

Of course, an atheist would naturally disagree! Atheists do not believe God exists and many argue that the Bible is simply a human creation. As such the Bible cannot be used to support the claim that God exists.

Yet for all that atheists will dispute the existence of God, they cannot reject the existence of the Bible. The Bible clearly exists, but where did it come from? Why did people start writing down experiences they claimed to have had of God? If there is no God then why did people keep and preserve these writings and use them as a basis for their social and religious communities? And so the discussion begins.

Logically and reasonably we first need to establish a criteria for proving whether “God exists because the Bible says so”. For example, if a particular book actually is the Word of God and therefore evidence for God’s existence, what would such a book look like? 

What sort of writings would it contain? Would it have any errors? Could its human authors be said to have reliability communicated God’s teachings or commandments in it? Should we expect the original documents to still be around? Are we able to validate its religious truth claims on the basis of it reliably recording certain factual or historical events? And so on.

To examine the claim that the Bible is evidence for God’s existence requires us to explore and understand the assumptions being made to support or deny this, and to do this we need to ask questions and tease out the reasons people have for their different beliefs about it.

The bottom line is this: We cannot reasonably argue against some else’s point-of-view without giving them a good reason as to why we think we are right, or without giving them a good reason for why we think they are wrong!

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, Goodness, Design

Click here to read Part 1 of this article

The third way: The way of CONTINGENCY

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not.Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (Aquinas)

Things exist, but they could easily not exist! There was a time before certain things existed, and there will be a time when they no longer exist. There must also have been a time when nothing existed. This means that objects that exist have contingent existence, which means they could or  could not exist. For Aquinas, the only thing which has always existed is God (who would therefore have necessary existence). Aquinas saw no way to explain how anything was here, unless something existed prior to it. Thus for him, if God did not exist then nothing else would.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, assumes that God created the world ex nihilo (out-of-nothing). It was literally caused to be here from no other natural cause. Of course this could be challenged today by Cosmologists who argue that although there was no form to matter before the “Big Bang”, there was still something prior to the ‘Bang” which led to it occurring (E.g. Quantum fluctuations).

The fourth way: The way of GOODNESS

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. (Aquinas)

We see in the world degrees of perfection and goodness. Some things are really bad, some not so bad, some things are better than others. Aquinas argues that we only know things are 'degrees of x' (i.e something is really bad or not so bad) because we compare them to the best in any group (or genus) of things. So something not so bad is being compared to something that’s really bad!

Now in terms of morality, as humans have the capacity for both good and bad deeds they cannot logically be the source of Goodness (i.e. the most Good thing), because if they were they would not do bad things. Therefore, the maximum in the genus of morality must be something non-human, and not in the world (because this too is not completely good), which leaves us with God as the most perfect being, and the 'first cause' (or source) of all goodness and perfection. Of course, it might be argued that this is not so much an argument for the existence of God, but for the existence of some standard of morality. We could could say there is an ultimate standard of Goodness, without requiring us to posit the existence of God. Far more compelling (in terms of any moral argument for God’s existence) is to use God’s existence as as way of explaining why humans are something compelled to act in an altruistic manner, if there is nothing more than this world or life.

The fifth way: The way of DESIGN (or teleology)

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (Aquinas)

Aquinas' argument here is basically suggesting that inanimate objects (E.g. Planets), could not have ordered themselves on their own (i.e. got themselves into the orbits they have), because they lack the intelligence to do so. As the planets are aligned so perfectly, this means it must have been done by a Being with the ability and intelligence to do this. Although humans are intelligent and can explain planetary motion, they cannot move planets, so that leaves us with God (who Aquinas believed could move planets if God chose to do so).

From simple observation nature suggests a realm of order and purpose. This is the basis of science. The world is able to be observed, understood and explained. For Aquinas, anything which has in it a sense of purpose and order requires a 'guiding hand'. For instance, an arrow only hits the target because it has been fired by an archer. Thus if nature appears ordered, it must have a 'guiding hand', who Aquinas believed was God.

A weakness with Aquinas’ Fifth Way is that for science to be capable of observing, understanding and explaining the world we live in, we must first assume a sense of order and stability about things. The idea that there is some Deity acting in and on the world raises questions in terms of science’s ability to test, examine, and explain things. For instance, we cannot easily talk about the ‘laws of nature’ being constants, and have a God acting in the world doing miracles for example. So the scientific enterprise has gradually removed the notion that God acts in nature, to one where nature acts independently of any Divine Being. In the end, the more science provides us with an explanation of how and why things are the way they are, the less we find any need for a Divine Creator.

Further reading

• What Came Before the Big Bang?, Koberlein B, December 1st 2014

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 1): Introduction, Motion, Causation

Introduction

In Summa Theologica (1265-74), Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) outlined five proofs for God’s existence. As with Catholicism today, Aquinas believed it was possible to discern truths about God based on reason (human rationality), and revelation (divinely revealed truths not available to reason). Aquinas lived at a time when Aristotle's teachings were popular, and he made wide use of these in his theological writings.

The chief idea Aquinas harvested from Aristotle was the notion that things that changed, required an unchanging source. Aquinas explored variations of this theme in the first three of his proofs for God’s existence and have formed the basis of what are popularly known as COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. Aquinas’ fourth proof is related to MORAL ARGUMENTS for God’s existence, whilst the fifth way is related to DESIGN (or TELEOLOGICAL) ARGUMENTS.

In summary

• Cosmological Arguments: Proofs 1 -3
• Moral Argument: Proof 4
• Design (Teleological argument): Proof 5

It should be noted that for each of his proofs Aquinas is already assuming the existence of a God who is uncreated and independent of this world, the universe and their respective processes. This means God is not reliant on the world and the universe for God's existence. However, for Aquinas the world and the universe are reliant on God for their existence. In other words, without God nothing would be here.

The first way: The way of MOTION

It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. (Aquinas)

Everything in the world changes! Aquinas' proof here needs to be set against the background of Aristotle's discussion of astronomy. Aristotle argued that planetary motion, which he believed caused the seasons to change, required an Unmoved Mover who would maintain the order of things. Therefore, Aquinas used this notion to speak of the sustaining work of God. God makes sure the world and the universe remain the same, but was also behind the changes which led to the years passing by.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, is that the potential for something to become something else has to come from outside of itself. For example, a pot will not simply appear from a ball of clay without the input of a potter! The potential for the pot to be formed from the clay is there, but it requires something external to the clay to work on it to achieve this.

The second way: The way of CAUSATION

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. (Aquinas)

The notion of cause and effect, means you cannot have the latter (effect), without the former (cause - here called an efficient cause, because it is the means of bringing another thing into existence, or causing something to change). For Aquinas (and Aristotle) there cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect. An event always implies a cause, and if we continue to seek causes of events we will naturally look for a first cause of everything. According to the natural sciences, the first cause of everything is found in such things as singularities and a “Big Bang”. According to Aquinas though, the first cause is God.

The essence of Aquinas’ argument in bold above, is that that there would be nothing here if there wasn’t a cause of everything. The world and the universe cannot have always existed, (i.e. be infinite). Even though logically this is possible, Aquinas rejects this idea.

Review (The First Way)

Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways (Part 2): Contingency, Goodness, Design