The two previous essays asked three
questions. What is the foundation upon
which one's truth paradigm is constructed? Is it solid enough that it
cannot be destructed? If the foundation of one's truth paradigm is destructed,
what will that do to the truth paradigm?
Then
two different theories were explored, though not comprehensively. The purpose was not to completely exhaust all
argument appropriate to each but to provoke the reader to make two
examinations.
First, the
challenge was to examine the veracity of the foundation upon which one’s truth
paradigm is constructed.
Second, the
challenge was to examine the validity of the truth paradigm itself.
As
you read the following may you make these two assessments of your truth
paradigm.
ASSUMPTIONS
Life
is filled with assumption both known and unknown. These essays are no
different, thus there are at least three assumptions present herein.
Theories: The first assumption is that these are
theories. Of course those who embrace a
particular position would argue against such being so. However, for the sake of the argument the
term was employed.
Two
systems: The second assumption is that
there are only two truth systems. Of
course post-modernism was referenced which some might argue is a third category
but since in its simplest form it is both skeptical of and rejecting of there
being truth, it was not considered.
Truth
and Reality: The third assumption is
that truth could be employed to describe both truth and reality. As was noted the discussion which would
compare and contrast truth and reality will be left for another essay.
LIMITATION
The
limitation of the discussion may present a problem for some but it lies upon
the line between supernaturalism[1]
as opposed to naturalism[2]. Although the discussion has implications for
same, it is beyond the purview of this essay to argue theism or atheism and related
notions.
Although
the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, they are not the primary
focus of what follows. Again that is
left for other discussions.
CLOSED
SYSTEM VS. OPEN SYSTEM
In
the interest of expedience, instead of compare and contrast the abbreviation
“vs.” will be employed in the discussion.
Material
vs. Non-Material
The
major difference in the two systems is the existence of a non-material or
supernatural element in truth. The
proponents of the Open System may argue over the character and qualities of the
truth system but do agree that there is truth that has its existence beyond the
material world. Those who embrace Closed
System suggest that if there is any such thing as non-material truth, it is
simply something logic, science, or theoretical science has yet to explain.
Danger
for Both!
In
both camps there is a danger which though different must be considered. Among those who embrace Open System it is the
danger of ascribing that which cannot be explained to some supernatural element
or another. In the extreme, this short
circuits scientific inquiry. Said
another way, before some phenomena is labeled supernatural, one does well to must
make honest scientific inquiry.
On
the part of the Closed System proponent the danger is twofold. First, it is to ascribe some unexplained
phenomena as the substance of the superstitious or the ill informed and thus
discount the experience. This is not
uncommon in the previously referenced writing of Hitchens and Dawkins.
The
second is to assume that logic, science, or theoretical science can or will
explain all that remains unknown or unexplained.
Naturalism
vs. Supernaturalism
The Weight of History
To
consider the argument in light of history let us begin with two
assumptions. First, assume for the sake
of comparison that man’s mental capacities have remained about the same over
the eras of his existence.
Second,
those who postulate a young age earth argue for an existence of between 6,000
and 10,000 years. Assume then for the
sake of argument the time period at the low end of a young earth age or 6,000
years. Then add into the discussion that
the science that underpins materialism has a “coming of age” date of AD 1500.
That would mean that for a period of 500 years or about 8.33 % of recorded history, naturalism has gained traction and become popular in some circles. Before that time there is ample evidence for the dominance of the supernatural. One need not read far in Jewish history, the Quran, Greek Mythology, Hinduism, and Buddhism to find such to be so.
Of
course the date of the invention of the original printing press is lost to
history. It may have been as early as
the 13th Century. However in
the middle of the 15th Century the invention of moveable type printing
made publishing far more efficient and thus books such as Charles Darwin’s
1859, Origin of the Species could
with relative ease be widely disseminated.
Such things as this added to the traction that Naturalism was gaining. Even so Supernaturalism has been by far the
greater influence.
The Weight of Data
Statistics
having to do with current religious belief show that 82.2 % of the world’s 6.2 billion
hold to there being a supernatural. The
sheer number of Judeo-Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus etc. that hold
to supernaturalism cannot be easily dismissed.
While the naturalist looks with askance at those who have a high element
of supernaturalism in their belief system, those of the orient have an equal
view of those without.
Drawing the Line
Between
Even
among the 1.1 billion who hold to there not being a supernatural component to
truth, one will often hear words that indicate and acknowledge the non-material. For example, the notion of love, like, fear, care,
and other similar concepts suggest that at the very least there are some
elements of the closed truth paradigm that cannot be explained, much less measured.
May
I hazard a guess? Perhaps the line is
drawn where it is because of the inconvenience of a non-material theistic
element. It would be of interest to hear
an explanation of why the line is where it is.
The Argument from
Example
It
is true that there are lists of hundreds if not thousands of non-theists / non-supernaturalists
who have lived during recorded history.
However, it must be remembered that while they certainly had followings,
there was no way in which their influence could have had the impact it does today
in our technological culture. Yet they
are there and are fielded as critical elements in the argument for the closed
system.
However,
on the other side of the argument are those who also lived throughout recorded
history and who argued for the reverse.
In fact there were many more of them than the non-supernaturalists.
The
Argument from Incident or Lack Thereof
In
the course of the discussion one is likely to hear on both sides of one’s experience
or lack thereof. Such subjective truth
is often generalized to be universal truth as opposed to being what it is, an
isolated experience. This is especially
troubling for the one who builds his truth paradigm on some isolated experience
or another.
The
danger of this kind of a jump in logic cannot be over-estimated. In reality it is not possible to move from
subjective truth paradigms to objective truth paradigms. It is just not logical nor is it legitimate.
CLOSING
THOUGHTS
The
discussion has only begun, there is much, much more to be considered as one
examines the foundation and structure of one’s truth paradigm. However, this further discussion is much more
than can be reasonably considered in this essay.
The
Curious Irony
However,
there is a curious if not cruel irony that underpins and makes possible the
discussion. The irony is that the
positions of those who are not just skeptical of but are opposed to Open System
Truth Theory are not possible without the work and influence of those with whom
they disagree.
The
foundation for much of the science that the skeptic claims as foundational to
their thinking found its origin in and among those of Open System Truth Theory. Other essays include an abbreviated list of
the contributions of these men and women most of whom were people of deep faith.[3]
Prominent
among them are men such as Da Vinci, Mendel, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Ohm,
Ampere, and the list goes on and on. It
is the order that these and others discovered and taught that allowed for the integrity
of the closed system rationalists.
Final
Thought
The
final thought is this. Though at the
outset of this essay the statement was made that, “Although the outcomes of each system are a part of the discussion, the
outcomes of each system are not a focus of this comparison and contrast” please
allow this one final observation.
As
with any idea, theory, or even unproven and highly speculative theory, there is
an influence and that influence has one or more consequences. One way to view the veracity of a truth theory
is to push it out and view the logical outcomes. I will leave it to the reader to push both
theories out to their logical ends and then compare those outcomes.
In
an effort to do so one might benefit from a review of history. There is a decided difference between those
who embraced one theory and those who embrace the other. Such a difference should say something about
the veracity of each truth theory.
[1]
Supernaturalism: early
15c. "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher
realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or
beyond nature," from L. super "above"
(see super-) + natura "nature" (see
nature). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God,
divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since
c.1799. definition available at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=76&allowed_in_frame=0
[2] Naturalism from Natural: …as "of the world of
nature (especially as opposed to man)," from O.Fr. naturel
"of nature, conforming to nature; by birth," and directly from L. naturalis "by birth, according to nature," from natura "nature" (see nature). From
late 15c. as "not miraculous, in conformity with nature." Meaning
"easy, free from affectation" is attested from c.1600. Of things,
"not artificially created,"… full definition available at
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=n&p=2&allowed_in_frame=0
[3] See Schmidt, Alvin
Under the Influence, republished
under the title, How Christianity Changed
the World
No comments:
Post a Comment