Background to Part II
Part I (http://alviesthots.blogspot.com/2012/10/truth-systems-theory-i.html) began with the following
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?
Review
It was then that we looked at the
foundations of truth and the structure of truth posing the question of whether
truth finds it origin external to the material world or only within. Continuing on consideration was given to an
Open System Truth Theory.
The argument for validity was put
forth from History observing that Closed System Truth Theory was a relatively
recent arrival in the study of truth.
Then consideration was given to data and that 82.2 percent of the
world’s population accepts some form of the supernatural. Finally consideration was given to an
argument from anecdotal experience.
The essay concluded with a summary
suggesting that one might want to look beyond the argument of the naturalist.
CLOSED SYSTEM TRUTH THEORY
Just what is Closed System Truth
Theory (CSTT)?
Simply stated it postulates that
there are only material components involved in the existence of truth. It holds that all truth can be measured or
ultimately discovered by scientific method.
It is bounded by reason and argues that such as cannot be known by
reason is simply yet to be discovered and understood or does not exist.
The one holding CSTT makes no
allowance for the inclusion of the non-material realities in one’s truth
paradigm. This belief is for the most part a relatively new arrival in recorded
history. This is naturalism [1]
as opposed to supernaturalism.
Argument
from Example
The CSTT relies heavily upon
anecdotal examples from history. One
list, titled “Famous Dead Nontheists”[2]
includes hundreds of notables beginning in 551 BCE and extending to 2000. In fairness to both sides, the compiler of
the list does include comments that suggest that some may not be dogmatically
opposed to OSTT.
Another important point is that with
the invention of the moveable type printing press (AD 1450), books and essays by
proponents of CSTT would receive wider circulation. Therefore, one would expect that soon
thereafter many hundreds and thousands would be influenced by and thus accept
the arguments and beliefs presented.
Argument
from Autonomous Authority
While there are several scientists
and philosophers in the previously referenced list there are many who made the
list only because they are known for their appearance in theatre, literature,
etc. However there were those like Carl
Sagan who could and did argued their belief.
Missing from the list were two one
would expect to find, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Hitchens and Dawkins as they make their
arguments do so not so much from presenting scientific data or philosophic
argument but upon skepticism of those who hold to revelatory truth.
Consider the last work of the late
Christopher Hitchens. Its title is “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons
Everything.” Richard Dawkins added
his voice to the discussion when he authored “The God Delusion.”
Per chance someone concludes that
these two men and others like them are presenting benign arguments consider
that Dawkins, “…urges all atheists to
openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into
politics and science.”[3] What is remarkable is his distortion of
history. The truth of the matter is that
it is not the Church that invaded politics and science. Indeed even a cursory view of current trends
reveals that it is quite the opposite!
The Argument from Lack
of Incident
Then
there are those who argue from lack of supernatural experience. These are those who establish and argue the
validity of their position out of their lack of some experience or another. It is their contention that because they and
those closest to them have not experienced the paranormal, that such does not
exist.
Of
course for one to argue from this position, it would mean that many other
realities of life could not be defended because there are many experiences that
are not all that common.
Summary
Thought
The
point of the Closed System Truth Theory is this. If truth does not at the very least have the
potential for being discovered or if there is the lack credible evidence, then
there is ample evidence that skepticism is in order. That skepticism then holds that nothing
exists outside of the material universe.
Carried a bit further, one might argue as in the previous essay, that if
supernatural even exists, it is beyond nature as man has discovered it and that
being the case; it has no relationship with the life and pursuits of mankind.
Closing
Thoughts
While
there is much that could be written in comparing and contrasting these two
truth systems, such is beyond the purview of these few words. Further it is beyond the purview of these two
essays to go beyond the suggestion of God, god, or the supernatural. Therefore, there is no real conclusion presented
herein but a few closing thoughts. The
conclusion and other subjects will be held for later discussions.
One’s Foundation
The assumptions (footing) upon which
one truth paradigm is constructed, has great implication for one’s truth
structure. Said another way, it reduces
down to the question of the veracity of the foundation upon which one builds
one’s truth paradigm. If the foundation
is faulty so too will be the structure.
In a revelation modality, it could
be some sort of supernatural being. In a
rationalism modality it would be the human being. In a rejection modality, which is what
rationalism really is, there is no room for any sort of universal truth beyond
the rational material world.
So here are some questions from the
notion with which these two essays began.
How
confident are you that the footing upon which your truth paradigm is
constructed is sound?
How
pure is the sand in your truth paradigm, could it be corrupted with dirt to the
point that your truth paradigm will crumble?
If
your footing is sound, is the truth system you’ve constructed upon that footing
sound? Remember you can have a firm
foundation but a flawed truth paradigm.
Lesson from the Real McCoys
Walter Brennan starred as Grandpa
McCoy and the Real McCoys. In one
episode he decided to build a lighthouse on the McCoy Place (farm). He had a great vision and great hope for his
project. So it was he gathered some
materials and begins to build. Luke McCoy, the son
(Richard Crenna) warned Grandpa that he needed to first set a foundation.
Grandpa rejected the notion as being
one of those “new fangled” ideas and of course soon what he had built came
crashing down. Perhaps one might
consider that it is building upon the foundation of old ideas (Open System
Truth Theory) that provides the sure and sound foundation. Perhaps it is the new idea (Closed System
Truth Theory) that sets that stage for the collapse of one’s truth paradigm.
Words of Wisdom
""...A foolish man...built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." (Matthew 7:26b-27, NASU)
[1] 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
[2] http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html
[3] Description of Dawkins discourse available at
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
No comments:
Post a Comment