TRUTH SYSTEMS THEORY - II

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

TRUTH SYSTEMS THEORY - I

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?

Overview:  In this essay attention will be devoted to introducing the discussion and looking at Open System Truth Theory.  If those who read this first section would offer arguments for Closed System Truth Theory, they are invited to send same to arobbfam@yahoo.com.  Part II in addition to looking at CSTT will include some concluding thoughts.

Crumbling Walls and Sound Foundations

Growing up in the home of a do-it-yourselfer had it benefits.  One day my Dad called me to yet one more of his projects.  It was a retaining wall that I am sure at one time seemed to be just fine.  However, now it was crumbling and in the final stages of failing.  He broke off a piece of it and then told me that there had been dirt in the sand and thus the concrete was unable to bond and therefore the wall degraded and was falling apart.  Simply stated, the concrete had impurities that militated against its integrity.

He then proceeded to build the new wall by breaking up the old wall, digging a new footing, setting forms, pouring a new footing (foundation).   He then proceeded to build the new wall upon that foundation. 

In this story there are elements germane to the discussion of truth.  We shall begin with two.

First, the foundation: How sound is the foundation upon which one’s truth paradigm is constructed?  Is the concrete pure, reinforced, and the right size to support the truth structure to be built?

Second, the wall:  How sound is the truth paradigm?  One will never have a sound truth paradigm without a sound foundation.  However, one can have a sound foundation but the truth paradigm built on that foundation may not be all that sound.  This will be discussed in a forthcoming essay.

Genuine Truth and Genuine Reality

Please note that the following reference to truth includes reality.  Since genuine reality encapsulates genuine truth and since the reverse is taken to be true, the use of one term includes the other.  Rather than burden the reader with both words, truth will be used as the catchall.  Perhaps in a later essay such will be discussed. 

Truth’s Foundation—Origin

There is in the discussion of the origin and basis of truth basically one issue that needs attention.  It has been alluded to and even briefly discussed in many of the previous essays.  It is the question of whether truth finds it origins within a closed system or from an open system.  In the first there is a suggestion of an autonomous system however, in the second such is not so.  Though one is provable and one is not, both will be referred to as theory.

Limitation

As you read the following please keep in mind the limitation of this essay is open system and closed system.  It is beyond the purview of these thoughts to discuss the merits of theism or atheism in their various forms.  Again, its focus is upon the question of open or closed systems of truth.

OPEN SYSTEM TRUTH THEORY

Just what is Open System Truth Theory (OSTT)? 

Simply stated it postulates that there is a non-material component involved in the existence of truth.  It holds that not all truth can be measured or discovered by scientific method.  It is not as some argue devoid of reason but also is not bound by reason. 

The one holding OSTT makes way for the inclusion of the non-material realities in one’s truth paradigm. This in its multivariate expressions has been the dominant belief throughout recorded history.  This is supernaturalism[1] as opposed to naturalism.    

Argument from History

Any survey of recorded history (western, eastern, or oriental) will reveal an assumption of a supernatural or open system in which God, gods, or spiritual entities and forces were involved in the affairs of man. One example is Greek Mythology. Another example is the Japanese Festival of Obon when one honors the spirits of dead ancestors.

If one cares to notice the vast majority of the world populations from the beginning of recorded history have believed in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, Islam, and the list goes on and on. 

Argument from Data

Even if one sets aside history and looks only at the beliefs of the current population, one finds that of the 6.25 billion earth inhabitants, some 82.2 percent hold to the supernatural.  Even those 1.1 billion who identify with “Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist”[2] belief, many times acknowledge that there is something beyond the physical (In fairness to the position of this paper there are other sources that present data which is much less kind to the secularist).

Argument from Experience

However, know that it is not just historical formal proof that can be offered.  There are those who have personal knowledge and experiences with the supernatural.  For them poltergeist is not a fanciful movie but an actual, even frightening experience.  It is they that know that the naturalist view cannot be accurately defended.  At best it is naïve and at worst an out and out deception.

The example I offer is the multiple time when I have been called to a death scene.  Whether it is traumatic or natural, expected or unexpected, with rare exception some friend or member of the family will make a statement such as, “He is in a better place.”  Consider as well of the almost 3,000 chaplain jobs advertised on a chaplain job search bulletin board the largest share by far are in the area of palliative/hospice care.

Summary Thought

The point of the argument so far is very simply to offer that there is weighty evidence to suggest that one must look beyond the view of the naturalist.  The crucial and essential point is that to eliminate the possibility of Open System Truth Theory then limits one’s view of the supernatural.  I suppose one could plausibly argue that while the supernatural does exist, it find its existence limited to fields beyond the natural.  Maybe so but such would a hard to sell to the shaman, witch doctor, faith healer, those at death’s door, or the one having experienced a poltergeist.  

Next Essay:  Focus will be upon the Closed System Truth Theory view with some concluding thoughts.

---

[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] Statistics available at http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

"IMO and The Truth" Part Two

Review:  We left Part One observing that without there being something in which to believe and without there being a God, there remains no authority outside of one's own existence.  Thus no truth or reality can be validated.  Such can be lonely and leave one an intellectual hermit left to an "In My Opinion" world of "reality."

Continuing then consider the notion of...

In My Opinion

Of course as has already been viewed, there is a strong emphasis upon the individual in the IMO statement.  But then comes the question, “What about the word opinion?”

Opinion

The word, “opinion” originally came from the idea of “view or judgments founded upon probabilities.”  It comes then from a Latin word which included “conjecture, fancy, belief, what one thinks, appreciation, and esteem” which then may be traced further back to the idea to think, judge, suppose, or opine.*

Is it then possible to conclude that one’s opinion is “conjecture founded upon probabilities?”  Again we arrive at the question of what evidence is allowed for there to be conjecture?  An attendant question is what evidence is allowed for there to be probabilities?

My Opinion

In the previous post, we have already established that in secularism the self or the collection of "selfs" is established as the authority for the opinion.  It follows then that all authority exterior to the discussion is viewed as extraneous to any formation of a truth claim. 

Where one arrives is at the belief that the only arbitrator of truth is internal to one's mind.  Thus it is the prism of the self that refracts truth into its constituent shades.  All must pass the gatekeeper of self.  So very often in such discussions as take place, the words, "In my opinion" are viewed as trumping any and all other authority.

Categories of IMO Statements

Such, "in my opinion" statements then are of at least two kinds or types.  There is the inquiry IMO which suggests that a person really does not know but tend to think something to be true, untrue, etc. It is more of a statement of opinion in the sense of an inquiry, a search for reality.

Then there is the second kind of IMO that establish the individual as the ultimate authority and arbitrator of truth.  Such a position held long enough and expressed often enough gives one a sense of special truth (discussed in other postings).

Considering the differences in the two categories of IMO, the first is that of an inquirer.  That is tantamount to saying that the question remains under study.  The second is that of a final authority--that the matter has been decided and here is the bottom line truth.  Both say much about how the individual views himself and his opinions!

However, neither of these categories of IMO, makes one whit of difference to the reality of the truth.

The Outcomes, Intended and Otherwise

Intellectual Blindness

Expressed often enough and validated by enough people there comes a certain egotistical haughtiness about one’s own opinions.  Such can lead to a certain academic arrogance that accrues to the one who falls in love with his own ideas. 

This is a cyclical process that thrusts the individual deeper and deeper into his own thinking to the point that they become blinded to any counter to their reality.  Even if heard, such counters are dismissed as the stuff of the ignorant, intellectually deficient, and unschooled.

Returning to Part One the parameters are drawn in such a way that even if genuine reality came knocking at the front door it would not be recognized.

The Burden of Consequence

However there is yet another unintended consequence.  When one sets oneself up as the authority then one bears the burden of the outcome of being such position as they embrace.  If an influential person or authority they then also have some responsibility in the outcomes on the part of those they influence.

Again the "in my opinion" does nothing at all, not one whit of anything to change the reality of truth.  As surely as one's opinion about the material universe around us does nothing to influence or change any of the physical laws which govern the universe, neither does such opinion as one holds in any way influence the reality of the question of what is truth/reality.

The Decent Into Chaos

The old joke is that if you get three Jewish Rabbis together you get four opinions or as a Jewish friend of mine says five.  The sad truth is that when one resorts to, "in my opinion" that then opens the door to another issue—the increasing spiral toward chaos.

Just as there must be order for the universe for it to continue to function so too there is order to genuine truth.  Remove order from any epistemological system and it will degrade further and further until all that remains is intellectual chaos. 

Choosing the Decent into Chaos

One at this point is confronted with a choice.  Yes, confronted!  Is it really worth it to become the arbitrator of evidence for the truth and then to hold your opinion as the truth that trumps all others?  This is a very serious matter for the outcomes are dire for the one making a wrong choice.  Read about them in the following observation which has been proven true for the better part of 2,000 years.

Romans 1:28-32 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. NASU

Man certainly is vested with the authority to choose who or what is the basis of authority in his life and perspectives of reality but man cannot choose the outcomes and consequences of such choices as he makes!

_____________

* adapted from http://www.etymonline.com/