Thursday, May 19, 2011

Against Empricism

One of the good things about Biologos is that it is a honey pot for atheists. Sometimes being right brings forces against you from two extremes, and sometimes you get crushed between the two extremes even when you're wrong :)

One of the atheist commenters there directed me to a link on empiric epistemology. This is quite a long read, but worth analysis.

To jump ahead a little:
"We must put epistemology first and get it right, and make no bones about it."
Amen. Now, to the beginning!

The introduction talks about the differences between our understanding and reality. How our mental models might be wrong, and that can lead to disaster for us. I would agree, and include theology as the most important mental model.
"that unregulated mortgage-based securities could coexist with a stable financial system, that they represented real wealth, but in reality they didn’t."
This reveals a real problem for the rationalist - why are so many people irrational? And given that we agree that many people are irrational (while believing themselves to be rational), how can you claim to be rational? If these others have blind spots, how can you know of your own log in the eye?

As a Christian, I really have no problem. Sin is irrational.

Then we come to the main argument:
"The only reliable basis for knowledge, the only route from subjectivity to objectivity, is to relentlessly subject a belief to doubt, then to allay the doubt (or confirm it) by gathering evidence that’s independent of one’s commitment to the belief."
I would agree, that apart from God, this is the only way for us to know anything. Of course, it is primarily an inverse way of knowing - we can never be sure of anything. This is the heart of postmodernism, which has overthrown modernism.

I'm running long here, so I will pick this up tomorrow...

Let me give a peek at the end:
"This certainly seems a recipe for nihilism, so those wanting to press the epistemological question in service to empiricism should have a response to such fears. This involves providing reassurance about the existential, ethical and practical viability of worldview naturalism: that without God, the soul and free will we’re still moral agents bound by ethical norms, fully capable of leading meaningful lives and fully engaged with our human communities and concerns"
That is an odd conclusion. What is morality without God?

Further, it is a failure to apply one's worldview to it's logical end (teleology and eschatology). If everything, everywhere will die - then what we do now is meaningless. Our actions and have no effect on the end state.

3 comments:

Steve Ruble said...

Hi Ned,

I'm rather interested in the questions you raise in response to the essay. You start with:

This reveals a real problem for the rationalist -why are so many people irrational?

I don't see that as a real problem at all. Why are so many people bad at math? Why are so many people slow runners? Being rational is a human capability like any other, and like the capabilities mentioned above most people have it to some extent... but those who work at it can improve their skills.

If these others have blind spots, how can you know of your own log in the eye?

Just so. This, I think, is at the heart of one of the most incorrigable arguments against religious belief: if you believe that most people who use the epistemology of faith in revelation reach incorrect conclusions, how can you continue to rely on your own use of that epistemology? How do you resolve this problem? (Note that the epistemology of faith cannot use the empiricist solution of reference to shared external observables.)

Steve Ruble said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nedbrek said...

Hi Steve, I will go into more detail later in the series, but let me give you a sense of where I am going:
"if you believe that most people who use the epistemology of faith in revelation reach incorrect conclusions, how can you continue to rely on your own use of that epistemology?"

Right. I wouldn't attack their epistemology directly. If the god of Islam is real, then Muslims are doing things right.

In this case, we must analyze their system from within - is it self-consistent? If not, it must be false.