Life is Worth Blogging

Reflections on truth, knowledge, the philosophy of science, God and religion

Posted by Joemar | Filed under Philosophy

A few days ago, a close friend asked me several very abstract questions. I thought of these myself even before that very interesting conversation. In fact,  I have been in a lifetime struggle to answer these great questions and to find meaning in this existence, if there’s any. Brace yourself…because this is going to be heavily nerdy. I am speaking to myself here. This is more of a self reflection on how I tackle the greatest and age-old philosophical questions.

What is truth?

Truth is the real nature and essence of things.

How do we know it?

We cannot reach a perfect knowledge of truth. We can only try to know it through rational analysis of what we can perceive through our senses.

Is it possible that our senses can deceive us or our rational analysis can be wrong?

Yes. That’s why we can never arrive at absolute certainty that what we know about any thing are what they really are.

How about those things that we cannot perceive through our senses (i.e. the concept of God), how do we arrive at these concepts?

Our knowledge about abstract things also come from our experiences. Based on causal relationships of things that we can sense (e.g. force causes motion), we may arrive at concepts that are not directly attained by direct sense experience through reasoning. Our concept of God is of such nature.

So, which is the safest way to arrive at a more truthful knowledge about things?

We can only rely on experience as the most certain approximation of truth. If reasoning does not conform to sense experience, it should be considered speculative and less worthy of belief.

What is the basis of science? Reasoning or sense experience?

Science is empiricist by nature, which means that it holds sense experience as the ultimate rule. Any rational interpretation should conform to what can be perceived by experience. Any intuitive concepts that cannot be tested by experience are considered invalid or meaningless.

Since our knowledge is limited to what we can perceive, are you saying that science is not capable of knowing absolute truth?

Yes. Science does not aim to determine absolute truth. The goal of science is to come up with useful models to understand all things with the best of what our senses and objective reasoning can attain. These models may not necessarily be the true nature or essence of things. So, even the laws of science can only be considered, at best, as most probably true but nevertheless useful as coherent models to understand the universe.

Do you believe in God?

Based on the reasonable concept that anything that has a beginning has a cause, I believe that the universe (having been established to have a beginning), must have a cause  or series of causes outside of itself. This series of causes cannot go on infinitely backwards or else we cannot explain our existence. There must have been a cause of existence at the end of the series that did not borrow existence from another. This First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, the Ultimate Source of Existence, for me, is the meaning of the word “God”.

What can you say about the claims of certain religions that they have knowledge of absolute truth?

This is not possible, unless God himself gave that knowledge. But to believe that God gave knowledge of absolute truth to a chosen few and only gave reason and senses to the the rest of mankind is not very reasonable. Also, common sense cannot give credence to the claim that God uses miracles (i.e. suspension of natural laws) to authenticate his revelations to certain people because these miracles cannot be validated by reasoning or by sense experience of those who did not witness it first hand. Any claim of a binding revelation from God is therefore like saying that God wants you to surrender your natural reasoning capabilities and accept something that you can never confirm.

If you reject divine revelation, how can you know God and how do you determine good from evil?

God gave us reason to deduce his existence by observing nature, which is his work and his unambiguous revelation to all of mankind. He also gave us our senses and intellect to know what is right and to determine the actions that will give us greater happiness and harmony with nature and fellow human beings.

If you said that any intuitive idea derived or deduced through reasoning must be proven by sense experience (i.e. empirical demonstration), then how can you prove  God’s existence empirically?

I maintain that God’s existence can be inferred rationally from the causal relationships of things that exist. From this point of view, God (the Uncaused Cause) is a necessary conclusion in order to explain our existence. In the current state of science though, we have no way to demonstrate this empirically. Although the concept of God is reasonable, it can only be taken as a hypothesis that awaits empirical proof through innovative experimentation.

If you are not absolutely certain about the existence of God, then what does it mean to be religious?

For me, to be religious does not necessarily involve absolute certainty that a Divine Being exists. It is more of the feeling that there must be a Super Intellectual power that sustain the beauty and complexity of the universe. To be religious is to be amazed at the magnificence of nature and to come to a humble realization that there is a greater intelligence and power behind all these. As with Albert Einstein, I say “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe….”

Tags: empiricism, knowledge, rationalism, science, truth

Permalink | Comments (View Comments) | January 22, 2009

blog comments powered by Disqus