Well, I think that(ironically) Descartes’ criterea for truth discussed in the last post is, I think, quite vague. However, even if that is not valid, his method od doubt deserves some attention, and does not depend on that criterea for its own validity. I’m not sure that I agree with him that the views that we grow up with must be torn down completely in order to build them back more truthfully. I’m not sure that’s even possible, never mind desirable. I guess I think that if we are going to evaluate whether our opinions which we’ve grown up with are true or not, rejecting them first isn’t going to help. I think understanding them as held opinions and evaluating them(ie. Know thyself) is imperative. I would love comments, as I’m sure I’m wrong about something here. Next time I’ll discuss the method of doubt, which I think has some interesting things in it.
Descartes’ Meditations
July 9th, 2009I was recently listening to an audiobook of Rene Descartes’ ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’ while driving through Ontario’s northland, and thought it worth some words. I’m only through the first two meditations, but there’s still much food for thought there. I’m not exactly sure what to make of his assrtion that anything “clearly and distinctly perceived” must be true. I think it all depends on what he means by those two words. Distinctly seems to mean something that can be isolated from other ideas and taken as an argument or proof of an idea which doesn’t beg questions, and doesn’t require proofs of something else to validate it. Not sure if there’s more to it than that, but most likely I’m missing something. Clarity, I guess, is the absense of vagueness or ambiguity in the argument or idea. Anybody have thoughts on how these two criterea would or would not constitute knowledge of something true?
Thoughts on Dawkins Part 1
July 8th, 2009I recently got to a book that I’ve been meaning to read for a long time, but haven’t gotten to. I’ve been a bit afraid to be honest. The book is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. The difficulty, and fear, is in the fact that if I am to truly understand what he’s saying I must consider the possibility that he’s right, open mindedness they call it. This opens me to the possibility that all that I’ve lived for and believed all my life is a delusion.
However, in this case the fear was certainly unfounded, though at first I was taken aback a bit by his linguistic ability. He is certainly a first rate rhetorician, or maybe more accurately, sophist. When I first read chapter 3, his refutations of the proofs for the existence of God, I did not see any errors in his reasoning. On further reflection, however, I realized that every one of his “refutations” is either provably false, or at least doubtful. More later.
The aspect of his writing that struck me most, however, was his use of invective and pejorative language. He seems to be trying not to disprove the existence of God, but simply to discredit it and make the reader feel that he/she is a fool if they believe in God. He uses some examples of things which most Christians would find abhorrent to show that Christianity is corrupt. In particular things like the use of high degrees of fear to motivate children to accept Christianity. He also seems to attribute evil things that some Christians do to religion itself, not to human failure, and fails to recognize that the three most brutal regimes in the 20th century were all atheist: Hitler, Stalin and Mao. From what I have been told, Mao killed more than 100,000,000 of his own people during his reign, Stalin 10,000,000 or some such thing, and Hitler 6 or 7 million. Some would argue that Hitler was not atheist, but even if you take him out of this group you still have an appalling record of violence.
He also suggests that parents should not be allowed to teach their children to believe in any specific religion because they are too young to make a decision themselves. This I find to be quite preposterous. The notion that a child could grow up in a belief vacuum, being told not to believe anything until they’re older, is ridiculous, and dangerous in my opinion. It is true that there comes a time when most children ought to be given the freedom to question and find their own understanding of their faith, but if he feels that it is illegitimate for a child to believe in God or follow a religion, then what is the point at which they should? He wants to argue that a child doesn’t have the capacity to evaluate the facts and draw a conclusion, but I would suggest that most people never really reach the point where they fully understand Christianity, all the other religions, and atheism and agnosticism and are able to make an informed decision based on all that. Certainly Dawkins himself doesn’t fit that criterea. He demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of theology and Christian reasoning.
This blog
July 6th, 2009Well, I’ve decided to delve into the world of blogging. If anyone actually reads this, its up to you whether what I have to say is worthwhile or not. This is mostly for me to just get my thoughts down somewhere, to see if it helps me to think things through more clearly, and remember things. If my resolve holds up I would like in the coming months and years to explore many issues of philosophy, theology, knowledge, wisdom, science and faith in order to better understand the world around me and post my thoughts for feedback and to teach and be taught, to impart understanding and be corrected. A lifelong process. . .yet definitely a worthwhile one. More on this later.