Maps and Knowledge

Two weeks ago I wrote a post about maps and about how difficult it is to make a map that's entirely accurate. I realize that the post is a bit different from what I normally write.

I wrote that post because I find that map making is a helpful analogy. The process of making a map is similar to the more general process of gathering and organizing knowledge about the world.

As I mentioned last week, any attempt to make the perfect map is ultimately doomed to failure. You can't make a map that's a perfect representation of, for example, the California coastline. Even the best maps are plagued with flaws and subtle distortions.

A similar thing happens when we form an understanding of the world. We study, we make observations, we put the pieces together and we accumulate knowledge. Then we take that knowledge and bring it together to form a coherent picture of the world we live in.

As we do this we run into the same problem we have with maps. The idea we have about the world in our head is never the same as the world itself.

The world is complex, intricate and full of detail. We can't possibly fit all of that information into our heads, just like we can't fit all the detail and complexity of the earth onto a globe or a piece of paper.

Maps are a helpful tool. They help us to navigate the world we live in, but we must never confuse the map with the world. We must never confuse our understanding of a thing with the thing itself. If we do, then we will inevitably deceive ourselves.

TGD: Chapter Four - Simplicity and the Nineteenth Century

At last we reach the end of chapter four. The final section is entitled, "An Interlude at Cambridge," and in it Dawkins describes a conference he participated in. The conference was sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, an organization which he has little fondness for. The Templeton Foundation awards a prize to individuals who, "Make an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension." Unsurprisingly, Dawkins was the only atheist speaker at this conference.

At this conference gave a version of his argument against God's existence, which I discussed earlier. Naturally his argument was not readily accepted by the other speakers. He describes a few of their main objections.

The major argument revolved on whether or not God is simple. The crux of Dawkins' argument is that God is incredibly complex. The people whom Dawkins was debating with argued that God is actually simple.

The people arguing that God is actually simple probably have a different understanding of God's nature and a different definition of the word simple. These differences of opinion are inevitable when people with different world views talk to each other about what they believe. These differences provide a real challenge for anyone who tries to talk someone out of their world view.

Besides claiming that God is actually simple, the other major response Dawkins received for his argument is that it is very "Nineteenth Century". If Dawkins' opponents explained what they meant by calling his argument "Nineteenth Century", Dawkins doesn't give it. He does, however, share his own opinion about what they meant by it.

According to Dawkins, saying that his argument is "Nineteenth Century" is simply a coded way of saying that Dawkins is being rude by making a direct attack on religion like that.

I have my own opinion about what they might have meant by the phrase "Nineteenth Century". The Nineteenth Century was the height of modernism and Dawkins' world view is very modernist. In particular, his belief that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible is a distinctly modern idea.

This idea has, for the most part, fallen out of favor. The only people clinging to the belief that science and religion are incompatible are religious fundamentalists and men like Dawkins.

Having said that, this is an important conversation to have. I think most people understand that science and religion can coexist, but most people haven't given too much thought to how that compromise works in practice. Reading Dawkins' book has forced me to reevaluate my beliefs about how science and faith interact.

So I'm glad that Dawkins is making this argument. My only regret is that he didn't work harder to understand the people he was arguing with. I think he could have gained some valuable insights into how religious people view the world. So far what I've read from Dawkins indicates that he doesn't really grasp what makes a religious person's mind ticks.

TGD: Chapter Three - Degree and Design

Last week I said I would talk about the rest of Aquinas' proofs and the ontological argument for God's existence. Unfortunately, I seem to have bit off more than I can chew. I've managed to cover Aquinas' last two proofs but the post is already getting long. I will have to write about the ontological argument next week. I'm sorry for the delay.

Last week I had just finished discussing the first three of Aquinas' proofs for God's existence. Today I'm going to pick up right where we left off.

Aquinas' fourth proof is the argument from degree. This argument states that things vary in how perfect or how good they are. He argues that there must be a being which is the most good, which is the source of all things good and of all that exists. This being we call God.

This is Dawkins' reply to the argument from degree: "You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore, there must be a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God."

Not only is Dawkins' reply funny, but it gets at the main problem with the argument from degree. Aquinas makes the assumption that existence is a form of perfection. From this he is able to conclude that the source of all that exists is the source of all things good and perfect. This is the same sort of dodgy logic that the ontological argument relies upon.

So I don't think the argument from degree works as a proof of God's existence. However, I think it raises some impportant questions. How did humans first learn to be good? What is the ultimate source of moral goodness? These are questions that need to be addressed.

At last we come to Aquinas' fifth proof. This is the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Before I write about what Dawkins has to say, I want to describe the argument and give some background.

In this argument Aquinas argues that inanimate objects act according to a purpose, because they always behave according to the same pattern. He argues that this did not come about by chance. He argues that there must be an intelligence behind the universe that guides inanimate objects to behave in predictable patterns.

Aquinas' argument relies upon the idea, common in his time, that objects behave according to a purpose. These days we don't think of objects as having a purpose. It may seem silly to say that objects have a purpose but does it make any more sense to say that inanimate objects behave according to natural laws? Doesn't the existence of natural laws imply the existence of a supernatural lawgiver?

Still, so long as those natural laws seem arbitrary most people are willing to accept that they exist. If we argue that God exists because some arbitrary set of natural laws exist that's just a rehash of the cosmological argument, which I talked about last week. However, if the natural laws seem contrived; if the natural laws appear to have been carefully set with a particular purpose in mind; then that would be evidence for an intelligence guiding the universe.

This is the summary Dawkins' gives of the argument from design: "Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God." Dawkins points out that the theory of evolution blows this argument out of the water completely.

Of course, Dawkins' version of the argument is very different from Aquinas' original argument. I would accuse Dawkins of deliberately constructing a straw man, but I know exactly where he got this version of the argument. This form comes from creationists who stubbornly refuse to accept the theory of evolution. Dawkins has spent much of his career debating against creationism.

On the (relatively) small scale, evolutionary theory works as an explanation for the complex, seemingly designed, nature of life. But on the cosmic scale evolution doesn't solve the problem of design, it just moves it. In order for evolution to work, the laws of the universe have to be just right. The cosmological constant has to allow for the slow, steady expansion of the universe, in order to allow stars to form and generate the elements required for life. Similarly, if the force of gravity were stronger or weaker then it becomes impossible for life-sustaining stars to exist, making it impossible for life as we know it to exist.

So we see that the laws which govern our universe were not chosen arbitrarily. Instead it seems that they were finely tuned to allow life to form. This gives us reason to believe that there is an intelligence guiding the universe. This argument doesn't prove the existence of any specific deity but it demolishes the claim that God doesn't exist.

Next week: Saint Anselm makes his appearance.

Pentecost

Yesterday was Pentecost Sunday, which is the anniversary of the date when the Holy Spirit first fell upon Jesus' disciples, just as he had promised it would. It seems like as good a time as any to talk about the Holy Spirit.

Awhile back I was talking with someone about this blog. He said that if I wanted to try to connect with people who think in modern, secular terms, I shouldn't talk about the Holy Spirit. It's good advice, but I just can't follow it. I can't explain what Christianity is, what Christianity is all about, without talking about the Holy Spirit.

So since then I've been wondering, "How do I talk about the Holy Spirit with a modernist?" So far I haven't had much luck. The Holy Spirit doesn't fit easily or comfortably into such a world-view. If you're committed to thinking about the world in scientific terms, then the Holy Spirit is always going to seem absurd and a little silly.

Still, it's not just modernists who have this problem. This has been an issue since the beginning. You see, as I was thinking about the day of Pentecost, the day when the Holy Spirit made its grand entrance, I was reminded that those first witnesses had a hard time understanding what was going on as well.

In Acts 2, we read about how the Holy Spirit fell on that first group of Christians and enabled them to speak in many different languages from all over the ancient world. Most people are, understandably, amazed and confused by what is going on, but some people have a different response.

They think that these Christians are drunk.

But the real kicker is what happens next. When Peter hears people in the crowd claiming that he and his friends are drunk his response is, (paraphrasing) "We're not drunk; it's only nine AM."

Actually, I think I've just found a way to explain to non-Christians what it's like to be filled with the Holy Spirit. It's like being drunk, except it's only nine o'clock in the morning, and you haven't had anything to drink yet.

That's a joke of course, but the thing is, I don't know that I can give a better explanation than that. I could talk about all the wonderful things that the Holy Spirit has done in my life, but most people would just be confused and a lot of people would probably assume I'm a little bit kooky.

In the future I plan to talk about the role the Holy Spirit plays in God's Kingdom. I will try to lay the groundwork for a theological understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. But the simple truth is that the Holy Spirit is strange and, often times, people who are filled with the Spirit are a little strange themselves.

TGD: Chapter Three - Cosmology and Omnipotence

In Chapter Three of "The God Delusion" Dawkins begins to address the arguments for God's existence. The first section concerns Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence.

Not surprisingly, Dawkins isn't impressed with Aquinas' arguments. I can understand why. Dawkins and Aquinas are working from different assumptions. They both understand the universe in radically different ways. Dawkins is a student of modern science, biology in particular, and Aquinas was a student of Aristotelian metaphysics.

So it will be my task to try and bridge the gulf that separates these two great minds and see if we can find some common ground. Let's get started.

Aquinas' first three proofs are the argument of the unmoved mover, the argument of the first cause, and the argument from contingency. Dawkins groups these arguments together, since they have a similar form. I will focus on the argument from contingency, sometimes called the cosmological argument, because it is the strongest.

This is Dawkins' summary of the argument: "There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God."

It's worth pointing out that modern science actually strengthens this argument. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe has a definite beginning in time. This suggests that the universe isn't self sustaining, but was brought into existence by some outside force.

Moreover, even if the Big Bang Theory turned out to be incorrect (even though there is some very solid evidence for the theory), it is impossible for the universe to be infinitely old. If it were, then according to the second law of thermodynamics the universe would have reached a state of maximum entropy by now, which would make it impossible for life to exist.

So the cosmological argument effectively proves that the natural universe was created by an external force, which Aquinas calls God. Unfortunately, this is as far as the cosmological argument takes us. Dawkins rightly points out that, based on these arguments alone, there is no reason to assume that this "God" is a being with all the attributes we normally associate with God.

At this point, Dawkins has a brief digression where he talks about God's attributes. He claims God's omniscience contradicts his omnipotence since, if God already knows what he is going to do in the future he cannot change his mind. This is a silly argument, similar to asking if God, being omnipotent, can make a boulder so heavy he can't lift it. Both assume that there is a contradiction in the will of God.

In the example of God making a boulder so heavy he can't lift it, the contradiction is obvious. God wants the boulder to stay on the ground while at the same time wanting to lift the boulder. The argument assumes a contradiction to prove a contradiction. I'm not impressed by it.

The argument about God changing his mind is more subtle, but is basically the same. God wants to do something in the future, but when the time comes he wants to do something else. However, if God is omniscient, his knowledge doesn't change over time. So God has no reason to change his mind, if we assume that God's will is consistent. We only get a contradiction if we assume that God's will is contradictory.

What this really boils down to is, can God do something that is logically impossible? As many theologians have pointed out, not being able to do things that are logically impossible isn't really a limit on omnipotence. Contradictions are, by definition, nonsense. Saying that God cannot perform nonsensical actions doesn't place any meaningful constraints on God's power.

I'm afraid this post is getting long, so I'll stop here for now. Next week I'll write about the rest of Aquinas' proofs as well as the ontological argument for God's existence.

TGD: Chapter One - Religion and Respect

This post covers the entire first chapter of "The God Delusion". The first chapter is really just an introduction, so I can breeze through it. Starting with chapter two we get into the meat of his argument and I'll slow down so I can deal with it in more detail.

In "The God Delusion", Mr. Dawkins is making the case against religious belief in general. It's a sizable task and we'll see how good a job Mr. Dawkins does with it. He uses the first chapter to set the terms of the debate; to explain exactly what he's arguing for and what he's arguing against.

This chapter is broken up into two parts. The first part deals with what Dawkins refers to as "Einsteinian religion".

"Einsteinian religion" refers to any belief system that equates the natural universe, or the laws that govern it, with God. Such belief systems don't have a supernatural component. Mr. Dawkins has no problem with this sort of religion; he considers it another form of atheism. His only problem is that when people with this sort of belief system use words like God and religion they confuse the debate. He wants the reader to know that this isn't what he has in mind when he's making the case against religion.

As you might have guessed, Albert Einstein believed in this sort of God, although he was hardly the first person to think along these lines. That honor belongs to Baruch Spinoza, the father of modern pantheism.

Personally, I wonder what Einstein would think about someone lumping his beliefs in with atheism. I suspect that Einstein's use of the word God was intentional. I suspect that Einstein understood that his belief system, like all belief systems, depended on certain metaphysical (i.e. non-scientific) claims. I'm not sure that Mr. Dawkins grasps that fact.

However, since I'm not a pantheist myself, I won't argue the point any further.

The second part of this chapter deals with the amount of respect that (supernatural) religious beliefs are given in modern, secular countries, especially America. He argues that, in general, we give religious beliefs far more respect than they deserve. He points out that it is generally considered rude to criticize another person's religious beliefs, no matter how ridiculous they are. He also gives several examples where countries will grant privileges to people based on their religious beliefs.

I don't agree with Mr. Dawkins about this, but I think he does make some good points. Specifically, there does need to be room for people to be able to speak critically about other people's religious beliefs. No ideas should ever be considered completely exempt from scrutiny. Personally, I welcome Mr. Dawkins' criticisms of my beliefs and I have no problem speaking critically about his beliefs. In the proper context, critical discussions like this can be beneficial to both parties.

The thing is, you really, really need to have the proper context for a conversation like this. For a person with deeply held religious beliefs, those beliefs are often part of their core identity. For this reason, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that people will get offended when you mock their religious beliefs. This is why criticizing people's religious beliefs is often considered off limits, at least in the public sphere. This is why governments will, at times, bend over backwards to respect people with different religious beliefs.

In my mind, the solution isn't to show less tolerance to people's unusual religious beliefs, but to extend that tolerance to cover nonreligious people. Just as wise governments go out of their way not to offend people's religious beliefs, they should be equally respectful toward people without religious beliefs. (For example, the government shouldn't erect a large cross on the land they own on top of a giant hill in the middle of the city, but that's another post).

Having said that, I'm glad that Mr. Dawkins feels free to mock religious beliefs. This series would be much less interesting if he felt the need to be polite and deferential whenever the topic of God came up.

Faith, Doubt and Reason Explained

One of my goals in writing this blog is to talk about the search for truth. It is my interest in discovering truth that motivates many of my posts about philosophy, religion and science.

The search for truth always begins with an idea. The idea might be true, or it might be false. We must evaluate the idea to determine which one is the case.

In order to evaluate an idea we need only three things. We must be able to believe that the idea might be true, we must be able to believe that the idea might be false, and we must have some way of determining which is more likely.

Faith describes our ability to believe that a given idea is true, and doubt describes our ability to believe that a given idea is false.

For an idea to be meaningful, it must be subject to both faith and doubt. An idea that cannot conceivably be true, or that cannot conceivably be false, is meaningless. Any idea worth considering can be believed and it can be disbelieved.

The question is for meaningful ideas, ideas that can be either true or false, how do we determine whether the idea is true or false?

We consider the evidence. We consider our experiences. We consider our existing beliefs. We consider what it means for the idea to be true. We consider what it means for the idea to be false. Finally, having considered these things, we decide whether the idea is true or false.

Reason is what allows us to go through this process with every new idea and make a determination. Reason is what we use to distinguish truth from falsehood, and its job is never done.

Even those questions that we believe are settled must be examined from time to time.

Some people say that we should never question religious truths, but I vehemently disagree. I believe that if we don't consider the possibility that our religious beliefs are false, we render them meaningless. After all, if an idea cannot possibly be false, what does it mean when we say that it is true?

In that vein, I've started reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I will be posting my reflections on this blog as I go through the book. If you're curious about how an open-minded person of faith responds to Richard Dawkins, then keep reading. I expect it will make for an interesting series of posts.

Everything You Know is Wrong

Awhile back twenty sided tale, a blog I follow, posted a link to this video. The video's a fan made music video for a Weird Al Yankovich song. The song is funny and rather strange, like most Weird Al songs, but it got me thinking about something more serious.

I started to think about what it was like when I converted to Christianity. I remember what it was like when I started to think about things in a new way. I remember how it felt when I realized that I could no longer rely on my existing beliefs. They no longer seemed as certain as they once had. For a time it really did seem as though everything I once knew was wrong.

It seemed that way because my worldview was changing. Worldviews provide a stable framework that allow us to make sense of the world we live in. If our worldview shifts, we lose that sense of stability.

Worldviews provide stability in a few ways. First of all, along with a worldview comes certain assumptions; things that we believe are true without needing evidence or proof. Before I was a Christian I assumed that the scientific method was a reliable and sufficient method to find truth. I assumed that anything that existed could be understood scientifically. That assumption, along with a few others, formed the basis of my worldview.

These assumptions informed my understanding of the world. They allowed me to know and understand things about the world. They were the tools I used to determine what was true and what was false. They also helped me to judge what was potentially true. In other words, my worldview helped decide what I believed was possible and what I thought was impossible.

Around the time when I converted to Christianity my worldview began to shift. My basic assumptions about the world started to change. This had quite a few significant consequences.

First of all, since I could no longer be certain that my basic assumptions about reality were true, I was no longer entirely sure what was true and what was false. I still had strong opinions, of course, but I lacked certainty. I just couldn't be sure what was true or false because I wasn't entirely sure what I believed at a basic level.

Even worse than that, I was no longer certain I knew what was possible and what was impossible. I remember that there were times when it seemed like anything and everything might be possible. I say that and it might sound wonderful or amazing, but it was actually quite terrifying. If we're certain that some things are just impossible it provides a sense of security and comfort. Without that certainty, one can never feel completely safe.

Over time my new beliefs began to settle. My new worldview started to take shape. Once again I had some basic assumptions, a way to determine what is true and what is false, and a way to determine what is possible and what is impossible. It took awhile, but I've gained a new sense of stability and security.

I think changing worldviews is often a difficult and uncomfortable process, but in my case it has been more than worth it. Not only have I gained a broader perspective, by tearing apart my old beliefs and reexamining them, but I've also gained so much by learning to believe in and to trust in God.

I hope you found this post interesting. I also hope that if any of you are reexamining your beliefs that this post is helpful for you.

Evolution and the Beginning

Today I'm going to be talking about the first three chapters of Genesis. I'll be talking about what it means and why I don't think it contradicts the theory of evolution.

The first three chapters of Genesis are about God and his relationship with nature and his relationship with humanity. The core message of these chapters is that there is only one God who created everything. He created everything that we perceive with our senses. He made people to rule the earth and they lived with God in paradise. But a deceiver tricked humanity into rebelling against God. As punishment, humanity was banished from paradise, but God promised that humanity would one day have victory over the deceiver.

The rest of the scripture follows from here. It is the story of God working through humanity to give us victory over evil and brings us back into paradise and back into relationship with Him. I know I'm only talking about Genesis 1-3, but I want to emphasize that this scripture is a vital part of God's message for humanity.

People who read this scripture often get hung up on the many details that seem implausible to us. Some people use them as an excuse to disregard the message of the bible altogether. Others insist that we must believe that creation unfolded exactly as Genesis describes, no matter how unlikely it seems. I believe that so long as we understand the core message of scripture, whether we believe that creation took seven days or several billion years isn't terribly important.

A lot of Christians will insist that it's important that we read these early chapters of Genesis literally. What most people don't realize is that ever since the beginning Christians have been interpreting these passages figuratively. For example, most Christians agree that the serpent in Genesis 3 is actually Satan in disguise (hence the reference in Revelation to "That ancient serpent".) A merely literal reading of Genesis 1-3 provides no evidence for that conclusion, yet it is a pivotal element of Christian theology. To give another example, the opening verses in the Gospel of John are a figurative reinterpretation of Genesis 1. John equates the "light" in Genesis 1 with the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Having said that, I'd like to address the question I posed at the beginning. Can Genesis 1-3 be reconciled with the theory of evolution? The main issue, as I see it, is the claim that people, plants and animals were made by God. However, this claim is not a problem if we believe that God worked through natural means, like evolution, to form each of these things. This idea isn't contrary to scripture in any way. Indeed God tells Jeshurun that He made him and formed him in his mothers womb. Here we see that God can work through completely natural means to bring about His desired end and I personally believe that that is what he did when he made Adam and Eve.

Why do I interpret the Bible this way? There are two reasons. The first reason is because I believe that God is not a deceiver. When we try to understand the natural world we should go where the evidence takes us. If it appears as though all life has a common ancestor, then either all life has a common ancestor or God is playing a practical joke on us. I chose to believe the former.

The second reason has to do with my view on the nature of scripture. I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, but I also believe that that divinely inspired message was written for people of a particular time and place. As such it was written in terms that they would understand and accept. All of the strange details of early Genesis that confuse us are things that made perfect sense to the people that the book was originally written for. God was gracious to give them the message in terms that they could understand, and I believe that we have the right to interpret the scriptures and apply its message in terms that we can understand.

I hope you found my explanation satisfying or at least interesting. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think. I welcome any criticism or compliments you may have.

Science, Christianity and the Sovereignty of God

As an evangelical Christian I sometimes feel like a bit of an oddity because, unlike many other evangelical Christians, I have no problem with science. I like science. I think science is useful for understanding our universe. I don't believe that any scientific theory threatens my belief system in any way.

I think most Christians, even a lot of evangelical Christians, feel the same way. The problem is that we don't express our beliefs as often or as forcefully as Christians who oppose science. Today I'm going to begin to explain my position and why I feel that it's well justified by both scripture and by experience.

The obvious thing to do would be to talk about evolution and the book of Genesis, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do it, first of all, because that's a topic that deserves its own post. The second reason I'm not going to do it is because, while that's the hot button issue in our culture right now, that's not really what this debate is about.

At its heart this debate is really about the sovereignty of God.

For a Christian that's the only question that matters in this debate. Is God still in control or not? For some reason people seem to believe that every time scientists invent some new theory to explain how the universe works, God looses some of his power. As though scientists are somehow gaining mastery over the universe merely by understanding it.

The first thing we need to understand is that God is in charge of completely natural processes. The Bible says that he created everything and that he sustains everything. If the universe behaves in an orderly fashion according to scientific principles, it's because God made it that way. In fact, it shouldn't be surprising that it works that way because God is a God of order.

The other reason that people might think that science impinges on God's sovereignty is because scientific theories define what is and isn't possible. This is a more serious concern, especially if you believe that God can work miracles, which I do.

It's this second consideration that prompted me to write the post, Science as a Worldview. In that post I make the claim that, while science is a reliable source of knowledge, it isn't the only source of knowledge. Along with that I would also say that, while the universe usually conforms with known scientific theories, it doesn't always.

Some might argue that because I don't believe that science is always true I don't really believe in the scientific method. It's true that I don't hold scientific claims to be absolutely true under every circumstance. But I do believe that science does provide an explanation for how the universe typically works. I think this knowledge is still invaluable, even if it's not true in every single circumstance.

In any case, scientific knowledge doesn't require absolute belief. In fact, science wouldn't be able to progress if scientists weren't allowed to question accepted scientific theories. The fact that people are allowed to question science is possibly its greatest strength.

There is, of course, much more to be said about this topic. In future posts I'll be talking more about science and miracles. I'll also talk about evolution and the book of Genesis. Please leave a comment if you'd like to hear more about either of those two topics, or if you want to respond to what I've written so far.

What is Knowledge?

This is a question that is easy to ask, but can be difficult to answer. In order to answer we need to understand what it means to say that we know something. This study is called Epistemology. If you're not up for reading a long Wikipedia article, this comic also offers a pretty good explanation of epistemology.

If you'd read either of the two links you would know the most common answer. Knowledge is, "Justified, true belief." When we say that we know x, we mean that we have good reason to believe that x is true. There are some problems with that answer, but it's a good start.

The nice thing about this definition is that it's simple. We all know what beliefs are, and I think we all know what truth is. The interesting question is, what counts as a justification? How do we know that our beliefs are justified? That's the question I'm interested in answering.

First of all, there are some beliefs that seem to be self evident. These beliefs don't have a clear justification. These beliefs are our basic assumptions about how the world works. Some of these beliefs can be almost invisible. They're so basic that it doesn't even occur to us that they might be questioned.

For example, most of the time we assume that our memories and our sense perceptions are accurate. We know that at times both can be deceived, but under normal circumstances we don't need to provide an explanation for why our senses and our memories can be trusted.

Another example is logic. If you've taken a logic course, then you've probably been taught that logical arguments are truth-preserving. Most people accept that that is true without the need for any further justification. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how someone would provide further justification for that belief.

The interesting thing about this first class of beliefs is, just because something seems self evident to us doesn't mean that it actually is self evident. If you and everyone around you shares a similar belief system then it is natural to assume that those beliefs are self evident. For this reason I think it's good to interact with people with radically different beliefs. They keep us honest and force us to examine our beliefs.

Of course, most of our knowledge isn't self evident. Most of our beliefs require some form of justification. Loosely speaking, these justifications can come in one of two forms.

First of all, some of our beliefs are justified logically. We start with those beliefs that we consider to be self evident and we use some form of logical reasoning to discover additional truths.

Secondly, some of our beliefs are justified by experience. Assuming that we can trust our perceptions and our memories they can be a rich source of knowledge.

In practice, most of the things we know represent a synthesis of our basic assumptions, our reasoning ability and our perceptions. All of these factors come into play when we talk about what we know.

The problem is that these are complicated issues and we don't all address them the same way. The result is that two different people can end up having very different beliefs, even if they're both very smart and they both think things through very carefully.

What about you? What assumptions do you make about the world? What roles do reason and experience play in shaping your beliefs?

Science as a Worldview

Today I'm going to talk about metaphysical naturalism. Simply put, metaphysical naturalism is the belief that everything that exists is natural. Natural, in this instance, refers to anything that can be studied scientifically. The assumption here is that everything that exists can be studied scientifically. In other words, this is science as a world view.

I bring this up in the hopes of clarifying some of the issues that come up whenever people discuss conflicts between scientific and religious truth. Many religious people feel the need to reject or ignore the conclusions of science because of their faith, while many atheists claim that a scientific understanding of the world rules out a traditional understanding of God. Both of these beliefs are rooted in the same fallacy.

That fallacy is the assumption that if science is a source of knowledge then it must be the only source of knowledge. The important thing to realize is that this isn't a scientific claim. Even if we believe that everything that science teaches us is true, we can still believe that their are other truths available that are beyond the grasp of science.

In fact, most people accept that other kinds of knowledge can exist along with scientific knowledge. The clearest example I can think of is mathematical knowledge. Mathematical proofs are arrived at using a completely different method than scientific theories. Most people accept that scientific and mathematical truth can exist side by side, even though they represent two radically different approaches to uncovering truth.

When people start to consider religious truths; however, it's a different story. There are probably several reasons why this is so, but the simplest explanation is that, as a rule, religious truth doesn't play nice. Religious truth is almost always the most controversial kind of truth. Moreover, unlike science or math or any other discipline you might care to name, religious truth always defines a person's world view.

This is a good reason not to try and teach religion in a public setting, but it's a poor reason to give up on religious truth altogether. Too many people look at the many different religions of the world, and at the controversy surrounding religious beliefs, and they decide it's not worth trying to figure out.

The reason why religious debates are so controversial is because people's world views are at stake. Since a person's world view informs all of their other beliefs these arguments can become very passionate. And because world views define a person's basic assumptions about reality it is incredibly difficult to find common ground.

The thing to understand if you adopt metaphysical naturalism as a world view is that, at the end of the day, it's just another belief system. The choice isn't inherently more rational just because you chose to look to science as the only source of truth. In fact, the only choice you're making is to ignore every other source of truth that might be out there.

Hopefully reading this will help to clarify some of the debates concerning science and religion. Feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you think.