August 20, 2003

Throughout what we know of the history of thought, there have been those who have insisted that there is no dual epistemology, and that the same certainty which is realized in mathematics, for example, can be found in matters of faith. Right now I'm reading Peter Brown's excellent biography of Augustine, so that African bishop springs to mind. His genius was a dialectical ability to logically and mercilessly eliminate all positions counter to his own interpretations of scripture and matters of theology, so that his opponents were left unable to reply.

However, his basic premise--that God exists--is what, today, derails all "logical" attempts to derive faith. Pointing out the logical flaws in proofs of God's existence is the simplest of piscine barrel-shoots, which is why I am singularly unimpressed by the obsessive mockery of the Raving Atheist and others like him. Add to that the fact that our modern age is decidedly lacking in religious minds of Augustine's caliber, and you end up with a pointless landscape of arguments and counter-arguments, all proclaiming certain knowledge about that which, ultimately, cannot be known.

Unfortunately, despite the scientific society we live in--wherein all things are deemed knowable given enough technology, study and funding--we have neglected to build a foundation in metaphysics within the educational system.* A dictionary definition is simply

The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

This is not to say that the educational system should purvey a particular brand of metaphysics, such as, "God exists" or "The universe began when a molecular monoblock exploded." But there should be basic instruction in metaphysics as the starting place of all inquiry. Because of the current lack of such instruction, there are people who argue with great force and fervor for the certainty of--for example--an atheistic metaphysical position, while operating on first principles that are either entirely unexamined or just as speculative as theistic metaphysics. I'm not claiming that this disproves any given position, but it does mean that such arguments hover somewhere above these first principles, spotted with detached assertions about the factual nature of empirical scientific method and counter-assertions about the nature of creation and free will. However, without a specific argument about the establishment of a common first principle between interlocuters--whether it's "verifiably true" or not--any such discussion is an exercise in intellectual masturbation. This is why Augustine was the giant that he was: he argued within an intellectual community composed of people who had all agreed on a first premise, namely, that God exists. Everything else was an exploration of the implications of that premise, and what it meant to humanity.

Granted, Augustine did have an argument for the existence of God, which necessarily entailed another first principle, namely, "I exist" (Descartes did not come up with cogito, ergo sum). To derive the existence of God from one's own existence, from a logical standpoint, is sketchy at best. But the effort must be made--not to prove the existence of God, but to rationally examine what one considers to be one's own first principle, and to see what one can satisfactorily derive from that principle. Arguing with people who either haven't examined their own first principles or who emphatically deny yours is pointless, and only serves some need of personal psychology.

For my own part, one of my primary principles is roughly equivalent to "We won't know 'till we get there...or, not." I find it useless to argue in earnest about life after death or the existence of God because, in the absence of any experience to the contrary, there can be no certainty for me. Now, there are plenty of people who believe that they have had such experience, and that's fine. But trying to force that experience into a logical mode and claim it as proof or Truth is a kind of solipsism which conflates personal experience with reality itself.

I'm certainly not making an argument for relativism. Far from it. There's a church near my home that has a sign out front, with a different message every other week or so. This week it's "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own truth." I agree with that--but I don't think that the church knows what the truth is. There is an objective reality. I just don't believe that we, as humans, are any more equipped to discover it than we are to see infrared light or radio waves.

Which returns me, in a roundabout way, to the admirability of faith. I will respect certain kinds of faith when I can see that the mind behind the belief has engaged in some kind of serious metaphysical deliberation. That it has most carefully parsed itself, and tried to establish a belief structure based on examined first principles. This is why I can respect the current Pope, while remaining almost entirely opposed to his social teachings: I can see through his philosophical writings that he is an intellect to be reckoned with. Conversely, this is why I have contempt for Jerry Falwell: he's a dogmatic yahoo idiot. Falwell and the Pope are both believers. It is the quality of their faith that differentiates them.

I have the most respect for the person of faith who is doing the intellectual work, yet still admits to significant metaphysical uncertainty and vast reservoirs of doubt--because, of course, that is the person who most resembles me, and we all like to like ourselves, don't we? I respect that person because, in addition to wanting to like others who resemble us, we humans desire certainty. Uncertainty and doubt are very uncomfortable and most of us, if we cannot actually achieve certainty, will simply live our lives as though we have done so. But the person of faith who knows that he or she might be completely wrong, who knows that they have not accepted a proof but have made a choice to follow the ethical tenets of that faith...I find a certain integrity there. It's an anxious, difficult path to walk.

*[By which I mean the public education system.--IAW]