How do I escape skepticism?

[presidentjlh]

Descartes argument goes something like, “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore for I am.” This seems to be as good as we can get for proving
existence is possible, but it sure doesn’t convince me that existence is meaningful.

Ah, yes, but if existence is true, then it already has at least one meaning: To exist.

How would an honest skeptic live his life then? Just because mathematics seems to hold now does not to mean it won’t be one day be proven false. Just because science can manipulate matter in new and fasinating ways, and we can understand complexities that were before unknown, just shows that our minds are very limited. We grope arround in darkness for the most part, occassionally coming accross a big discovery which transforms society, but the process is very slow if you were you to consider how many things we don’t know. The very condition of man is to question and doubt; we have never seen anyone except for God, who would claim to see the whole picture of reality.

Indeed, one cannot assume that our current knowledge of the universe will hold for all time. And I agree that we are called to question our own perception of the universe. I dislike it when people say, “Oh, don’t question God, that’s wrong to do.” But doesn’t God want us to seek Him? For some, seeking God requires little to no questions, but for others, such as myself, I question almost all. Does God exist? If so, does He care about me? If so, why does He care about me?

Naturally, I have come to find that, indeed, God does exist, and that He does care about me because He loves me. However, this finding didn’t simply result from being told God exists by an authority. Granted, that was what gave me the option of finding God’s existance, but I still felt unsure at times. What about the problems of evil? The problem of omnipotence? In order to truly cement my faith in God, I had to question. I had to have doubts. It was in those questions and doubts that I found the resolve to look for answers, which led me to God. I approached these things carefully.

As to the problem of evil, I have determined as follows: Indeed, God is not evil, nor does He wish evil. However, He does wish for love. The problem with love is that in order for it to be a true, honest love, it requires that we can choose not to love. Therefore, God did not create evil, He created love. With love, however, comes free will, and with free will comes the option for evil. Man chose evil out of will.

But, this causes another issue. How is God omnipotent, then, if we have free will? For in order for true free will, God must not know our choices beforedhand. But, if that’s true, then God is not omnipotent. But, we have free will, and God is omnipotent. How does this reconcile?

Well, I came to the conclusion that God is omnipotent, but He is also reasonable. He can choose to not know our actions, so as to provide for free will. This still allows for omnipotency, as He can choose to know our actions whenever he wishes, he just does not prefer to. Granted, this does not entirely solve the matter, but it does seem to at least address it a little bit. I have come to the conclusion that this issue goes beyond the ability to understand God as a human on Earth, therefore, I must remain content in this limitation.

So my argument here would be, if we don’t know ALL things, then we can be sure of nothing, because amoung those things which we do not know, there could be a proposition not yet discovered that renders everything else meaningless. This revelation could put an end to logic and reason itself, and we can’t say that such a revelation does not exist because we are not God, we are not in possession of all knowledge.

But just because we don’t know all things, does that render all our understanding false? Maybe there is a knowledge that would render all we know meaningless, but it is unreasonable to assume such. And if we were to gain the knowledge that everything else we know is false, we still have an absolute truth in the knowledge that we know everything else is false.

What could we say then about the universe if it is indeed meaningless and perhaps non-existant?? Well we can hardly fathom the possibility because our minds are limited, and they will always be limited; the universe of nonmeaning does not care and may continue to go through the ages in possible or not possible state of eternal non-existence.

If the universe does not exist, it can still have meaning. Does it not still effect you? Wouldn’t its lack of existence give it a meaning in itself?

in other words, would a final meaningless be a “bad” thing necessarily? why the concepts of good or bad would not even exist, everything is, or everything is not; the state or non-state of the universe can not be articulated here, and this makes sense, as who are we to think language can accomplish anything or our thoughts accomplish anything at all? I think we may put new much importance on OUR experience and brains, thinking that we somehow are meaningful or special as opposed to the experience of non-living things, or organisms with only a few cells. In the grand scheme of things or the non-existence of grand scheme of things we may be just like we might think a rock or a grain of sand to be…quite meaningless, and its non-existence perhaps not a big deal.

Indeed, a final meaningless wouldn’t be a bad thing, but I find it to be an impossiblity, as even if the universe is objectively meaningless, it can be given meaning subjectively, which would mean it still has meaning. All the experiences of life would still have meaning to the observer. As long as one mind holds the universe to have meaning, it has meaning, for the meaning has been imposed on the universe by the observer.

 

[slywakka250]

…for the meaning has been imposed on the universe by the observer…
.

Thank You…This is very helpful…you understood what I was saying well… I don’t have any further argument right now…

If the universe does not exist, it can still have meaning. Does it not still effect you? Wouldn’t its lack of existence give it a meaning in itself?

Yes. The universe seems to be “grounded” in a sense in its own existence or its non-existence. As existence itself is meaning, and likely means there’s even more meaning beyond mere existence. I reached this same conclusion a couple days ago, and it does much to help me here, and I’m happy you’ve made the same conclusion.

 

[tdgesq]

How would an honest skeptic live his life then? Just because mathematics seems to hold now does not to mean it won’t be one day be proven false. Just because science can manipulate matter in new and fasinating ways, and we can understand complexities that were before unknown, just shows that our minds are very limited.

The honest Skeptic (and I’m not claiming that you or Skeptics generally are being dishonest) would admit that he has no choice but to accept the reality of his original experiences. And I mean literally has no choice but to accept them. When a baseball is thrown right at your face - whether you are a Skeptic or not - you cannot doubt at that moment that it is a real baseball being thrown at your face by a person who actually exists outside of your own mind. It is the same with any other original experiences you have. The only time you can doubt those experiences is when you reflect upon them later, not at the moment of the experience.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

For myself, I have been able to refute skepticism with this most simple statement:

“2+2 = 4”

At first, you may say, “Ah, but is that the same for everyone?”

No matter what you do, when you take two of something, and another two of that same thing, you have 4 of that thing. It can be apples.

2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples

It can be different objects, but they still add up to four:

2 apples + 2 oranges = 4 pieces of fruit

You can call “2” and “4” different things, but their meaning never changes. I could call “2” “blort” and “4” “zalt”, but it doesn’t matter, as “blort” + “blort” = “zalt” nonetheless.

And if there is one single truth in mathematics, there are infinite truths in mathematics, as there are an infinite number of equations and functions in mathematics.

Many people deny the existence of abstract objects such of numbers. In fact, prominent Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig thinks that the existence of number would disprove Christianity.
William Lane Craig:

Do numbers really exist?

Some people might think that this question is so airy-fairy as to be utterly irrelevant. But in fact it raises a fundamental theological issue whose importance can scarcely be exaggerated. For if we say that numbers do exist, where did they come from? Christian theology requires us to say that everything that exists apart from God was created by God (John 1:3). But numbers, if they exist, are almost always taken to be necessary beings. They thus would seem to exist independently of God. This is the view called Platonism, after the Greek philosopher Plato.

Someone might try to avoid this problem by espousing a modified Platonism, according to which numbers were necessarily and eternally created by God. But then a problem of vicious circularity arises: explanatorily prior to God’s creating the number 3, wasn’t it the case that the number of persons in the Trinity was 3? Of course; but then the number 3 existed prior to God’s creating the number 3, which is impossible!

I remember the sense of panic that I felt in my breast when I first heard this objection raised at a philosophy conference in Milwaukee. It seemed to be an absolutely decisive refutation of theism. I didn’t see any way out.

The way out, I discovered, is to deny the Platonist view that abstract objects like numbers exist.

 

[Langdell]

Many people deny the existence of abstract objects such of numbers. In fact, prominent Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig thinks that the existence of number would disprove Christianity.

There’s an excellent book on this called What Is Mathematics, Really?

Although the author (a mathematician) doesn’t get into religion, he argues that math is a “social fact,” something that exists by virtue of shared ideas among numerous people. He rejects the “Platonic” view that math exists independently of human thought, like gravity or microwaves. I found it pretty persuasive.

.

 

[Ace_of_Spades]

is there an objective reality which exists independently of my experiences?

people sometimes say that the premise “there is no absolute truth,” if accepted, constitutes an assertion of an absolute truth. This is indeed a contradiction, but seeing this contradiction simply does not convince me.

On what are we to ground our belief in anything? I have spent many hours thinking about whether or not even the existence of anything at all is possible.

I am especially unconvinced of the meaningfulness of logic, language, reason, experience, etc, as I don’t know why I should trust my reason or experience about anything; I am heavily influenced by postmodernism taken even further or distorted to a radical and extreme skepticism and nihilism.

my philosophy teachers had told me that it’s very easy to be skeptic. well it is, and I don’t much like it, but at the same time I love it…

I do really like the idea of universal affirmation, that all propositions can be affirmed, and nothing ever rejected, sure lots of contradictions result, but what matter, I don’t like rejecting or leaving any possibility out…

but of course, if there are things which we can know and which exist, and which are real, I would want to know…

has anyone else here struggled with skepticism, and how do you overcome it?

The only proposition which cannot be logically doubted is “There are thoughts”.
That’s it my friend. Everything else is up for grabs.
However, this is not useful as one must live in the real world.

 

[4Horsemen]

is there an objective reality which exists independently of my experiences?

people sometimes say that the premise “there is no absolute truth,” if accepted, constitutes an assertion of an absolute truth. This is indeed a contradiction, but seeing this contradiction simply does not convince me.

On what are we to ground our belief in anything? I have spent many hours thinking about whether or not even the existence of anything at all is possible.

I am especially unconvinced of the meaningfulness of logic, language, reason, experience, etc, as I don’t know why I should trust my reason or experience about anything; I am heavily influenced by postmodernism taken even further or distorted to a radical and extreme skepticism and nihilism.

my philosophy teachers had told me that it’s very easy to be skeptic. well it is, and I don’t much like it, but at the same time I love it…

I do really like the idea of universal affirmation, that all propositions can be affirmed, and nothing ever rejected, sure lots of contradictions result, but what matter, I don’t like rejecting or leaving any possibility out…

but of course, if there are things which we can know and which exist, and which are real, I would want to know…

has anyone else here struggled with skepticism, and how do you overcome it?

One thing we can be sure of and that is that all being is knowable, all things are intelligible (or as St. Thomas Aquinas might add, marked by form). Of course this is something we can’t verify or examine, precisely because it is the basis upon which scientists operate. Einstein and other scientists note that. So we have to start somewhere.

Basically, it’s useless to be a skeptic (I fell into that state with all the negative philosophizing that goes with it in college–no surprise) simply because there is so much to explore in the whole universe. We are such an incredibly, infinately small pixel-like creature in the whole of the cosmos. Yet, we are each a part of the design all under the creativity and originality of the great Artist, Himself.

In a book written after Vatican II, Introduction to Christianity Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger develops an argument for God’s existence drawn from both classical and contemporary sources. Author Robert Barrow says it’s interesting that Cardinal Ratzinger observes “that the word we customarity use to designate the act of understanding is ‘recognize,’ literally ‘re-cognizing’ something, thinking again what has already been thought into it.”

He quotes Einstein: “In the laws of nature, an intelligence so superior is revealed that in comparison all the significance of human thinking and human arrangements is a completely worthless reflection.”

So we have an “intelligent ground of the cosmos” not just an “orderer.” And all things, are moving toward the Designer’s goal–all peoples, all nations, even all living creatures and inanimate things, which all play a role in creation and its ends.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There’s an excellent book on this called What Is Mathematics, Really?

Although the author (a mathematician) doesn’t get into religion, he argues that math is a “social fact,” something that exists by virtue of shared ideas among numerous people. He rejects the “Platonic” view that math exists independently of human thought, like gravity or microwaves. I found it pretty persuasive.

.

Why do you find it persuasive? Thats like saying logic is a social construct. I mean, how can we meaningfully speak about numerous people? Basic math is born out of identifying numerous forms or ontological numbers. If you add one form to another, you neccesarily get two. Thus 2+2=4, is a neccesary timeless truth. Its not something thats simply made up. What it identfys about the world, is that there is fundmental ground of absolute perfect order.

 

[Langdell]

Why do you find it persuasive? Thats like saying logic is a social construct. I mean, how can we meaningfully speak about numerous people? Basic math is born out of identifying numerous forms or ontological numbers. If you add one form to another, you neccesarily get two. Thus 2+2=4, is a neccesary timeless truth. Its not something thats simply made up. What it identfys about the world, is that there is fundmental ground of absolute perfect order.

Well, one way to think of it is this: The set of symbols “Smoking is not permitted in New York City restaurants” reflects something real, but the symbols themselves are not Platonic realities. We, as people, created the symbols (with God’s help, of course) as a way of communicating about reality. Unlike reality, the symbols were not out there, waiting to be discovered.

I need to get to work, so I’m sorry to say I can’t try to explain this further at present.

.

 

[rvilbig]

On what are we to ground our belief in anything? I have spent many hours thinking about whether or not even the existence of anything at all is possible.

May I suggest that you prayerfully meditate on God’s Holy Name: I AM WHO AM (Ex 3:14).

Many Catholics have reflected on this Name over the ages who have perhaps struggled with the same question you have. Consider this from Aquinas: “This name HE WHO IS is most properly applied to God, …]because of its signification. For it does not signify form, but simply existence itself. Hence since the existence of God is His essence itself, which can be said of no other (3, 4), it is clear that among other names this one specially denominates God, for everything is denominated by its form.” (Summa I q.13 a.11).

Here are some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s reflection on this Name: “In the gesture of rebuff we have come upon here there is a hint of a God who is entirely different from “the gods”. The explanation of the name YAHWEH by the little word “am” thus serves as a kind of negative theology. It cancels out the significance of the name as a name; it effects a sort of withdrawal from the only too well known, which the name seems to be, into the unknown, the hidden. It dissolves the name into mystery, so that the familiarity and unfamiliarity of God, concealment and revelation, are indicated simultaneously. The name, a sign of acquaintance, becomes the cipher for the perpetually unknown and unnamed quality of God. Contrary to the view that God can here be grasped, so to speak, the persistence of an infinite distance is in this way made quite clear” (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, page 128).

Hopefully this helps some.

Also, regarding postmodernism, you should know that even among academics, this mode of thinking is not generally respected. In fact, an NYU physics professor, named Alan Sokal, published a deliberately absurd article in the postmodernist journal, Social Text, in order to demonstrate their lack of intellectual rigor. This was known as the Sokal affair, and was discussed in detail in his book Beyond the Hoax. The bottom line: postmodernism is nonsense.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[hatsoff]

Well, one way to think of it is this: The set of symbols “Smoking is not permitted in New York City restaurants” reflects something real, but the symbols themselves are not Platonic realities. We, as people, created the symbols -](with God’s help, of course)/-] as a way of communicating about reality. Unlike reality, the symbols were not out there, waiting to be discovered…

A great response, with one small change!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, one way to think of it is this:

The set of symbols “Smoking is not permitted in New York City restaurants” reflects something real, but the symbols themselves are not Platonic realities.

It is true that some mathematics is nothing more then an arbitrary expression of “order” free of any ontological objective facts. These are mere tautological constructs; they are completely abstract. This is to say that the rules of some mathematical systems are made up in so far as their relevance to reality. However the builders of such constructs still apply a sense of antithetical order to these systems which they get from their experience of reality. They are ordered in so far as there is a right answer and a wrong answer depending on the kind of counting system being used. However number systems are not necessarily tautological. There is a basic math that is born completely out of our experience of reality. This is to say that mathematics was at first developed out of a necessity to count ontological numbers. For example, i see many trees. These trees can be converted into numbers such as the number one. And then we can further convert these numbers in to varying symbols as they gain quantity. Each type of quantity equaling a different kind of symbol. But that we have invented symbols doesn’t take away from the fact that i truly see, for instance, “eight ones” or eight trees. Thus there is evidently a mathematical component to reality, or rather an underlying order to reality that makes mathematical truths possible and objective. The truths of addition is an expression of reality; not an invention.

The proposition that smoking is not permitted, is an arbitrary function of freewill and desire. It is invented. It is also true that the symbols which represent the sum of 2+2, is invented. But the fact that “2+2 equals 4”, is not invented. It is a necessary objective fact of reality that cannot be otherwise. 2 trees + another 2 trees evidently equals 4 trees. Its not something we have made up. It is not a social convention. 2 objective ontological numbers added to another 2 ontological numbers necessarily equals 4 ontological numbers because of the objective reality in which we exist. This represents to us, not just mere symbols, but also the objective underlying order that gives rise to physical reality. For deep thinkers who can see past the edge of their own nose, basic mathematical truth helps to expose the fundamental truth that there is a timeless and perfect ground or Being upon which and through which other contingent changing beings exist. It reveals to us the very fact that the ground of all potential Being is fundamentally logical, and also that this “fundamental reality” is in itself - by its intrinsic nature - the antithesis of nothing.

We, as people, created the symbols (with God’s help, of course) as a way of communicating about reality. Unlike reality, the symbols were not out there, waiting to be discovered.

The “symbols” are not out there; this is certain. But basic “mathematical truth” begins as an expression of reality as we find it. Thus basic “mathematical truth” is “objective” and transcendent of physical causality. This is obvious if you think about it thoroughly.

Basic Mathematics is an expression of logical reality.

I need to get to work, so I’m sorry to say I can’t try to explain this further at present.

You have fallen on a fallacy that all mathematical truth is reducible to symbols.That’s like saying all logical truth is reducible to words, and have no real connection to “reality” beyond that fact. This is a post-modernist fallacy; and your failure to see it is unacceptable. Your grounded for five months. No sweets and no cartoons!!

 

[Langdell]

MOM2 – I recently had a long discussion of this (but in terms of logic rather than math) with adriancombe in this thread. I have to admit that I don’t have the energy for another such heavy chat so soon. May God be with you.

.