I have come across an interesting piece of mind, written by Mr Patterson, on “self refuting skepticism” and I got to appreciate his enthusiasm of nailing on a Christian cross (Roman in fact), the modern skeptics. As a spiritual coward (that would be an agnostic), I found it relaxing to follow the mental ping-pong between Patterson, a convinced believer, and Dr. Shermer, a determined skeptic. Let alone the irony itself, that a convinced person cannot be a skeptic, as a skeptic, first of all, should doubt everything (science and himself included), I tend to tilt my balance in Mr. Shermer’s favor.
To his benefit, Dr. Shermer acknowledges the voids in his modern skeptic theory and agrees that sometimes, Socrates’ favorite motto of “agreeing of not knowing anything” can actually mean “not knowing anything”.
Personally, I don’t see a genuine problem here. Both religious and scientific people are looking for the same thing, with different means. The debate here is only about the means they are using, not acknowledging that, in fact, they both crave for the truth. This isn’t a matter of white or black, but what created that white and black. The skeptics vs genesis fans is a fun debate to watch and as old as women vs men, Arabs vs Jews, blacks vs whites. The duel became so heated that those who raised their arms, religious or scientific, forgot what they were arguing about and only cared about who said what, failing to keep in mind the bottom line, which is some ultimate truth. The nuance that arises here is not how they label themselves or the means they are using to reach to the core of the issue, but is how they define the truth.
Now, should we keep philosophy in mind, we need to seek further than genesis and try to actually agree on what the truth is. Our ancestors (who seem to have been more prolific than us, or had more time on their hands) generously offered us quite a few philosophical trends. Either we opt for Kant's a priori concept of truth, Pascal's or Saint Augustine's, the definition we apply to veridicity is pretty much the same. Either way, be it subjective, relative, objective, or absolute, truth has as many hues as the methods which we apply to finding it. You can bring into play the correspondence, coherence, redundancy or minimalist theory. Will it matter, since we are doomed anyway not finding a consensus? Use your logic for a second, and start from the premises that truth is not here to be known with our reduced means. Or that truth has as many facets as many truth theorists are there. If you keep this in mind, your metaphysical pain of not being able to convince your opponent will be more bearable and it will cure itself eventually, once you become wiser and more tolerant.
However, since I don’t see a probable and near future solution for these conceptual duels, I tend to dismiss these debates as being as barren as a menopausal woman. What is the benefit of mind games if the end result is creating confusion?
Why do people feel the need to be told they are right? Can’t we simply be? If failing to agree on our birth as species brings out more conflict than finding out the truth, doesn’t everything transform into a ludicrous dispute? Some claim life has no meaning, apart from the one we give to it, and it is just a sequence of chemical reactions, and that our ancestors were monkeys. Others like to think they are of divine origin. If you ask me, I would very much like, out of an extreme narcissistic inclination, to believe I am God’s creation. Now, the problem that naturally arises is “what/who is this God that created me”? But to be brutally honest, I don’t care who created me as long as I find out why I am here for. Would I still like to believe that a God, which allowed evil to be as spread as goodness, created me? I don’t think so. On a long term, it becomes less important what my origin is, and more important what I am doing right now with what is being given to me. Created by God or evolved from monkeys, I am a human being with means to be creative and produce goodness around me. If these debates startle so many passions and lead to hatred and discontent, then that is not a good debate and certainly God wouldn’t like it. A true Christian would turn his other cheek, as he would know truth is on his side, and he needs no arm rising to prove it. Debating skepticism is a very antichristian thing to do, and if you already reached to a conclusion, you are definitely tired of thinking.
One thing should the modern Crusaders bear in mind though, if spirituality searches for truth, so does science.
Skeptically yours,
Diana (2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment