From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 00:55:41 EDT
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:42:04 -0500 "Glenn Morton"
<glennmorton@entouch.net> writes:
>
> I have mentioned that I did grad work in philosophy but got
> disgusted with it and left (also had a baby and realised that
> philosophy offered a mighty poor living). David Siemans will most
> assuredly disagree with my characterization here. The reason I got
> disgusted was that there was no truth in philosophy. One guy would
> swallow a set of assumptions, build an incredibly self-consistent
> system of thought. Then the next guy would come along, do the same
> with a different set of assumptions. In some sense they were all
> speaking different systems/languages. There was no experimentum
> crucis to separate the wheat from the chaff. And then there was
> Wittgenstein, who believed that language didn't mean very much but
> was just a self-consistent game played by people and that
> translations from the game of English to the Game of German were
> illogical (but he never seemed to turn down his royalty checks on
> the translations of his work!) I digress here.
>
> My point is: Why do you think theology is different? Why would
> these various systems be more consistent than what I felt like I saw
> in philosophy.
>
> I apologize right now to all philosophers who, no doubt, will pick
> apart my critique, logic and facts, whether or not they publish
> their retort anywhere including on this list.
>
> My worry is that lacking an experimentum crucis, we can't tell what
> 'divine' books were inspired by God and which are the products of
> the David Koreshes of this world. Which makes me think your
> enterprize will fail.
>
> And it isn't because there might not be truth in one of them but
> that there can't be ultimate metaphysical truth (as to the nature of
> God) in all of them. (read that carefully because of the subtle
> nuance.)
>
Glenn,
I agree with much of what you say. Philosophy is generally a poor way to
make a living. I'm thinking of a chap I met many years ago. Had his
doctorate in philosophy and was working for a big defense firm analyzing
future needs. He'd been hired for his minor, but said that he used the
analytical skills he'd learned in philosophy more than anything else. My
daughter was one of the first group admitted to training in counselling
who did not have a degree in the human sciences. Turned out the
philosophy majors consistently did better as Marriage, Family and Child
Counsellors.
There is, unfortunately, no ultimate test for philosophical systems
except consistency, the /sine qua non/ of all rational systems. This is
also true of mathematics, where one is free to produce sets of axioms.
Geometry has three calculi produced by three incompatible parallel
postulates. But they can also play with different numbers of dimensions,
even though we experience only three spatial dimensions, though Einstein
worked with four. String theory is another matter. I may also make note
of logic, where different approaches have different requirements for the
matters they can handle. "All dragons are fire-breathers" is true in
modern logic but nonsense in Aristotelian. There are weaker logics than
those usually used, modal logics of many types, multi-valued logics.
Again the criterion is consistency. Beyond that, both math and logic need
to be suited to the information that must be handled. "This won't work
for that purpose" is not the same as "this is illegitimate."
Science puts in an empirical test to exclude ranges of theories. This
works pretty well in the hard sciences, and is becoming more successful
in some areas of the life sciences. It does not work very well in
sociology and psychology, where I have been told that there are often
contradictory theories. There is, unfortunately, a problem that is very
seldom mentioned. It's basis goes back a century, when a French chap
named Koenigs showed that, for any movement desired, there are an
infinite number of mechanical ways to produce it. Poincare extended this:
for any set of data falling under the least action principle, there are
an infinite number of theories. This means that any logico-mathematical
scientific model is only one of an infinite number of equally good
models. Whitehead didn't like Einstein's Riemannian geometry and produced
a Euclidean version. Eddington proved that, for the four items recognized
as vital at the time, both made the same predictions. Later work buried
Whitehead. But there have since been additional challenges to Einstein,
which have also failed wherever they made different predictions that
could be tested. I don't know if there are any alternates left standing,
but there can be an infinite number of them.
Turning to theology, there are no foolproof tests. But this is not all
that much different from the other human attempts at understanding, for
we are finite and fallible. But there are evidences. Bill Williams
remarks that the Hebreo-Christian scriptures are the only ones that allow
for a beginning, science's Big Bang. That's either a mighty lucky guess
or an indication of a better source than those working out a cyclically
repeating universe or denying the very possibility of creation. The
historical evidences for the life and teachings of Jesus, culminating in
his crucifixion and resurrection, followed by the change from a small
terrified group to a force that spread across the known world, certainly
form a basis distinct in character from that of any other religion. This
is not proof, but it is evidence. To be sure, many deliberately ignore
the evidence or revise it to fit their presuppositions (a modern,
sophisticated version of Romans 1). But those who, whether unlettered or
highly educated, brilliant or dull, place their faith in the Son of God
find the evidence from the Spirit.
Back to philosophy: in isolation any consistent viewpoint can stand. Even
some patently inconsistent ones have been most popular, e.g., logical
positivism. But when one considers a philosophy in the total context,
many viewpoints get weeded out. But it is usually very difficult to dig
through the complexities of a system to discover its ambiguities and
incongruities. It's admittedly tough to have a broad view. Science has
succeeded by focusing narrowly on a few things at a time. Perhaps the
most difficult task of all is to recognize one's own basic commitments.
No one is totally successful surmounting the complexities involved. We
recognize there is an absolute standard of truth, and that we cannot be
certain of attaining it despite our best efforts. It is most inconvenient
to be human, even though we are the most accomplished creatures on earth.
Currently frustrated, expecting better by divine grace,
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 00:58:47 EDT