How does atheism defend “the truth”.

Wow. Today Markus has a big one for us, and since it’s so big, I’m going to break it up to answer it…

Name: Markus
Message: Dear Erick,

Here are some of my thoughts and questions I have on your recent blog posting: “God, morality, religion and evolution?” My apologies if you have already answered my question(s) below in another post, but a quick search could not find anything related.

A bit about myself to give you some context. I am a Christian, a theologian, and a pastor, but I am most certainly open to the insights of science. For example, in my post below, my questioning is not about the validity of evolution (I fully accept I am a highly evolved hominid), but related to epistemology.

You give your reason for being an atheist as follows:

“… it’s because I have a love affair with the truth. I believe that the hardest thing for anyone to do, is to see things as they are and not just how they wished they would be. This means that when faced with the truth of something, even if that something is unpleasant, I am compelled to accept it.”

It is your notion of “truth” that captured my attention. Most of us will agree that there is some form of “truth”, or the ability to acquire rational knowledge about the world, no matter how slippery that truth may be to pin down.

Hi Markus. Thanks for the intro. Lets get down to business.

But as a theist (maybe leaning towards panentheism), I would like to ask you, an atheist, is your love affair with the truth not a delusion? What truth are you speaking about? You speak about truth as if it really exists (I agree it does), but I question the epistemological grounding of your “truth”.

When I say “truth” I mean that which aligns itself the most with reality, that which is grounded in fact. For example, it is true that if you are on the earth, and you drop a ball, it will fall. It is true that if you cross the street directly in front of a car, you will get hit. It is true that the half hour before a lunch break is longer then the hour of the lunch break itself. (okay, maybe not that last one. lol )

You have faith that your atheism is true. You have faith that your ability to reason gives reliable knowledge, and is not mere epiphenomenal froth. You have faith that the world around us is rationally intelligible. Why? Why do you believe that your subjective experiences, opinions or knowledge is in any way real or reliable?

You are wrong here. I don’t have faith that atheism is true. I have a reasonable expectation that it is true. Faith is most often defined as “that which is hoped for but not seen.” It is belief without evidence. “Reasonable expectation” is based on evidence. For example I don’t have faith that my light switch in my bedroom will turn on, I have a reasonable expectation that it will based upon my understanding of how light switches work plus previous experience with them. If it doesn’t turn on I know it’s because of some type of mechanical failure. All evidential. I hold that the rejection of theism is sound because of the lack of evidence on the theists part. I do not accept faith as a reasonable way to determine existence. I believe that my experiences are reliable until such time that they are not. If you do not believe that the world around us is rationally intelligible then there is no point in having this discussion. The question of theism is based upon the assumption that both parties believe that existence has a rational explanation to it.

From a purely naturalist perspective, evolution on its own has no concern for truth, cognitive processes, or your atheism. All our mental faculties, beliefs, etc. are seen as evolutionary spandrels and exaptations, the product of blind processes or chance. But then should we not take this to its logical conclusion? I mean, the very same chance that produced our minds, certainly it should also randomly produce mental phenomena? In fact, your atheism (and my theism) is just a method of “natural selection” to propagate genes. (And research shows that religious people have more children than atheists – is this merely a sign of reproductive fitness? 😉

 

The point is, our cherished beliefs, opinions or knowledge appear to be a means to an end (selfish genes/evolution), and not an end in itself. It is something that can only be haphazard or random. Truth has no ontological status or inherent quality about it. Why then, should atheism (or theism) or any form of knowledge be deemed reliable and true?

 

If there is no God, or Ultimate Reality, that is, an objective quality about our world that is not subject to random and blind processes, then any notion of “truth” is a massive exercise in self-delusion. So is our experience of the “I”, intentionality, responsibility, and personal agency. We are puppets manipulated and deceived by the strings of physics and evolution.

 

My question to you is: how does atheism ground, support, or defend the existence of “truth”? Truth presupposes a universal, super-arbitrary standard that cannot be obtained from nature.

Again the question of theism starts with the assumption that existence has a rational explanation to it, and that reality is that which exists despite our observation of it and that the truth of that existence can be understood rationally. If your contention is that one can not know the true nature of reality because of subjective observation, then you have subsequently removed yourself from the discussion of theism. (this is why more often then not philosophical discussions end up going no where)

Well Markus, I’m not sure if I answered your questions to your liking, so if you have more questions on the subject feel free to ask in the comment section below. I’ll do my best to expand on my answers there. Thanks for joining us.

 

5 thoughts on “How does atheism defend “the truth”.”

  1. Dear Erick,

    Thanks for the response.

    Of course, the underlying issue is as follows: “Atheism is true,” many will say. My question is, how do you know it is true, and not an evolutionary induced misfire/delusion? How does atheism (often derived from naturalism/materialism/physicalism) ground truth and knowledge? I don’t see any convincing reason (as yet) how it can, for the reasons I had in my post to you (see above).

    Of course I believe that you can know the nature of reality through subjective observation (and various other means). But I believe it is logical to infer that there is a God/Ultimate Reality that grounds our knowledge and truth, and that we can trust something like this really exists. It is this Divine Reason that grounds the rationality in our minds, and the rationality we observe in the natural world. Natural or non-teleological processes – as currently advocated by the neo-Darwinian synthesis – on their own cannot do that.

    Best wishes to you, and have a great weekend!

  2. I guess most of the times when we atheists say “truth” we actually mean “reality”. By reality we mean the micro (nano/ femto) and macro material reality that surrounds us and that we are a part of.
    When we mean evidence we mean it in a similar manner. Proof that something is real or exists or true means evidence that something can materially effect this reality that we talk of or can be experienced in this reality in a tangible way. And by tangible we tend to mean measurable – whether by our blunt human senses or by much more precise instruments.

    Thoughts and ideas of individual minds (the mind being an outcome of organized organic systems evolved over the ages … and maybe in the future it will be an outcome of organized inorganic systems as well … who knows) are basically mental products that effect and influence other minds which influence actions, which influences the way we live. These thoughts can be conjectures about how “reality” works. Science and religion are two conjecture producing systems. But we seek evidence that our thoughts/ conjectures are correct – i.e. that they are valid and actually explain “reality”. Science investigates and experiments with these thoughts, formalizes them (through mathematics), makes predictions and searches for the validity of those predictions in nature. In that sense it seeks “truth” (i.e. it seeks whether the thoughts and conjectures it comes up with are “true”, whether they play out in reality).
    I am not sure if religion can boast of that. Religion tends to rely more on authority of some written word(s) and tries to bypass analysis and get straight to belief. In that way, religion cannot be said to be “truth seeking”. “Comfort seeking” … maybe.

    An atheist, by stepping away from religion, at-least steps away from a flawed conjecture making system that does not allow much objective experimentation with and analysis of it’s conjectures. It that sense an atheist supports “truth” or at-least tries to step away from systems that try to arrive at “truths” through conjectures (weird or sane) but without experiment.
    If an atheist embraces science, then he/ she goes a step further in supporting the search for “truths”. Whether all the individual scientific “truths” roll up into up overarching “truth” about reality is something science investigates as well. But again – it does so by making conjectures and seeking the validity of those conjectures in experiment and observation.

    ————

    Now there are “evolved” religious folk who tread a more “spiritual” / “enlightened” path. But even with these folks, the experimentation that they do with their conjectures is highly subjective and internal. It is not verifiable and one has to take their word for it. There is some amount of “truth seeking” here … since such folk allow for experimentation. But the method is flawed as it is subjective and not objective and external.

  3. As a general rule, I would expect evolution to select traits which allow us to identify truth and obtain knowledge, as the ability to do those things seems like a survival advantage rather then a disadvantage. Once these things were developed to help us survive, we could apply them to issues that don’t impact our survival.

    Could our abilities to identify truth and obtain knowledge have limitations? Sure. Could evolution have caused us to obtain false knowledge about something or to think that something false is true? I suppose so. However, if that’s a problem then it’s a problem for any and all world views. If a higher being created us, he could have created us with limitations in our ability to identify truth and obtain knowledge. He could have created us with false knowledge, or to think that something false is true.

    A precondition to having any worldview is the belief that we can reach conclusions about reality. To question our ability to do so is simply a dead end.

  4. It seems to me like the “theme” of this question is: can we trust our own mind? Or can we trust our limited, imperfect, human civilization to be able to grasp “truths” at a universal level? And yes, that’s a very philosophical thought process and all, but I don’t see how it leads anywhere useful. If you take the stance that our own subjective experiences are inherently flawed and probably insignificant to what actual truth is, well I mean what is the point of thinking anything then? If none of my conclusions have any validity then why conclude anything? If I can’t live as though my own experiences give me knowledge to reach conclusions, how am I supposed to live?

    It reminds me of the matrix, in a sense. The truth to those in the matrix is of course completely an illusion in “reality”. But to them it is undeniably true, and everything that they know and can understand. Are you thinking we are in sort of a matrix, where only the “creator” knows the real truth. While us humans can only grasp at the truths that the architect has given us the ability to see?

    This also reminds me of agnosticism as an official stance (which bugs me). Because declaring that you know nothing, and as such have no opinion, accomplishes nothing. Becuase you can make that declaration about anything. And it’s just a waste of time IMO to live as though your own experiences can’t inform your knowledge (most of the time). And that your knowledge can’t reliably inform your opinions (most of the time).

    Those are just my first thoughts and ramblings about this anyways.

Comments are closed.