You don’t know Jack (nor could you)
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Today’s article is by SASHA member Alex Papulis.
In my last post, “Can we be atheists and believe in knowledge?“ I laid out an argument against the existence of free will and reasonable belief. In this post, I would like to sketch out an analogy to illustrate the argument that, given the premise that all causes are physical, there is no such thing as reasoned belief or knowledge.
Imagine that you want to learn about Jack. Imagine also that the only access (if any) we have to Jack is through Bob. We can ask Bob questions about Jack, and Bob gladly answers. Now the question is, how would we check to see if Bob is a reliable conveyor of information about Jack? Our only access to Jack (if any) is through Bob. We believe, that is, that Bob has access and that he tells us things about Jack. If we wanted to verify that Bob is reliable, though, we would need some way of receiving information about Jack that didn’t involve Bob. And further, we would then need some reason to think that that additional information source was reliable.
Bob is like our brain. It provides us with beliefs. Jack is like the world. We believe that our brain has access to it, and as a result gives us true beliefs. We see, though, that we are unable to check the belief-forming processes of our brain. We have nothing to verify our brain-formed beliefs against, as even beliefs about our brain and the beliefs it forms are the product of our brains. One person’s brain forms a belief in an afterlife, another person’s produces the opposite belief. Unfortunately, we don’t have any means of checking our belief-forming processes to know which are lead to truth and which don’t.
The conclusion of the argument: we have no reason to think that any particular belief is true, i.e. no beliefs are reasoned. The believer in Santa Claus does not hold a reasoned belief. Nor the Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, or Muslim. Nor the atheist. The consistent atheist cannot believe that his beliefs are the product of reason. No one comes to any beliefs by reason.
Alex Papulis is a non-degree-seeking, non-transfer Degree-seeking Transfer student at Mizzou. After getting a B.A. in Economics in St. Louis and spending some time abroad, he’s settled on philosophy. He’s enjoyed his year at Mizzou, and looks forward to starting an MA program in Milwaukee next fall. It would be easier for him to get his assignments done if SASHA wasn’t around.
_________________________________________________________________________
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Alex , first things first : you have not , nor has anyone ever proven with full verification that we are our brains . John Searle’s work on that documents this debate pretty well. the verdict is not out yet. Even if we could check our belief forming process it still does not prove that we are our brains . We dont know what we are. This brain/body debate and where the locus of the self really resides is complex …and despite the fervor of both the neuroscience of our time and the opposing faction of the post-Kantians no one has ever been able to document this to an absolute. so one must rewind to first things in this discussion .
However i do agree with you that belief is never based on reason . That is why i oppose the rational atheist and rational theist apparent juxtopostion . the are on the same side. why dont they just admit that rationel and belief dont mix ? why cant they just state that their postion is absurd ? they dont have to revel in absurdity like i do , but they do have to admit that they are standing on quicksand epistimologically . Maybe they wont admit it becuase that is all they have got , and they think that they can build some kind of ersatz ethos on it . Go figure.
Rocket, thanks for the comment. I don’t know that any transcendental ego or self is really going to be compatible with a naturalistic understanding of the world, which is the starting point for the argument. The lack of the self is perhaps the root (or at least a parallel) of the problem here. The relevant point is, our beliefs are formed by processes that are not in “our” control. Be they formed deterministically (brain-state+physical laws -> belief) or indeterministically (e.g. quantum indeterminacy), the beliefs we have are not produced by mechanisms that are controlled by any free agent.
This is the use of the person analogy: we don’t control or regulate what Bob tells us, and he’s our only source of information. Likewise, we don’t control or regulate our brains, they regulate us.
I don’t see why belief and rationality are necessarily or logically incompatible, though. My argument doesn’t rule out rational belief as a concept, just as a possibility for beings who do not have any freedom.
Alex, ” rational belief” is an oxymoron. True belief is always a response to an expereince of the existent being. To try and construct a sequitar between rationalism and belief has no epistimic foundation , becuase the anatomy
of belief by its very nature is processed subjectivly and has no import in objective certainty. The trajectory of reason stands apart from true reflection that belief requires to grow.
Rocket, are you saying that, on your view, we cannot have reasons for our beliefs? That beliefs cannot be justified or unjustified? Are you denying that we can know things? Is this the Catholic view?
I cannot speak for all Catholics . i am kinda of a unique Catholic becuase i have been for many years seeking to find a synthesis beetween Soren Kierkegaard and Roman Catholicism . Sounds tuff. it is . but i am getting closer believe it or not . most Catholic intellectuals would agree with you …”to give a reason ..” The sequitor is in the Orthopraxis itself of the paradox of being an individual and the effects of Sacremental illumination . Actually Tertullian , an early church father and brilliant roman historian was able to explain the nature of the absurdity of belief and contend for the faith of the church according to the Roman rite. ..at the same time.