Charlie wrote > > Certainly is possible. Huxley coined the term, and while it has come > to mean "not really sure" or "believe there's sort of something", > it's originally the position that the true nature and existence of > the deity is unknowable and unprovable. It's separating what we can > know from what we believe. It's probably the only honest philosophy > to have if you're a scientist.
I have a quibble with Huxley's statement, and your view that it's the only honest philosophy for scientists. It's not a quibble in the sense that I don't think it's important. It's a quibble in the sense that I need to parse the usual, everyday, casual understanding of knowledge into several parts in order to be clear about what I wish to say. I'd like to start with a metaphysical assumption that most (virtually all) people hold: the empirical world has some tie to reality. Even strong, Platonic idealists consider the world at least a shadow of reality. Idealists do not randomly step in from of trains, freeway traffic, etc. because they feel that being hit by a car or train is simply an illusion. Now, this is an assumption. For me, at least, there are times when this assumption has proven false. Some of my dreams are very realistic. I have lost control of a bus during a dream and run over people. I thought about the horrible consequence of what I had just done, woke up, and happily realized that there were no consequences at all. I don't have absolute knowledge that I'm not dreaming now. There is no scientific way to prove that. But, it seems reasonable that I'm awake, and I'm acting as though I am. And, if I am, indeed, not dreaming, then I am right. My understanding is correct, even though I cannot prove it. In short, things can be correct without being proven. We can extend this to other metaphysical statements. For example, the statement that the images our senses record are tied to reality can be a true statement. The fact that the validity of observations can not be tested by observations (except for internal consistency) doesn't prove that observations are without value. Let's extend that to other metaphysical statements. The "self-evident truths" of the Enlightenment listed in the Declaration of Independence could be true. Humans could have rights, even though their existence is not provable by observations (except if you consider existence as arbitrary social constructs as proof of existence). We can extend this to thoughts about the Divine. It is possible for us to obtain some understanding of the Divine, even if we cannot prove it. It makes sense to me to say that human understanding of the transcendent is inherently complete, and thus somewhat misleading. Still, it is not impossible that people who teach that God calls us to love our neighbor as ourselves are closer to the mark than someone who argues that they have a right to kill people they don't like because God told them to. For me, the more fundamental problem then the question of the existence of God is the existence of Truth: that which is valid no matter what we think. We may not understand or understand the truth of morality, but some things are wrong to do. For example, I believe the statement "it is wrong to rape and torture an innocent child for the sheer pleasure if it is wrong" is a true statement. I can't prove it, but I believe it is true. I can also argue, on reason, that one cannot show that there are no true statements. In short, we all make untestable metaphysical assumptions. I'd consider some of them "reasonable", and others not so "reasonable". My basis for this, will be included in a post I'll make on fundamentalism and atheism. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
