PART 3: THE END OF THE MODERN ERA?

WHAT IS TRUTH?¹

This is part 3 of a 4 part series on Truth and Tolerance – Integrating Faith and Reason. We have in earlier entries looked at the so-called dialectic of faith and reason, and looked to see if we can make a synthesis of these worldviews. In the last entry we reviewed the way faith looks to reason to give it coherence and consistency, and we finished off examining the subject-object problem that undermines our modernist concept of objective truth.

Darwin's Other Dangerous Idea

The legacy of Darwin's evolutionary ideas have made a profound impact over the years and the debate as to how far they can be applied continues. In Dennet's book Darwins Dangerous Idea the position is made that much of what we understand about our current worldviews, eg, Physics, Psychology and Sociology etc, can be described in evolutionary terms. This concept is criticised as being a Darwinian Fundamentalist position by some. Notwithstanding that though, there are other arguments arising from current Darwinian concepts that suggest our reasoning and cognitive faculties may be limited. This is briefly discussed below.

Over the past few years the debate on reason vs faith based-reasoning has heated up considerably. In that it is argued that current evolutionary theory when examined from a naturalistic² worldview cannot be easily reconciled. Alvin Plantinga made the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), stating that naturalism, when combined with contemporary evolutionary accounts of the origin of human life, is an irrational stance. One or other must be false in his view.

A short summary of the EAAN argument is as follows: It begins from certain doubts about the reliability of our cognitive faculties. Simplistically speaking a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing³. Evolutionary advantage is focused on these attributes. Having sophisticated cognitive ability beyond supporting these functions is as likely to be a hindrance (giving birth to beings with larger more complex brains may require the delivery of offspring in relative pre-mature states, resulting in longer periods of infancy dependency, etc.) as having an evolutionary advantage. Being able to arrive at truth through rational inference, is not a primary factor for evolution to support it is argued. So if naturalism is true, it leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to furnish us with mostly true beliefs.

Darwin himself expressed this doubt:

'With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'⁴

The Fitelson and Sober response, concedes that 'if someone challenges all observations and rules of inference that are used in science and in everyday life, demanding that they be justified from the ground up, the challenge can not be met'; however, they also argued that the same could be said for faith-based position: 'What is true is that neither position has an answer to hyperbolic doubt'.

In terms of the confidence of belief in evolutionary theory, Fitelson and Sober say '… if evolutionary theory does say that our ability to theorize about the world is apt to be rather unreliable, how are evolutionists to apply this point to their own theoretical beliefs, including their belief in evolution? One lesson that should be extracted is a certain humility — an admission of fallibility.'⁵

Given the ongoing debate, if it is taken that the current evolutionary theory is a fact, then our reason-based alone naturalistic assumptions may be suspect to a certain degree. The extent of this explanatory gap, that itself can be seen as an instance of the subject-object problem, in our reason-based facility is the key issue.

Grief for the modern world

Whilst these debates have been ongoing through the 20^th century, a counter reaction has developed, one that challenges the modernist perspective from which the arguments arise.

The following table contrasts modern and post-modern thinking, from this we can see that the post-modern perspective is set up to contradict modernism, as an intended dialectic. This polarized reflection gives rise to an in-your-face or ironic spirit for which it is sometimes known. Thus it challenges modernists and hence the controversy. This intensity has given risen to mockery between the polarities, eg, see the Sokal affair. The stereo-typical positions are outlined in the table below⁶:

Emergent post-modernism since the mid 20^th century recognised the subject-object problem discussed previously as a key reason to advance its position, and this has had a predictably reactionary response. In this light the reactionary positions can be seen as a grief process, where something highly cherished is being jeopardised and/or lost. In this case it is the loss of objective truth through the changes from modernist to the post-modern perspective (a process still unfolding and highly controversial as we have noted).

Developing this grief process theme from the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross it is possible to see her stages of grief as characterisations of these reactions (this is often presented as a 5 stage process, where stages 1 and 2 and 6 and 7 and compressed into one each.)

Individuals going through the grief process may not linger long, or perhaps at all, in every stage. Kubler-Ross expected that at least two stages would be entered into. In some cases individuals regress from one stage to an earlier one. Problems with grief management occur when individuals get locked into a stage or cycle between them. Alternate stages typically change from active to passive resistance to the change, in terms of the loss of objectivity you can see this manifest itself as periods of relative objectivity and subjectivity in turn.

Below certain philosophical systems are examined in this context, they can be framed as being stereotypical reactions to subjectivity challenges on modernism:

Stage 1: Shock - Reaction:

The first stage of grief is the surprise of the event, it was not expected and is unwelcome. This can also be a period of discomfort for the herald of the message, as reactions can be emotional and challenging. The subsequent responses however tend to follow a pattern.

Stage 2: Denial - Objectivism (Scientific Existentialism):

Some argue these philosophical points on the subject-object problem. Not everyone believes these limits are unassailable roadblocks. They argue that given time it is to be hoped that we can find ways around the problems. Believing in a sense that this is just a philosophical rope trick that attempts to deny them what 'they know to be true about their objective reality'. Their trust in reason alone has been well founded in the past they argue, looking at the progress of science as an example. The denial of the subject-object issue as a real one results in an over-reliance on the objectivity of scientific method to the extent that it is seen as the only hope. Humanism is rendered to scientific analysis, and non-empirical human-truths are denied as having meaning, asserting that science-based verifiable truths have objective existence before essence.⁷ In this respect it can be said it is a kind of scientific existensialism. The philosophical background for this is known by several names, most commonly Logical Postivism and is well articulated in the work of A J Ayer, the early to mid 20^th century contributors in this area are often described as being of the Vienna Circle.

Given the earlier discourse of the subject-object problem we need to face the fact that such statements of hope and trust in reason alone are based on a certain implicit kind of faith-based proposition.⁸ It may take some time for the changed circumstances to become clearly apparent, as the awareness of these deeply-held assumptions of the paradigms that are being challenged may not be fully understood by the rejecting party. This Historicist view of Rationality, supported in part by the work of Popper and Kuhn mentioned earlier, is often cited in this respect.

Stage 3: Anger - Subjectivism (Nihilistic Existentialism):

Up to the point that the continued denial of the loss is perceived as no longer viable, an anger reaction is typical.

For those not locked to previous worldviews the rejection of the earlier worldview may take the form of looking to an extreme alternative, that may itself have angry overtones. For example Existentialism (mentioned earlier in the reference to Kierkegaard - though in some later formulations of this worldview his leaps of faith were often rejected). In this revised system we are told that indeed there is no absolute meaning or objective truth (ie, Nihilism), and we have to face this subjective reality and make the best of it⁹.

For its advocates this is simply the way reality is and we must have the courage to accept it. Nihilistic Existentialism is a philosophy that some have used in the past to give a theoretical foundation for radical social change, indeed in some cases revolutionary change to the established world order.

Stage 4: Bargaining - Objectivism (Ayn Rand):

Once the anger stage has subsided it is not unusual for a more passive reaction that is hoped will tolerate some aspects of the previous worldview if not all. In the controversial worldview of Objectivism the object reality of the individual asserted at the expense of others is taken as an article of faith for the individual. The key principle of this worldview being the maximisation of joy for the individual through the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest", and that the only social system consistent with such a morality is hedonistic laissez-faire capitalism.

Stage 5: Depression - Disillusionment:

Once stages 1 to 4 have been processed the grief cycle typically enters a phase of depression where the initial beliefs are understood to be broken and that the earlier process stages are not meaningful in putting it back together again. An end of era phase is entered where the griever needs to move on and seek a new paradigm.

Stage 6 Testing - Subjectivism (Post-Modernism):

Some take the subject-object problem as a sign of terminal despair in objective reasoning and choose to give up seeking objective truth. They may take a certain extreme form of Post-Modernism in saying that 'all truths are equal', since one person's truth cannot be said to be objectively more true than another's (remember the comments on Plato's triad discussed earlier?). This leads to the idea that truth is relative, and from there directly to Heidegger ultimate question of 'what is the meaning of being?'. Can we say our objective being (eg, relating to questions such as 'does the world exist independently of me?') have any meaning in such a formalism? From Socrates (Plato's teacher) to Heidegger philosophers have been plagued by such considerations.

Stage 7 Acceptance - A New Era:

Certainly one can see a lot of people taking these positions above. Yet despite these attacks can we maintain our faith in reason to avoid such denial, nihilism, hedonism and relativism? Clearly some want more meaning in their lives than these misological¹⁰ worldviews offer. A revised post-modern perspective, or if you prefer a post-post-modern (?), pre-modern, re-modern or modern-done-right,¹¹ may be needed one not as radical as in those stated above, maybe their advocates have gone too far. Again, as was the case for Faith, it may be too early to declare 'Reason is dead'.¹²

Moving On

Recently Victor Reppert¹³, following the Plantinga EAAN argument, has put forward the argument that explaining reason from a modernist (specifically a natural science aspect) undermines it as a foundational principle on a variety of counts. It is his view that we need to have faith in reason and build our worldview accordingly.

So there is a goal to see if it is possible to build a synthesis for the dialectic; Whereby faith has a need for reason to ensure its coherence and consistency with the world we observe. And reason needs a certain degree of faith to bypass the subject-object problem, and the limits of our natural cognitive ability. Part 4 (the final part of this series of entries) will look at then discernment of the objective truths of our reality.

General References

• As Rod Stewart once said, '...I've got faith to believe' (Faith of the Heart). Read news and get insight into faiths of all denomination and background at BBC Religion.

• As Coldplay once said, '...Tell me your secrets, And ask me your questions' (The Scientist). Read the latest from BBC Science.