In any quest for truth, we must firmly root ourselves in the reality of the universe in which we find ourselves. The question is how can we ensure that we are truly rooted in reality?
First, we must recognize that reality is very complicated and we must accept that we are prone to error. We must be careful not to require things to fall into neat, tidy, and easy little answers. Thinking is hard work and there are no short cuts to truth. And in our thinking, observing, and reasoning we must be consistent with the reality that is in front of us. If I start out my reasoning by denying part or all of reality, I will never reach the truth. All our knowledge, proper and improper, and all our beliefs need to be evaluated against reality. Otherwise, we are on only so many flights of fantasy whose destination is the land of unknowing – a land where each individual can determine his or her own truth, his or her own value system, and where each such truth and value system is equal to every other. (Hmmm … why does this sound so very familiar?)
Second as a means to control error, we must ground any proposition we hold in sufficient evidence to rationally prove its truth. Basically, we have three ways to do such:
1. A proposition can be affirmed by rigorous public substantiation through an agreed upon criterion which is sufficient to make a preponderance of reasonable and responsible people believe that a proposition is reasonably true – for example in science such corroboration is achieved through the repetition of experiment.
OR
2. We can show that the denial of my proposition leads to an intrinsic contradiction or impossible state of affairs.
OR
3. We can show that the denial of the proposition leads to a contradiction of publicly confirmed fact.
Only one of these is necessary to prove the truth and reasonableness of a proposition.
Third, we must be careful to clearly define terms used in our arguments and propositions. Terms should be defined so that the definitions allow for public corroboration, demonstrate non-contradiction, or demonstrate that a hypothetical proposition does not contradict a rigorously confirmed fact. The definitions of terms do not need to be all encompassing of all conditions, but the definitions do need to have sufficient meaning to successfully complete demonstration or corroboration.
Contingent and Conditional
As laid out in my previous posts, empirical science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Dawkins is right when he points this out. The problem is that he stops there. For him, science is the only way to know anything.
From an experience of reality, I can logically arrive at the existence of God with a high degree of certainty. I cannot arrive at absolute certainty but I can arrive at a degree of certainty similar to that found in many of our scientific theories, i.e., knowledge characterized by a sufficiently high level of probability based on public corroboration or demonstration. Given the fact of the hackberry in my front yard, I can arrive at the existence of God through the use of a consistent, logical chain of reasoning from the reality of the tree.
So when I look at the world around me, what can I say about reality? Well the most obvious is that reality is. Things exist. The hackberry tree exists.
A second almost immediate observation is that things change. The hackberry tree sprouts leaves in the spring and sheds them in autumn. Rocks erode through the actions of water and wind. I need to re-paint my house every so often due to the weathering of the wood. Cats have kittens and dogs have puppies. Ice melts and water freezes. Etc.
In fact, I can say just about everything that exists around me changes in some way.
I also observe that things around me depend in some way on other things to maintain their existence. The hackberry tree needs sunlight and water in order for it to stay alive and whole. If I shut off its ability to access sunlight and water, the tree will soon die and eventually decay. In short, the tree will no longer exist as a tree. The existence of the tree is dependent on the sunlight and water.
Similarly, the hackberry tree depends on the cells and tissues that are contained within it. If the cells and tissues were disrupted, the tree as a tree would cease to exist.
So when I look at the universe, at reality, I see many examples of things that are dependent on other things for their existence – their existence is not necessary – they could just as easily not exist as exist – they are contingent and conditional on the existence of other things.
Chains and more chains
The tree exists. But it exists conditionally and contingently. The tree depends on the cells that make up its tissues. The cells are also contingent and conditional. The cells depend on the molecules that make up their chemical components. The molecules depend on the atoms. The atoms depend on protons. The protons depend on quarks. Etc.
So what we have is a chain of contingent and conditional existence. But what is special about this chain is that each link in the chain is at once dependent on another link for its own existence and also serves as the condition for the existence of another link.
At any moment, each link’s existence is ensured by the existence of other links in the chain – all simultaneously.
The question becomes then if the chain ever ends.
To Infinity and Beyond
One hypothesis might be that it is an infinite chain of contingent and conditional things. But this proposition must be false.
According to this hypothesis, the hackberry tree is dependent on an infinite number of conditions being sustained for its existence. There is no last condition – no fundamental conditional and contingent thing upon which the tree’s existence ultimately depends.
If there is no fundamental condition, the number of conditions upon which the hackberry tree depends is always 1 more than can be achieved. Therefore it becomes unachievable.
If the tree depends on an unachievable number of conditions for its existence, it will never exist. If the tree is dependent on a dependent on a dependent on …. to infinity in order to exist, it will never exist because all the conditions will never be met.
But the tree exists. I fetched a soccer ball out of its limbs just today. Therefore, the chain of conditions for the tree’s existence cannot be infinite.
Finitude
This leads to a second hypothesis that the chain is a finite number of conditions. If finite, then there must be a last condition or a most fundamental condition upon which the tree depends. Maybe a particle that science has yet to identify?
If this fundamental condition is a contingent and conditional thing, then as the endpoint in the chain, it would be a conditional and contingent thing whose conditions are not fulfilled. As the terminating link in the chain, there is no other condition to support it.
But a conditional and contingent thing whose conditions are not fulfilled cannot exist – is literally nothing. If the most fundamental condition is nonexistent, then the entire chain becomes nonexistent. Ultimately, the tree would not exist.
But as I said the tree does exist. Therefore, the fundamental condition must not be conditional and must not be contingent.
So the chain of conditions on which the hackberry tree depends cannot be infinite. If the chain were infinite, the tree cannot exist. But the tree exists.
So, the chain must be finite. But the finite chain of conditions on which the tree depends cannot end with a conditional and contingent thing for this last condition would have its own conditions unfulfilled. Thus, it could not exist – the chain could not exist – the tree could not exist. But the tree exists.
Therefore, there must be an unconditioned and non-contingent thing as the fundamental condition upon which the entire chain depends and upon which ultimately the tree’s existence depends.
In like manner as what I have just done, I can describe a chain of conditions for any contingent and conditional thing – a rock, a dog, a cow, an automobile, a person, etc. In each of these instances, we can arrive at a chain of conditions upon which its existence depends and that ends in a fundamental condition that is itself not contingent and not conditional.
So there cannot exist only contingent and conditional things in reality. Reality must also include at least one unconditioned and noncontigent thing.
This has been what philosophers have termed “God”.
In the next post, we'll continue down this chain of reasoning.
No comments:
Post a Comment