00:00:00
let's change gears totally different
00:00:01
kind of question here um I'm not sure if
00:00:03
there's no answer but I'd be curious to
00:00:05
hear an argument for why we are able to
00:00:07
trust human intellect and rationality as
00:00:10
a reliable guide to truth oh this is a
00:00:13
fascinating one I've been thinking about
00:00:14
this this has been actually really
00:00:16
playing on my mind recently um how can
00:00:18
we trust human intellect to get us to
00:00:21
truth if there's no God there's no
00:00:23
divining Divine guiding principle just
00:00:25
to sort of lay this out for the
00:00:28
materialist like the brain is just a
00:00:31
bunch of atoms bumping into each other
00:00:33
right it's just like it's it's kind of
00:00:34
like a rock or or a piece of word or
00:00:36
something that happens to have developed
00:00:38
this weird thing called Consciousness
00:00:39
but like there seems no necessary reason
00:00:41
why it would have to be formed in
00:00:43
relation to truth
00:00:46
like we were just talking a moment ago
00:00:48
about how it makes sense to believe
00:00:49
certain things that are false because
00:00:51
it's like beneficial for us right now if
00:00:54
if it happened to be true that that that
00:00:56
actually applied RIT large to things
00:00:57
like the laws of logic and mathematical
00:00:59
TR truths we literally be incapable of
00:01:02
knowing because it might be the case
00:01:06
that it's not that 2 plus 2 equals 4
00:01:08
it's that believing 2+ 2 equals 4 is
00:01:11
beneficial for my survival and that's
00:01:13
why my rationality evolved to believe
00:01:15
that kind of thing and somebody will
00:01:17
come along and say yeah but hold on like
00:01:19
you know it just can't like my brain
00:01:22
just can't conceive of the opposite like
00:01:24
we can know it to be true a priori and
00:01:26
I'm like that's because that's how your
00:01:28
brain evolved right there were people
00:01:30
who believed that 2 plus 2 is five it's
00:01:33
just that believing that was not
00:01:34
beneficial to their survival and so they
00:01:36
died out leaving only us now people will
00:01:37
want to say like this is stupid what do
00:01:39
you mean that the reason they died out
00:01:41
and the reason why believing 2 plus 2
00:01:43
equals 5 was not beneficial to their
00:01:45
survival it was because it's not true
00:01:48
right and do you think that that's a a
00:01:49
good response to this I think this is a
00:01:51
one instance of what of a huge of just a
00:01:54
general problem of circular
00:01:56
justification in philosophy and just
00:01:58
sort of so here you've got two claims
00:02:01
you've got one about epistemology and
00:02:02
one about ontology and effectively the
00:02:04
question is how are we going to get them
00:02:05
to play nice together and the trouble is
00:02:08
um I mean on the classic Aristotelian
00:02:10
model of philosophy you have a bunch of
00:02:11
branches of like the the outer branch of
00:02:13
the tree and you get to the middle and
00:02:15
it's metaphysics onology it's like the
00:02:16
stuff that is this is why decart's
00:02:18
meditations on metaphysics is called
00:02:19
meditations on first philosophies
00:02:21
because metaphysics is the first
00:02:22
philosophy and um I think the trouble is
00:02:25
that there is in practice there's an
00:02:27
interplay there is mutual dependence
00:02:29
between your epistemology and your
00:02:30
ontology because your ontology will
00:02:32
justify your epistemology but your
00:02:34
epistemology has to justify why you
00:02:35
believe in your ontology what is
00:02:36
ontology and epistemology let
00:02:38
epistemology like the study of how how
00:02:40
you can come to know things and ontology
00:02:42
the study of what is so my
00:02:44
epistemology as in that that's a really
00:02:46
good example of where somebody has put
00:02:48
forward the argument that that ontology
00:02:50
has undermined epistemology the idea
00:02:52
that we are simply evolved creatures
00:02:54
atoms bumping together and that's all
00:02:55
our brains are and that's our
00:02:56
rationality is um has undermined Orly
00:02:59
under mind the epistemology um and then
00:03:03
the and this is kind of fascinating
00:03:06
right but then the um you have to assume
00:03:08
the reliability of epistemology in order
00:03:09
to come to any sort of ontology so the
00:03:12
so when the theist so it's not just that
00:03:15
the theist argument is circular when
00:03:17
they would say oh well God would ground
00:03:19
that it's like well how do you how but
00:03:20
prior to God grounding it how do you
00:03:22
know that what what's the what's the
00:03:24
preced reliability of your epistemology
00:03:26
that has allowed you to know that your
00:03:29
reasoning chain from God existing to the
00:03:30
reliability of epistemology Works um but
00:03:33
but this and this is sometimes posited
00:03:35
as a problem for the theist but it's not
00:03:36
it's a far it's a problem for
00:03:39
everyone it's a problem for everyone
00:03:41
right it's because it's because of this
00:03:43
it's because um what we know is
00:03:45
predicated on what we think is and what
00:03:47
is what we believe is the case is
00:03:49
predicated on what we think we can yeah
00:03:50
so so so um we'll we'll break this down
00:03:55
even if just for your sake Alex I could
00:03:57
see you looking sort of panicked over
00:03:59
there
00:04:00
because there's a lot of words and I
00:04:03
think no don't apologize that's what
00:04:04
we're here for but I I think I want to
00:04:06
make sure that I'm understanding what
00:04:07
you're saying there's like a circularity
00:04:09
potentially in the god justification and
00:04:12
saying well I can trust my rationality
00:04:14
because God grounds it that's what
00:04:16
dayart does and one of the most famous
00:04:18
criticisms of day cart's work is known
00:04:20
as the cartisian circle it's this circle
00:04:23
of like well if you need God to justify
00:04:26
your reasoning
00:04:27
ability how do you reason that God
00:04:29
exists in order to justify that
00:04:31
reasoning ability and it sort of goes
00:04:33
around in a circle right and
00:04:35
so think about like the atheist version
00:04:38
of this or the atheist problem here is
00:04:40
is really put together best I think by
00:04:43
Alvin planting it his evolutionary
00:04:45
argument against naturalism so he
00:04:47
specifically makes the case that if you
00:04:49
believe in evolution I've talked about
00:04:51
this a lot right if you believe in
00:04:53
evolution and you're materialist
00:04:55
assuming you're a materialist you
00:04:56
believe in evolution by natural
00:04:57
selection natural selection selects for
00:05:00
survivability it doesn't select for
00:05:02
truth which means that if you believe in
00:05:05
evolution you believe that your
00:05:06
reasoning faculty has not evolved to be
00:05:09
sensitive to truth but to survivability
00:05:12
why do you believe in evolution oh
00:05:14
because you've reasoned your way into it
00:05:16
but the thing you've just reasoned your
00:05:18
way into Evolution has undermined your
00:05:21
ability to trust the reasoning process
00:05:23
that you've used to reason into it so he
00:05:25
sort of points out that like you can't
00:05:28
be a materialist and believe in
00:05:29
Evolution because believing in evolution
00:05:32
undercuts the reasons you have for
00:05:33
believing Evolution the thing is right
00:05:36
one of these is a vicious circle and one
00:05:39
of them is a virtuous circle because for
00:05:42
the atheists you've got this horrible
00:05:44
problem where like you've got this weird
00:05:47
circle of like like yeah okay like I
00:05:51
believe that it's just atoms bumping
00:05:52
into each other that has no connection
00:05:54
to truth and that's produced this belief
00:05:56
but it's that belief which has caused
00:05:58
this this re reing and you're getting
00:06:00
all messed up you know the theist goes
00:06:02
around in a circle but they say okay
00:06:04
sure it's circular but we all have to
00:06:05
start somewhere and everyone's circular
00:06:07
in some degree but my circle is one that
00:06:09
says well God justifies reason because
00:06:11
he's an agent who who is you know the
00:06:13
foundation of Truth and gives us access
00:06:15
to truth and yes sure I've used my
00:06:18
reasoning faculties to get there but
00:06:19
that circle is like consistent and
00:06:21
self-contained and gives you this access
00:06:23
to truth even though it's still circular
00:06:25
it's one that sort of gives you trust in
00:06:27
truth I mean I think that I think that
00:06:29
the yeah I think I think that is
00:06:31
essentially the core difference between
00:06:32
the two right self undermining versus
00:06:33
self-reinforcing um there's the yeah I
00:06:36
wanted to point out the the
00:06:37
epistemological ontological thing
00:06:39
because I think often times uh we sort
00:06:41
of pretend that we can ground things
00:06:43
more than we can I mean you know you've
00:06:45
got vicen Stein's uncertainty on your
00:06:46
shelf and he comes to he has this idea
00:06:48
of a hinge statement which is where a
00:06:49
statement you eventually come to where
00:06:51
you cannot you can neither justify it
00:06:53
nor challenge it because you can only
00:06:55
justify propositions with more strongly
00:06:56
held propositions and you can only
00:06:58
challenge propositions with more strong
00:06:59
held propositions so you have you
00:07:01
eventually get something that you can't
00:07:02
justify or challenge which yeah again
00:07:04
and I think that that that is sort of
00:07:06
that could form a kind of theist way out
00:07:08
of this cartisian circle where they just
00:07:09
say well that's it you've got to start
00:07:10
somewhere um I think that the uh there
00:07:12
are I suppose there are there are two
00:07:15
there are a couple of potential um
00:07:16
responses that nathus could have first
00:07:17
of all I should say I genuinely think
00:07:19
this is a cracking problem this is like
00:07:21
this is this is the This Is The Stuff
00:07:23
good philosophy is made of me too by the
00:07:25
way like I I really like in fact often
00:07:28
depending on who I'm talking to right
00:07:29
because times when I present this
00:07:31
argument to people especially it's a bit
00:07:32
complicated but it's also a little bit
00:07:34
like there are so many little ways that
00:07:37
that it can be I guess like
00:07:38
misunderstood
00:07:40
or objections that seem like they should
00:07:42
work but kind of don't and so it's a
00:07:44
little bit tricky but like if I'm if I'm
00:07:46
talking with somebody who who like gets
00:07:49
it this is like my go-to challenge if
00:07:52
someone's like what what do you think is
00:07:53
the best argument for like believing in
00:07:55
God or something be like just check this
00:07:57
out like try this on and see what you
00:07:58
think yeah I mean this this this idea
00:07:59
that our epistemology can become
00:08:00
self-undermining and that that does keep
00:08:02
me up at night that you know to this
00:08:04
keeps me up at night more than why is
00:08:05
there something rather than nothing yeah
00:08:07
I think that there are again there to to
00:08:09
toy with roots out because there are I
00:08:11
think that there are potential Roots out
00:08:12
but at the same time each of them is so
00:08:14
incredibly controversial um I mean I
00:08:17
suppose actually before I do that
00:08:18
initial observation is that you it's not
00:08:20
that it's not that an atheistic view
00:08:22
implies this it's a materialistic view
00:08:24
implies this or potentially implies this
00:08:26
um if there's no kind of break in the
00:08:27
reasoning uh so again if you for
00:08:31
instance you know if you if you like K
00:08:33
uh to incredibly probably butcher K to
00:08:36
say that that the world is in some way
00:08:38
synthetically a priori uh aligned with
00:08:41
with with the particular faculties of
00:08:43
your reasoning then you don't have to
00:08:44
worry about this um but again that's
00:08:45
like that's what mean say all the
00:08:47
solutions this is so controversial it's
00:08:48
like yeah but do you want to do you want
00:08:49
to swallow the synthetic a priori ho
00:08:51
that's a lot to that's a lot to take man
00:08:53
so each of these um Solutions will have
00:08:55
massive controversies with them one is
00:08:57
to adopt some form of global pragmatism
00:08:59
view so this is what Hugh price does um
00:09:01
who is a brilliant Australian
00:09:03
philosopher um who uh goes from object
00:09:06
naturalism which is essentially we need
00:09:07
to stud we're studying the world as a
00:09:09
natural object and then he comes to
00:09:10
subject naturalism which is studying the
00:09:11
human as a natural object and then he
00:09:13
says well if you're studying the human
00:09:14
as a natural object we use all kinds of
00:09:17
weird non-natural terminology like truth
00:09:19
and the whole of math and like loads of
00:09:22
stuff that that at first glance is a bit
00:09:24
non-natural and so he says well if we're
00:09:26
going to be consistent naturalists we
00:09:27
need to study the human as a subject
00:09:29
natural project and so he comes up with
00:09:31
an idea of Truth which is the same boat
00:09:32
principle uh which again I it's been a
00:09:35
while since I read price so you know
00:09:36
don't quote me on this but uh this idea
00:09:38
he takes um Truth uh and abstracts it
00:09:42
from the stuff that is useful so he gets
00:09:44
around it by um in a in a way that I
00:09:47
won't attempt to recall the details of
00:09:48
because I know that I miss quote him um
00:09:52
takes the things that are useful to
00:09:53
humans and then abstracts truth away
00:09:55
from that as the thing that is generally
00:09:58
um the the the principles of TR of how
00:10:01
we come to have truth is the principles
00:10:03
of uh is the principle of the stuff that
00:10:05
will be useful as a general rule and
00:10:07
sure it will sometimes break with
00:10:08
utility but it's kind of the best fit
00:10:09
we've got uh and and that's kind of how
00:10:12
he gets it of course the difference the
00:10:13
difficulty with that is it's a
00:10:14
fundamentally anti-realist conception of
00:10:16
Truth yeah this is this is like this is
00:10:18
like it is almost idealist in its in in
00:10:21
the way that it sets up the human
00:10:22
investigative project but it does it's a
00:10:25
definition of truth that means that we
00:10:26
can be sure that or we we can be pretty
00:10:29
sure that our reasoning is true because
00:10:31
we've defined truth relative to the
00:10:32
human and this is kind of this this
00:10:34
touches upon an interesting point
00:10:36
regarding generally a pattern that I
00:10:38
noticed between atheist and theistic
00:10:40
reasoning again you know to generalize
00:10:42
um is that often times you will have uh
00:10:46
the the theist want to have something
00:10:48
human grounded in metaphysics and the
00:10:52
atheist will often take something that
00:10:54
is purportedly metaphysical and attempt
00:10:56
to ground it back in the human so like
00:10:57
the classic you know classic one is uh
00:10:59
quite a lot of metaphysically minded
00:11:00
people will say well how does maass work
00:11:02
and they want to say something like well
00:11:03
maass works because it's grounded in
00:11:05
these platonic Eternal truths that's why
00:11:07
math works and lots of less
00:11:10
metaphysically minded people want to say
00:11:11
something like well math works because
00:11:13
we've designed it to work it's a tool
00:11:15
and we have if if the world was
00:11:17
different math would be different and
00:11:20
maybe truth kind of works in the same
00:11:23
way yes so so that that that so that
00:11:25
would be again to just illustrate like
00:11:27
General explanatory differences between
00:11:28
between competing uh philosophical
00:11:31
Tendencies or philosophical
00:11:32
predispositions I think that that really
00:11:34
cuts at something and I think that you
00:11:36
know those that are very very
00:11:37
sympathetic to the to um explaining the
00:11:40
metaphysical in terms of the human will
00:11:41
love something like Price's idea of
00:11:43
truth because it connects something
00:11:46
weird and a bit fuzzy and and seemingly
00:11:48
immaterial like the truth relation
00:11:50
that's that's odd on the face of it
00:11:51
right I can say a statement it latches
00:11:53
on something in the world and that
00:11:54
becomes true on the face of it that's
00:11:56
kind of really weird and sort of
00:11:57
non-naturalistic and price thinking it
00:11:59
back to naturalism I think would be very
00:12:01
satisfying for some people but on the
00:12:02
other hand you've you've lost like
00:12:05
hardcore realism about truth yeah I
00:12:08
I've I guess in part because of this
00:12:10
consideration just sort of been
00:12:13
committed I think recently to to this
00:12:16
kind of view of Truth um that that
00:12:19
becomes like a sort of anti-realist view
00:12:20
of Truth the TR truth is not as
00:12:23
traditionally thought of that there is
00:12:24
just this reality that our minds latch
00:12:28
on to maybe at least maybe that's the
00:12:30
case it's just that you can't know that
00:12:32
that's the case and so that the way that
00:12:33
you're in practice using words like true
00:12:35
and using uh and sort of granting a
00:12:38
sense to propositions and saying I
00:12:39
believe this is true recognizing as a
00:12:42
materialist what my brain is how it
00:12:44
evolved how it
00:12:46
functions like I don't think I so much
00:12:48
have to like abandon truth as
00:12:51
rethink like what truth mean yes but but
00:12:55
then but then you hear a theist saying
00:12:56
something like you know those who don't
00:12:59
believe in God they've abandoned truth
00:13:02
and you're sort of like
00:13:04
maybe truth I mean it's it's also worth
00:13:06
noting this type of antirealism about
00:13:08
truth doesn't have the same implications
00:13:09
as somebody saying truth is relative
00:13:11
because here truth is not relative and
00:13:12
here truth is is is not subjective it's
00:13:15
not you know it has it's as anti-realist
00:13:17
theories of Truth go this is not a bad
00:13:19
one but it's still an anti-realist
00:13:21
theory of Truth and that is such a
00:13:22
massive pill to swallow I mean the yeah
00:13:24
this for instance this is not saying all
00:13:26
statements are false which you know
00:13:28
classically is self-contradictory um but
00:13:31
uh yeah but you're right anti-realism
00:13:33
about truth is is a is a really tough
00:13:34
pill to swallow I mean depending on how
00:13:37
good your your your grounding of Truth
00:13:39
is in naturalistic principles it can be
00:13:41
that you can get truth to do still lots
00:13:43
of the same things that you'd want it to
00:13:44
do anyway um but again it kind of again
00:13:47
this one I mean about about I think some
00:13:48
of these questions are a are an issue of
00:13:50
philosophical predisposition because
00:13:52
like I if I was more metaphysically
00:13:54
minded I would just reject that out of
00:13:55
hand I'd say what do you mean like how
00:13:59
do this anti-realist how is this
00:14:00
anti-realist definition of Truth useful
00:14:02
if not because it's true right you're
00:14:04
saying truth it's abstracted utility why
00:14:07
is it useful like what's what's what is
00:14:09
ontologically grounding that and I think
00:14:11
that is that philosophical instinct to
00:14:13
ground something human in something
00:14:15
metaphysical and again I I feel like it
00:14:18
is those competing intuitions clashing
00:14:20
in in this in this debate around the
00:14:21
grounding of Truth
