…Yet, most people believe love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty… Because one does not see that love is an activity, a power of the soul, one believes that all that is necessary to find is the right object – and that everything goes by itself afterward. This attitude can be compared to that of a man who wants to paint but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he just has to wait for the right object, and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it.
Archive for the “Jon reads…” Category
Dec 04 2010
Our faith is faith in some one else’s faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case. Our belief in truth itself, for instance, that there is a truth, and that our minds and it are made for each other,—what is it but a passionate affirmation of desire, in which our social system backs us up?
Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, “Do not decide, but leave the question open,” is itself a passional decision,—just like deciding yes or no,—and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth.
To claim that certain truths now possess [objective evidence], is simply to say that when you think them true and they are true, then their evidence is objective, otherwise it is not. But practically one’s conviction that the evidence one goes by is of the real objective brand, is only one more subjective opinion added to the lot. For what a contradictory array of opinions have objective evidence and absolute certitude been claimed! The world is rational through and through,—its existence is an ultimate brute fact; there is a personal God,—a personal God is inconceivable; there is an extra-mental physical world immediately known,—the mind can only know its own ideas; a moral imperative exists,—obligation is only the resultant of desires; a permanent spiritual principle is in every one,—there are only shifting states of mind; there is an endless chain of causes,—there is an absolute first cause; an eternal necessity,—a freedom; a purpose,—no purpose; a primal One,—a primal Many; a universal continuity,—an essential discontinuity in things; an infinity,—no infinity. There is this,—there is that; there is indeed nothing which some one has not thought absolutely true, while his neighbour deemed it absolutely false; and not an absolutist among them seems ever to have considered that the trouble may all the time be essential, and that the intellect, even with truth directly in its grasp, may have no infallible signal for knowing whether it be truth or no.
We must know the truth; and we must avoid error,—these are our first and great commandments as would-be knowers; but they are not two ways of stating an identical commandment, they are two separable laws.
Believe nothing, he tells us, keep your mind in suspense forever, rather than by closing it on insufficient evidence incur the awful risk of believing lies.
He who says, “Better go without belief forever than believe a lie!” merely shows his own preponderant private horror of becoming a dupe.
Wherever the option between losing truth and gaining it is not momentous, we can throw the chance of gaining truth away, and at any rate save ourselves from any chance of believing falsehood, by not making up our minds at all till objective evidence has come.
But in our dealings with objective nature we obviously are recorders, not makers, of the truth; and decisions for the mere sake of deciding promptly and getting on to the next business would be wholly out of place.
if you want an absolute duffer in an investigation, you must, after all, take the man who has no interest whatever in its results: he is the warranted incapable, the positive fool. The most useful investigator, because the most sensitive observer, is always he whose eager interest in one side of the question is balanced by an equally keen nervousness lest he become deceived.
Science herself consults her heart when she lays it down that the infinite ascertainment of fact and correction of false belief are the supreme goods for man.
The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth’s existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts. Who gains promotions, boons, appointments, but the man in whose life they are seen to play the part of live hypotheses, who discounts them, sacrifices other things for their sake before they have come, and takes risks for them in advance? His faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.
Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted.
There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming.
Scepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error,—that is your faith-vetoer’s exact position.
We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will.
What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world?… These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them.
We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ‘Be strong and of a good courage.’ Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes…. If death ends all, we cannot meet death better.
I’ve realised that I haven’t thought much about physics in the 4 years since I finished my degree. I’d forgotten just how ridiculously, mind-blowingly weird things get when you start delving into the sub-atomic world.
Who Made God starts with a few chapters that throw you straight in at the deep end of our current best model of the make-up of our physical world – quantum mechanics – and then gives very intelligible explanations of the completely counter-intuitive (i.e. crazy) results that have come out of the work that’s been done in those areas over the last hundred years – Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, collapsing wave functions, quantum entanglement, string theory, etc.
I don’t think I’ll go into those here but the book is probably worth a read, whatever else you think about it, just for managing to explain those things in a reasonably layman kind of way but basically I’d forgotten just how much of a mystery the universe is to us even when we just consider the behaviour of the most basic building blocks in isolation.
The title of this book comes from the classic question “If God made the universe then who made God?”, a question that isn’t really any different from “If the universe came from a big bang, what caused that and what was there before?”. Both deal with a situation beyond the physical universe that bounds our experience and any attempts to contend with either question tend to lead us into circular debates that don’t move us any further forward in our understanding.
Now, it’s a big step from “Everything’s a mystery” to Jesus but it’s good to remember, in a debate where science is often presented as having all the answers, that often the more we know, the more we know we don’t know. It makes me wonder how much any of us can ever know about anything when we don’t even understand the fundamental behaviour of the tiny building block of the universe (and our own bodies) or the mechanism of the process that causes things to fall down (in our best model everything that has mass distorts space in a way that draws other masses towards it – “distorts space”?! How can we begin to get our heads around that as a concept?!).
To be honest, I’ve never really been a fan of the whole Science/Religion debate from either side. So often one field ends up being shown to be inadequate when you try to apply elements of it to the other e.g. God of the gaps (that keep disappearing of shrinking as our understanding improves) and science being mistaken for explanation rather than description. We are all walking on thin ice when we debate these things and the famous proponents on both sides could do with a big dose of humility.
The world used to be flat, the Sun used to go round the Earth, atoms were unsplittable, etc. All we can really say is that large parts of what we think we know may turn out to be incomplete or completely wrong.
I’ll finish with a thought from Augustine. It’s interesting to consider it in the context of the level of science when he was writing (400ADish)…
(from this interesting article… Creationism, intelligent design and science education)