Lessing's Ditch

[theopoesis]

If no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths. That is: accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason... That, then, is the ugly, broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap

Post-modernity argues that many intellectual fields are a result of particular historical processes. Specific contexts, events, decisions, discoveries, and thinkers led to a specific conclusion as part of that particular unfolding of history.

Questions for debate:

(1) Are historical events necessarily an impediment to absolute claims of truth? Is Lessing's ditch real?

(2) Are post-modernists correct in claiming that particular worldviews or intellectual fields emerge primarily out of particular histories or genealogies (or as a result of these histories or genealogies)?

(3) Does the historical embeddedness of many fields of knowledge lead to problems for the secularist? For the theist?

[Zzyzx]

.
I realize that this thread has gone beyond this point (with many excellent, thoughtful posts); however, I feel compelled to respond to some of what EduChris wrote earlier. Please pardon my interruption of high-level interaction. I've been gone much of the day visiting Mt. Magazine, the highest point in Arkansas -- and you folks have been BUSY.

So it is impossible to take complex, abstract concepts and "dumb them down" to the eighth grade level.

As one who has studied, applied and taught Earth sciences, I know that even complex concepts CAN be presented to intelligent people in understandable ways -- perhaps not as refined as would be true in graduate courses, but adequate for the situation.

Rather than "dumb it down", I have managed to explain complex concepts in what you refer to as "street level" (incoming college freshman level). Perhaps it is a matter of experience and motivation.

The "eighth grade level" to which you refer is often above the level of scientific "understanding" exhibited by Apologists whose command of scientific topics appears to be "television, high school, or sermon level", in my opinion. Yet they often write as though they were capable of critiquing and criticizing scientific studies (particularly genetics and evolution -- which are VERY complex), in spite of their lack of understanding.

In these debates, I have had "television level scientists" attempt to teach me complex concepts in Earth science and geology (that I have taught at undergraduate and graduate level). Many also dispute (based upon what they KNOW from television, public school and sermons) very advanced studies that are done by people who have devoted careers to their field and whose work has been critiqued and verified by other professional scientists and researchers.

Eighth graders simply do not have the mental development necessary to understand.

It might be wise to NOT underestimate the mental abilities or development of eighth-graders (or members / readers of this Forum). I have a higher regard for both than you seem to indicate having.

The best you can hope for is to get something across that will sink into the undeveloped (i.e., still developing) mind so that when the development has progressed to the next level, the person will be motivated to revisit the concept again, this time with greater capacity for understanding.

I understand the concept (often associated with religious "teaching") that proposes to "plant the seed early", before discernment and judgment have fully developed -- and reinforce later. I think the Jesuits have a saying that applies.

I think in the case of some people, their brains develop very strongly toward concrete things, and the very strength of this development hinders their ability to ever comprehend more abstract concepts.

Can you document that strength toward concrete things HINDERS ability to "ever comprehend more abstract concepts"? Or is this another unsubstantiated opinion?

Would you also opine that strength in abstracts hinders grasp of concrete things? Or do you see it as a one-way-street favoring abstract thinkers?

[EduChris]

...Guess that bodes well for me. Unless mine just came online early...I've read though that cognitive abilities do not reach their peak (assuming one keeps their brain active) until late forties to early fifties...

By age 30 for most people, all brain functions are fully online, so during your 30's you will finally be "playing with a full deck," so to speak.

However, brain development is not entirely equated to IQ. We're talking about emotional and social aspects as well--empathy; risk management (common sense); breadth of perspective, and so on.

It would be interesting to see studies that have been done on gifted children, and learn about the benefits (as well as the problems) which are caused by their precocious mental development as it plays out in a culture that is geared toward socializing the mainstream.

[ChaosBorders]

I consider areas like ethics, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and some aspects of political science and economics to be the ones particularly subject to this criticism.

Oh, ok. Yes, then I would agree entirely with that.

I said a few times early in the thread (which I know you've said you hadn't read) that this criticism is not directed towards science, and I think that your explanation here is the reason why science escapes the criticism of arbitrary history. Other fields, though, I think are not protected by this defense. In many cases "fixed laws" in fields such as anthropology, sociology, and ethics seem to be culturally (and thus historically) determined.

Yes. To be honest, I have little patience or interest with those fields for exactly this reason.

Other fields are determined, but less clearly so (I'm thinking of recent explorations of performative and behavioral economics, for example). Some fields might have a fixed scientific/biological component with an additional cultural component. Psychology is one such example, where certain psychological phenomena are the result of genes, hormones, etc but others are more influenced by individual past and cultural factors. I am simply wondering whether these cultural or historical elements, if history is in fact as contingent as I argued, can lead to either meaningful conclusions or methodologies that focus on "laws" that are in any sense something more than arbitrary patterns.

I have much greater interest in psychology and behavior economics. The more knowledge is gained in them, the greater ability they have to separate the cultural, environmental, and biological components of human behavior and the better they can be used to predict it. Though psychology in the past has been questionable regarding your criticism, the emergence of evolutionary psychology I think is moving the field more strongly towards the 'harder' sciences and increasingly less subject to it.

I have not seen a sufficient secular methodology in many of the non-scientific fields to convince me of the rigor of secular methodology in these areas. I could be wrong.

I question how any methodology in those fields could be truly rigorous, secular or not.

[theopoesis]

I have not seen a sufficient secular methodology in many of the non-scientific fields to convince me of the rigor of secular methodology in these areas. I could be wrong.

I question how any methodology in those fields could be truly rigorous, secular or not.

I agree. I think that methodology alone cannot make these fields rigorous, which leads to the point of the thread. Christianity, through various theological resources (Providence, the incarnation, the authority of tradition, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) can link ethics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, politics, etc to "truth" or "valid conclusions" despite methodological shortcomings (and assuming Christian presuppositions). Can secular perspectives validate these fields outside of a rigorous methodology? If so, how?

I believe that these fields still have much to contribute to human life, culture, and knowledge. Ethics, in particular, guides many basic human actions. Philosophy of science acts as a foundation for science itself. Anthropology is an underlying issue in many fields (from medicine to psychology to economics and politics). If the conclusions of these fields are simply arbitrary, I begin to question human knowledge, culture, and life as a whole. Can we say anything "significantly true" beyond simple scientific explanation?

I suppose now would be a time to explain "significantly true." The statement, "that is an ant" might be true if one is pointing to an ant, but it has minimal significance for daily life, worldview development, or human knowledge. The statement "human rights should be preserved at all costs", assuming it is true, is quite significant in terms of daily life, worldview development, and human knowledge. If the second statement, though, is not based on rigorous methodology, can we accept it as truth or is it simply an arbitrary development of history, and one no more valid than any other political perspective for that reason? This is the dilemma that Christian theology helps me to escape.

[Zzyzx]

.

Christianity, through various theological resources (Providence, the incarnation, the authority of tradition, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) can link ethics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, politics, etc to "truth" or "valid conclusions" despite methodological shortcomings (and assuming Christian presuppositions).

The key phrase is assuming Christian presuppositions. What of those who do not accept those presuppositions?

If an approach is valid, should it not apply for use by anyone?

Can secular perspectives validate these fields outside of a rigorous methodology? If so, how?

Validation of any field of study or conclusions is based upon the results it produces (in my opinion).

I am not impressed by philosophical validation (whatever that may mean).

I believe that these fields still have much to contribute to human life, culture, and knowledge. Ethics, in particular, guides many basic human actions.

Agreed. However, ethics (however defined) is most properly, in my opinion, evaluated on what it produces rather than how it is validated or where it comes from.

Philosophy of science acts as a foundation for science itself. Anthropology is an underlying issue in many fields (from medicine to psychology to economics and politics). If the conclusions of these fields are simply arbitrary, I begin to question human knowledge, culture, and life as a whole.

What is the meaning of arbitrary in this application?

Can we say anything "significantly true" beyond simple scientific explanation?

We can SAY whatever we fancy; however, saying does not mean the same as convincing.

When someone proposes a non-scientific explanation I ask, Exactly what is to be offered to convince me that you speak truth? When the answer is I think so or Philosophers think so or this unverifiable book of ancient tales says so or these testimonials and opinions and hearsay say so, etc " in am unimpressed and unconvinced.

Call that scientific if you wish (or other term), but thats the way it is.

I suppose now would be a time to explain "significantly true." The statement, "that is an ant" might be true if one is pointing to an ant, but it has minimal significance for daily life, worldview development, or human knowledge.

That went right past me, Theo. Please tell me in a few words what you mean by significantly true.

The statement "human rights should be preserved at all costs", assuming it is true,

I regard that statement as an idealistic claim that is not accepted, supported or practiced by real world humans (except as a platitude). There is no agreement as to what constitutes human rights, and there is little actual support for the concept however defined (in my opinion).

Much or most of the worlds population lives or has lived under diametrically opposed conditions " and few do anything about it.

is quite significant in terms of daily life, worldview development, and human knowledge.

Again, assuming that the Christian worldview is true. I do not agree to make that assumption or to accept conclusions based upon that assumption.

If the second statement, though, is not based on rigorous methodology, can we accept it as truth or is it simply an arbitrary development of history, and one no more valid than any other political perspective for that reason?

Do you think that history must be either arbitrary OR theistically explained?

This is the dilemma that Christian theology helps me to escape.

Does one accept other dilemmas in order to escape a different dilemma?

[ChaosBorders]

I agree. I think that methodology alone cannot make these fields rigorous, which leads to the point of the thread. Christianity, through various theological resources (Providence, the incarnation, the authority of tradition, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) can link ethics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, politics, etc to "truth" or "valid conclusions" despite methodological shortcomings (and assuming Christian presuppositions). Can secular perspectives validate these fields outside of a rigorous methodology? If so, how?

They can create a framework with which to make 'valid' conclusions, but that is no guarantee of soundness. More often than not those working from a secular viewpoint prefer an acceptance that complete understanding may not be possible or truth really ascertainable than the potentially false comfort of using a system that leads to 'valid' conclusions that could still be completely untrue. Those who are the most intellectually honest are completely upfront about the nature of the theories these fields offer. Some I think are not entirely honest (probably foremost with themselves) and think they are offering the world a truth when not only is there no guarantee of the soundness of their theory but even the validity of the theory is questionable given the framework with which they are working.

I believe that these fields still have much to contribute to human life, culture, and knowledge. Ethics, in particular, guides many basic human actions. Philosophy of science acts as a foundation for science itself. Anthropology is an underlying issue in many fields (from medicine to psychology to economics and politics). If the conclusions of these fields are simply arbitrary, I begin to question human knowledge, culture, and life as a whole. Can we say anything "significantly true" beyond simple scientific explanation?

That depends upon what is meant by significance, but I think the truth is that there are very few things we can actually know with certainty are true and most 'significant truths' we might say are merely said by coincidence. Particularly using the definition you have. That being said, I think though these fields (and most others) can do little to give us objective truth they can still be at least somewhat useful in giving us an attempted subjective approximation of truth which we may find pragmatically useful even if it turns out to be wrong.

I suppose now would be a time to explain "significantly true." The statement, "that is an ant" might be true if one is pointing to an ant, but it has minimal significance for daily life, worldview development, or human knowledge. The statement "human rights should be preserved at all costs", assuming it is true, is quite significant in terms of daily life, worldview development, and human knowledge. If the second statement, though, is not based on rigorous methodology, can we accept it as truth or is it simply an arbitrary development of history, and one no more valid than any other political perspective for that reason? This is the dilemma that Christian theology helps me to escape.

It seems you are going with a pragmatic reason for believing then. But I would urge you to be wary of confusing a system that gives you validity with one that gives you objective truth. It may give you a framework within which you can make solid conclusions, but there is no way of knowing the framework itself is true.

[theopoesis]

Zzyzx: Thanks for the fine response. Sorry it took a while to respond, but we've been getting a lot of snow up here. I've been kept busy between church and shoveling.

Christianity, through various theological resources (Providence, the incarnation, the authority of tradition, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) can link ethics, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, politics, etc to "truth" or "valid conclusions" despite methodological shortcomings (and assuming Christian presuppositions).

The key phrase is assuming Christian presuppositions. What of those who do not accept those presuppositions?

If an approach is valid, should it not apply for use by anyone?

In the Christian tradition, there are two different kinds of revelation. Natural revelation is evident to everyone equally, but specific revelation depends on a supernatural revelation from God. Some fields of human knowledge could arguably be considered natural revelation (from a Christian perspective). These might include physics or anatomy, for example. Other fields of human study are not universally agreed upon (I think this discussion is unfolding in the "questions for the non-theist" thread). We have two options: either completely reject these fields as worthless because they are not universally valid, or grant that particular aspects of human knowledge are necessarily relativistic.

If a Christian grants the validity of non-universal fields, he or she can still explain why Christianity is superior through the notion of special revelation, while allowing that some fields are universally applicable through natural revelation. I'm questioning whether the non-theist can maintain both sciences (universal knowledge) and social sciences/humanities (relativistic knowledge). If you reject relativistic knowledge, then you are quite coherent in a logical sense, and you are left with science and silence. I've suggested this as a logical option throughout this thread. Of course, I could be wrong and would welcome any insight into how to evaluate things in a different fashion.

Can secular perspectives validate these fields outside of a rigorous methodology? If so, how?

Validation of any field of study or conclusions is based upon the results it produces (in my opinion).

I am not impressed by philosophical validation (whatever that may mean).

I'll accept your opinion as a valid, logical option, and will assume that it leads to a rejection of not only philosophy, but also fields like anthropology, sociology, etc. In my opinion these fields of study have something to contribute to the world and to human societies and knowledge, but I cannot fault you for a coherent perspective. I might, however, be making a false assumption about what you invalidate, in which case I have to wonder how you retain elements of sociology and such.

I believe that these fields still have much to contribute to human life, culture, and knowledge. Ethics, in particular, guides many basic human actions.

Agreed. However, ethics (however defined) is most properly, in my opinion, evaluated on what it produces rather than how it is validated or where it comes from.

I would suggest to you that the criteria one uses to evaluate what ethics produces are the result of particular assumptions. These assumptions arose as part of a historical process. Therefore, I wonder why any particular evaluation of ethics based on what it produces is any more valid than any other evaluation. That's the question I am getting at, and I think it makes origination as important as the results because valid analysis of results depends on a valid origin of the evaluation system.

Philosophy of science acts as a foundation for science itself. Anthropology is an underlying issue in many fields (from medicine to psychology to economics and politics). If the conclusions of these fields are simply arbitrary, I begin to question human knowledge, culture, and life as a whole.

What is the meaning of arbitrary in this application?

I'll offer the same definition I gave Goat, again for consistency's sake: ""3.a. based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something, 3.b. existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance." (Merriam Webster).

When I ask whether non-scientific fields are arbitrary, I am asking whether they get at the intrinsic nature of something. If they are only a matter of preference, chance, or randomness, then they are arbitrary in my mind.

Therefore, if anthropology or philosophy is arbitrary, but is a foundation for science, then I wonder if science is a strong as we think it is.

When someone proposes a non-scientific explanation I ask, Exactly what is to be offered to convince me that you speak truth? When the answer is I think so or Philosophers think so or this unverifiable book of ancient tales says so or these testimonials and opinions and hearsay say so, etc " in am unimpressed and unconvinced.

Call that scientific if you wish (or other term), but thats the way it is.

This is an acceptable posture. If applied consistently, I think it will reject more than theism. As you dig deeper with an acute mind and rigid skepticism, you will likely be able to reject most things outside of the realm of science. Again, I think this is an internally coherent position.

I would criticize science and scientism on different grounds. This thread seeks to criticize those who wish to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to reject theism because it is non-empirical, but then you want to accept claims about human nature, human society, or ethics, you are internally contradictory in my opinion unless you can get across Lessing's ditch. If you do not put forward this contradictory stance, you are quite safe from my criticism in this thread.

That went right past me, Theo. Please tell me in a few words what you mean by significantly true.

I'll try to be consistent, so I'll offer the same definition I gave Goat: ""in accord with reality in a meaningful or important way." The example of "that is an ant" could accord with reality, but it doesn't seem particularly meaningful or important. The fact that "that is an ant" really won't effect the way I act, think, exist, or live. "That's an ant." So what?

On the other hand (since you don't like my example of human rights), Carl Sagan's "the Cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever will be" is a claim that, if true, is significant. It would effect the way I act, think, exist, or live.

All I am saying when I ask whether non-scientific fields that are a product of history can produce anything that is significantly true is whether they can contribute anything substantial to human society that should or does effect the way humans act, think, exist, or live. Maybe the term wasn't the best.

Again, assuming that the Christian worldview is true. I do not agree to make that assumption or to accept conclusions based upon that assumption.

Nor do I intend to coerce you to.

Think about it as an "if... then" sort of game. If Christianity is true, then what follows? If non-theism is true, then what follows? Which "if" (Christianity or non-theism) is able to speak meaningfully outside of science?

I am arguing that only Christianity can validate the humanities and social sciences as fully uncovering truth. The point is not to make you become a Christian. Rather, examine yourself for internal consistency. If you are a non-theist who affirms the field of anthropology as uncovering truth, you are either inconsistent or required to refute my claims. If you are a theist who thinks that science is the only way to uncover truth, you are either inconsistent or required to refute my claims.

Let's assume you end up agreeing with my argument. It would be quite acceptable for you to say "If Christianity was true, then we could uncover truth in the field of anthropology, but Christianity is not true, therefore I reject anthropology as a valid field of study."

I can't claim to know the non-theists here well enough to know whether they are inconsistent in this regard, but I can say that time and again in college or graduate school I encountered secular non-theists who tried to speak meaningfully in these areas, and I am convinced their axioms prevent their perspectives from being anything more than arbitrary. I've been accused in the "Is theism more rational than non-theism" thread of playing "word games" instead of showing examples of less rational non-theism. This thread is one response to that accusation. It is not supposed to convert you or anyone. (Of course, if you find yourself convinced by my arguments with a strong desire to talk about ethics in a meaningful way, I'll certainly welcome you into the body of Christ ).

Do you think that history must be either arbitrary OR theistically explained?

Sort of, but not exactly. Let me try to present the argument in a different way. I'll use sociology as an example:

(1) Sociology claims to speak the truth
(2) Most sociology is not scientifically verifiable
(3) Ideas in sociology are in many ways a product of history (and not present verification)
(3a) One historical thinker influences another and another to create theories
(3b) particular historical developments shape what is studied and what is important to particular schools of though
(3c) One person historically asks a question causing all future thinkers to focus on that question instead of on other questions
(3d) Particular ideas and terms are defined and laid out in a particular way as a result of a historical choice (etc. etc. you get the point)
(5) Historical events are contingent, not necessary
(6) If sociology is a product of history, and is not verifiable in the present in a universally applicable way, sociology and any of its theories/schools of thought are contingent
(7) If something is contingent, it is arbitrary
(8) For sociology to speak the truth there must be a way for a contingent development to become something more than arbitrary

I think that Christian presuppositions offer a way to make contingent history more than arbitrary, and therefore to make sociology capable of speaking truth. I don't see how secularism can do that.

Thus, more precisely, I am arguing that non-empirical fields that are the products of history are either Christian, or arbitrary, or possibly an option #3 that I do not understand but am waiting for non-theists to present. (Or the argument itself could be wrong).

This is the dilemma that Christian theology helps me to escape.

Does one accept other dilemmas in order to escape a different dilemma?

Sure. It's all a matter of what dilemmas you accept. Christians have indemonstrable faith, secularists have contingency and historically determined fields of knowledge. There are many others for both groups.

I guess I am just trying to show that the two choices aren't: (1) non-theism that has no problems, and (2) theism that is just superstition.

[theopoesis]

I suppose now would be a time to explain "significantly true." The statement, "that is an ant" might be true if one is pointing to an ant, but it has minimal significance for daily life, worldview development, or human knowledge. The statement "human rights should be preserved at all costs", assuming it is true, is quite significant in terms of daily life, worldview development, and human knowledge. If the second statement, though, is not based on rigorous methodology, can we accept it as truth or is it simply an arbitrary development of history, and one no more valid than any other political perspective for that reason? This is the dilemma that Christian theology helps me to escape.

It seems you are going with a pragmatic reason for believing then. But I would urge you to be wary of confusing a system that gives you validity with one that gives you objective truth. It may give you a framework within which you can make solid conclusions, but there is no way of knowing the framework itself is true.

That is a good warning, but this thread is not presenting an argument that shows why I believe. Rather, once I believed, I began to study these things and found secularism far weaker than it claimed to be itself. (Perhaps our surroundings differ, as the secularists I've read, studied under, and studied with seem less reserved about their capacity for presenting the truth). I believe in Christianity, and having believed I am capable of speaking as if speaking truth in terms of anthropology, sociology, politics, economics, etc. I don't see any reason why a secularist can be equally convinced that he or she can speak the truth in these areas. Those who admit this as you outline in the rest of your response do well. I admit Christianity is based on faith, but once faith is accepted it offers resources for speaking as if speaking in truth. But this thread is not a defensive apologetic for Christianity as much as an offensive attack on secularism. I see no reason for secularists to think they speak the truth on their own axioms. Perhaps this is a testament to the bravado of Christianity, or perhaps to the nihilism intrinsic to secularity. That is up for debate, i suppose.

[afungus amongus]

I believe in Christianity, and having believed I am capable of speaking as if speaking truth in terms of anthropology, sociology, politics, economics, etc. I don't see any reason why a secularist can be equally convinced that he or she can speak the truth in these areas. Those who admit this as you outline in the rest of your response do well. I admit Christianity is based on faith, but once faith is accepted it offers resources for speaking as if speaking in truth. But this thread is not a defensive apologetic for Christianity as much as an offensive attack on secularism. I see no reason for secularists to think they speak the truth on their own axioms. Perhaps this is a testament to the bravado of Christianity, or perhaps to the nihilism intrinsic to secularity. That is up for debate, i suppose.

These fields have scientific aspects, and their justification is largely based on the broader justification for science as an activity. Human behavior, society, government, and exchanges all involve observables which can be explained and predicted. The truth predicate indicates that an explanation or prediction agrees with the hypothetical Real World Out There, whose attributes are based on our observations. Sharing observations lets us harness regularities in nature which would be practically inaccessible to any one individual. I don't see how truth, divorced from observations as in fideism, could have any importance.

[Cathar1950]

I believe in Christianity, and having believed I am capable of speaking as if speaking truth in terms of anthropology, sociology, politics, economics, etc. I don't see any reason why a secularist can be equally convinced that he or she can speak the truth in these areas. Those who admit this as you outline in the rest of your response do well. I admit Christianity is based on faith, but once faith is accepted it offers resources for speaking as if speaking in truth. But this thread is not a defensive apologetic for Christianity as much as an offensive attack on secularism. I see no reason for secularists to think they speak the truth on their own axioms. Perhaps this is a testament to the bravado of Christianity, or perhaps to the nihilism intrinsic to secularity. That is up for debate, i suppose.

These fields have scientific aspects, and their justification is largely based on the broader justification for science as an activity. Human behavior, society, government, and exchanges all involve observables which can be explained and predicted. The truth predicate indicates that an explanation or prediction agrees with the hypothetical Real World Out There, whose attributes are based on our observations. Sharing observations lets us harness regularities in nature which would be practically inaccessible to any one individual. I don't see how truth, divorced from observations as in fideism, could have any importance.

Exactly as they are based upon shared human experiences of the world where his sophism is replaced with something that by doctrine is not shared by all.
He also attacks others with some straw man reductionism while making claims about the ultimate only God can know and understand that must be "reveled".