A Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew go on a radio program...
No, it's not the beginning of a joke. It's a broadcast by journalist John Humphrys who, like me, is seeking to understand why people believe things in the hope that he, too, might come to believe them. Unlike me, he is a famous broadcast journalist and as such has access to high-powered, famous religious people and their brains. In this series on BBC Radio 4 John Humphrys interviews a Christian (Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams), a Muslim (Professor Tariq Ramadan), and a Jew (Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks).
Mr. Humphrys is a fellow pilgrim on a journey seeking truth. He approaches each interviewee with the same mindset and question, summarized thus: I used to believe in God. As a child I believed. But then I became disalusioned of the idea upon witnessing a world of suffering in my career as a journalist. I want to believe again; I want to have faith. How can I get it? How can I find God again?
It's worth listening to the extended interviews if you have time. I recommend doing some ironing or other mindless task while you enjoy the broadcast. Cheers!
Showing posts with label doubt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doubt. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
The other side
Recently while giving a talk at some small college or other in Virginia (or was it North Carolina? anyway...) Prof. Richard Dawkins was asked by a student "What if you're wrong?"
It's actually an interesting question, but one that shouldn't just be directed at scientists. Why not consider what we believe from the perspective of the other side? Why not examine the other possiblities?
So I put it to you: tell us what you believe, and then tell us what happens if you're wrong.
It's actually an interesting question, but one that shouldn't just be directed at scientists. Why not consider what we believe from the perspective of the other side? Why not examine the other possiblities?
So I put it to you: tell us what you believe, and then tell us what happens if you're wrong.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Truthache
Sorry I havn't been around to respond to all the wonderful comments that have come in. For the past week my back has been in splitting pain, and it's been nearly impossible to sit at a computer for any length. I'm on a new course of chemical cocktails now, and for the moment it seems to be working. This is the first day in a week I havn't been in constant pain. The downside is that my brain is pretty fuzzy at the mo, tho. I just can't seem to clear the haze. Hopefully the effect will wear off in a few days as I adjust to things.
But down to business!
There's been a great debate taking place in the comments box. I thought it was a pretty straight-forward question. I wanted to define some basic terms so that as discussion proceeded and someone said "that's not true" we would all know what the statement meant.
It has been suggested that perhaps "What is truth?" should have been the last qestion on the blog, rather than the first. Becuase if we can answer that, we've figured everything else out. There may be some truth in that. (!) Perhaps it will be the first and last question, the alpha and the omega, and at some point we shall all come full circle. But not today.
Here is a synopsis of some of the responses:
A lot of things really struck me in this discussion, but the idea that surprised me most was how many people think truth is a relative concept, dependent upon the mind constructing it. I expected to see more words like "fact" and "proof," but these were conspicuous by their paucity. I was reminded of the line from 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' where Pontius Pilate sings "But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths -- are mine the same as yours?"
Surely there must be some things which are objective, provable, factual truth? Our entire society is based upon it.
2+3=5 That is a fact. It is provable. It is regarded as truth.
Leaves are green because the chlorophyll in them reflects green light and absorbs all other wavelengths. This is a fact. It is proven. No one disputes it. It is regarded as truth.
Our criminal justice system provides me with a good analogy. It's whole set-up is designed to establish truth, and people's lives are deeply and irrevocably affected by the outcomes of the judicial system's tests of truth. As a society, we almost universally accept the decisions of the criminal justice system; true anarchists are very few few in number.
In America the criminal justice system is based around 2 fundamental precepts:
1. You are innocent until proven guilty, that is, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense
2. Proof of guilt is defined as that which is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I like this system. I like it a lot. The actual application of the criminal justice system leaves a lot to be desired, but the above named precepts are very sound to my mind. It all revolves around that word, "reasonable."
It leaves room for rediculous, outlandish alternative theories of a crime ("But it could have been shape-shifting aliens taking the form of my client; you can't prove it wasn't!") and at once dismisses them. It calls on people to use reason and judgement, to ask not what is possible (because shape-shifting aliens are theoretically possible), but what is likely. And we accept the rigorousness of this test. We accept it every day when we are willing to lock people up for their entire lives based on it.
So that is the definition of truth I propose for this blog:
Truth is that which is factually demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is always doubt. For any given question one can always concoct some alternative scenario or explanation, but we must ask ourselves, is that alternative reasonable? If you take truth to be whatever you believe in your own mind, than there can be no agreement, no consensus, no action can be taken. If I say to you, "but I think it's this way, and since that's what I believe it's as true as what you believe," civilization comes to a grinding halt. That way madness lies.
But down to business!
There's been a great debate taking place in the comments box. I thought it was a pretty straight-forward question. I wanted to define some basic terms so that as discussion proceeded and someone said "that's not true" we would all know what the statement meant.
It has been suggested that perhaps "What is truth?" should have been the last qestion on the blog, rather than the first. Becuase if we can answer that, we've figured everything else out. There may be some truth in that. (!) Perhaps it will be the first and last question, the alpha and the omega, and at some point we shall all come full circle. But not today.
Here is a synopsis of some of the responses:
- Lardy big bot listed some characteristics of truth, but did not put forth a definition
- Violet for the Moment suggests it is that which can be proven objectively with evidence
- Mangonel brings up the critical question of empiricism
- LBB than reminds us that there are different kinds of truth (physical, spiritual, etc.)
- Simon says that truth is what is real, but points out the difficulty in defining reality (at which piont my brain implodes like Neo in the Matrix)
- B, mathematical genius that he is, states that verbal languages are inherently ambiguous and it is therefore not possible to define truth in a language such as English, but that the language of mathematics is much more able to manage such topics.
- Simon counters that in any system your definition of truth depends on the rules that define your system (i think)
- First Nations is in the reality camp
- Homo Escapeons put forth "truth is something which can be tested under any conditions and always presents the same conclusions."
- Keith couldn't find my email address under the "Fine Print" heading at the bottom of the page, and feels that the question is irrelevant and worrying about it is making us unhappy and/or neurotic.
- Tim Footman feels that truth is little more than shared community values
- and Simon finally concludes that truth is faith.
A lot of things really struck me in this discussion, but the idea that surprised me most was how many people think truth is a relative concept, dependent upon the mind constructing it. I expected to see more words like "fact" and "proof," but these were conspicuous by their paucity. I was reminded of the line from 'Jesus Christ, Superstar' where Pontius Pilate sings "But what is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truths -- are mine the same as yours?"
Surely there must be some things which are objective, provable, factual truth? Our entire society is based upon it.
2+3=5 That is a fact. It is provable. It is regarded as truth.
Leaves are green because the chlorophyll in them reflects green light and absorbs all other wavelengths. This is a fact. It is proven. No one disputes it. It is regarded as truth.
Our criminal justice system provides me with a good analogy. It's whole set-up is designed to establish truth, and people's lives are deeply and irrevocably affected by the outcomes of the judicial system's tests of truth. As a society, we almost universally accept the decisions of the criminal justice system; true anarchists are very few few in number.
In America the criminal justice system is based around 2 fundamental precepts:
1. You are innocent until proven guilty, that is, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense
2. Proof of guilt is defined as that which is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I like this system. I like it a lot. The actual application of the criminal justice system leaves a lot to be desired, but the above named precepts are very sound to my mind. It all revolves around that word, "reasonable."
It leaves room for rediculous, outlandish alternative theories of a crime ("But it could have been shape-shifting aliens taking the form of my client; you can't prove it wasn't!") and at once dismisses them. It calls on people to use reason and judgement, to ask not what is possible (because shape-shifting aliens are theoretically possible), but what is likely. And we accept the rigorousness of this test. We accept it every day when we are willing to lock people up for their entire lives based on it.
So that is the definition of truth I propose for this blog:
Truth is that which is factually demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is always doubt. For any given question one can always concoct some alternative scenario or explanation, but we must ask ourselves, is that alternative reasonable? If you take truth to be whatever you believe in your own mind, than there can be no agreement, no consensus, no action can be taken. If I say to you, "but I think it's this way, and since that's what I believe it's as true as what you believe," civilization comes to a grinding halt. That way madness lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
