October 6, 2011
FAITH SUFFICES:
Reasons for Reason (MICHAEL P. LYNCH, 10/05/11, NY Times: The Stone)Disagreements like this give rise to an unnerving question: How do we rationally defend our most fundamental epistemic principles? Like many of the best philosophical mysteries, this a problem that can seem both unanswerable and yet extremely important to solve.
The ancient Greek skeptics were the first to show why the problem is so difficult to solve. Every one of our beliefs is produced by some method or source, be it humble (like memory) or complex (like technologically assisted science). But why think our methods, whatever they are, are trustworthy or reliable for getting at the truth? If I challenge one of your methods, you can't just appeal to the same method to show that it is reliable. That would be circular. And appealing to another method won't help either -- for unless that method can be shown to be reliable, using it to determine the reliability of the first method answers nothing. So you end up either continuing on in the same vein -- pointlessly citing reasons for methods and methods for reasons forever -- or arguing in circles, or granting that your method is groundless. Any way you go, it seems you must admit you can give no reason for trusting your methods, and hence can give no reason to defend your most fundamental epistemic principles.
This skeptical argument is disturbing because it seems to suggest that in the end, all "rational" explanations end up grounding out on something arbitrary. It all just comes down to what you happen to believe, what you feel in your gut, your faith.
All of which is only worrisome to folks who lack the faith that God gave us the capacity to reason. The agita is wholly a function of their need to believe that the latter is independent of the former.
Posted by oj at October 6, 2011 6:57 AM
Tweet