Uncertainty, Rational Post-Atheism, and Certainty
The Problem of Post Atheism: War of the Worldviews
It’s hard to couch your beliefs on a purely intellectual plane. A belief such as Atheism is more than a mental construct, it is a way of life. Every decision we make is affected by the foundations of belief that underpin our daily actions. At the juncture where the foundational belief is found wanting, the entire rationale surrounding one’s life seems to crumble…or does it? If watching a false rationale disappear is accompanied by seeing a solid foundation of Truth materialize, where is the loss? In my case, the loss was only to ego, and then not serious. Because the excitement of seeing rock solid truth pile up before my eyes was vastly too exciting to allow me to feel much loss. For some, I know the loss will be serious and hard to take. But for me the loss was like chipping dry rot away from my brain. The loss was of no value.
Here’s a quick look at Atheist beliefs (for which there is no evidence, much less proof):
1. There is no God.
2. There is no afterlife.
3. There is no intuition; there is no spirituality; there is no absolute morality.
4. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain: the mind is not transcendent.
5. Life is chemicals; DNA is life; the brain is a “meat machine’.
6. Complexity, no matter the degree, self-assembles.
Atheism is pretty thin, as a worldview.
So now let’s look at what is beyond Atheism.
Atheism is easy to embrace. All you have to know or believe is: “nothing”. But what about thinking beyond Atheism? Post Atheism is much more demanding than Atheism itself. Post Atheism starts with the realization that all the tenets that are the basis of the “belief in nothing” are false. So the props are knocked out, the support is gone, the foundation has crumbled. If you are left with “no nothing”, what is left? How can one make sense of that? If you have “no nothing”, you must presume that you have “something”. Have we arrived at a paradox? Or is there some undefined “something” inside all this?
By proving the concept of “nothing” to be false, has anything been proved true? Or maybe everything is true(!) Well, not everything. But we have established some truths.
Let’s make a quick list of valid, true statements:
1. Truth exists and can be known, absolutely.
2. Rational thought and minds exist.
3. Empiricism is limited.
4. Forensics is limited.
5. Macro-Evolution is falsified.
6. Intuition exists.
7. Metaphysics exists.
8. Rational faith is evidence based.
9. Evidence exists.
10. All evidence resolves to intuited truth.
11. All science resolves to intuited truth.
12. A cohesive, complex, ordered universal design exists.
13. Entropy is purposeful. It is necessary to our existence.
14. Space-time and mass had a beginning.
15. A First Cause is shown rationally to exist. It is shown to be a mind, personal, and very powerful. It is beyond the capabilities of Empiricism to verify or falsify.
16. String Theory predicts much more than Empiricism and Forensics can detect.
17. Seventeen is a prime number. I like that.
But we have shown that we theoretically live in parallel with many non-perceivable dimensions, relying on limited, even myopic, demonstrative sciences for our knowledge of “facts”, yet we have within us embedded connections to an intuitive realm of knowledge and wisdom that is acquired without our doing or even awareness.
We have evidence and rules of evidence that lead beyond the belief in “nothing”, to an established contact with an external metaphysical intelligent power, of dimensions we cannot grasp, beyond space-time, beyond materialism, beyond auto-pagan “my mind is supreme”, beyond post-modernist “we all are god”, beyond relativist “many truths”.
Post-Atheism is the arrival at the rational realization of an intelligent cause: a deity. Of a single compelling truth. It is BEYOND.
Rational analysis and discernment can lead us toward finding which, if any, world religion is an accurate representation of an actual, existing deity.
Atheism is way too easy; Post-Atheism requires more. It requires analytical thought by a rational mind. It requires self-discipline, where Atheism was a release from discipline. It requires a new worldview.
Truth, on the other hand, is ruthless. It is tyrannical in the sense that it doesn’t matter a single whit what I think about it, do with it, or try to do to it. Truth is. It can’t be changed, but it can be covered up or lied about. What is true…IS TRUE.
An example: Poland is occupied by Nazis.
Poland is occupied by the USSR.
Contradictory? No. All are true statements, and will always be true; the first of 1942, the second of 1952, the third of 2002.
These might be concealed by manipulating the words of a “history” book, but the truth of the matter is always the same, whether known or unknown.
Truth is.
“Submit! Resistance is futile!”
From some Sci Fi movie I don’t remember the name of…..
Uncertainty:
My Worldview Wobbles
Relativity, Uncertainty, Undecidability, and Meaninglessness.
With an entire discipline of physics based on “The Theory of Relativity” and another on “The Uncertainty Principle”, with mathematics undermined by “The Undecidability Principle”, and with language attacked as having no intrinsic meaning, is it any wonder that our culture can’t seem to locate any absolutes? And with the positive reinforcement of self-indulgence at every turn, every channel, every advertising outlet, the post-modern, relative viewpoint seems non-dislodgable.
In this culture, if we are uncertain about our future, we must “seize the day”. If we are unable to differentiate ourselves from the crowd, we must project the bizarre. If we are uncertain of the economy, we must indulge fast and now. If we want market share, we must sensationalize the trivial.
What then is certain? Is there any logical basis for an absolute truth that can ground us? What about the theories of uncertainty that resound in science?
Let’s dismantle some concepts.
First, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. These theories, the Special and General Theories, expand the classical mechanics to cover very large distances where light travel time is significant, and very tiny distances where wavelength / particle size plays a factor. They have no influence in daily affairs. Relativity is not Relativism. Relativism is irrational, claiming that “truth for you is not truth for me”, a statement which cannot be absolutely true because it denies absolutes. Relativism is living inside the paradox, with fallacious worldview precepts. But it is more than just fallacious. It is dangerous because as it destroys absolutes, it necessarily brings on chaotic thinking by eliminating the foundations of absolutes. It obviates justice as it declares all morality to be just personal viewpoints. By obviating justice it creates victims as criminals become people who are just expressing themselves in ways that are “valid to them”. And language becomes impossible as words no longer have absolute meaning; warnings, contracts, laws, all become relative to the thoughts and desires of the individual observer. Relativism produces meaninglessness. Relativism is beyond irrational; it is the end of order in society.
Next, the Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says that for the tiniest particles / waves, one cannot measure with certainty both position and velocity. Quantum Theory is built around this principle. While Quantum Theory will undoubtedly have lasting effects on the civilized world, the uncertainty principle does not invalidate the use of the “absolutes” of Newtonian mechanics in the “big” world. Force, Mass and Acceleration are still present and accounted for in car wrecks, fist fights and dropping your plateful of mashed potatoes. When a cow kicks me, I am certain that it happened, and have forensic evidence of it. Heisenberg’s Principle has no influence on daily life.
And the Godel Undecidability Principle. This principle does, in fact, play a part in our lives (surprised?) in the sense that it points out that a system of thought cannot validate itself, and therefore requires a higher level for validation. It does not insist that all systems of thought are non-valid. It also does not insist that there is no Absolute Level at which the need for validation stops, although it implies that one is not known. The major impact of the Undecidability Principle is the new understanding that science is not the only source of knowledge, and is in fact incomplete when taken only by itself. It demonstrates the absolute requirement for a hierarchical level that possesses not just the truth, but the power to validate all lower levels.
Uncertainty has always existed. Life now is actually far more certain than at most any time in history. Will I awaken tomorrow in a country that is devastated by nuclear attacks? Unlikely. Will I be taken into slavery? Jailed for airing my opinion? Need to fight off attackers in my yard? Unlikely. Will I have food? Shelter? Safety for my family? Hope of a future? Yes, very likely I will.
So logically, the “Problem of Uncertainty” is not real, or realistic. It is manufactured.
And so it is with “Relativity” and “Undecidability”. As scientific and mathematical principles, these are powerhouses. But as influences on culture, they realistically have no effect beyond the manufactured effect.
So what is certain? Here are some things: The theory of Relativity; the Uncertainty Principle; The Undecidability Principle are all currently considered undeniable, even if they cannot be proven. So certainty is found in undeniability. More on this in the last chapters.
Probability,
Rational Deniability, and Duality
White
hat: Probability is easy, there’s only
three.
Sidekick: Three?
White
hat: Yup. Either it’s gonna happen or it ain’t.
Sidekick:
50%, huh?
White
hat: Yup. And if it does happen, then it really was 100% all
along.
Sidekick:
And if it doesn’t happen….
White
hat: Yup. 0%.
It might appear that the probability of anything at all happening is non-zero, finite. In other words, anything is possible; absolutely anything. For example, one might concede that a certain (example, not real) long protein might self-assemble with a probability of, say, 10-417. So one might think, OK, that is a finite number, so it’s a possible occurrence. In actuality the number is so infinitesimal that it defies comprehension.
For comparison, the universe is roughly 3.15 x 1017 seconds old. (3.15 x 1023 microseconds old). The number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be roughly 1078. So just how likely would an event with 10-417 probability actually be? How about an event with a likelihood of 10-15,625 , the actual projected probability calculated for self-assembly? Could this be denied as being a possible occurrence? Especially in an environment that has not existed that long, even in picoseconds? It actually demands to be denied. Yet Atheist Evolutionists will not. And consequently many non-Atheists do not, at least overtly, deny it due to the perceived requirement to fit into a secular social environment.
This is the issue of duality. When I’m at work, say with the guys in the biology lab, I can easily suppose that the probabilities are in favor of, say, random assembly of life; and when I’m home experiencing the incredible learning power of my children (not to mention their self-healing capacities), I can easily believe that the probabilities are vastly against.
The duality is easy and convenient, and since it is probabilistic, it need not get in the way of anything in either life. Living inside this type of a contradiction is “duality”. Ignoring the paradox allows one to accommodate the postmodernism of current society, while maintaining a mote of rationalism in tandem, and not asking any troublesome questions about the irrationality of such a contradictory juxtaposition.
Yet there is, or should be, a nagging doubt as to the real impact of these impossibly infinitesimal probabilities.
Numerically, probabilities (non-zero) are finite. Logically, there is a point beyond which a probability cannot be rationally accepted as a genuine likelihood, even if it is “finite”. I think this would constitute “rational deniability”. Rational deniability should be invoked when a probability is so low that other explanations dominate the scenario of possibilities, or when the possibility of such a miniscule number produces jaw-dropping incredulity. Is incredulity measurable? No, and neither is 10-417 , much less 10-15,625. It is just not credible nor is it rational to expect an occurrence from such a number.
So Rational Deniability is produced by non-credible expectations, such as fantastic probability projections.
Invoking maverick theories, “just so stories”, that have no chance of either proof or falsification also should be declared “Rationally Deniable”. These stories are allowed potency by otherwise reputable sorts because they were created to prop up theories that are otherwise unjustifiable. Examples given earlier were the “Punctuated Equilibrium” Theory, created to explain a complete lack of evidence for slow, step-by-step evolution, and the “Self Contained Universe” Theory, based on orthogonal, imaginary time, used to deny the need for a necessary cause for the creation of the universe.
These have no associated probability figures, so proponents can say, “maybe it happened”. They are Rationally Deniable. Their credibility factor is zero; the rational expectation of actual occurrence is zero.
By applying Rational Deniability to forensics, a much more sensible story concerning fossil animals would emerge. For example, it is sensible to say that certain fossil animals with structural similarities and differences (as noted) are found in these locations, and these strata. It is Rationally Deniable to claim that one set of bones is the ancestor of another set of bones. And other wild forensic extrapolations would find similar judgment.
So Rational Deniability is a form of judgment; a type of discernment; a means of discriminating against logical fallacy when pursuing truth. It should be used to destroy the irrational compromise of duality.
Certainty: Constructing a Worldview from Truth
Living inside the Paradox
It is not easy to raze your entire theory of existence, and still be comfortable that you have remained rational throughout the process. Most likely newer concepts replace older ones slowly-but-surely as the process moves along. My life experience included total ignorance that I even had a worldview, much less that it was dualistic and paradoxical. I was very happy to have been comfortably cocooned inside my paradoxes. They caused me no trouble and gave me comfort and a sense of control. Until I realized what they really are, and what the cost really is.
The Cost of Irrationality
To continue living inside the paradox, in complacent denial of valid, external truths produces a vague dissatisfaction. This is because the objective of the compromised worldview is always self-focused, and can never be completely satisfied. Self-focus requires ever more feeding, and produces in its wake ever more need for yet larger feedings. This is not speculation. It is a fact of narcissism. As the need spirals, the cost spirals with it. And satisfaction spirals downward.
Only in raw, blatantly honest truth does the cycle stop focusing on the individual, and focus instead on principles outside the individual. Perhaps your worldview does this for you now, at least in part …or does it, really? For the “classical Atheist”, a philosophical climate of denial, rather than affirmation, is the basis for the worldview. Denial is not an approach to finding truth. Logically there can be no “meaning to life” derived solely from a belief in “nothing”. Any meaning found in the irrationality of paradox derives from something else, borrowed from somewhere else, and is not absolute or permanent. So “meaning” shifts frequently for Atheists, and is subject to cultural fluctuations as well as the self-aggrandizement of personal primacy in the universe.
Building a New Worldview
Comprehending the paradoxical underpinnings of the Atheist worldview for the first time can be a major jolt. It also can be very intellectually stimulating, because finding a true worldview is a major challenge. To start the search for real truth, which does exist, and can be known, another look at the factors that comprise worldviews is in order. So here, again, is that summary.
This is a list of elements common to most worldviews, including religions:
1. Cognition of essence of reality, and levels (Godellian) of reality:
a. Cognition of Natural essence (First Principles of existence and truth)
b. Cognition of Intuitive essence (First level of validation)
c. Cognition of Spiritual essence (Second level of validation).
2. Stories concerning the essences:
a. Origin Story
1. Origin of the cosmos
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of man
b. Purpose of Life Story
c. Value of Life Story
d. “Becoming” Story
e. Afterlife / Beyond life Story
3. Statements of Belief
a. Statement of Faith (Non-negotiable)
b. Statement of Ethos
c. Statement of Unacceptable Beliefs
d. Statement of The Wisdoms, Accepted Beliefs
e. Statement of Teaching, Education
f. Statement of Evil
g. Statement of Relationship with other Beliefs.
4. Hierarchy
a. Journeymen; High Authorities
b. Teachers, Educators
c. Becomers, Students
These aspects are the lattice upon which a worldview is built. The objectives of each person’s view will change the answers drastically. Again the objectives are to find a lattice full of meaning, fulfillment and based entirely on truth and the essence of life. Ask: “Am I real, or am I an adapted, reflected image of my culture? Do I think against the flow? Can I discern properly in an environment of discouragement and disdain for deviation from popular cant? And what is meaningful? What has truth value? What is worth becoming? And how do I become that which is worthwhile?”
An example of a place to start might be with item 1.b: “Cognition of Intuitive essence”. If one accepts The First Principles without empirical verification (and there is none), then it is no leap at all to accept that the intuitive essence exists, above and beyond empiricism.
For me, the logical cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of a “Necessary Cause for the universe” led me to think more clearly about the hierarchical issues of truth, and the psychological issues surrounding fallacies in support of non-truth. So 2.a was key for me.
And defining the truth values of various types of evidence (vs. non-evidence) became the second key. Much of what is held as evidence in today’s world has little or no truth value. So 1.a was another vital step for me.
For anyone else, any of the issues, stories or statements might key new insights that are needed to fill in the trouble spots in one’s view. The point is to pursue only things that are really true. Really non-contradictory. Really valid. Not Rationally Deniable.
My worldview attitude is “intolerance of falsity”. All worldviews will contain intolerance! The worldview is the personal concept of truth. Personal truth will reject other contradictory concepts of truth, and see them as false. Even the worldview of “infinite tolerance” will reject other worldviews that it considers intolerant. Rejection is intolerance. If we tolerate everything, we reject nothing; if we reject nothing, we have no values at all.
Internal consistency within a worldview can only be attained by critical analysis and rejection of falsity. This is in opposition to philosophies of total tolerance and equality of relative truths.
The next step is to map the new worldview onto existing philosophies and religions, and then do a comparison to see how they connect or disconnect. This is not a quick process because the religions’ internal “truths”, and the evidence to support those “truths”, can be difficult to ferret out without serious study. Evidence is once again the central focus; in order to declare something true, what evidence is available, incontrovertible, and satisfies the necessary / sufficiency requirements? If it is less than incontrovertible, does it survive “rational deniability”? Is it Rationally Plausible?
In other words, is it a rational worldview? Does it satisfy that which we define as requirements for rational thought? Or are there internal contradictions, or maybe even irrationalities such as non-validatable and suspicious stories like turtles holding up the corners of the earth, or a god with four arms, the head of an elephant, riding on a mouse.
And possibly within our previous duality we have accepted moral codes consistent with a certain philosophy or religion which we no longer can accept on a rational basis. So we have to find beliefs that are congruent morally as well as rationally.
Certainty: Outside the Paradox
Just like the hierarchy of evidences, no worldview or
premise is 100% certain. But there is
plausibility where there is adequate, non-paradoxical evidence. The premises surrounding Atheism are all
rationally deniable due the paradoxes inherent within them. The amount of faith required to accept
Atheism as a philosophy is far too high to be rationally acceptable; it is
paradoxical, falsified, and rationally deniable, to say the least. Truth lies outside the paradox. Truth is rationally non-deniable.
And certainty comes with having the most probable truths in one’s worldview.
One last observation. All cultural inputs, especially national media inputs, must be viewed with considerable skepticism. In fact, while scrambling for truth I found it necessary to limit cultural inputs to almost nothing. At a minimum, cultural inputs should be viewed with the scrutiny of an alien observer, because they are all foisting materialism onto the culture, and profiting by it. Your use of time will either enrich you, be a waste, or be toxic to you. How would your view of the world change if it were not force fed to you through the TV? Turn the TV off, put the video games away. Be careful of the music you listen to. Be cautious of the newspaper. At least for now. Read biography; history; philosophy. Study logic. Develop quiet time to think. And then, think it through.
CSS
Afterward: Worldview Junkie
Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to
acquire it. Albert Einstein
There is certainly no point in telling a true rationalist what a valid worldview would be. Those who have read this far will undoubtedly be looking at whatever inconsistencies might exist in their own views and then hopefully use the tools for rational reasoning to derive actual, real truths from the slough of drivel to which we are constantly subjected in this culture.
For my own “journey out of paradox”, I investigated Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, as well as smaller religions. I found only the premises in the New Testament to be rationally non-deniable; that the external, non-religious, secular evidence for the occurrences lined out in the Gospels actually supports, not falsifies, those occurrences. The supposed dichotomy between Christianity and science does not exist, because science is not as comprehensive or absolute as I had thought. Moreover, science is now tending to support, not contradict, Christianity. And the general morality found in the biblical texts makes more logical sense than any other, and in fact rings with truth.
Although my original concepts were shattered, the “new” concepts were much, much better. Now that I know that I have a worldview, it is important to me to know that is evidentiary based, cohesive, coherent, logical, and not falsified. And these factors have led to an excited hunger for more knowledge, more evidence, more structural support for my worldview. I might be called a Worldview Junkie. And please call me a Christian.
The Christian worldview is internally consistent. A good example is the concept of the Trinity, the triune Godhead. Other worldviews berate the idea that one equals three, and three equals one. Such an argument reveals ignorance of the Christian viewpoint. The Trinity evidence is as follows:
· The deity of Jesus is shown by the testimonial eyewitness evidence of more than 500 observers. Many of these chose death rather than deny what they knew to be true. Even the Orthodox Jews and the Roman establishment did not deny the occurrence of the events. Non-Christians as well as Christians recorded the events.
· The Existence of the Holy Spirit is attested by the eyewitness testimony of even more observers.
Moreover, Christians don’t need to explain the intricacies of the Trinity. It is shown to exist, whether or not we understand how or why. There is no internal inconsistency in the concept that the Trinity exists. (It exists outside of space time, and outside our limited rules of logic). The Trinity is based on reasonable and acceptable evidence.
However, the internal consistency of Atheism (“No deity”), has shown to be non-existent due to the violations of the Principle of Non-Contradiction that the Materialist, Naturalist concept creates. As previously shown, the concept would require personal omniscience and omnipotence, otherwise it is impossible to prove for all possible instances. It is without any possible evidence. To declare that a concept which cannot be shown to be true, which creates multiple paradoxes, and which requires personal godhood, is actually true and is the basis for an entire worldview, is not internally consistent.
So on the Evidentiary Scale, Christianity is very near the top. Atheism, being unprovable, falsified and rationally deniable, doesn’t even register on the Evidentiary Scale.
“Christianity is like a
cathedral (of the mind) that rests on the bedrock of human reason but whose
superstructure rises beyond the realms accessible to pure reason. It rests on rational foundations, but the
building erected on that foundation goes far beyond what reason can uncover.”
Alister McGrath, “A Clash of
Worldviews”, “Intellectuals Don’t Need God”, 1993. (parens added).