Reason and Persuasion.

What goes beyond reason does not go against reason. This is a point that I made on my philo tutorial blog which I’m supposed to elaborate on. For those people whom I have asked for their opinion on this statement, you may like to read on to see how I reply to this. : ) Below is the original comment and the elaboration comment. Happy Reading!

I think questioning about how beliefs and knowledge are essential not to find out about their individual meaning or reality as an end to itself, but to use them to find out what is our purpose for life, and substantiate our existence.

I believe it would not be good to rephrase all those ‘uncertain-but-reliable’ true beliefs merely as ‘beliefs’, or reserve use of the term “knowledge” solely for the beliefs we can be absolutely certain. This is because we need a common consensus in categorising what we know into either category. That said, the essential problems still remain despite the reclassification (for eg, a person according to Descartes may think that we know nothing about the existence of colours, especially since nobody could concur on a definite shade of a colour, while someone who follows Bertrand Russell may believe that even though people see different shades of the same colour. the fact that everybody sees that thing means it exist).

The criteria of certainty for knowledge is indeed unrealistically high, and not exactly helping in daily functioning of life as so many people above has commented. Therefore, it is more about using your mind and senses to come up with a way of life that possesses has few contradictions to whatever philosophy or values you hold.

For me, thinking about how should I use my beliefs and senses and doubts to lead me in life brings me on to Descartes idea that ‘God exists’ and ‘God is no deceiver’. In order to be God, the God has to possess certain characteristics that is universally concurred before it can be a God, which includes ‘omnipotent’ (nobody will want a God who don’t have absolute power and control over things), whose intellect is above ours because he is not limited like humans, and that he is good (which means he will want the best for his creations, and that means giving them a purpose to live).

On a more personal note, for me, after establishing my own existence and God’s existence through Descartes’s Skepticism, will render other beliefs and knowledge that I have irrelevant in the sense that I do not need to actively seek out their origins, but to know that everything is taken care of and I should just maximise my knowledge and beliefs in leading a purposeful life, knowing that there is a God who keeps order. : )

What goes beyond reason does not goes against reason! Alright. I finally got what I want to say out!

Posted by: Shen Kiat | November 04, 2007 at 05:14 AM

“What goes beyond reason does not goes against reason!”

Shen Kiat, this sounds like a great statement, and I do agree with it. But I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. Can you elaborate?

Posted by: Kevin | November 04, 2007 at 10:59 AM

@Kelvin (Thanks for the chance for me to add one more blog post!) I shall try my best to explain this idea. : )

‘What goes beyond reason does not go against reason!’

I made this statement for a couple of reasons.

The first being there are people who believe that assertions that cannot be tested objectively are meaningless. And this makes my statement true with regards to the nature of history itself and the limitations of the scientific or mathematical method.

For example in order for something to be proved by a scientific method, it must be repeatable. A scientist does not announce his results to the world based on a single experiment. History in its very nature is non-repeatable. No one can reverse and rerun the beginnings of the universe or to the cruxification of Christ and analyse it. The fact that these events cannot be reversed does not disprove their reality as events that had happened. There are many real things (I believe) outside the verification of science. Like what I said earlier, science (and mathematics) are good with measurable and material things. But nobody has put love or justice in SI. Units, but we do know they exist. If we follow Descartes Skepticism, we have to reserve the idea that anything that is not measurable goes against reason (logic) when in actual fact, these things go beyond the limits of science, but not against logic.

Having said that, that brings me to my second concept. Miracles. To say that somebody can resurrect from the dead is going against ‘natural laws’. But ‘natural laws’ are not laws per se, but more of an observation of our surroundings. If my definition of ‘God’ (its existence is affirmed because of Descartes’s Skepticism) stands true as mentioned in the earlier post, miracles can thus be said to be the ‘unusual events’ caused by God. The laws of nature are thus generalisations about ordinary events caused by him, as said by a certain Professor J.N Hawthorne.

Phenomena that we do not understand thus do not necessary go against reason, but because we are limited by our understanding of it. In other words, miracles are not contrary to nature, but what we know about nature.

That said, belief doesn’t create truth and unbelief doesn’t destroy truth. I think this is a statement which will serve us well in our life, in the acceptance of new ideas, to always refine our thoughts. : )

On a last note, I don’t really like philo at the beginning because I felt very intimidated by all the ‘moral questions’ and stuff from the Euthyphro dilemma and Plato that seems to have no end, and made me question myself to more than the extent that I’m comfortable with. But nearing the end, I’m beginning to appreciate the quality of mind that philo brings to a person, even though I still remain a slow thinker! : )

Posted by: Shen Kiat | November 05, 2007 at 01:33 AM