Here
is a question. Do you exist? Wait...not so
fast - really think about this one - do
you exist??
Most
people would trot out the famous "cognito
ergo sum" - 'I
think therefore I am'. This, however, is far
from satisfactory. Let's start this essay
with some definitions - and maybe you'll see
what the previous statement means.
Subjective:
Of the mind. Anything which must go through
the mind in order to be deduced, knowing that
the mind could be in error. Thus, God is
subjective. The world is subjective. A mirage
is subjective - though it isn't really there.
Many many things are subjective - in fact
everything we sense is subjective.
Now, let us contrast this with...
Objective: What really is there. What the
universe is really
like, without the possible
errors of the mind.
Can we know the objective? Knowitallists
would say 'yes' - that we can learn every
last thing. They rely for this on two
constructs which they claim to know are
objective - math and logic. Before we crush
the objective basis of math and logic, let us
first focus on some simpler examples. For
example, if you flip a coin 64 times, and
each time it comes out heads - could you
assume that that coin always
came out heads? No, of course not - because
you know that the coin has two sides, so in
the end it might
(though not for sure) come out tails. The
same is true with any experiment. If you
carry out an experiment with a truck and you
send out innocent volunteers to stand on the
freeway - and every time you carry out the
experiment they get run over by an 18-wheeler
- can you objectively state that every
time you carry out this experiment they will
get mashed?
No. You
don't know how many possible outcomes there
are. You have seen only one - but that
doesn't mean there aren't others. Indeed, you
could have been extremely lucky, and seen a
very rare outcome time and time again by
sheer chance. So you cannot objectively state
that it is always
like this - only that it is sometimes like
this, or, that in your subjective opinion
(i.e. faith) it is always like this.
OK - now for a major point which most theists
aren't going to like: faith
does not equal fact.
Faith is subjective - it is a personal decision
made with our minds - if our minds are at
fault, and hence our evidence, then the
statement is not objective. Only if something
is objective is it objective (that may seem
pretty obvious, but some people just don't
get it).
Since everything must pass through our senses
(our minds) for us to form ideas about them -
I can confidently say that humans can never
know objective fact consciously.
That means that I can form a theory that the
flower I hold in my hands is pink - my
evidence is that the reflection of light off
the flower that comes to my eyes makes the
flower appear pink - therefore I theorise
that it is. Maybe the flower isn't pink - in
that case I would be wrong, that is why I
don't make an objective statement. But
- if
I'm right, then it makes no difference -
because I won't know I'm right, and hence
won't be able to make statements that claim
to be objective. Are you following? It is
intellectually dishonest to claim objectivity
when you do not know it is objectivity. That
is the crux of the nihilist argument.
So...math and logic. First logic. Logic bases
itself on axioms - no axiom = no logic. I
challenge anyone to give me some logic that
requires no axioms - impossible. Since axioms
are essentially leaps of faith (the cat is
sitting in front of me, all cats are black
therefore the cat is black - [cat sitting in
front of me=faith], [ALL cats are
black=faith]), and faith is subjective - we
can confidently say that all logic has the
possibility of being flawed right from it's
first axiom. So, logic is not objective.
Logic, as a system, is a tool of the mind -
and since objectivity is what
is really there - tools
of the mind are not of themselves objective.
Logic could be a flawed tool - and we would
never know it.
Math relies on logic - and I could simply
dispense with it that way. I will content
myself in saying, though, that math does not
represent anything specific in the real
world. It is absolutely abstract. It bases
itself on axioms that are subjective - and
therefore, no matter how you look at it - it
is subjective.
'I think therefore I am' is useless. First of
all you need
to define
'am'. Next you would need to understand the
concept that you might very well not exist -
but that it might be beyond your
comprehension how that were possible. You may
say that it would be illogical not to exist
and yet to still think...but I believe we
already dealt with logic. You cannot know you
exist. you cannot know the person next to you
exists, and you certainly
can't know the universe exists. In fact, you
can't know for sure that anything
exists.
|
