We often hear about the juxtaposition of “faith”-based and “fact”-based or “knowledge”-based thinking or argumentation. The basic idea behind the distinction is that the former ultimately relies on “faith”, or unprovable assumptions, whereas the latter bases all thinking on empirical and verifiable data only.
It seems to me that this juxtaposition is false. Not that the former so-called faith-based thinking is, upon closer examination, fact-based after all, but rather that the
latter so-called fact-based is, upon closer examination,
faith-based after all. Always, without exceptions.
Sounds unbelievable? I think so too, but cannot see how it (logically) could be otherwise. Let me try to explain.
When we reason or make arguments, we begin from premises and arrive at conclusions. Or we begin from the conclusions and, upon being questioned, reveal the premises. Classical reasoning, or one should say nearly all reasoning, is
axiomatic. This means that, ultimately, at the very root of all our thinking are
axioms: unprovable premises (or unprovable basic assumptions) upon which we base our thinking and opinions. If one thinks that one does not rely on axioms this way, one is simply wrong. Careful back-tracking of one’s thinking will reveal that, in fact, the last (or first) assumptions/premises cannot be proved but have to be simply accepted or rejected.
For instance, say you believe
M (let
M be any belief you have about history, nature, life, religion, etc.). Why do you believe
M is true? After thinking, you may answer that you believe
M because of
K and
L (let
K and
L be factors that together make
M seem plausible/believable). In other words, the premises
K and
L together resulted in the conclusion
M. Now, why do you believe
K and
L are true? Again, after thinking about it, you may come up with even more fundamental arguments, like
I and
J, which together make
K and
L seem plausible/believable.
The rejoinder question - “Why?” - can be repeated as many times as necessary. Sooner or later, the answers stop. This is a necessary logical fact - you cannot continue arguing or supplying proofs and proofs of proofs etc. ad infinitum. Ultimately you’ll come up against
A - the axiom(s) which you cannot prove but simply have to accept (or reject).
In some instances, the jump to the unverifiable
A (axiom) is instantaneous. Such is the case with, for instance,
the reliability of Reason itself in the first place.
Is human reasoning trustworthy (= can it yield true conclusions)? You have to answer “Yes” or “No”
immediately. Any prior analysis of the problem (or argumentation in support of your answer) is futile. Why so? Because if Reason is not trustworthy in the first place, what good is reflection then? Reflection/argumentation
relies on Reason.
Okay, let’s recap. Our thinking is based on axioms - faith-based assumptions. Now, many philosophers do not like this at all. Bertrand Russel, for example (a great critique of Christianity, by the way), said: “No! We cannot base philosophy on faith like this.” This lead to the attempts to develop other kinds of reasoning or verification systems, which (apparently) wouldn’t involve axioms. The most famous is the so-called Model Theory. Basically, it’s thesis is: once you’ve built a theoretical system (model), if all the “items/data” you place within that system fit together and retain the system’s coherence, they can be called “true”.
But is Model Theory, in truth, non-axiomatic? Does it avoid the problem of faith? It seems to me it does not. You see, there is at least
one axiomatic belief (faith-based assumption) it falls back on. It is this: that Model Theory itself is a valid method for seeking truth. Which, of course, cannot be proved. It must be accepted or rejected.
At the end of the day it seems - I’m not certain, but it definitely seems - that all attempts to base one’s reasoning purely on non-faith-based methodologies must fail.
Posts
.JPG)
