Welcome to the 6th installment of thought experiments. The purpose of this topic is purely to spark tasteful, yet valid debates on a given subject. There is no right or wrong answer. Enjoy!
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT 6: Arguments from incredulity
"No one in their right mind can look into the stars and the eternal blackness everywhere and deny the spirituality of the experience, nor the existence of a Supreme Being." - E. Cernan, last man on the moon
Mr. Cernan's commits a few philosophical crimes in the sentence above. First, ad hominem (those who disagree are out of their mind). Second, his status does not give him authority on the subject just because he has been to space. Third, what I want to spark, is argument from incredulity.
An argument from incredulity basically works by taking the fact that one can't believe or imagine that something is true (or false) to be a good reason for thinking it isn't true (or false).
Buried deep in his statement is the implicit argument that because he cannot look out into space and deny the existence of a supreme being, and no other sane person could either, therefore, it follows the supreme being is real.
HAHA! Yea...right. He makes it sound as though you too should be equally unable to deny the deity by claiming you are not in your right mind if you do deny it. But, that is an assertion mixed up with some philosophical abuse.
However, even though an argument from incredulity looks like an open/shut case of crappy logic, at the center is an uncomfortable truth about the fundamental limits of human reason. There always comes a point in a rational argument where you just have to SEE that something is the case.
Example: If I've explained to you what numbers are, and how addition works, you just see that 1 + 1 = 2. I can explain things again if you didn't get it. BUT at some point the truth of the sum will strike you as "oohhh...duh!" Basically, at some point you just get it.
Here is what I ask you, the responders: What is the difference between someone in their right mind looking into the cosmos and denying the existence of a supreme being, and someone in their right mind looking at 1 + 1 and denying it equals 2? Aren't some perceptions of the divine so real to some people that they cannot disavow them more than they can the existence of their own minds? If we accept that "we can't deny it" never justifies the further claim "it is true," aren't we condemned to universal skepticism?
What is the difference between someone in their right mind looking into the cosmos and denying the existence of a supreme being, and someone in their right mind looking at 1 + 1 and denying it equals 2
There is none. They are both perceptions based off a large amount of assumptions.
For instance, in a base two system 1+1=10. When you say 1+1 has to equal two, you are assuming we are in a base system equal to or greater than three.
Additionally, you are assuming that we are talking about absolute quantities that don't react with each other.
One bear + one rabbit = one bear. One female rabbit + one male rabbit = 100 rabbits or 1100100 in base two (I think...).
However, there is a very real difference between the infallibity of math and the existence of a divine being.
We are aware that math doesn't perfectly reflect reality. The laws of math are made up by humans. They are just logic applied to hypothetical quantities. 1+1=2 because we have defined "1" as the smallest whole quantity, and "2" as a quantity 1 greater than 1.
Therefore, doubting math is doubting the accepted definitions of math. It is like saying an apple is not an apple. By definintion, an apple is an apple. Doubting this is doubting humanity's capacity to define.
The definition of god is not "stars and the eternal blackness." There is no relationship between god and stars. So when we doubt Cernan, we are only doubting him.
Nice to see you - and your topics - back, Asherlee. Moving on:
This is an interesting question, and I'll say right now I don't really have an answer. I'll offer what I do have, though. Prepar for somewhat relevant rambling and no conclusion:
Mathematics is, by nature, a human construct. Math doesn't really exist, although it can be used as a sort of code to express real things. Therefore, no one can say 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2, because... well, those are just the rules of the game. In Monopoly... scratch that, no one knows how to play Monopoly. In chess, rooks move vertically and horizontally and in math, 1 + 1 = 2. That's just how it is.
However, math is different in that it exists for the purpose of measuring and understanding real things. The rules of mathematics are based solidly in reality. Why then, is 1+1 being 2 a rule of the game in the first place? Because it's readily apparent, that's why. If you have one apple (the go-to example) and you get another apple, you have two apples. This view is considered obvious and undeniable by most rational agents, myself included. More on that later.
Now, onto the cosmos. I think I can offer a bit of a spiritual viewpoint here, so I will. I can see where Mr. Cernan is coming from. In nature, I can find... something. Something beautiful, complex and miraculous. Something that makes the idea of a god seem more likely. Meaning, I suppose. But, frankly, I don't care if it's god, Kali, aliens or just the inherit mystique of nature, meaning is meaning, and it's spiritually satisfying. Do I think the cosmos intrinsically proves a supreme being? No. Do I see the cosmos as intrinsically divine? I can't think of a better word for it.
Now, you surely noticed the qualifiers such as "I see" and "I think". Why do I say that two apples are two in no uncertain terms, but use uncertain terms for divinity in nature? Because many don't see things as I do. Almost everybody (and some parrots, evidently) can see that two is one and one. However, many people see nothing spiritual in nature. Can I deny the thoughts and feelings of a tiny group of people, who are themselves denying what seems like an intrinsic law of reality, making everything in physics possible? Of course I can. Can I deny a significant group of people who don't associate certain feelings with certain things, as I do? I should hope not.
This is because the truth is defined by society as a whole. It is generally agreed that one and one is two, and it makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to someone, I can conclude that that person is mistaken or irrational (and lots of other things - not really the point.) If it wasn't generally agreed, I would conclude that that person sees things differently, even though only one of us can be right.
Not that I'm saying the truth is subjective. After all, at one point, most people thought the sun revolved around the Earth. Anyone who disagreed was considered crazy. Did this make them right? No, they were all objectively wrong. Their notion of the sun moving around the earth - which was indistinguishable from the truth at the time - was objectively false. Better luck next time, past people!
So who knows, maybe 1,000 years from now, people will laugh about how the stupid, irrational, inbred, simple morons of the past thought that two loaves of bread were two, despite the evidence to the contrary. And they should.
What is the difference between someone in their right mind looking into the cosmos and denying the existence of a supreme being, and someone in their right mind looking at 1 + 1 and denying it equals 2?
The major difference is that when looking into the cosmos, there is nothing that intrinsically shows that it is supportive of the existence of a higher power. When denying that 1+1=2, you are going against millions of instances of proof for it - a person putting two rocks side-by-side, for example. Assuming that two is two as we know it to be, and rocks are rocks as we know them to be, and this feat of rock juxtaposing is closed (there is no second entity throwing pebbles at this man,) then there will always, unequivocally be two rocks sitting side-by-side. This is proof that if you add one thing to another, you will have two things(excluding combination, of course -_-). Math itself is not perfect, as it is determined by humans, but as aknerd said, the definitions of 2 and 1 mean that 1+1=2, always, and contradicting that is contradicting what math is. There is no such proof that the cosmos possess or radiate divinity of any kind, as we know naught of them but their composition and appearance.
Aren't some perceptions of the divine so real to some people that they cannot disavow them more than they can the existence of their own minds?
Yes, but that is a weak induction - 'many people see the cosmos as divine, therefore the cosmos are divine.' If I'm not mistaken, most weak inductions are considered inherently fallacious.
Either way, it's an error to at least judge someone as crazy for not holding the same perception as you do - 'I always see the cosmos as divine, therefore sane people see the cosmos as divine, therefore those who do not are insane.' It's not just a fallacy and a weak induction, it's a rash step forward.
If we accept that "we can't deny it" never justifies the further claim "it is true," aren't we condemned to universal skepticism?
Yes. But fact is by definition correct, and while it is physically possible to deny fact, it's impossible to directly contradict a fact and be correct. So really, it depends on what is being denied - a claim, like Cernan's, or a fact, like that 1 rock plus 1 rock equals 2 rocks.
What is the difference between someone in their right mind looking into the cosmos and denying the existence of a supreme being, and someone in their right mind looking at 1 + 1 and denying it equals 2? Aren't some perceptions of the divine so real to some people that they cannot disavow them more than they can the existence of their own minds? If we accept that "we can't deny it" never justifies the further claim "it is true," aren't we condemned to universal skepticism?
*jumping into the conversation*
Well Asherlee..those two examples aren't really...good, per say. The first example is something we don't know yet, whilst the second is something we know beyond a shadow of doubt. If the same man was denying the claims from both examples, we would teach him about the second example, which is "if you put one apple here and one apple beside it, you will have two apples, correct?". The first example we would say, "come help us figure out this vast mystery, for we have no clue, but we have a hunch!"
What we can do to the first example is to keep trying to figure out what that truly means -- if there was a superior being that created this abyss, or if it really did happen out of one hell of a dice roll. So what I'm trying to say here is, if you deny the second example, you will be called crazy, maybe even stupid, and be forced to learn that 1+1 = 2, because many, many tests have been done to figure out this law. If you deny the first example, people can't say anything to you, because they don't 100% know either.
Just to clarify, here's the argument Cernan would give (if he were a philosopher):
1) If we cannot conceive of something's being true, then it must be false. 2) We cannot conceive of the universe's existing without a creator. 3) Therefore, it must be false that the universe can exist without a creator.
We can still accept the basic structure of this kind of argument while still denying the conclusion. This is because, even if the argument is valid, it is unsound. Premise 2 is patently false - or at least should be seriously doubted. This is not a sleight against an argument from incredulity or similar arguments, like the conceivability argument. It is, however, a sleight against the specific argument. I think what Cernan intended here, though, is not to present a valid and deductive argument for the existence of God. This is more an idiom than an argument.
1+1=2, however, is incorrigible. Many philosophers believe it is also a truth which is both analytic and necessary (although Kant would disagree). But I think we can all accept that there is no empirical evidence that would make us doubt that 1+1=2. Let's say I take a medicine dropper and dropped one droplet of water on a glass slide and then another droplet. But the water droplets cohered together to make 1 droplet. Have I empirically shown that 1+1=1? Of course not, should be your response.
I would like to clear up some confusion about mathematical truths.
They [the universe and the math equation] are both perceptions based off a large amount of assumptions.
We can't perceive math. We can perceive elements of math applied to the natural world (like having one apple and then getting one more), but this already presupposes the concept of an arithmetical system. Also, math is not based on assumptions. We set up terms and the relations of these terms, but we are certainly not making any assumptions about, say, the existence of particulars or the qualities thereof.
1+1 = 2, because many, many tests have been done to figure out this law.
This isn't a law, but rather an argument within a larger theory. But we have to keep in mind that any system of arithmetic that is sufficiently powerful will also necessarily be incomplete. There will be statements within that theory that cannot be proven by the theory.
This makes me wonder how incorrigible mathematical truths are ... but then I think about something else.
Moe, can we not say that 1 + 1 = 2 is a tautology? With that being said, can we ascribe it to being a brute fact?
That's a really good question, Ash. I'm sure there's an answer, although it may end up getting really complicated. Typically the term tautology is applied to arguments with premises and a conclusion. While 1+1=2 is an argument within mathematical logic, I hesitate to call it a tautology. Even its status as an analytic or synthetic truth is still a source of contention, thanks mostly to Kant. Although it is clearly a necessary truth, but that's just a trivial consequence of math theory. As for it being a brute fact, I'm quite sure that term wouldn't apply here. Brute facts are those that we accept without justification. So sensory facts and the like are candidates for brute facts (although there may not be such a thing as a brute fact), but the justification for 1+1=2 is within the theory. Put another way, my belief that I see a tree is simply based on my seeing a tree. Many philosophers don't think this belief needs to be justified - it's true in virtue of my having the experience. But we can give reasons for why 1+1=2 is true... although it's not a contingent truth...
Okay, I really don't have a good answer to your question. It's a really good question. Now I've sort of forgotten why we're talking about this. Are we trying to decide if arguments from incredulity/conceivability are proper ways of argumentation?
I feel like you did, but I can't find it with the ol' Googler. That would be an interesting discussion - whether or not not philosophical zombies can be justified in their beliefs. There's no actual phenomenological experience, but... hmmmmm
