It may be naive of me, but whenever I spectate conflicts of opinion I can't help but believe that the root of the disagreement is one of vocabulary; I think the logical terminus of any rational argument is in the differing interpretations of some particular word or words; similarly, I think irrational arguments(i.e, what's right or important or somesuch) inevitably devolve into disputes over values. The words most vulnerable to this kind of divergent interpretation almost exclusively describe very abstract concepts, things like freedom or love or trust. Reading debates and cross-criticisms between atheists and religious people, as I often do, I've noticed another such word which is apparently susceptible to this sort of double-definition.
"Reason," according to common usage, works as a bridge between circumstance and action(i.e, "My reason for having done something is that it seemed like a good idea at the time."). There are two ways to interpret this concept: as a motivation, or as a logical conclusion. In practice, these two perspectives work almost seamlessly with each other; logical analysis connects one's present circumstances, through various courses of action, to a number of likely outcomes. Personal values then dictate which outcome is most desirable, and the appropriate behavior is undertaken. So, one may say that they do something, "...because I want outcome x," or just as validly, "...because I have concluded that doing so will result in outcome x."
One phrase that I've encountered often while reading religious arguments is, "Reason to believe," and I think that its variety of usages and interpretations is near the heart of the entire debate. One may believe something because one wants to, or because it is a logical conclusion. Hence, I can both have every reason to believe in the existence of a benevolent creator (because it would be comforting), and no reason whatsoever to believe in the same (because I've never seen any evidence for its existence). A dying person has a very good reason for believing in a paradisaical afterlife (death is scary) and, at the same time, no more reason for doing so than they did before they found out they were dying (inasmuch as the world hasn't changed from then to now).
Interestingly, I now think the responsibility for this confusion is somewhat shared by the word "believe." I think if you consider it as a volitional action, something about which you have a choice, then it makes sense to have a reason-as-motivation to believe something, since believing has consequences like any other action and can be weighed accordingly. On the other hand, if the act of believing is something inevitable given some particular circumstances, "choosing" to do it is as absurd an idea as choosing to be subject to the laws of physics.
I could say that we each consider ourselves the one true god of our own mind, making nothing that occurs there inevitable. I could dissect the practice of denial as a proof of the volitional nature of belief. I could describe integrity (as internal consistency) as a value, give arguments for its utility, and contrast it with the act of denial. I could spend hours splitting off into new ideas, because that's how my head works. But I started this post with a goal, dammit, and have now accomplished the same. Peace out.
No comments:
Post a Comment