#systemic truth

[horv]

Systemic Truth Pt. 1: Religion

See part 0.

One of the most frustrating examples of the systemic and absolute truth problem is the debate between the atheist and the (agnostic or otherwise) theist. The majority of my criticism will land on the nonreligious for her use of systemic truth to justify a hypocritical position. 

The One Question, the most important in all of human history is: "Are there supernatural deities?", a question so vital to the history of human success that the strength or manner in which one chooses to answer the question has altered the lives of tens of billions of humans, living and dead. Consider the 1 billion member difference between the following two answers:

"Yes, and he was represented by a string of prophets, the last and greatest of which died in 632."

"Yes, and he was represented by a string of prophets, the second-to-last and greatest of which died in 632."

While this grossly oversimplifies the differences between Mainstream Islam and Ahmadiyya Islam, when explained to a friend in a coffee shop, the above characterization is the most useful.

The most fundamental divide, of course, is between the answer of "yes" and "no". Millions of words in print and speech have been used to articulate the fine structure of their relative differences. Yet it would not be a shock to imagine that not a single person, assured of the answer, has changed as a result of hearing a particularly well-worded argument for the other side. Why is this?

In a simple way, this is because both positions are ultimately a matter of belief. I want to hazard the well-informed atheist who reads this to press on. It is often thrown at atheists that they represent a belief system: many religious persons even consider atheism to be a separate form of religion. This point is always vehemently protested, and for good reason. While it might be convenient to regard atheism as a belief system based on the usual religious meaning of "belief-as-belonging", this of course is not true at all. Atheism is state of having a lack of belief (The empty belief, for those who are mathematically inclined).

Despite this, I hope to throw away this conception of "belief-as-belonging" and introduce it again in a more formal way, as it related to logical systems. In the next few essays, I will make the formal distinction between the common opinions on both sides and the actual grounding, and attempt to show that there is only one way to answer the One Question: blindly.

[horv]

Systemic v. Absolute truth. Intro.

I've found myself getting deeply involved in arguments with people where I attempt to frame the debate as a discussion about rationalism, logic, or truth. Essentially I try to argue about how we argue, without any reference to my opinions or their relevance. A critical component of my side relies on the distinction between systemic and absolute truth. Because, however, the issue of "debating the argument" often arises from extremely controversial subject matter (for example, why I don't find Glenn Beck illogical, even though I do find his opinions abhorrent), it is often impossible for someone for whom the above claim about Beck motivates the response: "dear God, Chris is an idiot" to properly understand the argument I am attempting to make.

I think we tend to get caught up in our opinions about things and it clouds our ability to make coherent point. By being unable to understand the difference between systemic and absolute truth, we end up making arguments that are no better than the persons we disagree with. In short, we end up being hypocrites. This is seen routinely in politics; watch any episode of the Daily Show for examples of politicians doing what four years earlier they would have considered treasonous. Its also not a new problem, Barney taught me when I was little that I should put myself "in anothers shoes". The Bible talks about the golden rule. Hammurabi even said that in a dispute, if two parties don't understand their respective arguments, they should cast themselves in a river. The person who doesn't drown wins.

The point I will attempt to make over the next few days is an extension. Being able to assess the difference between systemic and absolute truth is crucial in being able to properly have an argument. Without the ability to make this distinction one can be made to look like a hypocrite without much effort. Without the distinction being made in a debate, any argument is nothing more than people talking their opinions over one another.