Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

[Vanguard]

In a recent exchange debating whether a belief in God can be justified on a rational basis Jester commented,

The thing that I don't understand, is the idea that a claim can be evidence for itself. How does self-evidence work logically? What determines the difference between a legitimate axiom and anything one happens to claim to be self-evident? If we have no logical process by which to determine the difference, then I do not see why we can call such beliefs rational. (see http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=390

Questions for the Christian community:

1) How does one determine whether something should be considered axiomatic?

2) What does it mean to say there is nothing that can logically be considered self-evident?

[Jester]

I'm glad we finally got this one open. I'll start with a summary of my personal position.

I find that, ironically, it was largely my skepticism that let me to faith. (For those who didn't see the original topic, we were debating whether there was a logical reason to believe in the physical universe, or if that was the sort of thing that needed to be taken on faith.)

In any case, I've adopted the position that, while we shouldn't contradict ourselves or any evidence that we see, a few things just have to be taken on faith. The idea actually bothers me, but being bothered isn't disproof, so there we are.

I'm inclined to think the same for the spiritual world in general. I know so little about it, but what information I do have leads me to feel that it is there.

Well, those are my initial thoughts. Any responses/additions?

[Vanguard]

OK, here's my crack at the questions -

1) How does one determine whether something should be considered axiomatic?

American Heritage Dictionary has as one of its definitions for the term "axiom" the following -

axiom: a self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: "It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services" (Albert Jay Nock)
(see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom).

Interestingly, this definition only serves to make my point that there can be no axiom that exists outside of any paradigm. The example provided can only be true when viewed through the prism of a capitalist society (or variation on that theme). In non-capitalist societies this economic axiom is not true as goods and services can be provided simply because the government demands it without any reciprocity. In other words, within the context of capitalism it is certainly axiomatic.

The question then still remains the same - Is there any axiom that is true for all of mankind regardless of their circumstance or era? Indeed, this would be the definition of something considered axiomatic.

2) What does it mean to say there is nothing that can logically be considered self-evident?

I believe it calls into question whether we can logcally be sure of our very existence. This would include those who are considered both theist or non-theist. What can we claim with certainty? As such, what are the ramifications of this in terms of how we are to approach dealing with our fellow man?
________________________

I'm glad we finally got this one open. I'll start with a summary of my personal position.

I find that, ironically, it was largely my skepticism that let me to faith. (For those who didn't see the original topic, we were debating whether there was a logical reason to believe in the physical universe, or if that was the sort of thing that needed to be taken on faith.)

In any case, I've adopted the position that, while we shouldn't contradict ourselves or any evidence that we see, a few things just have to be taken on faith. The idea actually bothers me, but being bothered isn't disproof, so there we are.

Are you agreeing with my previous statement that there can be nothing considered axiomatic? Wouldn't you suggest that all should be taken on faith? And how do you reconcile the notion that there is nothing to be considered self-evident with the notion that we shouldn't contradict "any evidence that we see"? This doesn't make sense to me.

I'm inclined to think the same for the spiritual world in general. I know so little about it, but what information I do have leads me to feel that it is there.

On what do you base this belief in the spiritual world?

[Jester]

1) How does one determine whether something should be considered axiomatic?

I loved your thoughts on this one. Pretty-much total agreement, particularly with the idea that an axiom is conditional to a paradigm. Initially strikes me as true that all statements are, in some measure, conditional.

I believe it calls into question whether we can logcally be sure of our very existence. This would include those who are considered both theist or non-theist.

This seems to bring a certain amount of question to all conclusions.

As such, what are the ramifications of this in terms of how we are to approach dealing with our fellow man?

That is an interesting thought.
On the negative side, such questioning might cause people to be uncompassionate about the lives of others. On the positive, questioning one's self, and the resulting open-mindedness, would seem to counter things such as judgment and bigotry.

Are you agreeing with my previous statement that there can be nothing considered axiomatic?

Yes, I would say that it would be illogical to declare an axiom as proved.

Wouldn't you suggest that all should be taken on faith?

Actually, I'd hesitate here. While I am forced to accept or regect the idea of a physical world on faith, this wouldn't be the case fore all things. Assuming that I accept the physical world as a premise, then claiming that I don't need oxigen to survive is illogical whereas claiming that gravity makes things fall is consistent with my earlier claims. Thus, these conclusions are based in a faith assumption, but are in themselves logical.
I hope that made sense.

I'm inclined to think the same for the spiritual world in general. I know so little about it, but what information I do have leads me to feel that it is there.

On what do you base this belief in the spiritual world?

Mostly, on faith.
Assuming the existence of a physical world (on faith), I see some evidence. Also, I have a certain mental sensation of the spiritual world in a simmilar way to my sensation of the phyical world. Neither is logically proved, but I accept both on faith.

[Vanguard]

1) How does one determine whether something should be considered axiomatic?

I loved your thoughts on this one. Pretty-much total agreement, particularly with the idea that an axiom is conditional to a paradigm. Initially strikes me as true that all statements are, in some measure, conditional.

Could you comment on the example given that "a+b = b+a"? I was somewhat confused with your response. How is this not axiomatic?

As such, what are the ramifications of this in terms of how we are to approach dealing with our fellow man?

That is an interesting thought. On the negative side, such questioning might cause people to be uncompassionate about the lives of others. On the positive, questioning one's self, and the resulting open-mindedness, would seem to counter things such as judgment and bigotry.

It might not be considered negative if one embraced the illogical/irrational idea that we are all brothers & sisters of a heavenly father. By the same token, a non-theist could likewise claim they take "on faith" the notion that we should treat one another in a just way. The hurdle may come in getting them to accept that their views on why this might be the case (i.e., evolutionary principles adapted to the collective psyche) is also suspect much like the beliefs of a theist.

Wouldn't you suggest that all should be taken on faith?

Actually, I'd hesitate here. While I am forced to accept or regect the idea of a physical world on faith, this wouldn't be the case fore all things. Assuming that I accept the physical world as a premise, then claiming that I don't need oxigen to survive is illogical whereas claiming that gravity makes things fall is consistent with my earlier claims. Thus, these conclusions are based in a faith assumption, but are in themselves logical.

They are logical based on the belief (read: faith) that there is indeed a physical world. Within this context (much like my example of a capitalist society) we can make conclusions about our reality though as of yet we have nothing self-evident that would lend credibility to these conclusions. A theist makes his own conclusions that step outside, if you will, of this supposed physical existence. To further belabor and torture the point, it could be considered axiomatic that when a golfer finally sinks his ball in the hole he is therefore ready to move to the next hole. In other words, the action - ball in hole = movement to the next one - is axiomatic within the context of the rules of golf. It is self-evident if you understand the rules and is true of literally everyone who plays the game.

I should slow down as I fear I get ahead of myself. There is still more to be said though I'm certain I miss some important points. Any Christian can chime in on these thoughts.

[Jester]

I loved your thoughts on this one. Pretty-much total agreement, particularly with the idea that an axiom is conditional to a paradigm. Initially strikes me as true that all statements are, in some measure, conditional.

Could you comment on the example given that "a+b = b+a"? I was somewhat confused with your response. How is this not axiomatic?

Yeah, I do see the problem. Accusing all things of being relative is, in itself a statement that is non-relative (the mind boggles). The truest answer is, of course, that I don’t know. If I were to give you my faith-based response, it would be that a very few things are absolute (axioms), but that most of what we humans take to be universal probably isn’t.

It might not be considered negative if one embraced the illogical/irrational idea that we are all brothers & sisters of a heavenly father. By the same token, a non-theist could likewise claim they take "on faith" the notion that we should treat one another in a just way. The hurdle may come in getting them to accept that their views on why this might be the case (i.e., evolutionary principles adapted to the collective psyche) is also suspect much like the beliefs of a theist.

Ethics really seem to highlight this issue for me.

Unless we first accept the existence of a supreme being who has a purpose for humanity, they seem purely arbitrary. Granted, they are of a certain practical use, but that seems not only uninspiring, but inconsistent with extreme shows of ethics (such as sacrificing one’s life for a good purpose). These last would be extremely impractical to the individual.

As to the concept of a general ethic that we all might follow, we seem to be working that out as a culture. And, not surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to be based on any reasoned treatise, but whatever a large group of people happen to find offensive. I believe that I can see both good and bad in this.

They are logical based on the belief (read: faith) that there is indeed a physical world. Within this context (much like my example of a capitalist society) we can make conclusions about our reality though as of yet we have nothing self-evident that would lend credibility to these conclusions. A theist makes his own conclusions that step outside, if you will, of this supposed physical existence. To further belabor and torture the point, it could be considered axiomatic that when a golfer finally sinks his ball in the hole he is therefore ready to move to the next hole. In other words, the action - ball in hole = movement to the next one - is axiomatic within the context of the rules of golf. It is self-evident if you understand the rules and is true of literally everyone who plays the game.

In which case, I agree. All logic, reason, and understanding in general, it would seem, begins with faith-based beliefs.

Excellent thoughts, I believe that I shall plagiarize you when trying to sound impressive to my friends.

[Vanguard]

It might not be considered negative if one embraced the illogical/irrational idea that we are all brothers & sisters of a heavenly father. By the same token, a non-theist could likewise claim they take "on faith" the notion that we should treat one another in a just way. The hurdle may come in getting them to accept that their views on why this might be the case (i.e., evolutionary principles adapted to the collective psyche) is also suspect much like the beliefs of a theist.

Ethics really seem to highlight this issue for me.

Unless we first accept the existence of a supreme being who has a purpose for humanity, they seem purely arbitrary. Granted, they are of a certain practical use, but that seems not only uninspiring, but inconsistent with extreme shows of ethics (such as sacrificing one’s life for a good purpose). These last would be extremely impractical to the individual.

As to the concept of a general ethic that we all might follow, we seem to be working that out as a culture. And, not surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to be based on any reasoned treatise, but whatever a large group of people happen to find offensive. I believe that I can see both good and bad in this.

As an aside, I would argue however irrationally/illogically that our atheist brothers are simply motivated by what I would call "the light of Christ" inspiring them to make decisions that require them to step outside of themselves for the betterment of others. The only difference of course would be to what they attribute this motivation (i.e., the cumulative effects of thousands of years of polishing on what works best for the collective.) Though their take on it does smack of mere practicality, this Christian believes it is in reality their divinely-inspired conscience compelling them to do so.

They are logical based on the belief (read: faith) that there is indeed a physical world. Within this context (much like my example of a capitalist society) we can make conclusions about our reality though as of yet we have nothing self-evident that would lend credibility to these conclusions. A theist makes his own conclusions that step outside, if you will, of this supposed physical existence. To further belabor and torture the point, it could be considered axiomatic that when a golfer finally sinks his ball in the hole he is therefore ready to move to the next hole. In other words, the action - ball in hole = movement to the next one - is axiomatic within the context of the rules of golf. It is self-evident if you understand the rules and is true of literally everyone who plays the game.

In which case, I agree. All logic, reason, and understanding in general, it would seem, begins with faith-based beliefs.

I believe more should be said about this. I contend that our physical world as we understand/perceive it is indeed the most powerful, far reaching paradigm within which we operate. My sensory environment informs so much of what I conclude about the "truth" of this physical world. It seems almost ludicrous to deny what I and others can "see" and "understand" on a regular basis. As an example, how could anyone claim I am unable to state conclusively that "2+2=4"?

OK, here is the grand stretch. This idea is still "in the making" though I am hopeful it will bear fruit in due time. The math equation "2+2=4" must presuppose there are two distinct sets of two distinct objects to add together, no? But how do we conclude there are these distinct objects? Obviously, through our sensory environment when we see two sets of two distinct "apples" (as an example). Many times, we arrive at the conclusion there are these "distinctions" based on what our visual sense has revealed to us. But what if our visual sense was so finely-tuned (or so "dully-tuned") that there was no such distinction to make? Do all species of life with their myriad finely-tuned senses see these two distinct apples? Is it possible they see something else? Perhaps not even two objects? I am reminded of the scene in Patch Adams when the gentleman who had been living in a mental hospital showed a number of his fingers to Patch. Patch claimed he saw "x" number of fingers though the gentleman persisted in claiming there were "y". On invitation, Patch blurred his vision while looking at the fingers only to see "y" as the gentleman had claimed.

One might argue that those apples can also be touched in order to confirm there are two sets of two apples. One might argue that sometimes our vision can fool us. But is the sense of touch the final arbiter? How do we experience the sense of touch? If we were made of a different density/mass/elemental structure (or whatever you want to call it) would we experience something different when we "touched" the apples? Might the experience be something other than touching two set of two apples? Hopefully, you see my point. In other words, our very "elemental make-up" informs what we are concluding when we use the term "touch".

To come full circle, we are hopelessly tethered to the particularly-tuned sensory mechanisms we have been given. Though we cannot escape their practical force in our lives we cannot provide any evidence in a rational vein that would clarify the truth of any of it. Yikes...

Excellent thoughts, I believe that I shall plagiarize you when trying to sound impressive to my friends.

Oh, is this one of the perks of being a newly-crowned moderator?

Note: Please provide commentary on my meandering treatise.

McCulloch - I presume that by your post you, as a moderator/administrator, are able to provide commentary in a forum that allows only Christians? If so, please provide your input on my commentary as I am interested in your opinion though I would rather the thread not be opened to any additional non-Christian posters.

[Jester]

As an aside, I would argue however irrationally/illogically that our atheist brothers are simply motivated by what I would call "the light of Christ" inspiring them to make decisions that require them to step outside of themselves for the betterment of others. The only difference of course would be to what they attribute this motivation (i.e., the cumulative effects of thousands of years of polishing on what works best for the collective.) Though their take on it does smack of mere practicality, this Christian believes it is in reality their divinely-inspired conscience compelling them to do so.

This does seem to be a common link in all people. I would definitely agree that atheists (and anyone else) are inspired by the spirit to do good. I’m thinking that we all have more in common than we generally assume.

I believe more should be said about this. I contend that our physical world as we understand/perceive it is indeed the most powerful, far reaching paradigm within which we operate. My sensory environment informs so much of what I conclude about the "truth" of this physical world. It seems almost ludicrous to deny what I and others can "see" and "understand" on a regular basis. As an example, how could anyone claim I am unable to state conclusively that "2+2=4"?

I do think that this is getting closer to the major crux of the problem. The lack of proof of the physical world touches so many (if not all) of our beliefs; we can’t, by all appearances, really doubt it for too long. Not only would this mean neglecting the physical world, but seems to be something of a psychological impossibility.
Given the subject, of course, I can’t prove such a thought, but I do suspect that people are simply not capable of deeply believing that reality is illusory. We may wonder about the idea, or fear it, but I don’t think anyone will ever simply choose to stop eating or breathing – and I don’t believe that this is purely practical. As the reality of such an idea would as destructive to our dreams and goals as to the physical world, I think that we are simply not able to “go there� for too long. From my perspective, of course, I’d say that this is part of God’s benevolence that we don’t have to deal with that issue.

OK, here is the grand stretch. This idea is still "in the making" though I am hopeful it will bear fruit in due time. The math equation "2+2=4" must presuppose there are two distinct sets of two distinct objects to add together, no? But how do we conclude there are these distinct objects? Obviously, through our sensory environment when we see two sets of two distinct "apples" (as an example). Many times, we arrive at the conclusion there are these "distinctions" based on what our visual sense has revealed to us. But what if our visual sense was so finely-tuned (or so "dully-tuned") that there was no such distinction to make? Do all species of life with their myriad finely-tuned senses see these two distinct apples? Is it possible they see something else? Perhaps not even two objects? I am reminded of the scene in Patch Adams when the gentleman who had been living in a mental hospital showed a number of his fingers to Patch. Patch claimed he saw "x" number of fingers though the gentleman persisted in claiming there were "y". On invitation, Patch blurred his vision while looking at the fingers only to see "y" as the gentleman had claimed.

One might argue that those apples can also be touched in order to confirm there are two sets of two apples. One might argue that sometimes our vision can fool us. But is the sense of touch the final arbiter? How do we experience the sense of touch? If we were made of a different density/mass/elemental structure (or whatever you want to call it) would we experience something different when we "touched" the apples? Might the experience be something other than touching two set of two apples? Hopefully, you see my point. In other words, our very "elemental make-up" informs what we are concluding when we use the term "touch".

To come full circle, we are hopelessly tethered to the particularly-tuned sensory mechanisms we have been given. Though we cannot escape their practical force in our lives we cannot provide any evidence in a rational vein that would clarify the truth of any of it. Yikes...

Well, I think you really nailed it with that one.
If one does accept the validity of the physical world, there is also a certain body of evidence that the way our minds are structured directs and limits the modes of thinking of which we are capable. In my view, this was a scientific study concluding what we should have seen with common sense. It is amazing to think that, even if what we perceive is perfectly accurate, it is an infinitesimal amount of the matter and energy in contact with our bodies. And, frankly, that’s merely the physical/scientific world. None of this evidences a lack of other information outside the reach of science.
My main “soap box� in all this is to counter those who feel that these are meaningless conclusions. Not only were all of the early scientists accused of being obsessed with impractical curiosities, but I feel that such thoughts give us perspective. They definitely help to teach me a healthy respect for the world around me; to be careful before I start feeling as if my knowledge is unshakable truth. To me, that’s very important.

Excellent thoughts, I believe that I shall plagiarize you when trying to sound impressive to my friends.

Oh, is this one of the perks of being a newly-crowned moderator?

Yeah, that and the beach resort are pretty nice.

[Vanguard]

<snip> I contend that our physical world as we understand/perceive it is indeed the most powerful, far reaching paradigm within which we operate. My sensory environment informs so much of what I conclude about the "truth" of this physical world. It seems almost ludicrous to deny what I and others can "see" and "understand" on a regular basis. As an example, how could anyone claim I am unable to state conclusively that "2+2=4"?

I do think that this is getting closer to the major crux of the problem. The lack of proof of the physical world touches so many (if not all) of our beliefs; we can’t, by all appearances, really doubt it for too long. Not only would this mean neglecting the physical world, but seems to be something of a psychological impossibility.
Given the subject, of course, I can’t prove such a thought, but I do suspect that people are simply not capable of deeply believing that reality is illusory. We may wonder about the idea, or fear it, but I don’t think anyone will ever simply choose to stop eating or breathing – and I don’t believe that this is purely practical. As the reality of such an idea would as destructive to our dreams and goals as to the physical world, I think that we are simply not able to “go there� for too long. From my perspective, of course, I’d say that this is part of God’s benevolence that we don’t have to deal with that issue.

Well, I believe we can doubt it though it makes no sense to combat against so much of it. I believe God expects us to "dance through" that paradox all the while making the best decisions we can. There are many, due to emotional traumas of various sorts, can no longer sit comfortably with our conventional notions of "reality". They do find themselves lost in these very questions often resorting to drastic means (i.e., suicide) to escape the paradox.

<snip> If one does accept the validity of the physical world, there is also a certain body of evidence that the way our minds are structured directs and limits the modes of thinking of which we are capable. In my view, this was a scientific study concluding what we should have seen with common sense. It is amazing to think that, even if what we perceive is perfectly accurate, it is an infinitesimal amount of the matter and energy in contact with our bodies. And, frankly, that’s merely the physical/scientific world. None of this evidences a lack of other information outside the reach of science.

I might even argue there is no such thing within the physical realm that could be perceived in a "perfectly accurate" way.

My main “soap box� in all this is to counter those who feel that these are meaningless conclusions. Not only were all of the early scientists accused of being obsessed with impractical curiosities, but I feel that such thoughts give us perspective. They definitely help to teach me a healthy respect for the world around me; to be careful before I start feeling as if my knowledge is unshakable truth. To me, that’s very important.

Indeed.

[joer]

Can Anything Really Be Considered Self-Evident?

The Truth when it's Time has Come.