Since life is so often filled with uncertainty and confusion, many people turn to faith in order to provide more fulfilling purpose and meaning to their lives.  There are things that we don’t know and can’t know, and some people fill these gaps through leaps of faith.  It is necessary to clarify what is meant by “faith” in this context.  In some contexts, faith refers to an ongoing relationship between people where each party has certain obligations to the other and to break such obligations is therefore said to be “unfaithful”.  Faith may also refer to certain types of community involvement or rituals.  In this context, it simply means dogmatically believing in an idea despite the lack of evidence or even in the face of counterevidence.  This is also referred to as “blind faith” to distinguish it from the other senses of the word.

If we take account of the things that we can know with utter certainty on the basis of evidence alone, we would not honestly come up with a very long list.  The truth is that we only directly perceive bits and pieces of information and that our minds bring it together to construct our conception of reality.  Some will argue that this entails that it is inevitably one’s faith that binds together the otherwise meaningless and disconnected bits of information that are perceived so that a full and meaningful picture of reality can be possible in our minds.  Such lines of reasoning are mistaken because it is possible for one to go through the mental process of conceptualizing reality on the basis of evidence and without resorting to blind faith.  We can acknowledge that there isn’t always an abundance of evidence that ties our sensory information together and it isn’t always clear how the laws of nature work within the greater universe.  However, we do at least have sufficient evidence to come to reasonable conclusions about these matters, and this process does not require a leap of faith.

There is a spectrum of degrees of epistemic justifiability that can apply to any conclusion that we might come to.  At the low end of the spectrum, where evidence is not considered, is blind faith.  At the other end are situations where an abundance of evidence provides undeniable proof and where there is no possibility of reasonable doubt.  The latter is not often possible in life, but we nonetheless can utilize the evidence available to us to make reasonable conclusions.  If one believes in a claim, account, or narrative that cannot be proven but nonetheless has some evidence in its favor, then this has a higher level of epistemic justification than other scenarios wherein one simply accepts these things based on blind faith.  Anytime someone comes across a claim, account, or narrative, they can consider the evidence and determine if anything can be found to support it.  If none can be found, then the most reasonable option is to simply not accept the information.

Although there are many people in the world who believe in some sort of so-called holy scriptures, the reason given by such people usually rests on their own faith rather than on evidence.  A sober assessment of this would have to classify such belief as dogmatic.  It is possible that some holy scriptures can be supported by strong historical or scientific evidence.  Indeed, there are portions of each of the foundational scriptural books of every major world religion that does stand up to such scrutiny.  There are actual historical events recorded in the Jewish Old Testament (Tanakh), the Christian New Testament, the Islamic Qur’an, and in some of the central books of Hinduism and Buddhism as well.  However, the firm belief that everything written in a book is entirely true is very unreasonable and dogmatic.

An example of having dogmatic faith in an idea would be when one believes in the afterlife because of a claim someone else made or that was written in a book, despite them never having seen any evidence of someone living after they die.  It is still conceivable that a person could logically conclude that there is some sort of life after death, but this conclusion would have to somehow be logically implied from empirical data.  If one simply believes in the afterlife even though they have no empirical or logical evidence in favor of this, then this belief would have to be the product of blind faith.  An example of faith in the face of counterevidence would be if someone believed that the world was created in seven days, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that this process took much, much longer.

Although some people talk about having “strong faith” or “insufficient faith”, often in religious contexts, a better way of thinking about faith is to consider each individual claim on its own merits and also how different claims are dependent upon each other.  It should be possible for one to isolate anything that they believe and to determine whether or not this idea by itself has evidence in its favor.  Either a given idea has evidence in favor of it, and thus does not require faith in order to believe it, or it lacks evidence, and thus does requires faith in order to believe it.  Most beliefs that one has, though, are dependent on other beliefs.  For example, if a person believes that the god Thor is responsible for the lightning bolts that come from the clouds, then this depends on this person also believing that Thor exists, and neither of these two ideas has evidence in its favor.  Therefore, in order for one to belief that Thor sends lightning bolts from the clouds, they must not only have faith in this idea but also have faith in all of the ideas on which this depends.  So sometimes for one to believe in some idea on the basis of faith, they must also believe in other ideas on which the original idea is dependent.

One must have faith in order to believe in a claim that is supernatural, unless it is somehow directly experienced.  It seems doubtful, but at least possible, that there are supernatural occurrences happening in the universe.  At least, we can say that anyone believing a claim or account of supposed supernatural events would have to be relying on faith if they did not also observe such phenomena.  The track record of the person or organization who produced the information is also relevant when assessing how reasonable are the claims that come from that source.  If a claim comes from a source that lacks credibility because it has provided misinformation in the past or because it is seen as lacking credibility among its peers, then there is less of a reason for one to believe the information that is coming from that source.  In such situations, for one to accept those claims, they must have faith that this person or organization is telling the truth.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

In order for someone to gain knowledge from what is written or what is said, they need to have cognitive tools to reasonably evaluate information.  One’s ability to gain knowledge of things in the world that are beyond their range of firsthand observation depends on their mental skills for rationally filtering and scrutinizing claims, accounts, and narratives.  This is why knowing the means of correctly identifying facts, including the frameworks that we can use for sorting out fact from fiction, are just as important as knowing the facts themselves.

In other words, it is not enough just to identify facts.  It is not sufficient to merely point out the truth and to reject falsehood.  Our focus should also be on how to develop better sensemaking tools within our minds and within the minds of others.  We need to learn how to think more reasonably, how to develop critical thinking skills, how to avoid propagating false information, how to set the record straight, and how to help other people recognize the truth as well.  This day and age, this is increasingly difficult, so we need to carefully calibrate the disinformation detector (also called a “BS meter”) within our minds so that we can avoid being manipulated by crafty propaganda artists and prevent ourselves from becoming brainwashed by the relentless lies concocted by certain wealthy and powerful organizations.

We need to understand contextual information associated with claims that are made that that we can construct a more accurate mental representation of reality.  None of us will ever be able to get a full understanding of reality, and each of us will inevitably always have some biases and falsehoods in our minds, but there is a huge difference between believing complete fiction and being well-educated and responsible.  Sure, the latter is still a bit biased and will always involve imperfect knowledge, but it is far better than believing in and propagating contrived and dangerous falsehoods.

Indeed, everyone has some bias.  Everyone has an imperfect perspective on things.  Nobody sees and understand reality as it actually is.  Anyone accusing another of bias should acknowledge that they also have some bias.  It is important, however, to recognize that not everyone is biased to the same degree and in the same way.  We have to acknowledge that we have certain innate cognitive distortions, but that does not mean that our conception of reality is always hopelessly distorted.  Those who are more educated in particular subjects, meaning that they have taken the time and effort to learn about how certain things in life work, are probably less biased in those areas than someone who hasn’t gone through such training.  Also, people might be more or less biased than others with regard to certain subjects based on their background in life and past experiences.  It is possible, and in some cases entirely reasonable, for some people to recognize that other people have greater bias than they do in some specific area, but they should probably only do this if they can benchmark this judgment against some objective and largely indisputable facts.

We can, for example, imagine a plumber or an electrician who has extensive experience in their field of expertise who consequently would likely be far more accurate and less biased in their assessment of how the electrical and plumbing systems of a building should be constructed and maintained.  People who don’t have knowledge or experience in these areas might have ideas or opinions about how to wire up a building or how to install a new water line, but they could not be well-informed on these matters.  Similarly, we would expect that someone who has studied political science and sociology and whose career has involved working in the public sphere would be in a better position to understand these matters with less bias than people who don’t have any special training or experience in these areas.  Just as the plumber and the electrician would be expected to understand the ins and outs of their respective fields and how to get a building’s infrastructure in working order better than any layperson or outsider, so too would trained and experienced political scientists, sociologists, and economists be expected to know what needs to done to hold society together better than anyone with no legitimate training or experience in these fields.

Even for the majority of us who don’t have formal training or experience in political or economic issues or topics involving scientific research and discoveries, we can at least be well-informed enough to identify reasonable claims that are supported by evidence and to filter out those that don’t seem plausible.  This requires one to have curiosity and willingness to spend time learning.  If one makes enough effort to inquire, to study, and to scrutinize, then eventually they will have the mental skills to identify the significant details embedded within claims, accounts, and narratives that would give indication of how plausible they are and whether they are supported by sufficient evidence to be accepted as likely true.  One need not be an expert in any specific field to have this ability.

Background vector created by tartila – www.freepik.com

Empiricism is the theory that knowledge comes primarily from sensory experience.  This means that a person comes to know facts about the world by use of their senses.  This theory makes the most sense given the prevalence of objective evidence in support of it, although there are situations where knowledge can come from other sources as well.  Evidence shows that some knowledge is inherent to the brain.  We also know that reason can allow one to form knowledge that is logically implied by existing knowledge.  Other than these situations, though, new knowledge can only be formed through experience of some sort.

The traditional understanding of empiricism includes forming knowledge through the five senses.  Some neuroscientists have argued that the traditional list of senses should be amended to include other ways that humans can observe phenomena, such as balance, acceleration, etc.  Regardless of what this list includes, what is common to all of them is that they can all be studied objectively.  This means that any body function that is considered a sense must allow one to gain knowledge of the external world and also must be applicable to scientific testing so that there can be an objective understanding of how this sense works.  Although some will argue that there can be senses that allow them to understand phenomena that are internal, meaning that they are specific to their own conscious experience, the traditional understanding of empiricism understands the internal in terms of the external world.

This understanding of what constitutes empiricism is widely accepted among modern scientists, but it does have a potential problem in that it might be overly strict so as to exclude certain experiences that people commonly have that lead to the formation of knowledge.  There is a possibility that the common definition of empiricism needs to be supplemented to allow for other types of observation that are not often considered empirical.  In a previous post, I explained why I think that emotions and self-knowledge could perhaps be considered empirical as well.  There are other inner experiences that might be considered empirical as well.  Nearly all people, it seems, have beliefs regarding the intrinsic value of certain things and also have certain ethical beliefs that derive from these values.  While some people’s values and ethics are largely determined by what they are told to believe when they are young or what their social group tends to believe, there are others whose beliefs in these areas seem to be the product of mature thinking that derives from their experiences in life.  One can almost say that the latter group’s values and ethical beliefs are the product of their perceptions of the world.

On the one hand, we can simply reduce any beliefs one can have regarding values or ethics to that which can be studied objectively.  For example, if someone believes that some object has value based on their experience with this object, then we could reduce these experiences to the objective senses such as sight and sound (they hear the object, they see the object) and we can reduce their experience of value to a feeling that is somehow determined by their more immediate experiences of sight and touch.  So under this objective interpretation, values are nothing more than feelings that are determined by one’s sensory experience or by the memory of a sensory experience.  Values therefore can be understood as nothing more than brain functions and can, theoretically, be studied objectively.

On the other hand, it is conceivable that people’s values are partially determined by experiences that cannot be studied objectively.  But perhaps if one is able to gain knowledge from an experience that is not reducible to any senses that can be studied objectively, then this should be considered a distinct sense.  The idea that one’s values and other subjective experiences are observed from a first-person point of view and thus should be considered a type of sensory experience is a version of radical empiricism, which was first formulated by Nineteenth Century philosopher William James, who summarized the central idea of this theory as follows: “To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its constructions any element that is not directly experienced, nor exclude from them any element that is directly experienced”.  In other words, any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the objective, physical level and fails to explain how directly experienced phenomena such as meaning, values, and lived thoughts and feelings can arise from that.  This notion is also quite similar to what Edmund Husserl called “Evidenz”, which is awareness of a matter itself as disclosed in the most clear, distinct, and adequate way for something of its kind.

While the theory of radical empiricism comes from the pragmatist tradition, it is not conceptually dependent on any other theories that are commonly associated with pragmatism, such as instrumentalism (the idea that absolute truth is unimportant or unattainable and that the only thing that is important is that a theory works in practice), verificationism (the idea that statements only have meaning if there is some way of determining if the statement is true or false), or fallibilism (the idea that any belief could conceivably be false and that absolute certainty is impossible).

Those who have a more conventional understanding of empiricism, which is restricted only to senses that can be studied objectively, argue that people often misunderstand their own experiences and are unreliable in interpreting the origin of their own beliefs.  Subjectivity, according to this line of thinking, is inherently unreliable and that therefore sensory experience is only possible through the brain functions and sensory organs that can be understood objectively.  This sentiment is known as positivism, which holds that valid knowledge is found only in verified data (positive facts) received from the senses and that introspective and intuitive knowledge does not count as such.  The most extreme version of this view is called scientism, in which it is believed that objective science provides the best way of investigating, understanding, and predicting everything that can possibly be known. A more moderate version of this view, known as naturalized epistemology, has the central tenet that formation of knowledge must occur through natural, physical processes.

While naturalized epistemology allows for ways of forming knowledge outside of science, such as common sense for example, it shares with scientism the belief that it is impossible for anything to be known subjectively (through direct first-person conscious experience) but that is nonetheless outside the realm of objective study.  This view seems to imply that a coherent epistemology could, in theory, be completely natural but still be incompatible with this notion of naturalized epistemology.  This is because it is conceivable that humans could have a purely natural way of forming knowledge (following natural laws) that nonetheless cannot be studied objectively.  This could be possible if humans had a distinct sense through which they can form knowledge but that is too elusive to be studied in any way that can be called objective but would nonetheless be naturalizable because it would be governed by certain laws of nature that are as yet unknown.  If such a sense did exist, then naturally there would be people who would claim that they gained certain knowledge through the use of it, but those who believe in naturalized epistemology, as defined above, would not accept this as knowledge because this sense cannot be studied objectively.

Naturalized epistemology and scientism may have some significant differences, but they both rely on science to discount the theory of radical empiricism.  Quite simply, since radical empiricism involves taking at face value certain observations that cannot be known objectively, it therefore admits knowledge that is outside the realm of objective science.  Radical empiricism is incompatible with the traditional notion of positivism, and it is instead a form of post-positivism, which is a family of epistemological beliefs that admit knowledge beyond that which can be studied objectively.  Believers in some form of traditional positivism, whether it be either naturalized epistemology or scientism, would argue that any subjective experiences either must be reducible to phenomena that can be known objectively or else they would inevitably end up being no better than extremely vague concepts.  Positivists would contend that anything of the sort is simply not worth discussing unless there is some objective basis for it.

The problem with this argument is that it should be obvious to anyone that people discuss their values and the ethics that derive from these quite frequently and therefore it must be false to say that this subject is not worth discussing.  As for the idea that values and ethics can be reduced to brain functions (and other phenomena that can, in theory, be understood objectively), this is based on the overarching assumption of naturalism, which is on one side of The Great Dilemma.  I would argue that we should remain openminded and agnostic on which side of The Great Dilemma is the most reasonable and the most accurate.  It seems theoretically possible for one to gain genuine knowledge from subjective experiences that are beyond the reach of objectivity.  This would include the notion of qualia, which is the supposed qualitative aspect of conscious experience.  If anything of this sort exists, it might be immaterial and nonphysical, which entails that the idealism side of The Great Dilemma is at least plausible.

Nobody is going to deny that there is the redness of red and the distinct sound of a trumpet and distinct emotional experiences of being in love, but many people will argue that these have purely physical and natural explanations.  Perhaps they do, and perhaps they do not.  The main point is that it is plausible that there might be some aspect of conscious experience that is immaterial and nonphysical and that both sides of this are worth openminded consideration.

This discounting of subjective experiences seems to be partially driven by the success of the modern mainstream physical, biological, psychological, and social sciences, which have, for the most part, relied on methods for objective study.  It is true these sciences have certainly demonstrated their ability to allow us to understand the nature of the universe, the earth, and life in many ways.  However, this fact alone does not necessarily imply that nothing exists in the universe that is both completely outside the reach of objective science and entirely beyond the grasp of our minds.  The restriction of legitimate knowledge to that which is objective makes much sense within the contemporary scientific community, but it doesn’t work as well if one tries to apply these same restrictions of knowledge formation in trying to understand life as a whole, including the many aspects of first-person conscious experience.

For example, in our lived experience we cannot help but express opinions that, by all accounts, seem to derive from subjective experiences such as value judgments.  It seems that at least some of our value judgments would have to come from our first-person experience, the direct study of which is incompatible with positivism but is compatible with radical empiricism.  In light of this, if a person expresses belief in positivism and then engages in some form of moral advocacy, then their worldview does not seem to be fully coherent.  It appears that for this person, the position that purely subjective knowledge is impossible, which is implied by positivism, might amount to a kind of self-defeating skepticism.

The term self-defeating skepticism might sound harsh, but the usage here refers to situations where a person’s explicitly stated views do not appear to be coherent with how this same person acts.  For example, if someone makes clear that they do not believe that any normative moral statements can be true regardless of anyone’s point of view but then later tries to convince others to believe in certain moral statements that, by all appearances, are normative in nature, then a valid interpretation is that this individual is self-defeating on the issue of whether or not normative moral statements can be mind-independent facts.  This is because the only conceivable way that normative moral statements can only be absolute truth is if they derive from direct personal experiences of value that are not reducible to any objective senses.

This is not in any way intended to be an attack against people who say these things.  This is instead meant to make the case that when someone explicitly states their beliefs and then acts in a way that makes it appear that they believe something else, there might be an underlying motive for this that the speaker has not become introspectively aware of.  For example, imagine a person who will be called Jenny who explicitly states that she does not believe that X exists where X represents an idea that some people believe in and others do not.  Although Jenny makes clear that she does not believe in X, she later says things for which the most straightforward interpretation is that she does believe in X.

It might be the case that Jenny does not believe in X and that such statements are taken out of context.  However, it might also be the case that when Jenny says she doesn’t believe in X that she is expressing beliefs that stem from a worldview that was formed in an effort to understand reality in as simple of terms as possible, despite the existence of reliable evidence in favor of X that is not coherent with this worldview.  Although Jenny knows that this evidence exists, she chooses to ignore it when forming a worldview.  Although Jenny says she doesn’t believe in X, her knowledge of the evidence in favor of X inevitably contributes to her behavior and other people can recognize this.  In this situation, the most rational thing for her to do would be to acknowledge that X exists and to construct a worldview that incorporates X with all other knowledge.

Vector created by pch.vector – www.freepik.com

Throughout most of human history, a large majority of people lived in chronic poverty, where food was difficult to attain, deadly diseases were rampant, and violence was the most common way of settling disputes.  As difficult as our lives might sometimes be in the Twenty First Century, we are very fortunate that our global society has developed to the point where these types of struggles have been dramatically reduced and where the average quality of life is far higher than it has been at any point in the past.  While acknowledging that there is still a lot of work to be done in our efforts to make the world truly free, fair, peaceful, and sustainable, we can celebrate the innovations that got humanity to this point.  For this, we can primarily point to the Scientific Revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, both of which gave us epistemological tools to understand nature, to develop technologies, and to improve public health and average human well-being.

We can recognize that the most significant innovations in human history were not any machines or inventions that we can see or touch.  What really made the most difference were better ways of thinking and advancements in how people can come to know and understand things.  These epistemological innovations provided the foundation for other innovations to be developed, such as improved agriculture, manufactured goods, and information technology.

Some people will argue that the modern naturalistic worldview (as presented by thinkers such as E.O. Wilson and Steven Pinker) already has all of the epistemic tools that would be necessary to continue to improve human quality of life and well-being while also protecting our planet and ecosystems.  There are those who will say that we need a more wholehearted embrace of objectivity-based science and of the Enlightenment Age ideals of reason, liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state in order to address the greatest challenges of our time and to lead us to greater peace and prosperity.  Others have challenged this sentiment, arguing instead that the Age of Enlightenment, despite providing humanity with ideals that proved quite useful, did not give us an epistemology that can apply to all aspects of life.  Such people would argue that we therefore need to rethink our epistemology and develop new ways of knowing in order to best address the unique challenges of our time.

The Age of Enlightenment provided an epistemology that is very useful and powerful, yet it has limitations.  Rather than merely relying on tradition or dogma or authority, we can now understand much about the basic structure of knowledge and the processes through which knowledge can be developed, including cognitive functions, sensemaking, and the foundation of science.  And so this is the epistemological framework that contemporary mainstream science has to work with, which means that it essentially serves as the basis for the most widely accepted physical, biological, psychological, and social sciences that are currently being practiced.  Through this, we can imagine that science might eventually lead to a deep and holistic understanding of nature.  But to get there, we would need to accept innovations that haven’t quite found widespread mainstream acceptance within the various scientific communities.

Gregg Henriques and his associates in the Theory of Knowledge Society have done amazing work in this area and have produced the “Unified Theory of Knowledge“.  Henriques recognized that the framework of modern mainstream science lacks unity because it has never been clear how psychology as a whole should be structured and how it relates to the other scientific disciplines.  One thing that stands out is that this seems to have something to do with the objective/subjective dichotomy and the lack of an epistemology that can apply to both sides of this.  The ability to categorize, to measure, and to quantify things objectively was essential to the Scientific Revolution and to the Age of Enlightenment, but there are important aspects of life for which this framework is inadequate.  The truth is that if we rely solely on objectivity then it would still remain unresolved how consciousness would fit into a holistic understanding of the universe.  The notion of The Great Dilemma, which I explained in an earlier post, seems to show that the strictly objectivity-based naturalistic framework is too reductive in its application to phenomena such as the mind and society.  This framework is great for any science that only needs to consider objective evidence in order to achieve its ends, but first-person conscious experience, by its very nature, can only be understood subjectively.  In other words, only the conscious being who is perceiving, thinking, and feeling truly knows about all of that for their own self, and they do not know how these might be experienced for any other being.  There might be a way for conscious beings to develop a deeper understanding of each other’s thoughts and feelings through communication and empathy, but this would never reach objectivity.

Since our core values and our sense of morality are partially dependent on certain aspects of our first-person conscious experience, they cannot be fully studied objectively.  Each of us only knows about that which is good and that which is beautiful through direct experience.  These are the sources of our core values.  If there is any similarity between my experience of core values and yours, or any two or more people out there, then we would not be able to ascertain this if we had to rely on objectivity alone.  This is because objectivity simply does not apply to any direct experiences.  If objectivity is the only standard for genuine and reliable knowledge, then this effort is hopeless.  On the other hand, if it is possible for us to find a midpoint between pure subjectivity and objectivity, then this effort might be worthwhile.  There might be other means of developing and refining mutual understanding of the structures of consciousness.  We should try to find ways for groups of conscious beings to empathize with each other and to get onto the same page with each other, so to speak, with regard to their core values, even though they are beyond the reach of objectivity.

In order to do this, we will need to broaden our epistemological framework so that it can apply to all aspects of life.  In doing so, we might also be able to close the so-called “enlightenment gap”, which Henriques identified as the acknowledgement that the Age of Enlightenment failed to provide humanity with sufficiently comprehensive and coherent knowledge regarding how the mind is related to biological life and how society and culture can be studied scientifically.  In other words, even our best and most advanced objectivity-based scientific knowledge cannot tell us how psychology is related to biology, nor how psychology is related to sociology, to economics, and to political science, nor how any of the aforementioned social sciences can yield more reliable predictions and clear explanations of the past.  In order to close the enlightenment gap, we will need better ways of understanding the mind and its relation to other planes of existence within the Tree of Knowledge than what is offered by the modern naturalistic worldview.  The TOK Society’s recent innovations are closing this gap and providing what can be called a “meta-modern” or “integral” worldview.  For more information, see Unified Theory of Psychology, Unified Approach to Psychotherapy, Unified Theory of Knowledge and Garden Wisdom Philosophy.

Photo by Alex Radelich on Unsplash

In a recent post, I explored the pros and cons of two foundational ways of looking at reality: naturalism and idealism.  The only solid conclusions that came out of this are that naturalism and idealism are fundamentally incompatible with each other, but that also if we are honest with ourselves, we cannot simply disregard either perspective on reality.  Either perspective can be understood as internally coherent and plausible and neither of the two can be dismissed entirely.

This essentially comes down to whether or not everything that exists in reality can be reduced to the physical and material.  The material/physical world known from science must exist, but it might not be the only thing that exists.  At first, it might seem easy to consider everything in reality to be reduced to that which is physical and material, since we have detailed objective scientific evidence that the universe contains just that.  It does seem almost supernatural or mystical to think of anything else existing.  We don’t seem to have any real evidence for the existence of anything immaterial or nonphysical and we don’t know how we could study it scientifically.

However, those who embrace science and are inclined to a naturalistic worldview will end up having to fully consider the implications of this worldview and whether indeed one can make sense of the totality of reality in terms of naturalism.  If one were to commit to believing in naturalism, that would be deeply flawed and untenable because, as was explained above, that would seem to defy some things that would be known from firsthand experience.  On the other hand, believing in idealism would also seem to be unworkable, because it would deny the findings of modern science.  Therefore, it seems that both options are fundamentally problematic.

There is a very large number of people who accept some form of an idealistic worldview and also a very large number who accept a naturalistic worldview.  The greatest difficulty comes when people of these two worldviews interact with each other but have fundamentally incompatible beliefs, which makes productive communication very difficult or impossible.  We can see that the question of whether the material/physical world is all that exists in reality is an extremely consequential one.  There is so much that hinges on whether there is any deep truth to our first-person conscious experience that cannot be reduced to the material/physical world, and thus we can call this “The Great Dilemma”.

This fundamental question of reality is what is at the root of a very large amount of the unnecessary division in our global society because so many of the educated and science-embracing people have a hard time getting on the same page with those who are more spiritually and religiously inclined.  All too often, people on both sides of this divide think that they have things figured out and that they know what exists and what doesn’t exist in reality and that they have the methods and tools to develop the appropriate knowledge, but we can now see that things are not so simple.  Neither of these two camps, which are on opposing sides of The Great Dilemma, can claim to have a full and detailed understanding of all that exists in reality nor to even having the intellectual tools to develop this understanding.

There might be a way to overcome these fundamental differences of thought and opinion, however deep they might be.  We can ask: Are these two worldviews really so incompatible?  There might be a solution to The Great Dilemma that would involve somehow reconciling naturalism with idealism, and thus to acknowledge that which is known from both of them and to bring them together into some new and comprehensive worldview.  The problem, however, is that we don’t have anything like a science to develop that understanding.  We don’t have a roadmap nor a guiding light to find our way through this maze of information, and so we seem to be hopelessly lost.

Attempts to reconcile these sides have been made by some eminent thinkers of the distant and recent past, but the details are very murky because so much is unknown.  The aim of such efforts would be to preserve all that is known about the natural material/physical universe through science while also incorporating our first-person conscious experiences that give us our moral foundations.  If we were to do this, notions like human equality, liberty, human rights and social justice would not be mere inventions, but would be derived from inherent truths.  Such projects are well-intentioned, but so far have never produced anything worthy of existing alongside legitimate science.  These attempts to sort out some possible connection between the outer physical/material world and our inner world of conscious experience have always relied heavily on speculation rather than evidence-based investigation.  There are many theories that have been proposed in an effort to show how the natural world that we know from science is compatible with the lived conscious experience from which our moral convictions ultimately derive, but none of these has heretofore been able to stand up to scrutiny.

There are various faith-based religions and worldviews that incorporate spiritual experiences that might, at first glance, seem like good candidates for this effort to reconcile the natural universe with consciousness.  Unfortunately, most religious and spiritual systems include features that can seem mystical, eccentric, dogmatic, or just plain incoherent and they don’t often have a good track record in embracing modern science.

On the one hand, there are countless religions throughout the world, each of which claims to be correct, and there does not appear to be any objective way of evaluating which, if any, of these could in fact be correct – aside from the instances where they might involve claims and explanations that run counter to the modern scientific understanding of the universe.  On the other hand, while there are secular belief systems that are more in line with modern science, there does appear to be merit to the argument advanced by some people of faith who say that believing only in what comes from modern science does not leave room for a foundation for morality or a meaning of life – at least not as a real part of the universe that exists regardless of anyone’s point of view.  This is, of course, what people of faith and secularists alike are seeking: the truth of how things are in reality, not merely some person’s fanciful ideas.

The biggest difficulty in this effort lies in how any other plane of reality could possibly coincide with the material/physical universe.  This might be knowable somehow, but we don’t have this knowledge now, and we don’t even have the intellectual tools that would outline a path for developing this knowledge.  Instead of trying to solve this problem, in the short term, we should instead simply acknowledge that we don’t know.  We should accept that we don’t have an answer to this question of how the material/physical world might coexist with our lived conscious experience.

To reiterate the reason for this: if we insist that the human body and mind are entirely made up of material stuff and driven by physical laws, then we won’t have a way for our feelings and moral convictions to have a basis in fact, which is quite contrary to what we know from our firsthand experience.  It is easy enough in theory for some people to say that they only believe in materialism/physicalism or in any sort of worldview where nothing beyond this exists, but anyone who claims to believe this needs to acknowledge the problem of how lived experiences such as pain, suffering, happiness, and values play into this.  The only conceivable way that there could be deep reality to our moral convictions would be if they somehow transcend the physical universe.  It is easy enough to argue that this all can be explained in terms of physical states of affairs within the brain, but we know from experience that there is something else going on.

Perhaps there is no viable alternative to the naturalistic worldview, one that would take into account all objective evidence and embrace the findings of modern science, but the absence of a viable alternative does not entail that we should commit to naturalism.  In fact, we don’t need to commit to any worldview.  One may still have a fairly solid hunch that naturalism is correct, or perhaps that idealism is correct, but it still makes sense to have an open mind and to withhold judgment on this matter.  The best way forward is for us to set aside presuppositions with regard to what ultimately exists in the universe and what are the ultimate causes of the workings of our minds.  It is only through the process of bracketing out all of these notions that we might be able to find a solution to The Great Dilemma.

The first step to a solution here is that we don’t have to make everything reductive.  We don’t have to privilege one form of knowledge above all others.  We can accept that physical/material universe that is known might not be the whole story, but that we don’t yet have the epistemological tools that would allow us to figure out what else might exist.  We certainly should not deny the findings of modern science, but nor should we pretend like objective scientific studies can explain everything important about the world.  Although people often speak of “objective reality” in a way that they seemingly mean to include everything that truly exists and that was not dreamt up nor wishful thinking, it is actually possible for aspects of reality to be out there in the real world somewhere but in a way that is beyond the reach of our best tools for objective study.  Objectivity gives us our highest level of confidence because mind-independent facts are free of personal biases and distortions, but that level of certainty is not always possible, especially when we’re dealing with people’s inner world.

The convictions that originate within our inner world are not all imagined and fanciful.  It might turn out that some aspects of our inner world are shared by all, or perhaps many, conscious beings.  If that were the case, then these would be features of reality, no less than atoms and molecules.  We need to acknowledge that we do not know the solution to The Great Dilemma, and we need to be willing to consider how subjectivity could become better understood through greater inner awareness that would be used in conjunction with societal understanding.

What are your thoughts? Use the comments feature to join the conversation.

Photo by Vladislav Babienko on Unsplash