Alternatives to Common Sense

A few posts back we reviewed Livi's five primary evidences that constitute common sense, beginning with what we shall call CS1 (common sense #1), 

the existence and of the continual becoming of many "things," identifiable in their identity (differentiable one from another) and in their relative permanence in being from the moment they appear to the moment they disappear...

So, the first thing a human being recognizes is distinct and identifiable things that come and go: stuff happens.

The second element of common sense is "The evidence of the I as subject," i.e., the subject who knows about, and can reflect upon, all the stuff coming and going.

Although these are seemingly modest assertions, they are at least "endowed with the most absolute certainty: what is affirmed in these [and the three other CS] judgments is necessarily held as true by all." In other words, "no one is able to think the contrary of what those judgements affirm as absolutely true." 

For example, in order to deny the many things in paragraph number two above, one must first recognize them. Likewise, it would require a self in order to deny the self. Moreover, to whom is one addressing the denials? Other selves, which is our third evidence constituting common sense, i.e., intersubjectivity. And if  we ought to be honest in our dealings with these others, we've arrived at evidence #4, freedom and responsibility. 

For Livi, the non-truth of these assertions of common sense "is absolutely unthinkable." For example, with regard to CS1, "It is not thinkable that the world does not exist as an ordered whole of entities in movement [i.e., change]." Look around: are there not many different and changeable things? Just try to think otherwise.

Likewise CS2: just try thinking that your thinking self does not exist, or that you are not thinking. Nor can you think that other subjects don't exist (CS3). For example, if you're reading this, you not only know that it came from another mind, but that you understand this other mind. Indeed, if you deny intersubjectivity, to whom are you denying it?

Damn. It just hit me again: muh baby is really going away to college next week. That's a lot of daily, moment-to-moment intersubjectivity of which I will be deprived: a void where another subject is supposed to be. Oh well. Just have to muddle through somehow. It makes me think that perhaps I should fill the time and space by finally working on the widely unanticipated Sequel, for which reason I began reviewing the content of the blog, more on which below.

What about CS4? Although it is commonplace for tenured bumpkins to deny the existence of free will, it too is unthinkable, because thought itself is the quintessence of freedom. Besides, to comprehend necessity -- for example, mathematics -- is to have transcended it. We explain math, while math can never explain us (see Gödel for details).

I cannot think and certainly no one else can think that there do not exist laws, different from mere physical ones, by which inter-subjective relationships are ordered and disordered (undeniable evidence of the natural law).

I say, if there is no natural law, there is only unnatural coercion. To paraphrase Aquinas, a law that violates natural law is no law at all -- it is either lawlessness or coercion. 

Is CS5 -- God -- a leap or but a logical next step? For Livi it is actually unthinkable, for you, I, or anyone else

that there does not exist a First Cause of the world (undeniable evidence of God as invisible Foundation of all that is visible). 

So, atheism is actually unthinkable? Yes, supposing you know what thought is, where it comes from, and to what (and whom) it is ordered, for it is addressed to the others (CS3) and ordered to transcendent truth (CS4). It reminds me of an aphorism:

Genuine atheism is to man's reason what the ten-thousand-sided polygon is to his imagination.

It cannot be imagined. Or, I suppose it can only be imagined, but not really, similar to how the reality disclosed by quantum physics literally cannot be imagined. Supposing you have a picture of it in your head, the picture is wrong.

The atheist devotes himself not so much to proving that God does not exist, as forbidding him to exist.

He forbids God to exist by clinging to an imagined metaphysic in which it is possible for God not to exist. 

Which reminds me of an old post from twenty years back. Just this morning I was taking a trip down memory lane by reviewing the first year of the blog. The only thing salvageable was a post on the Christian roots of science, or the metaphysical necessities for the possibility of science. In their absence, science is literally unthinkable. A few highlights:

Christianity, far from being antithetical or hostile to science, was instrumental in there being science at all. From the earliest days, church fathers "taught that reason was the supreme gift from God and the means to progressively increase their understanding of scripture and revelation... The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians" (Rodney Stark). 

Real science arose in only one place and at one time in human history -- in the Christian West -- and for clear and understandable reasons. Stark marshals the most recent scholarship disproving the cliché that Christianity was at odds with science, and shows instead that it was essential for the rise of science. 

Put it this way: the scientific revolution occurred just once, in only one civilization -- something like 99.98 percent of all scientific inventions and discoveries have occurred in Western Christendom. Everywhere else, science either never appeared, or it died out after some initial advances -- for example, in China and the Islamic world. And the reasons why science could not be sustained in these civilizations have specifically to do with religious metaphysics. 

Remember, the practice of science is based on a number of a priori assumptions about the world that cannot be proven by science. In short, Christianity depicts God as the absolute epitome of reason [CS5], who created the universe in a rational, predictable, and lawful way [CS4] that is subject to human comprehension [CS2]. In other words, science is based on the faith that the world is intelligible, that human beings may unlock its secrets, and that doing so actually brings one closer to God. 

Secondly, "with the exception of Judaism, the other great faiths have conceived of history as either an endlessly repeated cycle or inevitable decline.... In contrast, Judaism and Christianity have sustained a directional conception of history.... That we think of progress at all shows the extent of the influence of Christianity upon us." 

Christians developed science "because they believed it could [CS2] be done, and should [CS4] be done." Stark quotes Whitehead, who wrote that "faith in the possibility of science" was "derivative from medieval theology," specifically, "the inexpugnable belief that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled," derived from the "insistence on the rationality of God" [CS5].

Images of God in non Judeo-Christian religions are either too irrational or impersonal to sustain a scientific world view. Rather, they posit either an eternal universe without ultimate purpose or meaning, or an endlessly recurring one that either goes nowhere or is subject to decay. 

Neither Hindu nor Buddhist metaphysics could sustain science, because both regarded the world as unreal -- as maya [denial of CS1] -- and taught that the best way to deal with this was liberation or escape into samadhi or nirvana [eradication of CS2]. This dismissive attitude toward the world delayed material progress for hundreds of years.

Likewise, the ancient Greeks were not only not responsible for the rise of science, but most of their ideas actually interfered with its development and had to be abandoned or ignored. While the Greeks had a lot of speculative theories, they never developed any way to empirically test them. In fact, Plato thought that it would be foolish to try, as the material world was subject to constant change, and truth could only be found by ascending to a timeless realm where the eternal forms abided. 

And where the Greeks had empirical understanding -- technology, crafts, even some engineering -- their empiricism was quite atheoretical. Real science must involve both theory and research: "scientific theories are abstract statements about why and how some portion of nature fits together and works... Abstract statements are scientific only if it is possible to deduce from them some definite predictions and prohibitions about what will be observed." 

And if science could flourish in an atheistic paradigm, one would think that China would have developed it much earlier than the Christian West. But Stark shows that there were many philosophical obstacles that short-circuited Chinese science. For example, they never developed "the conception of a celestial lawgiver imposing ordinances on non-human Nature" [CS5]. Taoists "would have scorned such an idea as being too naive for the subtlety and complexity of the universe as they intuited it." 

The image is a detailed allegory that visually represents the core arguments of your post. It's split into a central, illuminated scene and contrasting elements on the periphery.

The Foundation of Science

• The Five Pillars: The scholar stands on a solid foundation made of five pillars. These are the "five primary evidences that constitute common sense" you outlined:

  • Things: Represented by a balance scale, symbolizing the reality and measurable nature of the physical world.

  • Self: A stylized human figure represents the thinking, knowing subject.

  • Others: Two intertwined hands symbolize intersubjectivity and communication.

  • Freedom: A broken chain represents free will, the ability to transcend necessity and choose truth.

  • God: The Eye of Providence within a triangle is a classic symbol for a transcendent, all-seeing foundation—the "First Cause" and "absolute epitome of reason."

• The Scholar and the Cosmos: The central figure, a scholar holding a telescope, represents the scientific endeavor. He is bathed in a divine light, signifying that his ability to understand the universe is a gift from God. The orderly, rational cosmos with planets and concentric spheres above him represents the universe as a predictable, lawful creation that is knowable.

The Contrasting Worldviews (Alternatives to Common Sense)

• The Illusory World (Maya): The swirling cloud on the left side of the image represents the Hindu and Buddhist metaphysical view of the world as unreal or illusory. This chaotic, formless cloud contrasts with the orderly cosmos the scholar is observing, symbolizing why a dismissive attitude toward the material world hindered the development of science.

• Atheoretical Empiricism (Greeks): The fragmented, broken clay vessel on the right represents the ancient Greek approach. The vessel, a product of empirical craft, is broken, symbolizing how their knowledge was "atheoretical" and did not lead to a systematic scientific method of combining theory with research.

• The Empty Landscape: The barren, static landscape in the background, under a flat, gray sky, represents a worldview without a "celestial lawgiver." It is a cold, lifeless world where there is no overarching purpose or rational order, a visual representation of a universe where scientific inquiry has no ultimate meaning or direction.