The first issue that must be addressed concerns the proper method for answering the questions that will follow. In short, what is the most reliable way of arriving at the truth? Note that, due to imperfect information, etc., I am starting from the premise that 100% reliability is impossible. By the same token, however, requiring that degree of certainty (or its polar opposite, complete skepticism) will only lead to complete paralysis and death. Therefore, if the ultimate purpose of my system is to ensure a certain quality of life (to include the determination of when that is no longer achievable), some second-best alternative must be identified and accepted (subject to future revisions, as necessary). With all that in mind, the candidates can be divided into three categories: a faith-based or otherwise irrational approach, pure reason divorced from experience, and reason guided by that same experience.
The faith-based option is unacceptable for a number of reasons. The first objection is that this method permits the construction of multiple systems, each of which may be internally consistent while still fundamentally in conflict with the others. In such a situation, there is no good way to choose between them. For example, every religion claims some set of miracles as “evidence” for its truth while disregarding the equivalent claims of the others as frauds, misunderstanding, etc. Of course, such an explanation could just as easily be turned against them. Next, even within a particular system, any apparent contradictions may be shrugged off as a mystery understood only by god. Lastly, this approach also has a habit of shutting down further inquiry, either by making the claim that a particular text, story, etc. contains all the answers or by simply taking the position that if we don’t know what the answer is, the answer must be god.
The application of pure reason runs into some of the same problems. Once again, mutually contradictory systems may coexist. Once again, there is no means of assessing the validity of a particular system as applied to reality as we understand it. As with the faith-based option, I’m sure this method could come up with all sorts of interesting answers to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, none of which will settle the question of their existence in the first place.
This leaves reason applied to experience as the last remaining option. Again, the results will not be infallible, and some kind of Matrix-style scenario is theoretically possible. In that case, however, no other approach will fare better than this one, and this one has a better track record of producing useful results if we are not being fundamentally deceived in such a manner. In this second-best world where absolute certainty is not possible, the best approach will be to tentatively construct our models of reality, ethics, etc., act accordingly, and adjust them as justified by new information and experience.
This has already gone on too long for a blog post, and I’m sure I’ll get back to all this at some point later on. Therefore, I will avoid going over this with a fine-toothed comb 10 times, hit “Publish,” and sign off for now!
Inner Questions 