| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Critical
Reasoning with Jim Leffel |
previous page |
Week Two: Assessing World Views, Errors in Reasoning, the Power of Culture
Recognizing world views
1. World views are "basic beliefs" assumed in all human activity
Few people have a consistent world view
Most people don’t know what they believe or why
People are in tension with what they believe
2. Why it’s important:
Imperative to avoid deception (2 Cor. 10:3—5)
Reaching non-Christians is increasingly cross-cultural (Acts 17:16—34)
Enables Christians to help clarify beliefs
Finds areas of common ground
Implicitly establishes relevance of the gospel
3. How do we get to basic beliefs?
Any conversation skillfully pursued uncovers basic beliefs
Movies, music, news…
4. Recognizing basic beliefs
Three basic principles for reading (or listening) for world view content
1. What assertion is being made about reality, humanity, truth or values?
Identify phrases and terms
What world view is being expressed?
2. What must be assumed for key statements to make sense?
What world view is assumed?
3. Identify any reasons or evidence given in support of assertions
Are these reasons or evidence adequate?
4. Value of examining essays that influence popular thought: clarity & critique
"The Post-Human"
| Human Nature | Reality | Truth | Values | |
| Explicit Assertion | 4 Growing sense that we can freely "construct" self. 7 Postmodernism is the disintegrat-ion of self. 8,9 Self no longer defined by family or tradition, but self invention—no "correct" or "true" model. 11 Advancing, not progressing 15 Appearance, not essence defines self. |
2 Darwinian evolution affected by genetics & computer technology produces "artificial evolution". | 7 Many possible realities. 9 Beliefs structured on "multiple realities". 9 Computer "reality" and genetics change definitions of perception of reality. 10 Reality is "as perceived". 11 Structures of thought change—are becoming less rational. |
2 Is the new construction an
occasion for freedom or will self be "drained" of humanity? 3 Growing sense that we should take control of our bodies. 4 Looming social debates—genetics. 15 Artistic imagination works with science in self construction. 16 Daunting questions point to need for new moral vision. |
| Implicit Assumption | 1 Self is a social construct. 14 Possible to create a race of "post humans" -- defined materially and socially. |
2 Humans are product of darwinian
evolution. 10 Reality is perception. |
5,6 Art is a both a true reflection of culture and anticipates the future. | Values are social constructs, adapted to the needs of the culture at a particular time. |
| Reasons | 6 Breakdown of "old"
absolutes paves the way to create new truths 12 Relating to machines, not people, changes self-understanding 12 Genetic manipulation possible to achieve desired traits 12 Otaku of Japan as example |
6 Concept of "absolute"
truth is shattered by ‘60s counter-culture. 7 Constructing reality affected by drug culture. 9 Collapse of "old" absolutes—models. |
16 Old morality doesn’t "fit" the new construction of self and reality. |
Example: E.O. Wilson, "The Biological Basis of Morality," Atlantic Monthly 4/98
Many philosophers say… you can’t describe a genetic predisposition and suppose that because it is part of human nature, it is somehow transformed into an ethical precept. We must put moral reasoning in a special category, and use transcendental guidelines as required.
No, we do not have to put moral reasoning in a special category and use transcendental premises, because the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy. For if ought is not is, what is? To translate is into ought makes sense if we attend to the objective meaning of ethical precepts. They are very unlikely to be ethereal messages awaiting revelation, or independent truths vibrating in a nonmaterial dimension of the mind. They are more likely to be products of the brain and culture.
The empiricist view, searching for an origin of ethical reasoning… The individual is seen as predisposed biologically to make certain choices. Through cultural evolution some of the choices are hardened into precepts, then into law, and, if the predisposition or coersion is strong enough, into a belief in the command of God… The general empiricist principle takes this form: Strong innate feeling and historical experience cause certain actions to be preferred; we have experienced them, and have weighed their consequences, and agree to conform with codes that express them. Let is take an oath upon the codes, invest our personal honor in them, and suffer punishment for their violations.
The empiricist view concedes that moral codes are devised to conform to some drives of human nature and to suppress others. Ought is the translation not of human nature but of the public will, which can be made increasingly wise and stable through an understanding of the needs and pitfalls of human nature.
… People resist biological explanations of their higher cortical functions [so] very little progress has been made in the biological exploration of the moral sentiments… Paleolithic egalitarian and tribalistic instincts are still firmly installed. As part of the genetic foundation of human nature, they cannot be replaced. In some cases, such as quick hostility to strangers and competing in groups, they have become generally ill adapted and persistently dangerous. Above the fundamental instincts rise superstructures of arguments and rules that accommodate the novel institutions created by cultural evolution. These accommodations, which reflect the attempt to maintain order and further tribal interests, have been too volatile to track by genetic evolution; they are not yet in the genes.
There is a hereditary selective advantage to membership in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose. Even when individuals subordinate themselves and risk death in a common cause, their genes are more likely to be transmitted to the next generation than are those of competing groups who lack comparable resolve.
Mathematical models of population genetics suggest the following rule in the evolutionary origin of altruism: the individual pays, his genes and tribe gain, altruism spreads.
Assessing world views
World views as hypotheses
A set of ideas that explain data
Five tests of world views
Adequacy
Explains all the relevant data—or more completely than rival hypotheses
External consistency
Conforms to other well-established theories and bodies of knowledge
"Burden of proof" rests with the theory that contradicts what is well established
Internal coherence
All aspects of the hypothesis are self-consistent
An hypothesis is incoherent if:
One or more ideas conflict with each other
It can not meet its own criterion for truth
Fruitfulness
Hypothesis can be successfully applied to life and new situations
Biblical
The extent to which the hypothesis is consistent with biblical Christianity
Drawing conclusions
True beyond reasonable doubt or true beyond the shadow of doubt?
Exercises: Wilson’s essay and The Post-Human
Assessing modern and postmodern world views
| Adequacy | Coherence | External Consistency | Fruitfulness | |
| Modernism (Naturalism) |
No basis for human value, morality or human dignity | No "norms" possible, including standards of reason—only pragmatic | Inconsistent with biological facts about the irreducible nature of biological life | No one lives consistently with nihilistic implications of naturalism |
| Post-Modernism | No basis for human value, morality or human dignity | Denial of objective truth is self-defeating | Fails to understand the substantial uniformity of reason across cultures | No one lives consistently with the nihilistic implications of postmodern-ism |
Commonly encountered errors in reasoning
Argument from authority. When the soundness of an argument is based on the authority of a person speaking outside of their area of expertise.
Need to distinguish between facts and interpretations of facts by experts
Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomenon are its by-products....Yet, as pointed out by contemporary evolutionary scholar Douglas Futuyma, seldom do the detractors of the Darwinian world view take note of its positive implications. In Darwin’s world we are not helpless prisoners of a static world order but, rather, masters of our own fate....And from a strictly scientific point of view rejecting biological evolution is no different from rejecting other natural phenomenon such as electricity and gravity. (Levine, Joseph S. and Miller, Kenneth R., Biology Discovering Life, 1994
Equivocation. An argument in which a word is used in two different ways without clarifying the key differences in meaning.
How does the author use key terms? Are they importing a new meaning without justification or explanation? (e.g.: Willimon’s essay on "truth")
Against the person. Rejecting the person rather than assessing the merits of their argument
"You too" fallacy
Genetic fallacy. Rejecting the content of a person’s belief or argument based on the psychological origin of the belief
We hold many views based on teaching from our youth, but that’s not why we currently hold these views—relating to morality, God and related concepts.
A two-edged sword
Naturalistic fallacy. Deriving "oughts" from facts about what "is"
Moral prescriptions can not be found in descriptive statements
Naturalists may be very moral people, but naturalism provides no basis for objective morality
Concluding thoughts: Insights from Moreland’s book
Mind’s role in seeing, willing, feeling, and desiring
Principle: Beliefs are shaped by understanding
Three ways of "seeing"
"Simple seeing" is being aware of something
"Seeing as" places something in a category
"Seeing that" identifies something in a broader relationship with other things
E.g.: What I see and what my doctor sees in my neck x-ray
Implications—impoverished minds/impoverished souls
As we more sharply form our beliefs, we will be able to more deeply experience God
As we expand our knowledge base, we will be more able to comprehend the depths of scripture
As we grow in our beliefs (strength, centrality, content) our lives will more fully reflect the image of Who we know
Barriers to growth of the mind and what to do about them
Principle: Culture has a profound power to conform the mind to its values
Radical individualism
Limits intellectual life and interest to the practical needs of self. What reason is there to study for the sake of others?
Infantilism
Demand for immediate feelings of well-being make serious efforts at intellectual growth impossible
Passivity
In a media-intensive, visual environment, intellectual rigor is hard to maintain or develop. Visual effect has the most impact.
Cynicism promotes passivity
Catchy rhetorical devices replace substantive discussion of the issues
E.g.: Talking about abortion with ethics students
E.g.: Vacuous terms like "choice," "tolerance," "openness," etc.
"I am speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious beliefs. Let us not discuss the morals of the American people, but let them settle that matter for themselves. It is for them to decide the moral and religious rights for themselves within their own limits."
Lack of interior life
Basic lack of ability to be alone, to reflect seriously about the things that matter most
Busy
Too tired and too occupied to develop intellectual life
