breakfast with a skeptic (my son's first philosophy paper)

8/7/2019 Breakfast With a Skeptic (My Son's First Philosophy Paper)

1/10

Introduction to Philosophy GIORDANO-1

Breakfast With a Skeptic

To doubt and refute all knowledge that is assumed to be true about the

outside world whether obtained innately or through bodily senses is outrages

in my mind's eye. I was exposed/confronted with this idea that "until claims

are proven I am to doubt all assumptions of knowledge." I know certain

things to be true or at least I thought so until I had breakfast with the

infamous "skeptic". Such a mind led me to believe all proofs of knowledge I

had would not suffice. The first day of philosophy 101 is upsetting to such

young thinkers of today because this idea of skepticism turned their world

upside-down. This idea was folly to me at first because if I cannot know truth,

how am I to know anything at all? Being called out and dropped to the

bottom rung of the very foundation of my belief was rotten. Taking a step

back and breaking it down "Barney style" (as the USMC would put it) is the

only way I can began to speculate such a theory, trying not to take a bias

view of course. The branch of philosophy that most pertains to this is

Epistemology meaning:

[T]he theory of knowledge...concerns with the beliefs and justifications or

warrant. Epistemology addresses such questions as, what is the origin and

extent of human knowledge? What is the nature of human knowledge? Can

we know anything at all? (Clark, 19).

In my journey for truth and knowledge I stumbled upon two branches of

epistemology, to include adventitious (I.e. innate thoughts), and empiricism.


2/10


Two popular philosophers that demonstrate these contrasting views is Rene

Descartes and David Hume. Throughout this paper I hope to inform readers

and guide them through the desert of the doubtful!

To put such meaningless thoughts behind, let us began to first

understand our rationalist thinker Rene Descartes. The American Heritage

Dictionarydefines the following terms:

"Adventitious: not inherent but added extrinsically ['or invented'

(SparkNotes)]" (2006, CF. Adventitious)

"Extrinsically: originating from the outside; external." (2006, CF. Extrinsically)

Descartes takes a godless stance at the beginning of his Mediations. Being

raised catholic and having received an education in a Jesuit college, there

was little doubt in some thinking that he "would set out to prove such a

creator" existed (Hicks, 41). Descartes understood that many of his beliefs

once assumed true - from his youth - were in fact, not (Giesler, Fienburg, 92).

This position holds true to the definition of skepticism given in Velasquez's

book, Philosophy: A Text with Readings, which on page 387 reads:

"[s]kepticism: in epistemology, the view that varies between doubting all

assumptions until proved and claiming that no knowledge is possible." Soon

(in his second Mediation) he comes to the conclusion that he does in fact

exist, "the mere fact that he was having doubts and, therefore, thinking

meant that he must exist" (Brown, 51). Thus the much revered Latin term

cogito ergo sum: I think therefore I am. Descartes obviously refers to a


3/10


metaphysical being have had refuted the physical world, e.g. the body (in

Mediations one) has to therefore reference to a duality of human nature!

Dualism defined

The mind/body problem focuses on two main issues. First, is a human being

composed of just one ultimate component or two? Second, if the answer is

two, how do these two relate to one another? Physicalism is one solution to

the problem. As a general world view, physicalism holds that the only thing

which exists is matter (where matter is defined by an ideal, completed form

of physics). Applied to the mind/body problem, physicalism asserts that a

human being is just a physical system. There is no mind or soul, just brain

and central nervous system. Dualism is the opponent of physicalism and it

asserts that in addition to the body , a human being also has a nonphysical

component called a soul, mind, or self (words which will be used

interchangeably for our purposes) (Moreland,78).

One popular western thinker that more than likely would be a physicalist and

oppose Descartes' ideas is David Hume, the Scottish philosopher. Hume's

rejection of the duality of human nature and God makes for a better

understanding of how Hume attempts to explain origin of knowledge and

truth. "Hume's personal rejection of Christianity made him less willing to give

ground over his skepticism about God and miracles" (Hicks, 293).

Empiricism is an approach to knowledge that rejects innate (inborn)

knowledge and holds that all knowledge derives from experience... John

Locke claimed that our minds are blank slates that can only be written on by


4/10


experience. Although some empiricist are hostile to belief in God (most

notably Hume and the positivists), some of empiricism's most noted

defenders -- Aristotle, Aquinas, and Locke -- are theists (Clark, 19).

In this empirical take on the origin of knowledge Hume would say that all

knowledge is learned! In his work Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,

Hume starts off distinguishing two types of perception, then continues on to

inquire about knowledge being "divided into two kinds... relations of ideas

and matters of fact" (Abel, 153). Two very contrasting views explaining

sources of knowledge, i.e. how they are obtained and what can be

considered universally true. I feel though it is more logical to have a dualist

perspective. Let us suppose we do exist by chance and have evolved over

millions of years, is it not plausible that we are being fed artificial projections

to our sensory organs as means of survival. Is it not conceivable the idea

that our brain feeds us false senses so that we may be the fittest and

survive? In other words, our end result is survival and not truth.

The Evil Genius is a popular yet weak argument.

[S]keptics may offer various brain-in-the-vat arguments... It is logically

possible that an evil demon is Tricking us by giving us sensory experiences of

an external world when, in fact, no such world exists. Perhaps some scientist

has put our brains in a vat in a laboratory and is stimulating them in such a

way that we have a full range of sensory experiences of an external world

when no such world is really appearing to us (Moreland, Craig, 97).


5/10


At first glance such thinking is attractive, and this Coming from a fan of the

classic Matrixtrilogy. Although such arguments can be alluring, who am I to

say it is true or not, is the Matrixnot plausible? Coming from someone like

Hume, who does not believe in a metaphysical being there is a great counter

argument if there is only the physical world that exists. In order to doubt

there in turn must be a doubter and (i.e. we must exist somehow) and if

there is no soul there must be a physical body to doubt. When someone

approaches me with this presupposition that all known reality is an illusion,

then to suggest it is all artificial rather, and that instead all my senses are

being projected I merely ask is that an illusory statement. In the book

Philosophical Foundation for the Christian Worldview,by William Lane Craig,

Craig gives a brief explanation on page 102 as well as other responses to the

skeptic:

Nick Bostrom is one of the few philosophers that argues such a belief.

Philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that if artificial intelligence is actually

possible, then it is far more likely that we are simulations living within

someone's digital computer program as opposed to a real world" (Copan,

Craig, 22).

In the end it is one thinking mind trying to convince another thinking mind it

does not exist if everything is supposedly an illusion. Then again how am I to

really know there are other thinking minds, is it not possible I am alone in

this computer program? Once again with all these theories, to settle with one


6/10


you would have to assume all others are false. Bostrom attempts to back his

argument making the point that artificial intelligence shows it's plausible. I

disagree. Peter Kreeft's, The Journey: A Spiritual Roadmap for Modern

Pilgrims, does a great job at introducing this argument and systematically

going through such a hypothesis through dialogue between his characters.

An enjoyable read not to mention informative.

Rene Descartes would refute Bostram's ideas not only because of his

Catholic upbringing but he attends to such an idea in his later Mediations.*

Descartes goes on to explain, after he establishes God exists (in his second

Mediations), that if such a God exists he would not deceive us or our senses.

He would be just and fair not to mention truth and good, so everything I

conceive may be taken as true. Descartes' logic and methods are very

persuasive and convincing over Hume or Locke's work.

Descartes in his third Mediations shows that we must have innate

ideas and our thoughts are outside of the physical world, thus, dualism.

"There are two main varieties of dualism-property dualism and substance

dualism" (Moreland, 79). Substance dualism can best describe why - in

Descartes wax experiment - the wax is wax no matter it's properties. John

Locke, another popular empiricist would disagree: "he argued that all our

ideas are derived from the senses" (Scruton, 29). Locke would refute such

ideas on the basis that "(1) there is no good deductive argument establishing

*A good systematic logical breakdown of this is given by philosopher Peter Hicks (see Hicks) on pages 243-44 of hisbook, The Journey So Far.


7/10


the existence of such entities, (2) children & idiots do not seem to posses

them" (Pojman, 149). I disagree but that does not mean it's not possible.

Although I find this pondering of epistemology useless and flustering it

is not arbitrary. Usually in a conclusion of a paper I would attempt to list

what has been established, which in reality is nothing. I only have

successfully shown two choices and have given my opinion of which I

thought to be more logical. Locke and Hume's empiricism suggested that all

knowledge is learned. In comparison Descartes reasoned thought says that

some knowledge is from an outside source, or innate! Descartes also

continues on to proof of his own existence, cogito ergo sum, and God's

through his Mediations. Am I in the Matrix, possible... plausible, yes... I highly

doubt such an elaborate thought though! The best summary and conclusion I

read yet is in Robert Booth's book Always Ready. A portion I like from this

text says,

Men only succeed in deluding themselves when they say that they will not

accept anything without proof or demonstrationthat they allow no place for

"faith" in their outlook or in the living of their lives. Accordingly, such

unbelievers who criticize Christians for appealing to "faith" are intellectual

hypocritesmen who cannot and do not live by their own declared standards

for reasoning. (197)

As far as my conclusion? I would agree with Descartes for the most part!


8/10


Works Cited/Consulted

Abel, Donald C. Fifty Readings in Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Print.

Adler, Mortimer Jerome. Adler's Philosophical Dictionary. New York: Touchstone,

1996. Print.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston, Mass. [u.a.:

Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print.

Bahnsen, Greg L., and Robert R. Booth. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the

Faith. Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1996. Print.

Brown, Colin. Philosophy & the Christian Faith: A Historical Sketch from the Middle

Ages to the Present Day. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968. Print.

Clark, Kelly James, and Richard Lints. 101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their

Importance for Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004. Print.

Copan, Paul, and William Lane. Craig. Contending with Christianity's Critics:

Answering New Atheists & Other Objectors. Nashville: B & H Academic, 2009.

Print.

Geisler, Norman L., and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian

Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Print.


9/10


Geisler, Norman L., and Paul K. Hoffman. "Why I Believe God Exists." Why I Am a

Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 2006. N. pag. Print.

Giordano, Sean P. "Introduction - Technology Junkies." Introduction. Worldviews: A

Click Away from Binary Collisions (Religio-Political Apologetics). Saugus:

SCRIBD, 2008. N. pag. Scribd. [No Pub], 16 July 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

.

Originally turned in as a paper for homework.

Hicks, Peter. The Journey So Far: Philosophy Through the Ages. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2003. Print.

Kreeft, Peter. The Journey: A Spiritual Roadmap for Modern Pilgrims. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996. Print.

Moreland, James Porter, and William Lane. Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a

Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Print.

Moreland, James Porter. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Print.

Pojman, Louis P. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.

Scruton, Roger. Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey. New York: Penguin,

1996. Print.

"SparkNotes: Meditations on First Philosophy: Third Meditation, Part 1: Clear and

Distinct Perceptions and Descartes' Theory of Ideas." SparkNotes: Today's


10/10


Most Popular Study Guides. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.

.

Velasquez, Manuel G. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Australia: Wadsworth

Thomson Learning, 2002. Print.

breakfast with a skeptic (my son's first philosophy paper)

Documents