Peterson vs. Harris on Truth
A friend sent me an edited transcription of the first conversation between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris in which they were disagreeing about the definition and foundations of the concept “truth.” He thought the debate would serve as a primer on epistemology (the study of the nature and grounds of knowledge). Here is my reply:
The problem with the transcription of the conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson is that Sam Harris worships “facts” without recognizing that our knowledge of all facts depends on pre-existing assumptions—i.e., on faith. For example, the scientific fact depends upon the pre-existing assumption, an act of faith, that the laws of physics are constant and unchanging. This is not a demonstrable or provable fact. We take it on faith. Once we do, we can prove a whole lot of other things. But in itself it cannot be proven. To prove something, to demonstrate its truth, is merely to translate it into terms which we have already adopted as true. But the most fundamental things we know are founded on faith. We cannot even trust our own reason without believing, on faith, that our reason works and corresponds to reality. So before they try to define “what is truth?” they need to agree on the underlying assumptions that they bring to thinking at all about anything.
The only reasonable unity that can possibly lie behind Sam Harris’s longing for truth independent of goodness and Jordan Peterson’s longing for truth that is healing to mankind is faith in the source of both goodness and truth (and beauty) in a single divine reality that emanates forth all three principles of value for human beings. Any other idea of the foundation of reality leaves us wallowing in ignorance, confusion, and mere personal preferences, leading to endless unresolvable arguments like the one you’ve transcribed.
In short, if God is not the source of reason, of truth, of beauty, of goodness, of our capacity to appreciate these things, and of our own longing for them, then we cannot know anything. And, correlatively, only faith in that divine unity behind what can be seen by human beings can serve as any foundation for reasonable argument.
The problem with the transcription of the conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson is that Sam Harris worships “facts” without recognizing that our knowledge of all facts depends on pre-existing assumptions—i.e., on faith. For example, the scientific fact depends upon the pre-existing assumption, an act of faith, that the laws of physics are constant and unchanging. This is not a demonstrable or provable fact. We take it on faith. Once we do, we can prove a whole lot of other things. But in itself it cannot be proven. To prove something, to demonstrate its truth, is merely to translate it into terms which we have already adopted as true. But the most fundamental things we know are founded on faith. We cannot even trust our own reason without believing, on faith, that our reason works and corresponds to reality. So before they try to define “what is truth?” they need to agree on the underlying assumptions that they bring to thinking at all about anything.
The only reasonable unity that can possibly lie behind Sam Harris’s longing for truth independent of goodness and Jordan Peterson’s longing for truth that is healing to mankind is faith in the source of both goodness and truth (and beauty) in a single divine reality that emanates forth all three principles of value for human beings. Any other idea of the foundation of reality leaves us wallowing in ignorance, confusion, and mere personal preferences, leading to endless unresolvable arguments like the one you’ve transcribed.
In short, if God is not the source of reason, of truth, of beauty, of goodness, of our capacity to appreciate these things, and of our own longing for them, then we cannot know anything. And, correlatively, only faith in that divine unity behind what can be seen by human beings can serve as any foundation for reasonable argument.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home