KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA31 (vanFraassen / Feyerabend)

Commentary 14 (to C13, Müller)

( CONSTRUCTION AND AGREEMENT )
by John McCaffrey
17 September 2003, posted 30 September 2003

<1>
[QUOTE from C13 :]

"{2} Objectivity <3-4> (or positive truth) is a mistaken view, no matter who promotes it (unless it is used in an as-if or working manner). There are no certain structures except in the sense of experiential reliability or usefulness. But it is possible to test positive affirmations in a 0-D analysis, which could in principle serve as a commonly acceptable method. Perhaps this would eventually be demonstrable not only for science but even for religions, which are, due to conflicting external-truth assertions, often notoriously incompatible with each other. The starting base here would be an analysis of the functional role of religion for human individuals and societies, and then criteria for their benefits and drawbacks. "

<2>
[McCaffrey :]

" I doubt sincerely whether religious groups would happily consider having their world-views judged solely on their functional role. Essential aspects of the functions that 'religion' serves - providing consolation to the individual, social guidance etc... - are founded on truth claims and not utility. One cannot expect similar levels of consolation from both 'the promise of eternal life' as a fact, and 'the promise of eternal life' as functionally adequate. The value of 'the promise of eternal life' for the believer rests not its utility but in its factual (MIR) basis. It would be assuming an incredible capacity for 'double-think' on the behalf of the religious believers of the future in order to expect them to assent to their beliefs being judged on 'functional fit' alone.

<3>
The criterion itself - functional fit - assumes to know the nature of reality.... namely, that 'it' is 'unknowable' and any descriptions of 'it' must consist solely in terms of utility and expediency. The defence that RC type thought views itself not as claiming 'the truth', but as exemplifying the functional fit criterion shows only that it, and it alone, conforms to the standards it has set for every other world view. This is not dissimilar to Christians who counter the theory of evolution by saying that 'mankind can't have appeared on Earth in that manner because that's not what is said in the Bible'.

<4>
[QUOTE from C13 :]

"{3} Feyerabend <3ff> came from positivism, which was gradually deconstructed from the inside by Popper and others. Feyerabend went further than most, in saying that rationality forms islands in a sea of irrationality. This I think is in principle equivalent with construction from no structures. In particular, the deconstruction of the boundary between subject and object <6> is fundamental not only for particle physics and evolutionary psychology but everywhere (including religion, as mystics have long known). "

<5>
[McCaffrey :]

It makes little sense to talk of such different things as all exemplifying how 'fundamental' the deconstruction of the boundary between subject and object is. Mystics do not react to their 'deconstruction' as physicists do to theirs. For physicists the dissolution of this boundary creates new problems, new ways of seeing the world.... for the mystic the dissolution can reaffirm 'old' ways of seeing the world and points to their factual nature. It seems to me that it is a mistake to consider these things as being similar.

<6>
[QUOTE from C13 :]

"{4} Morality <7> cannot be expected to be fixed forever, although religions provide guidelines. If we consider religions (and science too) as instruments for humanity rather than as dispensers of truth, communication and eventually agreements might become easier. What do you think of truly global ecumenical efforts ? My own opinion is that such undertakings are essential. Consider for instance the recent conference in Berlin where the Dalai Lama praised the wishes of Catholics and Protestants (and others) for unification. This kind of movement could help humanity, I would say, and it is entirely compatible with 0-D."

<7>
[McCaffrey :]

For the 'detached observer' it may be easy to suggest considering religions as 'instruments for humanity rather than as dispensers of truth', but as I've mentioned earlier, this does away with a lot of what is most important to religious people about their religion - its truth claims. No doubt agreements would become easier.... what people disagree over would have been forcibly removed as a pre-requisite of analysis ! An analogue could be demanding that the Palestinians give up their request for a Palestinian state in order for them to get a seat at the table where they can discuss their future ...

<8>
It's interesting that the Dalai Lama has become the spokesperson for ecumenical understanding - going so far as to say at one point that if science should ever prove Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism would have to change. There are some cynical views out there that suggest that the Dalai Lama is so open to 'new ways of interpreting Buddhism' because, frankly, now that his particular brand of Buddhism is removed from its base and spiritual homeland (Tibet, obviously) it runs the risk of dying out completely - unless it accomodates the dominant views of the time/place/culture where it currently resides (incidentally there is a long history of such accomodation attached to all religions).... Cynical these views may be, but there could also be a grain of truth to them.

<9>
On a personal level though, I support inter-faith dialogue.... it seems the only sensible option to me.... I just don't see how it can continue indefinitely without eroding the basis and offending the followers of many great traditions.

----------------------------------

John McCaffrey