In the current context of modern society there are many different views as to how the world works. As a result of a discussion on the topic it became clear that my thinking was not coherent. This writing is an attempt to remedy that. Here I attempt to clearly state my reasoning on the subject of morals and their basis. My views here are not primarily based on research, but rather on my own thinking and is, therefore, unlikely to be complete or comprehensive. However the book “The Universe Next Door” by James W. Sire is an excellent and well researched book on the topic of world-views. Furthermore “Mere Christianity” by C. S. Lewis is an excellent introduction to practical Christian theism. He engages with some of the arguments presented for and against Christian theism.
When starting a discussion on any topic, especially one in science or philosophy, it is important to start by defining terms and then assumptions.
This concept refers to the way the universe works. Thus to know the truth is to know how the universe operates in its present state. Here we are concerned with a high level of truth, we are not concerned with the many practical details. It is worth noting that much of the field of philosophy is dedicated to this topic. Furthermore all investigative science is dedicated to this topic. However in research we are often more concerned with the fine detail of the Truth rather than the broad picture of human history, society and individuals.
This refers to the capacity to "change our destiny". To act significantly is to have our actions result in some change in the universe.
Firstly I must state that I hold Christian theism to be true. It is unfair for me to start without stating this. However I still hope to treat the subject at hand fairly.
Secondly I am assuming that humans have the capacity to know and to know the truth. This is the basis for all science. We assume that we can, with reason, discern the workings of reality in a fairly accurate, reliable and independent way. Here I am further assuming that you and I can both observe a part of the Truth and share our understanding in a reasonable way.
Thirdly I am assuming that the universe in orderly. This is also a fundamental assumption of science. It says that if we repeat an experiment we should achieve the same result each time, more or less.
This view can be stated as: Somehow the universe started. Since then everything has been strongly governed by the laws of cause and effect. That is to say that the universe is strongly ordered. So ordered that given the same starting point the same result will happen no matter when or where the starting point is taken. Another way of stating it is that if the entire state of the universe could be known at any point in time then all future points in time could be predicted, although the task would be awesomely complex.
The first, obvious, consequence of this is that the final destination of the universe was determined when the universe began. This leads to the further observation that neither humans, nor anything else for that matter, can act significantly. Determinism saps all significance out of everything. All our actions are determined so none of them are “significant”.
This incapacity to act significantly removes any basis for morals. Morals are based on some set of values, some set of knowing better from worse. However any action we take we where always going to action. Thus doing anything merely is. It is not good or bad, it just is. Going to prison is no worse than not going to prison. Discovering great insights into the universe (which is not necessarily possible) is no better than just lying down to die, for none of these actions are our own. We are just a part of the universe. In the deterministic world view there is no room for responsibility, there is no better or worse there only is.
Secondly determinacy means that all our knowledge is not knowledge at all but rather just a part of the universe. More simply put, what we “know” is mealy the result of cause and effect. There is no reason why what we know should in any way represent the Truth. For example we could think and say that gravity pulls us toward massive objects, however there is no reason why this should be the case, gravity could not exist and we could actually be floating around in a void observing through senses which feed us fictional information saying that in fact we are on a massive body interacting with other beings.
As a result of this all communication becomes futile. There is no way of knowing that we are really talking, it could just be an illusion. Indeed our perception that it could be an illusion could itself be an illusion and we could really know the Truth!
This argument is self decaying. In a determined system there is no escape, there is no way of knowing, and there is no significance to any action. In short determinism leads to Nihilism.
Nihilism is eloquently stated by the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as: Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
By this definition it is seen that determinism leads into nihilism. Indeed it seems to be the only possible conclusion of determinism. One of the interesting consequences I observed in myself, and have been told about from others, is that reaching this conclusion (nihilism) feels like a personal enlightenment not reached clearly by most of the rest of humanity. This is reasonable as the rest of humanity just living their lives as they see fit appears so brutally inconsistent with determinism that so many of them profess. It logically follows that they could not have found this enlightenment which I had found. However this logic has a couple of flaws. Firstly the Friedrich Nietzsche (One of the early thinkers of Nihilism) predicted that nihilism would become a world crisis (it did to some extent), which shows that clearly he thought that many people would think like that. Secondly if you observe I observed my own actions they did not appear to be all that consistent with nihilism, what does nihilistic behaviour look like? As such the whole world could be nihilistic in belief and we would not know if they did not tell us, which would then be inconsistent! Nihilism says that we cannot even know nihilism.
Unfortunately the observed world does not strongly agree with nihilism, as evidenced by the existence of the present discussion. And yet even this does not defeat nihilism for nihilism says that this is a reasonable way for the universe to exist as there is no good reason for the universe to be reasonable. However despite the belief that we cannot know or communicate most of us continue to do this anyway, more than that most of us continue to live in with respect to some set of implicit values. A basic example of this is trying achieve anything. By trying to achieve something implicitly we are stating that achieving it is better than not achieving it. This is inconvenient, through nihilism we are convinced that we cannot know or communicate anything but in our bodies and minds we seem to default to assuming we can know and communicate. How can we resolve this?
One common answer is what I call existentialism. (This may not be the correct term.)
Existentialism, as far as I can gather, says: I know I cannot know anything, cannot communicate and that there is no basis for any values, however that is not my day to day experience. Indeed I regularly go out and buy my coffee which requires knowledge of where the shops are and communication with other people. Furthermore in engaging with the other people I am polite and friendly and do not do anything particularly bad to them because it seems like the right way to do it. In short the world does not seem nihilistic, so bugger it I’m going to live as though I can know, communicate and that there is some set of values I can live by.
This seems to be a fairly good way to live, but it is not consistent and does not answer the rather difficult fact of nihilism, which sits and waits reminding you of its truth. I imagine that it has a nasty tendency to come out at inconvenient time, like when you’ve achieved something particularly impressive or when someone has not given you the recognition you ‘deserve’. In doing so it is inclined to sap a lot of the colour out of life. Further more this does not give a solid basis for morals. Here whatever feels right is what is right, which means that anything or nothing can be right or better. We have not escaped nihilism at all, we have merely abandoned the discussion.
The answer to this is to look for some absoluter, some Truth that we ca know for certain, on which we can build everything else.
One famous attempt at an absolute was: “Cognito ergo sum” by Rene Descartes. When directly translated this comes essentially to: I think therefore I am. The think here referees to being aware of oneself, or being able to doubt. This is a valiant attempt and indeed at first glance seems to have achieved what we sought. It seems logical, when I consider myself I am sure I exist. Surly if I did not exist I could not consider myself. This statement is very intuitive and so is easy to accept. However it does not actually get us anywhere.
There is nothing stopping our awayness of ourselves or our doubts being fictional sensations fed into our brain’s by some chemical process. This argument is just hiding behind a compelling piece of intuition, which could be a fictional entity. So we have gone nowhere, we are still without an absolute.
One of the key insights this shows us is that any absolute we do find we cannot know because we have to engage with it through our senses, which we cannot trust. And so, even here, we are defeated by nihilism.
To conclude from our starting point of determinism we find that we cannot know or communicate and that there is no basis for and values. But how did we get here? Through logic and general “knowing”, thus our argument is inconsistent. We know that we cannot know! Thus it is an invalid conclusion.
So let us re-evaluate our initial assumptions, and try again.
As a side thought notice that determinism and nihilism do not say that the universe does not have a purpose, rather they say that we cannot know or change that purpose.
Observe a brick. A brick certainly cannot act significantly, indeed it struggles to act at all. However when a brick is made and then used to build a beautiful cathedral it certainly has a purpose. It was carefully brought into existence, then baked and then laid with care atop other bricks so as to help separate the inside from the out and to support those bricks above it which, in turn, support the roof. Thus the brick has a rather specific purpose. However if observed from the brick’s point of view the whole think could be pointless, especially if the brick tried to define its purpose with respect to itself. It just is a hardened conglomerate of sand sitting around in the baking sun waiting for something to happen, with no control over, or knowledge of, what will happen!
Our existence can have a purpose, even under determinism. However that purpose would have to be defined in terms of something else, something different from the universe. Ideally something greater than the universe, something with some form of control over the universe.