The subjectivity of objective proof (part 1)
Our worldview has an extreme impact on how we live. Everything which we experience in life will be interpreted in terms of our underlying assumptions. Those assumptions (or presuppositions) are not justified prior to holding them, but rather they must be show to be rationally held within the worldview after it has been established. Those same assumptions also guide how we view evidences. If one holds to a supernatural worldview, then the supernatural is certainly allowable in the world. If, however, one holds to a natural worldview then all things must necessarily be the cause of natural forces. Therefore, differences between interpretations of evidence will ultimately come down to our own worldview.Knowing this, it seems curious to say the least that it is possible to speak of the “objective” proof of something. Our worldview will taint everything which we believe. In fact, our worldview is ultimately the very thing to which we must appeal when we seek to prove something. To take it even a step further, it is impossible to ultimately prove anything non-circularly because statements of fact can (and will) be brought down to the basic level of from where we derive knowledge (our ultimate epistemic authority). And this must, necessarily, appeal back to our own worldview.
We may suppose that simple things such as arithmetic proofs can be proven objectively. After all, who can object to the idea that 1 + 1 = 2? That simple concept, though, requires that we assume many things, such as the universality of logic, the persistent nature of logic, the objectivity (assuming such a thing exists, which begs the question) of logic, the existence of abstract concepts, the ability to trust our own senses, etc. And all those things must come from our own worldview.
(I should note here that while objective proof is impossible, this does not mean that objective truth is similarly impossible or non-existent. Objective truth certainly exists; however, it cannot be proven outside its own worldview.)
Knowing this, how can anything be proven? Quite simply, it cannot. Nothing can be proven unless the parties debating agree upon certain premises (common ground) or both parties share the same worldview. Going from philosophy to apologetics (which are not at all far separated), the question becomes: how do we debate with unbelievers regarding the objective truth of God if objective proof is not possible? Do believers and unbelievers truly have common ground? Does common ground even exist in the debate regarding the existence of God?
This is getting too long so I think I’ll just post this one part first.
posted by Josh @ 1:16 AM
Comments: 0
