Origins 15(2):49-51 (1988).
EDITORIAL
Molière, the famous French author, wrote an incisive comedy
entitled "The Forced Marriage" (1). The play, which had been written at the
request of King Louis XIV, was an immediate success, and occasionally France's most
opulent king even participated in its presentation. This comedy addresses some of the
foibles of humanity in a humorous, but instructive and not so subtle, context. In the
story, a rich, mature gentleman wonders whether he should marry a young maiden who is
primarily interested in his wealth. He seeks the advice of several individuals, including
two philosophers. The first philosopher is Aristotelian and is so concerned about his own
opinions, his philosophy, and the definitions of terms that the poor gentleman cannot
communicate to him the reality of his practical problem. He departs disappointed and seeks
advice from a skeptic philosopher. In introducing himself he informs this philosopher that
he has come for advice; whereupon the philosopher replies: "Pray change this mode of
speaking Our philosophy enjoins us not to enunciate a positive proposition, but to speak
of everything dubiously, and always to suspend our judgment. For this reason, you should
not say, I am come, but it seems that I am come." An extended discussion follows as
to whether the gentleman has really come or if it only appears that he has come. Further
factual statements from the gentleman are met with deprecating comments such as "it
may be so", or "it is not impossible", and "that may be." The
philosopher refuses to address the gentleman's real question. Tension arises, and
compelling reality suddenly appears when the exasperated "gentleman" attacks the
philosopher who responds with yells and vexed comments. Informing the gentleman that it is
an insolence and outrage to beat a philosopher like him, he threatens to appeal to the
magistrate. The gentleman appropriately answers: "Pray, correct this manner of
speaking. We are to doubt everything; and you ought not to say that I have beaten you, but
it seems I have beaten you." Subsequent argumentation provides the gentleman with
further opportunity to reply to the philosopher with the same uncertain statements he has
just heard. The philosopher, who is positive that he has been beaten, rehears comments
such as "it may be so" and "it is not impossible." The gentleman is
proudly instructing the philosopher about the foibles of skepticism.
Our present intellectual milieu does not appear to be all that
different from some of the foibles of Molière's time. Relativism, agnosticism, and
skepticism are respected, while certainty and truth appear to be endangered. It is
fashionable to question almost anything. Doubts appear to be encouraged for their own
sake, even when they have little else to contribute except further doubts.
This attitude, without doubt, in part encouraged Mark Twain to quip,
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue
their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
Absolute truth, i.e., that which is — in other words, actuality or
reality —, is degraded by the presently accepted philosophy of relativism which holds
that no absolutes exist. Agnosticism — the idea that the answer to ultimate questions
is "I don't know" — scarcely fares better. This philosophy runs the risk of
missing any ultimate reality, because of refusal to come to any conclusion. It may seem
wise to keep an open mind on ultimate issues, but "many an open mind has revealed a
vacant lot." More significant is the avoidance of disagreeable or painful decisions
by resorting to agnosticism. This is sometimes referred to as the convenience of
agnosticism. Skepticism, which encourages an attitude of doubt towards much, can also
paralyze the truth-searching-and-finding process. When we come to a point of decision
between two views, we can do one of three things. We can opt for one view or for the
other, or we can decide not to decide. Skepticism encourages the latter, and when no
decision is made, progress can be hampered.
A recent article in the journal Nature entitled "Where
Science Has Gone Wrong" (2) bemoans the loss of certainty in science. An attitude has
developed that science is not an objective search for truth but more of a transient
sojourn through ever-changing ideas. The authors attribute the loss of financial support
for science in England and the rise of the creation movement in the United States to this
lack of certainty. As soon as a new idea is proposed, it is usually challenged. If science
is not finding truth, what is its ultimate value? My personal opinion is that science does
discover truth, albeit a number of false pathways may be taken along the way, but current
agnosticism, relativism and skepticism would tend to deny this, and scientific truth is
endangered.
In academic pursuits, how often we are satisfied with just presenting
several views and not bringing our study to a conclusion. Too often our research ends up
with a plurality, of possibilities. This is doubtless part of the basis for the
traditional satirical "maybe" as the final conclusion of the typical doctoral
dissertation.
There is no question that a firm case can be made for not accepting
many ideas and that in the presence of a plethora of concepts, investigation and caution
are virtues. Also, there is room for legitimate suspension of judgment because of lack of
information. In working out truth, we should be reasonable and balance our acceptance of
ideas with careful inquiry. There is room for questioning, but everything does not have to
be questioned forever, and the all-important task of sorting out truth from error should
not fall a victim to fruitless skepticism. Sound scholarship can afford to make room for
truth. We do not need to relegate ourselves needlessly to that realm of the
"maybe" where everything seems, but nothing is.
Sometimes our doubting game comes face to face with the reality of
plain cold facts, such as the collision between an iceberg and the Titanic. If our car is
stolen, its existence and concepts of ownership become real; if we are late and miss a
plane, time also becomes very real. Our fashionable questioning can also be jarred by the
reality of having someone physically attack a skeptic philosopher! (Incidentally, in
Molière's comedy, the relatives of the young lady forced the rich man to marry her!) A
divorce or the pardoning of the criminal can remind us that moral values, integrity and
forgiveness are also a part of reality. Sometimes in the midst of all our doubts reality
confronts us and commands our respect, and if there is reality, there is truth.
Truth exists, and we will not arrive at it by doubting everything. The
one who doubts everything certainly does not have as much to offer as the one seeking for
truth.
Relativism, agnosticism, and skepticism reduce truth to uncertainty
while assuming exceptions for themselves. These ideas cannot claim any degree of assurance
of being correct, while their own tenets would enjoin that we be uncertain about almost
everything significant, which would include these propositions themselves. If you do not
believe in anything, can you be consistent and believe that you do not believe in
anything?
Reality is there, truth exists, and a satisfying degree of certitude is
possible. While we must be cautious in not accepting as true that which will not bear
careful scrutiny, truth should not fall a victim to prevalent concepts of uncertainty.
Truth is so important that we should actively protect its right to exist.
LITERATURE CITED
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New
| Resources
| Search
| Links
|