The truth is (I hesitate to use the term truth, however, I can't think of a better word), I and no one else can ever know if I or anyone has been wrong about speculative matters. I believe what I want and no one can prove me otherwise because it's my belief against that person's belief.
Now, maybe my opinions have changed over time, and I can say to myself "I was wrong back then. I'm right now". I'll go out and ask some people if they agree with me. If they do, I'll say to myself "Look at all these people that agree with me. Now, I know I'm right", but really, it's just a new belief.
This is one of the ideas which James presents (in a much clearer way than my distorted drivel) in "The Will to Believe". He also makes an argument for making a decision on belief in religion (tweaking and expanding on Pascal's wager) in lieu of (i) not believing anything due to fear of making an erroneous decision or (ii) waiting for "objective evidence" to somehow appear.
The point is, no one has ever agreed on how to define "truth" and every opinion has a counter-opinion. For potentially life-altering choices like the religious decision, we cannot afford to wait on evidence. Probably won't get any in our lifetime. For decisions relating to physical sciences, we can wait on evidence. Those matters aren't important.
"We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist, through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? Be strong and of a good courage. Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes...If death ends all, we cannot meet death better".
No comments:
Post a Comment