Short, but potent blog post about philosophical matters. It got me thinking in the morning and here was my response therein:
While science can tell us that we perceive; it has no ability to discern that what we perceive is rightness or wrongness. I find it saddening that naturalism is a predominant philosophical school of thought among many in the discipline. In other words, anything beyond what science can get at it via the five senses is not worth looking at.
I digress, but I too agree that there exist a capital “t” Truth out there beyond our own subjectivity. We definitely do not want to suggest matters of rightness and wrongness pivot upon our own subjective perception. Not only is that highly problematic morally, but it downgrades our humanness. That is, the whole point of “discovering the Truth” is to do so together; it’s not a solitary endeavor.
Maybe it’s semantics, but I immediately locked in on the “leap of faith” ending to your post. I don’t see it as a leap of faith but rather a dialogue between people to discern what is right and what is wrong. In doing so, one provides logical reasons and support for why they think this is right or this is wrong. Not to ramble on too much, but that’s not to suggest either that morality is a matter of majority consensus.
Why can’t we confidently declare that logic is the lens through which reality is universally discerned? Because that’s all it is. A lens. A complex system of measurements, premises, and rules based on perception. Yes, it’s really only perception, and science itself proves it. Our brains perceive. Perception is not reality. Perception embraces reality in its own way. Logic is the arbiter of parts of the truth. But the truth as a whole? Now that’s a leap of FAITH.