Empiricism, Logic and God
The mind's attempt to know what is beyond the reach of sense perception is called logic.
Reasonable thinking is distinguished from deranged thinking by this factor. The word logic is defined in the dictionary as the study of the rules of exact reasoning, of the forms of sound or valid thought patterns. Its Greek ancestor, lgos, had three aspects of meaning: structured thought, structured speech and the structured appearance of the world. Thus we think of logic as
1) systematic thought
2) expressed in language
3) that accounts for what we know in this world.
But is reality itself objectively logical? At every moment, the telegraphic center of the mind is overloaded with data from the senses. As the mind deciphers this data, logical structures manifest within and outside us. Yet how do we know these structures are not mere assemblages of our imagination that have no foundation in fact? Moreover, the sheer quantity and profundity of tacit sense data challenges the mind's capacity to render it logically explicit. Can we ever fully understand what it all means? Does it even have a meaning?
The cause of an experience does not make sense (ie make it to the senses, so logic is called upon to reach what is beyond the senses). Therefore, why we see the universe in a structured way, why we describe it in words, why we even think rationally about it, remains occult, outside our understanding. So how can we say for sure that existence is logical? Here begins a problem of philosophy which, as expressed by a modern thinker, is
... how are we to distinguish the objective from the merely subjective, if we are not allowed to say what objective truth represents? (Ian Hacking)
Let's try to get a clearer idea of this problem. Suppose I am sitting in my hut with a friend. I hear a strange noise outside and ask him, What is that? I wonder, he replies. Why, it really sounds like there's an ostrich out there. But how could it be? I ask. The ostrich lives in Africa, not India. True. Well, one possibility is that an African ostrich escaped from the Calcutta zoo and wandered up this way. Not very likely, but possible. It's also possible there's a boy out there who's become expert in making ostrich sounds. But then, how could a local boy learn to do that when there are no ostriches native to India? The whole thing is very puzzling. Its strangeness leads me to consider yet another possibility. What's that? I just might be sleeping now. This all could be a dream. Oh come now. You look wide awake to me. Besides, I can hear the sound too. This is not a dream. That I look awake, or that you can hear the sound too, doesn't prove a thing. Both of us might be wide awake and talking in my dream. I could be dreaming you're telling me I'm not dreaming. Get serious. The sound just has to be some boy outside having fun with us by imitating an ostrich. I'll go have a look. You can't go outside. I won't let you. If it is an ostrich, that bird has a nasty kick. But if you don't allow me to go out, how will we say what that noise represents? Look, it might represent an ostrich, a boy, or nothing but a dream. We can't say for sure. After all, what is certain in this life? Life itself could be a grand hallucination. The friend is my mind, the walls are the limits of my senses, and the noise is sense data. The mind moves through three modes of thought in an attempt to logically uncover the cause of the sound. These modes are reflective, creative and critical thinking. In the first, the mind lays out the scope of the problem apparently something outside is making a sound like that of an ostrich. In the second, the mind creates a number of possible causes for the sound an ostrich, a boy or a dream. In the third, the mind critically assesses these possibilities in terms of evidence and logic. But critical thinking leaves us ever-uncertain about what the cause of the sound really is, because we are not allowed to cross beyond the limits of the senses to see what that sound objectively represents. Extreme critical thinking denies us the right to say that there is anything beyond the three modes of thought. This leads to skepticism the suspicion that my experience of the sound, the hut, the whole universe, even my very person, could just be a dream. By what kind of evidence and logic can the critical mind know that the universe exists as an objective fact?
What is required to solve this dilemma is for someone (or something) coming from outside the hut to come and tell us what is going on outside – in other words our senses are limited – our sense of logic is less limited – but if someone comes from outside our realm of limitations with information (like say someone outside the hut) to engage with us, then we can know. This is the unique position of the saintly person and the scripture (In a specific sense, lets say the Vedas, since I can confidently answer challenges – in a broader sense, let’s say representatives of transcendence). In other words for as long as one does not have access to these things , one will be left to one’s own devices (logic and sense perception) which are inherently incapable of discerning the truth of the universe (ie the cause of our direct perception or alternatively anything conclusive by critical thinking)
