Leaving Truth

by Keith Sewell

"Leaving Truth" offers a radically new, and potentially conclusive, contribution to our ancient science vs. religion debate. It is a collection of four essays, one main and three subsidiary. The collection addresses how we can select proposals as knowledge, and the limitations from that on the kinds of proposals that we can select. It clearly demonstrates that we have been maintaining our concept "truth" either redundantly or as an independent and reason-antithetical basis for knowledge, and that the proposals of all of our authoritarian systems of emotionally seductive irrational knowledge -- in particular, but not limited to, our theistic religions -- can only be maintained from this basis. "Leaving Truth" suggests that our past 250 years of progress in epistemology can be summarized through the injunction that we should stop asking of any knowledge proposal, "Is this ‘true'?" and start asking instead, "Can I coherently qualify this as knowledge?" It then illustrates how and why our theists cannot do this for their proposals. Its logical core demonstrates that both of the modern epistemological developments that are broadly assumed by theists and atheists alike to support the theists' position (David Hume's dismissal of Induction as our basis for "objective proof", and Karl Popper's demonstration that science can provide only "best present" knowledge, as opposed to certainty) do not do so. Readers will see that these developments instead undercut the theists' position at a level from which they cannot answer. Most simply, that from a clear understanding of the central essay's main points there can be no coherent return to acceptance of any of our authoritarian irrational knowledge systems. In this sense I believe that "Leaving Truth" offers atheists and free-thinkers a prospect for achievement of the kind clear victory at the intellectual/academic level that we have not dared to hope for since collapse of the Radical Enlightenment.

74 pages, ebook

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Leland Beaumont · Rating 3 out of 5]

Could it be that truth itself is the problem child? Plato defined knowledge as justified true beliefs. But author Keith Sewell believes that including truth in that definition is either redundant or absurd. If we define truth as justified beliefs, then it is clearly redundant. If we define truth as something different, perhaps as unjustified beliefs, then we are leaving the definition open to an arbitrary range of indefensible claims.

Applying the now-revised formula Knowledge = justified belief requires only an effective procedure for determining what is justified and what is not. Calling this a knowledge selection procedure (KSP), he states that it must meet these three conditions:

1. It must function to separate proposals into those that are justified and those that are not,
2. It must select at most one of various logically exclusive proposals, and
3. It has to be feasible to apply

As an example he presents his own KSP as a hierarchy of five rules based primarily on on-demand repeatable physical observation, his own observations, and reliable testimony offered in good faith by an unbiased expert. He challenges us to write our own KSP and to improve on his if we are unwilling to adopt his.

He proposes that conflicts are best resolved at the level of the governing KSP, and therefore presenting each proponent’s KSP is the logical prerequisite to any productive dialogue undertaken to resolve a disagreement. There is no reason to present specific proposals until both parties can agree on some clear governing KSP.

Equipped with our KSP statements, the dialogue can then proceed with careful statements in the form of: “I believe X because it passes the following test established by my KSP.” Disagreements are then resolved by examining the justification given in the context of the accepted KSP. There is no longer any need to tolerate “talking past” each other because we know why we believe what we believe and can defend it on that basis.

Before exploring the practical implications of leaving truth he challenges skeptics by asking “exactly what more do you guys mean by your ‘truths’?” If there is a coherent answer he agrees to listen and apologize, if not then we can safely dismiss the truth illusion and accept only justified beliefs as knowledge. With untethered faith no longer presenting a challenge to reason, he goes on to dismiss theist dogma. This he believes will help clear the way for humans to face and better solve the grand challenges such as poverty, famine, war, violent conflict, and other miseries, that have persisted throughout humanity. He quotes Voltaire: “Those who continue to believe absurdities will continue to commit atrocities.” There is no need to reject subjective and emotionally appealing works; however we need to identify them as art rather than as knowledge.

This rather short book often resorts to erudite language and difficult logic to defend its thought provoking thesis. I look forward to seeing a more accessible treatment of the core thesis that would promote wider acceptance and application of these ideas.

[Jimagn · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author clearly spells out a logical flaw in Western thinking. The challenge for the reader is to comprehend the flaw and accept it as such, the flaw being such an inherent part of our thinking and culture. The writing is a bit confrontational, though mixed with good humor. Sewell and Epicurus would have had some grand discussions! The human race needs to grow up and embrace science and logic and leave behind flawed thinking and the vestiges of our evolution that may lead to our own extinction.

[S.L. Moore · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was an interesting read, but I really wasn't captivated by it. I wouldn't say it leads to a potentially conclusive truth, but it does help give the reader something to think about. While I prefer The God Delusion, this book holds its own weight.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Parts I found very difficult, a thought provoking thesis, some parts fascinating . Loved the cuddly kitten story. The crystal clear blue bit sounded good, not as clear ( to me s I was hoping ). As an extended essay for $3.99 well worth the price.