We all have unproven Presuppositions

Does man have pure access to reality? Meaning does he interprets the objective facts as they truly are or does he condition them with his methods of thinking? These are interesting questions which not many people take time to ask.
Do facts come straight into our minds already interpreted or do we interpret what we see? As it is minds that think and do the interpreting, it is man that interprets what he sees. There are different kinds of methods that we use to interrupt reality. They consist of rationalism, Empiricism, subjectivism and irrationalism. We live in a world that is very much more interested in Reason than in blind Faith’s. But what I hope to show latter is that all three views are based on Faith. The battle is not against Reason VS Faith, but Faith VS Faith.

When we come to use one of these methods for attaining knowledge, we must also remember that these methods are also conditioned upon our metaphysical presuppositions. All of us think out of and through a worldview. A worldview is based on preconceived ideas and theories, which we presumed to be true before we even start thinking. These presuppositions condition every thing we interpret. Presupposition are basically first principles, we do not prove but just assume. Every person must have does have a framework through which he understands the world as a system and his relation to it. Everyone by necessity has a particular way of looking at the world, which serves to organize ideas about the world in his mind. Any rational act by definition operates in terms of a particular outlook on the world. Lacking an interpretive worldview would be like looking at the world with out any context. Presuppositions provide the authoritative standards by which you evaluate life issues.

A worldview is a lens in which every belief is filtered through and understood.
Some of these include,
Materialism, that all that exist is the material world of matter (That the spiritual realm does not exist)

Atheism, that there is no God.

Pantheism, that all reality is God.

Buddhism, that reality is an illusion.

Evolution, that the universe has evolved by chance.

Rationalism, that all-true knowledge comes through logical formulas.

Empiricism, that all-true knowledge comes from observation of the senses.

Subjectivism, that all knowledge is based on subjective experience and feelings.

All of these worldviews are lenses in which people interpret the world they see. No one is neutral, the Atheist, Christian or materialist has presuppositions which shape how they interpret reality. We all bring prior beliefs to reality, beliefs we have not proven but are our starting points in thinking. As I said, it is mind’s that interprets what they see by the concepts and ideas in their heads. We label reality with our labels and descriptions. First principles are the foundation of knowledge. The problem comes down to who has the right interpretation of reality. Is reality that easy to define? Does description ever discover facts out -side our minds or is all knowledge condition by our presuppositions?

The truth is without God there is no objective facts out in the world for man to know (this will be explained latter). For all man is doing is describing his own mental states and this is subjectivism. If knowledge is limited to rationality, empiricism or subjectivism then we will know only about our minds and not about the real world.

Lets take the worldview of materialism for moment, if there is no God then the world is impersonal and has evolved by chance. Reality has no basic interpretation or meaning for being here. Our minds have been created by random irrational reactions from the process of evolution. In this worldview why should we think that reasoning and logical formulas should correspond to the outside world? And why should our reasoning be rational if irrational forces of evolution have created it?

Nothing follows from the laws of logic, taken alone, except possibly more laws of logic. From propositions about our mental states, nothing follows except further propositions about our own mental states. If we start with our own first principles, which we have to get thinking started, we have already preconditioned its conclusions. The conclusions must follow necessarily from the premises. If this is the case then our first premises, which cannot be proved becomes the final authority in all things. This makes rationalism and empiricism no different than subjectivism and no better than Faith. All these views have become as dogmatic as blind Faith. Knowledge then comes down to Faith VS Faith.