In the last blogpost, we covered the A and B theories of time. I also mentioned the fact that
the A-theory, being the theory most comfortable with our tensed language, is
the most intuitive.[1]
But there is another issue to consider. Is belief in the A-theory of time
properly basic? More explicitly, is belief that things are objectively coming
into and going out of existence—that time is really passing—properly basic?
First, we should
understand proper basicality. I’m not going to explain the whole thing here (I
actually want to keep this somewhat brief). However, I will say that some
belief is properly basic when one is rational for holding the belief, even if
he does not have evidential, non-circular justification for it. Consider, for
example, the laws of logic (specifically let’s take the law of
noncontradiction). Suppose you cannot quite explain why the law of noncontradiction
holds. Suppose (as is the case) you cannot give non-circular justification for
why you believe this law. Are you irrational for holding it? No, in fact you
are at the height of rationality in holding it, and would be in the depths of
irrationality in so denying it. When one tries to articulate the justification
for her beliefs, there will come a stopping point (that is, when she tries to
spell out just how she knows that she knows, for example). That stopping point
is most plausibly a foundation. Some belief is foundational, then, as it is
properly basic. Other beliefs may be quite right and rational to hold, but they
will be properly based—that is, they will be deduced from properly basic
beliefs (or at least can be).
This isn’t to
say that properly basic beliefs cannot be defeated; they certainly can. It is a
properly basic belief to take one’s perceptive faculties as delivering the
truth of the world around you; generally, you can trust what you see as being
true. However, this doesn’t mean your eyes can never play tricks on you, or
that you can never be wrong. It appears, from our view, that the sun rises; but
our best science says that is mistaken.
So, is the
A-theory like this? Is belief that time passes such that it is properly basic? Well,
it seems that it is. It’s quite intuitive to think that there is such a thing
as “now,” and that tensed language describes the truth of the matter. Combining
this view with a view of warranted true belief (a theory of knowledge) called
proper functionalism will illustrate this.
Proper
functionalism is the view that a belief is warranted just in case it is
produced by cognitively reliable faculties operating in a proper epistemic
environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth. Our cognitive
faculties do seem to be generally reliable, which is helpful for survival. And,
we do operate in an appropriate epistemic environment in general. However, what
about the belief that tensed language is true? Is our environment proper for
that? I don’t see that we’re in an epistemic environment that’s inappropriate
(for example, we don’t have reason to think that an evil demon is manipulating
our thoughts so that we merely think time is passing in such a way). And, for
Christians especially, we have good reason to think that the design plan is
successfully aimed at truth. So it seems then, that the A-theory is both
properly basic and stands as warranted, in the absence of a defeater.[2]
Now some may
protest: “But won’t this mean just any
belief counts as warranted, so long as you believe it?” No, for a number of
reasons: first, there are defeaters for any number of beliefs. Second, there
are beliefs formed from improperly functioning cognitive faculties (such as
would be the case were I suddenly to form the belief that I had made myself
invisible through a loud whooshing noise). We could go on, but it wouldn’t be
the case that just any and all beliefs would be permissible.
Tensed language
is an important part of our lives, and I suspect that it’s nearly impossible to
rid ourselves of, even while paying lipservice to the B-theory. Thus, I hold to
the A-theory as a quite intuitive one!
[1] I realize this is
controversial, and one could be forgiven for claiming that this theory is no
more intuitive than the one where spacetime exists as a four-dimensional block.
But I submit such a view is not really intuitive at all; rather, it is a view that
has been ingrained in us by years of repetition and education. This is not a bad thing, but it’s not intuition.
It’s a presupposition—taken for
granted, perhaps—but not an intuition.
[2] Of course, one may
shrug her shoulders and simply say, “Well, I’ve got your defeater right here.”
So be it. My main concern is that belief in the A-theory is properly basic, or
at least warranted in the lack of a good defeater.