Is the Principle of Sufficient Reason a Necessary Truth or a Contingent One?
Since it can’t be proven it cannot but be contingent - at least so it seems to me.
Proving it logically would require knowledge of every single cause and every single effect. This is not achievable in practice, and thus suggests that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is contingent rather than necessary. It is contingent on the non-existence of an uncaused first cause; if such a cause exists, it cannot abide by the principal of sufficient reason and is therefore falsified.
What is the Principle of Sufficient Reason?
The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. It asserts that for every thing, there must be a reason which is sufficient in itself to explain its existence. This idea is reminiscent of the concept that everything must have had a cause. Both assertions are fundamentally flawed, yet valid for everyday circumstances.
The Daily Application of the Principle
Consider days. In most cases, we believe that every day had a preceding day. However, if there was a first day, it would have no preceding day. The reasoning that falsifies the principle of sufficient reason goes as follows: reality exists, but there can be no logical reason for its existence. Reality, by definition, is all there is, so there is nothing outside reality to explain its existence.
Yet, the principle works well in most everyday circumstances. If money vanishes from your bank account, you can bet that there is a sufficient reason for the event. This principle is a key facet of human reasoning and is foundational to scientific inquiry and philosophical truth-seeking.
The Role of the Word “Sufficient” in the Principle
Some argue that the term "sufficient" tilts the principle toward the contingent. It suggests that while there must be a reason, that reason may not be known or fully understood. The principle works as a necessary precondition for knowledge, but the sufficiency of that reason can be contingent upon the observer or the context.
Philosophical Implications and Controversies
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle. It stipulates that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. This principle has significant implications for science, metaphysics, and epistemology.
Science, at its core, is a search for natural explanations. However, as philosopher G. W. Leibniz noted, there are limits to this search. The heart has reasons the mind knows not, and sometimes the purpose of reason is to recognize that certain things are beyond immediate explanation. The principle of sufficient reason asserts that we must believe that things are knowable, reasonable, or logical to pursue knowledge.
Necessary for all knowledge is the assumption of sufficiency, a principle that relies on faith. Even in science and mathematics, you cannot know nonsensical, contradictory things. It is necessary for all knowledge that we adhere to the law of non-contradiction, a principle attributed to Aristotle. Without the principle of sufficient reason, knowledge would be chaotic, nonsensical, whimsical, capricious, arbitrary, and unknowable.
The sufficiency of the principle of sufficient reason is dependent upon the observer or partaker. If you do not believe in God, for example, all things are up for grabs. There are no absolutes, and no reason to claim anything as having an absolute truth value unless you put an infinite reference point to it.
According to the Bible, Proverbs 16:4 suggests that everything has a purpose or creation is teleological. In the beginning, there was the Word: reason, law, rule, principle, logic, order, purpose, and John 1:1 encapsulates this idea. God, the all-sufficient One, is the only non-contingent Being, and everything depends upon Him, who needs nothing or no one. Acts 17:25 underscores this with the statement that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.
In conclusion, whether the principle of sufficient reason is a necessary truth or a contingent one is a matter of philosophical debate. The principle serves as a foundational stepping stone for knowledge, but the sufficiency of that reason can be contingent upon the individual's perspective and context.