WHAT CAN WE KNOW? (Week 2)

This seems like a bit of a silly question to some, but it is one that has been on the minds of philosophers for generations, and it is necessary to answer before we embark on any discussion. Most of you are familiar with Descartes’ statement, “I think; therefore, I am.” Many, however, are not familiar with the philosophical analysis that led to this statement or with the reason statement is important. Descartes posed to himself this week’s question: What can we know? He began systematically questioning everything that mankind considered to be knowledge. His analysis went something like this:
- Can I trust what others tell me of the physical world? After all, I did not carry out these experiments myself. So, the answer is no. Knowledge from others is not true knowledge.
- For that matter, what if I carried out an experiment and I saw the result with my own eyes? My eyes have deceived me before. So, my eyes cannot be trusted implicitly.
- For that matter, even if my eyes properly relayed information, how can I trust my brain to properly interpret it? I know of people who are insane. What if I am among the insane and I don’t know it? My brain cannot be trusted implicitly either.
Descartes finally came to the logical conclusion that only one thing can be known for each individual: Nothingness cannot think. I think. Therefore, I am not nothingness. Descartes used logic to determine that something was certainly real: I think; therefore, I am.

In a response to my last blog, Steven posed the question, “Does a falling tree in the woods always make a compression wave? Without an observer we cannot know for sure….” Descartes would take it one step further and argue that even with an observer, we cannot know for sure. Philosophically, there is a great deal of merit to Descartes’ questions. He certainly was not the first to question whether anything could truly be known and (as Steven thoughtfully demonstrated) he certainly will not be the last.

I think it is important for the purpose of our discussion, however, that we not set limits that are so harsh that we preclude any argument. Again, this is not to say that Descartes or Plato were ridiculous when they questioned truth; rather, I am saying that if nothing can be known, there is really no point to any discussion/debate. The fact that we do debate these things means that we have all accepted that logic and reason can lead us to truth. Else, why discuss at all? If you insist that truth cannot be known, that’s fine, but I urge you to seek the most reasonable explanation nonetheless. At least that way you will increase your chances of being right. A year from now, if you believe that this blog presents the most reasonable explanation, you can still opt for a less reasonable or less likely alternative. Likewise, if compelling evidence were to show that Christ is not the man from Messianic prophecies, my choice to believe would have to be based on something other than reason. It is important, though, that we understand that which we have chosen.

CHRIST ON TRIAL

I think that we should view these discussions in the same manner that we would a criminal trial. The question of “what can we know?” then morphs into “What is most reasonable?”
Reasonable: sensible, logical, rational, sound.
I assert that Christ was God and that he walked on the earth. As such, my role is basically that of the prosecution. Over the course of this year, I will attempt to “convict” Jesus of being God. If you contest this claim (or if you simply want to play devil’s advocate… no pun intended… ooh, I just noticed that was a double pun), your role is that of the defense. You need only provide “reasonable doubt.” For many of my non-Christian friends, I imagine that such a challenge brings a smile to your face. If you do participate, though, keep in mind that it would benefit you to provide REASONABLE doubt… not just doubt. It takes little effort to doubt, but it can take a great deal of effort to provide reasonable alternatives. It is important to remember that your role is not akin to the mother of a murderer. If you come into the trial with the thought that no matter what you hear, you will not believe in God or in Christ or in the Bible, then nothing I say (no matter how reasonable) will sway you.

Some common unreasonable arguments:

1. I can’t believe in a God who allows evil.
I would assert that if insurmountable evidence points to the existence of God, but that everything we discover points to an “evil God” (and I’m not saying that this is the case), you can’t negate the evidence because you don’t want to believe in this particular God. The evidence would remain intact regardless of God’s character.

2. I refuse to believe in the supernatural.
Great! You’re a naturalist. You’ll probably want to check out another blog, though. If God exists, His very existence is supernatural. Refusing to believe in the supernatural is tantamount to refusing to believe in God. It is unsound to say that you don’t believe in God because you don’t believe in God.

3. If God is as powerful as you say He is, He would not care about someone as insignificant as me, so all religion is moot.
I won’t address all of the arguments pertaining to the psyche of God, but many people don’t believe in God because they refuse to believe that He would act the way He does. Throughout this year, my approach will be very systematic. The first task is to establish that it is reasonable that God exists. We can delve into His psyche only after we have reasonably illustrated his being. There are methods that God employs that I do not understand, but I don’t believe we should discount His existence because of it. If we show through reason that God exists, we should strive to better understand these actions.

4. Most monotheistic religions describe a heaven and a hell. I refuse to believe that if one religion is right, those who practice another religion – no matter how good they are – are going to hell.
Again, we should examine the question of God’s existence first. We can look at the merits of hell later.

Basically, the unreasonable arguments are those that preclude the existence of God on the basis of implications that are logical (if not desirable). This is simply not sound. If God exists, the implications are for us to try to understand. You may even find that the implications are more reasonable than you ever knew. By the same token, I won’t use arguments such as “I can’t imagine a world without God,” and I won’t use my personal revelations as truth. The tools that I will use are the same as those used by scientists throughout the world: logic, reason, observation, and expert testimony (for instance, I will call upon documented archeological evidence, even though I did not conduct any digs myself). These tools are considered appropriate in any other academic endeavor and I think we should hold the same standard here. If we use the trial example, this is the “defense” you should try to avoid:
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have heard evidence that there were 12 witnesses who saw my client shoot the victim. The DNA evidence clearly points to my client. He had the proper motive, and there were distinct powder marks on my client’s hands that clearly link him to the weapon. I’ll grant you all of this. But, just look at his face. Do we really think that a human being would be capable of something like this? Furthermore, how can we really KNOW anything?”

BACK TO THE TREE

How do we “know” that all trees that fall make a compression wave? We use reason. Because we can observe that a tree rests on the ground, we know that the tree interacted with the ground. Else, the ground would not have stopped the tree’s fall. So, although we did not observe the tree as it fell, we can say with confidence that the tree interacted with matter when we observe the effects of the fall (the tree resting on the ground, the bug that was squashed underneath, the crater that the tree created, the branches that snapped when it hit, etc). It would take quite a leap of faith to assume that the tree did not interact with the matter in the air in the same manner as it did with the ground. It would take a further leap to assume that although the tree obeyed the gravitational forces that caused its fall, it did not obey the other physical forces consistent with a falling tree in the observed world. In the observed world, a compression wave results when matter interacts with matter. That compression wave is referred to as “sound”. Given our knowledge of the wave nature of sound, believing that the falling tree made no sound in light of this evidence would have to be based on something other than reason. Such a conclusion would not be rational.

SUMMARY

Science is often thought to be the opposite of religion. A common assertion is that science relies on facts and figures whereas religion relies on blind faith and personal revelations. While it is true that many religious people rely heavily on faith, this faith need not be “blind”. To follow faithfully in spite of contradictory evidence is indeed “blind” faith; however, to have faith in that which is reasonable is prudent. When we discuss the merits of scientific discoveries, we speak of truth attained through reason and observation. We should hold our religious views to the same standard. If you follow Christ because you were raised as a Christian, understanding the logic of these claims can only serve to strengthen your faith. Further, Christians are taught to seek others in an effort to bring them to Christ. That means that you should be prepared to present a rational case to astute skeptics. If you have doubts about the validity of Biblical claims, I urge you to incorporate the same logic you would apply elsewhere. Seek reasonable answers and give rational arguments and I am certain we will all learn a great deal.

These first two posts basically set the ground rules for the next fifty. If we cannot agree on the premises that (1) truth is absolute and (2) that reason is our greatest tool for finding that truth, there is little point in a discussion like this one. These two concepts are shared by most (in theory, if not in practice), so I apologize if they seem unnecessary; however, these premises must be the foundation for any reasonable discussion and especially for one such as this.

On a more general blog note, I would encourage you to make use of the Comments area. I do my best to tackle each issue as fully as I know how; still, sometimes you may be left with questions that have gone unaddressed. You may have strong opposition to something I say, and this is a great way to challenge me. You may have a point to add that I did not discuss. Plus, even if you have no questions, you may miss out on a rather lively debate. In my limited blog experience, I have found that I generally get more out of the comments than from the blog itself. This is the great benefit a blog has over a book or a newsletter. I would also encourage you to forward this link to anyone you think might find it interesting. The greater the readership, the better the feedback.