Can we know anything?
When looking at the night sky—at least places where there are not streetlights— on a clear night one can see stars twinkling. Not to be a romance killer, but the twinkling is not from the stars, but by stellar scintillation, which is the refraction of light caused by currents of hot and cold air in the earth’s atmosphere. My point is that our senses can deceive us. We are susceptible to experiencing mirages and dreams. So can we know anything? Although there are many that might boldly assert nothing can be known for certain, it is possible to certainly know something. This inquiry on whether or not one can know anything is the philosophical study of epistemology, which is “The branch of philosophy that is concerned with the theory of knowledge. It is an inquiry into the nature and source of knowledge, the bounds of knowledge, and the justification of claims to knowledge.”[1]
Rene Descartes once declared, “I think, therefore I am” (cogito, ergo sum). He began by presuming that one could not really know anything about the world around him, but realized he was thinking, and because he was thinking, he must himself exist. This gave him certainty to discover other things existed (e.g. God). Some might object, how does Descartes know that he is the one doing the thinking? Perhaps he got it backwards; he exists, therefore, he thinks? Would not the universe have still existed before Descartes was born prior to his thinking began?
A mistaken often made in addressing the question of whether or not we can know anything is to equate knowledge with certainty is. The fault of this “all or nothing” proposition is that 100% certainty is not required for people to have knowledge about something. For example, I am certain that if I flick off the switch to my lamp with its brand spanking new 5-year energy saver light bulb, it will light up again once I flick the switch on. Now, I know of course I could have gotten a bad light, which opens the door to the possibility that the light will not turn on after I flick the switch on, which will force me to call the manufacturer to get a warranty replacement. All this say is I cannot know with 100% certainty that the light bulb will illuminate the next time I flick on the switch; however, I can still know with a good amount of certainty it will turn on, because I had not had problems with the bulb since I installed it. Ultimately, I don’t have to be 100% certain about something to know something is true.
When a truth claim is made, there are three responses one could make. One can be certain that a proposition is true, one can be certain that a proposition is false, or one can suspend judgment on the proposition because of uncertainty. The last can know the evidence that supports the proposition, but does not find the evidence adequate to be certain of accepting or rejecting the claim. Ultimately, the way we make decisions is based on our degree of certainty. The more we are certain about a proposition, the more likely we are able to accept it or reject it.
There are levels of certainty to every belief. To know something is true, we only need to have a degree of certainty about it. I am certain the light bulb illuminate when I flick on the lamp switch even though there is always the possibility I got a defective 5-year energy saver light bulb. I can also suspend judgment on things I do not know enough about. I must suspend judgment on whether or not the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team will win another championship.
We can’t, however, abandon our beliefs. It is silly to think it possible to abandon all certain about an issue, and neutrally weigh out each argument, in order to make an informed decision. We can’t say, “In order for me to know the truth, I must reject all that I have believed prior, start with a blank slate, and go from there.” We must start with our existing beliefs, then weigh out the evidence and come to a conclusion. In the case of the proposition, “Jesus Christ rose from the dead,” we must start with out beliefs — atheist agnostic, or theist — and accept, reject, or abstain judgment based on the evidence. We should let the evidence lead us to whether or not we change our mind on the resurrection. To be certain, a case can be made that beyond a reasonable doubt Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead (more on this topic later).
Warren
[1] P.D. Feinburg "Epistemology," from The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984) 359.
Rene Descartes once declared, “I think, therefore I am” (cogito, ergo sum). He began by presuming that one could not really know anything about the world around him, but realized he was thinking, and because he was thinking, he must himself exist. This gave him certainty to discover other things existed (e.g. God). Some might object, how does Descartes know that he is the one doing the thinking? Perhaps he got it backwards; he exists, therefore, he thinks? Would not the universe have still existed before Descartes was born prior to his thinking began?
A mistaken often made in addressing the question of whether or not we can know anything is to equate knowledge with certainty is. The fault of this “all or nothing” proposition is that 100% certainty is not required for people to have knowledge about something. For example, I am certain that if I flick off the switch to my lamp with its brand spanking new 5-year energy saver light bulb, it will light up again once I flick the switch on. Now, I know of course I could have gotten a bad light, which opens the door to the possibility that the light will not turn on after I flick the switch on, which will force me to call the manufacturer to get a warranty replacement. All this say is I cannot know with 100% certainty that the light bulb will illuminate the next time I flick on the switch; however, I can still know with a good amount of certainty it will turn on, because I had not had problems with the bulb since I installed it. Ultimately, I don’t have to be 100% certain about something to know something is true.
When a truth claim is made, there are three responses one could make. One can be certain that a proposition is true, one can be certain that a proposition is false, or one can suspend judgment on the proposition because of uncertainty. The last can know the evidence that supports the proposition, but does not find the evidence adequate to be certain of accepting or rejecting the claim. Ultimately, the way we make decisions is based on our degree of certainty. The more we are certain about a proposition, the more likely we are able to accept it or reject it.
There are levels of certainty to every belief. To know something is true, we only need to have a degree of certainty about it. I am certain the light bulb illuminate when I flick on the lamp switch even though there is always the possibility I got a defective 5-year energy saver light bulb. I can also suspend judgment on things I do not know enough about. I must suspend judgment on whether or not the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team will win another championship.
We can’t, however, abandon our beliefs. It is silly to think it possible to abandon all certain about an issue, and neutrally weigh out each argument, in order to make an informed decision. We can’t say, “In order for me to know the truth, I must reject all that I have believed prior, start with a blank slate, and go from there.” We must start with our existing beliefs, then weigh out the evidence and come to a conclusion. In the case of the proposition, “Jesus Christ rose from the dead,” we must start with out beliefs — atheist agnostic, or theist — and accept, reject, or abstain judgment based on the evidence. We should let the evidence lead us to whether or not we change our mind on the resurrection. To be certain, a case can be made that beyond a reasonable doubt Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead (more on this topic later).
Warren
[1] P.D. Feinburg "Epistemology," from The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984) 359.
Comments
Post a Comment