Knowing Part III

So, if all is based on faith, then how can we be sure we know anything at all? This very question caused Descartes to reason that the only thing you may know for sure is that you exist. He said, “I think, therefore I am”. For even to disagree, we argue for this axiom’s truthfulness. I cannot argue against it without thinking and existing. It should be noted that Augustine came up with this famous idea long before Descartes when he asserted, “If I err, I am”. This says that a person who does not exist cannot err. Therefore, even if a person errs he cannot err without first existing. Augustine used Particularism to explain the problem of the criterion by saying making a similar axiom to Descartes which stated “I believe in order to understand/know”. Faith is an essential ingredient of all knowledge. Not necessarily faith in the Christian God, but we must believe something at some point if we are going to claim to know anything at all. Even if we claim to know nothing at all, we must first assume our own existence. Augustine also believed that faith is not arbitrary, but quite rational (although faith can be abused to naively accept false things). We will not believe what we don’t think is valid, as cited above. We simply cannot believe that something is both “A” and “not A” at the same time. The law of non-contradiction prohibits it. We will revisit this later on. Let’s first talk about the personal side of knowledge.

So where does all of this take us? It takes us to the arena of faith. We have discovered that in order to believe anything, we must accept something on faith. At any given point we think we know the past and the present. While we do to some degree, we do not know the fullness. For example, I may know that I just finished riding the bicycle in the gym for 76 minutes. I remember doing this, but it is only based on probability and my memory. It is likely that I am correct, but how can I be sure that I was not born five minutes ago with this knowledge programmed in me, or perhaps my eye site was mistaken when I looked at my timer and I actually only rode for 56 minutes? I cannot, as we discussed in the problem of the criterion. I simply must assume according to what seems to be clear and obvious items of knowledge. Assuming that I am correct to make this assumption. I still have an even bigger obstacle of knowledge to face in that I am completely unaware of anything outside my sphere of sensation. I walk into my house knowing that all is well as it is everyday, because it probably is. However, because I am limited in space, I cannot be sure that someone did not come into my house and set a bomb that is triggered when I flush the toilet. It is highly irrational to think that someone would do this, but how can I know for sure? I cannot completely know the past, present or future without something else, but what?

The point? Since we are limited in space and time, we must have an “Informer” who is where we cannot be to tell us and/or guide us through those areas we cannot know. If we do not have an informer who is outside of space and time, then we are left to guess on our own which way to go and hope we make the right guesses.
I am attempting here to answer both questions in the problem of the criterion at the same time. What do we know? Well, we can’t really know anything (except perhaps that we exist) with absolute certainty. However, if we have an all-knowing friend, we can know all that He would reveal to us. I am jumping the gun here, but it’s a necessary point. Our knowledge is based on faith.

If that is true, then to talk about discovering truth in any other terms than relational terms would be to misunderstand the world. When we discuss science purely in terms of facts perceived, we are missing the necessary, inescapable elements of purpose, relationship, and goal (all intensely relational terms). To think that all things came about by a blind, impersonal force, would be more costly than we might think. If we sacrifice purpose, relationship, and goal, we will sacrifice also logic, meaning, beauty, good and evil. To talk as if reason (or anything else in that list) came about by blind impersonal chance is difficult because we have no reason at all to think that what we are perceiving at all corresponds to reality. This is a point that I don’t have time to debate here, but will have to defend when discussing the existence of God in a future post. My point is simply that this world seems to be quite personal, which reflects a personal creator. Assume for now that this is true, and we can discuss it in detail in another post.

Explanation:
If this world is created by a personal God, our knowledge must be personal as well. Not only personal in that it involves the commitment on behalf of the knower but also in the sense that our knowledge will not be complete unless it presses beyond the impersonal realities (explored with the tools of physics, chemistry, biology, and the human sciences) to that personal reality which alone can carry a purpose for the whole, since purpose is a personal category.
All truth is personal truth, because God (a personal being) created it.
To explain things as merely impersonal facts is to ignore the personal Creator.

Truth Claims are not only relational to God, but to others as well…
If you are going to say something is true, you should be right about it…
Let’s say we are going to a movie. I say “hey, the movie starts at 8, let’s grab something to eat beforehand so we don’t grow broke on the overpriced popcorn and soda”. We all meet and go to “Alligator Bob’s House of Grits” and enjoy a great meal. Afterwards, we head over to the movie “Jingle All the Way 7” and arrive at the theater only to find out it started at 7. Disappointed, we go home and rent “Jingle All the Way” 1-6 and lament that we could have seen number 7 if I had been right about the time.
The point? The truth is not relative. Other people are dependent upon my being right.

You are dependent upon other people to be right as well…
Teachers, Parents, Reporters, Friends, Pets (maybe not that last one), Media.

When a television show says a category 5 hurricane is headed for New Orleans, you take their word for it. Not because you can prove it, but because you believe the people telling you. When a teacher tells you that Henry VIII was married six times, you believe him/her because you have no reason to doubt her. You cannot prove it (and neither can she) but it is accepted as a fact.

Our knowledge is necessarily based on faith assumptions on some level, but also a relational trust of other people to report things accurately. This is the way language works. When someone says "There is snow outside", you trust that they are talking about the same thing you are when they say the word snow. We will build upon this idea of relational knowledge in the next part. Please feel free to comment, however remember that this is only part three of five parts.