What is truth is obviously related to what is real. Epistemology is related to the study of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of reality. Despite the link between epistemology and metaphysics, the worth of contextualizing truth metaphysically is highly questioned. The grandfather of existentialism is Kant. Kantians believe that we can never really know what reality is, only what it appears to be. As this relates to epistemology, realizing that we can never really know reality or truth beyond what we are able to perceive makes sense. David Hume believed that another problem with metaphysics is that, with the exception of knowledge as it relates to analysis of knowledge, nothing is valuable unless it can be completely deconstructed. Similarly to epistemology, this puts all discourse related to reality into two categories: sensible (what can be reduced) and meaningless (what can’t be reduced). I have used the word deconstruction, but it isn’t until you get to a purely postmodern criticism of metaphysics that deconstruction is pertinent. From a postmodern perspective, knowing reality is significantly hindered by the limitations of language. All language is a symbol and has multiple meanings. So for the postmodern, there is truth and there is how we talk about truth.
The obvious problem with criticisms about metaphysics is that it could lead to infinite regress. We can’t know reality because we have to test each presupposition. However, there is little doubt that metaphysics as a legitimate philosophical study is questionable. This is where evidentialism and reliabilism are valuable in metaphysics. We understandably want to know what is real as we want to know knowledge. These two elements are significant in knowing truth. When you apply the same criteria of reliability of experiences to reality then we can accept that there are events (as Caputo puts it) that are simply irreducible and reliable by nature of their identity. But there is also knowledge and realities which can be infinitely reduced to give greater and greater insight into the irreducible.
So what does this all mean for me as I pursue truth with who I am now? It means that that there are some things that will remain absolutely true. I will hold these things true, not because they have been proven because, as I have previously mentioned, few things are truly provable, but because they can’t be reduced and rely on experiential evidence. This would include the existence of God, resurrection of Christ, etc. However, there are many other things that shape how I feel about those absolutes that can be reduced because they are shaped internally by experiences that are influenced by biases, prejudices, context, etc. The modern church has painted itself in a corner dealing with epistemological and metaphysical issues. It has vacillated between apologetics and sensationalism. The subsequent fundamentalism has made it impossible to experience truth beyond its limited worldview. Despite the active presence of God throughout history and a diversity of meaningful spiritual experiences by people outside of the conventional church structure, the predominant belief among many Christians is that truth is limited a Calvinistic theology of rigid hermeneutics. The idea that truth may be bigger than we realize threatens the stable worldview of so many and the control of a few of their leaders.
I do concede that there is a certain risk involved with broadening our understanding of truth. For example, just as deconstruction can lead to infinite regress, there is a danger of infinite expanse. Therefore, holding to those absolute truths takes greater responsibility and one cannot substitute revelation with psycho-analysis and discipleship with intellectualism. Truth ultimately is Christ and comes from Christ. However, as I have begun to allow myself to be open to truth in new ways and accept that there are more things that I don’t know than I do know. I have experienced a greater sense of peace. And I have quit trying to make sure everything fits into what I believe to be true. When I stopped dictating to God how he was going to reveal himself to me and simply let Him reveal Himself to me I began to experience greater intimacy and understanding. In the following posts I will, however, explore where truth has been limited by modern Christianity.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: ABSOLUTE- Part 2
Thomism is such a framework, however, that does allow for truth to reveal itself anywhere that truth decides to do so. Thomism is named after its primary theologian Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas adhered to the correspondence theory of truth which says that something is true "when it conforms to the external reality." Meaning that truth is validated not by its internal biases but its consistency with what has already been determined to be true. There is actually quite a bit to Thomism and its relation to Ancient Greek philosophy that is radically outdated, but there are a few elements that have remained consistently useful. Primarily, Aquinas identified empiricism, his epistemological theory, as necessary in discovering truth. Aquinas held that there were two parts to being: Act and Potency. This included the idea that there is one God, unique and simple, but that all other things participate in that being. Everything is restricted to some degree in its ability to be like God, but that all things participate in the being of God. Slightly more confusing is his belief that a spiritual creature is wholly simple in its essence, but that it has two parts: the essence of being and the substance with accident. This means that humanity is what it is as well as how it relates to the world. Empiricism argues that pure reason is insufficient and requires the additional work of testing things against our sensations. This is still very Greek, but in the study of epistemology, useful.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. The idea of justified belief is central to epistemology and relates to what we consider to be true. There are a couple of terms related to truth that you probably have heard. Absolute truth is an inflexible reality. Relativism is the belief that because there is no absolute morality or reality there is no need for absolute truth. Relativism is not so much arguing that there is no absolute truth, but that there is no need for it. There are a couple of more you might not be as familiar with. Evidentialism is the notion that truth is determined by the evidence one has to determine if the belief can be justified. Obviously no one believes anything unless they have some basis for believing it, but evidentialism is concerned with experiences that justify the belief. For example, an epistemologist who subscribes to evidentialism would argue that because he believes that he has hands based on how his senses have previously understood his experiences with his hands, than he has a justified knowledge that he, in fact, has hands. Reliabilism is the notion that evidentialism is insufficient. For reliabilists it is more important that the experiences are rooted in the reliability of the senses. So, for an epistemologist who subscribes to reliabilism, he can only know that he, in fact, has hands if he can be confident in the reliability of his previous experiences which causes him to believe he has hands. The reliabilist would argue that even though the evidentialist may in fact be correct about having hands, because his basis for believing he has hands was rooted in unreliable evidence, his belief is not justified and therefore has no knowledge about having hands.
What does this mean? Knowledge is not about right or wrong, but about how we come to believe what is right or wrong. This does not have to negate absolute truth, but it does put a higher standard on understanding it. People come to believe what they believe for a number of reasons, but it is often rooted in experiences that meet a personal or psychological need. They can be driven by desires, emotional needs, prejudices, and social learning. Even if the truths that people hold as absolute are in fact true, they cannot be justified as true unless we can hold those experiences to the test of reliability. This would mean that the goal of knowing absolute truth is less about deciding who is right based on the evidence, but about deconstructing how we come to believe that the evidence is reliable. When we hold truth to this type of deconstruction we realize that what we can hold to be true is much narrower than we realize and that simply believing the right thing doesn’t justify the belief. Why is evidence not a sufficient argument for establishing truth? Because in a true search for truth we must acknowledge that everything is positioned in a social and historical context including science and philosophy. This does not mean that evidentiary truths are not valid. All beliefs are justified and therefore true to some extent. This is because when you take two people who have come to believe what they believe based on experiences alone without exploring the reliability of the experiences both individuals have met the same standard of knowledge even if one is obviously right and one is obviously wrong. Both have experiences that are valid and worthy of discussion and deconstruction.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. The idea of justified belief is central to epistemology and relates to what we consider to be true. There are a couple of terms related to truth that you probably have heard. Absolute truth is an inflexible reality. Relativism is the belief that because there is no absolute morality or reality there is no need for absolute truth. Relativism is not so much arguing that there is no absolute truth, but that there is no need for it. There are a couple of more you might not be as familiar with. Evidentialism is the notion that truth is determined by the evidence one has to determine if the belief can be justified. Obviously no one believes anything unless they have some basis for believing it, but evidentialism is concerned with experiences that justify the belief. For example, an epistemologist who subscribes to evidentialism would argue that because he believes that he has hands based on how his senses have previously understood his experiences with his hands, than he has a justified knowledge that he, in fact, has hands. Reliabilism is the notion that evidentialism is insufficient. For reliabilists it is more important that the experiences are rooted in the reliability of the senses. So, for an epistemologist who subscribes to reliabilism, he can only know that he, in fact, has hands if he can be confident in the reliability of his previous experiences which causes him to believe he has hands. The reliabilist would argue that even though the evidentialist may in fact be correct about having hands, because his basis for believing he has hands was rooted in unreliable evidence, his belief is not justified and therefore has no knowledge about having hands.
What does this mean? Knowledge is not about right or wrong, but about how we come to believe what is right or wrong. This does not have to negate absolute truth, but it does put a higher standard on understanding it. People come to believe what they believe for a number of reasons, but it is often rooted in experiences that meet a personal or psychological need. They can be driven by desires, emotional needs, prejudices, and social learning. Even if the truths that people hold as absolute are in fact true, they cannot be justified as true unless we can hold those experiences to the test of reliability. This would mean that the goal of knowing absolute truth is less about deciding who is right based on the evidence, but about deconstructing how we come to believe that the evidence is reliable. When we hold truth to this type of deconstruction we realize that what we can hold to be true is much narrower than we realize and that simply believing the right thing doesn’t justify the belief. Why is evidence not a sufficient argument for establishing truth? Because in a true search for truth we must acknowledge that everything is positioned in a social and historical context including science and philosophy. This does not mean that evidentiary truths are not valid. All beliefs are justified and therefore true to some extent. This is because when you take two people who have come to believe what they believe based on experiences alone without exploring the reliability of the experiences both individuals have met the same standard of knowledge even if one is obviously right and one is obviously wrong. Both have experiences that are valid and worthy of discussion and deconstruction.
Monday, June 14, 2010
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH: ABSOLUTE- Part 1
“The ethical expression for what Abraham did is, that he would murder Isaac; the religious expression is, that he would sacrifice Isaac; but precisely in this contradiction consists the dread which can well make a man sleepless, and yet Abraham is not what he is without dread” (Soren Kierkegaard)
In the pursuit of truth there is an obvious danger theologically. Just because something is “true” does not mean that it is necessary “right”. And just because something is “right” it doesn’t mean that it is necessary “faithful”. This doesn’t mean that what is truth is not always true, just that what appears to be true to us may, in fact, may be limited to our understanding. Say you lived in the middle ages and I told you that something weighed about 8 tons, walked on land in large herds, and had huge tusks. You would assume that I was referring to an elephant. What if I then told you that it could be from anytime period? The truth then expands to include a mammoth. Your original conclusion, based on your understanding of the world, was no less true and appeared to be the only logical conclusion until I gave you a larger parameter. But if you had no idea what a mammoth was, allowing you to expand the available time period wouldn’t help you. So an elephant is the only right answer. Likewise, something can be completely true without being THE truth. It isn’t about a deliberate omission; it is about what we are capable of understanding. Another example is similar. When my granddad first saw a computer he would have one question: how does it work? The truth is limited to a simple question. But if someone told him about the various parts of the computer and how those work together to make the computer work his questions would expand indefinitely. As facts are revealed to answer our question of what is truth we have a much greater grasp of what we do not know. Similarly, we may hold murder to be absolutely unethical, but Dietrich Bonheoffer, while acknowledging the sin of murder, plotted to assassinate Hitler because of what he felt to be truth. Truth, therefore, is much greater than the sum of known (or assumed) facts.
My evangelical upbringing in the church didn’t allow for this type of fluidity. I find this particularly frustrating considering that I was raised United Methodist. I am afraid the more fundamental beliefs of the larger Christian community have affected the ability of the Methodist church to hold to its values of open-mindedness. The fear that open-mindedness might compromise convictions of truth spread as concerns of becoming irrelevant has increased. However, the grace centered doctrine of Methodism is supposed to encourage us to respond to how God is acting in our lives, not establish fundamental doctrine. The doctrine of the Methodist church is supposed to be the collective wisdom of those who have responded to the active presence of Christ. But my experiences as a member and minister in the Methodist church proved that the doctrine without doctrine ideal was just that, an ideal.
To adopt a value system that is open-minded contains a certain degree of paradox. When allowing yourself to become open-minded you have to accept that all perspectives are valid even if not necessary right. That would include the perspective that is rigid. In other words, to be truly open-minded you must accept fundamentalism as a valid perspective. Ensuring that you challenge the close-mindedness (while still affirming it) is difficult. But being close-minded is easy: everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is one reason so many choose this path.
In the pursuit of truth there is an obvious danger theologically. Just because something is “true” does not mean that it is necessary “right”. And just because something is “right” it doesn’t mean that it is necessary “faithful”. This doesn’t mean that what is truth is not always true, just that what appears to be true to us may, in fact, may be limited to our understanding. Say you lived in the middle ages and I told you that something weighed about 8 tons, walked on land in large herds, and had huge tusks. You would assume that I was referring to an elephant. What if I then told you that it could be from anytime period? The truth then expands to include a mammoth. Your original conclusion, based on your understanding of the world, was no less true and appeared to be the only logical conclusion until I gave you a larger parameter. But if you had no idea what a mammoth was, allowing you to expand the available time period wouldn’t help you. So an elephant is the only right answer. Likewise, something can be completely true without being THE truth. It isn’t about a deliberate omission; it is about what we are capable of understanding. Another example is similar. When my granddad first saw a computer he would have one question: how does it work? The truth is limited to a simple question. But if someone told him about the various parts of the computer and how those work together to make the computer work his questions would expand indefinitely. As facts are revealed to answer our question of what is truth we have a much greater grasp of what we do not know. Similarly, we may hold murder to be absolutely unethical, but Dietrich Bonheoffer, while acknowledging the sin of murder, plotted to assassinate Hitler because of what he felt to be truth. Truth, therefore, is much greater than the sum of known (or assumed) facts.
My evangelical upbringing in the church didn’t allow for this type of fluidity. I find this particularly frustrating considering that I was raised United Methodist. I am afraid the more fundamental beliefs of the larger Christian community have affected the ability of the Methodist church to hold to its values of open-mindedness. The fear that open-mindedness might compromise convictions of truth spread as concerns of becoming irrelevant has increased. However, the grace centered doctrine of Methodism is supposed to encourage us to respond to how God is acting in our lives, not establish fundamental doctrine. The doctrine of the Methodist church is supposed to be the collective wisdom of those who have responded to the active presence of Christ. But my experiences as a member and minister in the Methodist church proved that the doctrine without doctrine ideal was just that, an ideal.
To adopt a value system that is open-minded contains a certain degree of paradox. When allowing yourself to become open-minded you have to accept that all perspectives are valid even if not necessary right. That would include the perspective that is rigid. In other words, to be truly open-minded you must accept fundamentalism as a valid perspective. Ensuring that you challenge the close-mindedness (while still affirming it) is difficult. But being close-minded is easy: everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is one reason so many choose this path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)