Mistakes in Knowing
In Brad’s last post you learned of my apparent run in with the mob (thanks Brad), but I would like to ask upon what epistemology can we even know that (just kidding)? That got me thinking, what if someone really believed the mafia had kidnapped me on the basis of Brad’s post? And how does that apply to epistemology? Mistakes in sense perception and reason happen all the time.
In Men in Black, Will Smith learns, totally contrary to what Will Smith believed, that man is not alone in the universe. Tommy Lee Jones challenges Will Smith saying, “a thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.” So why do mistakes happen in our knowledge? In many ways, our approach to epistemology will mandate a certain answer. If we say knowledge must be infallible to be knowledge, we must throw the baby of reason out with the bathwater of biases. If we want truth to be only objective then as soon as we look around at how we gather data we will find we must admit we can know very little. If we say that “to be is to be perceived” (Berkley), then if we see an oar bent in the water, but touching it find it to be strait, we must says two oars exist! Does a mistake in reason mean that nothing is reasonable? And from where do these mistakes come? I had the opportunity to sit in on a class on epistemology and Reformed Theology last weekend and some of it dealt with this issue. As human beings we can see that there is some way to know, and this knowledge should be certain. We crave certainty, but we cannot achieve it. Why? In short- The Fall, Genesis 3. When God created, He made the world very good. Man had the ability to sense, reason, know, and communicate. Although man could not do these things infinitely as God, man could do so without error. But when man sinned, that all changed. All of creation has been affected by the fall- including epistemology. Our senses can be fooled. We can swear we just saw a cardinal in our back yard only to find out it was just a piece of red ribbon caught on a branch. Even if we perceive everything correctly, our ability to reason is askew. We can reason incorrectly as individuals or as a society. Thus thinking the world is flat, that slavery is morally right, and who knows what else. The Fall provides an adequate explanation as to why we crave certainty but find mistakes in our reason. So all of us are caught in a world where we can know to some extent (because we are made in the image of God), but we cannot know perfectly (because we are fallen). We don’t have to know comprehensively to have knowledge. Knowledge of some things will be clear; knowledge of others will be gray. Yet the story does not stop there. Christianity is a religion of redemption. God created the world, man created a problem, and God intervenes to fix the problem. God works to aid in this epistemic dilemma by sending His Spirit. It is this Spirit that work in and through man to change him. So it is the intervention of the Holy Spirit that changes my sense perception and my reasoning capacity. It is this work of the Holy Spirit in man that makes him able to know more precisely.
I know there are a lot of assumptions here. Namely that it assumes Christianity is true. But my point here is not to “prove” Christian epistemology, but to illustrate that Christianity provides a good view on epistemology with regard to why mistakes exist. So what do you think? Does this view adequately explain the nature of mistakes in knowledge?
Posts
I think largely I would say, “yes.” I do wonder though: is it entirely the fall that is to blame? In a perfect world, could I not still mistake a red ribbon in the backyard for a cardinal? Could I not still read a poem and understand it in a totally different way than another reader?
I think you are very right to tie errors in knowing to the Fall, I just suspect _in addition_ that “imperfect” (but not flawed) knowledge is part of being a finite being.
Thoughts?
Good point bringing finiteness into the equation. I hadn’t really thought of that, so this is kind of on a whim. Knowledge in a pre-Fallen world definitely would have still been finite. Whether or not we affirm “imperfect knowledge” in a pre-Fall world depends upon how we are defining “perfect.” The Greek term used in the New Testament carries a connotation of fullness, completeness, or being in its ultimate state. However, our definition today more so means flawless, without error, totally true and beautiful.
If we are operating off the Greek idea, then it is entirely possible that knowledge being imperfect is part of our finites. However, if we are using a modern day definition, then imperfection is could not have been merely part of our falleness.
Of course, unflawed finite knowledge would still preclude us from mistaking a red ribbon for a cardinal. It does, however, take into account that Adam and Eve would not have fully understood the trinity, predestination, or the eternality of God.
Thoughts???
While I can’t say for sure whether or not perfect or flawed knowledge is really a part of our finiteness or what it was like to be pre-fall Adam and Eve, I can say that I know what it is like to desire to have perfect knowledge and understanding and to be completely confident in it. My sister and I made an assumption this week about something that my mom did, and she denied it, and then we were sad that we were wrong when we found out that our mom was indeed telling the truth about her actions. My sister said, “I hate it when she is RIGHT.” and it reminded me of how we hate being wrong. We want to be right everytime! It takes a good does of humility and dependence on the Lord to come to Him, and admit that we are wrong, and He is right, and for that reason, I’m glad that we can mess things up, because it continually shows us how much we need him. I think of this when I get speeding tickets…
Ah yes, we need to define our terms — that makes a project philosophy, after all.
I think in general, when I think of imperfect knowledge, I would be thinking of sense of completeness or lack thereof. Though here’s an irony: as you say, Josh, that seems to fit the Greek term, and yet, it is from the Greek mindset that we get the idea that truth and beauty are tied together in perfection, e.g. an aesthetic perfection). Makes me think of Keats’s great poem… Well, I digress.
I suppose flawed knowledge would not be possible pre-fall, you are right. That would imply that what God created was less than good. Perhaps we should say, in terms of completeness, that human knowledge was perfect for “human knowledge,” while still perhaps imperfect in terms of absolute knowledge?
OK, so let’s say Adam is sitting in the cool of the Garden contemplating God. He does not understand the Trinity (hopefully that is a safe assumption of all finite beings!), but he tries to come to a closer understanding. Does he make any mistakes? Does he just stop contemplating because he cannot fathom that which he contemplates? Does he eat a peach?
Maybe contemplation and curiosity as we think of them are part and parcel of the fall, linked with the unquenchable curiosity to eat the fruit?
I’m not sure, what do you think? In any case, Jen raises a really interesting insight on the matter of bring right…
Jen-
Good stuff
Tim-
Good questions. I don’t want to sound like I’m just trying to pass off your questions, but I do wonder how sure we can be of what a pre-Fall world looks like. I only know of knowing in a fallen universe. So for me and you, every part of my knowing is “tied” to mistakes.
Josh, quite true. My questions were more thinking out loud than anything. I suspect we’ll have to wait until Heaven for answers.