Practical Epistemology
I know what you’re thinking.
“How can a post on epistemology be practical?” After all, isn’t philosophy only useful in ivory towers? I think this has been a major flaw in philosophical thought for many people. Philosophy has no value if it is not lived out; if it does not affect the way we live our lives. And let’s face it, a lot of us like to make statements in papers, in posts, or commenting on blogs that just aren’t livable.
A philosophy must be lived out. If I argue that no knowledge is possible, I need to live that idea out (otherwise I am a hypocrite). If I believe there is a God who made the world, but that God has stepped back and is no longer involved, I need to live that out. If I believe there is a God who is involved in the world, I should probably figure out how he is involved and act upon that.
Here is an example of an unlivable epistemology (it is the one I held to for a long time). Truth is absolute. Because truth is absolute, it is true for all peoples, over all times, and in all situations. So far, this truth can be lived out, but here is the catch. Knowledge of this truth must be 100% accurate to be knowledge. But this leads me down a path I cannot live. We should note that one small piece of information can alter the truth-value of a statement.
Here is an example. If I tell you I saw a speed limit sign that said 70 mph, and I was going 70 mph, but got a speeding ticket for doing 20 over, you would likely agree that this police officer was in the wrong. But what if I adding some information? Let’s say just below the 70 mph sign was a temporary orange sign reading, “Construction, 50 mph, fines doubled.” That would change your judgment of the police officer. So if my knowledge must be entirely accurate, my knowledge must also be exhaustive. This makes knowledge totally impractical. I can’t know anything really! I will always need more information because I have to know everything before I can know anything.
So how do we practically live out epistemology? We look at what evidence we have, and work with it. I don’t approach my drive to school with the skeptical knowledge model portrayed above. If I did I’d have to say I needed to have comprehensive knowledge of traffic before setting out to ensure my punctual arrival. Yet this is not the case because there is enough evidence out there for us to act.
How does this apply to knowing God? We cannot treat the issue with dogmatic, closed-minded skepticism. It means we cannot put off whether or not God exists (and the nature of that God) forever. We can take time to evaluate. Maybe it is best to leave the question up in the air for a few a time, but we must deal with it.
Second, it means we do not have to demand that he reveal more of himself than has already been given before we believe in him. When I’m driving and I can’t remember which way I need to turn, I have to make a choice- right or left, but if my cell phone battery is dead (and let’s face it, none of us have maps in our cars) and I can’t get any more information I still must chose. We have to take what information we have (though it may be limited) and use it.
This all culminates in that we can evaluate the truth-value of Christianity. There are arguments out there for Christianity, and there are arguments out there against it. Does this mean no one can know one way or the other? No. It just means it is a complicated issue. Jesus Christ was a man who lived 2000 years ago. Some believe he was the Son of God and provided the only way for mankind to be delivered from judgment. The information is out there, and Jesus deserves a good evaluation.
Posts
“The information is out there, and Jesus deserves a good evaluation.” (Josh)
I agree…it takes time to look through it all but I do think many a person will enjoy what they read as far as a liveable ethic.
“I agree…it takes time to look through it all but I do think many a person will enjoy what they read as far as a liveable ethic.”
But “only” a liveable ethic? Jesus’s challenges and claims were that this was just not enough (or rather, that it missed the entire point).
But isn’t that point - taking the words from off the paper into a living reality? I think that’s what I mean by a liveable ethic.
“Jesus’s challenges and claims were that this was just not enough (or rather, that it missed the entire point).” (Brad)
How so Brad? What challenges and claims exactly? I read the gospels and I can’t help but see ‘believe in God’ - which to me means follow the ‘teachings of God’.
“How so Brad? What challenges and claims exactly?”
His critique of the Pharisees, who overemphasized the ethic instead of the reason behind why they had the ethic.
“I read the gospels and I can’t help but see ‘believe in God’ - which to me means follow the ‘teachings of God’.”
Oh definitely… But I’d say that following the teachings are part of believing in God, but it does not encompass all of what that means. In other words, they are not totally equivalent. The Pharisees followed the teachings of God to the “nth” degree, but that was only part of what God was calling them to. Following the teachings (good works) are useless without a relationship with God.
“The Pharisees followed the teachings of God to the “nth” degree, but that was only part of what God was calling them to. Following the teachings (good works) are useless without a relationship with God.” (Brad)
I disagree - somewhere in this quote is an assumption (not in the texts).
The Pharisee’s followed the teachings - true - however how many times does this one single word appear in a gospel about them - ‘hypocrite’? 14 times in Matthew for sure and that’s a conservative estimate - seeing there is one whole chapter on the subject (Matt 23).
The problem with these Pharisee’s is they did not follow the teachings - hypocrisy means ‘actor’.
“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:20)
Explain that passage. If we go by interpretation of these Pharisee’s being hypocrites (also in Matt 6) then it is easy to see how your actions will be better than these Pharisee’s - by being sincere about your beliefs.
To me, the teachings are the relationship in some regards - they give us the teachings of Jesus after all.
Following the teachings of God as given in His word is much different than what the Pharisees did - they followed the Midrash - the teachings of the teachings of God.
Isn’t this why Jesus said, “You have heard it said…” It wasn’t God’s written Law they were trying so hard to keep, it was the traditions they added to the Law, IMHO.
Societyvs,
After reading your further explanation, I think we’re in agreement….. When I read your use of it attached to the phrase “liveable ethic,” I applied it probably too narrowly (i.e. in the “Jesus was merely a great teacher” sense). So yeah…. I think I agree… afterall, Jesus taught that you need to have a relationship with Him, and if you follow that, you’re good, right? (rhetorical)
Michelle,
That’s a good point, the Midrash aspect especialy…
So let me now bring this back to Josh’s original point and stop creating my own tangents…
Josh, I agree with your assessment of the new model’s applicability and need to act upon the knowledge that one comes to; but I want to throw one clarifier in the midst.
You said, “Truth is absolute. Because truth is absolute, it is true for all peoples, over all times, and in all situations” in reference to the old model that you hold to be an unlivable epistemology. You go on to show that the old model made the mistake of demanding exhaustive knowledge in order to have any knowledge and, thus, it was impossible to have the knowledge with which to act. Fine, fine, but truth is still absolute under the new model. It is only the reality that is truly subjective insofar as “True statements bear indeterminately on reality” (Esther Meek, Longing to Know). They are indeterminate because we, as humans, all differ in an incalculable number of ways that make our perceptions of the reality that surrounds us different.