Epistemology - Part 2

OK, back to the epistemology theme (see my first epistemology post below )...

Virtually every system of knowledge begins on an a priori basis, that is, with one or more unproven or self-evident principles. For instance, the entire system of mathematics begins with the concept of quantity. Given two piles of rocks, it is observed that there is a difference between the two piles - namely, that one pile is bigger, one smaller. To account for the concept of quantity, of more-ness and less-ness, man starts counting things and measuring things, and before you know it, he's calculating the distance to the moon.

As another example, scientific thought rests upon the unproven assumption that the stuff of our universe behaves in a predictable and reliable manner, that there are physical laws at work. Man sees things fall, comes to recognize and formulate the law of gravity, and before you know it, he's explaining how the moon orbits Earth. The assumption isn't as obvious here; it must be taken almost on faith that the universe behaves according to certain laws. There's no particular reason that this should be so; the universe could just as well behave in a haphazard and capricious manner. As Albert Einstein once remarked, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible".

Well, then, are the principles of science worthless because they are based upon an unprovable assumption? Of course not. Having begun with an act of faith in the reliability of physical laws, we eventually come to have tremendous evidence to bolster this faith. The accumulated wealth of knowledge serves us very well, and does a wonderful job of explaining how things work. The pieces fit together, it all makes sense, there is internal consistency, and it seems to conform remarkably to reality as we experience it. We may therefore with good reason assume that the original assumption was valid.

Now consider the various systems of theological thought, also based upon unprovable assumptions. Oh, there are proofs for the existence of God, but these rest upon the a priori assumption that there is such a thing as provable truth. The nihilist rejects this assumption, and so he sees no proof. Of course, the nihilist is likewise starting from an a priori position which defies proof. There seems to be no other way; you have to start with an assumption of some kind, and forget (for now) about proving it.

So i begin with some assumptions, then see where that takes me, what system of thought can be built upon the assumptions; that will be my proof. I might start with the atheistic assumption that there is no god, and build a system of thought upon that assumption. In such a case, i find myself forced into a purely materialistic and nihilisitic system, one that does not explain or even consider such spiritual concepts as justice, love, or good vs. evil.

If i try the theistic assumption, that God exists and cares for us, i can at least begin to build a system that explains something of the meaning of life, that also incorporates the idea of good and evil, and the moral dimension of human life. Because this results in a better system of thought, i think that the starting assumption must be more sound.

At this point i would like to know more details about this God, and more about how we ought to live. This calls for a creedal system, in which the details are fleshed out. Of the major creedal religions, Christianity stands out for a couple of reasons. First, because it confirms and completes another major creedal system, that of Judaism. Secondly, it makes the fantastic claim that God has been here in person. This claim must either be debunked or be recognized as the most complete revelation possible. More on that shortly.

Likewise, within Christianity, one particular system stands out, that of Catholicism. Firstly, it possesses the most credible historic claim to being the one church going back to the Apostles, founded by Jesus Himself. Secondly, because it has the most trustworthy epistemology, the most solid authority.

The epistemology of Bible-based Christianity is pretty solid, and fairly trustworthy in its adherence to the authority of the Bible, but there are some problems here. For one thing, the existence of several thousand denominations, all claiming to be Bible-based, is evidence that this approach is prone to errors. Like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:31), how can the believer know which interpretation of Scripture is the correct one, unless there is some reliable authority to guide him? Secondly, the Bible itself doesn't teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that Scripture alone is all you need. Indeed, it points to the Church as the 'pillar and bulwark of truth' (1 Tim 3:15 RSV). And even if Scripture did proclaim Scripture as the only source of revelation, that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it? No, the one fundamental doctrine that the Fundamentalists left out is that Christ built His Church upon the Apostles, and that He gave His authority to them, which remains a clear mark of His Church today.

Note that this authority does not preclude the obvious sinfulness of many priests, bishops and popes throughout history. Authority does not depend upon sanctity. (Indeed, the fact that the Church survived all her corrupt popes and bishops, and never lost the Gospel, can be seen as evidence of divine protection.)

So, i start with these assumptions: God exists, and reveals Himself to us in the person of Jesus who gives authority to men, thus establishing the Church. This produces a system of thought that answers an amazingly wide berth of life's questions, and answers them in an internally consistent way that makes sense of life, and corresponds extremely well to the realities around me. The Catholic system addresses not only specifically religious questions, but also issues of economics, politics and other things touching the demands of faith and morals. If anyone can come up with a more complete system of thought, i would truly love to hear about it. For now, this seems to be by far the best game in town, and explains why i am Catholic.

To return now to the startling assumption that forms the basis for all Christian faith - that Jesus is, in fact, God in the flesh - what to say about that? The veracity of this claim would seem to be tied to the Resurrection. If that man who was crucified really did rise victorious from the grave, then he must be taken seriously indeed, and not merely as a good teacher. Power over death would certainly seem to indicate a superhuman nature. If Jesus didn't really rise, then he was just a man, the whole thing is fool's work, and i would have to reject the Christian way, probably reverting to a creedless theism. I would be left to explain why the early disciples were all so willing to suffer death by martyrdom for a hoax, and i would still have to admit that the Christian system of thought blows the theistic system out of the water. But it needs to be said that, without the Resurrection, the Christian Faith makes no sense at all.

It comes down, then, to this: I have very strong intellectual reasons for embracing the Catholic Faith; other systems of thought simply pale by comparison. But in the final analysis, it still has to be a step of faith. I believe Jesus really rose from the dead, and so i am Catholic.

Epistemology

"I notice that you believe in God, but that you want a God who is discreet, not too exacting and comfortably unknowable" - Paul Claudel

One of my newest favorite words, epistemology - the study of knowledge. Or, how do we know what we know? There are multiple ways to gain knowledge, which is to say, an intelligent person might recognize several valid epistemological approaches. I would like to touch upon just two or three of the most significant, as i see them:

Science

The epistemology of science is based upon observation of empirical data. From these observations, the scientist looks for patterns, formulates a theory to explain the patterns, constructs experiments to test the theory, which yield more data to be observed, and the cycle repeats.

'Observation' is to be understood as any direct or indirect noting and measuring of the subject matter by the scientist's five senses, perhaps aided by instruments. Hence, the scientific method can only be concerned with the physical properties and behavior of the subject studied. That is, the proper domain of science is the physical universe, all things composed of matter and energy.

Note that this epistemology is necessarily tentative and experimental, always open to newly observed data which may alter the currently prevailing theory.

Note this also: Our perception of physical realities is a given; our senses will observe certain phenomena in the matter and energy with which we deal. But the scientific approach applies a discipline, rigor, and methodology to turn our observations more reliably into knowledge. The scientific method is absolutely the best thing going if you want to better understand our universe, and everything in it.

Theology

Not content with a single narrow epistemology, most reasonable people also recognize that much of reality does not fall within the category of physical matter and energy. Our lives are full of such non-material realities as love, honor, tragedy, beauty, good, evil...

The innate yearning of the human spirit for the Transcendant and the nearly universal recognition of moral responsibilities demand an appropriate means of knowing about these things, a fitting epistemology.

The scientific method, observing and measuring data, cannot be applied here. One cannot prove the existence of God by empirical observation alone, nor can one disprove His existence scientifically. Nor can moral principles be proven scientifically. Show me the empirical data which indicates that Mother Teresa was virtuous, or that Hitler was evil. It cannot be done, because examining and measuring mere matter and energy will never reveal any such non-physical stuff as virtue or vice.

As with physical reality, most humans will recognize transcendant and moral reality. Our dealings with moral and spiritual realities does not begin with theology. It begins with an inner experience which may seem inexplicable, beyond words. Yet we must explain it; we must try to understand it. Theology is just that - faith seeking understanding. As with physical reality, we will profit greatly from an appropriate epistemology, so as to reliably attain the knowledge we seek. No sense in a sloppy, undisciplined, or haphazard approach.

A person recognizes that the experience of faith is intensely personal, but a shared experience as well, common to Man. The best theology, then, would seem to be a didactic one, in which the knowledge is imparted from teacher to student, from mentor to disciple. And, as this would ultimately suggest, from God to Man. The epistemology of theology, then, is one of revelation and of authority, both divine authority and divinely ordained human authority. This is, in fact, the pattern we see in the three major creedal religions.

Note that, unlike the epistemology of science, this epistemology does not allow its knowledge to be experimental, tentative, or even changeable. Our theological understanding may deepen over time, but, once Truth is revealed divinely, it can't be 'unrevealed'. If ever we find ourselves saying that what was once true in a theological sense is no longer true, then we have a failed epistemology. Theological truth that is no longer valid must not have ever been so; and so our new 'truth' is unreliable, too.

Given the above, the most complete and reasonable system that i can find is that of Catholicism. God not only reveals Himself, but comes to us in the person of Jesus who gives authority to men, thus establishing the Church as 'the pillar and bulwark of truth' (1 Tim 3:15). Why single this creed out from the rest? Perhaps a future post will further explore my thoughts on this question.

(Later note: that post is Epistemology - Part 2, above)

Intuition

I'm not at all sure that 'intuition' is the right word here. What i mean by it is the kind of knowledge that just sort of comes to us, in an inner and subjective way. What one may subjectively 'know' to be true in one's 'heart'.

Not much to say about this epistemology. It's best use is probably in such things as deciding upon a career path, whom to marry, and in other such cases in which the methods above may help, but the specifics of the situation require a more personal knowledge.

Putting it all together

I like to think of myself as a well-rounded and reasonable fellow. So i embrace all of the above, each in its own proper way. Science to answer questions of matter and energy, and everything included therein. Solid Catholic theology to answer questions of faith and morals. Subjective intuition to make those personal decisions (though first guided by good science and theology).

On that note, i make these three appeals (to whom it may concern):

You scientists, please recognize the limits of your discipline, and refrain from trying to draw moral or doctrinal conclusions from your empirical observations. Doing so will only damage your credibility as a scientist.

You theologians, please recognize the demands of your discipline, and refrain from trying to alter or experiment with eternal Truth.

Those of you who routinely call upon your 'heart' to draw scientific, doctrinal, or moral conclusions... please use your brain.

pax et bonum,
Jerry