Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Knowledge and Faith Can Be the Same Thing
It is commonly assumed that an item of knowledge and an article article of faith can never be the same thing. This assumption is mistaken. In this post, I will explain only one point: trust in authority can be a source of knowledge. That’s what faith is: trust. It’s still the first definition of “faith” in the dictionary. Also see the Latin fides and the Greek pistis.
So don’t believe the hype that categorically separates faith from knowledge. This separation ranges from the view William James attributes to a schoolboy (“Faith is when you believe something that you know ain’t true”) to Kant’s more sophisticated idea that “I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” (in beliefs that might well be true).
We should also reject the hype that says that an argument from authority is necessarily fallacious. The best logic textbook in print will tell you otherwise. It will even tell you that there is such a thing as a valid argument appealing to an infallible authority! (“Valid” is a technical term in logic; be sure to look it up first if you’re inclined to complain that there are no infallible authorities.)
Arguments from authority are good or bad depending on what their content is: and primarily on what sort of knowledge the authority is supposed to have, and whether it is reasonable to suppose that the authority really has it.
So an argument from a reliable authority is a good argument, and an argument from an unreliable or untrustworthy authority is a bad argument.
We must also dispense with the idea that science is the epistemological opposite of faith: one relying entirely on reason, one not at all. In actuality, religious faith usually relies on reason to varying degrees, up to and including this summary of Christian theology by Thomas Aquinas–quite possibly the most impressive bit of systematic reasoning in human history. And, if Thomas Kuhn is even one-quarter correct, science is not a matter of objective reason alone.
But the bigger point to be made here is that science depends on faith as much as your average religion. That is to say, it depends on trust.
Yes, of course scientific experiments can be replicated. But chances are pretty good that you didn’t replicate them, and that someone else did it for you. And if you yourself did replicate some experiments, did you repeat the replication in order altogether to avoid having to take someone else’s word for it?
To skip over various levels of this exercise, here’s the end-point it leads to, using chemistry as an example. If you want to know something in chemistry without relying on trust, you will have to begin from the very beginning and repeat all of the experiments that led to the current state of chemical knowledge: all of them, multiple times each. You would die of old age before you caught up with the present state of chemical knowledge. And all of your hard work would be useless unless others had the good sense you lacked and were willing to take your word for it at least some of the time when you said that your experiments had turned out the way they had.
Even for scientists, scientific knowledge relies heavily on trust in testimony: the testimony of other scientists. As for the scientific knowledge of those of us who aren’t scientists, we are left where Scott Adams puts us in the Introduction to this book: depending on the word of people (most of whom we’ve never met) who simply tell us how things are.
Augustine (the real Augustine, the Church Father and founder of medieval philosophy) both here (chapter 5) and here (cartoon version here) is even more helpful than Adams. These are the sort of examples he uses:
- Do you know that Caesar became emperor of Rome about 50 BC? Yes; you know it by faith–by pistis, by fides, by trust–in the testimony of historians.
- Do you know that Harare, Zimbabwe, exists? Yes. But if you haven’t been there, then you know it by faith–by pistis, by fides, by trust–in the testimony of geographers or of people who have been there.
- Do you know who your parents are? You know that also by faith–by pistis, by fides, by trust in what they told you.
(On this last point my students instinctively think of DNA tests, at which point I explain to them that they would need not only to perform the test themselves, but to start from the very beginning of genetic science and reinvent it singlehandedly if the goal is to know who their parents are without taking someone’s word for something.)
No doubt some readers will suspect that I am attacking the legitimacy of science. Not at all. To the contrary, I presume the legitimacy of science.
I am only pointing out that faith, being trust, is something on which science depends; and, since I am in fact assuming that science is a source of knowledge, other beliefs that rely on reliable testimony can also be knowledge.
What you need to get knowledge by trust is a reliable testimony. And we have plenty of reliable testimony: science, history, geography, and (for most of us) our parents. We live our lives by this testimony.
Thus, the crucial question for religious knowledge is this: Do we have any reliable testimony supporting any religious beliefs?
For example:
- Are there any prophets of Jehovah?
- Are there any holy books? Any books that are God-breathed and inspired?
- Is there a real Messiah who can tell us about God and about how we can know God?
- Are there several predictions about the Messiah made centuries before his birth which all converge on the same person?
- Are there accounts of the Resurrection of the Messiah coming from eyewitnesses of sound mind?
- Is there a Roman Catholic Church with infallible authority, or at least a universal church with reliable authority?
Well, yes. We do have some of these things.
And why should you believe me when I say that? That’s a good question. And, more generally, how do you recognize a reliable testimony in religion?
To ask this question at this point is to observe that I have only showed that knowledge and (religious) faith can be the same thing–not that they ever are. It is a possibility, but that doesn’t mean it is a realized possibility.
But that’s enough ground covered for one opening post. Maybe we can talk about whether this possibility is ever realized, and about how we can know whether it is, in comments, or in a new thread.
Note from the author: We did indeed talk about it comments. See comments #s 156-161 for a handy overview of my thoughts on that subject (and an addendum showed up in comments #s 182-183, and another one in comments #s 262-263).
Published in General
Of course you have to be skeptical. The Church rejects, for example, just about all alleged apparitions. The evidence of an apparition must meet very strict rules of proof, and even if the Church finds the evidence sufficient to establish that a miraculous event satisfies those rules, the Church also states that no one must believe in the apparition. The fundamental truths of the faith have been establised over centuries of skepticism. The Nicene Creed, for example, worked it’s way out through various Church councils before it became “official.” The Church is extremely careful about articles of faith that must be accepted by the faithful.
Contrary to popular decree, Popes rarely issue infallible declarations. As I recall, the last such teaching was Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumption of Mary, issued, if I recall correctly, in 1950. Theological teachings must be subject to long and critical analysis by theologians before they are even eligible for such a decree. The truth is the Church looks with a jaundice eye on most issues. It’s always been like that. In fact, it took centuries for the Church to decide which books of the Bible were authentic and true.
But I would argue that such painstaking theological analysis adds considerable credibility to Church teachings.
As for arcane rules, there is much misunderstanding about this. I have to do some other stuff now, but I may come back to this in another post.
It’s always fun M(-:
Can’t pass on the Genesis assertion. The Catholic Church does not read Genesis as a scientific doctrine. It reads it as a theological book. It must therefore be read in the context of the history of salvation which is chronicled throughout the Bible.
Here’s an example. Genesis begins with “let there be light.” One common and false criticisim is that this is incoherent because the sun isn’t created in Genesis until the third day. But read theologically “light” is analogical–light as transcendence and light as the knowledge of God. Jesus calls himself the “true light of the world.” He obviously isn’t literally calling himself the sun. He is the revelation of God.
It’s interesting that the new atheists always read the Bible literally. They are, in this sense, fundamentalists of the same sort as Christians who think Genesis is an actual and factual account of creation. That’s kind of intellectually lazy. St. Augustine’s account of creation is hardly a literal reading of Genesis. In fact many physicists respect Augustine for his account of creation and his realization that time did not exist before the physical world came into existence. It’s rather an astonishing conclusion since Augustine did not know anything about Einstein or other physicists. anonymous wrote about a physicist who had considerable respect for Augustine. Don’t have time to find John’s post, but the guy is named in it.
Actually, if the jury believes the witness who says I vaporized the guy I’m going to be convicted. Sure, under the corpus delicti rule the prosecution has to prove the guy is dead, but if proven then one witness who the jury believes, even if not corroborated. The jury is the final finder of fact. They can reject the witness testimony as not credible, but if they believe him I’m toast.
There are cases where corroboration is necessary, e.g., the testimony of accomplishes, but they too are witnesses.
The questionI surmise is whether Hitchen’s claim that extraordinary evidence must be offered to prove an extraordinary assertion. But among the questions to be posed to Hitchen’s is what does he mean by extraordinary evidence, and how does he determine what that evidence must be?
Bye now!
MJBubba would disagree with you. He and his congregation believe Genesis is a literal account of the creation, down to the apocalyptic Noah’s Flood.
Atheists aren’t “fundamentalists” who believe these things – but only a very liberal reading of the scriptures could make the case you are, which is allegorical.
I don’t know on what basis you reject the actual fundamentalists’ claim of a literal reading of the Bible – I can think of several reasons including “fundamental incredibility.”
Even so – if you actually didn’t do it, the will of the jurors could be in error.
On Hitch, I don’t think his demands were unreasonable. If people claim (like Kirsten Powers) to have met with the incarnation of God – how is it that they are never in possession of special knowledge after such a meeting? You know, something which only God could know which they share with you? That would be evidence, and extraordinary.
Everybody has a camera in their phone today. We never see pictures of the incredible things that people claim to be experiencing. That sort of mundane evidence is what is being asked for.
So, again, the testimony on its own is insufficient – and there are good reasons for this. Our actions leave indelible tracks in their wake which have to be marshaled in addition to the narrative. So, the testimony is NOT uncorroborated in this case, somebody has died, somebody saw you do it and those facts conspire to fill in a narrative that you did this thing – even if it is an incredible occurrence. Smart jurors might demand additional proofs which are in line with the incredible occurrence – demonstrations of your possession of the ray gun or whatnot.
Testimony is evidence in court Maj. And it’s evidence from a logical perspective. How much weight to give it — that’s another question. But it is some quantum of evidence.
OK – so would you describe it as being catalytic, in that an ounce of testimony which points in the direction of the preponderance of the evidence is worth a pound of testimony going the other direction?
It just seems to me that incredible testimony is just that: incredible. That doesn’t make it “evidence” which has a sort of measurable quantity to it. Something has to go along with a person’s words to give flesh to the otherwise unbelievable.
Now I see the problem. Engineers deal with tangible things. Law isn’t always like that. Witness testimony can be given great weight — even enough to convict for murder conceivably (if the jury buys it, a body definitely helps).
That doesn’t, however, undermine your argument that a fact finder is entitled to weigh the evidence in light of his common sense and experience of life, and entirely justified in rejecting weakly supported testimony making exceptionally improbable claims — such as claims of alien abduction or rising from the dead.
You’re confusing the idea of “some evidence” with the idea of “evidence that is persuasive in light of all the circumstances.” See my last comment. Testimony is always “some” evidence. Whether it’s enough to trip up an ant is another question.
I’m at the same place at the end of the day. It would be worth looking into if I ever find the time.
Well, I’m not arguing that there is a possibility of religious knowledge which is of the same nature as scientific knowledge, or even of the same quality. I’m just saying that religious knowledge is possible if there is a reliable testimony and a way to recognize it, and that religious knowledge would be similar to scientific, historical, geographical, and familiar knowledge in that it relies on reliable testimony.
Now I might disagree with you on one point; I have a broader definition of empiricism. I take history to be a source of empirical knowledge.
Well, if we’re being objective about the existence of God or the existence of miracles: Yes. Of course they are equally plausible. Is there some reason we shouldn’t be objective about this?
Yes. Unless I begin by assuming that God does not exist or that the laws of physics are absolute–which is to begin by begging the question–then the responsible thing to do is to presume in favor of testimony. A well-established historical fact is a well-established fact. If a well-established fact conflicts with the laws of physics as we understand them, then either we have not understood them as well as we thought, or (if we have understood them pretty darn well) the laws of physics are not absolute.
That’s begging the question, my good man. I say they have been shown to not be absolute.
Ok, cool.
No objections. And the analysis of Hegel, SK, and Marx pleases me much.
So you really think the vast majority of Ricochetti are wholly lacking in knowledge that Friedman is more accurate than Marx?
Unless you’re using “objective” in some technical sense that I’m not familiar with, I don’t agree that objectivity requires me to approach the question naked. As I said somewhere about 80 comments ago, we are entitled to take account of our knowledge and experience of life and the world in evaluating the plausibility of a claim. That knowledge and experience, for most of us, very strongly suggests that people do not rise from the dead and miracles do not occur. That is, and should, be a meaningful impediment to belief in a claim to a miracle. As Maj said somewhere a ways back — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think that’s fair and right as an epistemological matter.
Well, that’s a fine definition of reliable authority in certain contexts. But it doesn’t work for my knowledge that my material grandfather was Herbert Daniels. And I’m not sure it works even for history; if Josephus were the only guy talking about the fall of Masada, I think we could still know it to be a historical event.
I think you are the one begging the question here.
There is physical evidence that corroborates the Masada story. The remains are still there — including evidence of the Roman camps and the ramp they built for the assault.
Well, He can certainly do both. But I’m pretty sure a genuine miracle, by definition, would be an overruling.
One of the things that makes it difficult to take religious claims seriously is that they always are expressed in terms that do not require you to posit the objective existence of a higher intelligence as their source. No revelation or utterance of God in the Bible or any other religious text in history tells us things that the recipient of the revelation couldn’t have thought up or imagined on his own. Even when the Bible tells us things about the empirical world, it is incorrect about them when it ventures into areas that the human authors couldn’t have known about unless told by a higher intelligence. Why does the Bible say the sky is made of water? Because a higher intelligence said it was? Or because the sky actually looks to us like it’s made of water? God never says anything to us that we couldn’t have imagined on our own. There’s nothing in the Bible we can point to and say “Aha! They couldn’t have known THAT back then, so someone must have told them.” So at best, revelation and religious knowledge are subjectively conceived and appropriated. At worst, it’s just imaginative speculation, a projection of the human mind.
Nothing I’ve said here comes close to capturing the full argument for the Resurrection. (The Wright book I linked would do better, of course.)
I’ve only hinted at the bigger narrative. And there are all these eyewitnesses to the resurrected Messiah, no record of any recanting, all risking their lives, and at least 10 out of 12 apostles actually losing their lives–plus Paul and James the brother of Jesus. An unusually compelling testimony.
My theology teacher used to explain by analogy to accounting that a conspiracy to lie about the Resurrection is psychologically impossible. It’s like having 15 people responsible for the money of a big corporation all conspiring together to secretly steal it, then spreading out all over the world and sacrificing their lives to keep up the scam.
When you put it all together is a really extraordinary accumulation of evidence by testimony. Since testimony is a source of knowledge, one who doesn’t presume the impossibility of miracles but allows experience to inform him whether they happen can have knowledge that this one did happen.
Which question?
The assumption under question which I am talking about not presuming in order to defend it is the assumption that the laws of physics are absolute.
Jolly good. My point regarding Masada is that a degree of (perhaps relatively low-quality) knowledge about Masada would be possible if all we had was Josephus’ testimony. Like you said, a testimony produces (or is) a quantum of evidence. What matters is how much.
My understanding of things is simply that, since testimony produces (or is) a quantum of evidence, if we do not presume the impossibility of miracles, then a really well-established one can be known to have occurred.
(Of course, there’s no point looking at the evidence for the Resurrection thoroughly here; we can only do it in outline form. To look at it thoroughly would be like writing a book, which we can’t easily do on a discussion boad; anyway, such a book has already been written–perhaps several times, but I’d say start with the Wright book for a closer look.)
In # 19 I overview what I take to be the best way of establishing that the Bible is a source of knowledge (whether infallible or merely reliable). (It’s not any way you mention here.)
Ok, then you were begging a question.
I’ve always been partial to the interpretation that the Creation story is a transcript of a vision. It’s like a time-lapse video of the origin of the world. How exactly could the nature of the early universe or even early life on Earth be explained to even a brilliant scholar of the Mosaic era? The essential elements are that the creation happened in a deliberate, purposeful manner, that it was done well, and most importantly, God is separate and superior to Creation. I prefer John 1’s creation story, where God brings purpose and information to the world.
I’d imagine saying “Let there be light” might also refer to the concept of energy or a Big Bang like event.