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
Well, maybe Mike H. is right. At any rate, the alien abduction objection raised by Majesty in # 57 is a nice one, and it is surely lurking somewhere in the area of Mike H’s remarks. My reply to that objection is # 115.
Which one exactly?
No you didn’t.
Jesus never wrote a single word for any of us to read, so any of his purported sayings are highly questionable, as they were written down 50 years after the events they allegedly describe. How can this in any way be taken seriously?
The fact that these utterances were faithfully re-copied many times also tells us nothing about their veracity.
It’s as Bob W said: you’d expect there to be something novel that nobody but God could have known in there if it were a transmission from him. There’s nothing but inventive story-telling.
That sort of defense of biblical authority would rely on the historical reliability of the gospels, to which you offer some standard objections here. I think I replied to all of them already, probably on the second page of comments.
Why should we expect that? I think what I would expect God to tell us in His revelation is whatever God saw fit to tell us.
I think I was referring to the claim that the resurrection is a well established historical fact, but I’m not even certain now and don’t want to quibble about it. I withdraw the statements.
The mass Suicide at Masada is psychologically unlikely as well. However, it did happen, although it was probably more like mass murder/suicide.
The alien abductees are still out there, begging for you to believe them. They have nothing to gain but scorn and fervently believe they are prophets.
They also have just as much evidence in their corner for their miracle as you do. The agedness of the one legend does not grant it additional credibility.
To Augustine and All,
Just for the fun of it. Here’s a guy that can convince you that the sea really parted, the Israelites really went across, and the sea closed in on the Egyptian Royal Army chasing them.
RED SEA CROSSING
And to all a good night.
Regards,
Jim
Is archeology considered science? If it is, then many of the predictions and statements in the bible are historically accurate. Seeing as archeologists have been uncovering physical evidence that the bible has spoke of for 100’s of years. That marriage between science and religion is a fact that can be proven.
But the rest of it is just a coincidental myth. Maybe. Right?
I’ll consider a direct objection to # 115. But this, as far as I can tell, is missing the points raised therein.
(Does it make a difference that alien abductees are pointing to separate events? It just might; I might have to think about it.)
A salient point!
Thanks! I think I watched a documentary from this guy. It seemed to me to be immensely convincing evidence.
If there are rebuttals, I’d be happy to hear them. (I just hope they don’t take a whole lot of time and effort to look over!)
Archeology undoubtedly sheds light on the veracity of some bible events. There is a whole subdiscipline known as biblical archeology devoted to the endeavor.
My direct objection is this – not only do you not have any direct knowledge of the events which are purported to have happened in the Bible (you have second and third-hand retellings which may or may not be accurate and no independent verification) but you buzz right past the fact that using your criteria, the abductees have a quite strong basis of “knowledge” of the various events which have happened to them.
You could toss them in with any number of other Keepers Of Obscurantist Knowledge (KOOKs) who have independently produced tales about Bigfoot, various lake monsters, pyramids on the Moon and whatnot… who similarly have nothing to gain but scorn and derision from the broader culture.
Add to this the fact that any time there is a new religious movement of any stripe, there are typically a cabal of people involved at its heart who are a combination of true believers/con-men, such as the people who surrounded Joseph Smith.
Seriously: Using your criteria, you should be a Mormon. The fathers of that religion generally suffered greatly for having brought it forth and it seems obvious to any outsider that whatever their motivations, they were following a crackpot or a grifter.
I’m not sure if I would call Archaeology a “science,” as scientific endeavors are in the business of making predictions about the nature of the physical world.
You may use scientific tools and methodology to perform certain tasks within archaeology, but that in and of itself doesn’t make it a science.
Paleontology might be considered a science, because it is able to make predictions about where and how certain fossils can be found in the various strata of the Earth.
Science is simply knowledge. Real knowledge, not superstition.
Darwin, for instance, never performed any experiments that I’m aware of, he developed his theory of evolution simply from observation. The same holds true of Einstein and Relativity. Objective observation is the necessary first step in any scientific endeavor.
If, according to your definition, neither of those are science, then what is?
If this is begging the question, then we would be forced to be radical skeptics. The laws of physics being absolute is an intuition that is carried until evidence says otherwise.
Assuming that you were lucky enough to be born into or choose the right set of supernatural beliefs is something entirely different from evidence. There are too many counter examples of people believing any number of things, highly dependant on place of birth, to trust one’s judgement in this area.
Comparable to what’s described in # 115? That would be news to me. You’d better let me know what I don’t know about abductees.
Certainly not. A bundle of witnesses to the revealing of the golden plates by Moroni, and in all other respects paralleling # 115, including their touching and perhaps (since it’s gold rather than a person) biting the plates–if that were the case, I should be a Mormon.
We probably have some fundamental epistemological difference here, but I’m not sure what exactly. In any case, presuming the laws of physics to be absolute is–by definition–begging the question. That’s simply a truth of logic.
Not every question-begging is improper, of course. (The legitimacy of logic itself is a question I’ll happily–and rationally–beg if ever I meet a man who questions logic.)
Ok, now you think this is a question that it is rational to beg. You give two reasons for it, if I understand you rightly.
1. You say that this question must be begged at the risk of falling into skepticism.
I simply don’t know why you say that. (If it matters, I am not a skeptic, and neither are Aquinas or Plantinga or various others.)
2. You say it’s an intuition.
I have no objection to knowledge by intuition. But this isn’t an intuition I have ever had, or indeed quite a few others; if the number of people who believe in miracles is an indicator, most people don’t have that intution.
Maybe we simply have contrary intuitions, and that’s the fundamental epistemological difference.
I would have said Darwin was a naturalist who developed a hypothesis. The “science” part was testing his hypothesis. I believe he may have done some of that himself (didn’t he do a moth experiment?), but the bulk of it has been done by subsequent generations.
One more remark, and then I may have to get outta here at least till tomorrow morning (in my time zone).
My one more remark concerns some fine work by archaeologists. It is this:
The Ark of the Covenant was found in Tanis, and the Holy Grail was found near Alexandretta.
So there.
Testing is part of science. It’s not the whole thing. Not everything requires a lab experiment, and it’s not always possible to perform such an experiment.
Astronomy is most certainly a science, and astronomical observation has provided key proofs of physical theories like relativity. But experimentation is impossible.
Science is knowledge, and the scientific method is simply a process for producing reliable knowledge. Observation is a crucial part of science, as even an experiment requires objective observation to determine the result! There are many, many examples of scientists fooling themselves during experiments due to poor observation skills.
I saw the Moroni response coming. Joseph Smith was quite secretive about circumstances of his revelation if I’m not mistaken. The same cannot be said for the abductees however. They are readily available in large numbers to testify.
You had me going for a second.
Good news: There were 8 witnesses who say they saw and handled the plates.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses
Now, I happen to think these men were just fraudulent, but plenty of people take their testimony seriously. They also constitute a group whose testimony is better documented than the apostles’.
I guess I take for granted that other people have studied this as closely as I have.
You misunderstand my definition. I’m sure many people have confirmed the identity of your grandfather (of course, there are also birth certificates and such), and your trust in the reliability of those people has been established by their pattern of truthfully recounting other events and facts. Reliability is not established by the recounting of the event that is potentially disputed. It is established by accurate recounting of other events that are undisputed. And as far as Josephus goes, anyone should know that you don’t accept the accounts of ancient historians at face value, without corroboration. The Iliad is a story, not a historical document.
Friedman and Hayek were correct about the effectiveness of markets as opposed to central planning, but I’m not sure that is really a principle of economics. It is more a question of policy and history. If it is economics, then I don’t mind adding that to the very short list of principles that economics can state with confidence.
Marx was wrong about everything, but he was more of a sociologist than an economist. He made lots of predictions about the future, every one of which was not only wrong but catastrophically wrong. So doing better than Marx is a pretty low bar.
I don’t know if anyone has made this point yet (I haven’t read all the comments), but as I understand Christian theology, God wants us to accept him on the basis of faith rather than knowledge. If God wanted to remove all doubt from our minds, he could certainly do so. The difference between faith and knowledge is manifest in God’s plan. Asserting that there is no difference between them is bordering on heresy. If you believe that kind of thing.
OK. If I were smarter I would feel more confident in my ability to explain this in a way that would be understood correctly, but I’ll try my best.
1.) We agree that intuition is real information about real things. We probably also agree intuitions are observations similar to external observations.
2.) All observations are faulty. That is, observations are imperfect representations that hold different amounts of truth and are prone to all type of error.
3.) Interpretations of all observations are prima facie knowledge. That is, it is correct to believe what our observations tell us (including our intuitions) until we receive further information in the form of corroborating or contradictory evidence.
4.) Some of our common intuitions are faulty. That is, we may have evolved certain intuitions that are incorrect but were good for survival at one time. Even common incorrect intuitions (which I will call biases) can be discovered and corrected with other types of information. This means our intuitions are not always a source of truth. A good example that we’ll probably agree on is the widely held bias that it is generally government’s job to protect people from themselves. Studying things like economics shows that our common intuitions about this are completely wrong.
5.) Some intuitions are widely disparate. That is, in some cases most people have completely different intuitions about a subject. A good example of this is probably abortion.
6.) When judging whether or not an intuition is faulty, we rely on common sense. Much of what I said in 1.) – 3.) I would put under the category of common sense.
7.) When it comes to truth, and two dispassionate truth seekers like ourselves, there’s no such things as agreeing to disagree. At least one of us is wrong.
8.) So when you say we have contrary intuitions, it is our job to find whose intuition is wrong using evidence, logic, and common sense. One of us (or both of us) have incorrect intuitions, and (in this case) there should be enough information for us to figure this out.
It would be more salient if CC could name a single example. But he can’t. Sure, there is evidence of, oh say, a flood somewhere in the middle east at some time in the past. But that is true in every part of the world because floods happen. Is there archaeological evidence that the entire human race (except one family) was wiped out and all animals alive today descend from the same bonding pair about 4,000 years ago? Oh, puh-leeze.
This book does a good job of unpacking the flood myths and how we got to the point where we are today regarding religious fundamentalism.