Deeper Studies
The Limits of Knowledge, and the Boundary of Faith -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello my friends, you made it. Be at peace, and be welcome by the fire. The cider is well mulled, and this time we have a fruit plate for snacks...what's that? "Give me s'mores, or give me death?" Well, you're no Patrick Henry, but if you want virtual s'mores, you've got 'em. "Virtual" s'mores around a "virtual" campfire. Yes, it's a quaint conceit, but it illustrates a point: the Internet is a tremendous way to transmit data--including numbers, words, information, pictures, graphs, charts...or whatever--but it does little to transmit Knowledge, and even less to transmit Truth. Oh, I can tell you what I have learned, or what I believe. I can show you my experiences, or describe my vision. I can even make an analysis of facts, or a statement of Faith; but none of these will either inform or enlighten you, unless you take that data and experience it yourself, in some form or another. So we can have an amusing mention of "virtual" s'mores, but if you have never had one, do you know what they taste like? Of course not, unless you've tasted one. And that brings me to my first point: knowledge has limits. But before we start discussing what the limits of knowledge are, perhaps we'd better define our terms. What is Knowledge?
For to see Mad Tom of Bedlam
Ten thousand miles I've traveled
Mad Maudlin goes on dirty toes
For to save her shoes from gravel.
Chorus: Still I sing bonnie boys, bonnie mad boys,
Bedlam boys are bonnie.
For they all go bare, and they live by the air,
And they want no drink nor money. We probably all agree that it is possible to know certain things. Where we get into trouble is assuming that we all accept the same sources of knowledge as having equal value--or that what you call "knowledge," I refer to by the same term. Perhaps we'd better start by getting some common definitions going. Here are some words, and the corresponding definitions, as I use them. These definitions may not match your own understanding, or what is in your dictionary: that doesn't mean that your definitions are wrong. Dictionaries tend to include all of the meanings for a word, and you're left with a word that's rather like a sledgehammer--it hits a large target. Because of the nature of what I am writing about, I have to use these words with a great deal more precision than is usual for English (which is frequently a very sloppy language), so I'm trying to make these definitions very narrow and specific. This list gives you a convenient "translation table" for the terms as I use them. Definitions, Part 1: Fact: a discernable, objective, and quantifiable piece of information about the Universe, a person, or whatever.
Discernable: Able to be observed by human senses, or by human-made instrumentation.
Objective: Able to be discerned by all humans who possess the appropriate senses.
Quantifiable: able to be measured: light is quantifiable by how bright it is, and by what frequencies are present.
Knowledge:
A person's aggregation of facts that they possess.
Theoretically, the sum total of facts discovered by humanity.
Science: A method of inquiry that deals with discovering, discerning, and quantifying information about the physical universe. Science deals solely with fact.
Scientific method: The Scientific method is the methodology of inquiry in science, involving several steps.
A person notices an occurrence, or sees an event, or wonders "What if...." This is the idea: it's not formally part of the scientific method, but this is where everything starts.
The person thinks about this idea and develops a falsifiable hypothesis. This is a general statement about his idea that can be tested and disproved--not "tested and proved," and the distinction is very important, but we'll get to it in Chapter 3.
The person tries to prove himself wrong. He uses every test he can think of--or that anyone he can get interested in his idea can think of--to try to disprove the hypothesis. If the tests succeed in disproving his idea, he discards his hypothesis and goes back to step one: if not, he has a theory. Briefly stated, A theory is a hypothesis with proof behind it.
He publishes his idea, and the scientific community as a whole tests the idea. If an idea cannot be disproved, and other scientists develop other theories on it, it may be established as a scientific law.
OK, from this first part, you can see what I mean by "narrowing" the definitions. The dictionary definition of the word "fact" does not care if the statement being evaluated is quantifiable or objective, but for our purposes both aspects are important.
One other thing about the word "fact"--what is considered a fact today may be disproved tomorrow. Facts are not permanent--they are only facts as long as they are not contradicted by new data. Sounds fairly reasonable so far? Any problems? OK, let's go to part two of the definitions: Definitions, Part 2: Opinion: A subjective statement that deals with a person's own preferences, prejudices, likes, and dislikes.
Belief: A profoundly important subjective statement that deals with some segment of a person's world-view.
Faith:
(n) The aggregate total of a person's individual beliefs;
(n) The possession of a belief, or of many beliefs. ("So-and-so has faith in the validity of Capitalism." and "So-and-so has faith in the power of the Goddess" both reflect definition B of Faith.)
(n) A method of inquiry or investigation into areas that are already believed ("deepening" one's faith), or into issues not already covered by one's beliefs ("broadening" one's faith). Faith deals solely with belief.
Here, possibly, is where the argument starts, because the way I have these words defined, opinion is a "sub-set" of belief. Both are subjective statements, and the only difference between the two is relative importance. Don't believe it? Imagine talking to one of your co-workers who happens to be a fan of a particular baseball team.
Whether it happens to be the Atlanta Braves, the Houston Astros, or the Chicago Cubs, you probably know someone who would rather watch their favorite team than eat when they were hungry. Would you care to define the line between "opinion" and "belief" in that case? It's important to understand that, though we make a distinction here between things that we know (knowledge, fact, and science), and things that we believe (opinion, belief, and faith), this distinction rapidly disappears when your dealing with people and the way that they think. As people, we normally don't bother separating knowledge and belief when we're dealing with the world around us. Indeed, we often attach emotional meaning to both our knowledge and our beliefs. We'll discuss the difference between knowledge and belief, and how they affect understanding, in a later section. Let's get back to the definitions--hold on tight, 'cause now we're going to the tough ones: Definitions, Part 3: Worldview: The combination of a person's culture, education, and learned values that affect a person's evaluation of the world around him. Worldview can affect a person's choices, actions, ethical decisions, beliefs, and even their interpretation of facts.
Reason: the ability to understand, evaluate, and extrapolate from known facts, within that individual's worldview. Because it is seemingly impossible to completely separate a person's worldview from their ability to reason, Reason is NOT an objective process.
Truth: A statement is true if it reflects or accurately models reality in some manner. To be true by this definition, a particular statement (statement A) must fulfill all of the following statements:
Statement A cannot contradict a known fact (though it may not necessarily reflect a fact); if it does, either the known fact, or Statement A, is wrong;
Statement A may, or may not, be objectively verifiable;
Statement A may, or may not, be understandable by human beings.
In other words, Statement A can be true, and yet not be known or understood by any human being.
By this definition, all facts are true: A true fact does not contradict other true facts;
Facts are objectively verifiable;
Facts are understandable by human beings.
However, not all truths are factual--by the definition above, a statement may be true even if it is not discernable or objective.
Think about that last statement for a moment. Whatever religion you follow (if you follow one at all), you have certain beliefs concerning the nature of Deity. Whatever your beliefs--whether you believe in Jesus Christ, or the Wiccan God and Goddess, or even if you believe that there is no God--if your statement of belief accurately models the reality of the Divine, then your beliefs are true. The problem comes in with the fact that your beliefs cannot be objectively verified: the Gods will not step on a scale to be measured, and we have no objective basis that will convince all people of the same beliefs--yours or any one else's. If your beliefs accurately model the reality of God, then your beliefs are true, but because of the lack of objective verification, your beliefs (by the above definitions) cannot be considered facts. Whew! OK, if you made it all the way through that, congratulate yourself. Take a break for a few minutes, and then come back to the fire and we'll continue. Applying the Definitions
Remember in our introduction, we stated that most Wiccans believe that the physical universe is (a) intrinsically "real," and that (b) it shares in Divine Nature. It is my belief that the first statement is fact, and the second is truth. By the definitions above, fact and truth cannot contradict each other. What's that? I see some hands...did I lose you? OK, then let's look at an illustration. Here at the "fire" I don't have much in the way of visual aids, so we'll have to make do. I went down to Satan's kitchen
For to get me food one morning
And there I got soul's piping hot
And on a spit a-turning. My staff has murdered giants,
And me bag a long knife carries,
For to cut mince pies from children's thighs
And feed them to the faeries. Ew, those are some graphic images! Seriously, the above quotes come from an old folk song, variously called "Tom o'Bedlam," "Bedlam Boys," or "Mad Maudlin." Although the song is a rather tongue-in-cheek look at a crazy beggar, it illustrates a point: the human brain is capable of imagining some really weird things. If you want a more modern example, look at George Lucas's "Star Wars." Wow! Talk about an epic...the good guys are really, really good; the bad guys are really, really bad; and the garbage pit really, really smells! Yeah, I know, what's your point? The main point is that the human mind can imagine, create, or fabricate an amazing variety of things--images, plans, philosophies, goals, or what have you--but that imagination by itself cannot change the universe. The Universe is a real place. Does that mean that George Lucas's imagined places, people, and events are real things? Unless you're talking about the sound stages, actors, props, and scripts, they are not! Imagination is wonderful--but imagination is not fact--it's not real. OK, step two. Let's look at some statements about George's science fiction movie, Star Wars. 1: The first movie, Star Wars, was over one hour long. Well, yes, that is a fact. 2: The cast of Star Wars included Mark Hammil, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, and Alec Guinness (among others). Well, yes, that's a fact, too. 3: It was the greatest movie ever made. Says who? OK, obviously the above statement is an opinion. It's a subjective statement that states a personal preference for some people, but not necessarily for other people. You may think that Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, True Grit, or maybe The Cat In The Hat are far better movies, and for you, that statement above would not be accurate. I could make the same point about beliefs. Beliefs are not "facts," nor are they "truth." Beliefs are subjective opinions that you, or I, hold without objective evidence. They are important opinions, but they are only opinions. This also fairly puts paid to the concept of a priori knowledge. A priori is a term that identifies knowledge that is gained independently of, or "prior to," sensory experience. Many faith-based arguments are based on a priori knowledge, but by the definitions above, knowledge cannot be gained without sensory experience. Faith-based arguments rely on one's beliefs, not on what one knows; we'll discuss faith in further depth at the end of this section. The Limits of Knowledge
I now repent that ever
Poor Tom was so disdain-ed
My wits are lost since him I crossed
Which makes me thus go chained
That of your five sound senses
You'll never be forsaken,
Nor wander from your souls with Tom
Abroad to beg your bacon! Well, we've talked about what facts are, and we've talked some about knowledge, but we've not mentioned the limits of knowledge--and I can hear it now.... Wait a minute...limits of knowledge? But I thought that we humans could know everything that there is to know, right? We can discover every fact that there is to know, gain all knowledge, and learn everything that there is to learn. I mean, can't we? Hardly! OK, let me clarify that. Theoretically, human beings are fairly amazing, as an aggregate whole. Sure, it was individual human beings who made a machine that could fly, wrote the Odyssey, discovered penicillin, etc.--but none of these discoveries was made in a vacuum. Every single item of knowledge that you learn in school (or out of school) is built on a foundation of other knowledge, and the first brick placed in that edifice was probably the guy who discovered fire. By the same token, however, human beings have also "discovered" that the Earth was flat; that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that all other planets revolved around it (including the Sun); that worms came from horse's hair dropped in water; that medicinal bleeding was therapeutic for anything from gout (somewhat effective, actually) to epilepsy (not at all effective) to infected puncture wounds (highly ineffective, and likely to make the infection far worse). We are human beings: we all have the capacity to misinterpret the sense information that we receive, to reach the wrong conclusion through our ability to reason, to choose an unethical course of action--in other words, to be wrong. And while all of these (and many other) errors start out at the individual level, they all affect the aggregate. So it's the individual person that counts, far more than the aggregate. As individuals, we're not "all that and a bag of chips." Oh, we're not completely helpless--remember, it's us individual humans who make up that amazing aggregate of humanity--but as individuals we're fairly limited. We only live seventy years or so, and that only if we're lucky. Here in America and in England, most of us go to school for twelve to fourteen years--more if you're truly fortunate. After school, most of us are in jobs to support our families, and we don't have too much time for indulging in pure discovery just for the fun of it. Add to that the capacity (or lack thereof) of the human brain, the acuity (or lack thereof) of human senses, and the perspicacity (or lack thereof) of human reasoning...and you're not left with a very flattering picture of the capabilities of the individual human being. The problem with our finite capacity for knowledge becomes worse when we consider the issue of God. Scientists study the Universe as an aggregate, and they share their knowledge and resources to do so. They publish their findings, and other scientists repeat the experiments to either help prove or disprove what gets published. This is humanity as an aggregate--and remember, we said that humans in the aggregate can be pretty amazing. But when we consider the nature of God, we do so as individuals. We cannot, with our finite minds, understand everything there is to know about Deity, even if we--with our finite senses--could gather all the information. Further, we cannot (with any degree of uniformity) get a large number of people to agree on what they discover about Deity. Worse still, we cannot have objective, experiential, quantified knowledge of Deity, because the Gods will not step on a scale to be measured. So the Gods cannot be studied by science--and by the definition above, science is the method of inquiry for facts and knowledge. We cannot, in that sense, have any "knowledge" of the Gods--at least, not by the definitions above. We can--and many of us do--have subjective experiences that we choose to interpret as the hand of the Gods in our lives. We can even have objective experiences that do not seem to fall into the limits understood by science. The problem is we are very limited in how we can transmit that kind of experience to another person. Words don't work all that well for certain experiences; furthermore, my experiences don't do a thing for you. I may believe--I may have faith--but my faith does nothing for you. So, What is Faith?
I know more than Apollo
For oft while he lies sleeping
I see the stars at mortal wars
And the wounded, welcome, weeping. By knight of ghosts and shadows
I summoned am to tourney.
Ten leagues beyond the wide world's end--
Methinks it is no journey. Following the example of the unknown author of the book of Hebrews, most Christians define faith as "The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1), and never realize the play on words that the author was engaging in. For something to be considered "evidence" in a Hebrew court of law, it had to be seen (and therefore had to be visible)--yet faith gives evidence for things unseen. It's a paradox. In that sense, faith is the ability to accept as "real" assertions that have no provable basis in fact. But faith can't do everything. By itself, Faith cannot allow a person to violate physical laws--no matter how firmly I believe I can jump on a broomstick and fly off my rooftop, if I rely solely on faith to make it happen, at best I'm going to wind up with a sore head, and a divot in my front yard. So any belief that I can, by faith alone, fly on a broomstick is obviously not truth--it attempts (unsuccessfully) to contradict fact. Faith has its limits--but those limits are not necessarily the ones defined by cold, pragmatic materialism. Any Theist worth their salt can tell you of the power of prayer, and most Wiccans also have magic in their arsenal of things that are not necessarily within the bounds of accepted "fact." The boundary of faith cannot be quantified, because faith itself cannot be quantified--and if you say "So what?" you're closer to the point than you know. Remember that in the definitions, we said that science deals solely with facts, and that faith deals solely with beliefs. Do the things that you believe in fall outside of commonly accepted fact? They can still be true. Where we run into possible trouble is when we believe things that explicitly contradict known facts--like the scene earlier with the broom and the rooftop. If the fact is true, then your belief is false--or vice versa. And if you believe something that is manifestly untrue, most people tend to look at you funny--at the very least. There is also a third option: your belief may contradict a known fact, and both your belief and the "known fact" may be false. Ain't logic wonderful? A General Summary
With a host of furious fancies
Whereof I am commander.
With a flaming spear, and a horse of air
Through the wilderness I wander.
For to see Mad Tom of Bedlam
Ten thousand miles I've traveled
Mad Maudlin goes on dirty toes
For to save her shoes from gravel. Several points to remember for later: As human beings, we can "know" something--but because our knowledge is finite, we can be wrong. Our knowledge is limited.
As human beings, we can "believe" something--but because faith cannot contradict fact (and remember--we can be wrong on our understanding of fact), our faith is limited.
It sounds like we're in pretty sad shape, doesn't it? Believe it or not, even with these limitations, we can do quite a bit. We just have to remember the limitations, so that our reasoning doesn't run aground on them later.
OK, we've covered a lot of ground, and I'm afraid that the previous fires were barely a warm-up for this week's discussion. And we're still in the foundational work. Think about what you've read here, and I'll try to have something ready next week--but in the meantime, keep those questions and comments coming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1997-2003 c.e., et seq., Justin Eiler. This text file may be freely distributed via computer, print, or other media, provided that no editing is done and this notice is included. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
