In a previous post (Worldview) I mentioned there are four presuppositions that are foundational to how we view Reality: Being, Metaphysics, Ontology, and Epistemology. The last post dealt with Ontology. This post will deal with Epistemology, which deals with knowledge. My objective here is not to give a comprehensive dissertation on these subjects, but simply to examine them from a practical standpoint, so we can understand how presuppositions affect our views today.

There are two foundational epistemological options: (1) Believe in Absolute Truth, or (2) Believe there is NO Absolute Truth, but instead only relative truths. Absolute Truth (herein denoted by Truth with a capital “T”) implies a fixed, external point of reference (e.g., God). Believers of Truth believe there is “indubitable knowledge” (knowledge that cannot be doubted) such as mathematical laws like 1 + 1 = 2, and no other answer is possible. On the other hand, relative truths are self-referenced, there is no external frame of reference–instead, everyone looks inside themselves. Perhaps one day a denier of Truth wakes up and thinks 1 + 1 = 4 is true, or that he is actually a woman, or that robbing a bank is a good thing to do. Well, since truths are relative and self-referenced, no one can prove otherwise, and to try to do so would be out of place entirely in the relativistic mindset.

In the western world, religious belief in Truth (“I believe it because it must be true, some authority says so”) is in decline, due to two factors: (1) an increase in the scientific way of knowing (following the scientific method to arrive at Truth [or truth]) from the time of Galileo Galilei (who promoted a scientific epistemology), and (2) the rise of Post-Modernism, which personalizes knowledge, basing it on one’s personal experience and reference, rejecting the notion that Truth can ever be attained. René Descartes tried to use doubt to make a way of knowing that was (ironically) indubitable, in order to combat Galileo’s scientific epistemology. Descartes asserted that one does not truly know something until one is completely sure (it cannot be doubted). Implicit in this epistemology is that deductive reasoning is the only valid way to arrive at Truth. The implication of this reasoning process in the modern mind goes something like this:

1. Knowledge requires complete certainty about something.
2. We cannot be absolutely certain about anything.
3. Thus, we have no reliable knowledge.

Consequently, doubting as the basis for indubitable knowledge (Truth) results in a very sad and hopeless situation, because if true, one might say, “if science or I cannot ever discover Truth, and I can never know that another loves me, I may as well give up trying to know anything… and if that is the case, then what is the point of life? And if there is no point of life, but I am alive, then I might as well enjoy it! And when it no longer becomes enjoyable, I might as well take a quick exit.” Thus, this view, which actually undergirds Post-Modernism and tolerance (everything is relatively good), leads to either debauchery and hedonism, or cynicism, nihilism, and utter hopelessness leading to suicide.

There are some serious issues though with having an epistemology based on doubt. For one, in order to doubt something “A,” one must believe something “B” is preferable. Without faith in “B” there is no reason to doubt “A.” This does not mean there is no place for doubting, but that it is secondary to believing. A relativistic epistemology inherently doubts Truth can be known, but there is another major problem: Relativists have to make and fully believe this absolute Truth statement: “Everything is relative.” How ironic! Furthermore, relativistic thinking leads to everyone being equal in the eyes of everyone else, which leads to mediocrity, since the belief is that no one can be better than another or know Truth.

But there is another way of knowing, and that is by way of probability. In other words, the most probable explanations become what we know as Truth. If you stop and think about it, most of what we know and our knowledge of life is based on probability. When you flip a switch, do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the light will come on? No, but you don’t let that inability to know completely prevent you from flipping the switch and using the light. Yes, on rare instances the light does not come on, but then what do we do? We judge that the highest probability is that the light bulb needs replacing and then we will have light again. In terms of a relationship, you may not be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person you marry or married will love you forever, but based on previous experiences when you have observed and felt their love, you stay in the relationship because of the high probability that love will continue. Or consider the justice system: Arguments are presented by the prosecution in order to build up the probability that a crime was committed (and the defense tries to build up the probability of innocence), and the judge or jury decides based on the weight of evidence whether the suspect is most likely guilty or innocent (which is True?). So having a probabilistic epistemology is very useful from a practical perspective.

It is important to remember that with probabilistic knowledge, there is the possibility of being wrong, so humility is warranted. Christians generally see God as omniscient (all-knowing), but His created beings do not have this property by nature of being in the lower/created realm. Knowing something is probably Truth should never produce arrogance, for in the words of the Apostle Paul, “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Another important implication of a probabilistic epistemology is that any information that comes from the supernatural realm comes in the form of probabilistic knowledge, rather than by way of strict deduction. In other words, it is not necessary to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a supernatural realm or that God exists, in order for one to judge that the weight of evidence favors their existence. This is called having an evidence-based faith that something is True. In future posts, we will look at some of the evidences that the supernatural realm and God exists. But for now, the next post will summarize the foundational presuppositions and I will reveal the presuppositions that I have and will use to build on moving forward.