Graduate 55: Embracing Reason, Part 2 of 3: Experience
This is the second in my series of blog entries on the topic of reason and rationality. In the last entry we took a second look at the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac in order to reevaluate the presuppositions that shaped our view of the story. Many people think of faith as being very far removed from reason, but I tried to demonstrate how they might be brought closer together. That exercise was one step in the process of moving out of my "postmodern slumber." (That phrase, by the way, is an allusion to a line from Kant, in which he credits Hume with having wakened him from his own "dogmatic slumber." I wonder if Kant was not better off asleep.) Here I expand somewhat on the nature of the problem of postmodernism for reason.
--
It is interesting to look back on the course of my undergraduate college education and reflect on the things I have learned and the journey of personal and intellectual growth that has brought me to where I am right now. I like to joke about all the remarkable and profound philosophical insights I have developed over the years. Every time I think I've discovered or invented something new, I later learn that someone already beat me to it (usually by about five hundred years). Indeed, education, itself, is a remarkable thing--to be exposed to the collective thought of hundreds of brilliant men and women from across the centuries. In fact, the key to all human progress seems to be this important ability to preserve and communicate the wisdom and discoveries and experiences of past individuals and peoples to living people in the present. Without that ability, each generation would have to begin at square one and likely wouldn't get very far beyond that.
As sensible and intuitive as this introduction may seem, there are schools of thought that, when carefully considered, seem to work against this most basic principle of human culture, society, and history. Drawn to their logical conclusion, these philosophies can undermine, not only communication across time, but also across cultures, and between individuals. How might one come to such a (pessimistic) view of the world?--through an opposing, yet equally-compelling set of intuitions.
We readily recognize our ability to communicate meaningfully with people around us, to understand the message of a written text, and to interpret language. Yet we have also had the experience of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation. As our exposure to the diversity of cultures that inhabit this globe increases, so does our awareness that many people see the world very differently than do we; different people groups hold to fundamentally different worldviews. And with that comes an ever-increasing awareness of the factors that shape and mold our own view of things. This can lead very naturally to a deeply dividing skepticism about the possibility of understanding reality or communicating with other human beings.
Within the discipline of Christian theology, this has led some to doubt whether we can truly know or communicate anything about God or His nature/character. Aren't we bound by our finitude? Aren't we "merely" human? Mustn't our language always fall short of capturing who God is?
This question was posed to me recently by a close friend of mine with whom I regularly discuss philosophical and theological issues. And my own reply surprised me somewhat, because for much of the past two years, I have been enamored of this very way of thinking. Don't get me wrong--I have never been completely comfortable with the skeptical and relativistic implications of thinking strongly-worldviewishly. But thinking in terms of worldviews does make a lot of sense to me. It comports well with certain Biblical ways of speaking. But in its strongest form, it has the unwelcome consequence of making every human being the determined pawn of his or her upbringing and history. Why do you believe what you believe?--because of the way you were raised. And, it leads people to view their individual experiences as fundamentally unique and non-communicable.
In shaping my answer to my friend's question, I did not focus so much on worldview and presuppositions. Instead, I began to push for a reorientation. Instead of asking the question, "Can we know or communicate truths about God?" I began to ask, "Are we capable of recognizing a truth about God if and when it is presented to us?"
--
So after that rather winding introduction, let me clarify what is being discussed here: knowledge and the communication of that knowledge. The two are very closely related because if our knowledge is to encompass more than just our immediate experience, we must rely on a system that preserves and communicates the truth content of that knowledge. With postmodernity has come a deeply dividing skepticism about the ability of individuals, in light of their fundamentally different and supposedly incommensurable worldviews, to receive knowledge from and convey it to other people.
Can we draw certain or definitive knowledge of God from the pages of Scripture? Can we draw certain or definitive knowledge about anything from anything other than direct experience? Our culture would tend to say, "No." Instead, "Seeing is believing," and personal experience trumps all other forms of knowledge.
Enter sweeping generalizations: Consider junior-highers, high schoolers, and college students. They never believe what you tell them. Smoking is bad for you. Alcohol can really mess up your life. Bad company corrupts good morals. Every limit or boundary that you set for them, they will challenge and break--why? Because they won't believe what you say until they've experienced it for themselves. They actually have to experience a hang-over before they'll consider limiting their alcohol-intake. (In a tragi-comic moment of irony, even Christian college students will listen to a guy's testimony about his battle with alcohol--including the ways it ruined his life--and will defend their drinking on the basis that Jesus turned water into wine.)
Two clarifying remarks before I continue: (1) Drinking, in and of itself, is not a sin. My critique focuses on the reasoning that goes into the decision to drink. (2) The fact that adolescent guys challenge boundaries in the way I have described is due, in large part, to their stage of cognitive development. Poor reasoning and irrationality comes with the territory. (Ha ha ha!) But it's not actually my intention to censure adolescents. Alcohol-consumption is just a useful example.
The youth who questions his elders may wonder whether their information is correct, whether it applies to him, whether his experience might be different. He often insists that the only way that he can really know is to try something for himself. Now this is alright up to a point, but it can quickly become dangerous. Must one try marijuana, cocaine, or other dangerous drugs before one can know that they are dangerous? What about experimenting in the area of sexuality? Must one participate in every vice before one can really know that it's bad or unwise?
And what about positive, beneficial, or virtuous activities, which often require patience and perseverance before they bear visible fruits? How many people abandon or never engage in long-term enterprises because they cannot see the results.
--
The paradigmatic case of certain knowledge in the modern era is immediate experience through the senses, which includes the five physical senses and the emotive/affective senses (pleasure, pain, happiness, sadness). But notice two significant implications of this fact. (1) In employing this model, it becomes impossible to know anything of which we are not immediately aware and (2) this view assumes that the senses are always truthful and accurate in what they convey.
Let's tackle the second point first. There is a tendency in today's culture to associate the pleasurable with the good and the painful with the bad. This is no accident; in fact, this tendency has grown up out of certain systems of ethical thought (like utilitarianism) that tried to generate a naturalistic morality. But consider common experience. Is the good always pleasurable? Is the bad always painful? Give a five-year-old the choice between a diet of vegetables and one of cookies--which will she choose? Give a twelve-year-old the choice between playing video games and practicing piano--which will he choose? Give a casanova the choice between an enduring monogamous relationship and a different woman every night--which will he choose? Give an uncooperative (and short-sighted) patient the choice between taking her medication regularly and disregarding the doctor's (troublesome) advice--which will she choose? For most of history, reason has served as a check on the appetite (i.e. desire for pleasure-fulfillment). Some things that feel good are good; some are not. Some things that feel bad are bad; some are not. But notice that the apparatus for discerning which is which is not tied to the immediate senses.
Recognizing the value of a balanced diet requires the ability to think about the consequences of one's actions that extend beyond immediate experience. Choosing to practice piano involves commitment to a project that may not bear fruit for years. Choosing to marry means being devoted to more than just instant gratification. And following a doctor's (troublesome) instructions involves recognizing that there is more to wellness and human flourishing than getting to do what I want. Do we know that vegetables are good for one's health? Yes. But notice, there are only two ways you can know that for certain. (1) Personal experience: You always eat your vegetables and at the moment of your death you can judge whether yours was a healthy life. (But notice that you cannot then be certain that consistently eating cookies instead of vegetables would have been less healthy for you. So you'll never really know.) Or (2) reason: Drawing on the experience of other people and the advice of doctors, you can conclude that vegetables, more than cookies, will lead to overall better health. But this second approach is ruled out by a standard of certain knowledge that only admits immediate experience; that is the essence of the first point listed above (i.e. that in employing this model, it becomes impossible to know anything of which we are not immediately aware).
--
Here's the bottom line: If we are to learn from history or from the testimony of other people, we must be able to step outside of our own experience. If we are to know anything about God from Scripture and tradition, we must be able to step outside of our own experience. If we are to know anything that extends beyond what I immediately see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and feel, we must be able to step outside of our own experience.
But our culture has conditioned us in such a way that we increasingly refuse to take seriously anything but our own experience. So while many people are asking, "Can we have certain knowledge about God and the world?" I want to ask, "Are we even capable of recognizing a true fact about God and the world." I want to suggest, perhaps quite controversially, that our culture is moving in a direction that makes it impossible for people to recognize good rational arguments and sound truths and certain knowledge.
We need to take seriously the possibility that the deeply skeptical individual is not suffering from a lack of evidence, but from an inability to recognize and comprehend a rational argument or position, even when it is presented to her. She may simply be irrational.
--
Of course, in any case of a person-in-doubt, there is the possibility that his doubt is warranted and appropriate; that possibility must be taken seriously. But is the pervasive, all-encompassing skepticism generated by postmodernism, that undermines our knowledge of everything really legitimate. Remember, we've all had experiences of miscommunication and misunderstanding, but the reason we are able to work and live and function as a society is that most of the time we don't have a problem communicating or understanding one another. So I want to suggest that the problem does not lie in the kind of reasoning we engage in, but just in our lack of reasoning.
Next time I'll take things a step further and suggest that faith is not only compatible with reason, but an integral and essential part of any complete epistemology.
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
--
It is interesting to look back on the course of my undergraduate college education and reflect on the things I have learned and the journey of personal and intellectual growth that has brought me to where I am right now. I like to joke about all the remarkable and profound philosophical insights I have developed over the years. Every time I think I've discovered or invented something new, I later learn that someone already beat me to it (usually by about five hundred years). Indeed, education, itself, is a remarkable thing--to be exposed to the collective thought of hundreds of brilliant men and women from across the centuries. In fact, the key to all human progress seems to be this important ability to preserve and communicate the wisdom and discoveries and experiences of past individuals and peoples to living people in the present. Without that ability, each generation would have to begin at square one and likely wouldn't get very far beyond that.
As sensible and intuitive as this introduction may seem, there are schools of thought that, when carefully considered, seem to work against this most basic principle of human culture, society, and history. Drawn to their logical conclusion, these philosophies can undermine, not only communication across time, but also across cultures, and between individuals. How might one come to such a (pessimistic) view of the world?--through an opposing, yet equally-compelling set of intuitions.
We readily recognize our ability to communicate meaningfully with people around us, to understand the message of a written text, and to interpret language. Yet we have also had the experience of miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation. As our exposure to the diversity of cultures that inhabit this globe increases, so does our awareness that many people see the world very differently than do we; different people groups hold to fundamentally different worldviews. And with that comes an ever-increasing awareness of the factors that shape and mold our own view of things. This can lead very naturally to a deeply dividing skepticism about the possibility of understanding reality or communicating with other human beings.
Within the discipline of Christian theology, this has led some to doubt whether we can truly know or communicate anything about God or His nature/character. Aren't we bound by our finitude? Aren't we "merely" human? Mustn't our language always fall short of capturing who God is?
This question was posed to me recently by a close friend of mine with whom I regularly discuss philosophical and theological issues. And my own reply surprised me somewhat, because for much of the past two years, I have been enamored of this very way of thinking. Don't get me wrong--I have never been completely comfortable with the skeptical and relativistic implications of thinking strongly-worldviewishly. But thinking in terms of worldviews does make a lot of sense to me. It comports well with certain Biblical ways of speaking. But in its strongest form, it has the unwelcome consequence of making every human being the determined pawn of his or her upbringing and history. Why do you believe what you believe?--because of the way you were raised. And, it leads people to view their individual experiences as fundamentally unique and non-communicable.
In shaping my answer to my friend's question, I did not focus so much on worldview and presuppositions. Instead, I began to push for a reorientation. Instead of asking the question, "Can we know or communicate truths about God?" I began to ask, "Are we capable of recognizing a truth about God if and when it is presented to us?"
--
So after that rather winding introduction, let me clarify what is being discussed here: knowledge and the communication of that knowledge. The two are very closely related because if our knowledge is to encompass more than just our immediate experience, we must rely on a system that preserves and communicates the truth content of that knowledge. With postmodernity has come a deeply dividing skepticism about the ability of individuals, in light of their fundamentally different and supposedly incommensurable worldviews, to receive knowledge from and convey it to other people.
Can we draw certain or definitive knowledge of God from the pages of Scripture? Can we draw certain or definitive knowledge about anything from anything other than direct experience? Our culture would tend to say, "No." Instead, "Seeing is believing," and personal experience trumps all other forms of knowledge.
Enter sweeping generalizations: Consider junior-highers, high schoolers, and college students. They never believe what you tell them. Smoking is bad for you. Alcohol can really mess up your life. Bad company corrupts good morals. Every limit or boundary that you set for them, they will challenge and break--why? Because they won't believe what you say until they've experienced it for themselves. They actually have to experience a hang-over before they'll consider limiting their alcohol-intake. (In a tragi-comic moment of irony, even Christian college students will listen to a guy's testimony about his battle with alcohol--including the ways it ruined his life--and will defend their drinking on the basis that Jesus turned water into wine.)
Two clarifying remarks before I continue: (1) Drinking, in and of itself, is not a sin. My critique focuses on the reasoning that goes into the decision to drink. (2) The fact that adolescent guys challenge boundaries in the way I have described is due, in large part, to their stage of cognitive development. Poor reasoning and irrationality comes with the territory. (Ha ha ha!) But it's not actually my intention to censure adolescents. Alcohol-consumption is just a useful example.
The youth who questions his elders may wonder whether their information is correct, whether it applies to him, whether his experience might be different. He often insists that the only way that he can really know is to try something for himself. Now this is alright up to a point, but it can quickly become dangerous. Must one try marijuana, cocaine, or other dangerous drugs before one can know that they are dangerous? What about experimenting in the area of sexuality? Must one participate in every vice before one can really know that it's bad or unwise?
And what about positive, beneficial, or virtuous activities, which often require patience and perseverance before they bear visible fruits? How many people abandon or never engage in long-term enterprises because they cannot see the results.
--
The paradigmatic case of certain knowledge in the modern era is immediate experience through the senses, which includes the five physical senses and the emotive/affective senses (pleasure, pain, happiness, sadness). But notice two significant implications of this fact. (1) In employing this model, it becomes impossible to know anything of which we are not immediately aware and (2) this view assumes that the senses are always truthful and accurate in what they convey.
Let's tackle the second point first. There is a tendency in today's culture to associate the pleasurable with the good and the painful with the bad. This is no accident; in fact, this tendency has grown up out of certain systems of ethical thought (like utilitarianism) that tried to generate a naturalistic morality. But consider common experience. Is the good always pleasurable? Is the bad always painful? Give a five-year-old the choice between a diet of vegetables and one of cookies--which will she choose? Give a twelve-year-old the choice between playing video games and practicing piano--which will he choose? Give a casanova the choice between an enduring monogamous relationship and a different woman every night--which will he choose? Give an uncooperative (and short-sighted) patient the choice between taking her medication regularly and disregarding the doctor's (troublesome) advice--which will she choose? For most of history, reason has served as a check on the appetite (i.e. desire for pleasure-fulfillment). Some things that feel good are good; some are not. Some things that feel bad are bad; some are not. But notice that the apparatus for discerning which is which is not tied to the immediate senses.
Recognizing the value of a balanced diet requires the ability to think about the consequences of one's actions that extend beyond immediate experience. Choosing to practice piano involves commitment to a project that may not bear fruit for years. Choosing to marry means being devoted to more than just instant gratification. And following a doctor's (troublesome) instructions involves recognizing that there is more to wellness and human flourishing than getting to do what I want. Do we know that vegetables are good for one's health? Yes. But notice, there are only two ways you can know that for certain. (1) Personal experience: You always eat your vegetables and at the moment of your death you can judge whether yours was a healthy life. (But notice that you cannot then be certain that consistently eating cookies instead of vegetables would have been less healthy for you. So you'll never really know.) Or (2) reason: Drawing on the experience of other people and the advice of doctors, you can conclude that vegetables, more than cookies, will lead to overall better health. But this second approach is ruled out by a standard of certain knowledge that only admits immediate experience; that is the essence of the first point listed above (i.e. that in employing this model, it becomes impossible to know anything of which we are not immediately aware).
--
Here's the bottom line: If we are to learn from history or from the testimony of other people, we must be able to step outside of our own experience. If we are to know anything about God from Scripture and tradition, we must be able to step outside of our own experience. If we are to know anything that extends beyond what I immediately see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and feel, we must be able to step outside of our own experience.
But our culture has conditioned us in such a way that we increasingly refuse to take seriously anything but our own experience. So while many people are asking, "Can we have certain knowledge about God and the world?" I want to ask, "Are we even capable of recognizing a true fact about God and the world." I want to suggest, perhaps quite controversially, that our culture is moving in a direction that makes it impossible for people to recognize good rational arguments and sound truths and certain knowledge.
We need to take seriously the possibility that the deeply skeptical individual is not suffering from a lack of evidence, but from an inability to recognize and comprehend a rational argument or position, even when it is presented to her. She may simply be irrational.
--
Of course, in any case of a person-in-doubt, there is the possibility that his doubt is warranted and appropriate; that possibility must be taken seriously. But is the pervasive, all-encompassing skepticism generated by postmodernism, that undermines our knowledge of everything really legitimate. Remember, we've all had experiences of miscommunication and misunderstanding, but the reason we are able to work and live and function as a society is that most of the time we don't have a problem communicating or understanding one another. So I want to suggest that the problem does not lie in the kind of reasoning we engage in, but just in our lack of reasoning.
Next time I'll take things a step further and suggest that faith is not only compatible with reason, but an integral and essential part of any complete epistemology.
--
God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.
posted by Metaphysician_delta | 8:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home