« Maxwell Moments: August 8, 2004 | Main | "Amen...and amen!" »
Belief and Knowledge
A continuing thought from discussion last week about 'standards of proof':
(And, yes, if this seems familiar, it's because it's taken directly from a comment I made at BCC: a couple of weeks ago. I make no apologies for plagarizing from myself...)
Many people say we can't "know" the truth of spiritual things, like many Latter-Day Saints claim to ("I know the Church is true...I know God lives...I know Joseph Smith was a prophet!"), and should instead say "I believe..." Some church members lament a seeming lack of faith by saying, "If only I could be visited by an angel like Joseph Smith, then I'd know for sure..."
A couple of problems:
1) Seeing an angel didn't seem to make Laman and Lemuel--not to mention a host of other people from the scriptures--any more faithful because of it.
2) How would you know you had actually seen an angel? Perhaps you were hallucinating? Dreaming? Mentally ill, perhaps?
The question is, then: How do you know anything?
How do you know there is a planet "Mercury" out there in space?
How do you know there was once a "Civil War" in America?
How do you know that when you go to sleep at night the sun is going to come up in the morning?
In a real sense, you can't really know any of these things, because you can always come up with one or more possible scenarios (however unlikely) where they are not true. You may accept these things as 'facts' because the evidence that suggests they are true (in the form of expert testimony and other circumstancial evidence) crosses a certain personal threshold of 'proof' whereby you conclude that such-and-such a fact is probably true. You probably haven't seen Mercury with your own eyes (not that that would prove it, anyway) but have instead heard enough testimony from people who have that you are willing to accept its existence as fact. Yet, in essence, you're still expressing your 'belief' in the testimony of others-- and that 'threshold' or 'standard' of proof can be quite different for different people (witness the groups who say mankind never actually landed on the moon).
This isn't meant to get into a massive philosophical discussion about "What is real?", but--seriously--using the strictest definition of 'know', what can you really know to be true? Even if the skies opened and a great glorious figure stood in the air and proclaimed himself God of the Earth--does that still 'prove' anything? (Mass hallucination again?)
Therefore, I'll issue a challenge to anyone who's interested: if you say you can't know the truth of spiritual things--name something you do know the truthfulness of, and explain why that isn't still, in essence, 'belief'. If nothing, then perhaps the use of the word 'know' in regards to spiritual things can still be appropriate...
August 9, 2004 in Religion | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1003536
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Belief and Knowledge:
Comments
I know that that Lethbridge, Alberta exists (I live here).
I know that the sun exists (I can see it currently).
I know that deer exist (I saw two this morning).
I know my shoes are black (I can see them).
The list can go on. There are most definitely things of which someone can have knowledge and things in which someone can only believe.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Aug 10, 2004 9:50:50 AM
Ah, but what did Neo know? He knew he was living in the real world, he knew he swalloweda pill... Except what he "knew" didn't exist.
You perceive those things -- but you can't verify independently that they're true, that your organs of perception or organ of interpretation (i.e., your brain) are unimpeded and uncompromised.
At the very most basic level, here is the one thing of which I am absolutely, positively sure:
I AM.
Posted by: Nathan | Aug 10, 2004 11:30:00 AM
"I know that that Lethbridge, Alberta exists (I live here).
I know that the sun exists (I can see it currently).
I know that deer exist (I saw two this morning).
I know my shoes are black (I can see them)."
Well, unless you're suffering from hallucinations. Or perhaps there's a mental problem related to color blindness where your shoes of a different color just happen to look black.
You undoubtedly have great faith in things you've seen with your own eyes--especially those that you see every day. But this knowledge still depends on the assumption that your eyes and brain are 100% dependable (as Nathan said).
The main point is: I don't see a huge difference between saying "I know [this] to be true because the Holy Ghost confirmed it to my heart" and "I know [this] to be true because I saw it with my own eyes." Is the second really a better foundation for 'knowledge' versus 'belief' than the first?
Posted by: The Baron | Aug 10, 2004 12:18:04 PM
"But this knowledge still depends on the assumption that your eyes and brain are 100% dependable (as Nathan said)."
Actually, it depends on the assumption that not only my eyes and brain are 100% dependable, but those of others who experience it as well. For example, the statement that I know that Lethbridge exists consists of more than my verification of it. 75,000 people (at least) can verify that it currently exists as well.
The deer might be a little harder to verify unless others saw it too, but others have seen my shoes and the sun.
So, a lot of the things I know can be verified by others. Does that constitute the independent verification that Nathan suggested?
"I don't see a huge difference between saying "I know [this] to be true because the Holy Ghost confirmed it to my heart" and "I know [this] to be true because I saw it with my own eyes.""
I and the person next to me can see my black shoes. We can confirm to each other that they are black and that they are indeed shoes. Everyone with whom I come into contact can verify they see exactly the same shoes and they are black.
That same verification is difficult to quantify for inner stimuli (like the Spirit). What one person feels can never really be compared to what another person feels. For that matter, what someone feels as gas may be the same feeling someone has when the Spirit confirms something. Without any way of measuring and externally comparing these two, however, we can never be certain.
From my point of view, the difference between the two foundations you bring up is that one can be verified by others; the other cannot.
Again, if I claim I have shoes and they are black, it is very easy for any other person(s) to verify this. They could even use light sensors to determine what parts of the visible light spectrum is being emitted from them. They could compare their shape to other shoes to establish they are indeed shoes.
If I claim I have received confirmation from the Spirit that God exists, this cannot be verified. That being said, I'm not so sure I would say one is "better" than the other. Besides, would not knowledge of things spiritual completely negate the purpose of even coming to earth, as Alma suggested.
FWIW, I posted about this in my blog.
http://kmsiever.blogspot.com/2004/08/knowledge-before-faith.html
Posted by: Kim Siever | Aug 10, 2004 2:25:15 PM
Ooh, I love discussing semantics.
You're right, Baron, that one can't truly "know" anything, because we can't know to what level our perception may be incorrect. Even Nathan's assertion to know only one thing--"I AM"--can be disputed. After all, don't Christian Scientists believe we're just a figment of God's imagination?
Coincidentally, I've been forming a talk in my head that, should I ever be called to speak in Sacrament meeting, I hope they'll let me give. (I'm not about to volunteer, however). It's about this very subject: the difference between knowledge and belief. While true knowledge may be impossible, the kind of spiritual knowledge we refer to is a step above believing. One of my examples: to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates is to conclude that a young farmer with a fifth grade education couldn't have written such a book, with all its names and places and history, in what turns out to be just 60 hours of dictation. To *know* Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon is to receive a witness from the Spirit that he did.
I've always felt that when someone says he "believes" the Church is true, he's being rather noncommital. Or he hasn't yet received that witness of the Spirit.
Posted by: Dave P. | Aug 10, 2004 2:38:02 PM
Nathan brought up "The Matrix" universe, there's also "The Truman Show":
Truman 'knew' he lived in a planned community in Florida, because, of course, he saw it everyday and lots of other people were willing to testify that that was true. Of course, the 'lots of other people' were in on the joke, as it were. In this case having a multitude of other witnesses to support what you believe still doesn't 'prove' anything, because there's no guarantee that their testimony is 100% reliable any more than your own senses. (I'm not saying Lethbridge, Alberta is encapsulated in a giant sound stage in California...but, of course, I can't prove it isn't either...)
Posted by: The Baron | Aug 11, 2004 7:48:40 AM
"Even Nathan's assertion to know only one thing--"I AM"--can be disputed. After all, don't Christian Scientists believe we're just a figment of God's imagination?"
True, but that affects the first part of the statement "I know that I am" more than it does the second part, i.e., I know it as firmly as the "I" of the subject is capable of knowing.
Or I could just deny that idea axiomatically: I know that I am, simply by my awareness of an "I." The fact that there is an "I" capable of asserting the existence of an "I" demonstrates the existence of the "I", at least to the "I" itself (not to anyone else).
I shall now go contemplate my navel.
Nathan
(...or will I?)
Posted by: Nathan | Aug 11, 2004 10:24:06 AM
...then you have those who bear a real witness, say over the pulpit and many times to others that they KNOW the Gospel is true, or XYZ is true... only to sometime later seem to lose this knowledge and deny that it ever existed in the first place.
Posted by: yellow duck | Aug 12, 2004 3:55:54 PM
