| Becoming Caring Christian solutions to life's tough problems Programs of Family Life, Personal & Spiritual Growth, Study Skills, & Educational Enrichment 600 North 7th Street Crockett, TX 75835 |
| Searching for Certainty |
The epistemological problem remains open, however, even if I accept my own existence. Any evidence I advance for any statement dissolves in the basic epistemological question: How do you know? We function because we must assume truth is self-evident. I am aware of the long history of the claim that truth is self-evident, and I am aware of the objections. However, in order to function, existence demands faith in our perception of reality. What precisely do I mean? Let us say that we have discovered an apple, and we disagree on the name of our newly discovered fruit. You say it is an apple, and I say it is an orange. Suppose you drag out a dictionary, a picture book, an encyclopedia, or some other authoritative source to prove that the fruit is an apple. However, the resolution of our disagreement depends on my acceptance of your source as the final authority. If I wish, I can ask the endless question: How do you know? I can ask the epistemological question about the source, the accuracy, the evidence, the qualifications, ad infinitum. You will appeal to reason, religious experience, scientific evidence, or some other authority only to find I can again (perhaps insincerely) ask the infinite question: How do you know? However, let us suppose that our disagreement is genuine, and you bring out your authority (a current dictionary) and my response is, "Oh, I see." In other words, the truth becomes self-evident to me. Rather than playing the Sophist, I accept your source as a reliable, generally accepted, authoritative source. We all have experienced that moment of enlightenment in which we perceive the truth. We may be discussing mathematics, chemistry, a road map, a definition, or the best alternative, but the flash of insight in which we perceive the truth allows us to function: the truth becomes self-evident.[2] Once we perceive something as self-evidently true, we can act. In other words, once I accept the definition of an apple, I can happily function until doubt enters. Later, suppose I enter a restaurant and order an apple. Suppose further that the fruit served is not our defined apple but something altogether strange. Doubt enters, erasing the self-evident truth. Suppose I question the waiter, the manager, and the chef. I am also questioning your previously accepted authority. Perhaps I will decide that it does not matter and accept the word of the chef. After leaving the restaurant, however, I may look you up, challenge your cited authority, and renew our disagreement. Perhaps I will do research on my own to remove my doubt. Accepting self-evident truth is not simple-minded; accepting self-evident truth is a given of existence. Unless I accept and act on self-evident truth, I cannot function. However, later doubt may erase the self-evident truth and create a vacuum of inaction. In other words, until I accept the authority of the chef, I am in limbo. Faith and doubt exist on a continuum: absolute doubt results in inaction; unthinking faith results in error. I have faith enough in the chef to eat the fruit. By accepting the authority of the chef (a rational decision based on probabilities), I can finish my dinner and move on. However, the doubt about our disputed fruit remains because I now question your authoritative source. Of course, the name of our disputed fruit may make no difference, unless our unknown "fruit" is in fact a poisonous mushroom. Some definitions matter. Remember that my own existence is the inescapable given from which my thinking inevitably must proceed. If I did not exist, I would not be writing these words. If I did not exist, I would have no problem to solve. You may rightly declare that the fruit is an apple regardless of my opinion, but to me the fruit remains an orange. Only self-evident truth makes a difference. Objective truth never solves a problem of existence. I am not saying, however, that reality is limited to the perception of the individual. Nor am I imprisoning knowledge within the mind of the individual. The apple exists after I die, and other minds can know the apple that exists outside my limited perception. The parable of the blind men and the elephant illustrates perception.[3] Here is my adapted version of the parable. Suppose five blind men feel an elephant and attempt to describe the elephant they discover by touch. One blind man feels the side of an elephant and declares that the elephant is like a wall. The second blind man feels the elephant's leg and announces that the elephant is like a tree. The third blind feels the elephant's ear and swears that the elephant is like cloth. The fourth blind man feels the elephant's tail and proclaims that the elephant is like a rope. The fifth blind man feels the elephant's trunk and asserts that the elephant is like a snake. Notice the importance of each perception of the truth without the contradictions removed. Taken together, the contradictory testimonies give a more accurate understanding of an elephant. However, suppose an authority figure demands logical consistency for an official version. To arrive at such a logically consistent official version, the blind men must alter their testimonies, be discredited, or be severely edited. Let us suppose that the official version adopts the view that an elephant is like a snake. If the authority possesses sufficient power, the truth goes underground. Opposition to the official version becomes costly. However, go back to the individuals involved. Each blind man, pressured to conform, either remains true to his perception of reality or must lie to himself. If he no longer trusts his perception of reality, he is lost. Moreover, a society of the lost is doomed. Somewhere, in a back room, sits a silent blind man who knows that an elephant is like a wall. Thus, authentic existence demands that the individual “see” the truth in a moment of enlightenment. Whether working a math problem or dealing with a problem of existence, the flash of insight in which we "see" establishes something as true to us. Each person is stuck with his/her perceptions. A person who cannot trust his/her perceptions cannot function. In the early years of my ministry, I served as a campus minister and taught "The Bible as Literature" classes for college credit. In order to illustrate the inevitability of trusting one's perceptions, I invented a thought experiment for my classes. A student volunteer would leave the classroom, allowing me to enlist the remainder of the class in the experiment. The student volunteer would return to see me holding up an ordinary plastic writing pen, but I would be describing a fine gold and jeweled pen. The students enlisted to play along would ask questions and make comments about the imaginary gold and jeweled pen. At first, the returning volunteer would grin and would seek to join the "joke." However, as the charade continued, the volunteer became uncomfortable. Time passed, and the volunteer grew more insecure. Finally, the volunteer attempted to talk to a neighbor; but ignored or hushed, the returning student's discomfort grew into agitation. In other words, deprived of feedback, the volunteer began to doubt his/her perceptions.[4] In fact, we test our perceptions of reality by consulting others far more than we realize.[5] We "can't believe our eyes." We ask another, "Do you see what I see?" We trust our perceptions inevitably and seek confirmation only when doubt intrudes. Actually, the epistemological question pushed to the extreme leads to despair. How do you know you are reading this page? How do you know you are not asleep and dreaming? How do you know that you exist? I am speaking, of course, of normal perception. The problem with paranoid schizophrenia (and true mental illness in general) is the altered perception. You must trust your perception of existence or despair. Also, some parents systematically destroy a child's natural tendency to trust his/her perceptions by attacking every feeling, thought, and emerging sense of identity. In essence, the message to the child is that you do not feel what you feel, do not think what you think, and are not who you are. Such children become the lost adults who wander through life attempting to live up to a false identity while never trusting their own perceptions. As a starting point, we must accept our perceptions as true, no matter how much we test the perceptions later. Doubtless, someone will point out that a person experiencing a psychotic episode is seeing real (to him/her) snakes on the wall. How do I know no snakes are crawling on the walls? I do not see the snakes. If I desire to test my perception, I invite ten additional people into the room. Since none of the ten see snakes crawling on the walls, we eliminate snakes. However, notice the more fundamental point: no matter how often I tell a psychotic person that snakes are not crawling on the walls, he/she continues to believe his/her own perception. The psychotic person needs treatment, but his/her perception remains the inescapable starting point. However, what of the individual who lives at the other extreme, declaring that his/her perception is absolute truth? If I mistakenly call an apple an orange, that does not make it so. If I am having a psychotic episode and see snakes on the wall, my psychotic perception does not make it so. Thus, how can the individual be true to his/her perceptions without falling into the quicksand of solipsism? __________________________________ [2] My use of the word "truth" is existential and pragmatic. More about that later. [3] I have never been able to discover the original source, but some attribute the basic story to Buddha. [4] More about the place of community later. [5] I am indebted to the neglected works of George Berkeley for this insight. (C) 2004, Don Mize |