Thoughts On Thinking

But How Can We Really Know Anything?

A mind that questions everything, unless strong enough to bear the weight of its ignorance, risks questioning itself and being engulfed in doubt.

EMILE DURKHEIM, founder of modern sociology

How can we really know anything? I hadn't really thought about this question until I began trying to figure out what I believed. Then I was surprised to find it standing squarely between myself and the answers I longed to find.

   After that night in the chapel I decided to start from scratch and determine what I believed without taking anything for granted. But when I started trying to think through my doubts, each question just led to another question until I felt as if I were on some giant, out-of-control merry-go-round. And in the center of all the confusion seemed to be this surprising issue of how I could hope to know anything.

Page 29

   How can I know there is a God? I would ask myself. Then I would consider some basic fact that seemed to support belief in God — like the existence of right and wrong.

   But how do I know there really is such a thing as right and wrong?

   Because something deep inside me tells me this is true.

   But how do I know I can trust this sense inside of me?

   This is where things started spinning. Uh — I'm not sure.

   And how can I even know that the things around me are as they seem?

   Well...?

   With so many people believing so many different things, how can I be arrogant enough to think my own thoughts can lead me to real truth?

   

As never before, we [in the postmodern world] are sensitive to how hard it is (some would say impossible) to know truth. We are increasingly aware of the ways our presuppositions and subjectivity color our perception, understanding, and communication of "the truth" — and as a result, we aren't at all sure if what we have at the end of the day is even worth calling "truth." BRIAN D. MCLAREN1

   After a few such internal conversations I realized it was impossible to begin establishing what I believed about God until I thought through what I believed about the possibility of knowing. I began to see that all beliefs must have some point of reference, involving basic principles about the possibility of knowing. Most of us don't contemplate these much. We just take them for granted. But recently a subtle shift has occurred in popular thinking — and without our even realizing it, this shift can undermine our confidence in our ability to know things.

   Have you struggled with questions about how we can know things? If so, in what ways?

   What would be your response to someone asking the kinds of questions raised here?

The Basis for Knowing

When you think about it, it seems almost too basic to mention that the way we know things is through the experiences we have (whether that is encountering information in a book or feeling the sensation of falling in

Page 30

love) and the inferences we make from them. How do I know it is cold outside? I can see frost on the window, I can feel the sting of cold air on my face, and I can read the thermometer, which says it is below freezing.

   This process of drawing inferences and conclusions from experiences and known facts is what we call "logic" or "reasoning," and it is so ingrained in us that we automatically use it without even realizing it. Logic involves an intricate set of interrelated principles about reality that help us make sense of the world around us — like the principle that if there are only two options and we find the first isn't true or does not apply, then it must be the second.

   Our reliance on reason is based on three assumptions: that reality makes sense, that we can generally trust the experiences we have, and that we can generally trust the inferences our minds make from these experiences. But many today are questioning these assumptions, and I found this questioning was at the center of my confusion.

   Define logic in your own words.

   Do you agree that logic is based on the three assumptions listed here? Why or why not?

Why Trust Reason?

One English professor I had openly spurned logic. I can still see her in my mind, her gray hair pulled tight in a bun and her bright skirt swaying back and forth as she pounded the table, railing against the narrowness of "Western thought." Her class always left me feeling slightly confused. If logic was invalid, why did she grade our essays on "cohesiveness"? And didn't she use logic in her own arguments against the use of logic?

   Although I had wrestled before with whether to trust the assumptions of logic, I couldn't accept her way of thinking. In fact, after considering it I decided to embrace the use of logic in my search for truth for a number of reasons.

I could see our minds automatically use reason to make deductions and decisions.

I could see that it is impossible to function without the use of reason, and that reason seems to be the only tool we have available to make judgments. In fact, I found I couldn't even get away from the use of reason when

Page 31

deciding whether to trust my reasoning.

I also saw that reason seems to lead to real answers. The things my reasoning told me made living on a daily basis possible. When I saw frost on the window, it usually did mean I needed to wear a coat. And when I reasoned through other things, whether in school, work or relationships, it usually led me to real insights I could use.

I also could see that reasoning is what makes all areas of study possible and that all advancements for humanity involve the use of reason — like advancements in medicine, communication and food production.

But the final deciding point was that I saw that rejecting reason would be choosing to slam the door on any possibility of making sense out of life or anything in it. If I was wrong to trust my reasoning and everything was totally different from the way I perceived it to be, then I had no hope of making sense of the world anyway. Since I had no proof that my reasoning could not be trusted, and since the only alternative I saw was to accept hopelessness, I decided I had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

   Do you agree that it is impossible to function without the use of reason? Why or why not?

   What is your response to the statement that to choose not to trust our reasoning is to choose hopelessness?

But I'm Not Greek!?

   One misunderstanding about logic is that the Greeks invented it and that it is just one thought system. The Greeks did study logic and codified it, but logic, in the general sense, existed long before they began giving it attention. Reason has existed throughout history and has been present in every invention and forward stride humanity has ever made.

If Everyone Uses Reason, Why Don't We All Agree?

Although we all use reason every day to function, we don't necessarily always use it well.

Sometimes we don't discipline our minds to think through things.

Sometimes we let what we want to be true dictate what we believe to be true.

Page 32

Sometimes we make judgments based on incorrect assumptions.

Sometimes we use circular or other unreliable argument.

   The process of human knowing is complex, and often our individual perceptions, partialities and desires can cloud our thinking. But I don't believe this means we should throw out logic altogether; instead we should learn to use it more effectively, for it is in learning to use it more effectively that we can overcome many of these problems. "The main value of logic," David Kelley notes in The Art of Reasoning, "is that it helps us stay in touch with the facts."²

Logical Equals Unemotional?

   Many times we assume that a logical person is someone who is uninvolved and unemotional. But being rational doesn't have to mean this. Someone with strong emotions doesn't necessarily have to be illogical, and a logical person doesn't have to be unemotional.

   "On the contrary," David Kelley writes, "there is no reason we cannot have both: clear, logical minds, and passionate feelings."³

   Do you agree that reason helps us stay connected with the facts? Why or why not?

   Why is it important to stay connected with the facts?

   Why do we often assume an emotional person can't be logical?

   Describe a person who is both passionate and logical.

But Doesn't Faith Contradict Reason?

Many who do not believe in the supernatural believe that reason and faith are hopelessly at odds, but I have found this view can usually be traced back to three misconceptions.

   1. A misunderstanding of the nature of faith. As noted in the last chapter, if faith is "believing what we know is not true," then reason and faith are in contradiction. But if faith is "the act of wholehearted trust in the goodness of God who confronts us with his reality,"⁴ then there is no contradiction. Faith transcends reason, but it does not oppose it.

   2. A lack of understanding of the necessity of faith in all areas of knowledge.

Page 33

Many people do not realize that some faith is involved in everything we know — at the minimum, faith in our own reason. As Brian McLaren explains:

None of us lives with absolute, unassailable certainty about anything; we all live by faith. What we might call practical certainty... is really relative certainty, shot through with faith on many levels. Even the skeptic can only doubt one set of propositions because he believes another. Without some structure of faith... we can't get anywhere. We're like weightless, tractionless runners or boxers. We have no leverage. So, some degree of faith is downright inescapable, and faith runs through all we claim to know.⁵

   3. An assumption that the natural world is all of reality. Another reason many of us believe faith and reason are contradictory is that we begin with the basic assumption that the world we see and touch is all of reality. If we accept this assumption, religious faith is a contradiction to reason. But do we have adequate grounds to assume this?

   What evidence do we have that the natural world we see and touch is all there is? What about people throughout history who have insisted they have encountered something outside this natural realm? Is it more reasonable to believe that supernatural events never happen even though many have claimed to experience them, or is it more reasonable to consider the possibility that there is a reality beyond this world? These are questions we all must answer for ourselves, questions we will investigate further in later chapters.

We cannot arrive at faith on the back of reason alone.... But reason can act as the vehicle that drives us into a place from which we can see the possibility of God. And if we believe that God created our minds for his purposes, it makes sense that God would encourage us to use our rational powers to better understand his personality. GARY PARKER6

   How would you characterize the relationship between faith and reason?

   Name two things you consider to be obvious and explain how you know them to be true. If you look at these explanations closely, can you see where faith factors in? If so, how?

   Do you believe it is valid to assume that the natural world we see and touch is all of reality? Why or why not?

Page 34

Digging Deeper

   Come Let Us Reason Together by Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks (Grand Rapids, Much.: Baker, 1990). An easy-to-understand Christian introduction to logic.

   The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1968). This book offers a philosophical discussion of the recent shift in popular thinking regarding the subject of knowing.

But Is There Really Truth to Be Found?

Of course the discussion of how we can know things brings up another question, one that has turned all arguments upside-down in recent years. The reason many of us are questioning the possibility of knowing is that many of us are asking whether real truth actually exists for us to know. Belief in relativism has permeated modern societies so much that it is difficult sometimes even to recognize it in ourselves. Relativism teaches that there is no absolute truth — that what is true for you is not necessarily what is true for me.

A Philosopher's Ideal?

   The term absolute truth sometimes conjures up visions of some philosophical ideal succinctly chiseled on great tablets of stone far away on a wind-swept mountain ledge. But belief in absolute truth is not nearly this dramatic. It simply indicates belief in an independent, objective reality — that is, a reality that exists outside of ourselves and doesn't change depending on what we think about it.

   At first glance relativism seems appealing. It relieves us of the difficulty of having to find truth because it sets each of us up as the author of what our truth is. We can invent a worldview that appeals to us, and we don't have to worry about others disagreeing with us or having to correct others if we don't agree with them because each invents his or her own reality. I often struggle with this when I get lost browsing the shelves of a mega-bookstore. So many sincerely believed ideas are represented that it is tempting to want to be able to accept them all as true. But relativism isn't quite as uncomplicated as it may seem.

Page 35

   Describe some circumstances when you have encountered belief in relativism.

   What has been your response to relativism?

The Inconsistency in Relativism

If we are going to hold to relativism, we have to be willing to say that all beliefs are equally true and no action is absolutely wrong. This may be fairly simple when stated in general terms, but it becomes impossibly complex when we begin thinking about specific examples.

   What about the beliefs of a racist, cult leader or tyrannical dictator? Are we really willing to say these people's beliefs are equally valid to our own?

   According to relativism should we have any societal standards of behavior? Is there anything we can legitimately expect people to do or not to do?

   What if someone murders a person we love? Are we willing to say that although we abhor murder it may be okay for others because their truth may be different?

   Even if we try to rescue some societal standards by claiming that there are some behaviors we just can't allow because they aren't good for society, would this argument be consistent with relativism? According to relativism wouldn't we have to admit that perhaps what I feel is good for society is not what someone else would feel was good for society — for example, that what would be a good society for an ax murderer might be to have no laws and live according to the survival of the fittest?

   This demonstrates one of the foremost problems with relativism: the fact that none of us, no matter how adamantly we insist on belief in relativism, can actually live consistently by it. This inconsistency can be seen in the way those who believe in relativism act on a daily basis. When they are injured, they insist on justice, even though under relativism "justice" cannot be defined in such a way that it applies to anyone other than yourself. When they are discussing whether God exists, they say, "He may exist for you, but he doesn't for me." But when wondering whether their spouse is cheating on them, they say, "Tell me the truth. Either there is someone else or there is not!"

   When you think about it, this inconsistency is present even in the very definition of relativism in that the statement of the philosophy actually con-

Page 36

tradicts itself. People who insist that it is wrong to believe in absolutes and that all truth is relative are actually presenting an absolute. They are insisting that their view of the world is right and the view of someone who believes in absolute truth is wrong.

   What is your response to the statement that it is impossible to consistently adhere to relativism?

Relativism and Reason

I find I function every day on the premise that reality exists regardless of what I believe about it. I might sincerely believe that I can walk through walls, but if I try to demonstrate this, I'll get a bruised forehead. If Erik and I disagree about what time a concert starts, we can't just say we both are right. We have to call to find out what reality is. It would be ridiculous for us to say that the concert starts at a different time for each of us depending on our private beliefs.

   One of the fundamental principles of logic we use every day is that if one thing is true, then the opposite cannot also be true. If I am married, I can't also not be married in exactly the same way. If my favorite ice-cream flavor is chocolate mocha, then it cannot also be true that may favorite ice cream is not chocolate mocha. If I exist, then it cannot also be true that I do not exist.

   That is the way reality functions, and I see no evidence that it would be any different for the big questions of life — questions like whether there is God. If I believe that an all-powerful God created us and loves us and sent his Son two thousand years ago in real history to die for us and you don't believe this, reason tells us only one of us can be right.

At the end, nobody can see anything except himself. ... There are so many realities  that in trying to encompass them all one ends in darkness. PABLO PICASSO (pioneer of modern art)7

   Do you agree that relativism contradicts reason? Why or why not?

Page 37

A Fairy Tale with a Not-So-Happy Ending

Relativism seems to be a pathway that in the end leads away from hope to meaninglessness. For isn't saying that each of us can have our own truth really the same as saying reality only exists in each of our minds? And if reality only exists in our minds, isn't that the same as saying it doesn't really exist at all? If reality doesn't exist at all, what meaning can we possibly have in our lives? If we each live in our own invented reality, what point of connection can we hope to make with each other? If my "good" happens to be your "bad," how can we even hope to communicate with each other? How can we have any standards for behavior or hope to have any shared sense of meaning?

   Do you agree that belief in relativism leads to despair? Why or why not?

   Some have stated that belief in relativism contributes to increased suicide and violence. What do you think about this statement?

   Can you think of areas in your life where your thinking has been affected by relativism? Explain.

Where We All Must Begin

In any search for truth we must begin with either a conscious or unconscious confidence in the belief that truth does exist and that it is possible to use our minds to help uncover it. Without belief in truth we are left adrift, helplessly launched on a journey without a destination. Without belief in reason we are left with the possibility of a destination but without a compass to direct us there, desperately chasing our own wake with no idea of which direction to turn. It is only after we establish that a destination of truth does exist and that our reason can serve as a compass to help get us there that we are able to truly begin our search.

The despair of modern man ... is despair in depth in that it tends to use formulations and forms which seem to give hope and yet in the nature of the case lead to more profound depths of despair. FRANCIS SCHAEFFER8

Page 38

   Tell of a time when you were lost with no sense of direction. How would this experience correspond to what it is like when someone disregards reason as a means to truth?

   What is your response to the statement that believing in relativism is like being on a journey without a destination?

   Do you believe that you should trust reason in your search for truth? Why or why not?

   Do you believe in absolute truth? Why or why not?

Digging Deeper

   Choosing My Religion by R.C. Sproul (Grand Rapids, Much.: Baker, 1995). This little book examines the question of absolute truth in a fast-paced conversational format.

   True for You, but Not for Me by Paul Copan (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998). Copan addresses relativism and related beliefs and summarizes the arguments against them.

Chapter Four  ||  Table of Contents