[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bible Study Title: Epistemic Certainty and Belief in God Many theists maintain that they are certain of the truth of various theological propositions, among them being the proposition that God exists. I want to argue that for at least one important sense of certainty this position is false. The relevant sense of certainty here is what is called epistemic certainty, a species of certainty distinguished from so-called psychological certainty. The latter is merely descriptive and refers to a cognizer having maximal conviction or assurance of the truth of some proposition. While many theists are psychologically certain of Gods existence, this is epistemologically uninteresting. People have psychological certainty regarding all sorts of false propositions (e.g., Santa Claus exists, the world is flat, Elvis is alive). By contrast, a belief that is epistemically certain has some epistemic merit or credential, an epistemic merit or credential that is in some respect unsurpassed by other beliefs. Ill argue that theistic belief (and belief in other theological propositions) is not epistemically certain............... ******************************************************************************** One might suppose, though, that a different answer can be drawn from Plantingas epistemology. On Plantingas view, a person whose relevant cognitive faculties are functioning properly will hold a firm theistic belief that has a high degree of warrant. In fact, on Plantingas view, theistic belief is indefeasible for all fully rational persons. No proposition a fully rational person entertains could serve as a defeater for theistic belief. Thats a pretty substantial epistemic credential. Of course, defeaters against theistic belief exist according to Plantinga, but only because the epistemic integrity of some other aspect of our cognitive establishment (perhaps the sensus divinitatis) has been compromised, say by the noetic effects of sin. It may very well be true that apart from the noetic effects of sin, humans would believe in God just as firmly as they believe in their own existence, the existence of an external world, other minds, and various a priori truths, and perhaps our theistic beliefs would be just as warranted as these other beliefs. But this is an ideal view of the human cognitive situation, at best true for some original cognitive design plan and perhaps true for us in our final state. But now we see through a glass darkly, as it were. As indicated in prior chapters, the noetic effects of sin are a factor in assessing the degree to which all our beliefs can be warranted, including belief in God. It is hard to see how theistic belief can be maximally warranted for humans under any post-lapsarian cognitive design plan.11 So I think we must conclude that there isnt a very strong case for supposing that theistic beliefs are epistemically certain in either the sense of indubitability or maximal warrant. In fact, this looks just plain false. III. The Senses in which Belief in God is Certain In what sense, then, can theistic belief be certain? Many theists are psychologically certain of the existence of God and other theological propositions. However practically useful such a belief is, psychological certainty says nothing about the normative axis of belief, the epistemic merits or credentials of a belief. So we must look elsewhere for a relevant and plausible sense in which theists may have certainty concerning the existence of God and other theological propositions. If Gods existence is logically necessary, then theistic belief is certain in a purely logical sense, for then it will not be logically possible to believe that God exists and for this belief to be false.12 But this isnt epistemic certainty. Since it is logically possible to believe a logically necessary truth and yet not know the proposition, or even be warranted in holding it, clearly there is a sense in which it is impossible to be mistaken in a belief and yet for this to carry no epistemic significance. Suppose Jack believes nothing is red and non-colored because a character in a cartoon asserts it and Jack is inclined to accept whatever he hears cartoon characters affirm. His belief is true, but it would seem to have little by way of warrant. The logical status of the proposition tells us nothing about the positive epistemic status of his belief in the proposition.13 I would suggest that the relevant and plausible kind of certainty is moral certainty. A morally certain belief is beyond all reasonable doubt, though not beyond all possible doubt. In positive terms, such beliefs are highly probable. Morally certain beliefs entitle us to be sure about our beliefs, and at least some of them they carry a degree of warrant that is plausibly sufficient, together with the satisfaction of the truth condition, for knowledge. Thus morally certain theistic beliefs do justice to the Biblical passages that suggest Christians ought to be sure about their faith and that Christians have knowledge of God.14 Poster Comment: A good mental drill in this piece. I posted two of the main points, and the author's summary. Good debate in the comments section at the site.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
#19. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Pericles (#0)
What is the main error of this approach? The "proof" of "existence" of God required here is impossible. Why? Because it starts with certain epistemological and metaphysical assumption - that was is certain is what is immanent - ie directly accessible data and what is reliable is a logical reasoning based on data. And that certainty is the most important and attainable goal. Problem is that such approach cannot "prove" anything, not even an existence of other human beings. Logically we end up with a skeptical solipsism. If we are a part of a larger whole, we should not assume that we can reconstruct this whole from the part that we are. Same way as a spider weaving his web from his one glands cannot reconstruct the surrounding world. The right approach is the sane acceptance of the whole, that cannot be "proven" but that makes sense - the sensible gestalt. It is sane to believe that other beings exist, that the universe is sensible and to start from the whole in order to explain our role as a meaningful part. In other words, not only the Kantian "practical reason" trumps Kantian "pure reason" but also the very Kantian/Cartesian/Husserlian approach undercuts itself and leads to the absurdity.
Not to sound too nihilistic so early in the day but I've always thought it is improbable that we are "real" in any meaningful sense.
We are, we exist. But are we "real"?
I am. I exist. But are you real?
There are no replies to Comment # 25. End Trace Mode for Comment # 25.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|