Vulcan's Mercy

CLARIFYING A FEW DEFINITIONS

To make clear what I had to say in "Certainty and Objectivity" I posted "A Few Definitions".  Upon reflection I should say a little more to clarify the use of those definitions.  First, these definitions are the specific meanings of certainty, objectivity, and knowledge used in the first article.  I do not want to suggest that other uses of these words are invalid.  I simply wanted to be precise in this particular instance.  This precision helps to explain why I made no distinction in "Certainty and Objectivity" between, say, true knowledge and false knowledge.  My precise definition of knowledge therein made "true knowledge" redundant and "false knowledge" a contradiction.

Second, in "A Few Definitions" I could have done a better job of making the distinction between knowledge and belief.  What I had described as a fideistic error is a belief devoid of knowledge, although the way I put it appeared to label all beliefs as purely fideistic.  However, what I know I also believe.  Knowledge is belief even if not all belief is knowledge.  I sidewiped the fact that belief encompasses knowledge when I wrote, "[F]ew beliefs are entirely devoid of knowledge."  A bit more needed to said for the sake of clarity.  Hence today's post.  Of course, the subject of knowledge and belief merits much more attention, and so it will get it in the future.

A FEW DEFINITIONS

In the preceding article “Certainty and Objectivity” I used words that can be elastic in meaning, which isn’t helpful when precision is needed.  So let me nail down a few definitions.

Certainty:  Knowledge absent rational doubt.  Absolute certainty is not the ken of mere human beings, for it requires knowledge of every fact that touches upon the subject, which in turn requires knowledge of every fact that touches upon those facts, and so on.  In short, absolute certainty requires infinite knowledge, which is an impossibility for our finite minds.  However, we can know things with a certainty that makes anything to the contrary nonsense.  For example, I know that my mind is finite and that the universe objectively exists with such certainty.  (See below about “objectivity”.)  The term “virtual certainty” has been applied to this level of knowledge, and that strikes me as a useful epistemological term of art.  There are also scientific, mathematical, and logical certainties, such as the Earth revolves around the Sun and 2 + 2 = 4, most if not all of which are virtual certainties.

Objectivity:  The independence of existence from knowledge.  In other words, the universe and every object and occurrence within it exists whether or not I or anyone else knows it.  Bluntly, what is true is true, period.  Granted, some things occur that I cannot help but know.  For example, I have an idea.  However, the fact of that occurrence is not dependent upon anyone else’s knowledge of it, and it is still a fact that it occurred even if I later forget I ever had the idea.  Because I objectively exist, the effects of my existence also objectively exist.  So the truth is not, in any manner whatsoever, dependent upon knowledge of it.  Therefore, the objectivity of knowledge is not dependent upon its certainty.  Though it is possible to rationally doubt the knowledge of “X”, that lack of certainty does preclude the objectivity of “X”.  For example, I may lack the virtual certainty that God exists, but my knowledge that He does is no less objective.  God exists whether or not I know He does.  Conversely, certainty entails objectivity.  A certainty cannot be false.  Of course, I can be psychologically certain of a falsehood, but a false belief, no matter how dearly held, is not knowledge.  Knowledge, certain or not, is always true, and so always objective.

Knowledge:  Awareness of the truth.  We can have beliefs that are true, but they do not constitute knowledge if their foundation is fideistic rather than rational.  By rational, I mean the application of reason to the data of the senses, both internal and external.  Therefore, knowledge must be empirically grounded.  A belief is fideistic because it lacks this ground; it is the acceptance of a proposition “as-is”.  There is no awareness of the truth of the proposition.  There is only the desire that it be true.  For example, the knowledge that God exists is predicated upon observation of human nature, the human condition (i.e., the relationship of man to the universe), and the universe and the rational conclusions drawn from those facts.  A belief in God is no more than wanting Him to exist.  In this particular case, that want is wholesome.  It can drive firm belief, that psychological certainty noted above.  However, it is insufficient to produce an awareness of God.  That said, few beliefs are entirely devoid of knowledge.  For example, if I believe that God exists because my parents had told me He does, and it is my long experience that my parents have been correct in what they have taught me, then my reliance upon the authority of my parents is not without reason.  I can do better than that, but I do at least have a bit of knowledge of God.  So, when I have sound reason grounded in experience for accepting a true proposition, I have awareness of its truth however inadequate that reason and experience may be towards giving me certainty of it.  Certain or not, I have knowledge of it.

CERTAINTY AND OBJECTIVITY

I have often remarked upon our analytic penchant in the modern era to reduce things to basic elements.  We do so not without reason.  Breaking down physical objects, phenomena, and systems into their bits and pieces has yielded a great deal of knowledge about our world.  We begin to learn why the order we perceive in the universe is not illusion but real by busting matter into atoms, molecules, and cells.  With this method of reduction we have built the sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology.  This has been a boon.  We know fundamental truths about our world with a great deal more certainty than we did before the advent of modern science.

But not everything about our world is explicable through science.  Moreover, not everything in science is knowable through methods of reduction.  Even so, we are seduced by the scientific certainty that reductionism has brought forth where it has succeeded, and so we desire to use it everywhere in the quest for the truth.  Like the man with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, we of the Age of Science tend to see every problem as a subject whose components have been inadequately analyzed.  All we need to do is take that subject and break it down into its basic elements, and we will learn the solution to the problem.  That’s fine, so long as it is so reducible.

Not everything is.  The physical realm of our world – the stuff of matter and energy – is, but not the mental realm.  For instance, a person’s mind, consciousness, and will either exist or don't exist.  Either they are or aren't.  They cannot be broken down into basic bits of mentality.  They are indivisible.  They are characterized by simplicity.  Yes, they have properties, but not components.  Either they each exist as a whole or exist not at all.  Therefore, these things do not submit to reduction to obtain the certainty of analytical knowledge about them.  They are not even reducible to measurement.  There is nothing to count, weigh, or quantify.  They simply are and so knowable only in their elusive entirety.

Furthermore, the mind, consciousness, and will do not submit, as matter and energy do, to deterministic laws of nature.  In other words, even as wholes they are not reducible to their causes and effects with relationships that can be defined with the mathematical certainty of physical laws like Newton’s F = ma or Einstein’s E = mc^2.  That doesn’t mean in absence of such certainty we cannot know things about the mind from its effects, like ideas.  Indeed, what we can know, we know objectively if not certainly.  While the certain entails the objective, the converse is not true.  For this reason certainty is to be prized, but it is not always possible.  However, knowledge that is less than certain is no less objective.  In fact, even though certainty absolutely requires objectivity, objectivity is completely independent of certainty.  What is true is objectively true whether or not we are certain of it .

This is important to understand when we seek knowledge that inherently will not be certain – that is, scientifically or mathematically certain.  Only knowledge of the physical realm of our world can be so, yet the mental realm is just as fundamental to our existence.  From it flows the complex of moral principles that inform aesthetics, ethics, and politics and make possible human happiness.  No small thing in our lives.  So it is a serious error to dismiss knowledge of the mental realm as mere belief, opinion, or superstition – that is, unobjective – because that knowledge lacks the certainty of science.  We must not deny ourselves knowledge of the truth because it is uncertain.  Doing so takes us down the path to the subjectivist swamps of utilitarianism, skepticism, and post-modernism in which rots the fabric of tradition and custom that embody the objective principles of morality.  In that quagmire we are left with our naked self to either learn through hard experience to resist our base impulses by rediscovering those principles or drown in purposeless carnality and cant.

Likewise, it is a serious error to claim certainty of knowledge of the mental realm that is not possible.  This would seem obvious.  Nevertheless, we do it repeatedly with our modern enthusiasm for reductionism.  We inappropriately apply the analytical methods of studying the physical realm to the mental realm in the false belief that we can understand the whole from parts that do not exist.  We then proceed to build edifices of rationalism and ideology upon the fantasy foundations of those non-existent parts.  For example, Marx preached that the mind was reducible to economic calculations in the pursuit of material gain.  Upon that foundation he devised the political doctrine of communism to harness those supposed basic elements of the mind to direct people to establish a utopian society.  Of course, the mind is not just an economic calculator, which is why people did not naturally create the workers’ paradise when totalitarian dictators put communism into action.  Instead they died.

So it serves us well to not confuse certainty with objectivity and to value objectivity even when certainty is not possible.  Some may not care for the humility before the truth that this understanding of knowledge cultivates, but it is good to keep in mind the paradox of this humility.  Knowing that the human mind is finite and so what one can know with certainty is limited is itself a profound piece of certain knowledge that enables one to understand more.

THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION

Over the past few days I have been participating in an interesting conversation with Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher, and others about God's incarnation as Jesus Christ.  Specifically, the Maverick raised the issue of whether or not there is a contradiction in Christ being a person who is both mortal and immortal.

Christian, in particular Catholic, teaching is that the Incarnation is a mystery.  In other words, full knowledge of the Incarnation is beyond human reason, so belief in its truth ultimately requires faith.  However, for a mystery to theologically pass muster, it cannot be refuted by reason.  Hence, the Maverick's query as to whether the mystery of the Incarnation embodies a logical contradiction.

Your humble correspondent has argued that Christ is a divine person -- i.e., God -- who had appeared on Earth in human substance -- i.e., with a human body and soul.  So long as it is possible for God to manifest Himself with human substance, there is no contradiction with that substance being mortal while his divine person remains immortal.

Check out both the Maverick's articles on this topic and the comments following them here, here, and here.