Epistemology is a fancy term and mostly just for philosophers. It is a discussion about the question, "How do we know ... anything at all?" While it is often a heated debate among philosophy types, the truth is that it's a common question behind much of our everyday lives. "I think I know who took your pen." "How do you know?" "I know my wife loves me." "How do you know?" "I know there is a God." "How do you know?" So while it may not be often asked explicitly, it still looms behind most any claim we might make to knowing things.
We could discuss until we're blue in the face what is the best way of knowing. I won't do it. Lots of people think "Science is the best way of knowing", but science is always changing, so I have to ask, "How do you know?" A lot of people operate mostly on feelings -- they "know" because they "feel" it's true. I have to wonder about that one, too. But one we almost all agree upon is the concept of experience. For instance, if a person spouts advice on how to raise a troubled child to a parent in distress, one of the first questions that parent may ask is "Do you have any kids?" You see, we're not sure we can trust their information if they haven't experienced it. You can tell me that this or that is true and I may or may not go along with you, but no one can question what I have experienced because, well, I was there. Consider a fictional Mr. Burns. There is a fire. Forensic science can come along and examine what type of accelerant was used and find that unusual accelerant at Mr. Burns' house and find that he has no alibi for the time of the fire and demonstrate that he has a motive for setting the fire and finally conclude, "Mr. Burns is an arsonist." Or, I could say, "Mr. Burns is an arsonist" and they would ask me, "How do you know?" to which I would reply, "I was there when he lit the fire. I tried to stop him, but couldn't get there in time. I saw him pour out the accelerant. I saw him light it. I saw him rub his hands with glee as the fire started to spread." Which is more compelling ... the logical deductions of a forensic scientist or the experience of an eye-witness? You see, we are all pretty much convinced that, regardless of what else you might claim, experience is the best method of knowing something.
There is a problem here, however. In my example above, I touch on it. "I saw him rub his hands with glee as the fire started to spread." How do I know it was "glee"? You see, at this point in what I know I know, I have applied deductions of my own. The problem occurs a lot, but because we experienced it, we don't question it. We assume reasons for things because we experienced it ... and we may not be right. That's a problem.
Consider the biblical record. In the Bible it is abundantly clear that God is at work at all times in all places. If this were not so, all biblical theology would change. Still, what we don't see is exactly what God is doing at all times in all places. We don't know what was going on with the Hittites or what God was doing with the Perrizites (I just like the name). We do get some God-given glimpses into what He was doing with His chosen people, but only some glimpses. We know, for instance, that God kept Israel in slavery in Egypt until the iniquity of the Amorites was full (Gen 15:16), so God was using Israel as His method of judgment. God told Habakkuk He was going to use the Chaldeans (Hab 1:6) to punish Israel. So we get glimpses, but not a complete picture. Two things we do know. 1) God is good ... all the time. 2) God is working ... all the time.
Now, consider the experiences of the people in the Bible. Joseph was sold into slavery. He could have concluded "This isn't good; my experience tells me so." Instead he concluded, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20) in spite of his unpleasant experiences. Job could have concluded that life wasn't worth living based on his experiences (Job 1:1-19), but amidst the agony (in spite of his experience) it says, "Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped" (Job 1:20). Or how about the Chaldeans? You know that when they were planning their campaign against Israel they weren't thinking, "We're going to be a part of God's work in chastising Israel." No, they were thinking, "We're going to take over the world" (or something akin to it). In other words, their experience lied to them. "We're setting out on conquest; we know because it is our experience." No, you're wrong, you're setting out to be used by God as a tool to correct His people, Israel.
It is a given in most of our minds that experience = truth. We can dally about with all sorts of other arguments about epistemology, but we all accept truisms like "experience is the best teacher" and "I know what I saw." Unfortunately, we generally do not see God's hand at work. Since that is the typical case, and since we do know that God is good all the time and God is working all the time, is it possible that we are allowing our experiences to lie to us when we should be concluding something different? Wouldn't it be better, for instance, when things go badly, that we conclude the truth -- God causes all things to work together for good -- rather than rely on our faulty experiences to inform us? Or, to put it another way, when our experiences contradict what God says, who is lying? (Hint: It's not God.)
No comments:
Post a Comment