A quick qualm…
I’ve noticed a slew of presuppositional apologists on the Internet basing the entirety of their apologetic around the issue of certainty in knowledge.
That has its place. Richard Pratt does something similar here – http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thought-Captive-Defense-Christian/dp/0875523528/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1337572150&sr=8-2
But not all knowledge claims are claims to certainty.
And not all knowledge is certain.
Enough about certainty itself though; that is not the subject of this post.
Rather, when the apologist is engaged with an unbeliever it needs to be pointed out not merely that the unbeliever cannot know anything for certain, but that the unbeliever cannot know anything at all. This is a much stronger point.
I will throw in the qualification that the claim of the aforementioned statement is the case if the unbeliever were consistent in his or her beliefs and practices. No unbeliever is consistent.
Comments
31 responses to ““How do you know that for certain?””
So it seems like there are two approaches to presupp right?
1) Demonstrating that non-believers cannot know anything at all (like Sye TenBruggencate’s approach)
2) Demonstrating that unbelievers cannot provide the preconditions of intelligibility (logic, morality and science)
1 is possible because of 2. They are not different approaches.
I am getting at the places where the entire discussion turns to the issue of certainty rather than the issue of knowledge. They may be interrelated, but focusing on the former rather than the latter is not the strongest apologetic we have, nor in line with Scripture, nor in line with the method as developed by its main proponents.
I would argue that the later is a stronger apologetic.
It hinges on what those preconditions are, whether they are derived or pre-existing, and is an interesting discussion.
Whereas the former is just incorrect, in that it takes just one knowledge claim that can be shown to not require reduction to a transcendent source and Descartes did that some time ago.
To reiterate what I was saying to pat, in pat’s 1 and 2, 1 depends upon 2, since 2 is is justificatory in nature and hence provides the argumentative force of 1. In pat’s 1 there is more than one knowledge claim involved.
But my post was about something quite different, which was the alleged lack of *certain knowledge* versus the alleged lack of *all knowledge* on the part of the unbeliever.
Thanks for the clarification Chris!
If there are two possibilities:
1) You’re living in a theistic universe, and knowledge is possible
2) You’re living in a Godless universe, and knowledge is not possible
…Then how can you ever know you are in universe 1 and not universe 2? Any knowledge you claim to have to being in universe 1 would be consistence with false knowledge that you THINK you have if you were in universe 2.
Hi Andrew Ryan,
2 is not a possibility.
You’re just asserting that. How do you know?
Yes, I am asserting it. That is the way people communicate. Through assertions.
Communication assumes the possibility of knowledge.
So either we are not communicating, or 2 is false.
I am happy to say that we are communicating. If you want to argue that we are not, that’s your prerogative. I don’t think you would get very far though!
That is the way people communicate. Through assertions.
Actually, that’s the way people *begin* communications; then usually these assertions are, if challenged, backed up with evidence. Now, to be fair, you’ve backed up your comment with some of your reasoning, but this does bear correcting.
Communication assumes the possibility of knowledge.
So either we are not communicating, or 2 is false.
Considering the *efficacy* of the communication, I wouldn’t be so sure that we’re not communicating. 😉
However, the problem here is again with the definition of “knowledge”. I can easily communicate to you about things I think I know, whether they are true or not. So, if by “knowledge” you mean “ideas held in a person’s head” then I’d agree with you; of course, why you then need a God to have ideas in your own head is open to question.
If, however, by “knowledge”, you mean something closer to the traditional “justified true belief” — there’s no requirement for that to exist in order for people to communicate. For example, many people communicated at great length, with deep thought and great erudition, about the humors of the human body.
You can’t so easily distinguish knowledge and certainty, without much more precise definitions of both; most of the presuppositionalist apologists I’ve discussed these matters with (such as Sye Ten Bruggencate, for example) seem to have a shifting definition of “knowledge” and “certainty” depending on what they are trying to argue, using the common-sense one unless specifically challenged upon the point, whereupon they fall back on a much narrower/higher-standard one. Needless to say, this does not speak well of their apologetic, when they are using one word for two different concepts without marking it out in their speech.
People begin and continue to communicate through the use of assertions, even using them to offer the reasoning and evidence mentioned in the comment above.
I didn’t say that I am sure we’re not communicating, but assumed the opposite.
Your example of humors doesn’t support your claim that knowledge is not necessary for communication. In fact, it illustrates the opposite, for those who communicated about humors did so in accord with their knowledge of the respective concept. And that is not to mention all of the other components of communication which take knowledge for granted that I had in mind; components that are not immediately related to whatever topic is being discussed.
Yes, I can easily distinguish knowledge and certainty. I did so in the post.
In the future, try to be less pedantic and more to the point of the post. Your comment strikes me as elitist and obnoxious. I don’t need you to teach me.
In fact, it illustrates the opposite, for those who communicated about humors did so in accord with their knowledge of the respective concept
Then by this definition of knowledge, I fail utterly to see why your deity-concept is required; because there is nothing in this use of “knowledge” that prohibits, for example, classical induction-based reasoning from being a sufficient basis for “knowledge”, without any reference to an external entity.
I believe that the reason that other apologists are so hung up on “certainty” is that it is only through the requirement of certainty that a requirement for a divine existence can be established — since any bar that admits of the humors as a valid “knowledge” at the time is one that can be easily overcome by the current state of non-theistic science and materialist views.
Your comment strikes me as elitist and obnoxious.
I certainly did not intend it to be that way, at least not towards you — towards some of your fellow apologists, perhaps, but considering the level of their efforts (I refer you most specifically to Sye ten Bruggencate and his devotee Hezekiah Ahaz) it is difficult *not* to and still be accurate.
You are not deriving a correct definition of knowledge from my reply. Perhaps I’m not being clear.
For the record, I don’t consider “Hezekiah Ahaz” to be representative of the method of apologetics I endorse.
You are not deriving a correct definition of knowledge from my reply. Perhaps I’m not being clear.
Or perhaps I’m being dim — either way, would you care to offer a definition we can discuss, so we can arrive at an agreement on that, at least?
I don’t consider “Hezekiah Ahaz” to be representative of the method of apologetics I endorse.
I am, I admit, very glad to hear this. It speaks well of you.
Let me put it to you like this Steven (S.):
Are you honestly contending that knowledge is not possible?
If so, then why are you wasting my time?
If not, then what on earth are you going on about?
I think he is saying that it depends upon what you are currently meaning by knowledge when you say communication assumes the possibility of knowledge.
I can see where he is confused, if by what you mean is Knowledge, that statement will have a different meaning than if you just mean knowledge.
To communicate presupposes that there is information to be communicated. Whether that information is Known by one of the parties is not required. There could be an aim of the communication to find Knowledge, but that does not say whether the attainment of Knowledge is possible or not.
felixmeister, are you just making stuff up as you go?
Could you direct me to a text on epistemology that differentiates between knowledge (lowercase ‘k’) and Knowledge (uppercase ‘K’)?
Knowledge is, roughly speaking, warranted true belief. Not all knowledge is certain knowledge. I know that the sun will come up tomorrow given various conditions. I do not know it for certain.
My point was only that the traditional biblical apologetic claims not merely that certainty is impossible for the consistent unbeliever, but all knowledge. It was a methodological point made for the sake of Christians using the presup method.
Now if the best unbelievers can do is reply to such an obscure point by suggesting that perhaps knowledge really is not possible, or perhaps the most widely accepted definition of knowledge in epistemology is not in play, then I would answer that this says much for unbelief.
Now if the best unbelievers can do is reply to such an obscure point by suggesting that perhaps knowledge really is not possible, or perhaps the most widely accepted definition of knowledge in epistemology is not in play, then I would answer that this says much for unbelief.
Except that’s not what we’re arguing — or at least not what I’m arguing. What I’m arguing is that the “traditional biblical apologetic” is, in effect, a failed attack upon the notion of “warrant” in the definition of knowledge you’re using. This may well be a debate for a different place; I know we have discussed it in the past.
You are correct, then, in that claiming ‘knowledge is impossible without a divinity’ is a stronger claim than ‘certainty is impossible without a divinity’ — however, the fact that people struggle mightily to prove the lesser claim speaks poorly as to the effectiveness of the greater.
I would say that roughly speaking knowledge is justfied true belief.
In the use of the capital K, I was merely employing a shorthand for justified true belief, ie epistemic knowledge, as opposed to what would be used in everyday language as knowledge. I wasn’t as you said, ‘making stuff up’ as I went along, but trying to explain where was a likelihood of confusion in your communication.
What I was replying to wasn’t the original point but to your reply to Steven’s reply to which, as I was trying to explain had the possibility of confusion.
I didn’t suggest that perhaps knowledge is not possible, nor did I suggest that the most widely accepted definition of knowledge was not in play. What I suggested was that communication does not necessarily assume or presuppose that epistemic knowledge is possible.
“Could you direct me to a text on epistemology that differentiates between knowledge (lowercase ‘k’) and Knowledge (uppercase ‘K’)?”
Well I don’t know about that exact format but we use the term “knowledge” in many different ways and it would seem reasonable to differentiate between these usages somehow. In particular there is the distinction between justified/warranted true belief (“JTB”) and what we generally call “knowledge”.
That distinction has often been made. Quine (page 42 of “From a Logical Point of View), baldy calls what we call knowledge “so-called knowledge”. Popper talks of “Objective Knowledge” (in the book of the same name). Popper’s “Objective Knowledge” differs from JTB in not needing to be true, not being justified/warranted and not needing any knowing subject to believe it! All Popper’s followers have made similar distinctions between what they think possible (what we call knowledge) and what they think impossible (JTB).
Not making the distinction can be a source of great error. Kuhn, for example does not distinguish between what we call knowledge and what is JTB despite not thinking that JTB is not possible. This leads him to identify appropriately made knowledge claims with what is true and justified. As there are competing knowledge claims this necessitates competing justified truths: relativism.
Now “warranted true belief” is not a precondition for communication. Say A wishes to communicate his desire for a beer to B, a barman. Assume to start off with that “B will understand what I ask for” is both true and believed by A. We have two options:
1. “B will understand what I ask for” is justified, in which case “B will understand what I ask for” is knowledge
2. “B will understand what I ask for” is not justified, in which case “B will understand what I ask for” is not knowledge
In both cases, since it is true, the barman will understand what A has asked for and communication has taken place without justification.
Now let’s say that A doesn’t believe that the barman will understand him. Perhaps A is in a foreign country and very unsure of his prowess in the local language. He thinks there is a high chance that he’ll mess up. Still, he decides to try it, fully expecting to have to enlist the help of a phrase book. Amazingly the barman understands him well enough to pull a pint. Communication without belief.
Both A and B have got concepts of what beer is. And both think the others is the same as their own. Say, though, that they are not quite right. Maybe A is a phenominalist whilst B is a realist. What B understands by “can I have a pint of beer, please” is not what A understands by the same request. “B will understand what I ask for” is not true. Never-the-less it is near enough the truth in the important parts that A ends up with a pint of beer.
We’ve now got to the point where neither justification, belief nor truth are needed for communication: knowledge is not needed.
We’re all very happy you know all of that Tony. But it doesn’t address my post.
Just a reminder to everyone: keep your comments short and on topic. In the future I’m not going to be so lenient.
Are you honestly contending that knowledge is not possible?
No — I am contending that you are not proving your point, which was 2) is not possible
You’re using a very common-sense definition of knowledge here — for which I applaud you, but I fail to see how this definition, which includes knowledge that is false, or inconsistent, or incomplete, requires even the basic consistency you want to require of someone.
Now, if you are using a more stringent definition of knowledge — such as “justified true belief” — then you find yourself back in the position of asserting that such a thing can be found — which is nowhere near as obvious an assertion.
And even if you find such a thing, you then need to explain why such a thing cannot emerge from a classical system of induction — since the traditional bar to such a system being sufficient is the question of proof of validity — or, in other words, the availability of certainty.
*That* is why other apologists have staked their claim on certainty — because the stronger claim you are making is untenable without it.
Except that is not my point to prove. Remember that I am responding to something that the other Steven claimed was possible. Something that is not even immediately relevant to the post.
You are reading far too much into the very basic point I was trying to make. Even in the comment above you ascribe all sorts of assumptions about knowledge to me that I am not making. I just don’t have the time right now to weed through them.
It is enough for me to say that not all knowledge is certain knowledge, and the traditional biblical, presuppositional apologetic pertains to more than just certain knowledge, whatever that may be.
2) You’re living in a Godless universe, and knowledge is not possible
2 is not a possibility.
Why not? There is the presumption, in all of this, that a certain definition of knowledge is possible. Why is that an untouchable presumption?
Well if the commenter meant something out of the ordinary by “knowledge” then he is free to explain.
Otherwise, see my responses to him.
Is this Chris Bolt talking to one person, two, or three?
“For the record, I don’t consider “Hezekiah Ahaz” to be representative of the method of apologetics I endorse.”
And why is that?
Hello Chris,
A friendly invitation:
http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/2012/06/strange-comment.html
“Tuesday, June 5, 2012
A Strange Comment.
‘For the record, I don’t consider ‘Hezekiah Ahaz’ to be representative of the method of apologetics I endorse.’ C.L. Bolt
Does he say this because maybe I haven’t read enough Van Til?”
I say it because you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit.
“When did Chris Bolt become the arbiter of who is or who is not a representative of the apologetic method he endorses?”
I didn’t say “a” representative, and I didn’t claim to be “the arbiter.”
“This is a silly comment.”
Now you know how I feel when I read your comments.
“However, I am willing to have a friendly conversation with Chris Bolt in which we could discuss our differences if there are any. Chris is more than welcome to post his criticisms of me here.”
You don’t know what you’re doing. You need to do less chatting and more reading. Thus far you’ve done more to harm the Christian apologetic than what you have done to advance it.
http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/2012/06/strange-comment.html?showComment=1339008673438#c2961075541486163604
“Hezekiah Ahaz said…
Not at all.
I don’t even know who Chris Bolt. However, his comment is unwarranted.
I identify myself with Christ not men.
Nice try.”
That’s really quite the claim considering I have an email from you dated Monday, December 26, 2011 10:22 PM and a comment from you here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/01/one-more-petty-post/#comment-3137, not to mention the fact that you found this thread and commented on it.
“I say it because you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit.”
How do you know? When did you become the arbiter of people’s intelligience?
Is it a sin, Chris, to use a pseduonym? Well, that’s because I stick to the program, that is, “dropping the gauntlet and challenging my opponent to a duel to the death”. That’s something you’re woefully lacking. Just for the record, I don’t consider Chris Bolt a reprasentative of the apologetic method I endorse. He’s not brave enough.
“I didn’t say “a” representative, and I didn’t claim to be “the arbiter.””
Well, I am happy you came back to your senses.
“You don’t know what you’re doing.’
How do you know?
“You need to do less chatting and more reading”
That’s why I have a bible for. However, In my book shelf I have some Van Til. So, where specifically do you want me to start reading? Also, I have over 1000 hours of Bahnsen lectures that you can benefit from. Here is a good one:
http://www.americanvision.com/products/Defending-the-Christian-Worldview-Against-All-Opposition.html
“Thus far you’ve done more to harm the Christian apologetic than what you have done to advance it.”
How do you know? What have you done? Judging from your exchanges with Dawson Bethrick, I am really wondering why you would critisize other people?
“That’s really quite the claim considering I have an email from you dated Monday, December 26, 2011 10:22 PM and a comment from you here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/01/one-more-petty-post/#comment-3137, not to mention the fact that you found this thread and commented on it.”
I meant personally.
Also, If i am not doing Christian Apologetics to your satisfaction. That’s your problem not mine. However, you are always welcome to post your criticisms of me over on my blog.
Blessings,
In Christ.
Your comment is illustrative of the very problem I am referring to, but you are too prideful to want to listen. You remind me of a quote from an old friend, “Oh, just what the world needs, another 20-something know-it-all apologist to set the world straight.”
“How do you know?”
Repeating “How do you know?” is not an apologetic. It’s not representative of the presuppositional method either. Yes, I know what Bahnsen says about it. Yes, I know that Sye uses it constantly. But there comes a point where your apologetic bottoms out if all you are doing is repeating “How do you know?” to your opponent. That’s neither Christian, nor helpful. It’s just an obnoxious tactic that doesn’t get you anywhere in discussion with someone who really needs Christ. The unbeliever can also turn it around on you. Oh, I know that at the end of the day the unbeliever doesn’t have the supporting arguments and justification, but that’s not what I’m talking about. You don’t give those either. I’m talking about how readily the unbeliever could just turn on you and start asking, “How do you know?” ad nauseum. That’s not communication, that’s idiocy.
Unfortunately that’s the first thing you ask me here. “How do you know?” It’s as though that’s all you are capable of doing. We could get a Bot to do that for us. Presumably you want to know how I know that you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit. That’s an easy one. I know it because I’ve read where you write some of the dumbest stuff I’ve ever read under fake names and irritate the snot out of people in their comboxes to no benefit. That wasn’t difficult to answer. It wasn’t clever. You aren’t impressing anyone. You haven’t scored any points. You’re just coming off as ignorant and annoying. You need to drop it.
“When did you become the arbiter of people’s intelligience?”
I never claimed to be “the arbiter of people’s intelligence.” When are you going to stop repeatedly ascribing things to me that I did not say? That’s a sure mark of dishonesty. I didn’t say that there is anything wrong with your intelligence, because I don’t know. But I did say that you write some dumb comments. I think I’m okay to stand by that. It’s evident in the comments themselves. Even the ones you have posted here.
“Is it a sin, Chris, to use a pseduonym?”
No, and again, I never said that it was.
“Well, that’s because I stick to the program, that is, ‘dropping the gauntlet and challenging my opponent to a duel to the death’.”
No, you make yourself look like a fool by spamming comboxes under various fake names and asking people, “How do you know?” until they think you’re insane.
“That’s something you’re woefully lacking.”
Oh? Can you direct me toward your debates? Have you produced material outside of your blog? Did you have another place that you wrote prior to your current blog, since it is less than one year old?
“Just for the record, I don’t consider Chris Bolt a reprasentative of the apologetic method I endorse. He’s not brave enough.”
lol
“Well, I am happy you came back to your senses.”
I didn’t come back to my senses. I never left them. I never said the things you attributed to me. You’re deceitful. That’s another persistent problem I see in your comments.
“How do you know?”
How do I know that you don’t know what you’re doing? Because I’ve read a good portion of your comments spammed all over atheist blogs.
“That’s why I have a bible for. However, In my book shelf I have some Van Til. So, where specifically do you want me to start reading? Also, I have over 1000 hours of Bahnsen lectures that you can benefit from. Here is a good one:
http://www.americanvision.com/products/Defending-the-Christian-Worldview-Against-All-Opposition.html”
Well pin a rose on your nose. Why haven’t you learned very much from what you’re reading?
“How do you know?”
How do I know that you’ve done more to harm the Christian apologetic than what you have done to advance it? Because many of your posts don’t make sense, you constantly make terrible category errors, your most clever reply is, “How do you know?”, you’re generally dishonest, you’re arrogant, you’re unteachable, you don’t explain what is going on in the transcendental encounter, and the like. I could go on, but from the looks of it you don’t actually care anyway.
“What have you done?”
Really? You come onto my site and ask me that question and don’t know how to answer it for yourself?
“Judging from your exchanges with Dawson Bethrick, I am really wondering why you would critisize other people?”
lol Because people like you also had “exchanges” with Dawson Bethrick.
“Also, If i am not doing Christian Apologetics to your satisfaction. That’s your problem not mine.”
And yet here you are.
“However, you are always welcome to post your criticisms of me over on my blog.”
No thanks. Not worth my time. Clearly you are not willing to listen to anybody. I thought a little criticism from a Christian, as opposed to the fundy atheists you spend so much time with would wake you up to what you’re doing, but apparently not. So I’m done.