Conversations with Angie: Ontological and epistemological certainty

Angie,

On second thought, maybe I'll sleep better if I answer this first.

>First, I'd like to point out a seeming contradiction in your email.

It's always a good idea to point out somebody else's contradiction, because contradiction is a sure sign of error. If I contradicted myself, then I was wrong in one situation or the other. Heaven forbid!

The contradiction you see is that on the one hand, I think that if Christianity is false, then we shouldn't believe it, and if it's true, then we SHOULD believe it, and everything else is irrelevent. But then on the other hand, I say it's not necessary to be absolutely certain that it's true.

I think you have probably misunderstood what I've meant by "certainty" and "absolute certainty." The reason I think that is because of what you said next. You said, "Truth implies a certainty. If truth exists, and if something is true, then it is one hundred percent true, whether I believe it or not." It may surprise you to know that I completely agree with you, 100%. However, you are obviously using "certainty" in a different sense than I am.

You seem to be using "certainty" in the ontological sense. Ontology has to do with being, reality, the way things are, etc. However things are, you are absolutely right to say that our beliefs don't matter. If Christianity is true, then it's true whether we believe it or not. Certainty, in that sense, just has to do with the ontology of truth.

Truth is correspondence with reality. For example, if I say, "There's milk in the refrigerator," and if, in reality, there actually is milk in the refrigerator, then the statement is absolutely true. If there is no milk in the refrigerator, then the statement is absolutely false. So regardless of what we believe, there either is or there isn't any milk in the refrigerator. The claim that there milk in there is either true or false, regardless of my beliefs.

We are talking ontology here--the actual contents of the refrigerator. Ontologically speaking, you're right that "truth implies certainty." It's certain in the sense that it is actually true. It is CERTAINLY true, you might say.

But that's not the sense in which I've been using the word "certainty" or "absolute certainty." I've been using those terms, not in the ontological sense, but in the epistemological sense. Epistemololgy has to do with knowledge, beliefs, justification, etc. Christianity may be absolutely true, but that says nothing at all about whether or not I'm aware that it's true. It may be true, and I think it's true. Or it could be true, and I think it's false. Or it could be true, and I just don't have an opinion one way or the other.

If I said, "Christianity is certaintly true," that would mean something completely different than if I said, "I'm certain that Christianity is true." Notice that the subject is different in each case. In the first statement, the subject is "Christianity." In the second, the subject is "I." In the first statement, "certainty" is used in the ontological sense. In the second, it's used in the epistemological sense. In the first, the certainty applies to the truth of Christianity. In the second, the certainty applies to the strength of my belief.

Do you see what I mean now? When I say that it's not necessary to be absolutely certain that Christianity is true, all I mean is that it's not necessary to know beyond all doubt that Christianity is true. There's very little at all we know beyond all doubt. All that's necessary is that you THINK Christianity is true with some degree of confidence. I BELIEVE that Christianity is true, but I don't KNOW beyond all doubt that Christianity is true. Do you see what I mean?

That is perfectly consistent with what I said before--that the only relevent factor to consider is whether or not Christianity is true. If I think it's true, then I'll be a Christian, and if I think it's not true, then I won't be a Christian. Hopefully that clears things up, and there's no more contradiction.

to be continued...

Conversations with Angie:  More on certainty and reasonableness

Conversations with Angie: Angie responds

You must keep in mind that I'm cutting out some emails. I'm also cutting out parts of emails. I just want to stick to the meat of our conversations. Here's Angie's response:

***************
Sam,

I've taken so long with this response that you've a right to expect something incredibly insightful and full of depth! I'd like to accommodate, but to be honest, my thoughts are kind of jumbled. Hopefully I can make sense anyway.

First, I'd like to point out a seeming contradiction in your email. You say: "It seems to me (and you seem to agree) that there's only one thing that's relevent to whether or not a person should be a Christian, and that's whether or not it's true. If it's true, then they should be, but if it's not true, then they shouldn't. It's as simple as that. A person has only to find out if there are any good reasons to think it's true. Everything else is irrelevent."

Then, later, you go on to talk about how it is not necessary to be absolutely certain that it's true. While I agree with much of what you said - obviously we live everyday with many uncertainties - I can't quite buy the argument in relation to Christianity. Truth implies a certainty. If truth exists, and if something is true, then it is one hundred percent true, whether I believe it or not.

With this in mind, I'm not sure that I understand why you say, "Belief in Christianity is reasonable to me in the sense that it's a justified belief that falls short of absolute certainty." What I mean to say is, despite your fleeting thoughts of doubt, at your core, you do believe that Christianity holds the absolute truth. And, if you're like others I've known (including myself), you attribute those doubts to your human nature, all the while believing that God is true and absolute and all-knowing, etc. In other words, you believe with certainty that Christianity is true, and that this truth exists apart from your struggles with doubt.

If that didn't make sense, ask me to clarify, and I'll try. For now, I'll move on to the next point.

You asked me to clarify why I require so much certainty. This is the response that took me so long. I thought about it a lot, and could not come up with an answer. I guess I eventually realized (by examining the evidence that I'd seen) that I had to admit that Materialism is just as likely to be true as Christianity. I would not go so far as to say that all belief systems are just as likely to be true, but I felt that Materialism was. I was in a place where I honestly could not conclude that one was more likely to be true than the other. I thought, "It's quite possible, even likely, that they are right, and God does not exist. Of course, it's possible that God does exist, and they're wrong, too." So I was kind of stuck right in the middle. At that stage, I continued in my congregation and basically tried to pretend that I still felt conviction, because it was my life. All of my friends were in my congregation and I was comfortable there. Beyond comfortable, I loved it. Eventually, though, I admitted to myself that I was thinking more and more that it is more likely true that God doesn't exist, and that I couldn't force myself to believe. I became very tired of pretending that I still believed. I felt very false and very hypocritical. So I began to distance myself from my congregation and my friends.

A final comment on your statement: "After all, it's impossible to be neutral. You either dedicate your life to being a Christian or to not being a Christian. You can't be a Christian and not be a Christian at the same time and in the sense." I disagree. Everything is not black and white and as clear-cut as we would like. I agree that you can't "be a Christian and not be a Christian at the same time..." I know it doesn't work - I tried it! But no one dedicates their life to not being a Christian. What does that even mean? I no longer believe that Jesus was the Messiah. I no longer believe that he was raised from the dead. But that doesn't mean that I've now dedicated myself to being the antithesis of a Christian. I never made a decision saying, "Now I'm going to be a non-Christian." I simply let go of a belief that was no longer alive in me. Now, I'm just trying to live my life as well as I can.

And now, I'll be off to sleep. If I wait any longer, I won't be able to get up for work tomorrow!

Take care.
Angie

Conversations with Angie:  Ontological and epistemological certainty

Conversations with Angie: The need for certainty

continued...

I do think you might've misunderstood what I meant by "reasonableness is enough." You said reasonableness is not enough for you since there are lots of beliefs that are reasonable. By "reasonable," I don't just mean that Christianity isn't absurd or that Christianity might possibly be true. I would agree that lots of beliefs are reasonable in that sense of the word, and I would agree that that kind of reasonableness is not a sufficient reason to dedicate one's life to a belief. What I mean by "reasonable" is that there are good reasons to think Christianity is true, even if those reasons aren't necessarily conclusive. Belief in Christianity is reasonable to me in the sense that it's a justified belief that falls short of absolute certainty.

Let me give an analogy to explain what I mean. I said before that there is very little I know with absolute certainty. If you've ever read David Hume's book, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, you'll know what I'm talking about. Hume demonstrated that there's little if anything at all that we can know for certain, simply because there's always the possibility that we're wrong. For example, it's possible that we're all dreaming. Maybe we're plugged into the Matrix with probes in our heads. Maybe we're brains in vats being stimulated. In that case, we can't know with absolute certainty that anything we're experiencing in the world is real. However, just because these scenarios are possible broadly speaking, that doesn't mean they're reasonable to believe. It seems much more reasonable to believe that our senses are generally reliable, and that there really is an external world, and we're pretty much experiencing it the way it is. That's what I mean by "reasonable." Our belief in the external world is a justified belief, and it's reasonable even though we can't be 100% certain that our belief is true.

I think you're right to say we're opposites in the sense that I don't require absolute certainty before I'll dedicate my life to something, whereas you do. But I must admit that I don't understand why you would require that kind of certainty. Maybe you can explain that a little more in your next email. Now I'll grant that my belief in Christianity is not quite as strong as my belief in the external world, so let me make another analogy that may better explain why I don't see things the way you do.

Let's say you go to eat at a restaurant. We've all seen those shows on TV, and we've all heard those stories about how people will put all kinds of nasty things in people's food and drinks. With that in mind, we obviously can't be certain that when we eat out, somebody didn't blow snot in our food or something. If we knew for certain that they DID, then we probably wouldn't eat the food, right? But we DO eat the food, even without absolute certainty. The possibility of somebody putting something nasty in our food isn't nearly as unlikely as the possibility that we're plugged into the Matrix, and yet we still eat. We eat it because we find it reasonable to believe that nobody put something nasty in our food.

In fact, we make decisions every single day on less than absolute certainty. We get in our cars every day not knowing with absolute certainty that we won't get in an accident and get killed. We marry people, dedicating our lives to them, without knowing with absolute certainty that they won't cheat on us, abandon us, or get cancer the next week. We do these things because our beliefs outweight our doubts. As much as we'd like absolute certainty, we don't need it.

I don't see why religion should be any different. I agree with you that there's no point in being a Christian if you don't think Christianity is true. But what I disagree with is that you have to be 100% sure that Christianity is true before dedicating your life to it. After all, it's impossible to be neutral. You either dedicate your life to being a Christian or to not being a Christian. You can't be a Christian and not be a Christian at the same time and in the sense. You either are or you aren't. So if you require 100% certainty that Christianity is true before being a Christian, shouldn't you also require 100% certain that Christianity is false before NOT being a Christian? Very few people (if any) are 100% sure either way. Even some of the most famous atheist philosophers don't claim that kind of certainty in their disbelief in God.

The only things I'm 100% certain of are basic things like the laws of logic, that 2+2=4, that I exist, that I'm having sensory perceptions, and things like that. With everything else, I have a measure of belief and doubt. With the external world, I've got about 99.99% belief and 0.01% doubt. With other things, I may have 60% belief and 40% doubt. But even with 51% belief, that's still a belief that the thing is true rather than false, and although the belief may be loosely held and not strong at all, I think we ought to live according to what we think is true rather than what we think is false. So even if my belief is only 51%, I ought to live consistently with that belief.

It's hard for me to say exactly how strong my belief in Christianity is, because there are several claims that, together, constitute what I take "Christianity" to be, and the strength of my belief in some of those claims is stronger than the others. For example, I'm more certain that God exists than I am that Jesus was raised from the dead. I believe them both, but my belief in God is stronger.

In the next email, I guess I'll tell you what I take those basic claims of Christianity to be and give you some idea of how strongly I believe them. It will be part of my answer to some of your reasons for doubting Christianity.

In my last email, I told you there were some things you said that I could relate with, so I'll also go into those in my next email.

Maybe one of these days, I'll get around to telling you why I think Christianity is true. In the meantime, I'm going to Canton this morning. Those Rice Crispy treats last night sure did make me thirsty!

Sam

Conversations with Angie: Angie responds

Conversations with Angie: The one thing that matters

We exchanged a couple of emails in which I wanted to make sure I wasn't going to put her on the defensive if I gave in to the urge to respond. She gave me the go-ahead and seemed interested in what I had to say. Here was my first response (the first part of it anyway):

*********************
Angie,

LOL It sounds like I've become predictable! Seriously, though, I'm going to try not to turn this into an ephphatha/WeirdBrake style debate. I appreciate your willingness to talk to me about this, though. It's one of my favourite things to talk about.

I started responding to part of your email last night, but it was getting so long, I decided I would save the rest for later. The last thing I'd want is for you to fall asleep while reading or to be overwhelmed and never have time to get back with me because doing so takes too much time.

I'm not really sure how much detail I should go into. I could probably write a book if I wanted to, but then you wouldn't want to read it. I guess I'll just have to be selective about which of my thoughts to mention.

The first thing I want to say is that I agree with your point when you asked, "If it [Christianity] wasn't true, what was the value of dedicating my entire life to pursuing its ideals?" I admire your attitude here, because it's been my observation that "truth" usually has little to do with why most people either accept or reject Christianity. It seems to me (and you seem to agree) that there's only one thing that's relevent to whether or not a person should be a Christian, and that's whether or not it's true. If it's true, then they should be, but if it's not true, then they shouldn't. It's as simple as that. A person has only to find out if there are any good reasons to think it's true. Everything else is irrelevent.

More often than not, though, people base their decisions on irrelevent things--things that have no bearing on whether or not Christianity is true. Some become Christians because it gives them a sense of belonging, or it gives them the warm fuzzies. Some reject Christianity because they find Christians to be hypocritical or fake. Neither the warm fuzzies nor the hypocritical Christians are at all relevent to whether or not the basic claims of the Christian worldview are true. So I can't help but respect your position since you seem to recognize this fact.

to be continued...

Conversations with Angie:  The need for certainty

Conversations with Angie

Last year, I was having a discussion on a message board about determinism, our ability to reason, and the soul. Somewhere along the line, I mentioned that reason had a lot to do with why I was a Christian. One of the participants, Angie, thought that was pretty interesting, because reason had everything to do with why she stopped being a Christian. We exchanged a few emails. In one of them, she summarized some of her main reasons for rejecting Christianity. For the next several months, I responded to each of her reasons. With her permission, I'm going to spend a few blogs (maybe a lot of blogs) reproducing some of the emails we exchanged. I'll begin with the email she sent me explaining her reasons for rejecting Christianity.

***********************
That's me! Sam, you probably thought I wouldn't bother since it's been a while, but I am interested in continuing the conversation started on PMs a while back. First, I'll try to answer your question:

I know you're a little uncertain right now about what to believe, but is there anything specific that caused you to think Christianity wasn't true? Or was it just lack of reasons to think it was true?

Well, it was kind of a slow and gradual process. On one hand, I was studying
biblical literature - reading commentary from Christians and non-Christians, and learning about the "integrity" of the biblical texts. I found that it wasn't as I had learned, and had been edited various times throughout history, which I felt negated the claim that it is complete as is, and completely inspired of God.

Second, I began reading up on ancient cultures of the Middle East, and found
that many biblical stories have equivalents (or parallels, or just very
similar stories) in other ancient near eastern cultures. Along with this, I learned that most of the names for God in the bible were the names of gods in several of the cultures that were present in that part of the world. Adonai, for example, was the name of a Sumerian god, and was adopted into the Hebrew language/culture. El Shaddai was the name of a Canaanite god. Now, I know a Christian would argue that this is true only because God was revealing Himself to humanity throughout history, but I don't buy that. I also saw the many similarities that the biblical God had with these other gods...

Another issue ... it only ever felt true, or even believable, when I was surrounded by my Christian friends and avoided such materials as the reading I mentioned above. Now, some might say that if that's the case, I never really believed in the first place, or that my faith wasn't deep enough, or whatever. Perhaps one of those is true, but I doubt it. It's mostly based on things I learned and experiences.

And, I find myself unable to believe that a truly good God would let the world be as it is. I know exactly what most Christians would say in response to it. And, if what the Bible says is true, why do prayers, needs, etc., so often go unanswered and unmet?

I'm not 100% convinced that it's true, but then again, there's very little I AM 100% convinced of, but I maintain a degree of belief and/or doubt. I figure certainty isn't necessary. Reasonableness is enough.

Again, we were like opposites: as I was struggling with so many doubts, I felt I had to know for a certainty if it was true or not. If it wasn't true, what was the value of dedicating my entire life to pursuing its ideals? Reasonableness was not enough for me, because I found that there are a number of belief systems that are reasonable.

I hung on for over two years in this state of limbo, remaining involved with my congregation, etc., until one day I admitted to myself that I just didn't believe anymore. It was really difficult - and scary. I don't really know how to live any other way, so for the most part I do as I did. But sometimes I miss it. Mostly I missed the community I was a part of in college. My closest friendships ever were ones that developed in that community, but we all live far from each other now. I haven't even told them yet.

Well,... I guess I'll be off for the moment...

~Angie

Conversations with Angie: The one thing that matters

About the bows I make

Safiyyah made the brilliant suggestion the other day that I post something about my bows and about how I make them. I am only too happy to do so being as how I'm so obsessed with it. You must understand, though, that I've only been doing it for a year, and I'm no expert. I've made several different kinds of bows without necessarily mastering any particular kind.

I don't know how to post pictures on here, so I'm just going to give some links.

My really cool bow This was my second attempt at a fiberglass laminated bow, and it turned out pretty well. I made this bow for my brother.

Bamboo bow This was my second attempt at an all bamboo bow. I made it for a neighbor. This link also has a little about the process by which I made the bow.

Experimental bow This was an experimental bow. I was working with different shapes to see what would happen. I was not too happy with how this one turned out, but I'm posting it anyway, because this thread goes through the steps of building this bow. Another person wanted to know how to use the "inner tube method" for gluing up a laminated bow.

Fairie bow Here is a minature bow I did out of a piece of hickory just for the fun of it.

Mouse trap I used the same minature bow above to make a better mouse trap.

religion or relationship?

I’m sure you’ve all heard people say, “Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship.” Why do people say that? Well, of course they understand Christianity to involve some sort of relationship. By atoning for our sins, Jesus put us in right relationship to the Father. As Paul put it, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). So Christianity does involve some kind of relationship.

But why deny that Christianity is a religion as if “religion” and “relationship” are mutually exclusive? Couldn’t Christianity be a religion that consists of a relationship? The answers I have heard usually involve a peculiar definition of the word “religion.” They’ll say something like, “Religion involves man-made ceremonies and institutions; Christianity is a personal relationship with the living God.”

As I’ve said before in an earlier blog, words are defined by their use. People do not use the word “religion” to refer strictly to man-made ceremonies and institutions. The word is often used to refer to devotion to a high power or spiritual beings (sometimes dead ancestors). That devotion certainly consists of relationships (or at least supposed relationships). By that understanding of “religion” Christianity is a religion. Prayer, worship, and devotion to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ make it a religion by the ordinary use of the word.

The Bible also uses the word “religion” in a positive light, which makes it all the more strange that Christians would object to having Christianity called a religion. For example, in James 1:27, it says, “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Religion in this context seems to be understood as a practice that exemplifies godly behavior.

ontology and epistemology

Last week, I was having a conversation with a friend about apologetics, and I mentioned that I wasn't 100% certain that Christianity was true. She was surprised by that. For some strange reason, every time I said, "I am less than 100% confident that Christianity is true," she heard me say, "I am confident that Christianity is less than 100% true."

The reason I'm writing this blog is because I had a conversation last fall with somebody who had this same misunderstanding. In both cases, I had a really difficult time explaining the difference in a way they could understand. I figured since two people who don't know each other both had the exact same misunderstanding, the fault must be with me. I just want to throw out some thoughts on the subject, though.

I think the confusion comes in not distinguishing between ontology and epistemology. Epistemology has to do with our knowledge or belief about something. Ontology has to do with the thing itself. There is a difference between reality and our beliefs about reality. Reality is some particular way, and whatever way it is, it is 100% so. My beliefs about reality, however, may not be based on conclusive evidence. Many of my beliefs about reality are based on probabilities.

If there are cookies in the cookie jar, for example, then it's 100% true that there are cookies in the cookie jar. But that doesn't mean everybody knows for sure that there are cookies in the cookie jar. A person may suspect there are cookies in the cookie jar, because he smells cookies in the air and figures somebody must've recently baked some and put them in there. But it's also possible that cookies were baked and eaten, and there are no cookies left. But that's unlikely since there's only one person living there. So this person believes there are cookies in the cookie jar, but there's room for doubt. Their belief that there are cookies in the cookie jar is less than 100% certain.

When I say I'm not 100% certain that Christianity is true, all I'm saying is that I'm fallible. I could be wrong. Christianity is either true or it's not true, but I can't know with absolute certainty which it is. David Hume once said that a wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence. The stronger the evidence, the stronger we should believe. I'm pretty confident that Christianity is true, but it's possible that I'm mistaken.

Whether I believe something or not has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. A thing can be true even if I think it's false. A thing can be true even if I don't know whether it's true or false. A thing can be 100% true even if I only suspect that it's probably true.