knowledge requires appeal to evidencemaximilian keeps insisting that a person who claims to be guided by human reason shouldn't claim to "know" certain propositions to be true if there is not enough evidence to support the truth of that proposition. this, he asserts, is the case of philosophers and their "knowledge" of god's existence. what is knowledge? when a person claims to have knowledge, the person claims truth. "i know that there is a man with a gun over there," is an assertion that it is true that there is a man with a gun over there. it also means that the claim is not only one of truth. such a proposition actually means that there is certainty. there is enough evidence, enough "umph" present, enough "gut feeling" that it impinges so much upon sensory awareness that the person cannot help but be certain of it. of course, "gut feeling" is justifiable only if there is enough evidence present. if there is enough evidence from experience and observation, then others will also get this "umph," and it will also impinge so much upon their awareness that they will also "know" and be certain. in this example, if they look over there and actually see the man with the gun, or if he's gone they'll see his footprints and see bullet shells, or other witnesses who have a history of honesty and reliability claim the same thing, then there is enough evidence to warrant the double claim of truth and certainty. then it can be said that there is "knowledge" of the man with the gun over there. when one claims that he or she knows, one makes this appeal to the evidence, and makes the related claim that if you or anyone else sees the same evidence, too, you would also have knowledge. if we went to the man and saw that he really was holding a garden hose, then the evidence would have proven the proposition wrong, and we really did not know correctly. of course, this does not mean that the evidence need be enough to convince every person. it should suffice, common sense would dictate, that normal and rational people would find the evidence compelling if presented with it. now don't get all in a square dance because this definition relies on the vague notion of "reasonable and rational people." this is not a sneaky way of saying that if someone does not believe the evidence then they are not normal or rational. this means simply: that if the evidence is not believed by people who are normal and rational (people who are not panicking during an earthquake or not caught up in some mob hysteria), then the evidence is not enough to support knowledge. |
belief does not require the appeal to evidence -- this is faithbelief is not really knowledge because it does not have this appeal to evidence, although language, because it is beautiful in its versatility and thus confusing, mixes knowledge and belief up. belief allows for the fact that some people, normal and rational ones, will see the evidence and may not end up "knowing" the same proposition or may even believe or know something else. someone may see the man and say, "i see where you think the gunman is, but i believe it might be a cameraman or a man with a garden hose." neither of them will then be said to know. faith is belief, an expectant and full-of-hope kind of belief, as in, "i have faith in my friends." few people say, "i have faith that i will die a tragic death." it is also very strong; it is a "courageous" kind of belief, so strong that the person believes it even if presented with evidence to the contrary, even if there is a danger that what the person believes in cannot be proven. when faith is asked for evidencebut when a person makes a claim based on faith, the person, because he or she is making a claim, can be asked to support the claim. after all, it is the nature of a proposition that it can be challenged regarding its truth value and its degree of certainty. propositions based on faith, however, are tricky to handle, especially religious ones. the type of evidence required will vary. in the bible, for example, the authors have written many different kinds of statements that will require different kinds of evidence. but, without the necessary evidence, the person only believes; the person does not know. some claims of faith can become knowledge, since it is possible that enough evidence can be put forth (that this has actually happened, that is, that some time in history something or someone has provided enough evidence to seal certainty and truth, continues to be debated). if there is historical evidence, for example, of a jesus that rose from the dead, or if there is geological evidence for the flood, then it can become knowledge. but where do we get evidence that the universe was created, and if created was necessarily created by the god of abraham, isaac, and jacob, and not by any other god or gods? it's difficult to amass evidence to support, as catholics claim, that the vatican is guided by the Holy Spirit, especially when the same catholics admit that priests are human and humans are imperfect, that the persecution of galileo was wrong, that the inquisition was a "dark time, indeed" (see, for instance, the apologies written by pope john paul ii). that is the challenge of faith, and once again, that is why faith is not knowledge but only belief. oh it might be a beautiful belief, giving meaning and purpose to human life, but it is not knowledge. but does it have to be knowledge in order to be effective? is not the nature of religion transformative and formative of the human experience of life and death. in that case, knowledge of the tenets of faith is really quite secondary, and the hope and action of the faithful believer is primary. |
go back to the [articles] page