 |
| Victoria: trekearth |
Preface
Pre-PhD website article published 20060803, revised with additions for Blogger and an entry on academia.edu, 20250816.
1 John 5:13
Those things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.[1]
Those things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.[1]
1 John 5: 13
εἰδῆτε
Cited
'1 John 5:13'
Original word: εἴδω
'GRK: ὑμῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν
KJV: of God; that ye may know that ye have
INT: to you that you might know that life'
Knowledge here is to have seen the gospel demonstrated through the life and work of Jesus Christ and to know the gospel. One is trusting in the applied atoning and resurrection of Jesus Christ, also known as God the Son, and therefore have everlasting life.
The primary Christian concepts of a belief in Jesus the Son of God, and his applied atoning and resurrection work for believers, and resulting everlasting life are presented in the verse.[2] Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible defines the Greek word ‘eido’ meaning know, as expressing the idea of being aware, to behold, consider, look, perceive, see, being sure, to tell and understand.[3] The idea of ‘eido’ here seems to be that Christians can be intellectually, reasonably certain that Christ was the actual historical Son of God, who was accurately portrayed in Scripture as atoning for the sins of humanity on the cross and being resurrected from the dead in order that those who believe in him can have everlasting life.
Cited
'Strong's Greek: 1492. εἴδω (eidó) — 319 Occurrences'
Cited
'Lexical Summary
eidó: To see, to know, to perceive, to be aware
Original Word: εἴδω
Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: eidó
Pronunciation: ay'-do
Phonetic Spelling: (i'-do) KJV: be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot'
'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
be aware, behold, consider, perceive
A primary verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equivalent optanomai and horao; properly, to see (literally or figuratively); by implication, (in the perfect tense only) to know -- be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) know(-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wish, wot. Word Origin: [a primary verb]'
---
Knowledge and Certainty
With my research of the problem of evil for my British MPhil and PhD dissertations, I have come across the idea from secular critics that Christians cannot know that the Christian faith is true, or certain, but rather that Christians should state that they believe Christianity is true. The question then arises, can we properly philosophically state that we know Christianity is true, and certain?
Prior to working on my British degrees, I was in agreement with my former theology professor at Trinity Western University that Christianity was certain; but we disagreed on exactly what this meant. He stated that we could know that the Christian faith was true and 100% certain. I disagreed with this point, not because I doubted the faith as true, or thought that any counter argument against Christianity was superior, but because I thought that 100% knowledge of anything, was solely within the attributes and intellectual ability of an infinite God. The secular critic of Christianity can correctly point out that one cannot be 100% certain that Christianity is true, but this is not a philosophical problem for a Christian because as a finite being, one can simply state that he/she has a finite ability to understand anything, even empirical events experienced by the senses. A finite ability to understand something does not make it an incorrect understanding. A finite understanding of knowledge also does not prohibit someone with God’s guidance from having limited but accurate understanding of various philosophies and believing in the ones that are true, in particular the Christian faith.
A definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[4] I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense. For this to be the case Christianity would have to be both internally and externally, consistent, reasonable and therefore true. Internally true would be premises and conclusions within a biblical, Christian worldview and externally true would be versus premises and conclusions of other worldviews. Obviously this short article does not deal with all these issues. I would state that my PhD/MPhil degrees and website work offers a more full explanation on various issues.
Edward Gettier has argued in ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ that believing something is true does not make it knowledge because the person lacks sufficient conditions for knowing a proposition.[5] In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence.[6] I can agree that finite human beings can deduce that something is true without really knowing it. As well, with the human lack of 100% knowledge of anything, it does mean that it is also possible that there could be conditions in existence not known and that a proposition that is held as true is really false. However, I do not think that Gettier’s argument should trouble those who view the Christian faith as certain because Klein points out concerning Gettier’s view that to many thinkers felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths.[7]
Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described earlier from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. In other words, if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments.
[1] New American Standard Bible (1981: 1394).
[2] The Greek word ‘aionios’ can be defined as either eternal or everlasting according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Strong (1986: 8). Eternal would be defined as having no beginning and no end, and everlasting would be defined as having a beginning and no end. Technically speaking in my view, only God is eternal and therefore alone has eternal life. However, some may view believers as sharing in God’s eternal life and therefore possessing eternal life, but I think it is more accurate to translate the verse with the idea that we know that we have everlasting life.
[3] Strong (1986: 31).
[4] Klein (1996: 113).
[5] Gettier (1997)(1963: 3).
[6] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3).
[7] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3)
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
Prior to working on my British degrees, I was in agreement with my former theology professor at Trinity Western University that Christianity was certain; but we disagreed on exactly what this meant. He stated that we could know that the Christian faith was true and 100% certain. I disagreed with this point, not because I doubted the faith as true, or thought that any counter argument against Christianity was superior, but because I thought that 100% knowledge of anything, was solely within the attributes and intellectual ability of an infinite God. The secular critic of Christianity can correctly point out that one cannot be 100% certain that Christianity is true, but this is not a philosophical problem for a Christian because as a finite being, one can simply state that he/she has a finite ability to understand anything, even empirical events experienced by the senses. A finite ability to understand something does not make it an incorrect understanding. A finite understanding of knowledge also does not prohibit someone with God’s guidance from having limited but accurate understanding of various philosophies and believing in the ones that are true, in particular the Christian faith.
A definition of certainty which I would consider helpful would be along the lines of what I found in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Peter D. Klein describes the Cartesian account of certainty as being that a proposition is true if there are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for doubting it.[4] I like the similar idea that a proposition is certain if there are no counter propositions that are superior. Therefore in regard to the Christian faith, and its belief in Scripture inspired by God, the atoning work of Christ, the resurrection, and everlasting life, these things could be viewed as certain provided there are no legitimate counter arguments that are superior. I believe that evidence shows Christianity is philosophically certain in this sense. For this to be the case Christianity would have to be both internally and externally, consistent, reasonable and therefore true. Internally true would be premises and conclusions within a biblical, Christian worldview and externally true would be versus premises and conclusions of other worldviews. Obviously this short article does not deal with all these issues. I would state that my PhD/MPhil degrees and website work offers a more full explanation on various issues.
Edward Gettier has argued in ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ that believing something is true does not make it knowledge because the person lacks sufficient conditions for knowing a proposition.[5] In other words, many true propositions would have been deduced as true, not by knowledge but by felicitous (fortunate) coincidence.[6] I can agree that finite human beings can deduce that something is true without really knowing it. As well, with the human lack of 100% knowledge of anything, it does mean that it is also possible that there could be conditions in existence not known and that a proposition that is held as true is really false. However, I do not think that Gettier’s argument should trouble those who view the Christian faith as certain because Klein points out concerning Gettier’s view that to many thinkers felicitous coincidence can be avoided if the reasons which justify belief are such that they cannot be defeated by further truths.[7]
Klein’s certainty concept in regard to felicitous coincidence is similar to the one described earlier from The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. In other words, if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. This does not require 100% certainty of anything, but rather an accurate understanding of conditions that would lead to the formation of propositions and arguments.
[1] New American Standard Bible (1981: 1394).
[2] The Greek word ‘aionios’ can be defined as either eternal or everlasting according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Strong (1986: 8). Eternal would be defined as having no beginning and no end, and everlasting would be defined as having a beginning and no end. Technically speaking in my view, only God is eternal and therefore alone has eternal life. However, some may view believers as sharing in God’s eternal life and therefore possessing eternal life, but I think it is more accurate to translate the verse with the idea that we know that we have everlasting life.
[3] Strong (1986: 31).
[4] Klein (1996: 113).
[5] Gettier (1997)(1963: 3).
[6] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3).
[7] Klein (2005)(1998: 2-3)
GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.
GETTIER, EDMUND L. (1997)(1963) ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, in Analysis 23, 1963, 121-123, Nottingham, England. Analysis 23.
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.
KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984), Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.
THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION BIBLE (1984), Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.
Wow, great post! What you had to say was very, very helpful to me.
ReplyDeleteI would love to hear more about your research into the problem of evil. It's been a common discussion topic among my friends and I lately. We've been coming across people who just simply don't believe that evil even exists at all, which is insane. It would be great to hear your ideas on it.
Hi David
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments and I appreciate your blogs.
My PhD expands on my MPhil work. I basically embed my sovereignty theodicy within the reviews of free will (libertarian), sovereignty(limited human free will, not determinism), soul-making, and empirical approaches.
These theodicy assume that evil exists, and I have not thoroughly reviewed any approach which denies evil. I have been reviewing theodicy within a Christian tradition and looking at secular critics. Most secular critics I have looked at believe in a problem of evil.
However, I would think that within some eastern religious approaches evil is denied. I suppose if they believe in monism, all is one in essence, that good for some adherents would not be differentiated from evil. What is seen as "evil" would really be a necessary aspect of existence.
As you are of course aware, Scripture shows that God created a good creation, and this reflects his good nature. We therefore can deduce from Genesis that God is not dualistic, but holy in nature. Evil is shown as coming from the fall of certain angelic beings, and from the fall of humanity. Evil is in opposition to God and thus all is not one, but evil is corruption that has entered into God's creation by the free choice of certain angelic beings and humanity. As well, if all is one and God is a dualistic being that is both infinitely good and evil, it seems very problematic. Evil seems intent on the corruption of the good God has made, and if God wanted to create a good creation and life and corrupt it simultaneously it seems contradictory, as does the very existence of this type of God. I think that God in his sovereignty willingly allowed the problem of evil to exist in order to atone for and restore his creation through Christ.
This was a much easier read. I believe in the air that I breathe in. I don't understand it, nor do I know all about it but it is true and can be proved & I accept it. Now when it comes to God if science could prove God we would not need faith...because without faith it is impossible to please God. So we cannot know for sure in this physical realm without the backing of our faith.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
ReplyDeleteEmpirical science will not prove God. The immaterial God will not be proven through a material process, but if views are reasoned by deduction and evidence, they can be considered knowledge provided they are not countered by superior arguments. I acknowledge we need faith, but that it can be reasonable.