What Do We Really Know?

by Peter Tim

Like the answer to so many questions, the answer depends on what is
meant by, in this case, the word and the idea of knowing, knowledge,
truth and belief. What we know, how we can know it and what we mean
by these things fall into the category of philosophy called
epistemology. Most people may not give this much thought. Believers
and their leaders, in particular, seldom consider it except when they
may insist that even scientific knowledge must be “believed on faith.”
But these issues are of great importance to Freethinkers because the
essence of their outlook as rationalists is that it is not so much the
content of belief that matters but the how and why of coming to
beliefs. And everyone has an epistemological perspective and
assumptions whether they realize it or not. Some examples include
such ideas as that:

• If we see it with our own eyes it’s true: “seeing is believing.”
• If we “feel it in our gut” or “sense in our heart,” it must be true.
• If a machine recorded it, it must be true.
• If scientists say it, it must be true.
• If it’s on TV, or in the newspapers, or on the internet, it must be true.
• If the government says it, it must be true.
• If our friends and family believe it then it must be true.
• If we remember it, it must be so.
• If [TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE HERE] saw it or remembered it, it must be true.
• If it’s in the [HOLY BOOK HERE], it must be true.
• If God himself tells me something, it must be true.

We could easily think of many more such rules and of many instances
of people that seem to rely on such rules or one like them. We could
as easily think of how such rules can be specified in more or less
detailed terms, qualified or even reversed, combined in a variety of
permutations and weighted with and/or against each other into many
different composites. On top of this there are subjective factors of
interpretation that come into play as the same principles may be
applied differently. Even scientists do not all agree about
everything. And it is only too obvious that followers of the same
“holy book” can disagree violently. One’s epistemological approach
may also vary or be applied in different ways — without this being
necessarily hypocritical — depending on the subject or type of belief
at issue. Indeed, all of the above epistemological rules have some
applicability depending on what is being considered.

What this all means is that when someone asserts or believes in
something, they are really just expressing a judgment at that point in
time about a particular idea based on a reliance on an epistemological
process or rule they are applying. When it is said, for example, that
“the earth is round,” what may be meant is that “multiple lines of
evidence, from ships at sea disappearing over the horizon, to the
shadow of the earth on the moon during lunar eclipses, to actual
direct observation by astronauts and photographs taken from space,
show that the earth is round.” Then again, when it is asserted that
“homosexuality is a sin,” there is typically an interpretation of some
portion(s) of a “holy book” that is meant.

It would be helpful if people expressed themselves in such a way as
to make clear what epistemological approach they are relying on. This
will usually be impractical but sometimes it is done when, for
example, it is said that a particular person or news source has said
or reported something. More often, people may not even remember — or
may misremember — where an idea or opinion came from or on what it is
based. Worse, many people don’t seem to care about such things. They
often care more about how an assertion or belief identifies or aligns
them socially or politically. And many settings are simply not
suitable for serious debate. Even when someone asserts an opinion or
belief that invites objections if not debate, it remains a fact that
the assertion is simply that: their assertion. To not take issue with
it does not mean agreement, though to avoid confusion it can be
helpful, at a minimum, to say: “I don’t agree but it’s interesting
that you believe that.”

Of course, it can be worthwhile to ask where an opinion or belief
comes from and why someone offers or holds it. Many Freethinkers are
curious about such things as it is. And many became Freethinkers when
they began to consider the grounds of their beliefs. Freethinkers,
can help others do so by playing the role of a street corner
epistemologist. The idea is to, in a non-confrontational and
non-argumentative way, ask about how and why people came by their
beliefs and cooperatively follow out the implications of that. This
has been promoted by Peter Boghossian in his book A Manual For
Creating Atheists. It is nothing new inasmuch as Plato’s many
dialogues had the philosopher Socrates engage in such questioning.
But “The Socratic Method” will be new to many not familiar with this
established technique for teasing out the real issues connected with a
subject and, often, to show the inadequacy of “common sense” ideas and
beliefs. There are a;ready numerous videos on youtube that show
street evangelism in action.

Thinking about and questioning the grounds of belief has another
general benefit. It can help us appreciate the fact that our beliefs
and opinions are not body parts. We are not born with them and must
do the best we can with them. Rather, our beliefs about what is true
and not true are acquired from many sources and change with time and
circumstances. We continuously alter, modify, enlarge or reject a
wide variety of beliefs as we grow and learn, often without much
awareness of it. Of course, most everyone clearly has a sensitivity
to being wrong and for good reason: we should hate to be in error
because it keeps us from believing what is true. Being aware of the
grounds of our beliefs can help us to become less attached to our
beliefs, or even to think of them more as suppositions, expectations
and “what appears the best explanation for now.” The search for truth
with a capital “T,” for knowledge without an
evidential/epistemological context, is apt to lead us astray. For, as
said, it is not the content of belief but its context, the how and why
of it, that really matters. The best is certainly the enemy of the
good when the best, the final, the absolute Truth, can never be
certainly known. Or as the French philosopher and Freethinker
Voltaire put it: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is
an absurd one.”

It will come as shock to some that there really is no need to believe
anything at all. For given the importance of context, no belief is
free of or can be thought valid outside of its context. But our
cultural context may be a hindrance to appreciating this. For our
civilization and the habits of thinking it encourages have been
heavily influenced for centuries by the idea that unshakable belief,
especially faith-belief, is a virtue. Doubt, by contrast, has long
been considered a difficulty, something to be overcome, never
something to live with and manage. Indeed, doubt has often been
thought a weakness or even a crime, in some places at some times
punished by auto-da-fé. (burning at the stake)

Not believing in anything is not the same as nihilism, relativism or
any other alleged threat to society and morality. Nor is it a
symptom, much less a cause, of despair. It is simply the realization
that knowledge and understanding are tools that should serve humanity
and not the other way around. Within their evidential/epistemological
context our beliefs make us the masters of our fate. But outside of
their context, our beliefs can make us victims. History is testament
to both of these.