Does Justifiable Belief Exist?

[This post is part of a series that the Th.M. students at Western Seminary are doing this semester on understanding the relationship between philosophy and theology.]

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with humanity’s inability to know. At least, this is my sarcastic conclusion after a brief educational survey of epistemology covered in Stanford’s encyclopedia of philosophy.  Actually epistemology covers a few different ways of knowing: knowing how to do something, knowing a person, knowing a place, or knowing propositions.  The Stanford article deals only with the knowledge of propositions.

I’ll summarize in brief starting with Foundationalism, the idea that our justified beliefs (can’t be false, doubted, or corrected) rest upon basic beliefs.  Basic beliefs don’t need justification from other beliefs. Coherentism disagrees, stating that every belief receives its evidence from other beliefs.  For instance, “I think therefore I am,” presupposes a belief that I think and a belief that I could exist.  Or, “I perceived the chair is yellow,” presupposes a belief in the existence of a chair, the belief in a personal ability to perceived, and the belief in the concept of yellow.  Coherentism is critiqued because one can never arrive at a belief; there is an infinite series of beliefs before that belief.  Skeptics jump all the way in and claim something fantastic like, “You can’t know that you have feet.”  They base this on the possibility of radical deception; someone could be in the matrix, or in a dream world, or similarly disembodied and at the same time being in the situation of radical deception would have no way of knowing they were in such a state.  Since you can’t know you’re not in that situation, you can’t know whether or not you have feet.  In order to defeat the skeptics, the definition of knowing underwent changes.  Contextual knowing and fallible knowing are put forth as potential skeptic killers.   Find the full discussion here.  If you have trouble following all the terms and positions visit, Wikipedia has a nearly identical summary with accessible resources.

Simply put, I’m a skeptic.  I found all the other positions too vulnerable to devastating critique.  Foundationalism’s strongest thought, “I think therefore I exist,” is perceptual knowledge based on existence can only be understood by appealing to someone’s perception of their own existence.   If we all believe that we exist, but we could all be wrong.  If no one existed, no one would know.  If we base our knowledge of existing on our perceived existence all we are left with is perceived existence not justifiable belief (can’t be false, doubted, or corrected).

Coherentism finds the truth but can’t accept it.  I believe Coherentism discovers the true reason why justifiable belief doesn’t exist, because belief is based upon belief to an infinite or at least unknowable/undiscoverable degree.  Coherentism wants to build justifiable belief on a web of interconnected ideas, only they missed the web and fell into a bottomless chasm.

Contextual knowing, in my mind, changes the whole topic of discussion.  We take the problem of the existence of justifiable belief (can’t be false, doubted, or corrected) as a universal human question dealing with propositional knowledge and instead ask, “Can we have justifiable belief in a smaller group of humans controlled by selective ignorance?”  In a group of similarly ignorant and mentally disabled patients there might be a belief that can’t be proven false or doubted within the same group.  However, that same belief has the possibility of being corrected.  Either way, we are no longer talking about universal human knowing; we are discussing group knowledge.  This group knowledge is only justifiable belief in propositional knowledge if it isn’t challenged.  I find this view ignores the fact that we live in the age of world-wide communication and information.  An argument starting with ignorance and ending with a positive result is a poor argument indeed.

Fallible knowledge is also not a response to the same question.  Fallible agrees with the skeptics, in so far as they agree infallible knowledge is impossible.  This is just another way of saying justifiable belief does not exist, but belief does exist.  They seek to have justified beliefs based on knowledge’s inability to be justified.  To believe in fallible knowledge is to believe in nothing more than the usefulness of belief itself.

All of the positions agree (even the skeptics) that propositional knowledge exists.  Since they are in agreement on this point, their arguments (in my mind) are centered on the existence of justifiable belief, not belief itself.  Can humans have justifiable belief?  I say no.  I say no with a caveat.  Humans cannot have justifiable belief about themselves or the existent world.  Galaxies, stars, planets, plants, animals and all physical elements can also have no justifiable beliefs about humans or the existent world.  If these things were all that existed, humans would have no possibility of justifiable belief.  I however, do not believe the above things mentioned are all that exist.  (I’m leaving myself an opening for later.)  Is your belief justifiable?


About Stephen FitzMaurice, Realtor

Stephen FitzMaurice, Realtor is a top 5% real estate agent in the U.S. and top 1% agent in Portland Metro. Principal Broker in Oregon, Managing Broker in Washington he has been licensed since 2003 for residential real estate sales in the Portland Metro area. Call him direct: 503-714-1111.

Posted on September 27, 2010, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. I suppose I’ll get the ball rolling here by asking what people think about the idea of a Christian skepticism. Is skepticism a viable epistemological option for Christians?

  2. I think I may have missed a connection, or else there is a weak link in the string of argument on how you progressed from Knowledge to belief, justifiable or not, or are you using them iterchangeably?

    With regard to Christian Skepticism it would seem to me that it is either a matter of balance (just to throw out a popular buzz word here 🙂 ) or else what I will call wisdom (applied knowledge). On the one hand there is a certain core of what we as Christians must accept on faith to qualify as Christians. Yes, that is limitationally exclusivitic, but I am a narrow minded fellow. So there is at least a limit to what Christians can doubt/question and still be Christian. On the other hand, I think that Christians are too think well on what we are presented, with the result that we are not floating from new idea to new idea, whether that be embracing every new doctrine as they arise (think: tossed to and fro by every wave of doctrine) or rejecting them all as unverifiable, unsubstantiated, and thus false.

    I guess that could be termed limited Christian skepticism, or perhaps I am just missing the boat here.

  3. I admit that I was a bit lost by this post. Likewise, I admit that I have not read the Stanford Encyclopedia entry which is likely from where most of the language in this posts has originated. That being said, let me see if I can say anything that would keep the ball rolling.

    If by skepticism we are referring to doubting the stability of our own knowledge on a matter then I assume yes, yes we can be skeptical. Likewise, I think we can even be skeptical of our beliefs. I don’t think we can be skeptical in our fidelity though. In other words, we may not “know” for sure if Christ is who he said he was (or if Christ even said this or that), and there may be moments when we question whether or not we actually “belief” something as absurd as “God was incarnate”, but the justified “live” by faith which I assume means that a Christian can doubt his/her knowing and believing as long as the skeptical side of belief doesn’t result in the refusal to continue remaining faithful to what was believed as if it is true until it is either strengthened or eventually denied.

    In other words there is no way for me to cognitively know Jesus is the Christ. I can “believe” this both emotionally and intellectually but there will no doubt be moments where my belief is more or less than before. Even when I am not sure how convinced I am of the claims true faith would be to live as if it is true until we are able to decide to continue on or renounce our confession.

  4. Brian,

    Thanks for your thoughts. It would be interesting to talk more about the difference between belief and faith. I reposted (see today’s posts) in an attempt to write with more clarity.

    Tim: When talking about Epistemology, it is important to define the terms carefully. I see you just posted on the repost… I’ll see you there.

    Thanks for the interaction.

  5. Edward T. Babinski

    I’m not a Christian, but a theist and skeptic. So I think agnosticism plays a large part in all belief systems that acknowledge they are indeed belief systems.

  1. Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (10/1) « scientia et sapientia

  2. Pingback: Does Justifiable Belief Exist? (Reloaded) « scientia et sapientia

  3. Pingback: Does Justifiable Belief Exist? (Reloaded) | Everyday Theology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: