Epistemology and Apologetics are mutually reinforcing and important
for the evangelistic task given to every believer (Matthew 28:16-20). They
are also both foundational in our efforts to mimic Paul in his desire to
become all things to all people in order to win them over (1 Corinthians 9:
19-23). However, one thing Evangelicals must be extremely aware of, is
what Francis Schaeffer calls semantic mysticism. This refers to the idea of words being used without proper regards to their definition. This occurs
when a word is written or spoken according to the whims of the speaker or
writer, rather than according to a proper definition. In conversations
regarding religion generally and specifically, certain words tend to be used
with more of a subjective connotation than an actual definition. We must
be sensitive to recognizing this, and intentional to steer clear of using it
ourselves.
This essay will explore the relationship between epistemology and
apologetics, and highlight proper semantic understanding as foundational
for both. The scope of this paper is limited to highlighting a few examples
of terms misused in the apologetics and epistemology fields.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, defined as justified true
belief. Everyone has a belief system, no matter how justified or
unjustified. What turns this belief into knowledge is its justification and
its correspondence with reality. Many examples have been given by
philosophers through the years of statements which only meet two of
these criteria, such as justified belief which does not correspond to reality,
or belief which happens to be true but is not justified.
A belief could be held, such as a belief that my sister is at the library
studying. My justification, would be that if my sister has shown herself to
keep her word in the past, and said she was on her way to study in the
library 15 minutes ago, and it takes 10 minutes to get to the library, she
therefore must be at the library studying. However, unknown to me she
has his terrible traffic and is not in the library studying. This justified
belief of mine would therefore not correspond to reality, and therefore I
could not say that I know that she is in the library studying, no matter
how justified I am in my belief.
A belief could, however, be true but not be justified. A student could
be in the middle of taking a multiple choice test, and come across a
question of which he is uncertain about the answer. He could guess, based on the which letter he has chosen the least, and turn out to be correct. He
believes he is correct, and happens to be correct, however I would argue
that he is not justified in his belief. This would therefore be called simply
true belief.
The importance for knowledge as opposed to belief is found in the
desire to become conversant with those by which one finds themselves
surrounded, especially for the Christian. When we attempt to argue for
Christianity from religious experience, or simply personal belief, we have
to realize we cannot gain much, if any, ground with our audience. However, when we argue in regards to objective justification and correspondence to
reality for a specific belief that we hold, our audience will be faced with a
decision to affirm or deny reality.
Apologetics
Apologetics deals with the various arguments regarding various truth
claims. Christian apologetics, specifically, defends the truth-claims of
Christianity. Apologetic methods involve premises which lead to
conclusions. These methods expose justification, or lack thereof, which is
necessary for knowledge. Though these methods may vary, they all appeal
to reality. All would be done in vain if they did not, and hence the truth
criteria for knowledge.
The discipline of apologetics in the Christian context, serves to show
Christian doctrinal claims as objectively true and rationally compelling.
This stems from a Biblical mandate to have a reason for the hope that is
within us (1 Peter 3:15). This will be in regards to logical arguments for
the existence of God, scientific arguments for Creation, the moral
argument for the fall, the historical argument for Jesus death, life, and
resurrection. All of these cases are made in the Bible, but we need to be
able to make a case for it to have the reason for our own presupposition
and to form a common ground with our audience.
We must realize we need strategies for entering into these
conversations, as most people are already a little defensive and possibly
even annoyed when religion is brought into the conversation. This is where
we can draw on epistemology in our apologetic endeavors. We can
question knowledge in any common belief claim, such as morality, and
show that through the justification which follows there must be a source
outside of ourselves where we get this basic belief. Thus, door for the
conversation has been opened for the eventual sharing the gospel. "The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to
work reliably in the world He created...God created the mine to know
truth."
God is the only reason or source for basic beliefs, and therefore
these beliefs are a good place to start challenging those who do not
believe in God. Once logic has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can
make logical arguments which cannot be denied. Once history can be
accepted as reliable, we can make strong historical arguments, and the
same is true for morals and science. Apologetics lays out types of
arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology
holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as
knowledge.
It is here where the importance for a proper semantic structure lies.
All arguments could potentially be made in vain without a structure which
enforces the proper use of words in regards to their actual definition.
Semantic Mysticism
Semantics are the ways we use words with a given meaning, and
semantic mysticism implies using a mysterious meaning, unknown to the
audience. This happens in every discipline, and is sometimes of little to no
importance. However, there is potential danger that is brought when it
starts spreading to and through religious language, which we are seeing in
our world today.
When words crucial to Christianity become relative in their meaning,
like knowledge, belief, faith, and truth, everything we say in regards to
Christianity becomes relative. We are therefore preaching an un-Christian
message, in light of the fact that Christianity is intrinsically absolute and
objective. Therefore, proper semantics are of utmost importance in any of
our evangelistic efforts.
What must be made prior to, and during, any apologetic or
epistemological conversation, is an agreement on how words are being
used. A constant defining of words rather than just quickly using them and
moving on, is of utmost importance if we wish to be understood.
Many times, regardless of proper definitions, people use words to
connote whatever they please, leaving their audience unaware and
vulnerable to false teaching. Other times, people use words properly but
are unaware their audience hears these words with a different meaning,
based on a variety of factors.
We let our young men and women go out unarmed in a day when
armor was never so necessary. By teaching them to read, we have left
them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film
and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall
secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They
do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward
them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to
words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their
intellects....We have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence
can only make a botched and piecemeal job of it.
As was stated in the introduction, certain words succumb to semantic
mysticism more often than others. In conversations regarding apologetics
and epistemology, more often than not words such as knowledge, belief,
faith, and truth are used however the author sees fit. Each of these words
will be examined light of their proper definitions and examples of how they
are actually used.
Knowledge
The term knowledge, briefly addressed above, is defined as justified
true belief, (from hereon JTB). This term is one blatant example of
semantic mysticism in the disciples of apologetics and epistemology. Many
people have uttered "I know this" and "I know that" when in fact they
know nothing of the subject about which they are speaking. They are
conflating the terms know and believe, and when this is done it can easily
lead people astray. The phrase "I know God does not exist" could lead
someone astray because they assume the term know implies justification,
when in reality this statement is simple a false belief (because this is not
knowledge at all). The Bible acknowledges the reality of false teachers and
has very strong words for them.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift
destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1)
As evangelicals, we do not want to swing to the opposite side of this
and try to persuade people based on simply true belief, just so they can
enter the world of ideas unequipped. Douglas Groothuis has said
"evangelize people as soon as possible but no sooner," meaning that a
proper working knowledge system must be in place for Christian truth to be accepted as knowledge.
We must also continually challenge ourselves to have reasons for our
beliefs, otherwise there is nothing that sets us apart from any other
person arguing from religious experience which may in fact contradict
Christianity. The term belief provides another example of a word often
misused.
Belief
Knowledge is reduced to belief when it is either lacking justification
or correspondence to reality. However, many times the two terms are still
conflated in their use. W. Jay Wood has said "that behind many objections
to religious belief is an epistemological viewpoint detailing... what
requirements a person must satisfy in order to have knowledge about
anything," and continues to conflates religious belief with knowledge
throughout the rest of his epistemology book.
A misunderstanding of the concept of belief could also lead one to
misinterpret Scripture. In Acts we read that "believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31), but then we read in James that
"even the demons believe and shudder" (James 2:19). Is it then mere
belief that saves us? This would require more of a Lexicon word study, but
many people do not follow up with this step. They hear in Church "believe
in Jesus," and they have a conversation with someone that does not
believe in him. This Church-goer has been told that belief is what saves
them, so why would they appeal to objective knowledge in the reality of
Jesus in order to have a conversation with this unbeliever?
What must be stressed, is that beliefs are only worth having if they
do in fact correspond to reality, which would become known through a
process of justification, and would therefore lead to knowledge. However,
when this Church-goer tells his non-believing friend to just believe, his
friend probably hears this in terms of subjective personal belief, which is
not how Scripture was using the term in the verse from where the preacher
originally taught.
As illustrated, semantic mysticism has exponential negative effects.
Just how the term belief is easily reduced to meaning subjective personal
belief, so has the term faith been reduced. To this term we now turn our
attention.
Faith
The write has defined the term faith as "œevidence in things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). However, many times in contemporary Christian culture
the term is used in place of what atheists refers to as "God of the Gaps."
This accusation implies that whenever Christians find themselves unable
to understand or explain something, they throw out their good Sunday
School answer: God! Atheists are able to see this for what it is, a blind
leap of faith, and so should we. What an insult to a knowable father who
has created us in his own image with minds to affirm his generous
revelation of Himself. What is more, we are never called to make a blind
leap of Faith.
Soren Kierkegaard is a prime example of a believer using the term
faith without proper regards to its definition. Instead of faith being used
to connote belief inspite of things unseen, because of evidence,
Kierkegaard uses the term to imply complete blind leap. He says that "the
transition to the Christian mode of life is not by means of intellectual
apprehension" and that "Christian faith is against understanding." He
"protests against the inference that Christian faith must be subordinated
eventually to scientific and philosophical knowledge." His use of the term
in obvious contradiction to scripture is evident in his writing that "instead
of faith we have substituted assurance about faith."
An accusation might be given that evidence and reason does not
leave room for faith. I would disagree, in light of the following example. As
an agnostic physicist, cosmologist and astronomer, Robert Jastrow has
said in regards to creation that "now we see how the astronomical
evidence supports the biblical view." He also gives an insightful quote
about a scientist who "has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is
greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." However, in spite of the evidence, Jastrow does not make a
personal decision to acknowledge where it has led him.
I submit, therefore, that sufficient evidence does not discount the
need for faith. Rather, it is necessary in order for faith to not be blind.
Truth
I have found it interesting, that the phase "absolute truth" is spoken
or written as a concept different from "truth," but the idea of truth implies
absoluteness. I guess this has become necessary in a postmodern culture,
and is extreme people take in order to make sure they are being
understood properly. However, we need to go the extra step to make sure
that the word truth, standing alone, has not lost its definition. We must
replace it with words such as perspective, or belief, when they would be
more appropriate.
Francis Schaeffer's insight that "the present chasm between the
generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the
concept of truth," rings true today. "Young people today live in a
generation that no longer believes in the hope of truth as truth," and I
would submit that this is because of the postmodern overtones in our
world today.
Richard Rorty has arrogantly uttered that "for the pragmatist
[postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to
reality," and this lie is what people are fed today. However, is
correspondence to reality not the most proper definition for truth? Implied
by his preface "for the pragmatist," are definitions even subjective?
This is precisely the problem of semantic mysticism. "Rorty argues
that truth means, not what corresponds to the facts, as is the dominant
definition of truth in Western philosophy." This is really a phenomenon,
that what is accepted as the dominant definition of a word can simply be
disregarded and replaced according to subjective whims.
Conclusion
In light of the fact that humans have an incredible capacity for
deception, we cannot rely on contexts to define words, because of the
potential risk of perjuring ourselves, our witness, or being led astray by
others. This is eternally significant in our evangelistic efforts.
As was shown above, it seems that semantic mysticism only
functions as long as postmodernism reigns. We must never forfeit the fight
against postmodernism or for exposing semantic mysticism.
The subjective word games inhibit knowledge, and therefore are
necessarily opposed to any epistemology efforts. Epistemologist should be
the last ones to succumb to the tragedy of semantic mysticism, but this is
not the case as shown above.
Apologists as well, in their efforts to justify Christian knowledge
claims, need to remain highly aware of how this concept necessarily
impedes any of their efforts in arguing or evangelizing.
for the evangelistic task given to every believer (Matthew 28:16-20). They
are also both foundational in our efforts to mimic Paul in his desire to
become all things to all people in order to win them over (1 Corinthians 9:
19-23). However, one thing Evangelicals must be extremely aware of, is
what Francis Schaeffer calls semantic mysticism. This refers to the idea of words being used without proper regards to their definition. This occurs
when a word is written or spoken according to the whims of the speaker or
writer, rather than according to a proper definition. In conversations
regarding religion generally and specifically, certain words tend to be used
with more of a subjective connotation than an actual definition. We must
be sensitive to recognizing this, and intentional to steer clear of using it
ourselves.
This essay will explore the relationship between epistemology and
apologetics, and highlight proper semantic understanding as foundational
for both. The scope of this paper is limited to highlighting a few examples
of terms misused in the apologetics and epistemology fields.
Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, defined as justified true
belief. Everyone has a belief system, no matter how justified or
unjustified. What turns this belief into knowledge is its justification and
its correspondence with reality. Many examples have been given by
philosophers through the years of statements which only meet two of
these criteria, such as justified belief which does not correspond to reality,
or belief which happens to be true but is not justified.
A belief could be held, such as a belief that my sister is at the library
studying. My justification, would be that if my sister has shown herself to
keep her word in the past, and said she was on her way to study in the
library 15 minutes ago, and it takes 10 minutes to get to the library, she
therefore must be at the library studying. However, unknown to me she
has his terrible traffic and is not in the library studying. This justified
belief of mine would therefore not correspond to reality, and therefore I
could not say that I know that she is in the library studying, no matter
how justified I am in my belief.
A belief could, however, be true but not be justified. A student could
be in the middle of taking a multiple choice test, and come across a
question of which he is uncertain about the answer. He could guess, based on the which letter he has chosen the least, and turn out to be correct. He
believes he is correct, and happens to be correct, however I would argue
that he is not justified in his belief. This would therefore be called simply
true belief.
The importance for knowledge as opposed to belief is found in the
desire to become conversant with those by which one finds themselves
surrounded, especially for the Christian. When we attempt to argue for
Christianity from religious experience, or simply personal belief, we have
to realize we cannot gain much, if any, ground with our audience. However, when we argue in regards to objective justification and correspondence to
reality for a specific belief that we hold, our audience will be faced with a
decision to affirm or deny reality.
Apologetics
Apologetics deals with the various arguments regarding various truth
claims. Christian apologetics, specifically, defends the truth-claims of
Christianity. Apologetic methods involve premises which lead to
conclusions. These methods expose justification, or lack thereof, which is
necessary for knowledge. Though these methods may vary, they all appeal
to reality. All would be done in vain if they did not, and hence the truth
criteria for knowledge.
The discipline of apologetics in the Christian context, serves to show
Christian doctrinal claims as objectively true and rationally compelling.
This stems from a Biblical mandate to have a reason for the hope that is
within us (1 Peter 3:15). This will be in regards to logical arguments for
the existence of God, scientific arguments for Creation, the moral
argument for the fall, the historical argument for Jesus death, life, and
resurrection. All of these cases are made in the Bible, but we need to be
able to make a case for it to have the reason for our own presupposition
and to form a common ground with our audience.
We must realize we need strategies for entering into these
conversations, as most people are already a little defensive and possibly
even annoyed when religion is brought into the conversation. This is where
we can draw on epistemology in our apologetic endeavors. We can
question knowledge in any common belief claim, such as morality, and
show that through the justification which follows there must be a source
outside of ourselves where we get this basic belief. Thus, door for the
conversation has been opened for the eventual sharing the gospel. "The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to
work reliably in the world He created...God created the mine to know
truth."
God is the only reason or source for basic beliefs, and therefore
these beliefs are a good place to start challenging those who do not
believe in God. Once logic has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can
make logical arguments which cannot be denied. Once history can be
accepted as reliable, we can make strong historical arguments, and the
same is true for morals and science. Apologetics lays out types of
arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology
holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as
knowledge.
It is here where the importance for a proper semantic structure lies.
All arguments could potentially be made in vain without a structure which
enforces the proper use of words in regards to their actual definition.
Semantic Mysticism
Semantics are the ways we use words with a given meaning, and
semantic mysticism implies using a mysterious meaning, unknown to the
audience. This happens in every discipline, and is sometimes of little to no
importance. However, there is potential danger that is brought when it
starts spreading to and through religious language, which we are seeing in
our world today.
When words crucial to Christianity become relative in their meaning,
like knowledge, belief, faith, and truth, everything we say in regards to
Christianity becomes relative. We are therefore preaching an un-Christian
message, in light of the fact that Christianity is intrinsically absolute and
objective. Therefore, proper semantics are of utmost importance in any of
our evangelistic efforts.
What must be made prior to, and during, any apologetic or
epistemological conversation, is an agreement on how words are being
used. A constant defining of words rather than just quickly using them and
moving on, is of utmost importance if we wish to be understood.
Many times, regardless of proper definitions, people use words to
connote whatever they please, leaving their audience unaware and
vulnerable to false teaching. Other times, people use words properly but
are unaware their audience hears these words with a different meaning,
based on a variety of factors.
We let our young men and women go out unarmed in a day when
armor was never so necessary. By teaching them to read, we have left
them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film
and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall
secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They
do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward
them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to
words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their
intellects....We have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence
can only make a botched and piecemeal job of it.
As was stated in the introduction, certain words succumb to semantic
mysticism more often than others. In conversations regarding apologetics
and epistemology, more often than not words such as knowledge, belief,
faith, and truth are used however the author sees fit. Each of these words
will be examined light of their proper definitions and examples of how they
are actually used.
Knowledge
The term knowledge, briefly addressed above, is defined as justified
true belief, (from hereon JTB). This term is one blatant example of
semantic mysticism in the disciples of apologetics and epistemology. Many
people have uttered "I know this" and "I know that" when in fact they
know nothing of the subject about which they are speaking. They are
conflating the terms know and believe, and when this is done it can easily
lead people astray. The phrase "I know God does not exist" could lead
someone astray because they assume the term know implies justification,
when in reality this statement is simple a false belief (because this is not
knowledge at all). The Bible acknowledges the reality of false teachers and
has very strong words for them.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will
also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift
destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1)
As evangelicals, we do not want to swing to the opposite side of this
and try to persuade people based on simply true belief, just so they can
enter the world of ideas unequipped. Douglas Groothuis has said
"evangelize people as soon as possible but no sooner," meaning that a
proper working knowledge system must be in place for Christian truth to be accepted as knowledge.
We must also continually challenge ourselves to have reasons for our
beliefs, otherwise there is nothing that sets us apart from any other
person arguing from religious experience which may in fact contradict
Christianity. The term belief provides another example of a word often
misused.
Belief
Knowledge is reduced to belief when it is either lacking justification
or correspondence to reality. However, many times the two terms are still
conflated in their use. W. Jay Wood has said "that behind many objections
to religious belief is an epistemological viewpoint detailing... what
requirements a person must satisfy in order to have knowledge about
anything," and continues to conflates religious belief with knowledge
throughout the rest of his epistemology book.
A misunderstanding of the concept of belief could also lead one to
misinterpret Scripture. In Acts we read that "believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31), but then we read in James that
"even the demons believe and shudder" (James 2:19). Is it then mere
belief that saves us? This would require more of a Lexicon word study, but
many people do not follow up with this step. They hear in Church "believe
in Jesus," and they have a conversation with someone that does not
believe in him. This Church-goer has been told that belief is what saves
them, so why would they appeal to objective knowledge in the reality of
Jesus in order to have a conversation with this unbeliever?
What must be stressed, is that beliefs are only worth having if they
do in fact correspond to reality, which would become known through a
process of justification, and would therefore lead to knowledge. However,
when this Church-goer tells his non-believing friend to just believe, his
friend probably hears this in terms of subjective personal belief, which is
not how Scripture was using the term in the verse from where the preacher
originally taught.
As illustrated, semantic mysticism has exponential negative effects.
Just how the term belief is easily reduced to meaning subjective personal
belief, so has the term faith been reduced. To this term we now turn our
attention.
Faith
The write has defined the term faith as "œevidence in things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). However, many times in contemporary Christian culture
the term is used in place of what atheists refers to as "God of the Gaps."
This accusation implies that whenever Christians find themselves unable
to understand or explain something, they throw out their good Sunday
School answer: God! Atheists are able to see this for what it is, a blind
leap of faith, and so should we. What an insult to a knowable father who
has created us in his own image with minds to affirm his generous
revelation of Himself. What is more, we are never called to make a blind
leap of Faith.
Soren Kierkegaard is a prime example of a believer using the term
faith without proper regards to its definition. Instead of faith being used
to connote belief inspite of things unseen, because of evidence,
Kierkegaard uses the term to imply complete blind leap. He says that "the
transition to the Christian mode of life is not by means of intellectual
apprehension" and that "Christian faith is against understanding." He
"protests against the inference that Christian faith must be subordinated
eventually to scientific and philosophical knowledge." His use of the term
in obvious contradiction to scripture is evident in his writing that "instead
of faith we have substituted assurance about faith."
An accusation might be given that evidence and reason does not
leave room for faith. I would disagree, in light of the following example. As
an agnostic physicist, cosmologist and astronomer, Robert Jastrow has
said in regards to creation that "now we see how the astronomical
evidence supports the biblical view." He also gives an insightful quote
about a scientist who "has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about
to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is
greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for
centuries." However, in spite of the evidence, Jastrow does not make a
personal decision to acknowledge where it has led him.
I submit, therefore, that sufficient evidence does not discount the
need for faith. Rather, it is necessary in order for faith to not be blind.
Truth
I have found it interesting, that the phase "absolute truth" is spoken
or written as a concept different from "truth," but the idea of truth implies
absoluteness. I guess this has become necessary in a postmodern culture,
and is extreme people take in order to make sure they are being
understood properly. However, we need to go the extra step to make sure
that the word truth, standing alone, has not lost its definition. We must
replace it with words such as perspective, or belief, when they would be
more appropriate.
Francis Schaeffer's insight that "the present chasm between the
generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the
concept of truth," rings true today. "Young people today live in a
generation that no longer believes in the hope of truth as truth," and I
would submit that this is because of the postmodern overtones in our
world today.
Richard Rorty has arrogantly uttered that "for the pragmatist
[postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to
reality," and this lie is what people are fed today. However, is
correspondence to reality not the most proper definition for truth? Implied
by his preface "for the pragmatist," are definitions even subjective?
This is precisely the problem of semantic mysticism. "Rorty argues
that truth means, not what corresponds to the facts, as is the dominant
definition of truth in Western philosophy." This is really a phenomenon,
that what is accepted as the dominant definition of a word can simply be
disregarded and replaced according to subjective whims.
Conclusion
In light of the fact that humans have an incredible capacity for
deception, we cannot rely on contexts to define words, because of the
potential risk of perjuring ourselves, our witness, or being led astray by
others. This is eternally significant in our evangelistic efforts.
As was shown above, it seems that semantic mysticism only
functions as long as postmodernism reigns. We must never forfeit the fight
against postmodernism or for exposing semantic mysticism.
The subjective word games inhibit knowledge, and therefore are
necessarily opposed to any epistemology efforts. Epistemologist should be
the last ones to succumb to the tragedy of semantic mysticism, but this is
not the case as shown above.
Apologists as well, in their efforts to justify Christian knowledge
claims, need to remain highly aware of how this concept necessarily
impedes any of their efforts in arguing or evangelizing.
No comments:
Post a Comment