The Eye of the Soul
The Consciousness Dilemma
The origin and nature of consciousness remains a notorious problem in the realm of philosophy. Just how exactly did we come to be the only species capable of reflecting on reflections? Scientism would have you believe consciousness is some emergent property. One water molecule does not equal wetness, but a lot of them appearing together suddenly somehow does equal wetness, and we’re supposed to accept this as a plausible explanation of how matter becomes conscious.
Beyond this seemingly insurmountable problem, there is an even more fundamental question we have to address before even setting out on the scientific endeavor itself. That question is the question of epistemology, or how we justify knowledge claims at all.
Epistemology: How Do We Know What We Know?
Every worldview possesses its own theory of knowledge. Coherence theory posits that a belief is true if it logically fits within a consistent web of other beliefs. Correspondence theory says a belief is true if it accurately reflects or corresponds to reality (what is reality, exactly?) Foundationalism says some basic, self-evident beliefs serve as the secure foundation for all other knowledge. (How we justify those without being arbitrary, I’m not sure.) Reliabilism says a belief is justified if it is produced by a reliable cognitive process that generally leads to truth. Constructivism says knowledge is not discovered but actively constructed by individuals or communities through experience and interpretation. Pragmatism says a belief is true if it works effectively in practice and helps us navigate experience successfully. Let’s play a game: which theory of knowledge is the least arbitrary? Each of them sort of assumes something, and so it isn’t 100% safe to call any one of these completely trustworthy in and of themselves. The theories are limited in the ability to justify their own presuppositions.
But how does this relate to the everyday person? You could say it doesn’t, in a practical sense. I don’t think the day laborer is thinking of what theory of knowledge will ensure his spatula effectively flips the burger patty. But we would be fools to immediately say “knowledge and belief need not be justified, we just know things.” How do we know who the “we” are supposed to be in that statement? Is it you, or me, or the “experts?” Is it everyone? Are we entitled to believe anything we want, independent of the consequences? If that’s really the case, then here are some things I know for certain:
1) Parks is never wrong about anything, ever, and contradicting him is a punishable offense. 2) This cannot be controverted or overturned by any other knowledge claim. 3) Everyone needs to hand over all liquidable assets to Parks now. Effective immediately. We know it because. 4) I’m the boss of everyone and nap time is when I say so!
From a skeptical standpoint, it can be easy to fall into a sort of philosophical solipsism. That’s to say, “I don’t know how I know, or that anyone or anything outside of me exists. This could be a hallucination. We can’t know anything.” This is often what happens when one thinks too long or too hard about the inherent vanity of a purely human philosophical endeavor. Believe it or not, the world is much larger than our mind (if there is a world, at all). Cramming it into the human mind tends to lead to this sense of despair. There’s an old joke you often hear, very popular in the comedy clubs and bars: “Philosophers debate whether reality exists. Then a child trips, scrapes a knee, and settles the matter.” I can barely contain my laughter.
Skepticism, Desire, and Acting in the World
And so are we completely stuck? Maybe not. You can’t act like a skeptic all the time– at some point you’re going to arbitrarily assign value to things, even against your conscious judgement– I expend energy to grab and bite and chew and swallow the pear because I want to not be hungry, because I want to not feel pain, because I want not to die, because I want to keep living, because… why do I want to keep living, exactly? There are a few answers to this question. The Buddha apparently thought the desire aforementioned was the root of suffering, and so the answer was to cease to be. But ought I desire to cease to be? And how do we know ceasing to be is really the end of suffering? Why is this so contrary to the universal urge, in both wicked and righteous, sentient and less-than sentient beings to will to life? And then can the reverse be true? Can I choose to want something contrary to this urge to keep living? This much is obvious; e.g. Buddha. And but can I want something other than what I am wanting right now? The latter question is perhaps most relevant in our culture today, ever since we have ceased to believe that I am not identical with my desire.
Christian Epistemology as a Solution
The Christian approach to knowledge is contrary to most worldviews. It’s hard to fit it into any one theory of knowledge, as far as I know. Christianity is stubbornly unique. It begins with the assertion that a person can know things as a result of their being made in the imago Dei. But being made thus, there are still limitations regarding what we can know. If you’ll remember, the original sin had to do with the disobedience of Adam and Eve eating from the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In a very low-res simplification, they sought to uncover what they were not yet ready to be given. Christianity seems to say that true knowledge can only come from God, or at the very least we ought to wait on God to deliver to us what we are prepared for. Failure to be patient leads to a worsening of our ability to perceive accurately– a darkening– that can only be healed by reorienting again to obedience and virtue. Scripture also says that knowledge, if sought properly, is readily available. The problem is we are very bad at seeking properly. But in many ways the injunction to seek earnestly and patiently is given: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.” And again: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.”
Is this the orientation of philosophy? Not at all. To wait on something outside of ourselves is thought foolishness. We’d rather pluck the fruit for ourselves. But if that were of any good, surely we wouldn’t be where we are now; unable, it seems, to justify any knowledge whatsoever. And again, it is revealed in Scripture that the punishment for prideful rejection of the Light is to stumble in darkness. For “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.” And where does this hardness arise? In pursuit of man made idols: They shall be put to shame, yes, confounded, all of them; they shall go into confusion together that are makers of idols.
Conclusion
Again, how do we know what we know? It seems no philosophical school can offer an answer which doesn’t ask for a miraculous kernel of knowledge to at least get itself off the ground. At least Christian epistemology is not hypocritical in this respect; we are no strangers to the miraculous. We accept the notion that things could be so much incomprehensibly bigger than what we could discover on our own. But with the Christian epistemology there is at least a lens for which certainty, wisdom, and morality have some grounding. The beautiful part of it is that no one is barred from realizing this; it's an open invitation. You need only receive the flame waiting patiently to set you alight. For thou, Lord, lightenest my lantern; my God, lighten thou my darknesses.
