Apologetics and Epistemology
One of the factors that any approach to apologetics must take into account is epistemology. Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and seeks to explain how we know what we know. It’s a subject that has grown out of favor in most schools. Most young adults have very little understanding of how they have come to conclusions and have problems differentiating among facts, truth, opinions, beliefs, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Most seem to rely mostly on unverified and often biased sources, such as the opinions of their teachers or what they see on the Internet. Nevertheless, understanding epistemology is essential to defending the gospel. We have to know how someone came to their conclusions to be able to persuade them.
There are dozens of theories and approaches to epistemology, but we can narrow them down to four major areas important to apologetics.
Empiricism. This theory argues that all knowledge comes from science, evidence, or observation. Empiricism originates with John Locke and David Hume in the eighteenth century and forms the basis of most modern understanding and education. It is closely related to positivism, which argues the only real knowledge is what can be positively proved through science and observation. This philosophy was popular with Bertrand Russel, for example. Most adherents are materialists, that is, they believe that only the material world exists. It is close in approach to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which argues that reality exists independently of consciousness as discovered by science and reason; and Alvin Goldman’s externalism, which argues that the only reliable knowledge comes outside ourselves.
From an apologetic perspective, it’s important to note that in fact science is very limited it what it can prove. One definition of science is a method of gaining knowledge through systematic repeatable experiments and observations. It can’t prove the existence of emotions or values, such as good and evil, since it’s impossible to conduct experiments on values. It can’t prove the past (such as evolution) since the past is not repeatable. It can’t prove the reality of our senses or thoughts. All of these require that people make certain assumptions not based on anything measurable. While many modern atheists subscribe to this theory, they often do so without being able to answer for these limitations. A world limited only to what can be proved objectively means that the better part of life – love, goodness, beauty – don’t exist and that we have no hope outside of this life and no motivation to pursue truth.
It’s also important to distinguish between empirical and testimonial evidence. Although both are evidentiary knowledge, empirical evidence (such as science) generally includes only what individuals can observe, measure, or test for themselves. This would exclude, for example, all historical and contemporary accounts (such as the news), which are based on the testimony of others. It would also exclude the testimony of other scientists since empirical evidence is only what you can prove yourself. All people rely on nonempirical data. For example, all people trust that their pharmacist is giving them the correct medicines. The empiricist would need to test the drugs for themselves. The rest of us trust the testimony of the Food and Drug Administration, American Pharmacist’s Association, or our neighbors.
Rationalism. Prior to the rise of science and empiricism, most people subscribed to rationalism, which is the belief that one can ascertain knowledge through reason without sensory experience. There are several logical approaches. Deductive reasoning argues from general principles to a specific conclusion. Aristotelian logic is a good example of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning argues from specific facts to a general conclusion. The scientific method as proposed by Francis Bacon is based on inductive reasoning. Some people might also include ampliative logic, which adds information not found in the premises of the argument; analogous logic, which compares one data set with a known data set; or deviant logic; which reject basic intuition of traditional logic. Mathematics is also a form of rationalism; it’s usually based on deductive reasoning such as general laws, but it also includes inductive reasoning in the form of specific measurements. Whichever type of logic is used, however, they are all internal forms of knowledge, not empirical, although the methods are often used in tandem.
Again, from an apologetic perspective, there are limits to rationalism. One is that all logical statements must make assumptions that aren’t provable from the premises. In the syllogism: All men die, Jeff is a man, therefore Jeff will die, the fact that all men die is an assumption since there’s no way to prove it short of observing or recording the life of every man. This problem was the focus of Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness theorems. Another limitation is that many such assumptions are based on probabilities, as Thomas Bayes argued. The greatest probability from the evidence on hand is that all men die, but it cannot be proven with absolute certainty. Nothing can. We must accept some things based on incomplete data or reasoning.
Skepticism. Although some discount skepticism as true knowledge since its object is to negate knowledge, it can lead to a better understanding of the world. For example, Renee Descartes used methodological doubt to eliminate questionable information. In what has become known as Occam’s razor, William of Occam used skepticism to reduce explanations to the simplest one. Philosophical skepticism, meanwhile, argues that we can trust nothing outside of personal observation and that suspending belief on unknown inferences can lead to greater harmony. These approaches are different from global skepticism, such as the belief that all of life is a dream, which serves only to undermine our acceptance of reality and knowledge.
While skepticism can be the apologist’s friend if it helps people to question a pure empiricism or rationalism, it can also create doubts, especially about authority. Skepticism has become highly popular in recent decades as previously sources of truth, such as the government or news, has been compromised and come under suspicion. We see this, for example, in the idea of “fake news.” Many transfer these questions to the Bible. While skeptics often start off being less wedded to the world’s explanations, the apologist must be able to defend what he believes to be successful against them.
Revelation. Although often rejected by the empiricist, rationalist, and skeptic, another form of knowledge is revelation or supernaturally revealed truth. This is not the same as authority, which is essentially testimonial evidence, though testimonies such as the Bible are a type of revelation. Neither does revelation mean that God talks to people. Both of these are special revelations. There is also general revelation, which is when God reveals Himself through nature, for example through the unity of nature, the complexity of creation, the beauty behind it. Revelation can also include nonrational internal beliefs based on intuition. Such evidence is often the most convincing for people.
Generally, Christian apologists must defend revelatory knowledge since that is the basis of their faith, but they should also be wary of other forms of revelation. After all, every religion from Islam to polytheism are based on revelation. The question is which revelation is reasonable, provable, and trustworthy.
Ultimately, the apologist, and indeed all people, rely on all four types of knowledge to discern the truth. There is no such thing as a pure scientist. People are not beings of pure logic like Spock. They don’t question everything. They don’t take everything on revelation. They use all of them. It is sometimes helpful to point this out along with the limitations of each approach. Neither should our explanation of God rely only on one form of knowledge. To be effective, apologists must address epistemology.
