O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you. – 1 Timothy 6:20-21 ESV
but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing – Apology, Plato
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” – Genesis 2:15-17 ESV
For she is earthly of the mind,
But Wisdom heavenly of the soul.
– In Memoriam A.H.H., Alfred Lord Tennyson
Epistemology, the study of knowledge, has been a cornerstone in philosophy for centuries. At first glance one would think the study of knowledge is not that difficult, however as one ruminates and inquires further into the subject, the foundations of knowledge as well as those of others begins to fall away surprisingly abruptly. It can be a rather jarring and shocking discovery to realize just how little one actually does truly know. As with many things let us consider first basic definitions. Here is what dictionary.com provides:
- acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition:
knowledge of many things. - familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning:
A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. - acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
a knowledge of human nature. - the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
- awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
He had knowledge of her good fortune. - something that is or may be known; information:
He sought knowledge of her activities. - the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
- the sum of what is known:
Knowledge of the true situation is limited. - Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge
Immediately we notice a large multiplicity of definitions. Such variety betrays the confusion inherent in the word itself. Do we even know knowledge itself? Let us consider some of the uses. The first says an “acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles,” but is knowledge merely “an acquaintance”? And what is a “fact, truth, or principle” exactly? How do we know such things in and of themselves? If I am “acquainted” with a lion do I know a lion? If I am “familiar” with love do I know love? If given a set of data or information points about any thing, can we truly say we now know that thing? What does it mean to “know thyself”? Must I simply be provided an algorithmic set of data points, activity logs, photos, or histories to then say that yes indeed I know myself or anyone else? Can we, or anything else, actually be reduced and determined down with mere empirical data points? These are only some of the severe and significant implications to subscribing to a given epistemology. Let us then tread carefully and assuredly as we seek to lay claim to any knowledge of knowledge itself.
The quest for knowledge is really a quest for certainty. And certainty is really a quest for security. And since there is so much in the world and in our experience that we think we know – it seems natural to assume or even demand that we can know many things – if not most things. Personally I can relate to such a position – I started this metaphysics project in an attempt to “prove” God through philosophical means, and to “prove” that faith is “real,” in the hopes that a given atheist or skeptic could be convinced of the truth and “see the Light” as the saying goes. And of course such a motive is still true and good for me, however what that precisely means and looks like and how that is achieved has changed rather substantially from the outset of this project. And it has been good – an improving, honing, and sharpening of the truth, goodness, and understanding into something even more clarifying, narrow, and precise. One of the major adjustments in my own thinking has been the idea of the validity of a given set. Many sets or ideas or philosophies can at least be coherent within their own given axioms, presuppositions, or constraints, but all sets are ultimately founded upon at least one unknown, unprovable, and inherently paradoxical given. As the Hindu’s have said, “Turtles all the way down.”
In the early 20th century there was a raging debate in mathematics regarding whether or not math itself was a fully coherent, complete, consistent, and decidable system. If truth could be proven anywhere, then it must at least in mathematics. In 1930 David Hilbert, attempting to answer these questions in the affirmative, ended a speech with these words:
We must not believe those, who today, with philosophical bearing and deliberative tone, prophesy the fall of culture and accept the ignorabimus. For us there is no ignorabimus, and in my opinion none whatever in natural science. In opposition to the foolish ignorabimus our slogan shall be Wir müssen wissen – wir werden wissen (“We must know – we will know”).
Hilbert then is insisting that knowledge is real, attainable, and provable. He is demanding the security of something and if such knowledge and security cannot be found in mathematics then it frankly cannot be found at all. But if it cannot be found or proven mathematically with certainty, does that mean it does not exist? Does knowledge itself have limitations, boundaries, and constraints inherently placed upon it in order for its own existence and operation? Well a year later Kurt Godel responded to Hilbert’s demands and claims and definitively proved that mathematics itself could NOT produce any formal system that was complete or consistent. This modern history of mathematics is absolutely fascinating and admittedly far above my most basic comprehension of symbolic logic and high, conceptual, formal math. If you are interested in learning more of the details and specifics of this now centuries long debate I suggest looking into the works of Georg Cantor, David Hilbert, Bertrand Russell, Alfred Whitehead, Kurt Godel, among others. Suffice it to say the decades long debate which started with Georg Cantor’s creation of set theories was finally ended with Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorems – a complete, consistent, and decidable formal system of math is mathematically and logically impossible. It simply does not and cannot exist.
What does this mean exactly and what are the epistemological ramifications? For one it means that faith itself is an inherent and necessary given for all systems, no matter what they are. No matter what system one chooses or subscribes to, there will be unknowable aspects to it. It will be incomplete and inconsistent. All “things” rest ultimately upon a paradox. Nothing can be completely proven mathematically or logically, which is to say definitively. For some, the first knee-jerk reactionary response to this statement might be to say, well does this incompleteness also apply to THIS statement too? And the answer is no. We can mathematically prove that mathematics and logic cannot be proven. All things are incomplete and ultimately rest upon a paradox. Now this is not to say that we know nothing at all or that mathematics cannot prove anything. To the contrary, Godel’s incompleteness theorems do have provable things within them, it is just that one of the things his theorem proves is that the system itself is unprovable. No matter what a given person subscribes to or believes there will ultimately be something false or at best incomplete or unknown about it. There is no “easy answer” to the question or problem of knowledge. No idea – no matter what it is – can answer completely and fully all the questions of the universe, of God, of creation, of man. Knowledge then is at best incomplete, inconsistent, circumstantial, and relative. To what exactly is knowledge relative?
Socrates perhaps came closest to knowledge when he said that he knows nothing. And indeed the concept of nothingness again provides value and meaning. What does it mean then to “know nothing.” For one Socrates is affirming what Godel proved mathematically and logically in that no one system is “the truth.” Socrates in his time exhibited this fact by interviewing and conversing with people of all classes and careers and positions in society – from artists to poets to builders to politicians to philosophers of various types, Socrates consistently showed that their systems or beliefs were incomplete, faltering, or inconsistent. But what exactly did Socrates himself promote? In truth he himself promoted or claimed precious little. And in this way Socrates is a less than satisfying philosopher, for it is always easier to refute or destroy another’s creation. The far more challenging and worthy effort is to build a theory or set of knowledge and philosophy that is worthy, and true, and good. Out of the nothingness from which Socrates proclaimed and defended, both Plato and Aristotle were birthed – arguably the two greatest philosophers of all time. Their systems are different, even oppositional in some regards, and some even go so far as to say that all philosophy ultimately distills down to these two greats. But again neither system – Plato or Aristotle – can really be “the truth” for as Godel proves and as Socrates himself lived out, all knowledge sets are incomplete, and the wisest of men know nothing. And yet here we all are – searching, clamoring, arguing, and deciding over philosophical claims, living our lives out however we see fit, in whatever ways as best we can. Something must indeed be true, we must be able to know something, even if we cannot know the entirety of things.
And indeed we can. There are clearly levels or ranges of knowledge, like plateaus of a mountain, where we can know certain things to a certain degree of accuracy, but not all things or even one thing completely. We can “know” for example that a hot stove will burn our hand. We can “know” how to grow a plant or build a car engine. In other words we can understand the properties of things and how they can operate together in various ways to produce various results. This is valuable and certainly an aspect of knowledge, often empirical knowledge. But empirical knowledge, as we have explained in a previous post here, is itself limited and bound to its own inherent constraints. For example what empirical knowledge do we have of the law of cause and effect? Or of information since information itself is a non-empirical reality that cannot be observed, measured, proven, or tested upon. All systems require a pre-supposition in order to begin any operations or functions. Axioms must be granted, assumed, or provided. The first principle is actually, in truth, unknown. Again this doesn’t mean that we cannot know other things from any given set or system – just as I can see a tree and blue sky out of my window as I write these words – but that insignificant and trivial example of “knowledge” inherently rests upon a series of paradoxical, unknowable, and unprovable axioms, presuppositions, and givens that is no less inescapable for any other truth or knowledge claim from any other given system or set. We are all equal in the eyes of Truth, and that equality is decidedly insufficient, incomplete, and broken.
These epistemological conclusions are the product of 20th century thought. They are not new or unique today, and they are one of the main reasons atheism, nihilism, scientific determinism, skepticism, doubt, and a general gloom over the eternal nature of man, life, and God pervades academia, culture, and society today. These thoughts and philosophical conclusions which emerged strongly in the 20th century, are the natural result and graduation of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason as we have discussed in a previous post here. This modern metaphysics – Beyond Nothing – is an attempt, however meager it may be, to first acknowledge these nihilistic and post-modern philosophical conclusions in order to then properly address and redirect these claims into a larger philosophic schema which is not just existential but also theistic and in particular decidedly Christian.
Perhaps one may object to such a motivation by re-asserting the very claims made so far in this post – namely that all systems are inherently flawed, broken, and inconsistent, so why even do such a thing since this one as well will also be just as flawed. Although a weak objection, let us address it none the less. It is accurate that ultimately all systems, including this metaphysics presented here – Beyond Nothing – are incomplete, broken, and flawed, it is still nevertheless also true that logic, reason, and truth do exist and can be adhered to, marshalled, and defended. We may never be able to know the ultimate truths, as Kant so eloquently concludes, but we are still able to understand many aspects and things within our limited scope and understanding. Let us then be good stewards to the knowledge and scope we do hold, in hopes that perhaps, we may be able to understand even more. It is also vitally important to reiterate that all systems – no matter what they claim – will also have the same objection and critique, no matter what system is presented. So we are all in the same boat then. He who speaks and thinks does so incompletely, regardless of what is spoken. The fact that all systems are incomplete is not a critique of a given system for it is consistent and equal across all systems; a given system must be critiqued internally within the various parts and claims it makes and asserts. It must be consistent within itself to whatever extent is possible within the bounds and limits of human knowledge and understanding. For example empiricism holds an inherent contradiction in regards to faith. It purports to eradicate faith and is often argued as a great rebuttal to a more “faith-based” philosophy. However empiricism itself, as Whitehead so lucidly explains, is fundamentally dependent upon faith. This then becomes a genuine critique of the empiricist system of thought for it is a unique and particular criticism of that given system.
In many respects it is understandable that the general trend and arc of the 20th century bends towards atheism and nihilism from not just one but two massive and devastating world wars, Godel’s mathematical and logical conclusions as well as other discoveries advanced in quantum physics, natural sciences, and psychology. Such findings were all arresting and jarring to anyone heavily invested in nearly any particular ideology, religion, or philosophical system for it challenged the very ability to attain truth at all in a very bleak and fragmented world. If one feels they cannot attain truth, nihilism and atheism understandably emerge. But is it true? Just because there is an incompleteness to any given data set, does that mean there is no data, no truth, no actuality? By definition incompleteness means unknown – and that means unknown both in the affirmative and in the negative claim. So to claim it is not is just as false as to claim it is. However these epistemological dilemmas are only one aspect of any given philosophical framework – there is also metaphysical, ethical, and aesthetic considerations to factor as well. How can, for example, an atheistic and nihilistic framework function metaphysically? How can we exist if everything ultimately reduces to nothing? What are the operating first principles of such a philosophy? Today, modern theoretical physics is attempting, and failing, to answer such questions ironically not with any scientific or empirical methodology but rather by a theoretical or philosophical vantage point. The ludicrous and incoherent multi-verse is one example that holds significant internal inconsistencies and incoherencies as has been discussed in a previous post here. And how about ethics in an atheistic, nihilistic universe? What is the ethics of nihilism exactly? On what coherent grounds can such an ethics operate? And would anyone want to live under such an ethic let alone be able to thrive under it? Atheism and nihilism, although grounded in a form of validity epistemologically, simply cannot sustain themselves coherently under the weight and examination of metaphysics and ethics. And any sound philosophical framework must be able to maintain maximum coherency under all three aspects – metaphysic, ethic, and epistemologic.
What then can this Modern Metaphysic – Beyond Nothing – provide alternatively then? Let us first consider the conclusions of Godel and mathematical incompleteness. Since it is now proven that no system can be proven to be complete or consistent or decidable, it can now also be fully asserted that all systems demand, require, and utilize faith as an inherent and fundamental aspect. All systems function, at least in part and at the outset, upon faith. Therefore faith is a fundamental aspect of life, existence, being, and therefore Truth. It is a philosophical constant like the scientific constants of thermodynamics. Let us then consider a wheel with various spokes leading from the outer rim to the center. All of the spokes abruptly terminate BEFORE reaching the center and are united together via an inner rim which then forms framework to house the center bore. Any given spoke on the wheel then is similar to any given philosophical system; they all both begin and end just outside the true and final center. This gap that must be bridged across by all the spokes of a wheel then is similar to how all of our systems must be bridged across through faith. After fully exhausting all other forms of knowledge and understanding within a given system, faith is the first and the final way to obtain cohesion, consistency, and completeness in all epistemologies. If all things point to faith then, the next question becomes faith in what exactly?
In the example of the wheel the innermost portion of the wheel is filled by a center bore. That center bore fills in the nothingness which all the spokes surround thereby forming the center of the wheel. All the spokes terminate prior to the center of that nothingness. At that point only the center bore can fill that space. So to apply to this philosophically, if all of the given systems are the spokes on the wheel, what then is the center bore? The Logos is that center bore. The Logos is that which completes, initiates, and fulfills all systems, forms of thought, and modes of being. The Logos is the hub, the center, the lynchpin which rotates all things, and holds the center weight. It is that keystone which completes the build. The Logos is that which completes the Godel incompleteness theorems. Now if we continue to consider all epistemologies and systems as spokes on a wheel, consider also that any system that is more internally incoherent and inconsistent than another is equivalent to a spoke on the wheel that is shorter than another. Granted, all the spokes on the wheel are not long enough for they terminate before the center, but also consider not even all the spokes are as long as they need be. They are cut off before terminating at the inner rim to form the frame for the center bore. The shorter a given spoke indicates the more incoherent and inconsistent the philosophy or system. There are many forms of thought and philosophy to choose from, ideally the greatest ones would be those that are as complete as possible. If no system (that is a spoke of the wheel) can actually directly and completely connect to the Logos (the inner rim for the center bore of the wheel) then it is conclusive that faith, and faith alone, is precisely what transcends any given system and transports one across the divide of nothingness to the center of that which is – the Logos (the center bore), the Truth. Therefore we can further conclude that faith alone is not sufficient, even once a system is as complete as it can be, but faith in the Logos is what is necessary. Faith in something else would not necessarily arrive at the center, the Truth, that which is, the Logos. Indeed consider a person who worships evil or say an inversion or deformation of the truth. That person may in fact have a high degree of faith in their worship, but it is a faith in evil, a faith in an inversion, an anti-truth. Such a system is already greatly internally incoherent, but the faith itself is also misplaced and misdirected. Faith alone then is not sufficient. Faith in the Logos is the faith of which we speak and affirm and testify towards for it is the faith which leads to the Truth, to the center, to the reality and supreme being. And again, the system used prior to that faith (the spoke) is also important to consider and must be sound, coherent, and as consistent as possible.
The name of this metaphysics – Beyond Nothing – begins to take on new meaning and significance. Truly we agree in the presence and existence of nothingness, and yet unlike the nihilist and the atheist, we continue on further, extending beyond the nothing, embracing and acknowledging the faith that is ever-present both for the nihilist and atheist as well as for all other systems of thought, and we direct that faith to the Truth, to the center bore, to that which is Real and True and Ultimate – to the Logos. And as such literally extend ourselves through knowledge, beyond nothing, and into the realm of being, the metaphysical Logos in all its glory, majesty, serenity, and Grace.