.
By C. Jake Williams. March 6, 2008
. Email Jake - Email this
St. Augustine believed the world is flat. We know he was wrong.
The flat-Earth theory is a useful example of the topic most students in Utah State's Philosophy of Religion class fail to grasp: the difference between knowledge and belief. The latter exists in varying degrees from the absurd to the likely true. Knowledge is the upper bound of the belief scale, free from any possibility of falsity.
The scientific method holds that theories, once formulated, be subjected to tests for falsification. Tests do not assess the theory directly, and a good test strives to reach observations that are contrary to the theory's predictions. An observation and its contrary can't both be true, so a contradictory observation disproves the theory, relegating it to the lower bound of the belief scale.
Observing the predicted result does not prove the theory, however, as one might expect. Instead, the test is said to 'support' the theory, ushering it towards the upper bound of the belief scale, towards knowledge. Until no contradictory result can ever be, the theory is belief and not knowledge.
Thus is how the two ideas of belief and knowledge should be understood, but not how they are understood.
Classroom discussion of free will from an omniscient deity revealed at least ninety percent attending misuse the terms. The discussion should have been about whether or not the existence of an all-knowing God excludes the principle of free will, but the confusion concerning belief v. knowledge made such a discussion difficult to follow and impossible to fully comprehend.
"Just because God knows something doesn't mean I don't have the power to choose differently," said one student (roughly. I'm going off memory here). Actually, one student, that's exactly what God knowing something means. If he didn't know, he would believe. One allows for a contradictory result and it's not the former.
Dr. Robson attempted to appease the confused hoard by introducing the idea of a God who knows 99.9999 (repeating) percent of all things, but this is equivalent to an omniscient God. Mathematically:
1 = 1
Divide by 3 -- 1/3 = 0.3333 (repeating)
Multiply by 3 -- 3/3 = 0.9999 (repeating)
Simplify -- 1 = 0.9999 (repeating)
Add 99 -- 99 + 1 = 0.9999 (repeating) + 99
Simplify -- 100 = 99.9999 (repeating)
If Dr. Robson meant some quantity less than 100 percent knowledge, I feel it is necessary to clarify exactly which of the two possible interpretations this would actually describe. Let us use 99 percent knowledge. The first interpretation would be that God has 99 percent knowledge of each given theory. Whether that theory be something as small as "I predict Chris Williams will pass this course" or as large as "I predict the force of gravity is equal to (G*mass1*mass2)/r2", God would only be 99 percent certain of any given statement about the world. But this amounts to an All-believing God, not an all-knowing God that allows free will. God would know absolutely nothing under this interpretation, so another must describe God.
The second interpretation takes the 99 percent and applies it to fully knowing the truth of 99 percent of all possible statements. The other one percent would then be relegated to the classification of beliefs. That does not exclude God from being 99 percent certain of the truth of this remaining one percent. The result of this second interpretation is a God who has 99 percent knowledge (almost all-knowing) and one percent strong beliefs (which rarely are contradicted). This would certainly allow for free will, but at the expense of omniscience.
You can see how much more debatable the issue becomes once the terms knowledge and belief are clearer and accurately defined. Both sides of an issue can still build their argument and present it to the opposition. One side may decide it is in error. Philosophy succeeds in such a system. But when knowledge blurs with belief and each side confuses and is confused by the opposition, philosophy fails.
You were there.