Epistemology
Rachel Kunker
Philosophy
Epistemology
October 7, 2011
Is it true to say that there is no truth? The very concept itself is contradictory, but is still a topic worth exploring. If a person were to simply go about their life believing everything they ever heard or experienced to be true, they could be deceived without their own knowledge. Say they overheard someone talking about Sam Houston when they stated, “... and then Sam Houston claimed her land.” Rightfully, without any other knowledge but their heard facts, the listener would assume “Sam Houston” to be a “Samantha” due to the possessive pronoun “her.” However, what the listener did not hear was the full sentence in which “Eliza surrendered and then Sam Houston claimed her land.” By basing their belief off of their senses of hearing, the listener was unable to acknowledge the truth behind the pronoun “her.” Similarly, in the case of epistemology, truth should not be simply based off of senses, or feelings, but off of sound reasoning. However, sometimes senses can be useful in arriving at a proven truth. The rationalist response to the view of Epistemology states that “all knowledge ultimately comes through reason” (Cowan/Spiegel, 52). This view claims that knowledge is proven true through deducing what is true from possible truths, as opposed to using the senses. As Descartes reasoned, truth can be acquired if every belief is tested to be false. Then, if it is proven that something cannot be false, it is therefore true. By taking a Biblical rationalist response to the view of Epistemology and using faith, Christians are able to acquire sound surety in their faith and view on what is true. Logic points to the rationalist response over all other views of epistemology. For example, the skeptical response states that truth is unattainable and we have no knowledge. However, if this view is to be believed, then it disproves its own claim by showing that there is truth in believing there is no
Philosophy
Epistemology
October 7, 2011
Is it true to say that there is no truth? The very concept itself is contradictory, but is still a topic worth exploring. If a person were to simply go about their life believing everything they ever heard or experienced to be true, they could be deceived without their own knowledge. Say they overheard someone talking about Sam Houston when they stated, “... and then Sam Houston claimed her land.” Rightfully, without any other knowledge but their heard facts, the listener would assume “Sam Houston” to be a “Samantha” due to the possessive pronoun “her.” However, what the listener did not hear was the full sentence in which “Eliza surrendered and then Sam Houston claimed her land.” By basing their belief off of their senses of hearing, the listener was unable to acknowledge the truth behind the pronoun “her.” Similarly, in the case of epistemology, truth should not be simply based off of senses, or feelings, but off of sound reasoning. However, sometimes senses can be useful in arriving at a proven truth. The rationalist response to the view of Epistemology states that “all knowledge ultimately comes through reason” (Cowan/Spiegel, 52). This view claims that knowledge is proven true through deducing what is true from possible truths, as opposed to using the senses. As Descartes reasoned, truth can be acquired if every belief is tested to be false. Then, if it is proven that something cannot be false, it is therefore true. By taking a Biblical rationalist response to the view of Epistemology and using faith, Christians are able to acquire sound surety in their faith and view on what is true. Logic points to the rationalist response over all other views of epistemology. For example, the skeptical response states that truth is unattainable and we have no knowledge. However, if this view is to be believed, then it disproves its own claim by showing that there is truth in believing there is no