The Meaning of Doubt in Epistemology

© Domenic Marbaniang, Epistemics of Divine Reality (2007).


DOUBT is the frustration of rationality. It is not the threshold of knowledge. It is the exit-door of knowledge. Doubt precludes knowability by assuming the attitude of will-to-doubt. The will-to-doubt leads in a different direction from that of the will-to-believe. For instance, the problem of pain, of evil and disorder in the universe may be confronted with either a will-to-doubt leading to despair or a will-to-believe leading to hope.[1]
Hindu devotee: It is difficult to express. The dumb cannot tell the taste of a laddu [sweetmeat]. Religion is my isht [my choice]. I believe in faith. A son was born to me, and when he died I did not feel the least sorrow for him. That was due to my faith.[2]
According to James W. Fowler, the opposite of faith is not doubt but nihilism, ‘the inability to image any transcendent environment and despair about the possibility of even negative meaning.’[3] But this is a confusion of meanings. Nihilism is the result of perpetual doubting even as optimism is the result of a dogged faith. Thus, doubt is the opposite of faith.
However, the will-to-doubt can have a positive result when set in balance with the will-to-believe. In that sense, the exit from one leads to the entrance into another. Thus, the will-to-doubt the supremacy of Inti, the sun-god, and the will-to-believe the traditional God Viracocha, corroborated by reasoning, helped Pachacuti to shift his faith from Inti to Viracocha.[4] Thus, unless there is a balance between the two, extreme results will follow. A will-to-believe not corroborated by a will-to-doubt can lead to fanaticism, fundamentalism, and thus, lead to unchecked fideism. However, when corroborated by a will-to-doubt, it can lead to rational belief. The will-to-believe must not take precedence over the will-to-doubt; likewise, the will-to-doubt must not take precedence over the will-to-believe. It is the role of reason to govern both in balance and harmony.

[1] Ralph Tyler Flewelling, Christ and the Dramas of Doubt (New York: Eatons & Mains, 1913), pp. 6-9
[2] E. Stanley Jones, Christ at the Round Table (New York: Abingdon Press, 1928), p. 31
[3] James W. Fowler, Stages of Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981), p. 31
[4] Don Richardson, Eternity in their Hearts, rev. edn. (California: Regal Books, 1984), pp. 37-38

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Christian Agapistic Ethics

From Marbaniang, Domenic. Ethics (1998). Published as Philosophical Ethics (2012) 2.1.1.3. Christianity and Normative Ethics Christian ethics, as the author believes, is a mean between Teleological and Deontological Ethics. The concept is that of a God who wills a universal law for all humans, at all times, a Will that is in accordance to His own nature and, therefore, a necessary , for all existence contingent on Him. Any being that rebels against this Will rebels against its own well-being or good , that is contingent on the Creator. The good expresses the teleological dimension and the necessary will expresses the deontological dimensions of Christian ethics. Since this Will is of Divine nature, it must be revealed by the illumination of the Spirit in man. Since man, as the Revelation (Scripture) tells us, is created in the image and likeness of God, he is able to know and choose this will for his life. However, the fallennes of man has alienated him from the divine will. Therefore,...
Read more

Are Abstract Objects Real? or Did God Create Abstract Objects, If There Are Anything Like That?

Christian philosophers have debated this issue for some time. Some believe that abstract objects exist; others, that they don’t exist; still others, that the question is meaningless. Views such as Platonic realism hold that abstract ideas and objects (such as the laws of logic and mathematical objects) have objective existence independent of minds. Some Christian theologians believe that abstract objects cannot exist independently; for if they did, they would nullify the doctrine of divine aseity , which states that there is nothing that is co-eternal with God. But, what about the view that abstract objects were created and are part of the invisible creation of God? For example, can it be possible that numbers don’t exist (not number of things, but the numbers themselves)? If numbers don’t exist, how can numbers be the object of our knowledge and how can mathematical propositions be called true if they do not correspond to reality? If knowledge a subject-object relationship, how can o...
Read more

Is Faith in God Different From Faith In Other Things?

Excerpt from the book,  Explorations of Faith , 2009 ( Read/Download Full Book ) FAITH in God is of ultimate kind and is, therefore, both unique and absolute. Since it is not concerned with contingent things of this world it is also not like the belief in the contingent things of the world. Further, belief in God is foundational to our common-sense assumptions about this world as both moral and rational. Anyone who denies God must also deny the existence of absolute morals and absolute truth, for both lose their foundation if their foundation is found within this world itself. It would be like trying to place a ball on that ball itself. Without an unchangeable transcendent ground, there can be no absolute point of reference (as in outer space where all bodies hang in positions relative to each other). The unchanging nature and character of God is the foundation of true morality [1] and His veracity is the foundation of all reasonability and truth. Therefore, divine existence is the su...
Read more