René Descartes was a famous philosopher who coined the classic phrase, “I think, therefore I am.” When Descartes came up with that idea, he believed that he had dumped all of his knowledge and was essentially starting from scratch to determine what man could truly know based on his reason alone. The only way to be free from doubt was to start at ground zero and work from there. Descartes did not get too far before he messed up. More accurately, his logic failed in his first statement.
Evil Demons and Brains in Vats
Why did Descartes fail? Doesn’t the ability to think in a self-aware fashion prove that “one is”? Not so fast. Remember, Descartes was trying to prove this without establishing any prior belief. He was seeking to create an epistemological foundation on which to build all of his other thoughts. Yet, in his very attempt to remove all presuppositions, he failed to recognize that even this simple statement relied on prior beliefs, and thus, is itself a belief.
So, why is the idea “I think, therefore I am” a statement of belief that goes beyond what human reason is able to demonstratively prove from a strictly rationalistic perspective? Descartes’ logic is as follows:
- I think.
- If I think, then there must be an I.
- Therefore, I am.
However, with this idea, he has actually proven his inability to perform a true epistemological dump and has started with a presuppositional idea of “I” or the “self.”
How is it justified to begin his statement with an I? How can he be sure that he is anything at all before coming to that conclusion? He cannot establish or prove the idea of self with this method, despite his attempt. There are other ideas within the realm of a strict rationalistic plausibility structure that could account for his thinking that would result in a statement that defeats his idea of a “self” or, at the very least, “his self” doing the thinking.
Just because one is thinking does not, with absolute certainty, demonstratively prove that one is the agent responsible for one’s thoughts. Again, from a strong form of rationalism, one could argue that the idea of a self could technically be a projection of a foreign agent’s manipulations that have created a manifestation of a self that is not in actuality a true and free self-thinking agent.
Descartes anticipated this objection to some extent when he came up with the idea of an Evil Demon (the ultimate skeptic) protecting thoughts into his mind. But, Descartes reasoned that this proved that there was actually a self that was being deceived. The famous idea of the Brain in a Vat (BIV) put forth by Hilary Putnam took the Evil Demon one step further. BIV is similar to the concept of the Matrix. It is a thought experiment that imagines that a brain has been removed and is kept alive in a vat. However, it is hooked up to a supercomputer that signals the brain in such a way as to generate a simulated reality, but importantly, not a free-thinking “I.”
The Suicide of Skepticism
If nothing else, Descartes’s maxim leaves something still to be desired. Further, his logic also fails to provide the necessary proof for what thought is. How can you establish self prior to establishing thought? How can you establish thought without a self? It is yet again a statement of belief. He is assuming rationality behind his thoughts, despite his doubts, and then declaring existence based on that unproven concept of thought. You cannot make a declaration of what something is if you have yet to establish a grounds for proving that your thoughts are even anything coherent.
No matter what you do, no matter how many times you start with human reason alone, you cannot escape the less popular idea of philosopher Alvin Plantinga that, “All knowledge rests on belief.” To declare that we know anything at all, whether it is “I am” or simply “I think,” is to believe in something. The irony of this is that many people argue that it is wrong to believe in God unless you can demonstratively prove His existence. Yet, they themselves certainly have beliefs. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty reality of human epistemology, nothing can be proved in the way that these philosophers demand.
To be consistent with that same standard of belief in God, they have no right to believe in their own thoughts, their own existence, their own beliefs, nor their own lack of belief. By reason alone, they cannot establish a shred of “knowledge” that could ever be holistically and demonstratively proven beyond any possible doubt. Ironically, they could therefore never systematically prove that something, anything really, was true or false. If you have no knowledge of what is, you have no knowledge of what is not. You are always one fact away from finding out that 1+1 is not what you think it is. You cannot perfectly, systematically, and rationalistically even prove that to the level of absolute. There are other possibilities. In the end, skepticism must kill itself if it is to remain fully consistent.1
Defeater or Pointer
Does this prove God’s existence? Of course not. Does this prove a lack of consistency on the part of many skeptics to adhere to the full measure of what skepticism requires? I believe that it does. Another irony is that this dependence upon belief is not a defeater for Christianity, but, to a degree, a declaration of its own testimony. “My message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (I Corinthians 2:4-5, cf. I Cor. 1:17-31).
It would be more problematic for Christianity if absolute certainty and provability were required by it. Of course, this does not mean that Christianity is not reasonable, persuasive, and based on knowledge and truth. What we are arguing against in this post is the demand for complete certainty or proof that is often asked for by those unable to even prove their own existence with that same level of absolute certainty. The fact that Christianity testifies against such an establishment of knowledge is more of a sign post towards it than it is an easy defeater of it.
Notes
- It is worth stating, that I don’t believe that knowledge has to be defined in this rigid absolute kind of fashion. I would agree with J.P. Moreland, who writes: “Here’s a simple definition of knowledge: it is to represent reality in thought or experience the way it really is, on the basis of adequate grounds. Knowledge is true belief based on adequate grounds… Please note that knowledge has nothing to do with epistemological certainty—the logical impossibility of being wrong—or an anxious quest for it. One can know something without being epistemologically certain about it.” Therefore, my critique of knowing here is only a critique of the way a double standard is often applied by a skeptic to a Christian, as if their skepticism was only a result of them believing in what is epistemologically certain.
Photo by Giammarco Boscaro on Unsplash
Further Reading
Moore Thinking 
“Indeed, how great the darkness” – this says it all!
LikeLike