Skip to main content

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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Water Baptism Necessary Before Partaking in Lord's Supper

"Last Supper" by Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo (1750) Yes, it is. Water baptism identifies one with the redemption work of Jesus Christ, with His death, burial, and resurrection. It is anticipated of visible identification with Christ and His Church. Every person has the personal responsibility to examine him/herself before deciding to partake in the Lord's Table. The Bible makes it clear that those who chose not to be baptized were rejecting the counsel of God (Lk.7:30). In a mixed congregation, it is not possible to always know who is worthy to partake of the Table; however, the minister must encourage only those who have been baptized for remission of sins (not just as a ritual but by faith in Jesus Christ) to partake of the Table. Before Jesus sat down to dip bread in the cup, He washed His disciples' feet. He makes the statement that they are already "washed" and only need feet to be washed. Of course, this may not explicitly/only refer to their baptism, fo
Post a Comment
Read more

Matthew 6:31-33

"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you." (Mat 6:31-33) The original sense of nakedness was from that deep insecurity of autonomy that sprung from man's first alienation from God due to sin-- spiritual death. Seeking God marks man's refusal to stay alienated by turning towards His Maker in whom alone is Covering and true Security and no reason to be ashamed anymore.
Post a Comment
Read more

Is it not cruel for God to kill His Son in place of us?

The doctrine of atonement is a stumbling block for some who feel that it not only exemplifies cruelty but also does away with human responsibility. The issue abounds with various questions and attempts to solution. Questions: 1. If God knew that man would sin and fall, why did He create man? 2. Why doesn't God, if He exists, intervene and stop evil; why just be Judge but not be Governor with proper police security system that minimises the possibility of transgression? 3. How can the death of one particular man atone for the sins of many particular men? 4. Isn't it not cruel to punish an innocent man for the sins of others so that they go free? Answers that challenge the Christian doctrine: 1. God does not require sacrifice in order to forgive, He can forgive by sovereign authority. 2. Every man must bear his own guilt so that he has a sense of responsibility and possess a genuine reason to pursue good and turn from evil. Biblical Responses: 1. God's knowledge of human Fall
Post a Comment
Read more