The Epistemological Dilemma

 The Epistemological Dilemma


Frankly, I am writing some of these treatises for the purpose of allowing myself to explore some issues that are of interest to me, but of which I see little (or nothing) elsewhere.  This short paper (only two pages long) may seem a bit esoteric, or "out there" to many of you--and I would not blame you, if you decided not to pursue it.  Still, let us begin; and see where the Spirit leads us. . . .

 

Is what we behold with our senses, our eyes for example, actually what it appears to be?  Can we *really* know the *essence* of anything we are beholding, or looking at?

 

In other words, is there not a difference between the object itself, and the *image* of the object that is presented to our minds?

 

My understanding of epistemological "monism," is that it seeks to identify the object itself, *with* what is presented to our minds, in an almost one-to-one correspondence.  Epistemological "dualism," on the other hand, understands the object to be *distinct* from the impression that is before our minds.  I am an adherent of epistemological dualism.

 

. . . But then, the question may be asked, "What, then, is the basic nature of the object we are beholding, (say, the door I am looking at right now); and, is there anyway we can know (with certitude) the *actual* make up, or attributes of that object?"

 

Personally, I believe there is no way this can be done.  Someone might be thinking, "Well, if that is the case, are we not left with utter skepticism with regard to the nature (and perhaps even the reality) of created, 'physical' beings and objects?"  This is a good and legitimate question.  My response would be, "No, we are not left to be skeptics, even though we simply *cannot* really know the essence of 'material' beings.  This fact neither means that they do not exist, nor that they cannot be 'managed' by us, in this world."

 

Even empirical scientists, who are pretty much totally dependent upon the notion that we *can* "know" the essence (or make up) of material things--and this could range from sub-atomic particles, to astrophysical matter--seem to agree that, when they examine anything closely enough, they only discover that there is *more* to it than they could have imagined.

 

To "put my cards on the table," I am of the opinion that "material" reality is really "spiritual" in nature, (and that this is why the microscope cannot get to the end of its constitution).  If this is true, then it is a strong argument for the essentially-spiritual nature of all existence; and its genesis must be in a powerful and spiritual God.

 

Believe it or not, but I am not alone in this view.  It is my belief that GW Leibniz, Bishop Berkeley, Jonathan Edwards, (and perhaps even St. Augustine) also saw reality in this way.  There are others, as well.

 

And lest somebody may think that this is all a means of doing away with empirical science altogether; or of seeking to totally "debunk" it, by chastening the arrogance of many of its claims--let me assure you that this is only *partly* the case.  It is true, in my opinion, that empirical science has gotten way "too big for its britches"; but I am not arguing that we should cease exploring God's amazing universe of created things.  Still, we should do so humbly, fully recognizing the truth of Gen. 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

Rev. Mark J. Henninger

Treatise #25

22 September 2025

https://theologicaltreatisesinretirement.blogspot.com

https://henningerdevotions.blogspot.com/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Do we Know we Are Right?

What Is Preaching?

Persecution of Real Christians in America