“Apathy: a state of not caring; not wanting to know; complacency; indifference; to ignore; disinterested in contemplation; anesthetized by popular culture; a postmodern intellectual narcosis; compassion fatigue; too lazy; too busy; self-indulgence; limited choices in work and leisure-time; non-reflection, non-deliberation and subconscious blocking of distressing information.” (Link)
“True friendship can afford true knowledge. It does not depend on darkness and ignorance.”
(Henry David Thoreau)
“Three passions have governed my life:
The longings for love, the search for knowledge…
I have wished to understand the hearts of [people].
I have wished to know why the stars shine.
Love and knowledge led upwards to the heavens,
But always pity brought me back to earth…”
(Betrand Russell, adapted)
The following points apply both to atheist and theists alike.
Have you ever found yourself hating people who know so much or think they know so much? I've been thinking lately about the role of knowledge in everyday life. What I mean is that I’ve been seeking along the most practical lines possible an explanation of why knowledge is important and worth pursuing. We all come across individuals from time to time (and you may be one of them) who sort of scoffs at learning and education. Perhaps you left school at an early age, struggled with learning because of a disability, you never came to realize the value of knowledge, you had a bad experience with a philosophy professor, or else you feel hopeless because, as some of my philosophy students can attest, there are so many views out there; how can we know which one is right?
-- I think modern apathy against knowledge may come down to something as simple as this: “I only want to know about those
things I want to know about." --
Most of us don’t have the time, patience, and/or ability to pursue an academic life. I want to make several points, which will later be briefly pursued in argument form.
First, we all value knowledge of those things we value the most. Second, we can recognize that our knowledge of what we value the most brings us in touch with that which we value most, and therefore, “knowledge of what is valuable to us” is inherently valuable. Third, since our knowledge of what we value is inherently valuable, whatever we want to come into contact with more intimately we must acquire knowledge in order to do so. Finally, we must learn how to bring our values into line with those things that are inherently valuable. If you don’t follow this or the argument that follows, be patient as I will try to illustrate it in simpler terms.
I don’t have the time to elaborate on this in great detail, but simply present an argument with some explanation.
1. We value knowledge of those things we value.
2. We value such knowledge because such knowledge is inherently valuable.
3. Whatever we choose to become knowledgeable of will constitute knowledge that becomes inherently valuable to us in bringing us face to face with that which we choose to become knowledgeable of.
4. There are things which our knowledge of them is more valuable than other things.
Let me re-phrase this for those who have trouble following:
1. I value my knowledge of saxophones because it helps me to play saxophone.
2. I value my knowledge of saxophones because I realize that without knowledge of saxophones I wouldn’t be able to play saxophone, and so my knowledge brings me into “relationship” with a saxophone.
3. If I chose to value piano, then my knowledge of piano would bring me into a closer “relationship” with this instrument as well. It would allow me to interact with it more fully.
4. I find it more valuable to have knowledge of saxohphones than pianos since I own a saxophone and I do not own a piano.
Now, I will apply this to a theological concept:
1. I value my knowledge of God because it helps bring me into contact with God.
2. I value my knowledge of God because without it I would not know who or what God is, what he expects, if he is real, etc.
(I should point out that I’m consciously equivocating on the meaning of value here, but not to the detriment of the argument. I think elaboration of objective vs. subjective value would not aid at this point.)
You get the picture. The point is simply this: knowledge is to the mind what eyes are to the external world. By gaining knowledge, we are bringing ourselves in tune with the real world; the world of ideas, the world of emotions, the world of relationships, the world of physical objects and laws, the realm of truth. Knowledge is not some esoteric, other-worldly way of achieving fame or success or recognition. Knowledge is not simply trivia. Genuine knowledge (that is, a belief in something which is justified and true) brings us into contact with that very thing. In essence by knowing about a thing, we carve up our mind according to the way the objects of our knowledge carve up the world.
So, knowledge by itself, is inherently valuable in that it brings us into contact with the object being known. To be even more precise, I think knowledge provides the foundation for a “relationship” between me and the object being known. It provides the basis for one to interact with, understand, see, and grasp that which we value as an object of our attention.about which you ought to know about. --
As a final point, are there some things that are inherently more valuable than others in coming into contact with, that is, in coming into relationship with? It seems to me that trivia is often a case of valuing knowledge for its own sake. But, is truth something we want to come into contact with? Is the meaning of life? How about ourselves and other human beings? If they are, then it only makes sense that we ought to learn to do what it takes in order to ‘come to value’ our knowledge of those things that are most valuable. But for those who think there aren’t inherently valuable things out there worth pursing a knowledge of, consider this: if my argument above succeeds, then it shows that our knowledge of any particular area of interest and the ability knowledge has to bring us into a relationship with that thing or area demonstrates that there is at least one inherent value worth pursing: ‘knowledge of those things we value the most’. If there’s at least one, why couldn’t there be others as well? In other words, I think modern apathy against knowledge may come down to something as simple as this: “I only want to know about those things I want to know about.” Here’s a suggestion for escaping apathy: learn to want to know not only about the things you want to know about, but also the things about which you ought to know about. How we ‘come to value’ what we ought to value is another matter, and the subject of another blog.
When it comes to the everyday, practical value that knowledge has, consider the following application, as voiced by Timothy Keller in his book The Reason for God. I've extended his main point by adding something in brackets. I believe it is perfectly appropriate.
"If you don't trust the Bible [or science or experience or philosophy or theology] enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? In any truly personal relationship, the other person has to be able to contradict you. For example, if a wife is not allowed to contradict her husband, they won't have an intimate relationship. Remember the (two!) movies The Stepford Wives? The husbands of Stepford, Connecticut, decide to have their wives turned into robots who never cross the wills of their husbands. A stepford wife was wonderfully compliant and beautiful, but no one would describe such a marriage as intimate or personal. Now, what happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible [or any other relevant area] that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You won't! You'll have a Stepford God! A god, essentially, of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible [or any other solid, relevant source of information about God] is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it." (p. 113-114)
0 comments:
Post a Comment