Certainty doesn’t require knowing. In fact, certainty doesn’t even require facts; except the fact which it itself creates. And in that case, such a requirement fulfills itself.
A little while ago at work, a lady I was working for began talking about god and Jesus and stuff and how (almost verbatim, but forgive my memory) “you may think you’re certain, but the only true certainty is with God.” I just smiled and nodded politely, as I didn’t have the desire to have any form of in-depth conversation given the circumstances. Well I didn’t agree with that statement when I heard it, and I disagree with it more and more as time goes on.
What she is telling me is that human certainty is no certainty at all. Ok then, what certainty is actually certain? Well her reply would be a certainty found through a relationship with god (whatever shape her god and her relationship to it might take). In sum, humans, on their own, are incapable of having certainty (how Cartesian of her). And as you can tell, I disagree.
I assume this religious relationship she is referring to involves a belief, and a faith. In which case, certainty seems to be precluded. Or would she say that? Does she gain a certainty from her faith? I bet she does; she just doesn’t want to grant me the same (godless) result.
But analogously, I think we create our own certainty by taking all sorts of leaps of faith, and without a religious figure in the picture. When two people, both possibly standing on quite uncertain ground, take a leap of faith and create something new through a pact or some sort of agreement, they create their own certainty. In other words (and somewhat perplexingly), through uncertainty, they gain their own certainty. This is because we can create it. And this is what a relationship (of any type) is; for if both parties agree to it, or in other words put their faith/trust in the other, then of course the relationship will be fulfilled. And in fact, that is the only way for it to work. I am not saying that her religious certainty is fake; rather, I am saying it is no different than a secular certainty.
We gain our certainty when we first cease to doubt; and we don’t need religion to do that. [and for the students of philosophy, this is one of the most critical and logically fallacious mistakes of Descartes’]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
But it is not certainty at all...merely an illusion of security, one which we create because we think we need it somehow. One can never be certain, even through a contract, which is why most contracts include the government as a third party which will "restore order" to the relationship somehow by "forcing" the "negligent party" to fulfill its end of the bargain, or suffer other consequences, consequences which may or may not make the "injured party" satisfied. Accepting uncertainty isn't so bad, in my opinion, but if you need the illusions, by all means, paint away!
ReplyDeleteThis blog actually applies very well to a conversation I am currently having with Emily Hinman...so of course I had to read it!
I like what you have to say about faith with regard to the religious and the secular, by the way. :-)
This vaguely relates to Rosamae's comment.
ReplyDeleteI obviously was not there for the original conversation, but I wonder, could she have meant that due to the fact God was involved there was a certainty the specifics would sort out and in comparison, when humans are involved there is always the possibility for failure? Now this my imagining of her point of view, not all would agree or for that matter need to. What was the context of the conversation, would this possibly be her view?
Rosamae,
ReplyDeleteYa, I'm fine with illusions. I've been painting for awhile now. As long as we create them, I'm fine with that. Because at some point, we all must "act as if ____." [fill in the blank]
Ashley,
Ya, I think that was really close to her point. Because she basically said, "you may think you have a certainty, but you may find out you were wrong" (pretty sure she used the specific word 'wrong'). So yes, humans have a possible failure. My point is, her religious claim/relationship is no different. A human is involved (viz. her as the believer), and thus, her claim that there is a god out there who always gives her certainty is open to the same criticism she threw at me.
For I could make up my own god right now, say the same thing she does, and no one would know the difference. My imaginary god, or friend :), would always give me a certainty too (regardless of whether her god is real or not).
But one part I'm not clear on in your comment is the " [with god,] there was a certainty the specifics would sort out". What did you mean by that? Of course I probably should have asked that first, since your response could make my previous two paragraphs useless haha.
"there is a certainty the specifics would sort out"
ReplyDeleteWith this I was suggesting that the perfection of God nullified the failure of the human in the God/human contract versus the human/human contract. (no matter the belief of which god is involved) But upon writing this I realize that in order to believe that God can void human failure one has to first believe as I do, that God exists.
That last sentence can be read as harsh, but trust me it is not meant to be. It is simply me realizing that the point of views of each person will in the end determine their beliefs.