Epistemological Relativism

It has been several months since I’ve read C.S. Lewis, but his advice regarding the reading of old books is timely. Rather than state what has already been presented succintly by Lewis himself I’ll just provide the quote.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (”mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

–C.S. Lewis

Thanks to Between Two Worlds for jogging my memory. While Lewis presents this in a “Christian” context, I think the principle is easily applicable to all forms of knowledge, theories and ideas found in contemporary books. It is for this reason and a few others that I’ve begun the incredible journey of western thought starting from the pre-socratics. Understanding this continuum of tension and transformation is, in my view, a necessary component to fully understanding and responding to new and interesting ideas of our own day. The more familiar we are with the ideas of ages gone by the more we realize that many new ideas are not as new as they purport to be.

Not exactly my thoughts, but they are still worth considering. This comes from Professor Goldman in his lectures titled “Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It”. The context of this thought deals with how scientific theories may or may not be a reflection of reality.

“The correlation of a successful theory with a claim that it corresponds to reality is a separate claim from the judgment that a theory is successful. We can all agree on a criteria for a successful theory (explanation, prediction and control). Does it give us a better explanation, more predictions, better control than another theory? If it does then we call that a successful theory. Does it [the successful theory] correspond to reality? That is a separate question because you can have the first and not have the second. We know that from history. Therefore there is a separate judgment involved.”

I finally finished reading N.T. Wright’s large tome “New Testament and the People of God” about a month ago. I have to say there are lots of great ideas in that book. Of course, as any good book will do, there were times when I disagreed entirely with some of Wright’s points. At the same time there were other points during my reading where I was glad to hear someone come to the same conclusions. The book was very much a dialogue for me. I had many ideas, questions and musings that troubled me that I had been attempting to resolve through reflection. Wright seems to have had similar experiences and wrote about many of these same challenges. Of course I still have questions, but Wright did go a long way to communicate a relatively coherrent method of discovering possible and probable answers to some of these questions.

What is most striking to me is that in this work Wright has the luxury of stepping past the theological implications of his observations. I’m sure he’s addressed these elsewhere in other works, but as a case in point I’ll focus on the normative power of narrative texts. Simply , this is the question (and answer) of how texts about true events (a narrative) have the power to prescribe behavior. Wright clearly believes that many of the events documented in Christian and Jewish literature actually occurred. What he does not touch in his text is how this affects us, if at all in ways beyond the simple narrative information. In other words, he completely dodges what most would consider almost foundational. Sure, we’ve read the story, but what is descriptive (merely a story) and what, if anything, is prescriptive. Wright’s take on it is far beyond what is reasonable post about. What I can appreciate, though, is Wright’s historical method. I believe his intention was to approach the subject from this perspective alone and delay the theological implications.

Understanding, to the best of our ability, what people said, thought and hoped for will go along way towards understanding texts that have been subjectivized far too often for the gain of other people or groups. Wright’s method provides a possible lens for the correct understanding the works of the New Testament writers without forcing a priori assumptions upon them. This, I think, takes a lot of courage. As you can see there is a lot to like and a lot to dislike (or disagree if you prefer) about this book, but like any lively and intelligient debate, it is well worth the effort.