How Do We Know? An Interview with Dr. James Dew
In a recent Forum essay, some attention was given to the theory of knowledge which is known as epistemology. Rather than being an esoteric branch of philosophy for scholars alone, it can be an immensely practical area of inquiry for the church. The publication of this essay has transpired concurrently with my reading of the recently published How Do We Know? (IVP Academic, 2014), an introduction to epistemology authored by two Christian philosophers. It’s my privilege to interview Dr. James Dew, one of the authors.
After pastoring for several years, Dew became the Dean of the College at Southeastern, and also teaches the History of Ideas and Philosophy. He has published and spoken extensively on the relationship between science and theology, Christians apologetics, and has also been heavily involved with the Evangelical Philosophical Society. In addition to serving as a College Dean and professor, he has found time to pursue a second doctorate through the University of Birmingham. The Forum appreciates him taking time out of his very busy schedule to discuss his new book.
____________________
Jackson Watts (JW): Jamie, it’s a privilege to have you lend us some of your time for this interview. Share a little bit about how this book came about.
Jamie Dew (JD): Thanks for the opportunity! Mark and I both have found over the years that our students tend to have an especially difficult time with epistemology. All aspects of philosophy can be tough, but epistemology seems to be even more difficult for some reason. We saw a need for a book like this one, which is written for those with absolutely no background in philosophy. There are a lot of good introductions to epistemology out there. But, the vast majority of them assume a background in philosophy (that is, they are somewhat technical), or they only cover a narrow range of topics. We wanted something that covered most, if not all, of the basic issues and questions in epistemology, but that did so without being overly technical.
____________________
JW: In what ways has your pastoral ministry experience shaped how you think about and present epistemic issues? Is it always with a view toward apologetics, or is it broader than that?
JD: Without question, apologetics certainly plays into how I talk about and present these topics. Our culture is highly skeptical of a lot of things and theological beliefs are often doubted. But the issue of certainty also plays into this as well. Most Christians (and I might actually say most people) oscillate between being skeptical of all truth claims or dogmatic about everything they believe. We have to be careful with both these approaches. So finding a balanced way of talking about these issues was very important to us.
Also, I’ve found that being a pastor for so many years helps articulate difficult issues. I’ve found that lay people are often interested in epistemological issues, even if they are unaware of what epistemology is and all the jargon that comes with it. When we strip away the jargon, they are often very engaged in the topic.
____________________
JW: In your section explaining the traditional definition of knowledge, you state, “We cannot know about things that we do not have a belief about” (p. 22). In other words, knowledge and belief are closely related, but not identical. How do you think this explanation relates to Jesus’ teaching on hypocrisy, in which He confronts the Pharisees who had “knowledge” of many spiritual things, yet failed to live in accordance with those truths?
JD: Yes, belief and knowledge are not the same thing; yet, believing is part of knowing in that it contributes to it. I think their failing “to live” in accordance with these truths relates to a separate category than believing and knowing. It seems to refer to our application (or acting upon) of our knowledge. The Bible calls us to “believe” in Christ, but the kind of distinctions we are making here help us to get a grasp of just what the Bible means when it makes this call. It is not just enough to believe (as in affirm something as true); one must act upon the knowledge we have by trusting Christ. Even the demons believe and tremble.
____________________
JW: You provide some helpful historical development in several places, including how epistemology underwent significant revision in modern Western history (p. 39). Did theologians during this period tend to embrace and incorporate these philosophical movements into their work quickly, or was it a much more gradual process?
JD: There are certainly examples of theologians that adopt a philosophical perspective quickly, but on the whole this is easier to see over large periods of time.
____________________
JW: In the chapter on the various sources of knowledge, you are quite clear to say that “faith is not a source of knowledge, because it does not give us any new information or knowledge. Rather, faith is a response to the knowledge or information that we receive about God from divine revelation” (p. 45). How important is it that Christians (and pastors especially) understand this distinction?
JD: Good question. I think this is highly important. It is easy to say things like “I know by faith” because it sounds very good and very few people are going to challenge you when saying it. As such, it seems like such a safe thing to say. But I think it is actually very dangerous and here’s why. If we say this to support our theology, why can’t everyone else say this as well? In other words, why can’t a Mormon, Muslim, Hindu or anyone else say this? It seems to me that we can. So, if this is a legitimate move for us to make, then it is for everyone else as well. And if that is the case, then we are actually playing into relativism and thus weakening the Gospel. The truth is, if our theology is right, then we should be able to say more than this. We might not be able to prove it all, but we can show that it holds up well to the evidence. I think this is a better way.
Having said that, I would say that faith can cause certain kinds of changes within our disposition that in turn cause us to see something more clearly or even recognize something we were once blind to. Paul tells us that “the natural man does not receive the things of God. They are foolishness to him because they are spiritually discerned” (NKJV 1 Cor. 2:14).
____________________
JW: You offer several criticisms in the book of many postmodern philosophers who have done great damage to the concept of truth. But do you think that evangelicals tend to go too soft on modern philosophers since we often feel as though “we’re past that period”?
JD: Once again, good question! Yes, I do think we are too soft on the modern perspective. As you note, I don’t think that postmodernism is the way we need to go. Postmodern thinkers may have some helpful insights on some things, but the perspective itself is highly problematic. This does not mean, however, that modernism is the answer either. We must remember that modernism led to postmodernism. That is, there were significant problems with the modern perspective that lead straight to postmodernism. In some ways the two perspectives say very different things. But in other ways, postmodernism is just taking modern thought to its logical extension. I think we have to be even-handed. Each perspective says some things that are right and some things that are wrong.
____________________
JW: I thought your explanation of inferences was one of the most lucid and helpful chapters in the book. I’ve seen different defenses given for biblical inerrancy that seemed to be predicated on one or several of these approaches.Is this the right approach for Christian theologians to take? Should we argue inductively or deductively for the inerrancy of Scripture?Should we start with the data of Scripture and then move toward the general conclusion (induction), or should we argue more by saying, “God tells the truth; the Bible is God’s Word; Therefore, the Bible is true” (deduction)?
JD: Apologists have certainly tried to do this both ways. For my part, I’m disinclined to try this deductively as I think this ends up as circular argumentation. I would be more inclined to take an inductive approach where we bring in a wide variety of data to support the claim that God has revealed Himself in His word. We have sketched this kind of approach out in our chapter on revelation. We begin with the facts about Jesus that are presented to us in the gospels. But, much of this data can be supported by extra-biblical evidence so this seems to prevent us from making a circular argument. From there, we look at the resurrection of Christ and consider what epistemic implications are for the questions of revelation. I think it gives us good reason to believe that God has in fact spoken to us through the Bible.
____________________
JW: You explain in chapter eight that virtue epistemology has to do with certain intellectual qualities that are important to possess in our pursuit of knowledge, such as humility, honesty, and courage. You note that these are related to traditional moral virtues that we often want to instill in Christians in general. I wonder how you in pastoral ministry, or even in your work as a professor, try to bring these qualities to bear on the discipleship of the people you’re serving, aside from simply teaching about them.
JD: Well, to be honest, this is something I talk about with students all the time. We obviously need to be faithful to Christ and the teaching that has been passed down to us through the years. But we often confuse primary issues with secondary issues and then add staunch dogmatism to this. We have to be careful. The intellectual virtues that we discuss in chapter eight (and many others) can help us here.
____________________
JW: Just for fun, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is present to hear it, does it make a sound?
JD: I think that it does!
____________________
JW: Thank you so much for your time! Hope to see you at ETS this fall.
JD: Thanks to you, Jackson! Always a pleasure!
Recent Comments