Christians Watching Fox News and Epistemology

Ok, I admit, I was thinking the title would grab your attention; but I do want to explore a little regarding our duty as Christians and not being controlled and manipulated by our 24/7 news cycle networks who spend their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or hear some new thing. (Ac.17:21) Many times they are reporting things without 2 or 3 sources of evidence (Dt.19:15-21, Mt.18:15, 2 Cor.13:1) or making diligent inquiry (Dt.19:18,13:14, Jn.7:51). In our era accusations of ‘fake news’ are flying all around alongside a well-established record of politicians and news outlets lying, exaggerating and slandering their political opponents (i.e. ‘spinning’), so we need to remember to be careful not to anxiously believe a lie even if it assists our cause. Those willfully embracing slander and propaganda usually think that the end justifies the means. But as Christians we need to bring every thought captive (2 Cor.10:5) and think on things that are true, honest, just, and of good report (Phil.4:8). We need to be mindful of God’s view of these things:

Prv.6:16-19- These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue… A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Lev. 19:16- Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people…

Prv.10:18- He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool. (a fool is willingly ignorant of fact-Prv.1:7, 22, 12:15, 14:7)

Psa.50:19-21- Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son. These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

Ex.23:1-Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

Prv.25:18- A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

 Remove from me vanity and lies (Prv.30:8). Our duty as Christians is to ‘prove all things’ (1 Thes.2:21) and ‘judge all things’ (1 Cor.2:15) by ‘exercising our senses to discern good and evil’ (Heb.5:14). We should not be snared enmeshing ourselves in exaggerations and distortions generated to captivate an audience and top the ratings. We need to ‘walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil’ (Eph.5:15-6); but not be manipulated by drinking in swill propaganda whether we agree with the cause or not, or whether it supports our guy. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. (Prv.14:15) So we want to explore the nature of knowledge in general- how is knowledge possible? So we will examine very briefly epistemology- which just means the study of knowledge- what justifies believing something. We have covered the presuppositions necessary to make all and any knowledge even possible here- being the teaching about Jesus Christ contained in the bible- and nowhere else (Col.2:3). This would be a revelational form of knowledge.

 Usually on news channels if they are trying to be objective they will present 2 sides to a situation. Of course, there might be 3 or more sides and the truth might not even be considered. But the pundits are talking over each other shortly after beginning, and they are trying just to have their talking point (emotively worded pre-crafted statement) repeated as often as possible. It is evident that debating truth is not the purpose, but stating the talking point (according to some focus group study results). You notice that statistics are quoted regarding whatever topic, which are meant to garnish the talking point with some ‘scientific’ trimming. I would encourage you to read Thomas Sowell’s materials to see how statistical studies are manipulated to support any number of things (based on their presuppositions)- this is a good summary of what to expect- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chph_EPNNAs.

  But there is a permeating presumption that scientific or empirical knowledge is the only way to arrive at truth. Now in theories of knowledge there are generally 2 ways to acquire true knowledge for someone besides the solipsist; that is acquiring knowledge of the world by experience and data/research or acquiring knowledge of the world by logical and mathematical deduction. Now in practice we try to do both, but let’s consider ‘why’ to help us clarify our thinking and make sure we are being consistently rational.



  Now, traditionally in philosophy ‘how we know’ or how we justify believing something would fall into 2 categories (no, not whether CNN or FOX reported it). They would be along a priori or along a posteriori lines of reasoning. Those are just Latin phrases meaning ‘from what is prior’ (a priori); indicating that it follows from self-evident propositions or axioms (e.g. 2+2=4) accepted prior to a proposition and independent of experience. And ‘from what is posterior’ or ‘from what is after’ (a posteriori); indicating that it follows from observations (e.g. those 4 rocks are heavy) and is dependent upon experience.

 Ok, so it seems any proposition or statement anyone makes about anything can be demonstrated to be true and can justify our believing it from either logical necessity (a priori) or from empirical probability (a posteriori) as the methods of reasoning. For example, if someone told you ‘my mother in law said that all bachelors are happy’ you would know this person is married because they said, ‘my mother in law’. This is proved deductively- (a priori) by definition- mother in law MEANS the mother of one's husband or wife. But the latter part of the statement ‘all bachelors are happy’ would not be proven that way at all, you would have to examine (inductively) bachelors and determine if they are all happy. And so this would be proved from what follows from the evidence of a bunch of happy bachelors.

 If someone told you ‘all roses are flowers that are red’, you could know deductively (a priori) that roses are indeed flowers by definition and independent of experience but whether or not they are all red would only be true if you went and looked at or experienced them all (thus a posteriori). What if someone said ‘you can only know that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line if you go out into nature and conduct tedious measurements’. This will cause us to ask whether the statement ‘the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line’ is the sort of thing that is deductive in essence or is it inductive in essence? If we think about the nature of the statement itself it would be true by definition- because by definition the shortest distance between 2 points is the straightest line possible. I don’t need to go out into the world and conduct numerous experiments measuring this to see whether it is true or false. The nature of the statement is how we know what sort of evidence is required to prove it. Likewise, if someone told me they saw a red car that was also a black truck at the same time, I could disregard this as nonsense without conducting experiments to see whether it is possible. If something is red then it isn’t black and if it is a car then it is not a truck by definition. I can know this apart from experience or statistics. The nature of the statement determines what evidence is relevant. Statements that are related in essence can only possibly be contradictory where things that are not essentially related cannot possibly contradict. For example, ‘He can’t own a car because he is the quarterback’. Owning a car is not contradictory to playing football; they are in essence 2 unrelated ideas. Neither does ‘the number 7 tastes like strawberries’ make sense because a number is an idea and ideas are not experienced physically; only instances of the ideas are.

 This wouldn’t mean that you prove things by defining them as true, rather the nature of the statement in question would determine what method would be necessary to prove it. If I said ‘the earth is a sphere and thus not flat- because the earth means the spherical planet 3^rd from the sun’. This isn’t evidence that the earth is not flat because the shape of the earth is not a self-evident truth (axiomatic). The shape of the earth is known by experience (apart from God telling us- i.e. revelation knowledge). This would be the nature of the evidence that it would demand- empirical. Where ‘a sphere is round in 3 dimensions’ would be known by definition and apart from experiments in a lab, it doesn’t call for that sort of proof.

 Now, you find yourself watching a news anchor report that ‘the president signed into law an increase in the minimum wage rate’. We tend to believe these sorts of reports because multiple independent news sources tell us this (2 or 3 witnesses- thus probability) and this would be something easy to disprove for reporters- for example, they might acquire the bill and read it (unlike Congress which sometimes pass bills to see what’s in them)! This report would be a posteriori in nature and the evidence for it would carry a varying degree of probable certainty. Then the ‘objective’ host will bring in different guests with conflicting points of view on whether this is moral and helpful or immoral and intrusive. They will usually cite various statistics to prove their points. The proponent will explain the moral imperative to force a business to pay a living wage, which at first hearing sounds like the right thing to do. If it helps the poor worker (Ex.23:3, Lv.19:15) then it must be right. We will not debate the morality of this here, but ask yourself- ‘If the minimum wage rate was $1000 an hour what would happen to businesses?’ It doesn’t seem necessary to conduct experiments along these lines for it appears rather self-evident that this would generate unemployment and bankruptcy (besides appearing tyrannical of a government to enforce this). Likewise the idea ‘Socialism cannot work because prices are determined through free market exchanges’ (Ludwig von Mises). You could determine deductively that if prices cannot be determined then economic calculations cannot be conducted and businesses will be inefficient and wasteful and there will be shortages. This is what we actually see in the real world as well, but you could know that apart from the experience.

 Here are some helpful videos to clarify these distinctions on our forms of reasoning-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NECNCL5aQTI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZtQXteAE-w

 Notice also about a priori vs a posteriori knowledge, is that the former is deductively certain where the latter generates greater or lesser degrees of probability. We know ‘2+2=4’ to be a necessary truth because it cannot be otherwise; it is deductively certain. 2+2 doesn’t happen to equal 4 in the way that my cat happened to be in the chair. Whereas ‘those 4 rocks are heavy’ is only probably true, we’ll have to go try and pick them up to see. It might happen that they are pumice rocks or fake. We realize that we are speaking in terms of what is necessarily true and deductively certain in distinction to what is a contingent truth that could be otherwise and is known with probability or inductive certainty. We wouldn’t say ‘it is very likely that 2+2 will =4 the next time I add them together, because they always seemed to in the past’. Nor would we say ‘2 rocks and 2 rocks are 4 rocks and therefore those 4 rocks are too heavy to lift’; it doesn’t follow. We would be mixing unrelated evidences, namely for necessary truths or contingent truths. Also being a necessary truth means that it is universally true in all time and space, where a contingent truth could be otherwise. My cat might be laying on the porch and not the chair, but 2+2=4 is necessarily true on my porch or on the moon.  

  So when listening to people telling you what to believe in the news, ask ‘Is this truth self evident’? ‘Is this a necessary truth?’ If not, then what sorts of empirical evidences are supporting this claim? And foremost how does what you are being asked to believe comport with what the bible teaches? Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? (Prv.22:20-1) The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Prv.1:7) The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Prv.9:10) We should renew our minds by the word of God and not just ‘the news’. I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. (Hos.8:12) Don’t consider the bible as teaching strange things, consider the ideas and opinions of a wicked generation as strange.

 Prayerfully this will be an encouragement to believe the word of God, and bring our thoughts into captivity by a disciplined heart and mind being rational and biblical, not emotionally controlled and irrational. Let us love God with our minds and reason together.