Absolute Uncertainty: Culture, Belief and Knowing

By:  Robert L. White

            Western Civilization has had a long-standing love affair with absolutes. From the time of the writings of Aristotle, one of the major differences between western and eastern culture is the non-acceptance of uncertainty.  This passion for absolutes has lead to the strict writings of Thomas Aquinas on the one hand, and such brilliant exposé's as the works of Paul Tillich on the other. The one unifying theme present in these works is the search for black and white, for good and evil, thereby discovering the instructions for living. Since western culture has come so far down that road, is it possible that science as a whole, can steer us toward the acceptance of some measure of uncertainty, and what effect could this have upon our society?

            The questions that arise from any discussion of uncertainty are nearly limitless. The focus of this writing will be on three aspects of culture that are currently enmeshed in our concept of certainty. First, there is religion. What discussion of right and wrong, black and white would be complete without examining this most heated of topics?  Western Christianity stakes its very existence upon the premise of absolute good and evil.  Next, the whole of the western legal system is based upon the ability to draw some line between right and wrong. Wherever that line is, once it is discovered, to cross it for any reason is deemed wrong, and therefore illegal. Punishment is then assigned, with the concept of justice being the basis for action.  Lastly comes education. Perhaps the least discussed of the three in terms of certainty, education from the preschool years to the post-secondary level is steeped in absolutes. One has only to ask any college sophomore what the secret of getting through college is and the answer, for at least some classes will invariably include figuring out what the professor wants, and giving that back to him or her; nothing more, nothing less. All of these aspects of western culture are threatened by the uncertainty inherent in science. It follows that if there is some measure of uncertainty inherent in the universe; there can be no absolute certainty in any facet of the universe. This is not to say that some event cannot be a virtual certainty. Indeed, if it is a virtual certainty, then by definition, it is a finite probability. The probability may be an asymptote of 100%, but since the asymptote never reaches 100%, there always will exist the chance of the event not happening. This is perhaps the oldest argument made by man and has plagued all cultures since the dawn of civilization. Although this essay deals primarily with epistemology, it is with metaphysics that this essay begins.

            Questions of fundamental reality are the premises upon which all religions base their edicts. Just exactly what, if anything, is fundamentally real, and what does it mean to be fundamentally real?  To be fundamentally real is to be permanent, unchanging and therefore without beginning or end. It is that which is at the core of all matter. All creation myths begin with this fundamental thing regardless of the name that it is given. To the Hindu, it is Prakriti and Perusa, the fundamental object and subject. To the Christianity, this is often called God. This is why Christianity is so threatened by science. Christianity is monotheistic.  Either God is the fundamentally real object of the universe or all Christian doctrine extends from the whim of some sentient being. One of the great questions of western thought, addressed by Thomas Aquinas, is whether good is good because God desires it or God desires good because it is good in and of itself. The question is: which is fundamentally real?  However, the point is moot if allowance for uncertainty is made. In terms of monotheism, if, in the course of examining fundamental reality, uncertainty is allowed for, it follows that there can be no fundamentally real being. In other words, if there is anything that is fundamentally real, all other things must be the result of that thing, and are therefore knowable. On no account does this mean that everything is known, just knowable. Whether the fundamentally real thing is God or Kant's Moral (capitol M, as opposed to moral, meaning that moral which is culturally dependent) is immaterial. If there is uncertainty inherent in the universe then neither of those things can be fundamentally real because to be fundamentally real is to say that it is permanent and unchanging (therefore knowable).

            The second aspect of western culture dependent upon absolutes is law. As mentioned in class, definitions of truth vary widely. What really happened is often dependant upon what a group of people can be convinced happened. The reality of the events often has little to do with the outcome of blame assignment. Especially in America, where the basis of law is often downplayed, (we do not like to admit that the separation of church and state is an illusion) law is dependant upon there being some set of absolutes. Either some event happened or it did not. If it did, then justice demands retribution. If it did not, then justice demands freedom for the accused. The possibility that some event might have happened is not dealt with well by the American justice system.  The very best example of this dilemma lies within the issue of capitol punishment. If one allows for some measure of uncertainty in the facts of a case, how can the extraction of the ultimate price as punishment be justified? Let alone the fact that nearly a third of all people put to death in the United States in the last century have been later shown to be innocent of the crime for which they were punished. How can anyone's life be taken when it is understood that there will always be some uncertainty? The only way of compromise here is to define acceptable limits of uncertainty, understanding that there must always be some amount of it. When this is understood, there must be changes within the justice system in order for us to be honest with ourselves and still strive for consistency in our interactions with each other. The whole of the law exists as a social contract that we all enter into upon becoming citizens of any culture. In addition, when that social contract is based upon religious ideals which, as stated earlier, are based themselves upon the absolutes that are endangered by any acceptance of uncertainty, the whole of the system becomes unstable.

            Lastly, comes the issue of education. This perhaps is one that does not immediately come to mind when discussing issues of uncertainty, yet the concerns regarding knowledge and knowing have an obvious place in education. Throughout our childhood, western humans are taught the basic information which we need in order to be (ostensibly) well functioning members of society. One concern is the almost total lack of thinking done by school children of all ages in America. Youth in this country are taught "facts" throughout their trek through the system. They are very rarely called upon to do any active processing and applying of information. Tests in public schools mostly consist of factual recall, and the results of this trend are obvious (and frightening) to anyone involved with state testing today. Most children completely shy away from questions requiring application of concepts to new situations. Large portions of high school students vehemently refuse to do any kind of abstract thinking. They simply have never been required to do it before, and to force them into that kind of situation now is horrifying to them. They remain comfortable with the few "facts " they are required to memorize, and any deviation from the idea of certainty is completely foreign to them. Walk into any freshman high school science class and listen to the complaints one will receive upon any mention of the textbook being incorrect. To consider uncertainty is simply a situation for which we do not prepare our children.

            Here, most of all, do we need to begin dealing with uncertainty early. Since children are not taught to accept uncertainty they cannot handle it as young adults. Science is constantly moving forward into realms of new knowledge. The very basics of science require that old theories be replaced as the data changes. One of the reasons for American children having a lack of interest in science is that need for constant upgrading and revising of theories. Dealing with the inherent uncertainty in those theories (without which there would be no reason to upgrade them) is something that must be started early in life. Western education at this time is not doing a good job of preparing students for this type of dilemma. 

            In summary, there are three basic aspects of western civilization, which are in need of change if uncertainty is accepted as basic to the universe. First, Western Christianity must struggle with the age-old issue of absolutes. Therein lies the greatest challenge for the faithful. If science shows that there is a built in uncertainty to every aspect of nature, the question of omnipotence and omnipresence are moot. Secondly, the legal system faces the challenge of accepting uncertainty and defining limits to operate a system that requires black and white to be declared. Irreversible consequences become unthinkable as long as uncertainty remains. Finally, education faces yet another overhaul. The youth of the west must be trained to accept and attempt to comprehend uncertainty. Science, by its very premise forces us to look for and accept uncertainty. Science does not aim to prove anything; indeed, it cannot prove anything true, only false. The total lack of absolute truth in science is discouraging to some, yet the thinking remains. In the search for enlightenment, western civilization has begun to turn to science. Whether science will prove up to the task remains to be seen.