To be or not to be… that is the question

An introduction to the ‘ologies’

‘To be, or not to be, that is the question.’

Hamlet contemplating life and death: close, but perhaps not quite what I contemplated when, as a social sciences masters student, I was faced with the plethora of terms which all sounded the same, and all sounded entirely too lofty for me to grasp, never mind have a position on. Ontology, epistemology, axiology… and that’s not even to get started on all the -isms. Looking back now, this line is actually a great starting point to getting to grips with the most important of these terms, and a great memory aid to differentiate between them – though I bet Shakespeare didn’t have this particular use in mind when he penned it.

Each of the ‘ologies’ we’ll discuss here corresponds to a branch of philosophy, which can be extremely abstract, but they can be defined in brief as follows. Ontology, belief about being (‘to be or not to be’ has mostly ‘o’ vowels – ontology), epistemology, belief about knowing (‘that is the question’ – we ask questions to get knowledge), and axiology, belief about value or meaning (since Hamlet is considering the relative values of living or dying in his soliloquy, this completes the memory aid. You’re welcome – and Shakespeare, thank you). These are generally accepted to be the philosophical foundation of any research, and should be made explicit by all researchers, though many either do not explicitly address them (more on this later), or address only one.

However, even with all three addressed, something more fundamental is missing. The term ‘philosophy’ literally means ‘love of wisdom’, and God’s word tells us that both wisdom and knowledge are downstream of the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10)[1]. Therefore, everyone’s philosophical foundation, including in the social sciences, begins with either an acceptance or rejection of the triune God of Scripture. The terms ontology, epistemology, and axiology can only be useful to us after this foundation is acknowledged, and this directs all subsequent beliefs – about being, knowledge, value and everything else, either toward truth or away from it. And, as we shall see, only the Christian worldview actually ties all three together congruently. (Dr Ben Holloway’s series for Crosslands on Philosophy for Life will be helpful here too).

Ontology

The ontological positions available to the non-Christian – beliefs which deal with the nature of reality, and what it is to ‘be’ – ultimately merge into two categories; you can either be a realist or an anti-realist. That is, you can either believe things exist, or nothing does. You may be thinking how can a human being, who exists, believe that nothing really exists? You would be right to think that; it is impossible. Therefore in order to not sound completely ridiculous, researchers adopting irrealist perspectives do so only on certain things, providing half-truths, refusing to acknowledge reality so they can create, and control, their own – for example Judith Butler’s influential perspective that sex is not really real, but is a ‘social construction’. Still bound by God’s created reality, such assertions of truth do not make them so. And so, realist perspectives must take the trophy, correct? But to believe in one reality, that things exist outside of the mind leads on its own directly to a materialistic worldview – matter is all that exists. This has significant problems of its own, and is refuted by the Christian worldview which begins with the creator-creature distinction. It is the creator God who defines ‘being’, he is the great ‘I AM’. He is distinct from his creation, including the human creature, though we are made in his likeness. Therefore the reality of God and the reality of his creation both exist outside of the human creature.

Epistemology

In terms of epistemology, again two worldly perspectives exist. Either we can know things completely objectively, or only subjectively. Objective ‘positivist’ epistemologies state we can be completely objective, knowing absolutes. Subjective ‘constructivist’ epistemologies say everything is subjective. This accounts for the conflict within social sciences as to what really is ‘social science’. Those disciplines which identify more with natural science, and realist and objectivist philosophies (e.g., applied linguistics, psychology, economics) nearly always forgo explaining their underlying philosophies because they are considered given; their ontology and epistemology rests on objective fact, rationality, and reason – and these things are obvious, right? Whereas those which identify more with the humanities, and irrealist, subjectivist philosophies (e.g., anthropology, human geography, education) tend to dispute this and insist that a detailed explanation of the researcher’s philosophy must precede their research write-up to admit ‘biases’.

Who is right? Well, both and neither. The reason some researchers assume there is no need to define their philosophy is because we have set up man’s reason and rationality as an idol in and of itself. This has allowed people to falsely believe that objective fact can come from human thinking – or even only comes at the rejection of God. In truth, any one hoping to invoke objective fact within their research borrows from the Christian worldview whether this is acknowledged or not. This is because if there is no God, there is only that which is within reality. If there is only reality, then the only viewpoints we have are our own as human beings, and these are necessarily subjective. Objectivity by human beings alone is, by definition, an impossibility, since it is only ever one human being’s view and ideas against another’s, with no truly objective outside source. If, however, God exists, and we are created in his likeness, and has communicated with us in the person of Jesus Christ, then objectivity is possible, along with accurate and exact, though never comprehensive, observations of his creation.

The circumstance we find our culture in now, in which all is relative, there no ‘truth’ but only ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth’ – the culture in which one can simply become the opposite sex because one says so – is partly a reaction to the idea that objective fact is all there is, and that human reason and rationality alone can bring us there. Christians can identify with the social scientists who are telling us this is insufficient, because it is. But, their solution to the problem, that everything is subjective, is just as insufficient, and arguably more catastrophic in practice.

Axiology

The ontological and epistemological standpoints I was taught as a student were presented as equal in value. Selecting your own was supposedly an entirely neutral exercise, directed simply by the intention you had for your research. There was no discussion of axiology, and no consideration of the relative values of different standpoints, whether that was to do with their internal consistency or their value in the real world, including in terms of morality (this is a major omission, though in our culture driven by the fallacy of neutrality, it is unsurprising).

Taking morality first, both types of philosophy we have so far discussed lead directly to a moral relativism, which is to say, objective moral standards do not exist, and morality is constructed by groups of human beings; if child sacrifice is OK in a particular culture at a particular time, then it must be ‘moral’. It is straightforward to identify how this differs axiologically from a biblical view and in fact, without God it is impossible to contend logically that there is objective morality. God defines what is right and wrong, what is beautiful and ugly, the worth of human beings, the worth of his whole creation. Humans do not get to define these things, no matter how many of them get together and agree on it. Christians are more familiar with this kind of debate above the ontological and epistemological because the morality issue has more immediate consequences for the average person – God having bestowed on each of us a moral conscience[2]. However it remains a vital third aspect of research philosophy which gives discussion about being and knowing meaning.

So to tie things together, let us consider the internal consistencies of the standpoints we have described. The following table shows the possible viewpoints mentioned so far[3]. Can you spot the inconsistencies?

The first row shows the positivist view, with the glaring inconsistency that without an external Being there can be no objectivity. Constructivism seems more logical in its conclusion, though of course we know that anti-realists are not anti-realists about all of created reality, and so must still borrow a realist perspective at some point. This is not to mention the major problem with both that the only route to moral objectivity is a Christian view. Without God, we cannot logically have a reality in which more than the material is real, nor can we have any kind of objectivity, epistemological or moral. This is an essential truth; those who reject the triune God of scripture cannot be, and cannot do anything without him. Therefore, unconsciously, they must borrow from God and from belief in God in order to believe, and do, anything, including reject him. Paul assumes knowledge of God in order to reject him in Romans 1:23-25 when he states, ‘For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.’ Christians must become confident in proclaiming the truth that only we have a worldview which makes complete sense, and become familiar with why this is in comparison to other views.

Catch up on Philosophy for Life

References

[1]  They also come downstream of our ability to use language and logic, both of which we can do because we are made in the image of a communicative and ordered Creator (so when you see people divide these into different branches of philosophy, think twice, they precede rather than follow other branches).

[2] See our next blog post for more on the nature of human beings.

[3]  The eagle eyed among you will point out there could technically be a realist, subjectivist viewpoint and an irrealist, objectivist viewpoint. The former is critical realism – for those interested in how this attempts to bridge the realist/anti-realist gap, but is missing some fundamentals, see Christianity and Critical Realism – Andrew Wright 2014 (and future blog posts!). The latter is nonsense – nobody (so far) has tried to make the case that it is possible to disbelieve in reality but believe you can be objective about it.

[4]  For a quick overview of how we can know as Christians, see this helpful article https://thethink.institute/articles/the-biblical-worldview-part-3-what-is-true