Testimony as the Basis of Certainty
deeper, in the depths of the soul, in the heart. They are part of man himself; they are, as it were, part of his essence; they are him, as he was born, raised and molded in a particular environment. J. G.
Fichte (1762-1814) said that the philosophy a man chooses determines what kind of man he will be. The shape of one's thought is often nothing more than the history of his heart.
Testimony as the Basis of Certainty This certainty, already moral in the wider sense of the word, can better be called the certainty of faith. But how does it originate? Does a man sit down and, reflecting on his moral nature, postulate some abstract dogmas? Of course not. Normally certainty of faith is born in childhood, when one's consciousness through faith adopts the moral and religious concepts recognized as authoritative by a specific community. A child then identifies its ultimate well-being with these concepts.
This certainty of faith differs in two respects from that derived from observation and thought. Viewed objectively, the latter appears stronger. Scientific certainty rests on grounds valid for all rational beings; its dependability can be demonstrated to any creature endowed with reason. The genuine results of science have a power to compel our reason. Anyone who isn't convinced by scientific proof casts doubts on his sanity.
This is not the case, however, with certainty in religion or ethics. Just as faith cannot be undermined by scientific argument, it cannot be convincingly established by it. It always rests on revelation, authority, a divine word, whether true or presumed, and is therefore always only a fruit of faith, a faith that—for whatever reason— recognizes this authority and bows before it in obedience. In this
respect scientific certainty is actually more universal and stronger than the certainty acquired through faith.
Nevertheless, the kind of certainty that is valid and appropriate in science is wholly inadequate in religion. Scientific certainty, no matter how strong and fixed, always remains based on human argument and can, therefore, always be overturned by further and better investigation. Such a doubtful, fallible certainty is insufficient in the area of religion. Here we need an infallible, divine certainty, one that transcends all human doubt and can never let us down. We can count on it for time and eternity. Besides, scientific certainty transferred to the domain of religion would make religion a matter of reason. This would demand a level of intellectual development possessed by only a few. It would make us subject to a scientific hierarchy in our most personal concerns—a hierarchy that would exceed pre-Reformation Rome in intolerance and tyranny. Freedom of conscience would cease to exist.
Such scientific certainty imported into spiritual life would ultimately produce the opposite of what religion by nature and by everyone's conviction ought [to be. Religion is in the first place faith: that is, hufmility, trust, dependence, obedience, simplicity and childlikeness.
But in religion, scientific certainty would engender pride instead of humility, intellectualism instead of simplicity of heart, and selfelevation instead of childlikeness. Knowledge puffs up but love edifies. Therefore we should not complain but be grateful that besides the scientific, there is another form of certainty, namely, the certainty of faith, which does not depend on fallible human insight but on unshakable divine authority.
If everyone accepted such divine authority in religion and there could be no doubt about where and how it was to be found, then no one could reject as unreliable and uncertain the knowledge acquired by faith from such an infallible testimony. Certainly no one objects that a large part of our knowledge rests upon the testimony of others and can, therefore, only be obtained by way of faith. Faith can
be conceived of in an even broader sense so that it includes our trust in the testimony of our own consciousness. Then the assumptions and principles of science as a whole and of the particular sciences can have certainty for us only on the basis of faith. That our sense perception is reliable, that the outside world has an objective existence, that the laws of thought correspond with those of being and that the so-called axioms are the firm foundation for all knowledge—these and many other postulates cannot be proven but are established by the immediate testimony of our consciousness prior to all proof. Anyone who refuses to proceed on this basis blocks his own way to the truth and falls victim to doubt.
But also in the narrower and truer sense of the word, faith as trust in another's testimony assumes an important role in science. Every man, even the most learned, is limited in his gifts and energies, in time and place. What he can investigate freely and independently for himself makes up only a tiny part of the boundless domain of science. He owes by far the largest part of his knowledge to the investigation of others, and he accepts their testimony on trust as being true. Even more significantly, beside the natural sciences, which are built on observation, there is the science of history, which has no choice but to build on testimonies regarding the past.
Although they remain subject to criticism, these testimonies always require a large degree of trust on the historian's part. Anyone who demands mathematical or experimental proof in history is forced to challenge its scientific nature and will never achieve any degree of certainty.
There is no science without personal trust and faith in the testimony of others. Therefore, just because religion and theology don't rest on personal observation but on divine testimony and can only be established for us by faith, this does not in itself prove anything about their truth. Why should the knowledge we gain from the testimony of others be of less value than that gained from our own investigation? The same limitations that plague others also expose us
to all kinds of mistakes and errors. Everything depends on whether the persons on whose testimony we rely are trustworthy and dependable. If so, then the knowledge we gain on their authority may possess more truth than what we gain from our own fallible observation.
Since in religion not a fallible human being but God Himself steps forward as a witness, then from this point of view there is no science more certain of its subject matter than theology. Its basis and strength consists in the Deus dixit, so says the Lord. What human authority can be compared to that of the Almighty? And on whose word can man rely more fully with mind and heart, in suffering and death, for time and eternity, than the testimony of Him who is
Himself the truth?
Given the existence of a divine authority, the problem in religion is not that it deserves our faith and trust. Everyone would concede this in the abstract. The problem comes as soon as we ask where this divine authority is to be found and how it may be recognized, for then mankind becomes endlessly divided. In the history of mankind numerous religions have appeared alongside and after one another, each one claiming to be the truth. Even within the same religion, adherents are divided about the nature and authority, the content and scope of revelation. This may not, however, lead us to doubt whether truth can be found. For to so doubt would do violence to our rational and moral nature, which can never escape the impact of God's majesty. But it should instill in us a deep humility and an honest desire to seek the truth only where it may be found by a blinded, erring humanity.
The question regarding the certainty of faith, therefore, becomes two-fold. It can be addressed to the truth of the religion we ought to confess, or to our personal share in the salvation promised by that religion. There is a certainty that pertains to objective religious truth and a certainty that pertains to the subject's share in the benefits promised by that truth. The two kinds of certainty are doubtlessly