reprint from The Scholars Corner

Epistemology – The Study Of Knowledge…. OR  “How Do We Know That  We Know?

There have been philosophical discussions  in recent years that question the nature of reality. Since everything we think we know, we know through our experiences, and since all our sensory experiences are subjective (i.e., we interpret our feelings with our own minds), perhaps there is no real world outside of our own minds. The thought is that we can never really know the outside world or know if that world is an objectively real because we only have the experience of our senses and interpret these feelings with our mind. The movie The Matrix is an example of this idea that the outside world is just a projection of our thoughts.  In the case of  The Matrix, it is a world created through stimulation of the receptors in the brain but that world is an illusion.   Elon Musk said he thinks there’s a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation right now, meaning Musk is a believer in the hypothesis that a super intelligent artificial intelligence created the universe as we know it.

To illustrate the problem of perception verses reality, my first day in my college philosophy class the teacher put an apple on the table and asked us what it was. It was clearly a beautiful, red delicious apple, and we all said so.  He then picked up the apple and bounced it on the table.  It was in fact a rubber apple. What we saw with our eyes and interpreted with our mind was not the reality we thought it was. We did not “know” what that thing really was.

Now, the problem for our perception is that we based our conclusion on what we were seeing from past experiences. We were seeing a physical object, but we were deceived by our visual senses. But that is not the same thing as saying the red object was not there. And indeed, if we had held the object in our hands or tried to bite into it before making our declaration, we would have realized the ruse. 

The fact that we can be deceived in our senses or in our interpretation of our experiences does not mean that there is not an objective reality. It only means that our subjective experience may not always be a reliable instrument for knowing that objective world outside ourselves. 

A Common Sense Theory Of Knowledge. 

I assert that a coherent theory of knowledge actually requires the existence of an objectively real world outside ourselves, and that this world must exist in order for us to have any knowledge or even the ability to think at all. 

Philosophers like Immanuel Kant have suggested that the mind has innate categorizing concepts through which we order our sensory input. These preexisting categories are concepts of time and space, cause and effect, and in terms of morals, justice and fairness. While I would agree that most people do have these concepts as part of their rational thought, I would argue that these concepts are developmental and are the result of our interaction with the objective, outside world, and not innate. 

My wife was a child development major in college. When we had our first child, I could tell he was getting hungry or uncomfortable and needed a diaper change. I asked her why she waited until he cried before feeding him or changing his diaper. And she said, “if I don’t wait, he won’t learn that his voice has power.”  When we are born, we do not have a concept of self. It is only by our encounters with what is not us that we begin to distinguish ourselves from the world around us. I like to say that all knowledge is binary: A or not A.  When the infant’s foot encounters cold or warmth or resistance or pain, the body begins to recognize what we encounter can either cause us pleasure or pain. The mother’s breast brings milk to satisfy our hunger. The cry of discomfort causes a change of clothing and a wiping away of rash producing disgusting stuff. These experiences cause a “me” to recognize unconsciously that the world is not me. If I am A, they are not A. 

If you put a baby on its back and push its foot up against its body, the baby will instinctively push back.  We don’t like to be controlled.  My point is this:  it is only by our encounter with the outside world that we develop the ability to become self aware. In other words, the outside world must objectively exist or we could not become sentient. We would float as an amorphous mob in a sea of nothingness. It would be like living from birth in a sensory deprivation tank. Our concepts of time, space, and cause and effect are the direct results of our encounters with an external, objective world. They are developmental concepts we then use to order our subsequent experiences in the world.  Therefore, that objective world must exist for us to develop both consciousness and rational thought. 

Because of our experience of cause and effect in the natural world, like our foot being pushed and us pushing back, we can apply our experiences to understanding the way the world works. For example, consistently dropping a ball from a height verifies the effects of gravity. Only a fool would then decide that there is no such thing as cause and effect and step off a 15 story building and not expect to fall and die. The world, for the most part functions rationally, at least at the physical level. It can be argued that at the quantum level, the world is not rational, but we live and experience in the realm of the physical, and we can deduce from our experiences a rational explanation of the functions of the material world. 

Through investigation and experimentation, we can learn much about this world. But this type of knowledge, which John Calvin called “common grace,” cannot tell us anything about metaphysics or the world beyond nature. Common grace allows us to develop medicines and machines, computer programs, and study biology, chemistry, and mathematics. But it does not by itself prove anything about the underlying nature of reality… i.e., if there is a creator God, a heaven, a devil, or a hell. In other words, we cannot assess the idea of religion through reason alone. 

Uncommon Knowledge 

As I said before, we can be fooled by our senses and we can be deceived in our beliefs, especially about the supernatural or the nature of God. Many people sincerely believe things that are false. People may belief there is no god or creator, but they cannot prove it. It is impossible to argue the beliefs of one religion against another by recourse to common grace and rationalism alone. Because these beliefs exist in the realm of the supernatural, we have no method of experimentation that can prove one belief over another. We cannot use the scientific method to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ as it is not a repeatable experiment.  Likewise, one cannot rely on material experiment to prove that God does not exist. 

The idea of uncovering the underlying reality of the material world is called metaphysics. But because this hypothesized realm is not material, there is no way scientific experimentation can say anything bout such a world. The closest it can come is through a study of quantum mechanics, which is proving rather elusive and seems to defy all we can know through the laws of cause and effect. In other words, quantum level matter doesn’t correspond to our experiences in the natural world. 

The debate about the underlying nature of the universe I would put in the realm of legal discourse, using a preponderance of evidence and argue the case like a lawyer. But if the premises of the argument are not accepted by the other party, the arguments will be circular.   At this point, we move from philosophy to theology, since we are seeking to acquire supernatural knowledge about the unseen world.  Christians call this method of knowledge “revelation,” or information and truth given directly to the human mind by the Spirit of the Living God. God revealing himself in an unmediated fashion. 

We see an example of this when Peter declares Jesus to be the Messiah: 

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” – Matthew 16:15–17 (ESV)

Now it is clear that Peter interpreted this revelation through his learning of the scriptures, his cultural expectations, and his beliefs about who and what the Messiah was supposed to do, but while the revelation was real, his interpretation of what that meant was seriously flawed. He expected a warrior king like David who would drive out the Romans and set Israel free, not someone who was going to be crucified for the people’s sins and then be raised from the dead. There are many examples in the New and Old Testaments of people hearing from heaven by revelation of the Spirit of God. As well as true prophets, there were also false prophets and those who listened to evil spirits. They also had true experiences but they did not discern the source. 

So, we have a dilemma and no way of resolving such differences. The atheist assumes (but cannot prove) that there is no supernatural or underlying force in the universe, in spite of what Yoda says. From that assumption, he or she can lay out all sorts of reasons for that belief, but cannot appeal to natural experimentation to prove his or her belief.  In the same way, a believer in Buddha or Muhammed or Jesus can argue his case, but if the precepts of the argument are not accepted, the resulting disagreement will be the same. 

In other words, you cannot use natural knowledge to argue a case for the supernatural. Reason can lead to a path that ends in a cliff, but from there only faith can take you the rest of the way. Reason can point to the limits of its ability to understand, but the rest of the path is a journey of faith and encounter. 

With the caveat about the possibility of being deceived by false spirits, we can assume that if there is a God, we can also see the effects of evil around us in our world. There is a source of that evil and it appears to be resident in the human heart and can be provoked by many circumstances or selfish desires. Even atheists can agree to that. 

However, the claim of the Christian is that there is a God who was manifested in the life and person of Jesus, who was crucified and rose from the dead. And that when this God reveals himself to us, he breathes into us His Holy Spirit. This revelation is an encounter with the Creator of the Universe. And because it is a revealing of the One God’s true nature and essential self of Love, it is a revelation of ultimate truth. As the Creator of this natural and supernatural reality, He is Ultimate Truth. And when you experience Him, you are changed forever, because this experience is transcendent. It isn’t just a thought of the mind, but an experience in one’s entire being. It is an experience of the underlying reality of the entire universe in a Being who is pure love. 

If I could argue into this experience through reason, I would. But as I said above, it is not possible. You must seek it and ask to meet this Jesus, raised from the dead. Or at least genuinely ask him to prove himself to you that he is real.  

“You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord….” – Jeremiah 29:13–14 (ESV)

“God is love.” – 1 John 4:8 (ESV)