EPISTEMOLOGY

THE PROBLEM OF KNOWLEDGE

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.
   The problem of knowledge may be stated as follows: How can we have trustworthy knowledge? Or, more specifically: What is the criterion and source of knowledge? From this statement of the problem there are two parts to the problem: the problem of the source of knowledge and the problem of criterion of knowledge.

   What is knowledge? Knowledge is justified or warranted belief. A belief is a statement or proposition that is held by a person or group of persons to be true. Belief is to be distinguished from faith which is the commitment and allegiance of a person to that which is of supreme importance and ultimate significance, that is, God. Knowledge is true belief - a group of statements that are not only held to be true but are true. This raises the problem of truth: what is truth? We will deal with this problem in depth in the next chapter but we shall presuppose that treatment as we here analyze the problem of knowledge. The problem of truth is part of the problem of knowledge since the criterion of truth is also the criterion of knowledge.

   This kind of knowledge, which is a knowledge about something, is called knowledge by description and it is to be distinguished from the knowledge that involves direct knowledge of the thing: knowledge by acquaintance. Thus there are two kinds of knowledge: knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. Epistemology and the problem of knowledge is concerned primarily with knowledge by description or propositional knowledge.

2. ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM.
   Historically there has been two solutions proposed to this problem: empiricism and rationalism.
   1. EMPIRICISM.
      Empiricism holds that the senses (sensations) are the ultimate criterion and the only source of knowledge. The mind contains no ideas - no innate ideas - which are not derived from the senses. The mind is a blank tablet at birth (tabla rasa) and any ideas that it later acquires comes through the five senses (seeing, hearing, touching, tasting and smelling). Empiricism is put forth primarily as a solution to the problem of the source of knowledge. Empiricism as a solution of the problem of the criterion of knowledge holds that experience (primarily sense experience) is the only criterion of our ideas corresponding to reality. That is, the senses give us the only means by which we can test whether our ideas are true or not. Thus empiricism would define truth as the correspondence of our ideas with reality or, more generally, the correspondence of our statements with reality.

      There are three main difficulties with empiricism:

      1. The senses contradict one another and are subject to delusions and deception. Consider the paradoxes of perception. For example, when a pencil is half immersed in a glass of water, the pencil appears to be bent at the point where it enters the water. Since the pencil is not actually bent the sense of sight is deceiving and it contradict the sense of touch which detects no bend at the point where pencil is seen to be bent. In addition when the senses contradict one another, they - the senses - can not tell us which sense is correct; an appeal to a criterion beyond the senses must be made in order to choose which is to be believed. Sensation as criterion of knowledge is inadequate.
      2. Sensation does not give us a knowledge of the real world. Since the senses contradict and deceive the mind concerning the object known, the real object must be other than what appears to our senses. The senses give us only a knowledge of what the world appears to be (appearance) but not what the world really is (reality). And since sensation does not give us direct knowledge of real world, this leads inevitably to skepticism concerning knowledge of the real world and/or of the knowing mind. By the senses direct knowledge of the real world or of the mind that receive the sensations is not possible. Hence there is no human knowledge of anything (see Hume). This is skepticism. But skepticism is self-contradictory. Skepticism asserts that it knows that there is no knowledge of anything. Therefore skepticism is not true since it contradicts itself. But since empiricism leads to skepticism, empiricism is false. Sensation as the only source of knowledge is also inadequate.
      3. Sensation does not give us knowledge of universals - general ideas. The senses gives us ideas of individual things (particulars) but not a knowledge of general ideas (universals). Since the sensations are not the source of general ideas, they cannot be the criterion of general knowledge. Again sensation as the only source and criterion of knowledge is inadequate.

   2. RATIONALISM.
      Rationalism holds that reason is the ultimate criterion of knowledge and that the rational is the only source of knowledge. Rationalism is put forth primarily as a solution to the problem of the criterion of knowledge. By reason is meant that which is universal and necessary: that which must be true everywhere. Since the law of non-contradiction is necessarily true everywhere, it is the basic principle of reason. Rationalism also appeals to the consistency or coherence of the system of propositions in order to establish their truth. A proposition is not true in itself but only as it belongs to a system of consistent or non-contradictory propositions. Thus rationalism defines truth as the coherence or consistency of a proposition with the whole system of truth. A proposition is true when it does not contradict this system of truth. Logic and mathematics are the highest embodiment of reason. Historically there has been two forms of rationalism:
      1. ancient (Greek) rationalism that saw reason to be objective (external and independent of the mind) and static and
      2. modern rationalism that sees reason to be subjective (internal and dependent on the mind) and dynamic.
      There are three main difficulties with rationalism (both ancient and modern):
      1. Reason is an empty criterion: it is a formal criterion without content. In attempting to answer the question: "what is most universal?" the formal character of the criterion becomes evident. The more universal the criterion the more abstract and empty of content does it become (See, for example, the concept of being). The process of abstraction empties the criterion of all content in order to become most universal. Hence, reason is a formal criterion, not a material criterion. This formal criterion, when taken as the only criterion of knowledge, leads inevitably to skepticism of knowledge of concrete and individual things. Also it does not give us any concrete facts; that is, reason is not a source of knowledge of concrete and individual things.

         There is another difficulty with reason as the criterion of knowledge. Reason appears not to be an universal criterion. Consider the paradoxes of reason and, for example, the paradox of the liar. This paradox was devised by Greek philosopher, Eubulides, in the sixth century B.C. In this paradox Epimenides, the Cretan, says, "All Cretans are liars." Now if the Cretan is telling the truth, he is lying; and if he he is lying, he is telling the truth. A simpler form of this paradox was known to the ancients as the pseudomenon. Is the speaker lying or telling the truth when he says, "I am lying."? If he is telling the truth, he is lying; and if he is lying, he is telling the truth. Thus some statements appear to be both true and false at the same time and same place. Reason as the criterion of knowledge appears to be limited and not universal.

      2. There is one more difficulty with reason as the criterion of knowledge. Reason is not a necessary criterion: the ultimate criterion of knowledge is chosen, not proved. Basic presuppositions like axioms and postulates cannot be proved or demonstrated; that is, they are not the necessary consequences of other statements. For then they would cease to be basic presuppositions and become theorems that must be proved. Any attempt to deny this non-necessary character of basic presuppositions either leads to an endless regress or to circular reasoning (assuming what is to be proved in order to prove it). Hence reason is not a necessary criterion of knowledge and itself cannot be established by reason. In order to establish reason as the criterion of knowledge an appeal beyond reason becomes necessary. In order to escape this difficulty the rationalist turns to intuition or to the so-called self-evident or innate truths of reason. These all involve the abandonment of reason, the univeral and necessary, as the criterion of knowledge.

   3. THE CONCLUSION OF ANALYSIS.
      Since both empiricism and rationalism leads to skepticism (each in it own way), there has arisen the following problem: what is the criterion of knowledge that does not lead to skepticism? In an attempt to avoid skepticism and the difficulties of both empiricism and rationalism, some philosophers have attempted a synthesis of reason and sense experience (Aristotle and Kant). But these attempted syntheses have always been another form of rationalism and hence have not answered the basic objection against rationalism: how is the truth of basic presuppositions established?

3. THE CLUE TO THE SOLUTION.
   
   1. Both empiricism and rationalism ignore the freedom of human choice in determining the criterion of knowledge. The criterion of knowledge is not rationally necessary nor empirically given; it is chosen. Both of these epistemologies allow no place for this choice.
   2. The choice of the criterion of knowledge leads to and involves the choice of the criterion of the real. Each epistemology makes an ontological assumption about what is ultimately real. Empiricism assumes the reality of the object that is known through the senses. Rationalism assumes the reality of the rational. Empiricism appeals to the reality of the object beyond the senses to establish the truth of the senses. Rationalism appeals to the reality of the rational, the universal and necessary, to establish the truth of reason. For both the criterion of knowledge involves an appeal to something that is assumed to be real. Both these epistemologies ground propositional truth in ontological truth; the truth of propositions are based on the reality of something that is the criterion of truth.
   This raises the question: what is real? This is the main problem of ontology. To answer this question an appeal must be made to a criterion of reality. The criterion of reality answers the question: what is real? Whatever is the criterion of reality is the Truth and the Truth is the criterion of reality; it is ultimate reality, the really real. Thus the problem of ontology raises and leads to the problem of ontological truth: what is the criterion of reality?

4. THE SOLUTION.
   
   1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOLUTION.
      In order to solve the problem of the criterion of propositional knowledge, the problem of ontological truth must be solved: what is the criteron of reality? And this solution must recognize the fundamental role of of human choice in knowledge.

      A careful analysis of human choice discloses that every act of decision involves three elements:
      (1) the agent making the choice, an "I" or a person,
      (2) the alternatives to be chosen between, and
      (3) a criterion by which the choice is to be made.
      This third element of every choice means that every choice involves a reference to something beyond the self making the choice. In other words, behind every human decision as what a person should do or think, there must be reason, a criterion of choice and ultimately to a supreme criterion. The choice of what statements or propositions are held to be true depends on the choice of this ultimate criterion. This observation raises the question: what is the ultimate criterion of choice?

      1. Negatively: Any ultimate criterion which denies or destroys the freedom of choice by which it is chosen can not be the true ultimate criterion of choice. Such an ultimate criterion is a false criterion. All false criteria imply and result in a denial, diminution and lost of the freedom of those who choose them.
      2. Positively: Only that ultimate criterion which maintains and guarantees the freedom of choice by which it is chosen can be the true ultimate criterion of choice. What ultimate criterion can guarantee and fulfill that freedom of choice?

   2. STATEMENT OF THE SOLUTION.
      Since an impersonal or non-personal reality (Nature or Reason) does not have this freedom, only another person who has the freedom of choice can be this ultimate criterion. But not only must this person have freedom of choice but he must be committed to the perservation of the freedom of the one who has chosen him, that is, he must act out of love, that is, for the good of the person loved, to perserve that person's freedom. And in order to be able to perserve that freedom, his freedom must be unlimited. This implies that he must also be the basis and ground of the rest of reality; that is, he must be ultimate reality and the criterion of reality. And since the Truth is the criterion of reality, that person will be the Truth. Thus the Truth is a person.

      And if we are to know this person, that is, who he is and that he exists, he must reveal himself. For the only way we can know another person is by what he says and does. But the initiative lies with the other person. If he chooses to remain silent and inactive, no knowledge can be had of him in addition to the fact that he is there. But the Bible claims that he has taken the initiative and has revealed himself in word and deed, and that the Bible is the record of that revelation. Who is this person that is the Truth? The Biblical answer is Jesus Christ. He said, "I am truth" (John 14:6). Jesus Christ is the Truth. For through Him God created all reality except Himself and He is the basis and ground of the rest of reality which God has created (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17). He is the criterion of the real, the Truth, because God has through Him determined by His sovereign creative choice what is real. And as such He is committed to the preservation and fulfillment of our freedom.
      "And you will know the truth and the truth will make you free...
      So if the Son make you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:32, 36)
      Thus He perserves the freedom of one who chooses Him as their ultimate criterion and as the Truth.

   3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SOLUTION.
      
      1. Negatively: Reason is not the ultimate criterion of knowledge. Neither are the senses. The object of the senses is not ultimate reality as assumed by Empiricism nor is the rational the real, that is, ultimate reality, as claimed by Rationalism.
      2. Positively: But since God created a real world to be perceived by our senses, the objects of the senses are real. Thus sensation can be used as a criteria of knowledge of the created world: sensation appealing to the reality of the object as its criterion. And since the rational is a function and expression of the will, reason can also be used as a criteria of knowledge: reason appealing to the universality and consistency of the propositions of knowledge as its criterion. Reason provides a formal criterion of knowledge and sensation provides a material criterion of knowledge of this world that God has created. Reason and sensation are not mutually exclusive but are complementary criteria of knowledge. But they are limited to knowledge of this world that God has created. If knowledge of God is to be had, it must be given by God Himself; that is, He must reveal Himself. And that He has done and this revelation of God is recorded in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. The culmination of that revelation is given in God sending His Son into this world and becoming a human being, Jesus. He is the way to and the source of knowledge of God the Father. This knowledge is recorded in the Scriptures and is systematized by the science of theology.