Yes, but How Do We Know?

Early in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, the first of C.S. Lewis' Narnia books[1], the Pevensy children are led into a wood by a Robin. Edmond points out to Peter that this could be a trap of some sort. Peter is shaken by the though for a moment, but then concludes that "Robins are good birds in every story I ever read."

Edmond responds, "Yes, but how do we know?"

Edmond asked a crucial question for nearly every area of life and especially faith in Christ. "How do we know?"

There is a widespread assumption in the modern world that we cannot know anything. Many of us reserve the word "know" for that which cannot be doubted. Or possibly with that which can be proved with out question. The problem with this is that nothing falls into either of those categories. There are two reasons for this. First, we seem to have an infinite ability to doubt. Doubting is not hinged upon the thing we doubt, but upon our own decision to doubt it. We can doubt anything. In the story of Lazarus and the rich man found in Luke 16, Jesus indicated that people would not believe even if someone rose from the dead.

The other problem with this is that human beings do not have absolute knowledge. That is reserved for God.

Interestingly the Bible does not share these doubts about human knowledge. Again and again the Bible asserts that, "We know" certain crucial truths. There are clearly some things that the Bible says we can know.

While I admit that human knowledge is not absolute, I believe there are things of which we can reasonably be sure. In fact, I believe that it is critical to question our doubts. Many of our doubts are themselves unreasonable. A host of philosophical and theological errors have risen from the conviction that we cannot be certain about anything.

In the Narnia story, Edmond was not even being honest with himself about the reason for his doubts. If you remember the story, you will know that Edmond had already joined the side of the White Witch. He was already trying to figure out how to get his brother and sisters to the witch's house. He was not really thinking the Robin might be on the side of evil, he was fearfully suspicious that it was not. That is not unlike some of the doubts that plague us. We would do better if we would question them.

I have several questions that I think are worth asking in relation to thinking knowledge and faith. "What do I know, and how do I know it?" "What do I think, and why do I think it?" And "What do I believe and why do I believe it?" These questions help me keep a solid grip on what I think, know and believe.

The question, "How do we know?" is at the heart of this matter. I propose that there are only five sources of human knowledge. We have instinctual, experiential or sensory, informational, logical and spiritual knowledge.

INSTINCTIVE KNOWLEDGE

Most of us think lower animals have instinct but humans have none. I recognize that animals have instinctive knowledge that humans do not have. But we do have some instinctual knowledge. You do not have to teach a baby to swallow. The child is born with that knowledge, even though he has never done it. There is a debate about whether a child learns to smile and frown from adults around him. But I believe smiling and frowning can be shown to fall into the category of instinctual knowledge. A baby frowns with his first wailing displeasure in the world. And an infant seems to know that smiles around him are friendly.

I also suspect certain moral principles are innate in humans, despite modern debate over this question. I believe every human knows instinctively that some things are wrong and some things are right. We are born with a conscience. And what we believe about right and wrong is more uniform from culture to culture than many people suppose or will admit.

What about awareness of the existence of God? This is certainly more than instinctual, but could it be partially inborn? Only a tiny percentage of humans disbelieve in the existence of a supernatural god. And it is often obvious that many of those who do not believe are prejudiced by anger or rebellion against God or religion. They often admit to throwing off what may have been natural for them at an earlier age.

SENSORY AND EXPERIENCIAL KNOWLEDGE

We also have sensory or experiential knowledge. Possibly my earliest memory came from crawling into a Red Ant bed at the end of our dirt driveway. My mother came running to my screams and I learned by experience to avoid ant beds.

The information that we gather from our five senses come together to produce complex knowledge. As I sit here at the keyboard I can see a desk in front of me covered with books, a computer and other familiar clutter. With my hand I thump the surface. The instant I see my hand encounter the desk, I feel the impact on my fingers and hear the sound of my hand striking the object. I can even tell that the desk is made of metal rather than wood by the particular sound in my ears. And if you were in the room with me you would have shared similar sensory information. I am still capable of doubting that there is a desk in front of me, but it would not be reasonable doubt. I do not have ultimate knowledge, but I can reasonably know I am sitting at a desk.

Sensory understanding includes learning how to type or hold a pen, how to hold and throw a baseball, how to recognize a friend, appreciate a painting or sing a tune. These may incorporate other means of learning, but they are fundamentally sensory. To a great extent language learning is sensory. We learn language from sensory encounters with other people around us.

There is an old story of a king who wanted to know what language a child would speak if he were not exposed to the language of his parents and others around him. So he ordered that several children be separated from all direct human contact from their birth. But the king was never able to find out what language they would speak because all the children died.

INFORMATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

We hold things as knowledge because we were told them or have heard something on the news. This may be the most questionable of the sources of knowledge. Especially in graduate school, I always wanted to know why something was said to be true. I remember embarrassing a professor because I asked him why a certain ancient biblical event was dated in a certain period. He had evidently accepted it from his teachers without questioning the point. What we are told may always be doubtful, but at least, this is a hypothetical source of knowledge. And we do depend on information expressed to us by others for much of what we live by.

And in fact, as humans we would never reach adulthood if we were not capable or willing to learn certain information taught by our parents and others.

LOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

We are also capable of obtaining knowledge from our reasoning. This knowledge is not absolute either. But many of the weaknesses of my reasoning can be tested simply by asking another person or several others to follow my logic step by step like a mathematical equation. And we are pretty good at seeing and correcting flaws in our logic. If I say, "Everyone from Seattle is smart. And since you are smart you must be from Seattle," you might laugh at me. The fact that we easily recognize classic logical fallacies testifies to the strength of logic done correctly.

Of course logical knowledge cannot stand on its own. It must begin from some other certainty. If I am not sure of anything, I will never be able to start the logical process. Such primary certainty is what Descartes was searching for when he concluded, "I think, therefore I am." He wanted the new science of mathematical physics to rest upon a solid foundation. He wanted a starting point that could not be doubted. As he thought about this, it occurred to him that he had to exist to doubt. And he expanded doubting to other kinds of thinking. But many of those who followed him could not agree with the impossibility of doubting that he was really thinking or even his existence. However, as I have said, these are not reasonable doubts. There are starting places of assurance that we can reason from and come to logical knowledge.

SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE

Finally, we have spiritual knowledge. There are things that we know because God's Spirit speaks to our hearts. This may to some extent be a better explanation for some of our moral sense. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. It may be that all people feel guilty because God is speaking to them drawing them to repent and turn to Him.

A number of things fall into this category. I trust the Bible as absolute revelation. I can give arguments for this, but my arguments are not my reasons for believing the Bible. I believe it to be true for the same reason that I believe in God. When I heard this truth expressed by others and by the Bible itself, I knew in my soul that it was true.

This is of course problematic because the Bible deals with ultimate things that are beyond my grasp. But I come to it with a humility that says, the truth of this book has authority over me. If I cannot understand something in it, the problem is with me not with the word of God but with my limits.

Now, I get excited when I come to something that I need to ponder over in scripture. I know God is preparing to expand my spiritual understanding as I pray over the passage and wrestle with it in my mind.

The only way we can gain spiritual knowledge is by God speaking to our hearts. This is even true as we study and wrestle with issues. God must speak for us to understand.

This tells me something about how other people can come to know God. I do not believe I will be able to bulldoze people with powerful arguments that will persuade them to come to Christ. I do believe I can use apologetics to help people think and open them to respond to God as He speaks to them. I must trust God to speak and respect people enough to wait for them to respond to Him. Only as God draws them can people come to know God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This is the first book as Lewis intended them to be read. I am aware that there are Philistines who go against Lewis' preference and number the Chronicles of Narnia chronologically.