4. What is knowledge?

Epistemology- What can we know?

How will we know if this maker of mankind exists? Let's go one step back: How do we know anything? How can we be sure of the answer to any such question?

People may argue different ways of acquiring knowledge about the world, indeed even about knowing things. Philosophers throughout history have debated about what is true knowledge. This includes knowledge about whether a creator exists or not. For example someone may believe information that their parents or a highly respected person has told them; or they may have a feeling after going to a holy place of worship; or maybe a dream that has inspired them. However, none of these things produce certain knowledge- they can be disputed by others with a different view, feeling or dream- they are subjective.

There has also been a danger of irrational thinking which delves into speculation that leads to useless information whilst giving the illusion of knowledge. This is like when philosophers start to describe the qualities and characteristics of the unseen creator. An example of such debates include debating how the all-loving all-powerful creator allows evil to exist. Such thinking creates confusion, doubt and skepticism in the knowledge of a creator.

So if we want to avoid any doubts in what we may think about let us ask the most basic of questions about the knowledge that we seek: Is there anything that you can definitely know? Without any errors or speculation or doubt in your information?

This has been studied amongst philosophers throughout time and is known as epistemology- the philosophy of knowledge. Some philosophers would argue that knowledge and truth are understood innately based on our unobserved thoughts without having to rely on the external world for truths; whereas others for instance may propose that we are born as blank slates and that knowledge is acquired through our senses and what we experience- the empirical view. There are many views that exist about how to gain knowledge of the truth.

But if knowledge and truth is based on our senses and experience then how can the unobservable God be a truth? On the other hand if we are going to consider our unobservable thoughts and reasoning of God to be true, can’t we and don’t we sometimes produce wrong ideas too? Someone may imagine many things about monsters under their bed for instance or God loving us all. How do we distinguish a wrong idea from a true correct idea? Should our knowledge then also be based on a feeling or intuition? That the idea of God feels in line with our existence? But aren’t feelings subjective which means that we all experience the universe differently- which means there is no universal truth that we can agree upon? 

 

 

So what will lead to true knowledge since we have seen that everyone may come out with opinions which differ from each other. How then do we distinguish between what is a fact from an opinion?

Lets first of all be clear about what we are talking about:

 

A fact is information which is true for everyone. Truth by its definition is what cannot be denied- no-one can disagree with it or claim that it is false. This is the description of any statement that is true. A truth therefore must be objective - verifiable by all and not subjective or personal to you or a group of people – that would be an opinion. Therefore emotions, dreams and feelings which are subjective and not universal for all cannot be a source of truth. One person may enter a church and pray and feel like he has an answer to the meaning of life and another individual may not have that feeling. Another person may have a dream that Buddha visited him, whereas another person may not.

 

So what can everyone agree on then?

Everyone can access the physical world outside of their bodies and it does not change from person to person. We have access to this external physical world through our five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell.

 But doesn’t everyone perceive the world differently? For example colour blindness is an example where someone may not see the distinction between certain colours. So what if your senses don’t work?

 There is a substance that we can all perceive with our senses – the reality around us. There are basic elements of it that anyone who senses it can agree to- for example if we take a book that exists- it will have a certain dimension- it takes up a certain amount of space in the universe. You may have people disagreeing over the colour due to a problem or difference in sight- but they will still accept that there is a book- or at least an item – if for instance there might be a problem with sight and cannot distinguish between the letters on the pages. The proof that they will accept it's existence is that they will try to avoid it if they saw you throw it at their face!

 

What if they don’t have that sense altogether? With the senses that do exist, then they are able to appreciate the universality of the reality around them that applies to all. So if I can't see the book- then I could feel it through touch. If it was a plate of hot food that I could not see- then I could smell it. We progress in life and are able to function to the extent that we appreciate the reality around us through our senses. If those senses do not work then the reality from our surroundings accessed –in order for the mind to make a judgement- will be restricted, resulting in faulty judgements of our world and then faulty actions. As an example- if I walk into my house and I did not sense (smell was not working due to a cold) that there is methane gas in the air due to a leak from the gas pipe – I may well assume that it was safe to light a cigarette- unfortunately causing an explosion and harming or ending my life.

 

What about sceptics who may doubt our reality?

Ultimately even the sceptics cannot deny their reality otherwise they would suffer too, and not last very long within their environment. So for example if a sceptic was to walk into their house and smell a gas leak, they may choose to philosophise that they can’t be sure if they really exist and if the gas really exists- however when it comes to the action– they would have to base their actions on that knowledge of their reality otherwise they would die or be at a serious loss in any explosion!

 

This is the rational method – the thinking based on the sensed reality-that allows the human to make correct judgements about his environment enabling him to manipulate and control it and thus to progress. This method of acquiring knowledge and forming judgements must therefore also be utilised when answering the most important questions to do with our lives: i.e. where did we come from; what will happen after death; and what therefore is the relationship of these with our life- our purpose of life?

 

This is rational knowledge: it is only limited to forming conclusions upon our sensed reality and you can be so sure about it that you bet your life on it all the time- everyone does. No one denies their reality otherwise they could not live! You would not be able to cross the road if you tried to philosophise that the car coming towards you is a dream!

 

 So rational knowledge produces facts and truths because it is based on the reality that we all sense. It cannot go beyond that. If you try to base any knowledge beyond the senses then it no longer is a fact and is now open to opinion and interpretation as it is subjective to you only. So for example if you are sitting at home and you hear a knock on the door- you know for certain that there is something behind that door that caused the knock – why? Because from reality you have sensed that doors do not have the ability to knock themselves. However it would be irrational to describe what is behind that door with certainty- is it a man, woman, boy, girl, a stone that was thrown, or a branch from a tree that fell? The only way to know is if you could open the door and check or if someone outside could tell you (if we could verify that they were not lying).

 

(This then leads us to another type of knowledge that we will come to after the next part: transmitted knowledge)

 

What about the fact that we don't know everything about the reality and our universe- that we find things out later on- how can we be so sure of what we know?

You can only form a judgement on what you can sense. Any thoughts or opinions based on what you can’t sense will always have elements of uncertainty! The rational and progressive behaviour is to base your actions on your reality not on what is outside of your reality. So taking our example of crossing the road, you would correctly stop crossing if you saw a car in your path, you would not base your actions on what you speculate about whether the driver sees you and if he would swerve out of the way- even if they are possibilities. If the reality changes then we can form a different judgement- but until the reality changes all we can be certain about is the reality that is available to us!