knowledge

If Christian theology is the study of the fundamental ideas of the Christian faith, then from where do these ideas come? Many within Protestantism have argued for the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience as sources for knowledge of God and the Christian faith. The fundamental question here is by what authority can we affirm or deny anything as a source of knowledge about God? In other words, what criteria do we use to establish criteria (i.e. sources) for knowledge of God? In asking this question it seems that we come to an epistemological question rather than a theological one: how do we know what we know?

Prior to post-modernity the answer to this question would have most certainly been grounded in some sort of foundational body of knowledge, whether actual or hypothetical. In other words we would be able to through our senses or mind logically reason our way to a criteria. Historically, Thomas Aquinas asserted that the existence of God was logical and practically self-evident, but most contemporary theologians would not make that same assertion. In absence of this foundation, some assert that our faith is the basis of our knowledge; I believe therefore I know. A sort of “Kierkegaardian leap of faith”, if I may be so bold as to use that phrase, although most likely not the same as something Kierkegaard would have argued for himself. On this basis it seems that many assert that we can know.

I myself remain unconvinced that we do not start our knowing with some sort of body of knowledge. Even the modern hermeneutical problem of individual “presuppositions” forming a “preunderstanding” through which we understand everything (thereby mitigating any idea of knowing truth since we all have different “preunderstandings”) seems to be simply a replacement of the Cartesian ideas and categories by which we gain knowledge (see Thomas Howe’s Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, page 205). In other words, we know because we have some “preunderstanding” that mediates our knowledge. Faith, then, it seems is not grounded in nothing, but in something. So we are unable to escape the problem of first principles or foundations for knowing.

As the reader is painfully aware, I have not come to any conclusions. Yet I do not walk away from the idea that I can know something and can know something about God. Why? In using the best rational logical ability in light of the evidence I am presented with, I am led to believe that God exists and the Bible is his word to humanity. These arguments are outside the scope of this article, but it is important to note that I believe that every person alive does exactly what I have done, whether intentionally or not. That is to say that we all use our minds and in light of the evidence we see we believe something and live accordingly. No one can do otherwise. Even the skeptic has done this, the skeptic has examined the evidence and chosen to believe that nothing can truly be known and they live accordingly.

So how can we know anything about God then? Well, not supposing to solve the epistemic and ontological questions, we know something about God because of the evidence we have at hand. In other words, through his creation and through his word.

What does anyone have to say that has not already been said in the arena of theology, philosophy, and life? Ecclesiastes tell us that there is nothing new under the sun. So why should we continue to write?

First, my experience has been that just because something has already been said, doesn’t mean that the people reading (or listening) haven’t heard it before. Second, it seems that just because something has been said, doesn’t mean that it has been understood. So, sometimes we need to say it again, in a different sounding way, so that the reader (or listener) can understand. Further, it seems that just because something has been said, doesn’t mean that it was correct. True, if everything has already been said then the truth has already been spoken to correct what was wrongly spoken. However, that doesn’t mean that the people listening have heard what is correct. In fact, many readers (or listeners) may be subscribing to a incorrect idea simply because they have not heard (point 1) or have not understood (point 2) what the truth is. So it seems that writing (and speaking) is necessary, even if the content has been said before.

The question of gaining knowledge about God is an ancient one. Is there a god? Can we know about him/her/it? How can we know about him/her/it? What is he/she/it like? All these and more are questions which people have sought to answer for years. One small wave of discussion in the ocean of conversation concerning this topic is the idea that shared experience of all humankind leads us to a knowledge of God. Is there a shared experience among all humans that gives us common ground upon which to stand? Is there something that we all have in common that links humanity and forms a foundation upon which we can build our knowledge of God?

Augustine seemed to argue that indeed there was such a common ground. This common ground is our shared experience of frustration with the world. Things ought not to be as they are. We cannot put our finger directly on it, but we know there is something missing. This is summed up with his famous quote, (speaking to God) “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Karl Barth, similarly ,points to conscience as that shared experience among all men which brings us to knowledge of the righteousness of God. He argues in the opening of his work The Word of God and The Word of Man that such knowledge cannot come through our reasoning alone, nor can it come by communication from one man to another, but instead it is found seated in the depths of man’s conscience. All men have the experience of conscience, thus it appears (at face value at least) that this experience is common among men and able to give us knowledge of God.

Yet Ludwig Feuerbach’s critique of such an idea of shared experience challenges well this notion. Is this idea of conscience, or frustration and longing for fulfillment simply human awareness of itself and nothing more? Has anyone really spoken about God, or was it simply a projection of our own thoughts and fears?

So does shared experience lead to any common ground upon which we can find knowledge of God? Is this the right starting point for knowledge of God, the wrong starting point, do we need a starting point or can we obtain a starting point? What do you think?