How Do We Know What We Know?

By Biblical Researcher Eli Kittim

A posteriori Vs A priori Knowledge

Epistemology is a philosophical branch that questions the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge. The possible sources of knowledge that could justify a belief are based on perception, memory, reason, and testimony.

Postmodern epistemology is generally skeptical of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from observed phenomena (i.e. empirical knowledge). Because this knowledge gradually changes and evolves over time, its so-called “facts” also change and are not therefore necessarily true. This would imply that scientific knowledge is not necessarily true and is therefore incapable of informing us about reality as it truly is!

The only necessary “truths” appear to be contained in what is known as “a priori” knowledge, which is derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions. Since the time of Immanuel Kant this knowledge has been understood as being acquired independently of any particular experiences. Thus, logical and mathematical propositions fall under this category.

If you think about it, science cannot prove the existence of the external world independently of our perceptions or faculties. Kant was one of the first thinkers to suggest the idea of the philosophical gaze turned inward upon the self rather than focused on the external world per se. Rather than concentrating on observed phenomena, he zoomed in on the observer himself. Since then we have sought to find out what constitutes “necessary truth,” as well as its justification. In short, we have become skeptical of reality and have seriously questioned whether our perceptions of it can be trusted or not.

The Phenomenological Perspective of Experience

Along comes Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938), a German philosopher, who founded the school of Phenomenology, which studies the structures of experience and consciousness. Consciousness at the most fundamental level is simply the awareness of existence, both internal and external. In other words, phenomenology is primarily concerned with how consciousness perceives and relates to phenomena. A phenomenon is defined as an observable event. This is in contrast to a “noumenon,” which, according to Kant, cannot be directly observed. Thus, Husserl is interested in understanding not the external world as it really is but rather how an individual experiences or perceives it subjectively. Husserl influenced many notable 20th century thinkers, such as Gabriel Marcel, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, and many others!

What is more, Husserl acknowledged a type of gnosis that is far greater than any knowledge derived from the empirical world of the senses. He called it “authentic intuition,” denoting its capacity to grasp the essence of being (Manfred Frank. What is Neostructuralism? Trans. Sabine Wilke and Richard Gray. [Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1989], pp. 411-412)! Since “testimony” is acceptable as a source of knowledge in epistemology, the multiple and independent attestations of the born-again experience can be employed as potential sources of knowledge for a justified true belief in the Platonic sense. Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, would acknowledge its validity, given that the born-again experience (Jn 3.3) cannot be proven empirically but experienced existentially! The great mystics Rumi, Kabir, and John of the Cross would certainly concur with that statement. This is analogous to what Karl Jaspers, the German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher, calls a leap of faith, which is a belief in something outside the confines of reason.

From an interdisciplinary perspective, psychological testing can further confirm the existence of radical changes in the personality as a result of such experiences, not unlike those depicted in the Bible. For example, a murderer named Saul was said to be changed into a lover named Paul. Such cases abound in the “conversion-experience” literature. It seems to be a case where a new identity has replaced an older one (cf. Eph. 4.22-24). In the language of psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, it is the difference between the False self (i.e. pseudo self) and the True self (i.e. authentic self)! Thus, there are many indicators which suggest that the born-again experience is ipso facto a possible source of knowledge (cf. Eph. 2.5).

Why Then Are There Differences Between Various Belief Systems?

The contradictory doctrinal statements of various religious traditions do not invalidate the authenticity of the existential experience precisely because they do not accurately represent the born-again experience itself, but rather the afterthoughts that follow it. Human reason tries to make sense of its experiences, thereby leading to theological diversity. However, at the point of the “mysterium tremendum” itself the experience is ubiquitous. In other words, whether one is reared in a Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist culture is irrelevant because the authentic mystical experience will be the same. The person will primarily experience a new birth, a profound sense of peace, as well as an all - encompassing love. The attempt to categorize it within a specific cultural and spiritual milieu is a secondary process. As Hegel once wrote:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only

with the falling of the dusk.”

In other words, only after the experience is gone does philosophy arrive to try to understand it. In our case, theology arrives too late. It’s the same with the doctrinal variations of the different spiritual traditions!

The Absolute Being of philosophy (i.e. God) is often said to instill revelation upon humankind. There are various theological schools, such as pantheism, deism, theism, and the like, but most historians would agree that the various holy books are testaments of God’s alleged revelations (e.g. the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Torah, Quran, New Testament). However, the degree of revelation varies. It is important to note what Paul reveals in 1 Cor. 12.11:

“All these are the work of one and the same

Spirit, and he distributes them to each one,

just as he determines.”

In other words, not all get an equal share of the spiritual pie. Not all receive an equal portion of the truth. Each one gets a small amount of it. Some get more, others less. Thus, some know more, some less. This, then, explains the differences that exist between various belief systems without necessarily refuting their undergirding existential experiences per se! Put differently, they all believe in God, but which God is a question pertaining to different levels and degrees of revelation. So, given that belief systems are disseminated later, after the fact, doctrinal differences are irrelevant in refuting the initial born-again experience as a whole.

Conclusion

How are We Saved: Is it Simply by Belief Alone, or Do We Have to Go Out of Ourselves Ecstatically in Order to Make that Happen?

By Author Eli Kittim

What does the Bible say about salvation?

Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a child of God. The phrase “led by the Spirit” implies an actual “existential experience” (cf. Mt. 4.1), not mere belief (i.e. an idea presumed, but not known):

“For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Rom. 8.14).

Romans 8.9 makes it absolutely clear that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are not saved: https://biblehub.com/romans/8-9.htm

Jesus also makes it very clear in John 3.3 that you can not even see the kingdom of God, let alone be possessed by it, unless you are born again: https://biblehub.com/john/3-3.htm

That’s precisely why the Epistle to the Ephesians instructs us to put away the “old self” and to put on a new identity, namely, “the new self,” which is made in the image of God:

“You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (4.22-24 NRSV).

And, of course, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3.18) and truly believe “that Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10.9), especially in the midst of this existential crisis!

All these verses seem to indicate that the requirements for salvation involve considerable risk. Therefore, we must undergo some kind of personal existential experience (or a Dark night of the soul) in order for a transformation to take place. It is only in the midst of this mysterium tremendum, or existential dread, that salvation can take place. Thus, Philippians 2.12 poignantly says, “So work with fear and trembling to discover what it really means to be saved” (CEV): https://biblehub.com/philippians/2-12.htm

Ezekiel 36.26 drives home this spiritual idea of death and resurrection: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you” (cf. John 12.24)!

We must first die to our ego before we can reach out to God in faith

The language of the New Testament thus implies that we have to go out of ourselves in order to find God, as Thomas Merton used to say. For example, 2 Corinthians 5.13 suggests that Paul (and by implication each and every apostle) had lost his identity to gain Christ’s (cf. Gal. 2.20):

εἴτε γὰρ ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ ·

Translation: “If we are out of our mind, it is for God” (BSB): https://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/5-13.htm

So the question arises: Why is a Mad-Mind mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5.13, and what exactly is Paul trying to teach us about the process or the goal of Salvation? (cf. Acts 26.24).

Astoundingly, we find the exact same theme reiterated in Mark 3.21 where Jesus himself is said to be “out of his mind” (which may be an allusion to the biblical narrative known as the Temptation of Christ in which after being baptized Jesus was led by the Spirit into the Judaean Desert to be tempted by Satan): https://biblehub.com/mark/3-21.htm

The soteriological point of that existential experience is that Jesus must lose his identity so as to enter into the divine union with God (cf. Psalm 78.65). I’m by no means suggesting “Adoptionism,” the notion that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism. No! Not at all. All I’m saying is that Jesus becomes one of us by taking on human nature (and all the suffering that it entails) so that he, too, like us, is confined to the same spiritual process and requirement of transcending the “self.” As Søren Kierkegaard once wrote, “to have faith is precisely to lose one’s mind so as to win God” (The Sickness Unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening)!

Similarly, John of the Cross, the celebrated 16th century mystic, says that during “the night of sense” a spirit of dizziness overtakes the spiritual faculties of an individual. This energy overwhelms the mind and causes it to lose its identity. That’s probably what Isaiah 19.14 is all about: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/19-14.htm

Do you recall Acts 2.15 in which Peter had to explain to the crowd that “Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, “ but rather filled with the Holy Spirit?

A contemplative exegesis of Psalm 107.27-30 suggests this mystical journey through the Dark night of the soul:

“they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits' end. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed. Then they were glad because they had quiet, and he brought them to their desired haven.”

This is reminiscent of the path of the mania of love (or the madness sent from the gods) by which we arrive at divine knowledge, as exemplified in Plato’s works: Phaedrus and Symposium. Evagrios the Solitary (aka Evagrios Pontikos), a mystical monk from Pontus (ca. 345-399 ce), says something similar about the prayer of stillness, “which by virtue of the most intense love transports to the noetic realm the intellect that longs for wisdom” (The Philokalia: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware. Vol. 1. [London: Faber, 1983], p. 62).

The Beatitudes must be understood in the same exact context. They’re not a political manifesto that calls for social reform, nor are they about the materially poor or the physically hungry. Matthew 5.3 reads: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Notice that Matthew doesn’t say that they are poor in the sense that they lack sufficient money, but rather that they’re “poor in spirit,” as are those who enter the dark night of the soul! Similarly, the text unambiguously says: “those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (Mt. 5.6), not for food and drink! It would appear then that the Beatitudes are a guide to inner transformation or regeneration, what it means to be “born from above” (3.3) in the Johannine gospel. Only those who are poor in spirit (not in money), who have emptied themselves and have become as nothing can be blessed, meek, righteous, merciful, pure in heart, peaceful, and loving! Why? Because only those can be “born from above” and “be called children of God” (Mt. 5.9) and receive “the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5.10). Only those are worthy of salvation! No one else. That’s the point!

How then is the Dark night of the soul (which makes us poor in spirit) depicted in Scripture?

One illustration might come from Isaiah 6.5:

“Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

Elsewhere, Isaiah 50.10 reads:

“Who among you fears the Lord and obeys the voice of his servant, who walks in darkness and has no light, yet trusts in the name of the Lord and relies upon his God?”

It’s quite clear from Exodus 20.21 that we can only approach God in darkness:

“Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.”

So if this is in fact the cost of salvation, how do we obtain it?

Well, first we have to “estimate the cost”:

“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it?” (Lk. 14.28).

If you reply to this question in the affirmative, then the next question is a practical one, namely, how do we proceed?

Answer: Not through discursive thinking but rather through meditation. That’s because God can only be found in silence. Thought is a distraction. One form of Western contemplation that goes back to the desert fathers of Egypt is what is known as Centering Prayer. This is a popular Christian meditation that places a strong emphasis on interior silence. In a very advanced stage it leads to inner transformation and union with Christ! In other words, it leads to authentic salvation! And the litmus test of that experience is that you fall madly in love with Jesus Christ!

Allegorically speaking, Matthew 6.6 alludes to this prayer of stillness when it says:

“But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

The Hebrew Bible also says: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46.10; 62.5)!

Conclusion

Penciptaan yang Nyata Itu Ada di Fiksi

Semesta Mendukung Semua berawal dari kata-kata. Entah kau seorang Abrahamik yang percaya bahwa semesta berawal dari Logos dalam kalimat ‘Bereshit bara’ ‘elohim (davar). Dengan logos atau davar, semesta tercipta. Entah kau seorang penikmat filsafat yang memuja sophia (hikmat). Dengan sophia, akademia lahir dan menjadi cikal bakal segala macam pendidikan, kursus dan pelatihan yang ada di muka bumi…