Posted by Nathan Richardson
Philosophy can be divided into several branches that address different issues, such as metaphysics (“What is real?”) or axiology (“What is good?”). One of those branches is epistemology. According to Gerald Lund, “Epistemology is the study of how we know what is real or true.”1 Part of epistemology involves categorizing various systems people use to gain knowledge. For example, pragmatism “determines whether something works. The business world is often pragmatically oriented, focusing on whether a new product or marketing strategy actually produces the desired results. If it works, it is valid; if it doesn’t, it is rejected.”1
The introduction to a physical science textbook used at Brigham Young University spends a great deal of time on the various systems of acquiring knowledge we all use in order to understand the world around us. Specifically, it identifies and defines four sources of knowledge that we all use:
Authority: An accepted source of expert information or advice.
Intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; it involves immediate cognition. [Revelation is often classed under this heading.]
Reason: The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Sensory data: Knowledge obtained through the senses. [This is often called empiricism, and refers to the physical senses.]2
Science and Religion
The essay makes two points that I found notable. First, “Both science and religion use the four ways of knowing.” Those comparing science with religion will often give a token nod to religion by saying it relies on intuition. Then they will compare it to science, which, they say, uses the other three, implying that it is more trustworthy. But the introduction to this science textbook counters that assertion:
The scientific method … uses all four methods of learning. Authority is very important as evidenced by library shelves filled with technical papers and books. No scientist can start researching properly without first reading what others have learned from their experiments and studies. Intuition may be used in the choice of topics or basic ideas. Thus, in deciding which studies to pursue and how to pursue them, scientists are often guided by intuition and authority. Nonetheless, the scientific method of obtaining knowledge relies mostly on the other two ways of learning: reason and sensory data.2
I might add, intuition is used in proposing hypotheses which are later tested. One of the fundamental steps in the scientific method, the hypothesis, is largely intuitive.
While the essayist does not expand on how religion uses all four ways of knowing, a little thought reveals a few examples. Principally, the Lord reveals sacred, saving truths directly to our spirits (revelation; categorized under “intuition” in this taxonomy). We also try out the commandments He gives and see the results of obedience (sensory data). In areas that we have not received personal revelation, we go to the scriptures or Church leaders to see what truth has been revealed to others (authority). And in areas where only principles have been revealed, we apply them to our lives to determine what choice we should make in a unique situation (reason). The point is that both approaches use all four systems, so people shouldn’t imply that religion is based on fewer witnesses.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Second, according to the essay, each of the four sources of knowledge has both strengths and weakness; none of them can be used alone in every situation. I questioned this assertion at first, because so many prophets have affirmed the supremacy of revelation as the strongest source of pure knowledge. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith said, “Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten.”3 He also said,
When a man has the manifestation from the Holy Ghost, it leaves an indelible impression on his soul, one that is not easily erased. It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force. A manifestation of an angel, or even the Son of God himself, would impress the eye and mind, and eventually become dimmed, but the impressions of the Holy Ghost sink deeper into the soul and are more difficult to erase.4
The only weakness I could think of for personal revelation is that the Lord will not use it to tell us trivial things that we should figure out on our own, such as which brand of toothpaste to buy. But that is not a weakness of personal revelation, so much as a (possibly temporary) limitation the Lord had placed on its use. It left me wondering what weakness the essay referred to.
As it turns out, the weakness cited was that “intuitive events . . . may be difficult to describe to someone else. It is this privateness, this inaccessibility to public scrutiny, that is the weakness of intuitive knowledge.”2 In other words, the weakness of personal revelation is that it is personal. It is very hard to convey to someone else, since conveying knowledge usually requires words or showing or demonstrating something. Since revelation comes without any of that, it is more challenging to convey to others, whereas written articles (authority), logical proofs (reason), and photos or recordings (sensory data) are much more communicable.
I find this “weakness” to be simultaneously a wonderful strength. Revelation is not objective; it is subjective, which is the same as saying it is personal. Subjectivity is not a weakness; it is what makes spiritual experiences so wonderful and memorable. They are given “Spirit to spirit.” That they are hard to convey to others is only one more witness that they are worth receiving and following.
Notes
1. Gerald N. Lund, “Countering Korihor’s Philosophy,†Ensign, Jul. 1992, p. 16.
2. Physical Science Foundations, 2nd ed., BYU College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences.
3. Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:151.
4. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:48.
Nathan, respectfully, I think much of what you say breaks down rather quickly. For example, the “sensory” perception of trying out a commandment and “seeing the results of obedience” is more intuition, since I have to try to figure out what it means that I did or did not get the job, pay raise, etc. after I did or did not pay tithing, fast on Sunday, attend the temple, etc. Further, the “authority” from church leaders is just the intuition they received and you yourself commented about the difficulty of conveying your intuition. And, even your example of “reason” comes again from intuition of others communicated to us, that we must then try out. All of your methodologies seem like “intuition” to me.
Sensory would, to me, be something like “seeing the gold plates.”
Reasoning would “if the gold plates are real and tangible, then . . . ”
Authority would come from someone with credible experience including sensory and reasoning experience, hence Joseph Smith who “saw” the gold plates could speak from authority. However, authority is always subject to close examination to determine if the authority seems credible.
I’m surprised that you haven’t linked any of Blake Ostler’s books or articles from your site. One article in particular is very germane to this discussion. It is titled Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment.
Excellent article! Thanks a ton for the recommendation. I really enjoyed it, and added it to the list in Resources. Feel free to recommend others that you think we might enjoy.
I love how he believes true religious knowledge is gained from experience; and that these experiences change our interpretive framework, and therefore cannot just be explained away by our interpretive framework. I like his point that logic and reason must rest upon certain assumptions; and thus reason alone can never bring us to truth, because inferences will always rest on pre-rational premises. He also said, “All logic is ex post facto to prove what we already feel is true.” These are just a few of the many things I enjoyed about the article; I’ve written on a similar subject in “Odd Realities and Moral Imperatives,” “Don’t Apologize: Is Christian Apologetics Counter-intuitive?” and “Missiles and Revelation.” Nathan has written about it as well in “My Spiritual Nose” and “The Spiritual Laboratory.”
Ostler’s article has contributed some thoughts I will probably write more about in the future.
You may wish to link Blake’s web site, http://www.BlakeOstler.com as it lists all his books, articles, presentations, discussions, etc. I still haven’t read everything there, but I’m making progress.
Thanks for your comments, Andrew! I suspect we agree more than we disagree. And I may not have been totally clear in my writing—one of the risks of thinking out loud, I suppose. 🙂
Andrew Callahan: The “authority” from church leaders is just the intuition they received and you yourself commented about the difficulty of conveying your intuition.
All authority (as used in epistemology) is simply a reference to another source of knowledge. As quoted above, with the scientific method, “No scientist can start researching properly without first reading what others have learned from their experiments.” We wouldn’t say, “The ‘authority’ from an astronomer is just the empirical readings he took from his telescope, and since I haven’t taken the readings myself, they are unusable.” We use the astronomer’s data because he has access to instruments that I don’t. We use the prophets’ words because he has access to revelatory sources in a way or degree that we don’t.
The “sensory” perception of trying out a commandment and “seeing the results of obedience” is more intuition, since I have to try to figure out what it means that I did or did not get the job, pay raise, etc. after I did or did not pay tithing, fast on Sunday, attend the temple, etc.
Don’t we do the same in the scientific method? Interpreting results is a process all its own, trying to discern to which variables we attribute the outcome.
And, even your example of “reason” comes again from intuition of others communicated to us, that we must then try out.
Just as when a study of thirty American male subjects ages 30–40 draws a conclusion that I tentatively apply to my fifty British male patients ages 25–35. Reason tells me that, while no study comments on my exact situation, I can apply related studies to my specific situation.
All of your methodologies seem like “intuition” to me.
The scientific methodologies in my examples above seem largely based on “sensory data” to me, with the other three sources applied secondarily. That’s the point: science uses all four sources of knowledge, but emphasizes sensory data. Religion uses all four sources of knowledge, but emphasizes intuition.
Authority is always subject to close examination to determine if the authority seems credible.
That’s why we invite every individual to pray about the Book of Mormon, to get a witness for themselves that it’s true instead of relying solely on another’s words.