HOW
WE OBTAIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN TRUTHS
All
teaching and reasoning take certain truths for granted. What our reason tells us is valid for
all those truths and principles that we take for granted, we must assume and
admit that certain truths are true; or every attempt to construct a science of
any kind, or to arrive at any logical conclusion on a given subject, is a
waste if time. Since I must begin
these lectures by discussing moral government, I will present certain moral
truths, which we already know in our hearts, and therefore they will become
obvious to you when I state them so you can understand them. Let me mention a few psychological
facts. Theology is so closely
related to psychology that the successful study of theology without any
knowledge of psychology is impossible.
Every theological system and every theological opinion assumes that
something is true in psychology.
Theology is, largely, the science of the mind in its relationship to
moral law. Theology is the study or
rational inquiry into the nature of God and religious truths. It is a formalized collection of
opinions concerning God and man’s relationship to God. Theology is the truth about God. God is
a mind or spirit, and God creates all moral agents in His image. Theology is the doctrine of God. Theology comprehends His existence,
attributes, relationships, character, works, word, government (providential
and moral), and, of course, theology must embrace the facts of human nature and
the science of moral agency. All
theologians, even the strongest opponents of metaphysics do and must assume the
truth of some system of psychology and mental philosophy.
There
is a difference between the mind knowing the truth and knowing that it knows
it.
Let
me begin my discussion on how we obtain the knowledge of certain truths by
defining self‑consciousness.
Self‑consciousness
is the mind recognizing itself.
Self-consciousness is the mind noticing itself. Self-consciousness is the act of knowing
ourselves: our existence, attributes, acts, and states, with our free or
mandatory attributes that characterize those acts and states. I will talk a lot
about this later.
The
revelations of self‑consciousness:
Self‑consciousness
reveals to us the three primary faculties of our soul, which are our mind, our
will, and our emotions. Our mind is
the faculty of knowledge; our emotion is the faculty or susceptibility of
feeling; our will is the faculty that chooses and decides. It is the faculty of doing or
acting. All thinking, perceiving,
sensing, reasoning, opinionating, forming notions or ideas, belong to our
mind. Consciousness reveals the
various functions of our mind to us.
Consciousness also reveals to us the state of our will and emotions. Right now, we will only focus on the
functions of our mind, since we need to determine how our mind arrives at the
things it knows, that God gives us through our self‑consciousness.
Self‑consciousness
is one of the functions of our mind; and here I must say that a revelation in
our consciousness is knowledge.
Whatever our consciousness reveals to us, we know. the testimony of our consciousness is
infallible and conclusive on everything it testifies to.
Among
other functions of our mind, self‑consciousness reveals the three‑fold
fundamental distinction between our sense, our reason, and our
understanding.
The
first function of our mind is our sense.
Our
sense is the power that perceives sensation and brings that sensation within the
field of our consciousness.
Sensation is an impression made on our senses by some external object, or
some thought within our mind. Our
sense perceives the sensation, and then we become aware of this sensation that
we perceive. If the sensation is
from some object outside of our mind, such as sound or color, the perception of
it comes from our outer sense. If
it is from some thought, or mental exercise, the perception comes from our inner
sense. Please remember that the
testimony of our consciousness is conclusive for all the facts given by its
unequivocal testimony. We can’t
have any higher evidence of the existence of any sensation than the evidence our
consciousness gives to us.
Our
first impressions, thoughts, and knowledge, come from our senses. However, knowledge that only comes from
our senses is usually very limited.
The
next function of our mind is our reason
Self‑consciousness
also reveals our reason to us. Our
reason is the function of our mind that immediately recognizes or senses certain
truths that, from their nature, we cannot recognize by either our understanding
or our senses. The mathematical,
philosophical, and moral axioms and postulates are truths of reason. Our reason reveals to us laws and first
principles. Our reason reveals to
us what is abstract, what is necessary, what is absolute, and what is
infinite. Our reason reveals all
these things to us by directly beholding or sensing these things, and not by
persuasion or reasoning. The
different kinds of truths given by our reason become obvious to us. That is, our reason senses or directly
beholds these truths just as our sense senses or directly beholds a
sensation. We become aware of that
sensation when our sense gives to our consciousness a direct vision of that
sensation. Our reason gives to our
consciousness a direct vision of those truths that it recognizes. We can no more doubt the existence and
validity of these truths than we can doubt the existence of our own
sensations.
The
knowledge that comes from our sense and the knowledge that comes from our reason
is different. In the case where
knowledge comes from sense, our consciousness gives us the sensation. We may question whether our sensual
perception directly beholds the
object of that sensation, and so we may question whether the object really
exists and is an accurate example of our sensation. We know that the sensation exists, but
we may doubt the existence of what we believe to be the object and the cause of
our sensation. The question is,
does our sense immediately sense or behold the object of our sensation? The fact that we cannot always rely on
what we sense seems to show that what we sense is not always an immediate
beholding of the object of our sensation.
Sensation exists. This we
know. We know that our sensation
has a cause; but we may not accurately know the cause or object of our
sensation.
But,
our reason directly beholds the truths that it affirms. These truths are the objects that it
perceives. We don’t receive these
truths second hand. The truths that
our reason directly beholds are neither inferences nor persuasions. They are not opinions, nor conjectures,
nor beliefs, but direct knowledge.
The truths our reason presents to us becomes so clear to us that it is
impossible for us to doubt these truths.
Our reason simply looks at these truths openly, in the light of their own
evidence.
The
final function of our mind is our understanding
Our
understanding is the function of our mind that takes up, classifies, and
arranges the objects and truths that we perceive under laws of classification
and arrangement that our reason gives us, and, as a result, we form notions,
opinions, and theories. The
notions, opinions, and theories of our understanding may be wrong, but there can
be no error that our reason perceived something. The knowledge of our understanding so
often results from our reasoning, and falls so completely short of directly
beholding an object, that it is often knowledge only in a modified and
restricted sense.
Now,
our mind has other functions such as our imagination and our memory, but, I
don’t need to discuss these here.
What
I have said, I trust, prepares the way for saying that the truths of theology
are either 1) Truths that need proof or 2) Truths that don’t need proof.
1.
Truths that need proof.
All
truths that our mind does not directly perceive, when the evidence of that truth
is presented to us, are truths that need proof.
Every
truth that we must arrive at by reasoning or persuasion, every truth that we
obtain by any other way than by directly beholding, perceiving, sensing, or
recognizing that truth, is a truth that needs proof.
Truths
that need demonstration are truths that need proof. When truths that demonstration are truly
demonstrated to us, we will affirm that they are true. To get others to understand these truths
we must demonstrate these truths to them.
When we have accurately done this, they will see the truth that we
demonstrated. Often, our mind will
not receive and rest in a truth that must be demonstrated until that truth has
been demonstrated. Our mind will
often rest in that truth without realizing that the truth has been
demonstrated.
All
laws of knowledge are physical. The
laws of logic are inherent in every mind; but they develop differently in
different minds. If a truth, which
anyone can demonstrate, is barely announced and not demonstrated properly, our
mind feels unsatisfied and we will not rest be satisfied with that truth without
the demonstration that we feel is necessary. Therefore, it does little good to
dogmatize when we should reason, demonstrate, and explain. In situations where truths are not very
clear, or where truths need proof, religious teachers should understand and
comply with all of the logical conditions of knowledge and rational belief. Teachers tempt God when they merely
dogmatize when they should reason, explain, and prove. Too often, they throw the responsibility
of producing conviction and faith on the sovereignty of God. God convinces people and produces faith,
not by overthrowing the fixed laws of their mind, but by using them. Therefore, it is absurd and ridiculous
to dogmatize and assert, when what we really need to do is explain, illustrate,
and prove. To simply dogmatize and
assert, and then force God to make the people understand and believe, may be
convenient for us at the time, but if it is not death to our listeners, we
certainly can’t take any credit. We
must ask ourselves, what kind of truth is it? Should we illustrate or prove that
truth? If we need to prove that
truth, we have no right to merely state it as if it were true when we have not
proven that it is true. Let us
comply with the necessary conditions to make that truth real to others, and then
leave the event with God.
Truths
of divine revelation are also truths that need proof.
Every
truth that we know, God divinely reveals to us to some
degree, but here I am talking about truths that the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit reveals to us. The Bible
announces many self‑evident truths and reveals many truths that we need to
demonstrate. We may know many of
these truths without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. However, the truths I’m talking about
now rest completely on the testimony of God and they are truths of pure
inspiration. Some of these truths
are above reason in the sense that our reason can neither affirm nor deny
them.
Once
we know that God has stated a truth, our mind doesn’t need any more evidence
that it is true, because we know in our heart that, if God has stated something,
it must be true. If it wasn’t for
this truth, placed within us by God, we could not rest on the simple testimony
of God, but we would ask for evidence so we could believe God. God created our minds in such a way,
that we don’t need proof in order to receive God’s testimony. Once God has declared a fact or a truth,
this is all the evidence that we need.
Our
reason, naturally affirms the perfect honesty of God, and although the truth
that God announces may be a truth that our reason can neither affirm nor deny
it, yet, if God said it, our reason irresistibly knows that we should accept
what God said.
However,
we still must show or prove that we received those truths
by Divine inspiration. Once we
demonstrate this fact, all we have to do is understand them, and we
automatically know that we must believe them.
2. Truths that don’t need proof
Truths
that don’t need proof are 1) known or assumed truths of reason and 2) truths of
sense. In other words, they are
truths that need no proof because our reason or sense directly senses or beholds
them.
a. The known or assumed truths of reason
may be either 1) first truths or 2) self‑evident truths that are always true or
self‑evident truths that are not always true. First truths have the following
attributes.
(1)
First truths are absolute truths in the sense that our reason knows that they
must be true. Every event must have a cause. Space must be. It is impossible that space should not
exist, whether anything else exists or not. Time must exist, whether there are any
events to succeed each other in time or not. Thus, first truths are absolute.
(2)
First truths are universal. That is
there can be no exception to a first truth. Every event must have a cause. There can be no event without a
cause.
(3)
First truths are truths that all humanity knows. In other words, we not only know first
truths, but, if we are moral agents, we naturally and automatically know
them.
Everybody
knows that space and time exist, and must exist, and that every event has and
must have a cause. These truths and
similar truths, are known and assumed by every moral agent whether they have
ever heard these truths stated before or not. This characteristic distinguishes first
truths from self‑evident truths.
(4)
First truths are self‑evident. That
is, we see them directly in the light of their own evidence.
(5)
First truths are truths of our pure reason, and of course, they are truths that
everyone knows with such certainty that it is impossible for any person who is a
moral agent to deny, forget, or overlook them. Although we may deny first truths in
theory, we must always recognize them in practice.
No
moral agent, that has any sense at all, can deny, forget, or overlook the first
truths that time and space exist, and that every event must have a cause. Everyone knows first truths. They assume them. In everything we teach and in everything
we learn, we must take these first truths for granted. It is a waste of time to try to prove
them, because we naturally assume them as the foundation and condition of all
our reasoning.
Our
mind arrives at a knowledge of these truths by directly beholding them. All we have to do is see their logical
condition. As soon as our mind
conceives of an event, we will instantly assume that this event had a cause
whether we think about the assumption or not.
We
perceive or we know that we have a body.
This idea develops the first truth that space is and must exist.
When
we develop the idea of succession, the first truth, that time is and must be,
develops.
As
we proceed in this course on theology, we will notice many first truths, some of
which people have denied in theory.
Nevertheless, in practice, we can observe that these same people know
these truths as well as they know their own existence.
For
example, the law of cause and effect is not something that we usually think
about. Suppose the statement
that “every event must have a
cause” never popped into our mind, or suppose that we even deny this
statement. Still, the truth is
there in the form of absolute knowledge.
It is a natural assumption
or affirmation, and our mind has such a firm hold of this truth that we can’t
overlook, forget, or intelligently deny it. Every person naturally knows that every
event has a cause long before he can understand the words used to express it,
and no statement or evidence whatever can give us a firmer conviction of its
truth than we had from the very beginning.
This is true of all first truths.
We naturally assume first truths whether we think about them or not. And for the most part, we assume these
truths directly, without thinking about them. We assume first truths without being
clearly aware that we are assuming them.
For example, all day long, we act, judge, reason, and believe on the
assumption that every event must have a cause, and yet we never think about this
truth, nor do we think about the fact that we assume it until something calls
our attention to it. We always
assume first truths of reason, even though we seldom think about them. Everyone naturally knows first truths
even before we can understand the words that we must use to express them; and
although we may never hear a first truth expressed in a formal proposition, yet
our knowledge of first truths is as certain as our knowledge of our own
existence.
All
reasoning comes from assuming these truths. It is worthless to try to prove first
truths to a moral agent. A moral
agent must already know them, and if he does not, you can’t get him to
understand these truths unless you chronologically develop the idea of that
truth for him to receive, and there is no way anything else is needed, for once
someone becomes aware of a first truth, he will automatically assume it from
that time on. And, until these
truths develop in a person, he cannot be a moral agent.
You
cannot reason with anyone who calls into question the first truths of reason and
demands that you prove them. All
reasoning, every argument, must automatically assume first‑truths of reason as
certain, and admitted, and as the known condition of every logical deduction and
demonstration. You must assume, at
least one first truth as true, either directly or indirectly, in every
syllogism, in every argument, and in every demonstration.
In
our future investigations, we will have many opportunities to apply and
illustrate first truths of reason.
If, at any time, we come across a first truth, please remember that the
nature of the truth is the foundation of our argument.
To
deny the reality of first truths is to deny that our knowledge is valid. The only question we must settle is
this; is the truth in question a first truth that does not need any proof? Sane people know many truths, but they
either seldom think about them or deny them in theory.
b.
The second group of truths that need no proof are self‑evident truths that are
always true. Of these truths, I let
me say:
(1)
Like first truths, our pure reason and not our understanding, or our sense
tells us that they are true.
(2)
We directly behold or sense these truths just like we do with first truths, and
you cannot receive them by evidence or persuasion.
(3)
They are truths that we must declare as true as soon as we hear and understand
them. All sane people must
naturally admit and affirm these truths in the light of their own evidence, as
soon as they understand them. Some
moral agents don’t know these truths, although they become obvious once we
present these truths to them. All
of the mathematical axioms and the basic principles of every science are
self-evident truths.
(4)
Like first truths, these truths are universal in the sense that there is no
exception to them.
(5)
These truths are necessary truths.
That is, our reason tells us, not only that they are true, but that they
must be true. For example, the
abstract and the infinite are self-evident truths.
To
compel someone to believe a self-evident truth, all we need to do is state the
truth clearly and precisely so that they can easily see and understand that
truth. Once we do this, all
intelligent and reasonable people irresistibly accept the truth, whether their
heart is, or is not, honest enough to admit that it is true.
c.
A third group of truths that need no proof are truths of rational
intuition. Our own existence, our
personality, our personal identity, etc, are truths of rational intuition. We sense these truths by our
reason. We realize these truths are
self‑evident, and when they are revealed to our consciousness, these truths
become known to us without proof, and we cannot doubt them. Our senses develop these truths at
first, but these truths are not a result of our senses.
Suppose
we detect a sensation, all that we could logically conclude from feeling this
sensation is that some subject created this sensation, but, the fact that I
exist, and am the subject of this sensation, does not logically appear. Sensation first awakens our mind to
self‑consciousness. A sensation of
some kind first arouses our attention to the facts that we exist and that we
have a personal identity. We
directly behold and affirm these truths.
Our mind does not say, “I feel, or I think, and therefore I am,” for this
assumes that I am the subject of my feelings, and afterwards, I conclude that I
exist from the feeling or sensation.
d. A fourth group of truths that need no
proof are sensations. I have
already said that every sensation that we receive through our consciousness is
self‑evident to us. There may be
some doubt as to whether I assign my sensations to their real cause, but I
certainly can’t doubt hat the sensation is real. The testimony of our sense is valid for
anything it immediately beholds or senses because the sensation is real. However, our judgment may err because we
may assign our sensation to the wrong cause.
Brethren,
I must close now. My purpose was
only to draw your attention to these distinctions to try to eliminate all
irrelevant and preposterous discussions about the validity of first and
self‑evident truths. I must assume
that you possess some knowledge of psychology and of mental philosophy, and I
will let you to examine this subject more thoroughly at your convenience.
However,
I trust that I have said enough to prepare your minds so I can introduce you to
the great and fundamental truths that lie at the foundation of all our ideas of
morality and religion.
The
Bible is not, all by itself, strictly and properly a revelation to man. Properly speaking, it is rather a
history of revelations formerly made to certain men. To be a revelation to us, the Holy
Spirit must bring its truths within the field of our spiritual vision. This is the condition of our either
knowing or properly believing the truths of revelation. “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
but by the Holy Spirit.” (I Cor
12:3) “No man can come to me,
except the Father who has sent me, draws him”. (John 6:44) “They shall all be taught of God.” (Is 54:13) “The natural man receives not
the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned.” (I Cor 2:14)
“He that is spiritual [has the Spirit,] judges all things.” (I Cor 2:15)
However,
I cannot dwell on this subject any longer.
I will only say that those who question the divinity of Christ
demonstrate that the Holy Spirit has never revealed Christ to them. Those who view His divinity as a theory
or opinion are not benefited by it at all, for a saving Christ is not known to
any one except by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
To
these truths that we looked at today we could add several other truths, such as
probable truths, possible truths, etc.
But, I have given you only what you need for this course on
theology. And, I can’t stress
enough how important it is to classify these truths and determine the particular
class that a truth belong to so you can successfully possess that truth
yourself, or help others receive that truth. As followers of Christ, you cannot be
too deeply impressed with the importance of paying attention to this
classification. I am fully
convinced that much of the inefficiency of religious teachers is because they do
not sufficiently study and comply with the laws of knowledge and belief to carry
conviction to the minds of their hearers.
It’s like they’ve never considered the different classes of truths, and
how the mind comes possesses a knowledge or belief of them. As a result, they either spend time in
worse than useless efforts to prove first or self‑evident truths, or they expect
truths that need demonstration to be received and trusted in without
demonstration. They often make
little or no distinction between the different classes of truths, and seldom or
never call the attention of their hearers to this distinction. As a result, they confuse and often
confound their hearers by gross violations of all the laws of logic, knowledge,
and belief. I have often been
pained and even agonized at the failure of religious teachers concerning
this. Study to show yourselves
approved, workmen that need not be ashamed, and able to commend yourselves to
every man's conscience in the sight of God.
Our
next lecture will present the nature and attributes of moral law. We will then proceed in the light of the
known affirmations of our reason, in postulating the nature and the attributes
of moral law. Once we secure a firm
footing on these points, we will naturally be conducted by reason and revelation
to our ultimate conclusions.