The theories on supposed “natural
revelation” maintain that man has an inbuilt cognizance (knowledge)
of God, which man then further cultivates. In other words, man is
born having knowledge of God. Other theories say that there is no
“natural revelation”, only a direct revelation on God’s part. This
is a dilemma that developed chiefly among Protestants and Roman
Catholics. A leading upholder of the theory that “natural
revelation” does not exist, was – and continues to be - in the West
: he is Karl Barth.
Like all other issues, this problem does not exist
within our Orthodox tradition and mentality. Before we start to talk
specifically about the patristic views – the views of Orthodox
tradition on the subject of knowing God - I would like to first
define the problem: what is cognizance. And we shall begin
by approaching the subject entirely objectively – let’s say, not as
theologians, but as ordinary thinking people, or as scientists, if
you wish.
What is cognizance (knowledge) ?
1. Cognizance of things
When we say that I “know” something, for
instance: the table, it means that I am behaving in the following
way: I am pointing out this table in order to relate it to my
person. Aristotle had introduced this basic principle, which became
familiar as the “this here” of Aristotle. When you point
towards something and you identify it, saying: this (thing) is ‘this
one” and not something else, you are in fact saying that you know (recognize) it. In other words, knowing always has
something to do with some kind of identification. From the
moment that the object’s identity is lost, then the knowledge
of it is also lost. If this table is not this table but
another one, then I don’t know it. To be unable to identify it
means “I cannot recognize it”. Consequently, the identity of an
object or a being is a necessary prerequisite for cognizance
(“knowledge”).
Now, how do we identify various objects?
(This has to do with the gnosiology of every science. We are not
speaking as theologians here, but in general, as we already said).
And so, in order to simplify matters, I pose the following question:
“In what way do I identify this table, and consequently say that I
“know” it?”
A. This includes a negative
action to begin with; in other words, I identify this table and I
say that it is a table, thus ruling out that it is something
else; I am saying that “A” is “A” and that it is not
“B”. Therefore, in defining “A”, I try to define what is not
“A”, i.e., by excluding another being. When I say it is
this,
it means it is not that.
B. The second basic action that
is contained in the act of cognizance (knowing) is that I am obliged
– precisely because I am excluding other objects – to somehow
encompass the object of my cognizance; I have to define it.
(Pay attention, how the use of words is very important). What is
the meaning of the word “define”? The word “define” contains
the inference of boundaries, or limits, or terms,
which I place around the object. I am indicating it by excluding
other objects, but: I am also placing limits around it.
C. The third action that I perform,
which is a consequence of the second action, is that I am describing it. (here we have another term of gnosiology, which,
however, signifies precisely the relating of an object by the method
of isolating it) To describe an object means that I inscribe
(write) things around that object and thus create a frame
around it. I say that “A” is “A” and not “B”, and in this way, I
identify it. Now, how do I go about describing it? In order to
describe, I utilize certain properties that the object has; for
instance, in order to say that I am describing this table, and that
I am identifying it by describing it, I need to give it a form. If
it loses its form ( as conceded to me by space and time ), I will
say that this table is another one and not that one. I
identify it as being another. Imagine, if space and time were
non-existent, and likewise the ability to isolate and to describe on
the basis of the table’s form, thus rendering this table united to
the other table to an absolute degree, then, I would no longer be
able to know (discern) the specific table. Identity is lost and
there will be a confusion of objects. Cognizance (knowledge) will
disappear. Consequently, ‘description’ ( usage of the limits that
space and time place between two objects ) is a necessary element
and is accomplished on the basis of the object’s attributes
(for example its form); this is advanced even further (Aristotle
analyzed all of this), with the attributes of objects, which
originate from a judgment expressed by the object of cognizance. In
other words, I say that this table is square in shape; as cognizance
of the table progresses, I can now define its form and say it is
square.
But where did I obtain the concept of
“square”? It is a concept. Plato would have said it is an idea
that we draw from the permanent cosmos of ideas and then apply to
tangible objects. Aristotle says that it is not an idea, but
merely attributes that the object itself possesses. In other words,
the attribute of squareness already resides within the table.
At any rate, for me to say that something is square,
I must use a logical shape, which can apply everywhere, and not only
to a table. It must also be applicable to other objects. It is not
the table only that has a square shape. If we supposed that
in all the world, only the table is square in shape, then I
could not call it square. I have borrowed the concept of ‘square’
from my experience of another object. We shall examine this
eventually; (and you will see how opportune it is, when we apply it
to God, which is a very serious issue. )
In any case, we are now at a point
where we describe the object by using its different attributes,
which, apart from its shape, include thousands of other things. The
more attributes that I add, the more I “know” the object. For
example, it is square; then I go to the colour. It has that colour.
Then I go to various other attributes. And, based on all of these, I
end up ( and this is our next element ) with the ability to utilize the object. And I can now define the object on the
basis of its usefulness. I say that it is a table, because I
use it for writing on. Thus, we always have a latent utilitarian
aspect to this cognizance, which originates from the identification
of an object’s attributes, because these attributes are
automatically available for usage. This usage may be
aesthetic (i.e. it is beautiful), or the object may be altogether
exploitable from a realistic aspect, in which case, I use it for a
specific purpose.
So, to summarize: For the
cognizance (knowledge) of an object, so that we may “know” it,
relate it, we must have an exclusion of another object and a
description based on the attributes that the object
possesses, with the help of time and space.
This is because we do not only relate
objects that we perceive with our eyes, but also objects that we
don’t see. I can relate my father; I know him. He is no longer
alive. However, time has made it possible for him to be
isolated from me, otherwise, there would have been confusion between
my father and myself. If things were totally indistinct, I would
never have known my father. I know him, thanks to the distance
that time and space have allotted, as in the case of the table.
Therefore, this description that I am making with the aid of time
and space, is what helps me distinguish that “A” is “A” and not
“B”. I can therefore “know” things, on the basis of this procedure
of description, which leads me to the detection of attributes. And
because of this detection of attributes, I am led – as I said – to
their evaluation and their utilization. I can say that this table
is larger than the other one; it is better than the other one, etc.,
etc.. This ability to compare, also offers the possibility to
utilize it later; to say: “I want a larger table now; this one is
not suitable”. All this procedure of “knowing” resides inside that
which we call “scientific knowledge”, which is very much dependent
on the cultural level and the cultural era in which one lives, so
that one can see which of those attributes comprise useful
attributes. For instance, in ancient Greek times, when beauty was
important, the attribute of form, of beauty, was the basic attribute
by which one could get to “know” something. In our age, and
especially in the West, (where we can see how much theoretical
sciences suffer), knowledge is accompanied by usage.
If you don’t provide something along with knowledge that will be
useful and will produce results, you are not providing anything. It
is as though you know nothing. This knowledge is of no interest.
Why should we speak of God, or of art? What can it “give” us? What
are the results? And nowadays, in England, theoretical Schools are
in danger of being closed down, because the prevailing philosophy is
“how is the industry benefiting from these Schools?…… Give the money
to Schools that produce results.” But how is a result produced?
From that very procedure of knowledge, which defines and describes
and consequently provides the possibility of usage and the benefit
through that usage.
Well, that is basically the method one
uses in science. Although we must stress here that after Einstein
and chiefly after the recent quantum theory, we definitely have a
change in the perception that the researcher – the one who “knows” –
distances himself from the object of his knowledge. Because, as you
are aware, natural sciences today believe that the researcher is
somehow entangled in the procedure of ‘knowing’ his object and
affects that knowledge. In other words, to know that this table is
square is not simply a matter of detecting the table’s attribute of
squareness; it is as though the experimenter is affecting the result
of the experiment. Therefore, the experiment is not simply “the
object” that has certain attributes. We too allot certain
attributes. And knowledge is an interaction of our involvement
within this procedure, to the point that knowledge is entirely
changed. We can’t expand on this right now of course. This is just
a parenthesis. I would like to say however, that the basic
perception, the classical perception prior to Einstein, in short,
the common perception of knowledge (cognizance), has those elements
that I just described.