Two types of knowledge

Solva, Pembrokeshire, Wales (photo from trekearth.com)

Two types of knowledge

Concerning my research on the problem of evil, within formal philosophy comes two important terms related to how human beings obtain knowledge. For those not well educated in theology or philosophy, please do not be intimidated by the terms if they are new to you. Remembering the actual terms in my view is not as important as understanding to some degree, the concepts that may arise in discussions concerning the problem of evil. The terms are a priori and a posteriori. I shall review these terms and related concepts in an obviously non-exhaustive manner.

Louis P. Pojman explains that the term a priori comes from the Latin “preceding” and is knowledge that is not based on sense experience but is innate or known to human beings by the meanings of words and definitions. Pojman (1996: 595). Arthur Pap defines a priori knowledge as being independent of experience. Pap (1973: 666). Since this knowledge leads to truth independent of experience, once a concept is understood it will be seen as necessarily true logically, meaning that it will not be refuted at any time empirically (through the use of the senses). Pap (1973: 667). Simon Blackburn notes that a proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known without experience of a certain set of events in the actual world. Blackburn allows for some experience to be obtained in order for a priori knowledge to occur. Blackburn (1996: 21). He explains that this type of knowledge is very controversial and it is not clear how pure thought without the use of experience can lead to any true knowledge at all. Blackburn (1996: 21). Some empiricists have attempted to deny that any real knowledge can be obtained from a priori means. Blackburn (1996: 21). Laurence BonJour notes that many empiricists would hold that all actual philosophical concepts are derived and known through experience. BonJour (1996: 30). Blackburn points out that Immanuel Kant dealt with this issue as it was supposed that a priori concepts cannot be understood from experience alone but come from presuppositions in a mode of thought about reality. Blackburn (1996: 22). 

In the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 and revised in 1787, Kant explains that the forms of appearance from which sensations can be understood are not themselves the empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66). BonJour states that a priori knowledge is independent of empirical experience, meaning that something can be accepted as knowledge if it does not depend upon sensory experience. BonJour (1996: 29). Very importantly in my view, BonJour explains that a deductively valid argument can use a priori reasoning, even if the correctness of the argument is challenged. BonJour (1996: 30). This would be very important for non-empirical reasoning in the areas of theology and philosophy in regard to the problem of evil and other topics, but even in other disciplines such as scientific theory where logical and reasonable deductions are at times made without empirical evidence. In other words, it is possible to deduce with logic, reason, and argumentation, truth, even without empirical evidence. BonJour mentions that rationalists that state God exists are using a priori reasoning. I do not deny that human beings have presuppositions in the areas of knowledge, but I reason that experience and God given nature influences those concepts. It seems doubtful to me that human beings can have philosophical presuppositions without some innate understanding and experience to make sense of reality in order to presuppose. It is also Biblical and reasonable to deduce that God creates human beings with certain innate understanding of reality that will be assisted by experience. Romans 1:19 explains that God made human beings with a natural understanding of his existence. Perhaps this would be a priori knowledge and would not exist entirely on human presuppositions. The existence of natural knowledge of God does not necessarily mean that human beings worship or obey God.

Pojman writes that a posteriori comes the Latin “the later” and is knowledge that is obtained from human sense experience only, as in the five senses. Pojman (1996: 595). Blackburn reasons that something can be known a posteriori when it cannot be known a priori. Blackburn (1996: 21-22). From a Christian perspective, God through Jesus Christ has revealed himself to finite humanity in an effective, limited, empirical fashion, and this would be considered a posteriori knowledge of God, although God as pure spirit remains beyond the physical senses.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘A priori/A posteriori’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 21-22. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BONJOUR, LAURENCE. (1996) ‘A Priori’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

EDWARDS, PAUL AND ARTHUR PAP (1973) (eds), ‘A priori knowledge: Introduction’, A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.