For you or anyone to generate a thought, feeling or action, there is some stimulus that you process internally. In response to any situation you must answer these questions:
what amount of control will I give up?
to what or whom?
on what basis (where's the evidence)?
for what outcome?
One’s response depends on what they trust to be true or not true as they encounter situations in life. This response establishes within the soul a condition based on the choice to make themselves vulnerable to something or someone (trust). This choice is a judgment they make based on the confidence they gain in the evidence derived from the knowledge they have. They must have first judged the knowledge to be true or not before they consider it as evidence.
Let’s explore the following model from psychology through the lens of two dominant paths of thought, prevailing philosophy flowing from Socrates Academy and the Bible.
The Greek word in Scripture for "to trust" is pisteuὀ, which is most often translated “believe.” What you and I deep down trust or believe are actual influences our psychẻ, the Greek word for soul and the root word for psychology (the study of our thinker, feeler, and chooser). When Jesus says “And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?”, what comes to your mind?
You may think He was rejecting the goal of ownership of the material wealth of the entire world as your source of happiness. Maybe. The word kerdainὀ for “gain” is an old mercantile term for “trading up” or exchanging lower value items for higher value items. But, consider He was speaking about humans' pursuit of 100% knowledge of the cosmos, the natural order of the universe. After all, this was considered by ancient Greeks as teleos, the life designed to gain "the perfect life." To continue to trade off ignorance until you know all there is to know about the universe was very Aristotelian and the prevailing thought of Jesus’ day. Knowing the cause of everything was believed to be the ultimate source of happiness. Yet, Jesus claims this is not what achieves life's grandest prize.
Let’s dig a little deeper into the model to understand the various ways our assumptions determine how this works for each of us.
First, knowledge comes in two forms. Eidὀ is what is commonly called “head knowledge.” It is the awareness we have based on observation or experiences gained though the power or faculties of our physical senses. Then, there is ginὀskὀ knowledge, commonly called “heart knowledge.” This is awareness we gain through unobserved ways. Its intimate experiences (non sensory) we have with people or objects or the Divine that finds it’s way into our soul in some way other than through the power of our physical faculties. This form of knowledge is often found in intuition, conscience, or revelation. Christians and non Christians alike have both kinds of knowledge. The issues are the core assumptions underwriting this duplex knowledge that determines the orientation and primacy of judgments about evidence from each form.
One of the core assumptions that is seminal in these judgments is how truth is determined. There are two ways. Truth about something is either the result of eidὀ knowledge we gain through our own sensory experiences with it or truth about something is disclosed to us through the intimate experience we have with it’s source. For instance, how do we know he or she loves me? We either know it is true by how we externally experience the actions of the other person (eidὀ), such as their kind actions or affections shown toward us. OR, we know it is true by intimate experiences that come to us by intuition, instinct or Divine revelation (ginὀskὀ). In the latter case we say, “we just know what we know.” We may have examples of their love, such as how they act toward us, which is eidὀ knowledge. Yet, we cannot prove or have enough confidence to trust his/her love from tangible evidence alone. What you assume about the way truth is determined in general will affect how you know what is true about their love for you.
The process to convert true eidὀ knowledge into evidence we can trust is a form of science. Rational processes applied to observable data gives us probabilistic reasons that we can trust the knowledge enough to make ourselves vulnerable to it. The Greeks called this idea of evidence, empirics. The evidence we gain from ginὀskὀ knowledge is called faith (pistis). While commonly used in the Bible to denote the unseen evidence of truth we receive as a gift from God, faith (unseen evidence) is vital to all people at all times in determining what to trust for their thoughts, feelings and actions.
Philosopher Thomas Reid is well known for his concept of "common sense", a set of intuitive judgments or 'self-evident truths' comprising first principles of nature, that cannot be proven through empirical means. Business people often rely on heuristics or gut level decision-making because rational decisions are not possible. Some people claim they listen to their “inner voice.” In many ways people have ginὀskὀ knowledge that provides them with evidence they cannot observe and prove through scientific means. In fact, it may be more common to rely on faith (pistis) for your soul’s response in situations than empirical evidence. Even empiricists note that you can never be 100% sure about conclusions of science.
Its helpful to note a few things in this model that are sometimes overlooked and sometimes misunderstood. First, rational processes are just as applicable to ginὀskὀ knowledge as they are to eidὀ knowledge. Its common to assume rational thinking only involves head knowledge. Evidential apologetics does give more credence to tangible evidence than general apologetics, which relies more heavily on dialectics of faith. Associated with the mistaken notion that faith is not a rational evidence is the idea that faith is emotional evidence. This occurs primarily from the liberal use of the word “feel.” Feelings are technically emotions, but often used as a proxy for sentiments in us we know (ginὀskὀ) but cannot prove scientifically (i.e., “gut feel”). Remember, faith is just an unseen evidence we rely on in our responses and emotion is one aspect of our response. Emotion is not an irrational, felt evidence that can be viewed as faith.
Second, science and faith interact to produce the confidence we need to trust. On one hand, many mainstream philosophers and humanists mainly assume science has primacy and faith is some religious crutch we may need when we do not have enough eidὀ. Yet, its commonly known that scientists start with presuppositions (hypotheses) that are sourced in some form of evidence they suspect, but cannot prove through the senses. Moreover, the presuppositions on which science is based are subject to the human flaws associated with biases that reside in our faith.
The Bible teaches that faith is the primary contributor to trust, not science. Notice, the root word for trust and faith are from the same word family. The Bible presents an important role of the physical world. While tangible evidence doesn’t prove faith in Christ, it can point to Kingdom realities. This evidence encourages us and supports our confidence when our faith wobbles a little. For example, seven times in the book of John Jesus says, “I am.” Each time He follows this up with a miracle. The miracle is a form of eidὀ for His followers that does not produce trust, but it provides an observable evidence consistent with His claim, tangible evidence (not proof) aligned with the unseen evidence of who He is. Jesus asks Peter, “who do you say I am?” When Peter responds, “you are the Christ,” Jesus acknowledges that Peter did not know this through perception of his senses (“flesh and blood”) but through revelation from God Himself. Jesus contrasts the primacy of faith to observable evidence when he tells Thomas, “you believe (trust) because you see, blessed (fortunate) are those who believe and have not seen.”
Third, we trust the evidence that we give primacy to. We give primacy to the evidence that we judge to be the most credible and have the least risks. Assumptions of our human nature are prone to give primacy to tangible evidence we can see, finding confidence in perceptual faculties. Jesus calls us to give primacy to evidence of His redemptive work on the Cross that we cannot see. The material world provides supportive evidence in creation that God exists and of His prevenient grace. However, it takes the primacy of a Kingdom mind to not trust the material world for our soul’s responses to the temporal stimuli of this world (cosmos) we occupy physically for just a brief time.
Maybe this is on Paul’s mind when he admonishes the Kingdom dweller in this way, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
The path that leads to our soul depends on the core assumptions we have about how we determine truth and what form of evidence we rely on most. As the history of philosophy and psychology has found, human nature takes us along one path. This path is characterized by “the next question”, always absent assurance.
Jesus presents us with a different path, one based on His core assumptions about Kingdom dwelling. He discloses truth. He 100% completes nὀmos, the natural and just order of the universe that philosophy bases its claims of virtue. In Him there are no more questions and full assurance of what is true.
“Seek ye first the Kingdom of God” is a no risk primacy upon which we can trust all our responses in life.
