knowing the unknown

Since the beginning of time, there is no question more asked and still offers much confusion than, "how can we know what we don't know?"

Recently, a famed behavioral economist, Nassim Taleb, challenged the business world on how their ideas around this question are misguided. The author of "The Black Swan" argues well that success is best obtained when managing the unknown.


For example, he points to the massive destruction of events like Katrina, the financial crisis and 9/11 attack as indications that the most significant outcomes in recent times came out of nowhere. In everyday life we see that when we hire someone or take a new job ourselves, its what we find out about the other 6 months or a year later that matters more than all of the knowledge gathered during the hiring process.

Let's take a closer look at what it means to "know the unknown." I contend we can be misguided and maybe don't even agree on what this means. For instance, the English language just has one word for "know." The 1828 Webster says to know is "to perceive with certainty or to understand clearly." Implied in this is "seeing is believing". So the cultural norm for knowing requires physical evidence.

The ancient Greeks had two words (I have blogged on this several times). One word meant knowing through the physical senses (eido), which aligns more with prevalent thinking. The other was knowing in some way other than through physical senses (gnosis). Since this second way does not fit current thinking about "to know," we find other words to capture what the Greeks called knowing without observable evidence. Some call this way of knowing intuition or conscience or "gut feel." Yet, people refer to this type of knowing with some level of puzzlement when they wonder how they can know if he/she loves them. People say, "I know my spouse" when they are speaking of clarity they have that didn't come though physical evidence, but through an intimacy in relationship with them.

So, there are several ways to think about "knowing the unknown."

First, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we observe by gaining more clarity from new observations we have certainty with?" Both views of "to know" deal with observable evidence. This is primarily what we believe science accomplishes.

Second, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we cannot observe by getting new observations we can have certainty with?" Here, the idea is getting a certainty about unobservable truth by using rational processes to gain certainty from what we can observe. This is an attempt to verify faith through science. Typically, we see this approach by Christians and non-Christians to "prove" something about the unseen human soul, such as virtue and personality, and God, such as His existence.

The third way to ask this question is, "how do we have certainty about what we see from certainty about what we cannot see?" This is actually the question answered by the Bible. Christians understand "knowing" by trusting revelation from God to clearly understand what they experience in the physical world. Human nature influences us to view type two question about "knowing," Humans naturally want to believe something about the invisible from inferences made from the visible.

The fourth possibility is, "how do we have clarity and certainty about what we cannot see from clearly understanding what we cannot see?" This is the ultimate point of the Bible. Humans adopted into God's family involves an assurance of an invisible act on God's part to bring us into a relationship experienced only through faith. 

The problem arises when the non-Christian thought leaders are asking the first and second type questions about "knowing" when the Bible is applying the third and fourth type of questions about "knowing." Even worst, and too prevalent, is when Christians rely on their flawed human nature and apply questions like one and two above to defend their faith and the Bible instead of questions like type four.

One more point about "knowing the unknown" that contributes to the confusion. When Taleb discusses this issue of "knowing," he is dealing with predicting the future. In other words, the unknown is only unobservable because it hadn't happened yet. This is the only purpose of science, to provide the likelihood B occurs given A depending on C. Science cannot prove the certainty of the future, only the likelihood. We also cannot confuse the "unknowing" (uncertainty) of the future with the "unknowing" of the invisible.

Science has no role in gaining knowledge about what already exists and cannot be seen. For instance, science can analyze data and provide a reasonable explanation of "what is?" Yet, science cannot be used at all to answer "why?" Science cannot determine the heart, or motive. Science can explain WHAT choices people made through observing their behavior, but cannot explain WHY. Science, in no way, can provide certainty about God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Only revelation allows any human to "know the unknown" God and His gracious, Sovereign rule.

So, when you hear someone use the term "know," you now can ask which of the ways they are viewing "to know"? Maybe after you ponder the multiple ways of knowing, you can ask that they ponder them too.......