The Argument for God from Experience: What is Tacit Knowing?

Review of Argument to Date

Experiential Argument for God’s Existence

Premise 1: Human beings have experiences that evoke a profound sense of dependence, awe, and transcendence (what Schleiermacher calls the feeling of absolute dependence).

Premise 2: These experiences are epistemically significant. Importantly, they constitute non-propositional knowledge (in the same vein as 'knowledge how,' or 'knowledge of taste,' etc.)

Premise 3: The depth and universality of these feelings point toward a reality that is non-contingent. These feelings arise not from within the self alone but seem given/received.

Conclusion: Therefore, the felt experiences of dependence, awe, and transcendence are not merely psychological but ontological. They invite interpretation of the self as in-relation-to an Ultimate (what theology names God).

In my past couple of posts, I have attempted to clarify and defend Premise 1. In short, I explained in detail what Schleiermacher means by his feeling of absolute dependence, as well as offered research in support of the claim that humans have experiences which evoke feelings of transcendence, awe, and dependence.

My current goal is to provide justification for Premise 2. I would like to explore my assertion that these experiences are epistemically significant, as a source of non-propositional knowledge. To start, I will explore the concept of tacit knowledge, as presented through the work of scientist and philosopher, Micheal Polanyi.

What is Tacit Knowledge?

To start, it may be helpful to distinguish between two forms of knowledge: propositional knowledge and non-propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge (also known as declarative knowledge), is "knowledge that." For example, knowledge that the sky is blue or 2 + 2 = 4. 

Non-propositional knowledge, on the other hand, is experiential knowledge, or "knowledge how." The ability to ride a bike, or solve a complex math problem mentally, are examples of non-propositional knowledge.

Tacit knowledge is a specific type of non-propositional knowledge. It is knowledge often explained as something someone "just knows." Instinctual and intuitive are two ways tacit knowledge is often described. 

The Importance of Tacit Knowing

Michael Polanyi, in his Terry Lecture series, developed the concept of tacit knowledge largely as a response to the positivist view of science, which for him over-emphasizes the objective and explicit (i.e. propositional) nature of knowing.

For Polanyi, much of human knowledge is implicit. To him, is it vital to realize that "we can know more than we can tell."  

Polanyi uses several examples to make his point. He looks at facial recognition in a police line-up, observing that a witness may be able to identify a suspect, while never being able to give details as to the features which lead to the positive association. 

He also cites a (quite unethical by modern standards) 1949 experiment in which subjects were shown large strings of nonsense syllables. They were given electric shocks after certain syllables appeared. While, over time, the subjects consistently tensed when shown these nonsense syllables (in preparation for a shock), they were never able to verbalize afterwards which syllables led to the shock. 

The importance of this study lies in the demonstration of tacit knowing as a valid form of knowledge. It stands up even when critically examined in an unbiased manner.  

Tacit Knowing and Scientific Investigation

For Polanyi, "Tactic thought is an indispensable element of all knowing [and the] ultimate mental power by which all explicit knowledge is endowed with meaning." (1) 

To demonstrate, Polanyi first acknowledges that popular conception teaches science is a collection of observable facts...one which can be tested and verified by any willing observer. He then explains how this cannot be true. He cites, for example, the importance of expertise in field (as is needed for a physician to diagnose a disease), or the simple fact that scientific discovery is undergirded by a 'hunch' that there is something important to be discovered.

Indeed, tacit knowing is vital to give direction to scientific investigation. When ample evidence was provided to show that all gestation periods were equal to integer multiples of pi, we knew to remain skeptical.

Alternatively, when science affirmed the confusing and often counter-intuitive elements of quantum physics, we knew to continue the pursuit.

There was no explicit direction given. However, we were served well when intuition was allowed to steer the ship.

Usages of Tacit Knowing

The larger point I am attempting to make here is that there exists a (vital) dimension to our lives where we intuit things we cannot put into words, and those things are no less real.

Tacit knowing plays a necessary role in:

1. Scientific discover (as we allow intuition to guide hypothesis)

2. Artistic expression (as we feel the rhythms needed to guide the next brush stroke)

3. Spiritual insight (as we experience a sense of awe, transcendence, and dependence on something beyond ourselves)

Where to Next?

I have endeavored to show here that tacit knowledge, as a subcategory of non-propositional knowledge, is an epistemically important form of actual knowledge. To further bolster my case for Premise 2, I will next be exploring the work of American philosopher, William Alston.

(1) Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 60.