Expression of Candace Owens
In characterizing the content of her conspiracy theories concerning the Charlie Kirk murder, Candace Owens likes to say, “I don’t know-know, but I know.” This phrase gives this popular podcaster deniability if and when the truth comes. She can always say, “I didn’t say I knew, as in know-know.” It seems that a lot of people in her audience must take this kind of expression seriously, that someone could trust this type of so-called knowledge that she says she possesses.
“I don’t know-know, but I know,” describes a form of intuitive epistemology. In this framework, “knowing” is split into two categories: “know-knowing,” which refers to formal, academic, or documented proof, and “knowing,” which refers to a deep-seated gut feeling, pattern recognition, or personal conviction that bypasses external verification. She’s right, the second kind of knowing, she and others with her, they rightfully should distinguish from the first kind. Is the second type of knowing even knowing though?
“Internal Compass”
Essentially, Owens argues that she can possess a functional certainty about a situation or a “truth” even when she lacks the empirical data or official permission to claim it as a fact. This reminds me of the danger of the “internal compass.” This is the invisible mechanism of intuition that many people use to navigate a world they perceive as being filled with institutional deception.
The internal compass is the belief that every individual possesses an innate, spiritual, or psychological “North” that points toward truth, even when external maps (evidence, divine revelation, objective truth) suggest a different direction. In the phrase “I don’t know-know,” the “know-know” represents the external map — the data points and verified coordinates. The “but I know” represents the internal needle — the gut feeling that the map is a forgery.
The Philosophy of the “Inner Knower”
The now famous Owens philosophy of knowledge — “I don’t know-know, but I know” — also represents a form of postmodern mysticism. It suggests that truth can be apprehended through a “sixth sense” or a personal epiphany that operates independently of objective data. In a secular context, this is often framed as “trusting your gut” against a corrupt establishment. However, from the perspective of biblical exposition, this philosophy elevates the human heart to the position of ultimate arbiter.
Truth is not a “feeling” or a “personal journey,” but a fixed reality established by God. Truth cannot be subjective; there is no such thing as ‘your truth’ or ‘my truth.’ Truth is forever fixed. When one says she “knows” something despite not having the “know-know” (the evidence), she is practicing subjectivism. This contrasts with the rationality of God’s revelation. God did not give us a “vibe”; He gave us a Book. As Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17). The word is objective propositional truth versus knowledge without evidence, i.e., mystical intuition.
The Fallacy of the Human Heart
The philosophy of “knowing” without “know-knowing” rests upon the validity of the human “gut” or intuition. However, the biblical perspective warns that the human heart is the most unreliable witness one could call. The inherent depravity of man as the reason why internal “certainty” is frequently a mask for deception. As the scripture declares (Jeremiah 17:9):
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
To claim “I know” based on an internal feeling is to trust a broken instrument. If the heart is deceitful, then the “knowing” it produces is not a divine insight but a subjective projection. Truth is not something we “feel” into existence; it is something we submit to from an external source, like God’s Word is itself an external, divine source.
The Sufficiency of Objective Revelation
Theology is rooted in the belief that the Bible is the only infallible and sufficient rule for faith and practice. When an individual relies on a private “knowing,” he or she is effectively creating a third testament of personal experience. The Word of God is the only standard that makes a man complete. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 record:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
From this perspective, there is no category for a “spiritual gut feeling” that sits alongside or above the written Word. If a “knowing” cannot be “know-known” through the clear, rational, and historical lens of scripture or provable reality, it is a vain imagination. “Knowing” without evidence is simply a polite term for presumption.
The Error of Mystical Intuition
The philosophy of “I know-know” vs. “I know” mirrors the mystical trends particularly within the charismatic movement and postmodern secularism. Both seek a “private word” or a “personal truth.” On the other hand, God has spoken clearly and finally in His Son and His Word. To seek a “knowing” outside of what is objectively revealed is to invite “doctrines of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1). Proverbs 28:26 says:
He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
By dividing knowledge into “official” and “intuitive,” one creates a loophole where he or she can never be proven wrong. If “know-knowing” (evidence) contradicts the “knowing” (intuition), the individual simply retreats into their subjective certainty. This is a rejection of rationality and accountability, two pillars of a biblical worldview.
The Anchor of Truth
A philosophy that prioritizes “gut knowing” over “documented knowing” eventually leads to a fragmented reality where everyone is their own final authority. Truth is objective, external, and fixed. It does not require our intuition to be true, and our intuition cannot make a lie into a truth. True “knowing” comes not from looking inward at our feelings, but outward at the revealed Word of God and the world He has made. Anything else is but “clouds they are without water, carried about of winds” (Jude 1:12).
Discernment then is the ability to distinguish truth from error. It is a cognitive process, not an emotional one. Hebrews 5:14 explains that maturity is marked by those who “by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” The phrase “I don’t know-know, but I know” bypasses this “exercise of reason.” If knowledge is disconnected from verifiable facts (the “know-know”), it becomes reckless faith. This is how deception enters the church and society. When people stop asking “Is it true?” and start asking “Does this resonate with my suspicions?”, they become vulnerable to every “wind of doctrine.”
The Sufficiency of Revelation
The core critique of the mystical intuition rests on the sufficiency of scripture. If we believe that we can “know” things through a private, internal mechanism that bypasses objective testing, we are essentially claiming a new form of revelation. Isaiah writes (8:20):
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Any knowing that does not submit itself to the rigorous testing of objective reality and the Word of God is a “lofty opinion” that must be taken captive. Any practice that urges the adherent to avoid objective truth is not to be trusted.
The Call to Sound Mind
The philosophy of “I know because I feel it” is the antithesis of the biblical sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). God calls His people to be “noble-minded,” like the Bereans, who did not just “know” in their hearts — they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). True knowledge requires the “know-know” — the evidence of God’s Word and the reality of His created world. To rely on anything less is to build a house on the shifting sands of human intuition.
Very commonly today, and this goes to Candace Owens too, people say they will “bring the receipts.” And they mean later, and very often that means much later or never. Instead, start with the receipts. People understand the analogy, I think. When you bring back a product, you need proof that you bought it there. The proof you bring are receipts from the original purchase. When you do that, you get your money back or another of the same product from the store. God doesn’t just promise the receipts. He starts with them.