What Is A Brute Fact?| Van Tilian Philosophy Series #1


 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Can We Know Anything Without God?: Problematic Starting Point - Part 1.

The non Christian encounters his first problem at the very beginning of his epistemology - the starting point. When we talk of epistemology we simply mean a theory of what we can know, what we do know and how we know. To know anything at all, we have to start somewhere. The Christian starts with God and his revelatory Word. The non Christian starts somewhere very different. He starts with the self/subject. Some have even suggested that we cannot but start with ourselves in constructing an epistemology. Before moving on, some things about the Christian epistemological scheme must be noted. Our epistemological starting point is God's revelation. According to the Christian worldview, God has revealed Himself to us in his creation and in our very constitution. Man cannot escape the clear revelation of God because knowing ourselves implies knowing God as well. Given this starting point, we can know God. And because we can know God, we can also know ourselves and God's world. We ...
Read more