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 are not limited to what can be known in Scripture, but can use it as guide for knowing other things. God created our minds and the world around us which we describe and know with our minds. Given such a presupposition, there's a connection between the subject and objects of knowledge. God's creative act is the connecting link.

The non Christian does not start with God but rather with the self. But in doing so he runs into a problem we can call the problem of connection. There's no known connection or relation between the subjects and objects of knowledge in a non Christian scheme. We cannot infer anything about the external world(containing the objects of knowledge)if we start our argument with the self. The non Christian by rejecting the Christian presupposition is stuck in the self with no way to reach the objects of knowledge. Hence, such an epistemology cannot account for knowledge and reduces to skepticism because we cannot affirm that we know things without an account of how the subject and objects are connected. An epistemology that begins with a disconnection between the subjects and objects cannot later on bring them together. Given this problem, the non Christian cannot even affirm the existence of the external world.

More will be treated as regards to the problem of connection because it affects more areas of the non Christian epistemological scheme.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
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

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