Unity vs. Unity

It is undeniable that diversity is an integral part of our experience. The world we experience is marked by plurality and diversity. From a temporal standpoint, we begin with a diversity of things. There is a diversity of facts, events, mental states, objects, perceptions, beliefs, concepts, persons, etc etc. It is safe to say that our experience, in order to be what it is, must contain diversity.


The question arises as to what can provide unity in our experience. As it turns out, if our experience consisted only of pure diversity, it would be unintelligible. In order to make sense of the world of experience, we must be able to find unity in the midst of the diversity. The human mind cannot but think in terms of unifying principles. Our minds are wired to order, organize, and categorize the different things we experience. If pure diversity were the case, we would be incapable of identification, predication, counting, using logic, applying moral principles, and so on. All these practices require diversity and unity. The task of the metaphysician is to find a unity that can bring together all the diversities of human experience.


The Christian metaphysician and the unbelieving metaphysician carry out this task in completely different ways. Their respective worldviews commit them to opposing metaphysical presuppositions, hence, their responses to the problem of finding unity in diversity would be different. The Christian presupposes the Triune God whose creative act accounts for the diversity in human experience. Every fact, object, event, owe their being to the creative act of God. Also, every fact, object, event, is related to every other in the comprehensive system which has existed for all eternity in God’s mind. For the Christian metaphysician, God’s mind provides the unity. What we have in this system, then, is an eternal unity. The unbeliever presupposes the opposite; he presupposes the non-createdness of the particulars of his experience. According to him, there is no comprehensive system which unites every fact, object, and event for all eternity. In his system, the mind of man provides the unity. He utilizes the categories, formal principles, and systems which exist in his mind to unite the diversities he experiences. What we have, then, is a temporal unity.


In the Christian picture, the “one” (the unifying principles) and the “many” (the diverse particulars) have been tied together from eternity past. Neither one is, metaphysically speaking, more fundamental than the other. The diversities we experience are not pure diversities; they have all been united even before our experience of them. In the Christian picture, then, what we have is an objective unity. In the unbeliever’s system, the “one” is imposed on the “many” by the mind of man. The diversity in experience is more fundamental than the unity since, in this picture, the unity is contingent on man’s mind. In this picture, what we have is a subjective unity. 


But a unity that is temporal and subjective is no unity at all; it is merely an illusion. The unbelieving metaphysician, in rejecting the Christian understanding of things, fails to achieve any real unity in his experience. He began with pure diversity, hence, no unity could be added later on. And as we noted earlier, given pure diversity, our experience becomes unintelligible. If diversity is metaphysically ultimate, then there are no real relations or connections between the particulars we experience. Everything is wholly individual and nothing can be said of them in terms of unifying principles. If diversity is ultimate, then there is no connection between my thoughts, perceptions, or mental states; hence, they cannot really be referred to as my thoughts or mental states. It cannot really be said that there is a me that thinks, perceives, or feels. If diversity is ultimate, then there is no connection between the events that occur in history. It cannot be said that there exists any causal relations. Any form of uniformity or order in history is forfeited. Science becomes impossible.


It must be said that only a Christian worldview can provide true unity in human experience. Without the Triune God who creates and orders the particulars according to his comprehensive plan, there can be no true unity or coherence in experience. Intelligible experience and human knowledge presuppose Christian Theism as their foundation.

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