The Epistemic Necessity of a Creator

One may wonder what kind of argument can be offered for Revelational Epistemology — the idea that human knowledge depends solely upon divine revelation and providence. Bahnsen gives one of such argument in the appendix of his book Presuppositional Apologetics: States and Defended. I would be quoting the relevant section at length here. The quoted text would be in italics.

THE EPISTEMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CREATOR-RELATION

Because man lives in an environment conditioned by, and resting upon, the knowledge and interpretative principles of his ancestors, and because man is created with certain inherent knowledge of his Creator, man has epistemologically been able to take too much for granted. Men deceive themselves to such a degree that they conclude that they are epistemologically autonomous (i.e., free from the necessity of exploring the Creator-relation when doing science and philosophy). Consider the following illustration.

Imagine an acoustic society where the people are pre-alphabetic and unacquainted with linear type or printed materials. All their communication is oral, and their thinking is based upon sounds and voices rather than written sentences. Should the intellectual elite of this society happen upon what we call a "typewriter" we could imagine their questions. What is it? How is it? What emotional and operational response is appropriate? Is this active or passive? Is it art or machine or surd? Etc. These thinkers will seek an interpretation of this object in terms of their own personal experiences, but try as they may their efforts would always be arbitrary or distorted or both. Should they simply posit that this object has some useful purpose (rather than not), where would they begin testing? Should they simply posit (again arbitrarily) that this falls within the general category of machinery, how would they determine how it properly works? By a great stretch of the imagination they might discover through guesswork and trial-and-error that pressing the keys of the object could crack a strategically placed walnut! If they ever could come up with an analysis for this unknown object, it would certainly be as misguided and incorrect as this one. It could be no other way.

On the other hand, suppose that these pre-alphabetic people were given the benefit of seeing the strange object in operation. Imagine that a motion picture was provided for the typewriter's being loaded with paper and used to type a paragraph of thought but with the hands of the operator edited out of the film. Would they fare any better in their interpretative endeavors? Again they would be left to guesswork as to the activity of the strange object. Using their previous experience to guide them they would always analyze its function in an arbitrary or distorted way. Where should their analysis begin? Are the marks on the page causing the keys to depress? Does the ring of the bell frighten the carriage back? Is tabulation merely a burp? Moreover, the printed sheet itself would be to them a hodgepodge of strange marks, uniform scribbles. Obviously the real intent or use of the typewriter would be lost for lack of reading ability.

Only if this acoustic society receives information from the person who designed and operates the typewriter will they even begin to understand it and its function properly. The creator-relation has to become a factor in their interpretative schemes. The creator and controller of the typewriter could explain what an alphabet and written language are, how to make the typewriter operate, and what the resultant printed sheet communicates. Outside of such consultation with the typewriter's creator these people could never have any assurance of knowledge with respect to the strange object, but with revelation the acoustic society could know for sure the nature, significance, and function of the object. Only when the creator-relation is accounted in their interpretations could knowledge be gained; without that foundation, not even one component of the typewriter could be understood.

This illustration can be applied to all human interpretations of the world. The typewriter represents the whole of created reality, and its functioning stands for the history of the world. Neither the universe nor history can be approached intellectually without a prior revelation from their Creator and Controller that delivers foundational information as to structure, interpretative categories, purpose, goal, meaning, and significance for the universe and history. Every detail need not be mentioned, but starting points and direction are indispensable. With these the human knower can proceed to learn more and more about the world and history, being assured that his interpretation rests upon and subsequently reflects the original interpretation in the mind of God.

If a thinker were to attempt to gain knowledge "on his own," there would be no hope for him; his guesswork would be arbitrary and distorted. He would not know whether the diversity or unity of things were to control his philosophy. He would not know whether things were strictly determined by antecedent causes or whether novelty ruled the day. He would not know whether partial ignorance vitiated his interpretations, etc., etc. His arbitrary categories of understanding and rootless assumptions would lead to anything but justified, true beliefs. Autonomous knowledge is no knowledge at all. Epistemological significance is grounded in the Creator-relation. Not even a simple detail of the world or history can be understood properly without revelation from the Creator. Apart from such a revelation the world would be a completely unknown object, without even a hint as to its meaning and an explanatory method appropriate to it. The Creator-relation in epistemology is a sine qua non, and so revelational epistemology is maintained against all forms of autonomous philosophy (which would be cogitation in and against the utterly mysterious or unknown).

Since God is the Creator of all facts and His comprehensive interpretation precedes all states of affairs, the reference point of all knowledge must be revelation from Him; otherwise we force our distorted

and groundless categories upon misapprehended facts. If a fact is what it is as a result of God's activity, it will never be given a true interpretation unless understood in terms of the Creator and His plan. To attempt an interpretation of the world or its details "on one's own" is to assume erroneously the non-createdness of facts. If the revelation of God is turned away from so that His sovereign control over all things is ignored, the resultant assumption that anything can happen in history and that all things must be organized and assigned meaning by the human mind will eventually issue in skepticism. Fate rules the day, and subjective arbitrariness is the quicksand of all reasoning. One either begins his philosophizing with the God who comprehends all things and who delivers an apprehensible revelation, or he begins with an incomprehensible and inapprehensible world. If the world is to be known, we must consult its Creator.

In the above section, Bahnsen argues for the necessity of the Creator-relation for human knowledge. To know anything about something we must possess information (revelation) from its creator. If there is no information from the creator, then there is no authoritative interpretation of the object. And if there is no authoritative interpretation, we are relegated to subjective guesses and arbitrary interpretations (just like the acoustic society in the illustration). Hence, if we assume along with the autonomous thinker that the world is uncreated, then we forfeit any possibility of knowledge of the world.