Why Christians Should Shun Epistemological Autonomy

Something about professing Christians willingly espousing epistemological autonomy has always irked me. I always wonder what the motivation is for adopting such a stance. A few things come to mind. However, I believe such a view is always borne out of a faulty view of God. Professing Christians may say things like “God is necessary for knowledge because without Him we wouldn’t exist; however, we don’t need to know God to know things”. It seems to me that Christians that take such a stance either have not appreciated the interdependence of epistemology and metaphysics, leading them to understand the metaphysical implications of an autonomous view of epistemology, or they have such a low view of God that they do not care about such metaphysical consequences. 

It should be noted that intellectual autonomy and epistemological autonomy are two different things. Intellectual autonomy is simply thinking for one’s self. Everyone human has intellectual autonomy and should strive towards it. Epistemological autonomy, however, is different. Epistemological autonomy is the view that knowledge of the world is possible without reference to the revelation and providence of the triune God of Scripture. Epistemological autonomy holds that we need not take God into consideration when constructing an epistemology and that man is self-sufficient when it comes to gaining knowledge. 


What Christians who take such a stance have failed to realize is that a self-sufficient God and self-sufficient man cannot co-exist. Either one submits to the self-sufficiency of the other, or the self-sufficiency of both is destroyed. This is where the failure to understand the interdependence of metaphysics and epistemology shows up. Perhaps the Christians who hold to the self-sufficiency of man in epistemology do not think it is a problem because it does not affect the metaphysical self-sufficiency of God. But it does.


If man’s mind is self-sufficient when it comes to knowing reality then it follows that God’s interpretation of reality is not authoritative. If God has authoritatively and comprehensively interpreted reality as a whole, then man must consult God’s system of knowledge in order to properly interpret and know the facts. If man is autonomous and can know reality without consulting God’s system, it follows that God and man approach knowledge in exactly the same way. They are on level playing field, so to speak, when it comes to knowing. Neither one can speak authoritatively to the other. This essentially destroys the Creator/creature distinction. God’s knowledge may be larger in scope and quantity, but ultimately God must gain knowledge the same way man does—by “synthesis”, looking outside Himself and into the facts. God’s knowledge ceases to be constructive. 


This destroys God’s aseity. God is no longer self-sufficient or self-contained. He is on the same metaphysical plane as man and is engulfed by a Reality that is greater than Himself. God essentially becomes like a mentor, teacher, or expert. He may know things we don’t, but only because He has discovered them from a world of facts that is independent of both of us. This is not the God of Bible who’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts. By holding to epistemological autonomy we get a God who must learn. His learning may be timeless, or he may be able to learn everything, but he must still learn. He must do so because the world of facts is independent of him. More precisely, the instantiation of facts are logically prior to God’s knowledge. 


In the end, one must make a choice—a self-sufficient man or a self-sufficient God. If one is to hold to what Scripture teaches, I think the choice is obvious.

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