How God Knows vs. How We Know

Most Christians would agree that, although man is made in His image, God is greater than man. Amongst other things, this means that God is more powerful, more knowledgeable, etc. This has been generally understood as the Creator/creature Distinction. When it comes to this distinction, however, a lot of emphasis has been placed on the quantitative difference between God and man. When we talk about omniscience in particular, it is common to emphasize the difference between God and man in quantitative terms - God so great that He knows all things unlike man who is ignorant of most things.


Reformed Christians, however, would also want to emphasize the qualitative distinction between Creator and creature. In the case of omniscience, there isn’t just a quantitative difference between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge, there is a qualitative difference as well. When it comes to knowledge, scope is not the only thing that matters - the method of knowing is important as well. 


We can identify two methods of knowing based on the relationship between the subject of knowledge and object of knowledge. There's the analytic method (analysis), and the synthetic method (synthesis). 


In the analytic method, the object of knowledge is wholly dependent on the subject of knowledge and as such, the subject gains knowledge of the object by simply analyzing their own mind. An example would be an author’s knowledge of their characters. All George Lucas needs to do to know the height of Luke Skywalker is to consult his own mind. This is because the object of knowledge (Luke’s height) is dependent on his own rational activity.


In the synthetic method, the object of knowledge is independent of the subject of knowledge and as such, the subject must investigate or experience a mind-independent world in order to know the object. Our knowledge of most things falls into this category. I cannot know how many grains are in a bag of rice by just consulting my mind - I actually have to count. This is because my mind does not determine how many grains are in the bag.


God knows analytically - His rational activity is constructive of the facts therefore He simply needs to analyze His own thoughts in order to know any fact. Man knows synthetically - the objects of knowledge are independent of his rational activity so he must investigate the facts in order to know them.


However, man’s synthesis is only fruitful due to God’s analysis. God’s mind determines the objects of knowledge and through revelation He reveals fundamental categories that allow man’s synthesis to get off the ground. On the unbeliever’s view, there is no subject whose knowledge is analytic. This means that all knowledge must be gained by synthesis. The problem with this is that synthesis cannot provide knowledge of universals. I go into this and more in Chapter 6 of The Best Argument for Christianity titled “Analysis, Synthesis, and Human Knowledge”. You can check it out here.


God bless!


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