Revelational vs. Autonomous Epistemology

The Christian and unbeliever have views of the world that are diametrically opposed. It should come as no surprise then that their views of human knowledge are antithetical as well. To see this, let’s examine how each system views man’s knowledge of a cup.

On the Christian view, when man knows a cup, he is reconstructing God’s system of knowledge. The cup owes its existence and nature to the eternal counsel of God. God’s conception of the cup is what makes the cup what it is. So God is the first to know the cup, and man simply mirrors God’s knowledge. It is in this sense that man’s knowledge is said to be analogical. Being created in God’s image, man’s conceptual structure is designed to reflect God’s mind on a created level. Thus, man’s knowledge of a cup is an analogical reflection of God’s original knowledge of the cup. 

On the unbeliever’s view, however, when man knows a cup, he is trying to know a previously unknown thing. There is no eternal counsel that makes the cup what it is. Man’s system of knowledge is original and not an analogical reflection of any prior rational system that determines the existence and nature of the cup. 

This is the major difference between revelational epistemology and autonomous epistemology. Revelational epistemology teaches man’s total dependence on God in epistemology. Autonomous epistemology asserts man’s epistemological self-sufficiency.

An autonomous epistemology is doomed to fail, though. This is because original knowledge without absolute control of the facts leads to subjectivism. 

For there to be knowledge, there must be a correspondence between the subject’s conception of a thing and the factuality of the thing. For me to know a cup, my conception of the cup must actually match how the cup really is. However, if man’s system of knowledge is original, how can he secure this correspondence?

God is in sovereign control of all of reality. His system of knowledge makes the facts what they are so His conception of a thing literally is the factuality of the thing. But man is not sovereign and he does not control historical eventuation. Thus, he cannot secure any connection between his conception of a thing and the factuality of that thing. Hence, on the unbeliever’s view, whenever man knows a thing, he is simply knowing his own conceptual framework. Subjectivism.

By adopting an autonomous epistemology man attempts to act like God. But his folly is quickly exposed because he does not possess the absolute control over history that God does. And thus, his epistemology ends up in subjectivism, unable to secure any knowledge of a mind-independent reality.

This is the folly of unbelief.

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