The System and the Facts

Every fact requires a context to be intelligible. Individual words, propositions, objects of experience, and facts about the world require a context in which they can be intelligible and interpreted. 


The proposition "the monkey ate the banana" would not be intelligible without a system of beliefs about monkeys, bananas, eating and a host of other things. Also, our experience of individual objects cannot be made sense of without reference to concepts and categories of interpretation. When we experience an apple, we relate it to the various categories or roundness, sweetness, redness, etc.


The question immediately arises as to where one acquires the system or context to make sense of facts, objects, propositions, etc. 


One possible answer is that we acquire the system from experience. The immediate problem with this is that we have already noted that we require the system to make sense of the facts. Without prior interpretive categories, we cannot make sense of our experience. But even if we grant that we're somehow able to develop a system from our experience of the facts, without exhaustive foreknowledge of what events history will bring about we can never be sure of our interpretive principles. They lose universality. Without searching every corner of the universe, we can never know that there's no fact that contradicts our system and renders it useless. Skepticism results. 


Another possible answer is that we possess the system prior to our experience. The problem with this is that if the whole system is available prior to experience, then it becomes arbitrary. It is completely divorced from the world of experience.  As such, there's no need to go into the world and investigate to learn about the particulars. The system becomes rootless. It is imposed upon experience arbitrarily. Subjectivism results. 


In the Christian view, we do not face such problems. God knows all facts. He also knows exhaustively how the facts relate to one another. Hence, in God's mind lies both the system and the facts; the universals and the particulars. He has revealed some of it to us. Building upon revelation, we can derive a system for knowing other things. We can be sure that our interpretive categories are adequate for the world because they reflect the system in God's mind. So man, in order to know the world, must depend upon revelation.


This is a brief illustration of the epistemic necessity of divine revelation. You can find more detailed treatments of this in The Folly of Unbelief here.


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