RazorsKiss on the
Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge
Part 7: Rival Epistemologies
Originally published on Incinerating
Presuppositionalism on August 25, 2009.
Continued from Part 6.
* * *
In his debate with Mitch
LeBlanc, Christian apologist “RazorsKiss” (“RK”)
assumes that Christianity is true and that its god somehow constitutes the
basis of knowledge when he refers to the ”axioms”
he presented in his opening statement. He then asks:
Can someone without the axioms that
Christians hold “know” anything?
This question strikes me as rather disingenuous,
for there is nothing to stop RK from simply asserting that anyone who knows
anything is secretly assuming the “axioms that Christians hold,” even if he
isn’t. I say this because so far RK has demonstrated a profound reliance on
arbitrary claims, and essentially zero ability to substantiate his assumption
that those claims have any truth value. Similarly, if a scientist affirms that
water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, there is nothing to stop me
from claiming that the scientist could make this statement only if he secretly
believed that Blarko is the Wonderbeing
and recognizes deep down that Blarko sets the terms
for the scientist’s discovery of such facts. I could even say that the
scientist’s affirmation that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms is
itself evidence that the scientist is drawing from his “sensus
Blarkus,” an “internal ‘sense’” by which Blarko transmits His unimpeachable wisdom to the
scientist’s mind. I would expect that RK would agree that such claims are
arbitrary. But if these claims about Blarko and the “sensus Blarkus” are arbitrary,
why isn’t RK’s
Christian version of the same not also arbitrary? RK does not anticipates such objections anywhere in his debate.
RK’s answer to his own question above is not surprising:
As defined, no. They can’t [know
anything]. They do not have a justification for their beliefs. However, they
themselves do have true beliefs – which do, in many cases, result in success.
In a sense, they do have knowledge. Not because of their epistemology – but
despite it. In these cases, they are simply creatures forced to admit that
despite the incoherence of their epistemology, they do, in fact, know things
anyway.
Again, we find no argument here. Rather, RK is
simply preaching to the converted, which is quite unproductive in the context
of a debate on the topic in question. By now we can say that the tendency to
rely on unsupported assertions instead of defending his view with arguments
supporting it, is habitual for RK. It is for most
presuppositionalists, in spite of Bahnsen’s claim to the very opposite:
In apologetics our task is to analyze the
arguments which are advanced by unbelievers against the truth of Christianity
and to produce sound arguments in favor of it. (Always
Ready, p. 130).
The problem is, RK has
not produced any “sound arguments in favor of… the truth of Christianity.” All
he’s done is affirm various elements of it by repeating presuppositionalist
assertions.
Additionally, RK not using his opportunity to answer any legitimate questions
which one might pose against his proclamations, for his statement neither
anticipates them nor provides any content which would effectively address such
questions. How, for instance, does RK conclude that people who do not assume
the truth of what RK had earlier called “axiomatic… foundations” have no
“justification for their beliefs”? Seriously, how does he know this? He can
assert this to be the case, but this does not tell us how he knows this (unless
he thinks truth conforms to whatever he asserts), nor does it tell us why we
should accept it. It is only by assuming the truth of his own position that he
can avoid considering such questions, which of course begs the question in the
context of a debate over the matter. The only way that RK seems to be able to
“defend” his position is by affirming tail-chasing circularities. “I’m right,
and everyone else is wrong,” seems to be the underlying theme of RK’s epistemology.
But why should anyone believe any of this?
This is the unanswered question. When it comes to defending Christianity, all
that presuppositionalism seems to offer is recitation of positional statements
internal to the Christian faith paradigm. They do not provide reasons for why
we should accept the overall paradigm in the first place. If we accept the
paradigm as a whole (which their defenses presuppose - "Christian theism
as a unit" - Van Til, Apologetics, p.
73), then we could accept its elements and wouldn’t need any persuasion. But
reciting these elements do nothing to validate the paradigm as a whole, which
is what the apologist has been called to prove.
Like other presuppositionalists, RK recognizes that it would be absurd to deny the
“success” of non-Christians’ efforts to discover and validate knowledge, since
clearly non-Christians do acquire and vindicate knowledge on a daily basis. But
the success of non-believers in this area makes presuppositionalists anxious.
They naturally feel a need to explain it in terms of their professed beliefs.
To do this, they do not pay any mind to the particular epistemological process
by which such individuals go about collecting knowledge and validating the
knowledge which they discover. Such details are dismissed without a hearing,
for a hearing on such matters would not be apologetically expedient. Awareness
of those details would of course compel apologists to take on more homework
than they could handle. A quick and easy dismissal is to be preferred over a
rigorous investigation of how scientists come to such truths (or “beliefs”). So
the route of the “naked assertion” (an expression which RK himself uses to
dismiss Mitch LeBlanc’s endorsement of a position argued by George H. Smith) is
the preferred mode du jour, and tomorrow never comes.
So let the presuppositionalist wave away with the flick of the wrist the
epistemological methodology by which the scientist came to the conclusion that
water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The scientist just got lucky is
all. His methodology, since it does not kowtow to “Christ,” in whom all the
“treasures” of knowledge are supposedly “hidden,” cannot possibly arrive at the
truth. So let’s not use the scientist’s profane and sin-laden methodology. Instead,
let’s see how the believer’s epistemological methodology leads us to the
discovery that water is composed of both hydrogen and oxygen atoms. How does
this work? RK pointed to “the Scriptures” as an authoritative source, but
unfortunately I could find no passage in the bible which explains how we can
discover that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen. In fact, the bible
seems to think that water can be transformed into wine by means of conscious
intentions – i.e., without for instance a fruit concoction, yeast, sugars, a
period of fermentation, etc. Clearly the scientist’s epistemological
methodology is insufficient, for he has not discovered how this can be the
case. But this does not answer the question before us, which is:
What is the specifically Christian
epistemological process by which one discovers the elemental make-up of water?
And we can be sure that whatever epistemological
process Christianity recommends for discovering the composition of water might
be, it cannot be the epistemological process which the non-believing scientist
employs (namely reason) to do the same. Bahnsen makes this clear when he makes
statements like the following:
...all unbelieving philosophy destroys the
possibility of knowledge. (Van Til’s Apologetic:
Readings & Analysis, p. 241)
When it comes to knowing things, then, the unbeliever is an “epistemological”
failure; he has no adequate theory, or philosophy, or worldview that makes his
knowing intelligible. (Ibid., p. 407)
The unbeliever should not be left with false pretensions: such as, that his
problem is merely a lack of information, or that he simply needs to correct
some of his syllogisms, or that his experience and thinking are all right as
far as they go. In actuality, the unbeliever’s espoused principles of thought,
reason, and reality would lead to utter intellectual foolishness and
destruction (1 Cor. 1:20; Matt. 7:26-27). (Always Ready, p. 75)
The testimony of Scripture is clear in the teaching that man cannot come to an
understanding of God (and thereby of God’s world) by means of his independently
exercised reason. (Ibid., p. 87)
It cannot be ignored that repentance and faith are necessary for a knowledge of the truth. (Ibid., pp. 100-101)
The very possibility of knowledge outside of God’s revelation (savingly presented in Christ) must be undermined. (Ibid.,
p. 105)
Etc.
Clearly the presuppositionalist position is that
there is a fundamental and system-wide difference between Christian
epistemology and any non-Christian epistemology. They are contrary to each
other. Moreover, it holds that Christian epistemology is the only one capable
of producing knowledge, while all non-Christian epistemologies “lead to utter
intellectual foolishness and destruction.” As RK puts it, “Christianity’s
epistemology is the only epistemology possible.” This is why one of the steps
in the presuppositionalist defense of the Christian faith, is that “the
unbeliever’s espoused presuppositions should be forcefully attacked” and “the
unbeliever’s claims should be reduced to impotence and impossibility” (Always
Ready, p. 79).
As with presuppositionalists like Bahnsen, RK acknowledges that non-Christians
do in fact have knowledge, however “not because of their epistemology – but
despite it.” Since he is talking about all non-Christian systems, he is
including my epistemology in his characterization by implication. However, I
found no indication in his portion of the debate that RK has any familiarity
with my epistemology, let alone an analysis of it exposing its alleged faults.
It is one thing to assert that everyone else is wrong, but another to actually
make good on such claims.
I am very curious how this “Christian epistemology” which RK and other
presuppositionalists mention, works in discovering and validating knowledge.
Since presuppositionalists are emphatic that their epistemological approach to
knowledge is fundamentally different from and opposed to any non-Christian
epistemology, it must operate differently.
As with Van Til and Bahnsen, RK acknowledges that
non-Christians do in fact have knowledge, however “not because of their
epistemology – but despite it.” Since he is talking about all
non-Christian systems, he is including my epistemology in his characterization
by implication. However, I found no indication in his portion of the debate
that RK has any familiarity with my epistemology, let alone an analysis of it
exposing its alleged faults. It is one thing to assert that everyone else is
wrong, but another to actually make good on such claims.
The epistemology of my worldview, Objectivism, is known as reason. It is
the faculty by which one identifies and integrates what he perceives. He does
this by forming concepts from his awareness of objects which he perceives (as
well as subsequent or “higher-level” concepts from previously concepts so
formed), and applying the method of logic to the data he gathers in forming
those concepts to generate inferences and establish conclusions, both
inductively and deductively. This epistemology is explicitly non-Christian, since
it rests on the primacy of existence, while the Christian worldview
indisputably rests on the primacy of consciousness. So “Christianity’s
epistemology” cannot be identical to the epistemology of reason, nor can it be
essentially similar, for the epistemology of reason is a non-Christian
epistemology (belonging to and stemming from a worldview which is consistently
non-theistic in nature), while (as RK claims) the Christian position holds that
“the Triune God of Scripture is not only the proper grounds for all knowledge –
but the only possible grounds for all knowledge,” that “every possible
foundation for every way of thinking not in accordance with His perfect
ordinance is utter, absolute folly,” and that “any claimant contrary to
Christian epistemology is therefore denied by definition.”
Given these fundamental and profound differences between “Christianity’s
epistemology” and the epistemology of reason, it would be helpful if Christians
could articulate in detail just what their epistemology would recommend in the
case of discovering the atomic composition of water. The scientist uses the
epistemology of reason to discover the atomic composition of water and validate
his conclusion that it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. But presuppositional
apologist Richard Pratt tells us that “reason is not the judge of truth” (Every
Thought Captive, p. 74). Bahnsen confirms that the use of reason works
against truth when he writes:
Man uses his reason, not to glorify god
and advance His kingdom, but to rise up in arrogant opposition to the knowledge
of God (2 Cor. 10:5). (Always Ready, p. 46)
So when the scientist uses reason discover the
atomic composition of water and concludes that it consists of hydrogen and
oxygen atoms, he is “ris[ing]
up in arrogant opposition to the knowledge of God.”
What is Christianity’s alternative that the scientist should be using in place
of reason? It cannot recommend reason, and this is clearly understandable when
Bahnsen exclaims:
In principle, and according to what
they profess, the basic worldviews – the fundamental presuppositions –
of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point. (Always
Ready, p. 120)
So “Christianity’s epistemology” and the epistemology
of reason must “conflict with each other at every point.” Again, here are the
points belonging to the epistemology of reason with which “Christianity’s
epistemology” must “conflict”:
- beginning with perception (our means of
acquiring awareness of the world)
- Integrating objects perceived into
concepts (basic concept-formation)
- Integrating lower-level concepts into
higher-level concepts (abstraction from abstractions)
- Application of logic to the data we
gather from what we perceive and integrate into concepts
- Generating inferences from the
application of logic to data gathered from the world
- Establishing conclusions by validating
all the steps from perception through the inferential process
Generally speaking, this is how the scientist
discovered that water was composed of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. He applied the
scientific method, which is the application of the epistemology of reason to
specific inquiries about objects he discovers in the world. It is a human
method, since its principles are suited to the nature of human
consciousness. There is no deference to “divine revelation” involved here, so
it must be opposed to “Christianity’s epistemology.”
Since the scientist who concludes that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen
atoms is relying on a human method which is not governed by divine
revelation, it may be the case that his conclusion that water is composed of
oxygen and hydrogen is completely wrong. In fact, this is what we should expect
if his epistemology is faulty, which RK is claiming. A faulty epistemology will
not produce reliable results, right? But how can one fault a divinely inspired
epistemology? Since RK denies the validity of the scientist’s epistemology, he
should identify and explain the steps which Christian epistemology would
recommend us to take in order to discover the atomic make-up of water. I for
one would like to see this, for I’ve always relied on the epistemology of
reason, which does not draw from the source of “divine revelation.” Since the scientist’s
methodology is supposedly faulty, we should expect that whatever methodology RK
proposes in place of it to be fundamentally dissimilar to the scientist’s
epistemology. But until he divulges it, we are left in the dark. And isn’t that
ironic? Christ supposedly brought light to the world (cf. John 12:46), and yet
when we ask Christ’s representatives to shine this light, we only get darkness.
Why is that? It cannot be because we do not see, for clearly we see, and we
know the difference between light and darkness (if we didn’t, these concepts
would be meaningless, and yet Christianity expects us to understand them).
Indeed, I’m asking to see the “light” of “Christian epistemology”! Yet contrary
to the promises we read in “the Scriptures” (cf. John 16:24), we do not
receive. The believer comes back void, empty-handed and unprepared to assist in
such inquiries. This is not the scientist’s fault. Nor is it the
non-Christian’s problem.
To Part 8.
________________________
Back to RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge