# Has anyone ever heard that VanTil is Christian answer to Kant?



## shackleton (Nov 14, 2009)

I have been studying philosophy lately and have come across Kant, I heard someone say that Van Til is the Christian answer to Kant, anyone heard this or have any info? 
Thanks


----------



## sastark (Nov 15, 2009)

Yup, I've heard that before.


----------



## steven-nemes (Nov 15, 2009)

I don't know how that would be. Perhaps if I knew specifically what it is about Kant that Van Til allegedly answered? And why it is that Kant needs to be answered?


----------



## ReformingFlatlander (Nov 15, 2009)

From what I understand, I believe that yes, Van Til does respond in essence to Kant's atheistic responses and ultimately advocates for total depravity.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 15, 2009)

It depends on your (forgive me) presuppositions. Clearly there are remarkable similarities between phenomenology and Van Til. To people not particularly inclined toward Van Til, he appears to be simply a Christian knock-off of Kant. In other words, answering Kant but, ironically, using Kant's basic assumptions. If you are more inclined toward Van Til, you see him as an effective refutation. 

If you follow the history of philosophy to David Hume, you have two responses to Hume that take very different tracks. One was Kant (phenomenology) and the other was Reid (Common Sense). So if you're Reidian, Van Til appears to fall into the Kantian morass.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 15, 2009)

When I was still a Philosophy student, who was an agnostic, back in college, Kant was my favorite philosopher. When I became a believer, I felt that a Christian response to Kant's agnostic epistemology was very much needed. It was only when I was brought to the Reformed church and was able to read Van Til that I found the much needed biblical response that I have long sought for.

I recommend that you read Van Til. His Defense of the Faith is part of the basic curriculum of almost every Reformed Seminary. Even if you're not inclined towards Presuppositionalism, I believe you will very much benefit by reading this book.


----------



## JTB (Nov 15, 2009)

Gordon Clark, in several places, undermines Kant's philosophy.

Examine, for example:

1. Historiography Secular and Religious
2. Thales to Dewey
3. A Christian View of Men and Things
4. Three Types of Religious Philosophy (reprinted in Christian Philosophy)


----------



## Philip (Nov 15, 2009)

Van Til tries to use Kant against himself and fails, instead becoming a Christian version of Kant. He accepts the divide between the noumenal and the phenomenal and claims (as opposed to Reid) that we cannot know the "thing in itself" because of the problem of mediate perception. In essence, Van Til sanitizes and Christianizes Kant's epistemology.

Clark refutes Kant, but sets up a system similar to Leibniz that has no connection to reality whatsoever--it's a common enough fault among Calvinists (myself included).

Reid answers the problem with direct realism, claiming that we do, in fact, have direct access to reality via the senses, which are common to all (with Locke, I think he puts reason and logic in the category of senses). If, like me, you are more inclined toward a pre-modern epistemology, Reid will be more useful than Van Til. Reid doesn't deal with total depravity--but if what we are talking about is sense perception (a la Hume and Kant), then it's not really a big deal. Reid is essential if you want to understand the old Princeton theology of Hodge, Warfield, and Machen.


----------



## Ron (Nov 15, 2009)

shackleton said:


> I have been studying philosophy lately and have come across Kant, I heard someone say that Van Til is the Christian answer to Kant, anyone heard this or have any info?
> Thanks



Yes, that is a very common understanding but not because of any refutation of Kant _per se_. Rather it is because CVT did Kant the right way. Kant reasoned transcendentally, which I would argue had a large impact on CVT. CVT focused on the _a priori_ as did Kant; yet Kant only psychologized science whereas CVT began his epistemology and related it to his metaphysic through Scripture’s interpretation of general revelation.

Ron


----------

