# Transcendental Argument - Kant vs Van Til



## nwink (Aug 19, 2013)

What is the difference in the way the transcendental argument was used by Kant vs the way it was used by Van Til? I was recently talking with a Reformed classical apologetics method guy who greatly disliked the transcendental argument because of the way it was used by Kant. (I think that's how he said it)


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 19, 2013)

I have just been wondering this myself as listening through RC Sproul's series "The Consequences of Ideas" he mentions Kant's transcendental argument, but I don't know that they are the same or if Van Til was even influenced by Kant in this respect, I'm new to Pressupp and would like to know myself.


----------



## ooguyx (Aug 19, 2013)

"Kant’s phenomenal realm is but an island, and that a floating island on a bottomless and shoreless sea. After all, the human mind can furnish at most a finite schematism or a priori. We do not admit that the human mind can furnish any a priori at all unless it is related to God. But suppose for a moment that it could, such a schematism could never be comprehensive."
-- Christian-Theistic Evidences (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978), p. 37."

Kant and Van Til are different. For Van Til, the "unknown" is completely rational and other, while for Kant the "unknown" is irrational. It's certainly more complex than that, but it's a start. While there are some similarities, Van Til sees Kant as the most logically consistent atheist and when you see Van Til's circle diagrams the atheist one is based off Kant's brand of atheism.


----------



## Philip (Aug 19, 2013)

It is not altogether clear whether Kant was an atheist, an agnostic, or a deist. The difference between the two lies in their interpretation of the noumenal/phenomenal distinction. Kant thinks that you can't talk about the noumenal (the thing in itself, unobserved, or outside the empirical realm) only the phenomenal, and that what philosophy does is to describe the boundaries of the phenomenal. He doesn't say that God doesn't exist, notice, merely that if He did, He would be unknowable.

Van Til, on the other hand, sees revelation (God breaking through the phenomenal realm) as the necessary context for the phenomenal. There are things, admittedly, which we can't know, but there are other things which God has revealed which give us true understanding of the phenomenal, such that if one doesn't believe them, the phenomena don't make sense.

That's my understanding of Van Til.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 20, 2013)

I once heard an atheist arguing with either Sye Ten Bruggencate or Dustin Segers saying "Isn't Van Till's TAG just Anselms ontological argument" and I can't recall how they answered that. So now we have an atheist equating the TAG with Kant, but all presupps contend that presuppositional apologetics are the only correct way to defend the faith Biblically and therefore this is how the apostles and early church did things. So I was wondering if you guys could show me how the TAG differs from Anselm and keeping with the thread a little more on how it differs from Kant, but also some examples of how the TAG has been used by the apostles (like acts 17) and the early church, to show that the TAG wasn't originated with Anselm or Kant or someone else but with the scriptures. Nothing new under the sun kinda deal right? 

I'm relatively new to presupp and I'm eating it up, I've Got Bahsen's "Always Ready" in the mail and on its way! So much to learn.


----------



## Philip (Aug 20, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> I once heard an atheist arguing with either Sye Ten Bruggencate or Dustin Segers saying "Isn't Van Till's TAG just Anselms ontological argument" and I can't recall how they answered that.



Technically, it would be the ontological argument used in reverse. Both attempt to show the same thing (that God necessarily exists). Anselm does through direct argumentation from a definition, whereas Van Til does it through trying to show that the contrary is impossible (the "there is no gold in China" approach).



GloriousBoaz said:


> ll presupps contend that presuppositional apologetics are the only correct way to defend the faith Biblically and therefore this is how the apostles and early church did things



I would consider myself a preuppositionalist (of a sort, though not a Van Tillian as such) and I don't think this. To say that the apostles used presuppositional apologetics is anachronistic---certainly they originated ideas that would lead there, but I can't find presuppositionalism as such in Scripture any more than I can find the cosmological argument there.

There are other correct ways to defend the faith Biblically---Christians acting like Christians would be the best argument of all. A witness to the transforming power of the Gospel is the way that we ought to defend our faith first and foremost. By the same token, when Christians fail to act in a Christlike manner, it's the greatest argument against Christianity.



GloriousBoaz said:


> a little more on how it differs from Kant



It's all in how it's being used. Kant is using a TA to define the parameters of discourse (ie: what it is possible to talk about) whereas Van Til is using it to show that God (and only God) is the necessary precondition for what we observe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 20, 2013)

Just to return to the OP for a moment, here's a good explanation of what a TA is (Transcendental Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))



> As standardly conceived, transcendental arguments are taken to be distinctive in involving a certain sort of claim, namely that X is a necessary condition for the possibility of Y—where then, given that Y is the case, it logically follows that X must be the case too. Moreover, because these arguments are generally used to respond to skeptics who take our knowledge claims to be problematic, the Y in question is then normally taken to be some fact about us or our mental life which the skeptic can be expected to accept without question (e.g., that we have experiences, or make certain judgements, or perform certain actions, or have certain capacities, and so on), where X is then something the skeptic doubts or denies (e.g., the existence of the external world, or of the necessary causal relation between events, or of other minds, or the force of moral reasons). In this way, it is hoped, skepticism can be overturned using transcendental arguments that embody such transcendental claims.



Concerning Kant


> As presented by Kant, the Refutation is aimed at the ‘problematic idealism of Descartes’, who holds that the existence of objects outside us in space is ‘doubtful and indemonstrable’ (Kant 1781/1787 B274)—where, as Kant famously remarks in the Preface to the second edition of the Critique in which he comments on the Refutation, ‘it always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us (from which we after all get the whole matter for our cognitions, even for our inner sense) should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof’ (Kant 1781/1787 Bxxxix note). Kant's strategy in response then sets the canonical pattern for a transcendental argument, in beginning from what the skeptic takes for granted, namely that we have mental states which we experience as having a temporal order, and then arguing for the transcendental claim that experience of this sort would not be possible unless we also had generally veridical experience of things in space outside us, and thus knowledge of the external world. In more detail, the argument can be presented as follows (cf. Kant 1781/1787 B275–79 and Bxxxix–xli note):
> 
> (1)
> You are aware of your inner mental states (thoughts and sensations) as having a temporal order (e.g., that the sensation of pain you are having now was preceded in time by a feeling of pleasure).
> ...



If I'm reading Kant's TA correctly, he seems to ground the TA to human reason. That is, he uses human experience to argue against idealism. For Kant, reason begins and ends with the human mind making category distinctions with the outside world. The mind can only make categorical distinctions of the phenomenal world and not any things in themselves (noumenal).

With Van Til, however, he argues that the beginning and ending point of reason is the Creator and not the human mind making categorical distinctions. Knowledge is not something that begins with the human mind making categorical distinctions but is by way of Revelation from the Creator to the creature and no "fact" can be understaood without properly understanding the Creator it owes its existence to.

That's how my pea brain handles it.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 20, 2013)

Thanks for the info, that first point of it being in reverse is really helpful for me I'm going to meditate on that a while.

I guess I fall more into a Van Tilian category and also would say that presupp has always been the way the apostles preached, assuming or presupposing the truth of Christianity and not proving it. Like in Genesis 1 where it starts out not proving God's existence but presupposing it. and even to go so far to say that apologetics which makes God a viable option (the most viable) among many is sin. And you don't have to prove God exists to an atheist they already know that He does according to Romans 1 and as Sye says "God doesn't send anyone to hell for denying the God they don't know but for suppressing the truth and rejecting the God they do know." Know the distinction lies in situations where it is less confrontational and you are merely witnessing then you are not supposed to engage in apologetics but rather simply give truth, and testify, and here evidences are acceptable. Evidences are also useful in using them for their main purpose, to bolster the Christian's faith and clear out some cobwebs that might be clinging on. But I believe at this point using evidences in an apologetic setting puts God on trial, puts Him in the dock. And instead of Him being the judge and jury, the atheist becomes the judge and jury. So that's where I stand currently and to my best knowledge believe that is where the scriptures stand according to the propriety in how we 1. witness and 2. apologize (classic sense of the word) and 3. built each other up in the faith.



> Christians acting like Christians would be the best argument of all. A witness to the transforming power of the Gospel is the way that we ought to defend our faith first and foremost. By the same token, when Christians fail to act in a Christlike manner, it's the greatest argument against Christianity.



This is indeed very true but we must consider it further 1. There are tares that cause the name of God to be blasphemed among the heathen, so this isn't the only way to minister, by the preaching of the word comes faith even though it is foolishness 1 cor. 1 tells us this is how God saves men and His word will not return void. 2. if all we do is act but not talk then we turn into Social Gospelers which is not Biblical either. The old quote by st. Francis "We must preach the gospel with our lives and if necessary use words" is heresy because it is not either/or it is both/and. The Word must be proclaimed. But we must live it as well indeed, Jesus Christ never came down on anyone harder than He did the hypocrites and we do not want to be numbered among them. We must be salt and light, we must bear our crosses, we must engage in spiritual weapons that are mighty to the pulling down of strongholds such as, intercessory prayer, sacrificial love, and the proclamation of the gospel. We must be like our Lord, imitators of Christ, seeking more of His Holy Spirit to be more and more conformed to the image of His Son. 

I hope I don't seem confrontational Philip, I'm not being so at all, I just wanted to add some clarifiers. I agree with you completely on the necessity to live it out, to walk by faith, in the Spirit and not in the flesh, as well as to act like Christians in deed, not only in word, to be "Little Christs"

Thanks for your quick response it is most helpful, a lot of stuff to chew on.

Rich I think Van Til (from my little understanding of him) would say that we all know things about reality but only those who acknowledge their creator can justify their knowledge and for Kant if he was using his mind (or reasoning) in order to justify his reasoning it is viciously circular and therefore he has no justification. If Kant was trying to understand the noumenal from the phenomenal he just can't because he rejects scripture, he can know there is evidence that their is a Creator from general revelation which is enough to condemn him but that is it. RC Sproul said:


> "Kant gave a comprehensive critique of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, wrecking havoc on natural theology and classical apologetics. Kant ended in agnosticism with respect to God, arguing that God cannot be known either by rational deduction or by empirical investigation. He assigned God to the “noumenal world,” a realm impenetrable by reason or by sense perception.
> 
> The impact on apologetics and metaphysical speculation of Kant’s work has been keenly felt. What is often overlooked, however, even among philosophers, is the profound impact Kant’s critique had on our understanding of the soul.
> 
> Kant placed three concepts or entities in his noumenal realm, a realm above and beyond the phenomenal realm. The triad includes God, the self, and the thing-in-itself, or essences. If God resides in this extraphenomenal realm, then, the argument goes, we cannot know anything about Him. Our knowledge, indeed all true science, is restricted to the phenomenal realm, the world perceived by the senses. Kant argued that we cannot move to the noumenal realm by reasoning from the phenomenal realm (a point that put Kant on a collision course with the apostle Paul)."



The Origin of the Soul by R.C. Sproul | Reformed Theology Articles at Ligonier.org

I'd have to listen to RC again but listening to him he said something that inorder for Kant to posit a noumenal reality he had to admit there was a god, but he said he was beyond knowing and therefore was somewhat of an agnostic (though we know there are no such things because all men know there is a God and either are elected, regenerate and saved, or suppress His truth in unrighteousness).


----------



## Philip (Aug 20, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> I guess I fall more into a Van Tilian category and also would say that presupp has always been the way the apostles preached, assuming or presupposing the truth of Christianity and not proving it.



I would argue that Scripture proclaims God's truth, because Scripture is revelation. Scripture is God revealing Himself. The concept of revelation presupposes that someone is there to reveal Himself. That's not the same as a transcendental argument, however.

My main point here was to say that we can't read Van Til into the Bible. One may find support for a transcendental argument in Scripture, but I am as reluctant to say that the TAG is _in_ Scripture as I would be to say that any other argument for Christianity is in Scripture. Why? Because Scripture itself is the evidence---it is God revealing Himself, authoritatively and inerrently. That's a very different proposition than a transcendental argument, which is an attempt to show that Scripture is revelatory. Transcendental argumentation as such was invented by Kant and while Van Til appropriated it, certainly, it is anachronistic to try and read it back into Scripture. 



GloriousBoaz said:


> I'd have to listen to RC again but listening to him he said something that inorder for Kant to posit a noumenal reality he had to admit there was a god, but he said he was beyond knowing and therefore was somewhat of an agnostic



The mistake of Kant is in positing a noumenal realm at all. Wittgenstein ended up in a very similar place to Kant, but rejected the noumenal as a confused concept. As it is, Kant doesn't think you can understand the noumenal because to know anything, you have to interpret it. What Van Til does at this point is to suggest that to know anything, you have to (even unconsciously) assume that God exists and has revealed Himself.

Personally, I tend to deny the distinction altogether (taking the approach of Reid and Old Princeton).



GloriousBoaz said:


> But I believe at this point using evidences in an apologetic setting puts God on trial, puts Him in the dock. And instead of Him being the judge and jury, the atheist becomes the judge and jury.



By presenting any argument, you do this, though. If you appeal to my reason, then you are asking me to listen to your argument and make a favorable judgment. The defendant and prosecutor are not attempting to convince each other but to convince the judge (or jury).

One last thing to note is that Sproul, who you quote, is not Van Tillian. He tends toward classical argumentation (and identifies with that tradition) so I would label him a common-sense presuppositionalist.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 20, 2013)

> I would argue that Scripture proclaims God's truth, because Scripture is revelation. Scripture is God revealing Himself. The concept of revelation presupposes that someone is there to reveal Himself. That's not the same as a transcendental argument, however.
> 
> My main point here was to say that we can't read Van Til into the Bible. One may find support for a transcendental argument in Scripture, but I am as reluctant to say that the TAG is in Scripture as I would be to say that any other argument for Christianity is in Scripture.



I guess I wasn't clear in differentiating the TAG from presupp. Scripture is obviously presupp and offers presupp argumentation, but I do wonder if the TAG is taught implicitly (as opposed to explicitly which I think it is safe to say that it is not) in the text of the Bible.



> Personally, I tend to deny the distinction altogether (taking the approach of Reid and Old Princeton).



I'm curious how the unseen heavens and principalities figure into this, would Kant say they are noumenal? or something else, and why would we say that they are not noumenal?



> By presenting any argument, you do this, though. If you appeal to my reason, then you are asking me to listen to your argument and make a favorable judgment. The defendant and prosecutor are not attempting to convince each other but to convince the judge (or jury).



Its very different when your argument is meant as a command (or preaching as well) or when your apologetics is designed to cast down vain arguments vs. putting forth a mass of evidence and then letting the atheist deliberate, which I would say is the difference between a presupp and and evidentialist or classicalist (which you are very right I should have stated that RC is a Classical apologist).


----------



## MW (Aug 20, 2013)

Philip said:


> By presenting any argument, you do this, though. If you appeal to my reason, then you are asking me to listen to your argument and make a favorable judgment. The defendant and prosecutor are not attempting to convince each other but to convince the judge (or jury).



But all of this presupposes the authority of the State which created the judge and the function of the Law to distinguish what is lawful from what is unlawful.


----------



## Philip (Aug 20, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> I'm curious how the unseen heavens and principalities figure into this, would Kant say they are noumenal?



Kant would say "not experienced, not a necessary condition of experience, ergo noumenal. Can't talk about it."



GloriousBoaz said:


> or something else, and why would we say that they are not noumenal?



I deny the distinction. I believe that God has provided us with the appropriate equipment to deal with His world and His revealed word is part of that.



GloriousBoaz said:


> Scripture is obviously presupp and offers presupp argumentation



Depends on what we mean by that. In general, Scripture says, "this is the Word of the Lord. Believe." When argument is offered, it is generally in the form of a sign or miracle.



GloriousBoaz said:


> Its very different when your argument is meant as a command (or preaching as well) or when your apologetics is designed to cast down vain arguments vs. putting forth a mass of evidence and then letting the atheist deliberate, which I would say is the difference between a presupp and and evidentialist or classicalist



Even if all you are doing is refuting objections, you are still letting judgment play a role. Any time you make any sort of argument at all, you are asking your audience to make a judgment. Otherwise, you'd better just stick to preaching.



armourbearer said:


> But all of this presupposes the authority of the State which created the judge and the function of the Law to distinguish what is lawful from what is unlawful.



Likewise argumentation presupposes the authority of God who created man in His image and the function of reason to distinguish what is reasonable from what is unreasonable.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 20, 2013)

> Likewise argumentation presupposes the authority of God who created man in His image and the function of reason to distinguish what is reasonable from what is unreasonable.



But they can't reason themselves into the kingdom correct? They can only come by election and regeneration. So in effect, the process of weighing and evaluating information is moot because of John 3:3. In an apologetic encounter with an atheist they will always aline themselves with being themselves the judge and God is nonexistant and therefore on trial, (unless the process of regeneration has begun) so if we give them evidence to weigh out they will sit in judgment of God unless we discern a softening in their hearts i.e. regeneration and then engage in witnessing instead of apologetics.


----------



## Philip (Aug 20, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> But they can't reason themselves into the kingdom correct?



Of course not. But God may choose to use your argument to bring them into the kingdom.



GloriousBoaz said:


> In an apologetic encounter with an atheist they will always aline themselves with being themselves the judge and God is nonexistant and therefore on trial



True. They'll also do this in an evangelistic encounter.



GloriousBoaz said:


> engage in witnessing instead of apologetics.



Why are the two separate? We can certainly say that apologetics is a form of witness, but it is inextricably linked. Consider: what is a witness? One who testifies (notice the courtroom language) that something is true. By witnessing, you are presenting evidence that there is a God in an attempt to persuade. John Gerstner used to say that no one was ever brought to Christ by an argument, but neither was anyone ever brought to Christ without one.


----------



## MW (Aug 20, 2013)

Philip said:


> Likewise argumentation presupposes the authority of God who created man in His image and the function of reason to distinguish what is reasonable from what is unreasonable.



I would have thought "revelation" rather than "reason" would have completed the analogy; otherwise reason is made a law unto itself. Either way, this establishes the presuppositionalism of Scripture, don't you think?


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 20, 2013)

> Of course not. But God may choose to use your argument to bring them into the kingdom.



Yes God uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines.



> True. They'll also do this in an evangelistic encounter.



No because then it becomes an apologetic encounter.



> Why are the two separate? We can certainly say that apologetics is a form of witness,



I agree with that based on 1 pe 3:15. But consider that mowing your lawn is being a witness (to how you present yourself) point being that all kinds of things are us being a witness to Christ. 



> One who testifies (notice the courtroom language)



Yes but you don't say "well the building must have had a builder, here's the evidence you decide" or "every cause must have a causer, what do you think?" no you testify by saying say "Here is what God did for me and unless you likewise repent you will also perish, in the words of spurgeon: 'turn or burn' " and God never gets dethroned.



> I would have thought "revelation" rather than "reason" would have completed the analogy; otherwise reason is made a law unto itself. Either way, this establishes the presuppositionalism of Scripture, don't you think?



If I catch your meaning then:


----------



## Philip (Aug 20, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> No because then it becomes an apologetic encounter.



So is every encounter now apologetic? Because in every encounter the unbeliever will set himself up as judge.



GloriousBoaz said:


> no you testify by saying say "Here is what God did for me and unless you likewise repent you will also perish, in the words of spurgeon: 'turn or burn' " and God never gets dethroned.



Of course he doesn't---but the unbeliever is still making a judgment about whether your testimony is adequate. Even by saying "turn or burn" you have implied a decision.



armourbearer said:


> I would have thought "revelation" rather than "reason" would have completed the analogy; otherwise reason is made a law unto itself. Either way, this establishes the presuppositionalism of Scripture, don't you think?



Reason is not a law unto itself but a part of the Divine image. I haven't disputed presuppositionalism, merely Van Til's form. I don't treat God's existence as a proposition that _needs_ proof, nor do I consider Christianity one belief system among many. Certainly the task of apologetics is to present proof, but it's proof with a view toward initiating further conversation and explaining the Gospel.



GloriousBoaz said:


> Yes God uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines.



Good news for all of us. Because we're all crooked sticks.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 20, 2013)

> So is every encounter now apologetic? Because in every encounter the unbeliever will set himself up as judge.



If they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness it is an apologetic situation.



> Even by saying "turn or burn" you have implied a decision.



Yest a decision on whether to stop suppressing the truth of God or not, not a reasonable decision to follow the proof to the existence of God.



> Reason is not a law unto itself but a part of the Divine image. I haven't disputed presuppositionalism, merely Van Til's form. I don't treat God's existence as a proposition that needs proof, nor do I consider Christianity one belief system among many.



Glad you clarified those things though I didn't think you thought or were preaching any of those things. I am curious though are you Clarkian then, maybe you already mentioned and it has slipped my mind?



> Certainly the task of apologetics is to present proof, but it's proof with a view toward initiating further conversation and explaining the Gospel.



I believe the task of apologetics is to contend for the faith against critics. But I will conceed your latter point, further conversation is the goal, and there is much rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repents, more than 99 righteous men who need not repent. It is the most amazing thing when someone softens there heart infront of you and is willing to discuss further without antagonism, but also we rejoice in the persecution because our Lord said it would be so.

So I think we have beat this horse into the ground  but I will say thank you this conversation has been a blast I've enjoyed it tremendously. I would still love to see the TAG in the earlier church father's (in a more primitive form perhaps) if it exists that would be muy interesante. Also I still would like to grasp all the nuances of Kant's TA and even if there is any correlation to noumenal and spiritual (even if just minor).


----------



## Philip (Aug 21, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> Yest a decision on whether to stop suppressing the truth of God or not, not a reasonable decision to follow the proof to the existence of God.



That's the decision all of the time, though, even if one is merely presenting evidence. The point of presenting evidence is to demonstrate that they ought to know, that they can't hide behind excuses---that they are refusing to see what is plainly manifest.



GloriousBoaz said:


> Glad you clarified those things though I didn't think you thought or were preaching any of those things. I am curious though are you Clarkian then, maybe you already mentioned and it has slipped my mind?



Definitely not a Clarkian. I'm more in line with Thomas Reid, B.B. Warfield, and Alvin Plantinga when it comes to epistemology, which makes me very cautious about the very idea of transcendental argumentation.



GloriousBoaz said:


> I would still love to see the TAG in the earlier church father's



Good luck finding a 20th century argument there. Van Til himself is aware that he's proposing something new and his history of philosophy ends up concluding that, for example, Augustine's epistemology owes too much to Platonism, and Calvin's epistemology, while a good starting point, is incomplete.



GloriousBoaz said:


> Also I still would like to grasp all the nuances of Kant's TA



I'd recommend going and reason "Critique of Pure Reason" as well as a bit of David Hume for context (Kant is responding to Hume). You might also consider Thomas Reid's _Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man_ for an 18th Century Christian response to Hume.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 21, 2013)

Thanks for the recommended sources Philip I haven't studied philosophy since college and I wasn't a christian then and being a buddhist, mystic, new ager, before being saved philosophy was a stumbling block for me in my first years of being saved as it would have caused me to neglect the scriptures as I could not see philosophy as anything but dangerous as I couldn't see Christ as the answer to every major philosophical historical problem, but now this is definitally where God wants me and i'm new to this so I am planning on finishing RC's "Consquences of Ideas"" lectures then start in on Jones' "History of Western Philosophy" which I purchased as I really want a solid foundation, an overview to see how thought developed, who the major players are and the problems they struggled with which lead to their major contribution, and then how scripture addresses this. Then I was wanting to dive into primary resources as I have aquired many of the major thinker's most influential writings for free on my kindle. 

I've been desiring to read "God Freedom Evil" by Plantinga, would you suggest I start there with Plantinga or elsewhere?


----------



## Philip (Aug 21, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> 've been desiring to read "God Freedom Evil" by Plantinga, would you suggest I start there with Plantinga or elsewhere?



I would suggest "Warranted Christian Belief" to start with. Be forewarned that Plantinga doesn't have quite as high a view of scripture as you and I do (theologically he leans neo-orthodox, but not liberal) but his points about how Christian belief works are truly insightful. His "Advice to Christian Philosophers" is also an excellent essay that every Christian interested in philosophy should read.

Here's Warranted Christian Belief and here's Advice to Christian Philosophers.

Plantinga isn't nearly as good when it comes to the problem of evil and freedom as he's a Molinist, and no longer a Calvinist.


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 21, 2013)

Ah I heard Dustin Segers mention he disagreed with Plantinga's view on the problem of evil but he just said it in passing, so he's a molinist huh? Yeah thats problematic. Thanks for the references and the warning too that helps me out a lot.

The abstract at the beginning of warrented belief said that Plantinga suggested reading only chapters 6 through 9 if you only want the core thoughts is that pages 189 through 329 on the pdf or the headings entitled "6 Warranted belief in God" "7 Sin and Its Cognitive Consequences" "8 The Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model: Revealed to Our Minds" and "9 The Testimonial Model: Sealed upon Our Hearts"? would you think that to be a good introduction to Plantinga along with Advice to Christian Philosophers ?


----------



## Philip (Aug 21, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> The abstract at the beginning of warrented belief said that Plantinga suggested reading only chapters 6 through 9 if you only want the core thoughts is that pages 189 through 329 on the pdf or the headings entitled "6 Warranted belief in God" "7 Sin and Its Cognitive Consequences" "8 The Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model: Revealed to Our Minds" and "9 The Testimonial Model: Sealed upon Our Hearts"?



Those chapters are the ones. The preceding chapters are an interesting clearing of the air, yielding such gems as:

"The British philosopher David Hume writes with a certain surface clarity that disappointingly disappears on closer inspection. With Kant, there is good news and bad news: the good news is that we don’t suffer that disappointment; the bad news is that it’s because there isn’t any surface clarity to begin with."

That said, the only ones you should probably deal with are 3, 4, and 5 (5 mostly because he's clearly having fun taking potshots at Freud and Marx).


----------



## GloriousBoaz (Aug 21, 2013)

oooo, i'll probably check out 3,4,5 because I could always use a bit of frued bashing, well marx too for that matter. Get a little ammunition and perhaps some payback for secular university anthropology of religion course jee wizz and yikes those were trying times. Thanks Philip!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2013)

GloriousBoaz said:


> Rich I think Van Til (from my little understanding of him) would say that we all know things about reality but only those who acknowledge their creator can justify their knowledge and for Kant if he was using his mind (or reasoning) in order to justify his reasoning it is viciously circular and therefore he has no justification.



I think Van Til's view can be summarized below (from his contribution to the Infallible Word). The Q&A format was based on an assignment for Seminary. I think Van Til's view can be understood within the framework of Reformed theology that sees all of man's knowledge as being from Revelation. Man was never created to comprehend reality using autonomous reason but to analogically interpret Revelation. The Fall created a condition whereby man is blind to its proper interpretation and so the perpiscuity of Natural Revelation is only restored by regeneration.

*How is natural theology necessary?*
Scripture does not claim to speak to man in any other way than in conjunction with nature.[1] God's revelation of Himself in nature combined with His revelation of Himself in Scripture form God's one grand scheme of covenant relationship of Himself with man. The two forms presuppose and complement one another.[2]
It was necessary in the garden as the lower act of obedience learned from avoiding the tree of knowledge of good and evil man might learn the higher things of obedience to God. The natural appeared in the regularity of nature.
After the fall, the natural appears under to curse of God and not merely regular. God's curse on nature is revealed along with regularity. The natural reveals an unalleviated picture of folly and ruin[3] and speaks to the need for a Redeemer.
To the believer the natural or regular with all its complexity always appears as the playground for the process of differentiation which leads ever onward to the fullness of the glory of God.[4]
*
What is the authority of natural revelation?*
The same God who reveals Himself in Scripture is the God who reveals Himself in nature. They are of the same authority even if the former is superior in clarity than the latter. We are analogues to God and our respect for revelation in both spheres must be maintained and it is only when we refuse to act as creatures that we contrast authority between natural and special revelation. What comes to man by his rational and moral nature (created in God's image) is no less objective than what comes to him through the created order as all is in Covenant relationship to God. All created activity is inherently revelational of the nature and will of God.[5]
*
What is the sufficiency of natural revelation?*
It is sufficient to leave men without excuse for their sin and denying the God they know they are created to worship but insufficient at revealing the grace of God in salvation. Natural revelation was never meant to function by itself (as above) but it was historically sufficient as it renders without excuse.[6] God's revelation in nature is sufficient in history to differentiate between those who would and who would not serve God.[7]
*
What is meant by the perspicuity of natural revelation?*
God's revelation in nature was always meant to serve alongside His special revelation. God is a revealing God and the perspicuity of nature is bound up in the fact that He voluntarily reveals. Both natural and special revelation would be impossible if God remained incomprehensible as He is in Himself (archetypal theology). Man cannot penetrate God as He is Himself - he cannot comprehend God. But created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he does not see exhaustively. Man need not have exhaustive knowledge in order to know truly and certainly.[8]
God's thoughts about Himself are self-contained but man is an analogue who thinks in covenant relation to the One who created him. Thus man's interpretation of nature follows what is fully interpreted by God. Man thinks God's thoughts after him - not comprehensively but analogically.
The Psalmist doesn't declare that the heavens possibly or probably declare the glory of God. Paul does not say that the wrath of God is probably revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Scripture takes the clarity of God's revelation for granted at every stage of human history.[9] The God who speaks in Scripture cannot refer to anything that is not already authoritatively revelational of Himself for the evidence of His own existence.[10] Everything exists that is His creation.
It is no easier for sinners to accept God in nature than it is for them to accept Him in Scripture. The two are inseparable in their clarity. We need the Holy Spirit to understand both. Man must be a Christian to study nature in a proper frame of mind.
*
How does Greek natural theology and the natural theology of Kant result in denying any rationality higher than itself?*
Neither allow analogical reasoning to understand the world. They start from nature and try to argue for a god who must be finite in nature. It starts with a "mute" universe that has no revelation and makes it revelational only with respect to the autonomous mind of man. No distinction is made between Creator and creature.
Kant's great contribution to philosophy consisted in stressing the activity of the experiencing subject. It is this point to which the idea of a Copernican revolution is usually applied. Kant argued that since it is the thinking subject that itself contributes the categories of universality and necessity, we must not think of these as covering any reality that exists or may exist wholly independent of the human mind. The validity of universals is to be taken as frankly due to a motion and a vote; it is conventional and nothing more.[11]
Plato and Aristotle, as well as Kant, assumed the autonomy of man. On such a basis man may reason univocally (have the same mind as God) and reach a God who is just an extension of the creature or he may reason equivocally and reach a God who has no contact with him at all.[12] Man is left with either God being part of nature (pantheism) or being so transcendent that He cannot get into nature (deism).
We're now left with a world where the scientist supposedly interacts with the physical world and can learn about the world apart from any reference to God and "ministers" who speak about God's revelation that has no reference to history and interaction with the world. Man is fractured intellectually where reason deals with things of the world and faith deals with things that cannot affect reason or the world.
The very idea of Kant's Copernican revolution was that the autonomous mind itself must assume the responsibility for making all factual differentiation and logical validation. To such a mind the God of Christianity cannot speak. Such a mind will hear no voice but its own.[13]

[1] Stonehouse and Woolley, The Infallible Word, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1967, p 263.

[2] Ibid, p 267.

[3] Ibid, p 271.

[4] Ibid, p 272.

[5] Ibid, p 274

[6] Ibid, p 275.

[7] Ibid, p 276.

[8] Ibid, p 278.

[9] Ibid, p 278.

[10] Ibid, p 279.

[11] Ibid, p 296.

[12] Ibid, p 297.

[13] Ibid, p 298.


----------

