Ultimate Epistemology

[steven-nemes]

Impossible to prove or disprove does not equal not possibly false or true.

The Bible is the Word of God is a proposition and as such has a truth value. It is possibly false. So JTB does not know it.

 

[Julio Martinez Jr]

This is another reason why I can't accept that the Bible in its content is axiomatic. I like R.C. Sproul's method for the topic of innerency.

 

[JTB]

I'm mostly skeptical about skepticism. When you talk about a justification for the truth, do mean an epistemological justification or a metaphysical one?

Without having anything stronger than a reasonable belief, you are ultimately reduced to skepticism.

Your axiom alone is inadequate because it gives us knowledge of symbols without knowledge of content. According to you, I can be certain that "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" but unless I can claim to know the meanings of those words, I have no knowledge of their content.

The axiom itself establishes language as meaningful.

This is why you must assume language as an axiom: because without language, the Scriptures are epistemologically meaningless. I cannot be said to "know" the story of Balaam's Ass because I don't "know" for certain that the definition of a donkey as given by God and my own definition of a donkey are the same. Unless we assume that communication via symbolic language is possible as an axiom, and that God is using words in the same sense that we are, then we can have no real knowledge of Scripture.

What language? English? Hebrew? Symbolic logic? Language as you describe it isn't an axiom at all.

As for proving your axiom, I would say that your axiom is demonstrable by a means other than a reductio and is therefore not axiomatic.

I don't understand what you are saying in this sentence.

As for the clock on the wall, I think it was a good reason--it just didn't turn out to be a true belief. One can reason inductively and be wrong--unlike in yours, absolute certainty isn't necessary in my epistemology because I recognize that it is, in the end, impossible.

You do not understand the example. Why don't you look at it again, more closely. I would really encourage you to pick up Augustine's "Against the Academicians" and "On the Teacher." You haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the basics of this discussion.

-----Added 10/9/2009 at 07:39:30 EST-----

Alright JTB, if you want, you can place the restrictions on knowledge so high that you do not have knowledge if there is the possibility of your belief being wrong. But I will go so far as to say that you don't have any knowledge at all, if that is the case. Furthermore, no one is inclined to agree that that is a reasonable restriction to put on knowledge.

First, you are wrong that one cannot have knowledge. I'll even give you proof based upon my axiom.

1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) The Bible states that God cannot lie.
3) The Bible states that men know God.
4) To know God is to possess knowledge.

I don't think you understand what is the restriction upon knowledge. Strictly speaking, the argument is about how knowledge is justified, and not specifically how it is granted. And I'm certainly not the only one to restrict knowledge in such a way. And even if I were, it would irrelevant whether or not anyone agreed. Consensus is not the basis of whether or not an argument is true.

All of those beliefs are possibly false, so you don't know them.

How are they possibly false? Do you really think it is possibly false that the Bible is God's Word? By what standard can you even draw that conclusion?

 

[JTB]

He is stating "The Bible is the word of God" as His axiom, so it's a given. The problem is that he cannot answer with 100% certainty to the content of those statements, as that would involve some measure of interpretation.

Certainty is riddled with problems because it has so often been understood in terms of psychological conviction, rather than epistemological validity.

The point is, what has the maximal warrant. Obviously, anything that God reveals propositionally can be known as true. God has revealed His Word, which contains propositions. They are true, I believe them, and they have maximal warrant; thus I have knowledge.

 

[steven-nemes]

It is possible that Christianity is false.

Are you saying that it isn't possible that Christianity is false? Could you care to prove that?

 

[JTB]

He wouldn't say that it is. An axiom cannot be proved or disproved, by definition.

Part of the problem that I have with Scripture being axiomatic is that Islam claims the same for the Koran. You may attempt to show that the Koran contains inconsistencies, but even then, the Koran claims that God, and therefore the Koran, is not bound by logic.

Anyone who denies the validity of logic ultimately undermines his own theory, unless he can propose an alternative system for determining meaning. The basic laws of logic (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) are assumed by every single system, but only one can justify them.

-----Added 10/9/2009 at 07:47:13 EST-----

It is possible that Christianity is false.

Are you saying that it isn't possible that Christianity is false? Could you care to prove that?

I've already given you a proof. You have simply asserted that any of my propositions might be false. But that doesn't mean they are false. You have to present an argument demonstrating that any one of the propositions is indeed false, or contradictory.

If Christianity could be false, then it cannot be true with maximal warrant. You can never know God, but only believe that He may exist. That is skepticism Steven.

 

[Philip]

Without having anything stronger than a reasonable belief, you are ultimately reduced to skepticism.

Give me a good reason to doubt my senses and I will be a skeptic. Give me a good reason to think that I am not, at this moment, typing out a response to your post. Could it be doubted? Yes, but the doubt would be unreasonable.

The axiom itself establishes language as meaningful.

How?

I don't understand what you are saying in this sentence.

I was trying to say that if an axiom is provable, then it is no longer axiomatic. The truth of Scripture is, I believe, inductively provable and therefore is not axiomatic.

The point is, what has the maximal warrant. Obviously, anything that God reveals propositionally can be known as true. God has revealed His Word, which contains propositions.

But that's assuming that you know God and that you know the scriptures. You are believing based on an authority backing up those beliefs (ie: God).

I would be more comfortable with saying that God's existence is axiomatic than that Scripture is simply because Scripture derives its authority from God.

The problem is that, even granted Scripture as your axiom, you can't be 100% certain that it is the right axiom. The right axiom might just be unknowable by you.

-----Added 10/9/2009 at 07:58:26 EST-----

The basic laws of logic (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) are assumed by every single system, but only one can justify them.

Metaphysically, maybe. Epistemologically, no--no system can justify them because they are axiomatic.

 

[JTB]

Give me a good reason to doubt my senses and I will be a skeptic. Give me a good reason to think that I am not, at this moment, typing out a response to your post. Could it be doubted? Yes, but the doubt would be unreasonable.

I already have given you a good reason to doubt the validity of your senses in the clock example. The light switch example also applies. I don't "know" that walking into a dark room and flipping a light switch will turn on a light because there are several things that could reasonably occur to prevent that conclusion from being true (the light bulb is broken, the circuit is blown).

You have yet to establish the criteria for "good reason," and you've accepted my examples as good reasons even though they aren't true. You've gone through several permutations of contradictory conclusions.

How? [is language established as valid]

If my axiom is that "The Bible is God's Word," then it follows that communication must be possible, therefore the meaningful nature of language is established.

But that's assuming that you know God and that you know the scriptures. You are believing based on an authority backing up those beliefs (ie: God).

I would be more comfortable with saying that God's existence is axiomatic than that Scripture is simply because Scripture derives its authority from God.

The problem is that, even granted Scripture as your axiom, you can't be 100% certain that it is the right axiom. The right axiom might just be unknowable by you.

The right axiom is demonstrated by its continued veracity. There is no reason to doubt it until it has been proven false. Just because I assume its truth does not imply that its truth is therefore unknowable. That is absurd.

Metaphysically, maybe. Epistemologically, no--no system can justify them because they are axiomatic.

A few posts above you said language was axiomatic. How many axioms do you retain? Plus, having the laws of logic and language as axioms does not allow you to have knowledge of God. Logic and language cannot be axiomatic because they do not establish God as true.

 

[Ron]

It is possible that Christianity is false.

Are you saying that it isn't possible that Christianity is false? Could you care to prove that?

It's not an issue of proof, it's an issue of what you will accept at authoritative. Proof is child's play. All one needs is a valid argument with true premises. Don't confuse a sound argument with persuasion.

-----Added 10/9/2009 at 10:19:07 EST-----

"I already have given you a good reason to doubt the validity of your senses in the clock example. The light switch example also applies. I don't "know" that walking into a dark room and flipping a light switch will turn on a light because there are several things that could reasonably occur to prevent that conclusion from being true (the light bulb is broken, the circuit is blown)."

Josh,

I'm sure I would like much of what you wrote but that one jumped out at me as a bit rushed. The problem with the clock and light examples don't speak to the limitations of the medium of the senses but rather to the limits of non-deductive reasoning. It's an inference that the clock and light will function. Accordingly, when the belief about the time is false due to a faulty clock, one need not distrust his senses but rather gain a greater appreciation of the limits of inference. We are perefectly justified in trusting our senses. The Scriptures presuppose that they are reliable.

Ron

 

[JTB]

Josh,

I'm sure I would like much of what you wrote but that one jumped out at me as a bit rushed. The problem with the clock and light examples don't speak to the limitations of the medium of the senses but rather to the limits of non-deductive reasoning. It's an inference that the clock and light will function. Accordingly, when the belief about the time is false due to a faulty clock, one need not distrust his senses but rather gain a greater appreciation of the limits of inference. We are perefectly justified in trusting our senses. The Scriptures presuppose that they are reliable.

Ron

Ron, I agree that the senses are reliable upon the basis of Scriptural presupposition. The point at issue was that Pugh was unwilling to provide a sound basis upon which his senses should be considered reliable as leading to knowledge.

Part of the problem as well is that Pugh seems to change his mind about how knowledge is to be defined. In one post, he calls it justified true belief, with justification being "good reason." He recognizes my inductive conclusion about the clock or the light as a "good reason" that leads to true belief (since the clock just-so-happens to have stopped at the correct time), but then he denies that my example fits his definition--he acknowledges "good reason," but says it isn't really a true belief, because the "good reason" isn't actually a good reason, because it is fallacious.

I don't know how such an obvious contradiction in applying the definition can be ignored, but it has been--unless I'm missing something.

 

[Ron]

Josh,

I appreciate what you were aiming at (see blog posts below), and I also agree the thread is an absolute mess. My single "complaint" was that the inferring of the wrong time should not be indexed to faulty senses; in fact, the senses are presupposed as reliable in order to draw the false (yet rational) inference about the time. I'm not quite sure you made the point you were trying to make and I thought that possibly you made a different point than you intended. I'll read it again tomorrow.

Grace and peace,

Ron

p.s. Man it was hot and humid in Houston!

Reformed Apologist: Induction and Knowledge

Reformed Apologist: More on Induction and Knowledge

 

[Philip]

Those aren't good reasons to distrust the senses, just examples of how inductive logic can be wrong, but more often than not, it isn't. In both of your examples, yes experience says that we can reasonably expect certain results--but it also says that these expectations may not be met exactly because we are not able to account for all the factors that may be involved. It is no count against experience that we may be wrong in our predictions--it's just indicative of our finitude.

It was a good reason--it just happened to be wrong. One can do this in deductive reasoning too--one can have one or two false premises and a true conclusion.

Even in deductive logic, there may be problems with our reasoning that we are not--and possibly cannot--be aware of. Would you call that a count against the validity of deductive logic?

No, we may not be able to call our senses infallible, but nonetheless we are forced by necessity to rely upon them. If you are able to find a way to connect with the external world in some way other than via the senses, then please do so. However, I have a principle: any epistemology that cuts one off epistemologically from the external world is categorically false. Why? Because impractical epistemology is useless epistemology.

I apply this principle presuppositionally--if your worldview cannot be consistently lived out, then it is false (I refer to this as Schaeffer's Anvil).

Setting the bar of knowledge at absolute certainty is unnecessary. My good reason for trusting the senses is this: like it or not, we have to trust them--even to read the Scriptures. Just how do you know, deductively from your axiom, that the book that you may or may not be holding is the word of God?

If my axiom is that "The Bible is God's Word," then it follows that communication must be possible, therefore the meaningful nature of language is established.

Just because the Bible is God's word doesn't mean that it is intelligible by finite human beings. Where's the necessary connection between "The Bible is the Word of God" and "Communication must be possible"?

 

[Ron]

Philip,

I know you wrote that to Joshua and I think it is succinct enough for him to deal with, so I’ll let you guys go at it for a while. I think much of what you wrote is fine. I wanted to touch on one thing though because I think that something might be driving your statement below.

"Setting the bar of knowledge at absolute certainty is unnecessary. My good reason for trusting the senses is this: like it or not, we have to trust them--even to read the Scriptures. Just how do you know, deductively from your axiom, that the book that you may or may not be holding is the word of God?"

If knowledge is so broad as to include things believed by inductive inference, then in common parlance we’d have to distinguish between knowing something “for sure” and knowing something that we’re not 100% sure about. Imagine the judge saying: “Do you know that Mr. Smith killed his wife?” “Yes” says Mr. Jones, "I’m nearly 90% certain that it is true!" What is it to “know” something without certainty after all? My question to you would be, at what point does one truly “know” anything through induction? What does it mean to say "I know something, but I can't be certain"?

I don’t say this applies to you, Philip, but I find it remarkable that so many Reformed thinkers are willing to redefine knowledge so as to include inductive inference in order that they can “know” more things, such as that they are saved! If it is true that induction cannot yield absolute certainty and if it, also, true (as some would have us believe) that we come to embrace God’s word through induction, then we must concede that we cannot know with absolute certainty the truth of the gospel! Yet we can know with 100% certainty the truth of the gospel and that we are saved. Induction cannot yield 100% certainty, but it is also false that we ultimately come to know the gospel by way of induction. The knowledge of my existence or that Jesus died for me is not ultimately obtained through induction, which is precisely why one can know with infallible certainty he has eternal life. We don't have to redefine or lower the definition of what qualifies as knowledge. It's the Spirit that confirms God's revelation and that is no mere inference.

Someone on the second blog post that I linked above wrote this to me:

I was just thinking about deduction today and I really don't see how (outside of revelation) it escapes the problem of induction.

For example:

p1: All men are mortal
p2: Socrates is a man
c: Socrates is mortal.

The above argument is true as far as its premises are true but without revelation p1 cannot be justified without faulty appeal to induction as far as I can see.

I might be missing something but this leads me to think that deductive arguments are no 'surer' than induction outside of revelation.

I responded with:

You are correct. Christians know that all men are mortal because we have it on God’s authority. For instance we know by revelation that “it’s appointed for a man once to die and then the judgment.” The unsaved have to justify this general revelation, which they know, by way of inductive inference.

The above argument, however, is an inference for the Christian as well, since p2 is not deducible or revealed by God. However, we can deduce that Alexander the Coppersmith is a mortal since we know it is true that he existed, whereas it is only a most rational inference that Socrates existed.

The person who wrote to me saw no difference between the Socrates syllogism and this one:

p1: God reveals Christianity
p2: What God reveals is true
c: Christianity is true

I responded with:

I know the premises are true through Scripture. They are not arbitrary in the least (as you suggested they were) because they are grounded in God’s word. Such an argument may not be very useful, however, because it doesn’t deal with preconditions of intelligible experience. Nonetheless, the premises are not mere inductive inferences, as is the case with “Socrates existed in the past…” The point, which is clear, is that such an argument is sound, as is TAG; whether they persuade another person or not is not a necessary condition for sound argumentation. Needless to say, the above deductive argument for the truth of Christianity will not be very useful, though TAG can be.

Philip,

I’ll let you get back to Joshua. I simply wanted to put out there that we don’t need to lower the definition of knowledge to include inductive inferences in order to know biblical truth or that we are saved. Induction is very useful but at the end of the day, our assurance of our salvation is due to the internal witness of the Spirit.

Finally, that one can make mistakes while trying to employ deduction does not discredit anything I've said, lest we would have to abandon any criteria for knowledge!

Ron

 

[Philip]

Induction is very useful but at the end of the day, our assurance of our salvation is due to the internal witness of the Spirit.

I agree here. However, belief on testimony is never deductive, no matter how convinced we may be of the witness's authority. If you can construct a valid set of syllogisms, then I'll reconsider. However, in reality what we have is an ongoing miracle in our own lives that bears witness to the truth of the Gospel: that's how I know I am saved and that's why I believe--but it is a belief based on authority, not my fallen deduction.

 

[Ron]

I couldn't agree more that revelation is not discursive.

I think we agree.

Ron

 

[steven-nemes]

JTB: You seemed to me to be saying that if one of your beliefs is possibly false, then it cannot count as knowledge. That is an absurd requirement on knowledge that I think you would be hard pressed to find modern epistemologists making.

Your belief that the Bible is the word of God is possibly false: you could be deceived by a malevolent demon into believing it. So it follows by your own standards that you don't know it.

-----Added 10/11/2009 at 04:39:38 EST-----

It's not an issue of proof, it's an issue of what you will accept at authoritative. Proof is child's play. All one needs is a valid argument with true premises. Don't confuse a sound argument with persuasion.

Well in the first place "prove" means--exactly that, prove. Show that it is true in such a way that is convincing to anyone who is rational and sane. I didn't say anything about providing a sound deductive argument or anything of that sort; in fact I'm not sure why it is you made the observation you did.


To JTB: Is this supposed to be your proof?

1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) The Bible states that God cannot lie.
3) The Bible states that men know God.
4) To know God is to possess knowledge.

How is that a proof? It isn't even an argument, really.

 

[Ron]

Steve,

If I were to prove that there is a box of crackers in the pantry, yet someone who was a philosophical skeptic denied that I proved anything, would the proof become invalidated? Of course not! That’s because proof is not a sufficient condition for persuasion and persuasion is not a necessary condition for proof. A sound proof is sound whether anyone is even there to consider it or not, let alone whether an alleged rational or sane man embraces it or not. Accordingly, when you say that I must prove Christianity so that any “rational” or “sane” person will be persuaded, you seem to be suggesting that I must persuade the intelligent so-called atheist that Jesus has been raised from the dead. What you are obviously missing is that the professing atheist who rejects God’s revelation of Christ is in many ways as dysfunctional as the one who would deny the crackers he sees in the pantry.

The former days of ignorance are gone, Steven. God’s clear revelation of Christianity is proof enough. It’s a moral problem, not an intellectual one, that all people are not persuaded by God’s word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It’s not an issue of proof. It’s a matter of “Has God said?” You may not find the proof that God offers in His word and is confirmed by the Holy Spirit as indubitable, but that can only be because you are listening to voices other than God.

In the bonds of Christ,

Ron

 

[Philip]

The fact is, Steven, that the Atheist is right when he says that it will take a miracle for him to believe--it takes regeneration.

 

[JTB]

Those aren't good reasons to distrust the senses, just examples of how inductive logic can be wrong, but more often than not, it isn't. In both of your examples, yes experience says that we can reasonably expect certain results--but it also says that these expectations may not be met exactly because we are not able to account for all the factors that may be involved. It is no count against experience that we may be wrong in our predictions--it's just indicative of our finitude.

Let me back up a step. I don't distrust my senses, but the justification I have for trusting the senses is grounded in the rational nature of God, which I can only know from His revelation (and we can say that revelation is both discursive in His Word, and non-discursive in the sensus divinatatis).

So, my point is that without revelation, we have no justification for trusting our senses apart from Christian presuppositions.

It was a good reason--it just happened to be wrong. One can do this in deductive reasoning too--one can have one or two false premises and a true conclusion.

Even in deductive logic, there may be problems with our reasoning that we are not--and possibly cannot--be aware of. Would you call that a count against the validity of deductive logic?

No, I agree with you here, and I hope I've clarified what I think is the difference above. I would also hold that the laws of logic and deductive reasoning can only be justified upon God's revelation.

No, we may not be able to call our senses infallible, but nonetheless we are forced by necessity to rely upon them. If you are able to find a way to connect with the external world in some way other than via the senses, then please do so. However, I have a principle: any epistemology that cuts one off epistemologically from the external world is categorically false. Why? Because impractical epistemology is useless epistemology.

I'll grant you this point as well, although I'll suggest that you consider the individual whose senses have been cut off (the blind, the deaf, etc.). Can he not still know about the external world apart from these sensations?

I apply this principle presuppositionally--if your worldview cannot be consistently lived out, then it is false (I refer to this as Schaeffer's Anvil).

Setting the bar of knowledge at absolute certainty is unnecessary. My good reason for trusting the senses is this: like it or not, we have to trust them--even to read the Scriptures. Just how do you know, deductively from your axiom, that the book that you may or may not be holding is the word of God?

Setting the bar of knowledge at anything less than maximal warrant reduces knowledge to belief, and sets up a true dilemma with things that the Bible tells us we can know without a doubt, such as the assurance of our own standing with God in Christ. It is not my sensations that discover the word of God, even when I use my eyes to read ink on a page. It is still the Spirit of God speaking directly to my mind that gives me understanding. The occasion is most often as I read with my eyes, but it isn't the occasion that causes the knowledge.

If my axiom is that "The Bible is God's Word," then it follows that communication must be possible, therefore the meaningful nature of language is established.

Just because the Bible is God's word doesn't mean that it is intelligible by finite human beings. Where's the necessary connection between "The Bible is the Word of God" and "Communication must be possible"?

Perhaps I am assuming more in the proposition than is warranted, since I assume that the Bible is something delivered to men for their understanding.

-----Added 10/12/2009 at 07:43:12 EST-----

JTB: You seemed to me to be saying that if one of your beliefs is possibly false, then it cannot count as knowledge. That is an absurd requirement on knowledge that I think you would be hard pressed to find modern epistemologists making.

Your belief that the Bible is the word of God is possibly false: you could be deceived by a malevolent demon into believing it. So it follows by your own standards that you don't know it.

No, it follows by your standards that I don't know it. If the Bible is the Word of God, then it is impossible that a malevolent demon has caused me to believe it, for the Bible as the Word of God, says that God does not lie, and that He has revealed Himself to men in His Word, and a host of other propositions that are true upon the axiom that the Bible is God's Word.

To JTB: Is this supposed to be your proof?

1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) The Bible states that God cannot lie.
3) The Bible states that men know God.
4) To know God is to possess knowledge.

How is that a proof? It isn't even an argument, really.

How is it not a proof, or an argument? There are four propositions. I've attempted to put them into a logical order. They have a conclusion. What is it that is missing?

 

[steven-nemes]

I was simply going by JTB's own standard, that of if a belief is possibly false then it cannot be known, and concluding that by his own standard he does not know that the Bible is the word of God.

I don't even understand how some of the replies I've received are germane. JTB seems to me to be saying that if a belief is possibly false, then it cannot be known. Well it's just a fact of the matter that a whole lot of beliefs which are worth believing are all possibly false; they are only contingent truths. It follows by his own standards that any of his beliefs which really count cannot count as knowledge.

1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) The Bible states that God cannot lie.
3) The Bible states that men know God.
4) To know God is to possess knowledge.

Alright. You gave this as a proof that there is knowledge. Fine. Sure. That's agreeable. But I said that, given your assertions, no one would have knowledge if any thing they know is possibly false. Every single one of those assertions is possibly false. Furthermore, your axiom, whether you want to admit it or not, is possibly false. So it follows you don't know it.

 

[Ron]

1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) The Bible states that God cannot lie.
3) The Bible states that men know God.
4) To know God is to possess knowledge.

Every single one of those assertions is possibly false.

1. The first statement is true by definition. Therefore, it cannot possibly be false.
2. The word of God states that God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that God cannot lie.
3. The Word of God states that men know God. (Romans 1:18-21). Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that men know God.
4. The fourth statement is logically necessary (and somewhat tautological). To know God obviously implies to know something, which presupposes having knowledge. Therefore, the statement cannot possibly be false.

Ron

 

[Philip]

So, my point is that without revelation, we have no justification for trusting our senses apart from Christian presuppositions.

What you have given is a metaphysical justification. Epistemologically, I maintain that we have to trust them regardless of any other presuppositions. We cannot have a metaphysic without an epistemology.

Here I am going to state a principle: any proposition that is not a priori is dubitable and therefore does not have maximal warrant.

I'll grant you this point as well, although I'll suggest that you consider the individual whose senses have been cut off (the blind, the deaf, etc.). Can he not still know about the external world apart from these sensations?

Apart from all external senses, he could not.

Setting the bar of knowledge at anything less than maximal warrant reduces knowledge to belief, and sets up a true dilemma with things that the Bible tells us we can know without a doubt, such as the assurance of our own standing with God in Christ.

Here I would like to make a distinction between reasonable doubt and skeptical doubt. Setting the bar of knowledge at maximal certainty automatically leads to skeptical doubt. I think that when the Bible is talking about doubt, it is mostly talking about reasonable doubt, suggesting that we can know our standing with Christ without a reasonable doubt. That is, the our standing with God stands up to the test of reasonable doubt. Nothing will ever stand up to the test of skeptical doubt.

The real question here is whether we trust our God-given faculties for knowledge (sight, induction, deduction, etc) or whether we trust only our rational intuitions for maximal warrant. The problem here is that only God actually has maximal warrant and in the end, our conclusion (if we're consistent) will be that we know nothing.

On the other hand, while no our senses, intuitions, etc. are not infallible, nonetheless they are God-given and we ought to trust them unless given a good reason not to in a particular situation. What we are trusting, in the end, is that God has given us faculties that lead to knowledge. The question is not whether we can doubt, but whether or not the doubt is reasonable.

It is still the Spirit of God speaking directly to my mind that gives me understanding. The occasion is most often as I read with my eyes, but it isn't the occasion that causes the knowledge.

Why should I assume this?

1. The first statement is true by definition. Therefore, it cannot possibly be false.

Why is this true by definition? Why should I accept it?

2. The word of God states that God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that God cannot lie.

It's also circular to prove that the Bible is always right based on the fact that the Bible says that it is always right.

For theology, we can take the Bible as axiomatic, as well as for many kinds of philosophy. For epistemology, I'm not so sure that we can.

 

[steven-nemes]

1) The Bible is the Word of God.
2) The Bible states that God cannot lie.
3) The Bible states that men know God.
4) To know God is to possess knowledge.

Every single one of those assertions is possibly false.

1. The first statement is true by definition. Therefore, it cannot possibly be false.
2. The word of God states that God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that God cannot lie.
3. The Word of God states that men know God. (Romans 1:18-21). Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that men know God.
4. The fourth statement is logically necessary (and somewhat tautological). To know God obviously implies to know something, which presupposes having knowledge. Therefore, the statement cannot possibly be false.

Ron

Very well, my writing was quick and rushed. The first proposition is possibly false. God can exist and the entire Bible be the product of men's imaginations. That's possible.

What I meant was rather that those things that the Bible states are possibly false. Sure, it's true that the bible says God cannot lie, but that proposition (God cannot lie) is possibly false. Same with Men know God. That is what I meant, but communicated very badly.

 

[Ron]

“Very well, my writing was quick and rushed. The first proposition is possibly false. God can exist and the entire Bible be the product of men's imaginations. That's possible.”

Dear Steven,

Please assume for argument’s sake that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If that premise is true, then it would be impossible that it be the product of the imaginations of men. Added to the assumption that the Bible is not the product of the imaginations of men but rather the word of God, I would ask you also to assume that the Holy Spirit can grant men full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Bible. I’m here to tell you that the Holy Spirit has persuaded me and I trust many people of what you are not yet 100% persuaded. To put it another way, if God, who cannot lie, has revealed to anyone that the Bible is the word of God, then it is not possible that it is not the word of God. Consequently, the only thing you may assert is that God has not persuaded you to the point of confession that the Bible cannot possibly be the product of the imaginations of men, or that God cannot lie. As I have told you before, the issue is not about proof but persuasion.

“What I meant was rather that those things that the Bible states are possibly false.”

The propositions of the Bible are not possibly false if the Bible is God’s word and God cannot lie. So again, if I know that to be true (along with a myriad of Christians), then it is impossible that it not be true for one cannot know as true that which is false. So once again, the only thing you may assert is that you are not able to confess that God cannot lie or that the Bible is His word, and for that I am truly sorry. In other words, you cannot know that I cannot know that the Bible is God's word and that God cannot lie.

Steven I will try to remember to pray for you. And for what it’s worth, I would encourage you in the Lord to submit your reasoning to the epistemic lordship of Christ and in doing so you will give up on what I trust is at worst an unwitting quest for autonomy, which appears to be taking you captive. I would also encourage you to pray earnestly in the Spirit, asking God to grant you full assurance of the knowledge that He cannot lie and that the Bible is His word. That you would leave such ideas open to possibility is terrifying to me.

In His grace,

Ron

 

[Philip]

I think that what Steven is trying to say is that, if we are going to take the statement "The Bible is the word of God" as axiomatic, then we need a good reason to think that it is, in fact, axiomatic. One could do this with the TAG iff one could refute every possible worldview that did not accept the axiom. The trouble here is that this project is humanly impossible--the best we could do would be probability, and even then we don't know how many possible alternate axioms there are.

My other concern with this statement as an axiom is that it is a posteriori--that is, it presupposes a knowledge and understanding of Scripture and what it teaches.

 

[Ron]

I think that what Steven is trying to say is that, if we are going to take the statement "The Bible is the word of God" as axiomatic, then we need a good reason to think that it is, in fact, axiomatic. One could do this with the TAG iff one could refute every possible worldview that did not accept the axiom. The trouble here is that this project is humanly impossible--the best we could do would be probability, and even then we don't know how many possible alternate axioms there are.

My other concern with this statement as an axiom is that it is a posteriori--that is, it presupposes a knowledge and understanding of Scripture and what it teaches.

I would prefer to deal with what Steven is actually saying. He thinks it is possible that God can lie. I know it's impossible. Steven needs to appreciate that he cannot refute that I know it is impossible for God to lie. The issue is, and has always been, "Has God said?"

Ron

 

[Peairtach]

The Triune Personal and Absolute Living and True God is Man's ultimate

(i) Metaphysic

(ii) Epistemology

(iii) Ethic

(iv) Aesthetic

As Van Til said, He is the All-Conditioner. He is the ultimate standard for everything. After Him there is nothing and no standard.

 

[JTB]

What you have given is a metaphysical justification. Epistemologically, I maintain that we have to trust them regardless of any other presuppositions. We cannot have a metaphysic without an epistemology.

Here I am going to state a principle: any proposition that is not a priori is dubitable and therefore does not have maximal warrant.

Why is it unacceptable to argue, a priori, that "The Bible is the Word of God"?

Also, would you please provide me a succinct statement distinguishing metaphysical and epistemological justification?

I'll grant you this point as well, although I'll suggest that you consider the individual whose senses have been cut off (the blind, the deaf, etc.). Can he not still know about the external world apart from these sensations?

Apart from all external senses, he could not.

How do you then explain how the soul in its intermediate state can possess knowledge of the world?

Here I would like to make a distinction between reasonable doubt and skeptical doubt. Setting the bar of knowledge at maximal certainty automatically leads to skeptical doubt. I think that when the Bible is talking about doubt, it is mostly talking about reasonable doubt, suggesting that we can know our standing with Christ without a reasonable doubt. That is, the our standing with God stands up to the test of reasonable doubt. Nothing will ever stand up to the test of skeptical doubt.

You'll have to provide more than the assertion that this is the sort of doubt of which the Bible speaks. Also, by having the axiom, "The Bible is the Word of God," we are assured that all its propositions, including those deducible by necessary consequence have maximal warrant. I'd say that is a sufficient amount of knowledge upon which to live life without being a skeptic. Moreover, the usefulness of beliefs not having maximal warrant is recognized by my position, without surrendering the character of knowledge as having maximal warrant.

The real question here is whether we trust our God-given faculties for knowledge (sight, induction, deduction, etc) or whether we trust only our rational intuitions for maximal warrant. The problem here is that only God actually has maximal warrant and in the end, our conclusion (if we're consistent) will be that we know nothing.

No, we have maximal warrant because God has testified to us in His Word. We can know it is His Word because He reveals it directly to us, as you yourself have admitted in the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. I don't prove the axiom, because it has been given to me as a starting point.

On the other hand, while no our senses, intuitions, etc. are not infallible, nonetheless they are God-given and we ought to trust them unless given a good reason not to in a particular situation. What we are trusting, in the end, is that God has given us faculties that lead to knowledge. The question is not whether we can doubt, but whether or not the doubt is reasonable.

But the point is, without revelation, you cannot justify that you know that what you possess is God-given in the first place. We are talking about the justification of knowledge.

It is still the Spirit of God speaking directly to my mind that gives me understanding. The occasion is most often as I read with my eyes, but it isn't the occasion that causes the knowledge.

Why should I assume this?

I didn't say you should assume it. But I'm saying you cannot justify that the uses of your senses is even the proximate cause of knowledge. I'm saying that my conclusion provides a better explanation for how knowledge occurs.

1. The first statement is true by definition. Therefore, it cannot possibly be false.

Why is this true by definition? Why should I accept it?

2. The word of God states that God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that God cannot lie.

It's also circular to prove that the Bible is always right based on the fact that the Bible says that it is always right.

For theology, we can take the Bible as axiomatic, as well as for many kinds of philosophy. For epistemology, I'm not so sure that we can.

So you can know theology by the axiom of the Bible, but you cannot know knowledge by the axiom of the Bible. Such a conclusion seems like alternative theories of epistemology to me. How can you retain both and not lead to incoherence? Is knowledge a divided subject matter?

-----Added 10/13/2009 at 02:31:50 EST-----

I think that what Steven is trying to say is that, if we are going to take the statement "The Bible is the word of God" as axiomatic, then we need a good reason to think that it is, in fact, axiomatic. One could do this with the TAG iff one could refute every possible worldview that did not accept the axiom. The trouble here is that this project is humanly impossible--the best we could do would be probability, and even then we don't know how many possible alternate axioms there are.

My other concern with this statement as an axiom is that it is a posteriori--that is, it presupposes a knowledge and understanding of Scripture and what it teaches.

I think we would all agree that the persuasion that the axiom is good comes directly from the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

As for your second assertion, I'd like to hear you support just how it is that the axiom requires a further presupposition.

 

[Philip]

Why is it unacceptable to argue, a priori, that "The Bible is the Word of God"?

Because the Bible is known a posteriori.

Also, would you please provide me a succinct statement distinguishing metaphysical and epistemological justification?

Metaphysical justification of knowledge entails an accounting for why we can have knowledge (eg: God imposes knowledge).

Epistemological justification entails an accounting of how that happens a priori. You cannot have a metaphysical justification unless you first have an epistemological one.

How do you then explain how the soul in its intermediate state can possess knowledge of the world?

Define "intermediate state."

You'll have to provide more than the assertion that this is the sort of doubt of which the Bible speaks. Also, by having the axiom, "The Bible is the Word of God," we are assured that all its propositions, including those deducible by necessary consequence have maximal warrant.

That's a theological axiom, not an epistemological one. Why I say this is that the axiom presupposes the existence of God and of the Christian God. One has to have knowledge of this prior to the axiom.

In addition, I think I've already made it clear that human deduction is fallible and therefore anything that you deduce from Scripture is fallible.

No, we have maximal warrant because God has testified to us in His Word.

Circular--we have maximal warrant for God's word because God has testified to us in His word?

We can know it is His Word because He reveals it directly to us, as you yourself have admitted in the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

The regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is demonstrative of the truth of God's word. It constitutes proof in the same way that God sending fire from heaven constituted proof of God's word on Mount Carmel.

But the point is, without revelation, you cannot justify that you know that what you possess is God-given in the first place. We are talking about the justification of knowledge.

Granted, I did give a metaphysical justification there.

Nonetheless, of necessity we are forced to trust them and therefore are unreasonable to doubt them unless given good reason. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to prove that, in a given instance, doubt is reasonable.

So you can know theology by the axiom of the Bible, but you cannot know knowledge by the axiom of the Bible. Such a conclusion seems like alternative theories of epistemology to me. How can you retain both and not lead to incoherence? Is knowledge a divided subject matter?

The Bible is indeed a source of knowledge about God, provided that we are presupposing the same things that it does.

What I mean to say is that while we can, I think, take the Bible to be a source of knowledge, we are not justified in taking it to be the only source of knowledge.

As for your second assertion, I'd like to hear you support just how it is that the axiom requires a further presupposition.

In order to assume your axiom, one would have to know enough about the Scriptures to understand that such is the case. Further, as I stated, in order to assume this, one has to already have a knowledge of God. There can be no word of God without God.

 

[Ron]

PFP,

I overlooked some questions asked of me that were burried in a post of yours to Josh. Let me address them now.

Ron Stated: The word of God states that God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)Therefore, it cannot possibly be false that the word of God states that God cannot lie.

PFP Responded: It's also circular to prove that the Bible is always right based on the fact that the Bible says that it is always right.

The challenge before me was not to demonstrate that the Bible is always right. Rather, the challenge was simply to refute the claim that it is possibly false that a book called the Bible states that God cannot lie. I met that challenge simply by quoting the Bible where it states that God cannot lie. Steven seemed to concede the point, saying he was “rushed” when he made the initial claim. I’m happy to take him at his word. In fact, he was so rushed he later had to retract three of his assertions!

Ron Stated: The first statement [the Bible is God’s word] is true by definition. Therefore, it cannot possibly be false.

PFP Responded: Why is this true by definition? Why should I accept it?

It is a definition held by Christians. For instance, the Westminster Standards calls what we call the books of the Bible, Holy Scripture - the word of God. Secularists define it differently, as historical or ancient writings. Since I was dealing with Christians, I thought I’d use the Christian definition. (How foolish of me!) It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around so-called Christians questioning whether the Bible could be the writings of mere men and God’s truthfulness.

As for why you should accept the Bible as the word of God, I don't think I can improve upon the Confession: "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

I think it's time for me to bow out of this thread. I believe every challenge set at my door has been met and overcome. I could only wish I had the time to try to clear up some of the confusion I believe I see between you and Josh, but I simply do not.

Best wishes,

Ron