Derrida and Van Til compared and contrasted.

[Philip]

I would honestly say that when you look at anything you cannot avoid having a knowledge of God at the same time. When you look at another human being, the moment you say 'I know that there is a person in front of me' you also 'know' in an innate sense that the person was created by God.

But this would have to be unconscious to the point that it would only ever be acknowledged (even for a believer) when pointed out. I don't look at my friend and go "Oh, a human being created in the image of God" and start thinking deep theological thoughts. Instead I say, "Oh, it's Luke." You don't do metaphysics when you greet someone. Metaphysics is what happens when we realize that there is a problem between two different ways of acting ordinarily.

So as long as they remain slaves to sin, their perspective will never be correct on anything.

Not true. Atheists know all kinds of stuff. Are you suggesting that an atheist plumber doesn't know how to fix the pipes. For someone who doesn't know anything, he sure fixed them well.

false knowledge

Ok, this is a contradiction in terms. No one can have false knowledge, given that knowledge is warranted true belief.

The unbeliever attempts to 'know' things apart from 'knowing' God, and all that results is that he has false knowledge.

Again, this is a contradiction in terms. You either know that X or you don't. There's no middle ground here. Again, you're equivocating on the word "knowledge" and it's resulting in all kinds of confusion. Please define what you mean exactly by "knowledge" here.

Knowledge has nothing to do with having a coherent system of belief and everything to do with how you ended up believing something.

It just seems like you are so against the transcendental argument and presuppositional apologetics.

a) They aren't in Scripture.

b) The TA is so cumbersome as to be practically useless.

c) Very often they ignore ordinary usage and common sense in favour of logical coherence. Frankly, when you start going around saying ridiculous things like "unbelievers don't actually know anything," it's hard to take you seriously (Charlie has given a fuller analysis of this, so I won't go into it further).

 

[jwright82]

In all of your responses to Philip's statements, you claim that an unbeliever does not really know the person/place/skill/statement because he is lacking some OTHER piece of information that serves to place it in context. On a general level, you seem to be saying that in order to know X, I have to know every possible piece of information that would contextualize X. However, this is clearly an unusable criterion of knowledge. Imagine the following conversation, between two believers, just to simplify things:

What Loopie and I are saying, if I understand him right (I don't want to suppose I know what he is saying), is not that we need some cognitive presupposition in order to than in some logical fashion deduce other and all truths from there. That is Clark's view and we are not advocating that. We are simply saying that in order for a person to completly make sense out of reality they must first bow there their knee, through the Holy Spirit of course, to Jesus and then in that light can they correctly see creation for what it truly is.

 

[Philip]

We are simply saying that in order for a person to completly make sense out of reality they must first bow there their knee, through the Holy Spirit of course, to Jesus and then in that light can they correctly see creation for what it truly is.

Granted. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that unbelievers don't have real knowledge in many areas.

 

[jwright82]

Granted. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that unbelievers don't have real knowledge in many areas.

We don't disagree with that only that these "common notions" cannot be an adequite basis for apologetical engagment.

 

[Philip]

We don't disagree with that only that these "common notions" cannot be an adequite basis for apologetical engagment.

Why not? All truth is God's truth wherever it may be found.

 

[Loopie]

To Charlie and Philip,

I am not as eloquent as I could be in making my arguments, so please bear with me. Obviously we have different opinions on how we use terms, whether ordinarily or in a logical system.

Consider the fact that as humans, we have a tendency (quite naturally of course) to view the world from our limited perspective. We have a tendency to interpret the world from a man-centered position. We all have experience in talking with Arminians (I am assuming), and so we all have experienced the differences in perspectives. The arminian begins from his own position, and then makes statements about God, foreknowledge, evil, etc. He enhances man's responsibility so much that he takes away from God's sovereignty. Many arminians that I talk to have a difficult time grasping God's eternal decree, and how that has played out in history. They have a hard time understanding that ALL of their actions are not only foreknown by God, but eternally decreed by Him.

Yet in common conversation we don't usually talk in such a way as to always highlight God's eternal decree. This is particularly true with the term 'free'. This term is used quite often (particularly in the case of 'free will') even though people don't generally take the time to come up with a careful definition of the term.

Perhaps a better example is when we witness to people and call them to repentance. Do all of us believe that it is God who freely chooses to bestow saving grace upon his creatures? Of course. Do we use these terms in common conversation with unbelievers? Not usually. We call them to repentance and faith (as God commands us to do). Are we assuming that they are able (on their own will) to actually come to repentance and faith? No. We know that theologically it is God who must replace their heart of stone with a heart of flesh. Yet we rarely dive into deep theology when we witness to the unbeliever. Is the theology wrong? No. Do we generally tell the unbeliever that even though he is commanded to repent he will only repent if God bestows saving grace upon him? That is not generally how we word things when we talk to unbelievers.

In the same way, the argument that I am making is obviously NOT how we generally talk about 'knowledge' in common conversation. But I would also argue that it is important that when we are discussing philosophy/theology that we are VERY CONCISE and consistent with the terms that we use. In a sense, common conversation is sloppy conversation, since many different words can have many different meanings. And unless people are willing to sit down and hash out the details and specifics of what they are exactly talking about, they will just end up talking circles around each other.

One perfect example I can think of is when Jonathan Edwards discusses 'author of sin' in his book Freedom of the Will. He spends several paragraphs CAREFULLY defining the phrase 'author of sin'. He essentially concludes that if the phrase 'God is the author of sin' refers to a particular concept, he would have no problem accepting it (so long as it is defined clearly and concisely). Yet he also says that if the phrase refers to a different concept, he would consider it completely unbiblical. Ultimately he says the term should be avoided as it tends to cause confusion (due to the multiple meanings of the term 'author'). This is just one example where we need to be concise about our terms, and we can't just ignore everything that isn't used in common conversation (there are a LOT of theological concepts that are not discussed deeply in common conversation).

With that said, I am simply trying to show that God, being the author/fountain/source of truth, is a necessary being for truth to even exist. The transcendental argument declares that WITHOUT the Triune God of scripture, nothing would make sense in this universe (in fact, the universe wouldn't exist anyways). Any attempt to consistently and completely understand something such as morality is impossible without a law-giver, a being who is the source of morality.

For this reason I declare that when we talk about knowledge, we certainly do use the 'common' term to denote what a person claims to know. There are MANY people who say that they 'know' something while at the same time they are wrong. So obviously in these situations the person who is making a claim to knowledge is making a wrong claim. He believes it, but he is wrong. An example could be those who say that they 'know' the Holocaust was a hoax. Or how about Christopher Hitchens who declared that he 'knew' that God did not exist?

So when we get down to the nitty-gritty, what exactly is knowledge, and how do we know if it is true knowledge (correct)? I mean, who is the final authority on whether something is true or false? I would say that God is the final authority, since it is he who created all things and knows all things.

Now I would say that to truly know something means that your interpretation of it is CORRECT. Charlie brought up a good point when he said that I was suggesting that a person needed ALL knowledge of something to know it. Yet this is not my position. Remember, I said that to truly know something a person's interpretation (however limited it is) needs to be correct. This DOES NOT mean that it needs to be exhaustive.

Consider this example. I would say that I 'know' the Lord and he 'knows' me (the Lord knows his sheep and his sheep know him). Do the sheep have EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of the Lord? No. Does the Lord have EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of his sheep? Yes. Are the sheep wrong in their knowledge of the Lord? No, they are not wrong, even though they do not have exhaustive knowledge. Is the Lord wrong in his knowledge of his sheep? Not at all.

So we see that to have CORRECT knowledge of something DOES NOT mean that you must have EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of something.

Ok, so this brings me to the next point I want to make. Do unbelievers have knowledge? Well, I would say that they definitely claim to have knowledge (but we have already seen above that just because someone claims to have knowledge of something does not make it true). To better answer this question I think we can refer to two different types of knowledge: 1) innate, or natural knowledge and 2) conscious or gained knowledge.

Now I do not know if you agree with me on this, but I will try to make my argument clear. Romans chapter 1 says that men suppress the truth of God. Furthermore, it says "because that which is known about God is evident within them." I think this is important, since it shows that there is a knowledge about God that is evident WITHIN the unbeliever (it is a knowledge he possesses). I believe that this is an innate, natural knowledge that ALL humans have (because they are made in the image of God). In fact, I think the next verse makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR when it says the following:

Romans 1:21 (NASB)
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

So here Paul is saying that these unbelievers KNEW God, but refused to honor him or give thanks. How could they possibly know God if they are not believers? This is because there is different types of knowledge (I believe two types). Innately, naturally (as creatures of God) they KNEW God. Yet due to their depravity they suppressed this knowledge of God within them. For this reason when believers say that they 'know' the Lord, they are referring not only to the fact that they are no longer suppressing their innate knowledge of God, but that they also have gained a conscious knowledge of God (that increases as they study scripture and grow in the faith). When Romans declares that unbelievers 'KNEW' God, this is referring to a knowledge that is innate and suppressed.

With that said, the next question is: do unbelievers KNOW anything correctly? I would say no. The reason I would say this is because before they have even gained any knowledge about the world around them they have already suppressed the knowledge of God that is within them. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that the unbeliever interprets about the world is passed through a filter that is depraved. Certainly the unbeliever, when he says: "the sun exists" is referring to something (an object) that does indeed exist. But I would immediately make two statements about this claim:

1) The unbeliever, before he even 'perceived' the existence of the sun, was already suppressing the knowledge of God within him. The moment he existed he suppressed this knowledge because of his depraved nature. Therefore, his knowledge of God EXISTED PRIOR to ANY and ALL other knowledge (or claims to knowledge). We could say then that EVEN IF the unbelieve CAN truly know something, it is ONLY because he 'knew' God first, and suppressed this knowledge.

2) The unbeliever, even when he says "the sun exists" is perceiving the object in an incorrect way. Sure he uses the same words that a believer would use, but he means different things. This is similar to the example of people who say they 'know' Jesus. Both believers and unbelievers make these statements, but both people mean completely different things. The unbeliever, when he says "the sun exists", has already perceived the sun from the perspective of a man who is suppressing the knowledge of God. He is technically NOT correct because he is viewing the object AS IF IT WERE NOT PART OF GOD'S CREATION. The believer, when he says "the sun exists" is making reference to an object that he considers to be part of God's creation. Even though BOTH people DO NOT have exhaustive knowledge of the sun, only the believer is correct in the knowledge that he does have. Remember, one does not have to have exhaustive knowledge of something to have correct knowledge.

In the end, I hope that this perhaps better clarifies my position. Again, I honestly do not know how one could read Romans 1 and NOT conclude that unbelievers have a knowledge of God within them that they suppress. In light of this I think it would be impossible to say that unbelievers can have TRUE and CORRECT knowledge of God's creation without acknowledging God as creator. Even when they say a simple statement such as "I exist", one has to ask the question: "what do they mean by 'I'?" Who is 'I'? And even though we have an idea of what they are talking about, OUR understanding of the word 'I' is VERY different than theirs. They view themselves as a being autonomous from God, and that they are the final authority on matters of truth and morality. We view them as creatures of God, and that God ALONE is the final authority on matters of truth and morality.

 

[Philip]

In a sense, common conversation is sloppy conversation, since many different words can have many different meanings.

But this is the way the Bible talks, Eric. They talk in ordinary language, as should we. The definition of "knowledge" that you come up with has to cover all of the range of meanings that the Bible gives to the word, from "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" to "knowledge puffs up."

I'm talking knowledge here---not knowledge-claims. There's a difference between knowing something and claiming to know it.

With that said, I am simply trying to show that God, being the author/fountain/source of truth, is a necessary being for truth to even exist. The transcendental argument declares that WITHOUT the Triune God of scripture, nothing would make sense in this universe (in fact, the universe wouldn't exist anyways). Any attempt to consistently and completely understand something such as morality is impossible without a law-giver, a being who is the source of morality.

Granted, it does. It just can't demonstrate it conclusively because of the limitations of the presenter. On the other hand, if the Christian account of creation is correct (and it is) then all argumentation would be ultimately transcendental---even the classical proofs---because they reason from creation back to creator.

Remember, I said that the truly know something a person's interpretation (however limited it is) needs to be correct.

So no one knew that the sun came up in the morning before Copernicus? He was the first one to interpret correctly that this was the earth turning, not the sun moving.

It doesn't make sense to talk about correct or incorrect knowledge because to know something is to be correct about it.

I think the word you're looking for here is understanding. The unbeliever knows things but has an improper understanding of them. The predicament of the unbeliever is similar to that of a person who sees the wrong connections between things. He has all the facts and ought to see that they fit but doesn't. However, this doesn't mean that he doesn't have knowledge of the facts---the failure is deeper than simple knowledge. You're right that the failure is to see the context, but one can know things out of context. Many is the time that I learned something and later learned more and realized that this other thing fit and that there was a larger context.

Let's suppose that you read Calvin's Institutes backwards and forwards without ever studying the reformation or the life of John Calvin. Would you have knowledge of the Institutes? Absolutely you would. However, there would be much that didn't make sense to you which you would have to work through. I think this is the kind of thing you're trying to get at, but knowledge and understanding are two different things.

 

[Loopie]

Philip,

I do see the points that you are trying to make, and like I said I am not as eloquent as I would like to be. I also don't have any of my books with me (they are in storage), or else I would definitely be quoting Jonathan Edwards, Van Til, and others.

Even if it were true that somehow an unbeliever can KNOW something (perceive it correctly) apart from any knowlege of God. I think you cannot avoid the conclusion from Romans 1 that the unbeliever HAD a knowledge of God FIRST before all other knowledge. Either the unbeliever suppresses the truth from the moment he is created (prior to all other knowledge) or he does not. Which do you believe to be the case?

As for the difference between understanding and knowledge, I agree with you. I misspoke when I used the phrase true knowledge. Yes, if a person has knowledge of something, then it would be true. If he claimed to 'know' something, but was wrong, he would not have knowledge of that something.

It was never my intention to argue that unbelievers cannot KNOW anything at all. I should have done a better job of making this clear, but my goal was to show that unbelievers cannot KNOW anything UNLESS they already knew God. I honestly believe that as soon as a person is created they suppress the knowledge of God within them. This takes place before any other knowledge is gained. ALL MEN have a knowledge of God that they suppress until they are made regenerate.

In this way (and again, I should have tied this into my previous post), I would argue that IF the unbeliever KNOWS anything, he KNEW God first. IF the unbeliever DID NOT KNOW God first, he could not actually KNOW anything. Again, his knowledge is a suppressed knowledge (and certainly not exhaustive).

 

[CharlieJ]

In this way (and again, I should have tied this into my previous post), I would argue that IF the unbeliever KNOWS anything, he KNEW God first. IF the unbeliever DID NOT KNOW God first, he could not actually KNOW anything. Again, his knowledge is a suppressed knowledge (and certainly not exhaustive).

I fail to see either the logic or the usefulness of these assertions, especially in concert. Why would an unbeliever need to know God first in order to know anything? What is the causal relation? The only way I can make sense of it is to think that you're saying that this suppressed knowledge somehow still communicates the missing necessary ... whatever ... that makes knowledge possible. What would it communicate? Why do I have to posit a suppressed knowledge of God to make sense of the way a carpenter makes cabinets? How does it make any sense to tell my math professor that if he weren't right now in possession of a knowledge that HE DOES NOT KNOW HE HAS, he couldn't do math?

And Van Tillians wonder why the world finds them irrelevant.

 

[Philip]

I think you cannot avoid the conclusion from Romans 1 that the unbeliever HAD a knowledge of God FIRST before all other knowledge.

It says that God is known from creation---it doesn't say that knowledge of God has logical priority in the order of knowing. You're arguing from silence here.

I should have done a better job of making this clear, but my goal was to show that unbelievers cannot KNOW anything UNLESS they already knew God. I honestly believe that as soon as a person is created they suppress the knowledge of God within them. This takes place before any other knowledge is gained. ALL MEN have a knowledge of God that they suppress until they are made regenerate.

I would simply say that men suppress the knowledge of God that is evident from creation, as Paul does.

 

[Loopie]

Charlie,

I am simply going off of what scripture declares. I mean, we all agree that man in sinful from the moment his is created in the womb, right? If this is the case, then this sin means that somehow the creature is rebelling against the creator due to its sinful nature. In what way is it rebelling? How does a natural man rebel against God?

There is no doubt that most unbelievers do not get up in the morning thinking about how to sin against God today. This does not mean that they are not still in rebellion against him (and fully accountable for their actions). There can be no doubt then that there is SOME KIND of innate knowledge (call it seed of religion) that is in all man. It is in ALL men because ALL men are created in the image of God.

So when we talk about how a person can know things, I do not think we can avoid the fact that the natural man is suppressing SOMETHING from the moment he is created. I have labeled this something as a kind/type of knowledge that is spiritual in nature (it is not a head knowledge).

Yet, if someone were to ask me if a person COULD know anything if they did not have this previous innate knowledge of God, I would simply say that it is impossible to conclude either way. There is no way that I can imagine myself as NOT being made in the image of God. I mean, there is NO EXAMPLE of a human who was NOT made in the image of God. So there is no way for me to speculate on how a person, without the seed of religion, and without being made in the image of God, could come to actually 'know' things.

That is why I think that it is best to conclude that there IS some type of innate knowledge of God (seed of religion) that is suppressed by man from the moment he existed. I would certainly agree that unbelievers and believers both know things, but there is no way to conclude that they could still know these things if they were not made in the image of God, and if they did not have this seed of religion within them.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

I think you cannot avoid the conclusion from Romans 1 that the unbeliever HAD a knowledge of God FIRST before all other knowledge.

It says that God is known from creation---it doesn't say that knowledge of God has logical priority in the order of knowing. You're arguing from silence here.

I should have done a better job of making this clear, but my goal was to show that unbelievers cannot KNOW anything UNLESS they already knew God. I honestly believe that as soon as a person is created they suppress the knowledge of God within them. This takes place before any other knowledge is gained. ALL MEN have a knowledge of God that they suppress until they are made regenerate.

I would simply say that men suppress the knowledge of God that is evident from creation, as Paul does.

Philip,

But man is part of creation, is he not? So the moment that a man is created, he is part of creation, and he has a knowledge of God within him. This fits perfectly in the understanding of original sin, and the fact that man is sinful even in the womb.

You make it seem like man is created without any knowledge of God, and then at some point, when he perceives some other part of creation (but not himself), he is held accountable for suppressing the truth. I do not see how that makes sense in light of original sin, and the depravity of man from the womb.

 

[Philip]

That is why I think that it is best to conclude that there IS some type of innate knowledge of God (seed of religion)

Do you mean the Sensus Divinitatus?

You make it seem like man is created without any knowledge of God, and then at some point, when he perceives some other part of creation (but not himself), he is held accountable for suppressing the truth.

I said he sees creation---self-knowledge would be included. Again, I would point you to Calvin's discussion of this topic in the beginning of the Institutes.

I do not see how that makes sense in light of original sin, and the depravity of man from the womb.

Original sin is simply the natural inclination to sin as well as the imputed guilt of Adam. These things are a matter of innate tendencies and inclinations---predispositions.

 

[MW]

And Van Tillians wonder why the world finds them irrelevant.

I must confess that I haven't recognised Van Tillianism in anything you have represented as "Van Tillian" thus far.

 

[jwright82]

Why not? All truth is God's truth wherever it may be found.

Exactly it is God's truth not man's truth. Thinking "God's" thoughts after Him.

 

[Hilasmos]

Why would an unbeliever need to know God first in order to know anything?

Because knowlege, to be knowledge, requires an adequate justification. If I were to affirm the point above as true, I would do so on the grounds that only God can provide an ultimately valid justification. If I were to deny its truth, I would say man is an adequate justification of knowledge. If man is not an ultimately valid justification, then man has unjustified knowledge -- and by my definition of knowledge, unjustified knowledge is not knowledge.

 

[jwright82]

I fail to see either the logic or the usefulness of these assertions, especially in concert. Why would an unbeliever need to know God first in order to know anything? What is the causal relation? The only way I can make sense of it is to think that you're saying that this suppressed knowledge somehow still communicates the missing necessary ... whatever ... that makes knowledge possible. What would it communicate? Why do I have to posit a suppressed knowledge of God to make sense of the way a carpenter makes cabinets? How does it make any sense to tell my math professor that if he weren't right now in possession of a knowledge that HE DOES NOT KNOW HE HAS, he couldn't do math?

And Van Tillians wonder why the world finds them irrelevant.

You seem to be confusing the formal sense of presupposition with the actual sense of presupposition. Formaly speaking a presupposition functions in the way you describe but that is not the only meaning of the word. A presupposition means something similer to what Calvin says about scripture being "the spectacles through which we view the world", or something like that. So I can go through the day never thinking about the fact that I have spectacles on.

My daughter is the measure of beauty to me (I posted some recent pictures of her in the famely portrait section). So formaly speaking we could sit down and work out my presuppositions on what is beautiful or not and see why my daughter has those qualities. But I do not logicaly work through those presuppositions when I see her, I am just struck by how beautiful she is. I love new york style pizza. There is a place in town that serves the best pizza that I have ever had. Again we could sit down and formaly work out my presuppositions of what makes good pizza but I am not thinking about that when I take a bite of that slice of pizza. So remember that there is a noncognative side to what a presupposition is that cannot be ignored.

I will admit upfront that I am drawing from Dooyeweerd and especially the work of James K. A. Smith here but I would argue that is fully inline with Van Til's thought.

 

[Philip]

Because knowlege, to be knowledge, requires an adequate justification

Before whom? If all beliefs stand in need of justification, then there are no basic beliefs. Please show me how this assertion is justified.

For a knowledge-claim, all one needs is warrant---that is, the belief has to arise from a properly-functioning belief-oriented feature of one's cognitive powers.

What is never needed for knowledge is a metaphysical story about it. One does not have to do epistemology in order to make knowledge-claims any more than one has to do theoretical physics to turn on the light.

 

[Hilasmos]

Before whom? If all beliefs stand in need of justification, then there are no basic beliefs. Please show me how this assertion is justified.

Do beliefs = knowledge?

For a knowledge-claim, all one needs is warrant---that is, the belief has to arise from a properly-functioning belief-oriented feature of one's cognitive powers.

Does a knowledge-claim = knowledge? Secondly, how is one to provide warrant that they have properly-functioning cognitive faculties?

 

[jwright82]

Because knowlege, to be knowledge, requires an adequate justification

Before whom? If all beliefs stand in need of justification, then there are no basic beliefs. Please show me how this assertion is justified.

For a knowledge-claim, all one needs is warrant---that is, the belief has to arise from a properly-functioning belief-oriented feature of one's cognitive powers.

What is never needed for knowledge is a metaphysical story about it. One does not have to do epistemology in order to make knowledge-claims any more than one has to do theoretical physics to turn on the light.

The problem with basic beleifs is that no one has ever been able to give a satisfactory criterion for basic beleifs. Plantinga's criterion works great for immediate beleifs but those common or immediate beleifs can never be broad enough or sure eneough to base an entire web of beleifs on. Philosophical foundationalisms have always failed for that reason alone.

 

[Philip]

Do beliefs = knowledge?

No, just ones that are warranted and true.

Does a knowledge-claim = knowledge?

Obviously not.

Secondly, how is one to provide warrant that they have properly-functioning cognitive faculties?

That question is backward. The burden of proof is on the skeptic who wants to deny the obvious.

The problem with basic beleifs is that no one has ever been able to give a satisfactory criterion for basic beleifs. Plantinga's criterion works great for immediate beleifs but those common or immediate beleifs can never be broad enough or sure eneough to base an entire web of beleifs on. Philosophical foundationalisms have always failed for that reason alone.

Was there a problem in there somewhere? Basic beliefs may turn out to be a family resemblance concept---I have no problem with not having a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as knowledge. What you are going to admit as a basic belief depends on your model of rationality.

 

[Hilasmos]

Originally Posted by Hilasmos
Do beliefs = knowledge?
No, just ones that are warranted and true.


Originally Posted by Hilasmos
Does a knowledge-claim = knowledge?
Obviously not.

Then why did you protest my statement that knowledge requires adequate justification? It appears that the issue is over what can provide an adequate justification, which was the purpose of my paragraph in total.

That question is backward. The burden of proof is on the skeptic who wants to deny the obvious.

It is only obvious because you know and presuppose God. It becomes less obvious, consicouly, when you don't -- following Plantinga's EAAN. At least in my understanding.

 

[Philip]

Then why did you protest my statement that knowledge requires adequate justification?

I didn't say justification, I said warrant. Justification means a philosophical account, whereas warrant is unconscious and arises from properly-functioning faculties. A five-year-old child with no philosophical education is capable of knowledge, therefore knowledge does not require justification.

It is only obvious because you know and presuppose God.

But it's obvious to many who don't. For example, G.E. Moore's proof for the existence of his hands.

 

[jwright82]

Was there a problem in there somewhere? Basic beliefs may turn out to be a family resemblance concept---I have no problem with not having a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as knowledge. What you are going to admit as a basic belief depends on your model of rationality.

Basic beleifs are irrellivant to non-foundationalist like myself, I mean foundationalism in the phislosophical sense. But to anyone who even uses the term basic beleif, in the philosophical sense, has a problem with establishing what makes a basic beleif basic. I think the whole thing is absurd but there are some interesting work coming out of people trying to defend these ideas I am reading a good book now on this subject that you would like, or anyone else interested in this subject. Here it is:
Amazon.com: Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem (9780521833011): James B. Freeman: Books.

 

[Hilasmos]

I didn't say justification, I said warrant. Justification means a philosophical account, whereas warrant is unconscious and arises from properly-functioning faculties. A five-year-old child with no philosophical education is capable of knowledge, therefore knowledge does not require justification.

That is why I said "as I define knowledge," in the sense of justified-true-belief. I am not sure how helpful it is to define knowledge as a belief that is warranted and true when the knower could not differentiate between truth and fasilty because both could be warranted and believed.

 

[Loopie]

That is why I think that it is best to conclude that there IS some type of innate knowledge of God (seed of religion)

Do you mean the Sensus Divinitatus?

You make it seem like man is created without any knowledge of God, and then at some point, when he perceives some other part of creation (but not himself), he is held accountable for suppressing the truth.

I said he sees creation---self-knowledge would be included. Again, I would point you to Calvin's discussion of this topic in the beginning of the Institutes.

I do not see how that makes sense in light of original sin, and the depravity of man from the womb.

Original sin is simply the natural inclination to sin as well as the imputed guilt of Adam. These things are a matter of innate tendencies and inclinations---predispositions.

Philip,

I mean the seed of religion, the spiritual innate knowledge of God that man has. You and I would both agree that man is born with original sin. From the moment of being created man is in rebellion against God. I would argue, based on Romans 1, that this 'knowledge' is a spiritual type of knowledge. It is not a 'head knowledge'. Yet, in order to rebel against his creator, man must in some way 'know' his creator. This is not a gained knowledge, but an innate knowledge (again, not head knowledge). Man suppresses this truth from the beginning of his existence.

Certainly the man sees creation (including himself) and suppresses the evidence for God in it. But again, I want you to answer my question: do you believe that man only starts suppressing the truth at some point after he is created (let's say, when he is 2 years old)? If not, then do you believe that man has ALWAYS suppressed the truth of God (out of rebellion) from the moment he was created? If so, then in SOME SENSE of the term, man has a 'knowledge' (spiritual) of God prior to any other type of knowledge (including learned, or gained knowledge).

Now perhaps you consider this Sensus Divinitatis NOT to be some form or type of innate knowledge. Here are Calvin's words on the subject:

"That there exists in the human mind and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity [sensus Divinitatis], we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead…. …this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget."

So even Calvin uses terminology that refers to this as a TYPE or FORM of knowledge. It is not gained in school, but no individual 'forgets' this knowledge.

Yet even if you were to argue that this is not REALLY knowledge at all, then it makes me wonder how you can say that God has knowledge. NONE of God's knowledge is learned, or gained knowledge. His knowledge is natural, innate to his very being (as an omniscient being). With that said, how can we deny that the sensus divinitatis that man has, this seed of religion, is not really knowledge?

For this reason I must conclude that man HAS this sense of the divine PRIOR to ALL other knowledge that he might come to gain. ALL men have this. So even though unbelievers CAN KNOW things, they did not know anything prior to knowing God via the sense of the divine. It precedes everything else that they might come to know.

Now I know that you asked the question about man's autonomy. Certainly we could go into great detail about this, but I would like to make one argument about this. I would summarize my position by saying that I believe man is JUST as autonomous regarding knowledge as he is regarding his actions.

All of us, I think, would agree that God has decreed all things that take place in this universe. As humans, our actions have causes, and we are always being influenced in some way when we act. No man is autonomous in the sense that his actions are uncaused or uninfluenced. No man is autonomous in the sense that his actions have not been eternally decreed by God. Yet we would still conclude that when man acts, HE is the one doing the action, and is responsible for his actions. Even though man's sins are included in God's eternal decree, God is not the author of sin (it is man who sins).

In this same way I think we could consider knowledge. Knowledge is not separated from action, for we see that God's eternal foreknowledge is tied to his eternal decree. Whatever can be known by man was first known by God, and man cannot know something that God does not know. If God did not know it first, it would not have existed. For this reason I would say that no man is autonomous in the sense that his knowledge is uncaused. God has decreed what every man shall know and how every man shall come to know it. No man is autonomous in the sense that his knowledge has not already been eternally known by God. Yet I would agree that when man KNOWS anything, it is HE who knows it. He is responsible for what he chooses to do based on the knowledge he has. And so man is held accountable from the moment he is created, because he rebels against the creator that he knows via the sensus divinitatis, and suppresses the truth within him.

That is my entire position in a nutshell, and I am honestly curious as to where you would disagree with me. If you do disagree, then I would like you to please explain to me what it is you are trying to prove concerning man's knowledge. What is your final goal in this discussion?

 

[Philip]

That is why I said "as I define knowledge," in the sense of justified-true-belief. I am not sure how helpful it is to define knowledge as a belief that is warranted and true when the knower could not differentiate between truth and fasilty because both could be warranted and believed.

Same could be said for justified beliefs. If someone has never heard of mirages and sees what looks like water on a desert road, he is justified in believing that there is water on the road.

I mean the seed of religion, the spiritual innate knowledge of God that man has.

Alright, since this is innate and not conscious, let's talk about it the way Calvin does as the Sensus Divinitatus, the ability to see God's world for what it is, which has been broken by original sin. It is not functioning properly because man is in rebellion and therefore suppressing it. It's knowledge in the way that the ability to use one's reasoning capabilities or one's senses is knowledge: it's knowledge of skills, of ways of doing things.

That is my entire position in a nutshell, and I am honestly curious as to where you would disagree with me. If you do disagree, then I would like you to please explain to me what it is you are trying to prove concerning man's knowledge.

I'm concerned here that you are ignoring secondary causes and the actual ways in which human beings learn stuff. We're not talking about ultimate cuasation or foreknowledge here, but about the relation between knowing something and one's attitude toward that something as well as toward ordinary epistemic functions, like sense perception, reasoning skills, and the like. God's knowledge is not the truth-maker for human actions or for the way things are for the simple reason that there are secondary causes. In doing apologetics, further, it makes more sense to speak practically about this than to wax theoretical as Van Tillians are wont to do. We've been talking epistemology here, but that's mostly a philosophical subject, not an apologetic one, unless we're answering attacks on our own warrant for belief in Jesus.

 

[Loopie]

Philip,

It was never my intention to ignore secondary causes. I freely admit that there are secondary causes in both man's choice to action and man's knowledge. I am not sure I would feel comfortable with the terms you used in the phrase: "God's knowledge is not the truth-maker for human actions". I mean, humans can only grasp a truth that was created and decreed by God. Had he chosen not to reveal it them, they would not know it. He has decreed what humans will come to know, and how exactly they will come to know it. I agree that God has given them the tools (such as the five senses) to know things, just like God has given them the tools (emotions, reason, and will) to make decisions. Obviously as sinners they use these tools for sinful purposes, out of rebellion against God. So I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are secondary causes, and I believe in all cases that humans are morally responsible while God is completely sovereign.

By the way, I think epistemology, like anything else, falls under apologetics. As a Christian one's apologetic will cover a multitude of areas including history, philosophy, science, epistemoloy, etc. The tool that you use (the means by which you form an apologetic) is going to depend on who you are talking to. ALL of my discussions with atheists go down the road of epistemology, morality, and philosophy, but I simply consider these things to be a part of apologetics.

 

[Hilasmos]

Same could be said for justified beliefs. If someone has never heard of mirages and sees what looks like water on a desert road, he is justified in believing that there is water on the road.

Agreed. The difference being that his justification is justified.

 

[Philip]

Same could be said for justified beliefs. If someone has never heard of mirages and sees what looks like water on a desert road, he is justified in believing that there is water on the road.

Agreed. The difference being that his justification is justified.

So you have to be justified that you're justified? Please justify this statement and justify your justification.

"God's knowledge is not the truth-maker for human actions".

If I claim that there is a desk in front of me, what makes it true? The fact that there is, in fact, a desk in front of me. In an ultimate sense this is because God decreed this, but in the most immediate sense, the truth-maker is the fact itself.

I also don't mind saying that certain facts are human constructs: for example, I am currently in the State of Georgia. However, the borders that define the State of Georgia are a human construct and depend on there being a government which all acknowledge has authority over this state. When we talk about truth-makers, we are simply talking about why X is X in an immediate sense.

Had he chosen not to reveal it them, they would not know it.

Again, we're skirting Divine occasionalism here. The logical conclusion of this is that there is no causal relationship between my seeing the desk and my having knowledge that the desk is there---instead, my seeing the desk is an occasion for God to impose knowledge upon my mind. If we go further with this, when I read Scripture, my knowledge of God is occasioned by my reading of the Word, but is, in fact, imposed on me by God on that occasion. Sound familiar? (this is the view of Karl Barth, by the way)

I don't think I need to explain why this is absurd. Further, when we talk about revelation, we are talking about God revealing Himself. When we talk about general revelation, we are talking about the way that God reveals Himself in creation. We are not talking about God showing me that there is a desk---we are talking about God showing me something of Himself in the created order through the medium of the desk. Revelation is a medium.

When we talk about God's sovereignty in knowledge, we are talking about attitudes toward it and the way that we recognize our dependence upon God and thank Him for our belief-oriented capabilities. I suppose that it's true that there is sovereign decree involved here, but that's not the reason for it.

Consider this:

If God has decreed X, X is true
If God has not decreed X, X is not true
Therefore, if X is true, God has decreed it

This establishes only that God wills whatsoever comes to pass. It does not follow, though, that God is the direct cuase of everything, nor does it make Him the truth-maker. It merely means that nothing comes to pass without God allowing it.

ALL of my discussions with atheists go down the road of epistemology, morality, and philosophy, but I simply consider these things to be a part of apologetics.

Then here's my advice to you: get to know these disciplines as disciplines so that you avoid making mistakes. If you're going to talk about epistemology, start reading up on it, get to know its methods and in particular, find out the issues that Christian epistemologists are addressing. Warranted Christian Belief by Plantinga is a good start.

 

[Hilasmos]

So you have to be justified that you're justified? Please justify this statement and justify your justification.

Yes. I am only suggesting a two tier justification. In terms of concluding that a mirage is water you would need justification by means of your cognitive faculties (it preceives and interprets the mirage as water), and a reason, or justification, as to why you should trust your cognitive faculties (God created them).

The alternative seems to be that the man is warranted in believing that the mirage is water because he believes its water. He is not justified in his belief beyond the fact that he believes it; and, point being, that seems to be a weak view of knowledge that requires the property of truth.