Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[jimwalton]

We all know that epistemic certainties are tough to come by. Philosophically, at core, we don't know how we know what we know, or even that anything we know is ultimately reliable. Essentially, all epistemology is based on presuppositions and declarations of faith.

So saying, at what point do faith and knowledge merge, and at what points do they differentiate?

[The Charlie Factory]

The Biblical God is at base in every epistemology (Rom. 1:18-23). Humanity cannot escape the ontology of the created order. It reflects the glory of God, even though it is suppressed by man. Man chooses against the ontological reality he sees and thus restructures his epistemology and in this way his thinking becomes futile. Therefore, faith assumptions are always at bottom in one's epistemology.

[jimwalton]

Thanks, Charlie, but you need to be more clear. You've spoken in generalities, and I'm looking for something tighter. I agree that man chooses his own presuppositions and restructures his epistemology as he wishes. Agreed. But when you say "faith assumptions are always at bottom in one's epistemology," what do you mean, specifically? Do you mean that ultimately all knowledge is faith (they are the same thing), or do you mean that all presuppositions are grounded in faith and one's epistemology grows out of that, or do you mean that faith and knowledge are different realities operating in the same sphere of human rationality?

[Forest Man]

I believe Francis A. Schaeffer has a lot to say on this point. He pointed out how Jean-Paul Sartre, a noted existentialist, stated that if a finite point does not have an infinite reference point, it is meaningless and absurd. Epistemology, then, which starts utterly with man (a man or humankind in general) is meaningless and absurd as there is no reference point for it. Briefly, this means the necessity of two things. One, an infinite reference point. Two, an infinite reference point that can and does reveal itself. Hence Schaeffer's work "He Is There and He Is Not Silent." He, of course, being God.

We can know things "truly" because the same God who created the objective reality apart from himself also created our minds to observe and interact with that objective reality. God also revealed true things, not only about this objective reality, but also about Himself. Not exhaustively, for we are finite, but sufficiently. We certainly cannot have absolute knowledge or absolute certainty of knowledge because of we are finite. The question is what can we be reasonably certain of. Knowledge is not faith, and faith is not a blind leap in the dark.

That God exists, I think, is not a presupposition but a conclusion based on the presupposition that I can have any true knowledge about the universe in the first place. If I can truly know true things, then there must be an infinite reference point that has revealed himself and things about the cosmos. If not, then I cannot even truly know that true knowledge about the cosmos isn't possible.

This obviously needs longer discourse and greater development, but I said briefly.

Cheers

[The Charlie Factory]

I need to be more clear. Yes I did not explain the details of epistemology in one short paragraph but spoke in generalities. A discussion board such as this does not provide the right platform to discuss in full. We must speak in generalities.

Ontology and epistemology interact continuously while operating. What one knows about reality is always based on what one believes about that ontological reality. According to Romans 1, the conclusion gathered from creation is God. Everyone suppresses this truth until salvation. At no point does this separate unless a person is inconsistent with what he professes about reality or inconsistent with what he says he knows (Bahnsen called these self-deception). The result is that objects in creation understood rightly thus ending in the glory of God or objects in creation understood wrongly because the glory of God has somehow been suppressed. However, always the object in creation and knowledge of God's glory it represents confront a person's mind. In this way, a person's belief about God ought to interact with what the person has apprehended in a created object.

[jimwalton]

Forest, my hat is always off to Schaeffer, and I still use his stuff. Sartre's context was not epistemology, but, as Schaeffer calls it, "the dilemma of man." Sartre's context was that man cannot be a sufficient integration point for himself—secular humanism is self-defeating.

I don't agree that epistemology that starts with man is meaningless, because knowledge is possible without God. It's one of the common graces, along with sun and rain. Scientific naturalists have enlightened us tremendously in scientific arenas, and it's epistemologically valid. But it can only take us so far. There is knowledge beyond what science can produce, and so atheistic epistemology is valid, but limited. All of our human knowledge is limited, as you say, but Christians with the additional benefit of revelation can know more fully.

I have re-read your post several times, and feel that we are in solid agreement about 99% of it. Thanks for the post. I agree that knowledge is not faith, but I also feel that faith is evidentiary, not blind, as you've said. I define faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make the assumption both warranted and reasonable." Where the evidence falls into the category of certainty (as with God), faith and knowledge intersect. Where the evidence is based on "past performance" (as with sitting in a chair or turning a door knob), faith is a warranted and reasonable assumption.

[jimwalton]

Charlie, given what you've written, what intersections or synonomys does faith have with ontology and epistemology? Is faith a necessary participant in epistemology and/or ontology, or is faith a third player that intersects voluntarily in those arenas?

[The Charlie Factory]

Jim, you said, "I don't agree that epistemology that starts with man is meaningless, because knowledge is possible without God. It's one of the common graces, along with sun and rain."

This is a not accurate when Scripture is considered. The unbeliever has a functional epistemology because he is created in the image of God and his suppression of God (ontology) from what he knows does not destroy his pragmatic knowledge that can still be gained from the created world. That pragmatic knowledge does not accurately reflect the truth because God is suppressed who is the truth it is to represent. However, what I just described is not an epistemology starting with man (i.e. man beginning with himself). It is an epistemology of man beginning with the created order willfully suppressing God (ontology). The epistemology works even when God is suppressed although the thinking is futile and produces darkness and not light.

We do not have an epistemology for the Christian and a different epistemology for the unbeliever. We have the same epistemology used by both with the unbelievers denial of the ontological reality that keeps the epistemology intact. The unbeliever uses the believers epistemology while denying Christ and thus makes his use of logic and such unreasonable.

Faith/belief is a necessary position in any person's ontology and epistemology who is not God. For only God knows all.

[Eat crow]

Jim, what do you mean by asking "Philosophically, at core, we don't know how we know what we know, or even that anything we know is ultimately reliable". Are you speaking in generalities, or is that your own statement?

[jimwalton]

Crow, I'm speaking with regard to the writers of philosophers. No matter how they try to pin down how we know what we know, there always seems to be a window open somewhere, or a loophole in the fabric, and some point that isn't proven as tightly as they wish it could be. What I meant is that when it comes right down to it, philosophers can't give us a fool-proof way of knowing how we know what we know, and how we know our knowledge is reliable. From Cartesians to existentialists, rationalists and scientists, there's always a "but what about...?"