The Christians Epistemic Foundation

Understanding the fundamental questions regarding one's philosophical 'starting point' may very well be the most vital question that could be asked, because it is the foundation of human knowledge. How can one know something to be true? What method does one employ? In order to understand this question better, a survey of the beginning of philosophy, that of the Greeks and specifically Plato’s three views will be illustrated. To show, that all philosophy has already been exhausted by the Greeks. And to show that all modern philosophy is just another way of presenting one of Plato’s three ways.

Of course, all of this would not be important, if there was no proof positive of a true epistemic foundation, which can be found in the self-attesting Christ of scripture. Afterwards it will be shown, how this foundation solves the problem of Plato’s three ways, and that it can be used in practice by solving real philosophical problems, which show of how insufficient other foundations really are.

This solution is not just to be seen as one of many epistemic foundations, but the only one. This starting point, it shall be argued, is built on the foundation of the Triune God of Scripture, and his self-attesting Christ. One does not meet God only in Scripture however, but in every fact.

I. The three ways of Plato

Understanding Plato’s three ways will show the basis for every epistemic foundation, and their inherent problems. In the first place, there has been an understood problem of combining the particularities of the world, with the unity that comprehensive knowledge demands. Could the starting point be solely empirical? If so, what is the basis of truth? For if the world was eternal, what would be the background of unity. Why is it, that there are universal laws of logic, thought, and so on? These are the vital questions that need to be answered.

Plato's second way came after his understanding that a starting point of mere empiricism was inconsistent. Famously, Plato formulated a concept of the world of ideas. Perhaps, there could be true knowledge in solely the eternal category. But even this proved fruitless, for how does one interact with a theoretical world, in the sense world?

Finally, in the third way, it was proposed that there could be an intermixture of the eternal and the temporal, but this also failed. For if all abstractions have an ideal form and are in some way dispersed, how then is there unity? Plato held that Ideas must be mutually opposed to each other. Evil and good would be equally ultimate. It seems that there could be no real intermixture. Of course, all of this is on the assumption of the two worlds being, either mutually independent or dependent on each other. That is, there is no creation.

A. Problematic Method

All of history's epistemic foundations fall into the one of Plato’s three ways, based on these presuppositions, there are two basic modern methodologies, which are used in interpreting facts. The empiricists are those who interact with the temporal or sense world alone (i.e. Descartes). Second, there are rationalists (i.e. Spinoza), who use some sort of absolute, as a background to understand the sense world. Finally, there are those who try to inter-mix a priori knowledge of an absolute and posteriori knowledge of the sense world, (i.e. Kant). But the question still arises, how is it possible to inter-mix the temporal with the eternal? This will be discussed below, after discovering which two methods of interpretation these foundations use.

1. Inductive Method

The Inductive method is used generally by Empiricists or Evidentialists based on their epistemic foundation, which follows Plato’s first way, temporal categories. Generally the inductive method is thought to be completely “objective”. It is the method popular science uses. Although, one may argue the goal of “following the facts wherever they may lead” is itself an axiom. Even so, this so-called objective method is not objective, because the inductive method has already assumed one of the three ways. In this case, the second way, the way of the temporal categories. By following the “facts” they have not accepted the facts as they are according to the Christ of scripture. To illustrate this point, think of the “missing link”. A scientist attempting to find evidence of the missing link has already assumed the Christ of scripture to be false. If he did not, there would be no purpose in looking. This model now seen as "early modernism" is being abandoned by philosophers of science who, "now see that [this model] is too simple even in physical science[1]."

2. Deductive Method

Rationalists use the method of deductive reasoning based on their epistemic foundation, which follows Plato’s second way, eternal categories. Usually what is meant by deductive reasoning is that by assuming certain truths, one can explain, what he finds in the sense world. For instance, one may assume the law of non-contradiction to be true, and say that the earth cannot be both round and not round at the same time in the same way. But what really has happened here? It is as if, he can assume a fact as it is, without relation to an absolute, which will be shown to be God. This cannot work, since to know one fact, say the fact that the world is round, is only to truly understand in relation to how God interprets that fact. It is to claim an exhaustive coherence, corresponding with the mind of God. No one can truly know a fact, unless he knows how God understands that fact.

Both methods as shown above are equally opposed to the position presented in this essay. Both of these methods are completely antithetical to the true epistemological foundation. At least in how they are understood, as shown above. Even in starting points, these two views are mutually exclusive, there is no neutral ground. What must now be understood is that the foundation of the self-attesting Christ and Triune God, which makes all reality intelligible cannot reason these two ways. It can only reason from the eternal, based on the creation of the temporal. This method reasons in a completely derivative sense world. There is no intermixture of the eternal and temporal. The solution to this problem is found in the Trinity.

II. Problem solved in the Trinity

As was shown, it is impossible to reason in the one of the three ways, and is equally impossible to reason deductively and inductively on false pre-suppositions, so there must be a synthesis, a way in which to rationally interpret reality; it is found in the Christian-theistic epistemic foundation, the Triune God of scripture known through his self-attesting Christ.

A. Absolute Unity in the Trinity.

The Trinity solves the above problem of the one and many. God is both absolute unity in His triune being and absolute plurality in His triune being. God is fully one and fully three. When He created, He could only create according to his nature, so man is a finite replica of God. This is to say, in the triune God and his image participating in mankind, mankind has a unity to the diversity of experience. This is one reason, why there cannot be any talk of intelligible thought outside the christian theistic world-view. To illustrate, assume with Plato, that one can either interpret through eternal categories or temporal. If eternal, there is no reasonable explanation as to how this relates to the real world. If temporal, then there is no true knowledge, since only true knowledge is in the eternal. Even if one would mix the categories of thought, there would be no real knowledge. For, without the creation doctrine, both of these categories are equally ultimate or equally dependent. The eternal did not create the temporal, if it did then one has accepted christian theism.

B. Absolute coherence.

So then only a foundation that is interpreted through exclusively eternal categories can be coherent, now to illustrate this fact. All knowledge is analogical knowledge. All knowledge gained by mankind, has first been known by God. Since, he is the creator. Knowledge has much to do with the doctrine of creation, without creation the mind would be eternal. If the mind is eternal, although it is not equal in quantity with God’s mind, it is equal in quality. Since, the pre-supposition that makes reality intelligible must be in the Triune God, there must be creation, which implies derivative knowledge. That is, thinking God’s thoughts after him, or analogical knowledge. I know because I think God’s thoughts after him.

Can one exhaustively know God, and therefore all knowledge? No, since if one knew God exhaustively, one would therefore know everything, then God would not be God. It would again be a matter of quantity of knowledge not quality.

Therefore, true knowledge must be analogical knowledge. For, the Triune God created the world, and therefore all knowledge. There was and is and never will be any brute fact. There is no un-interpreted fact by God. All facts meet and have explanation in the Triune God. So, again all must say, that all true knowledge is analogical knowledge.

III. Solving real philosophical problems.

As was shown above, only an epistemic foundation based on the self-attesting Christ, found in scripture, can make reality intelligible. It would be an utterly false statement to say, that this foundation cannot solve real philosophical problems. It must have answers to all problems since it’s the only true foundation. Although not every problem will be solved by man, Dr. Cornelius Van Til notes: “Now we admit that ignorance can in a sense be set in opposition to the knowledge of God. We are finite, and by virtue of that fact, the area of our knowledge must always be limited. But our ignorance insofar as it involves faulty knowledge of God is not due to our finiteness, but is due to our sinfulness[2].” This does not mean that there is no answer, only that it is answered in the Triune God. Is this fideism? No, because if one doesn’t believe this, they have no basis for intelligible predication. An example of a popular problem in Philosophy of Religion will be illustrated now to illustrate this point.

A. Free-will

Freedom only has meaning if it is in the plan and in the exhaustive personality of God. The Triune God contains an exhaustive plurality and unity. And mankind is derived from the eternal God, and therefore is temporal. His creation could be nothing but personal, in fact all of mankind is a sort representational personality. The life of one person affects the life of the next. The sin of one man, Adam, effected the rest of the world. So, men are representations of God, although not exhaustively, as image bearers. Therefore, man thinks thoughts after God and acts after God. To have any conception of a “free-will”, in the ultimate sense, is anti-theistic, and so of necessity irrational. Mankind represents God in everything, so men are derivative of his eternality. That is, God is personal in all creation, and there is no foreign fact to Him. So, men don’t do anything foreign to his all in-compassing decree. There is no “free-will” in this sense only. To act in an impersonal background, is to act in a void. Therefore, there is no meaning, unless one acts in the exhaustive personality of God. To bring this claim even further, there is no meaning to history without pre-supposing the Triune God of scripture as the pre-condition to intelligible predication.

Conclusion

Since the history of philosophy is based on Plato’s three incoherent ways, and all the methods used are based on pre-suppositions, which are faulty; and since only on the Christian-theistic foundation can one account for unity in knowledge, there can only be a true epistemic foundation based on the Triune God of scripture. No other foundation can rationally account for anything without being internally inconsistent. Although, impossible to give a larger, extended presentation of the great thinkers in history, it would still be so, that they are all internally inconsistent, who have not started with the Triune God found in His Christ of scripture.

Bibliography
Bahsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic: Reading & Analysis. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1998

[1] Clark, David K. To Know and Love God (Wheaton Ill: Crossway Books, 2002), 50

[2] Van Til, Cornelius, A Suvey of Christian Epistemology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing), 71