Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist  I think I see what you're saying. But I didn't mean that a priori knowledge wouldn't exist without the bible, only that there would be no way to justify its existence and prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. We would have no way of saying what the a priori knowledge is without the bible (if so you could tell me how). Even with the bible in the world, men "don't know" that they have a priori knowledge of God. And I think that's what Anthony was trying to say earlier. The issue here isn't exactly discovering knowledge as much as it is justifying knowledge. |
I notice the Cartesian comment at the bottom. Actually this whole exercise is inspired by his dumb idea that a man must first doubt before he can believe. This is what gives rise to modern pre-occupation with method. Well, if we have to be reduced to method (which everyone knows is always devised after the system has been formulated) then we should do so properly.
The issue is justifying knowledge. But there is no way in the world that knowledge can be justified without the use of knowledge. Anyway you look at it the pre-conditions for knowledge must be fulfilled -- whether Scripture is the final authority or not. Hence the pre-conditions or a priori forms require recognition first. Whatever one learns from Scripture it must be shown to be coherent with the pre-conditions for knowledge. This is the thing Brian Bosse is getting at. You cannot argue from Scripture to proposition to conclusion without first clarifying how you get from Scripture to proposition to conclusion.