The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Apologetics Forum > Philosophy

Philosophy Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

» Online Users: 105
20 members and 85 guests
AThornquist, austinww, BlackCalvinist, Bookmeister, ChristianHedonist, Confessor, David, Hebrew Student, Igor, Jen, JPT, Kevin, Knight, Nathan Riese, Simply_Nikki
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2009, 10:02 PM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
Does metaphysics precede epistemology?

One thing that I have heard many presuppositionalists state is that "Knowledge presupposes God", in other words, that epistemology presupposes some sort of metaphysic.

My question is whether this is a correct sequence, or whether epistemology should precede metaphysics.

I maintain that epistemology is foundational to metaphysics, since we can't know the nature of the universe unless we know.

BTW: I also will state as one of my basic suppositions that circular reasoning is always fallacious.
__________________
Philip
Potomac Hills Presbyterian Church (PCA) Leesburg, VA
Attending Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lookout Mountain, GA
Student Covenant College

The Importance of Being Orthodox
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2009, 10:31 PM
CharlieJ's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 797
Thanks: 91
Thanked 500 Times in 256 Posts
You have just demonstrated the difference between the ordo essendi (order of being) and the ordo cognoscendi(order of knowing). Logically, there must "be" things before there can be a "knower" to know them. On the other hand, any individual must "know" other things and even himself before he can comprehend their "being." So, it's a question of perspective.

Theologians have to decide how they are going to order their systematics. Those that proceed by the order of being start with God, then go to his internal works, then his external works. Those that proceed by the order of knowing start with Scripture or with the "knowledge of God" (Calvin).
__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 44
Thanks: 1
Thanked 17 Times in 7 Posts
P.F.,
I always start with epistemology for the person asking the question. While metaphysic certainly precedes any type of epistemology, the only way we know that metaphysic is through our epistemology. In my philosophy of religion classes I take a "critical realist" approach which essentially says we engage reality "a posteriori" but do so critically, constantly evaluating our own claims of knowledge towards reality.

I think a Reformed epistemology (broadly) goes hand in hand with such an approach. If we start with what we DO know (knowledge of God and His general revelatory law within us), then we can engage reality from there, and ultimately metaphysical propositions. While the knowledge God has placed in us is to a great extent metaphysical, we still must start with our knowledge to get to that point .

My 2 cents. Hope it helps.
__________________
PMBrooks
Southern Baptist Pastor
New Orleans, LA
PhD Theology
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2009, 10:59 PM
OPC'n's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: wi
Posts: 6,242
Blog Entries: 8
Thanks: 1,471
Thanked 1,813 Times in 1,147 Posts
I don't think circular reasoning is always fallacious. Mankind is mostly limited to circular reasoning but still comes out with correct concepts. For instance I might think the weather is warm. I have a concept of warm weather, I feel that degree upon my skin, I conclude that it is warm. It just might happen to be 80F which would fall into the realm of warm weather for the majority of ppl on earth. That would be circular reasoning bc it is based on my preconceived ideas of what warm weather is. The only time we can be free of circular reasoning is when we read absolute truths which are found in the Bible.....they are true despite our limited knowledge or ability to comprehend them fully.
__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-30-2009, 11:16 PM
Contra_Mundum's Avatar
Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 5,194
Thanks: 75
Thanked 3,371 Times in 1,193 Posts
I have a unique take on it.

With respect to man, since he is creaturely, Ethics comes before anything. What man ought to be and think, is prior to what he is, or how he knows.

Thoughts?
__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI

Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer
Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12

When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:

Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 12:42 AM
Beth Ellen Nagle's Avatar
Puritanboard Senior
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Watertown, WI
Posts: 2,258
Thanks: 1,061
Thanked 484 Times in 289 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcow View Post
I don't think circular reasoning is always fallacious. Mankind is mostly limited to circular reasoning but still comes out with correct concepts. For instance I might think the weather is warm. I have a concept of warm weather, I feel that degree upon my skin, I conclude that it is warm. It just might happen to be 80F which would fall into the realm of warm weather for the majority of ppl on earth. That would be circular reasoning bc it is based on my preconceived ideas of what warm weather is. The only time we can be free of circular reasoning is when we read absolute truths which are found in the Bible.....they are true despite our limited knowledge or ability to comprehend them fully.


Oooo...we need to have a discussion girl.
__________________
____________________________

~Beth Ellen Nagle~
Lakeside Church -Wales, WI (PCA)
Married to John
One wonderful daughter, Chaela Joelle


My work in digital art and photography: http://www.puritanboard.com/members/...ms-images.html
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 12:43 AM
OPC'n's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: wi
Posts: 6,242
Blog Entries: 8
Thanks: 1,471
Thanked 1,813 Times in 1,147 Posts
yeah? ok, let's do it!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 09:17 AM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
Bruce,

Wouldn't axiology presuppose an epistemology, though? We have to know the good before we can know what we ought to do.

I would say that for God, metaphysics would precede epistemology simply because He is all-knowing and therefore needs no epistemology.

How I feel is neither circular nor logical--it's emotional, which falls into the category of the non-rational (though not necessarily into the irrational: ie God has emotions but is never irrational).
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 11:41 AM
Contra_Mundum's Avatar
Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 5,194
Thanks: 75
Thanked 3,371 Times in 1,193 Posts
What about the fact that we cannot argue logically from what is to what ought?

How does that reality impact our dealing with ultimate things?

It seems to me that as Christians, obliged to begin with God as an ultimate reference point for all points of philosophy, we should structure that philosophy always with Him in mind.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 03:00 PM
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 44
Thanks: 1
Thanked 17 Times in 7 Posts
Whether one begins with axiology, metaphysics, or any other starting point, one must ask how you know what you know? Our own epistemology must first be addressed. This may be closely followed by something else (like axiology), but the question of epistemology must be answered.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 03:03 PM
Zenas's Avatar
Snow Miser
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 3,314
Thanks: 313
Thanked 1,413 Times in 741 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh View Post
One thing that I have heard many presuppositionalists state is that "Knowledge presupposes God", in other words, that epistemology presupposes some sort of metaphysic.

My question is whether this is a correct sequence, or whether epistemology should precede metaphysics.

I maintain that epistemology is foundational to metaphysics, since we can't know the nature of the universe unless we know.

BTW: I also will state as one of my basic suppositions that circular reasoning is always fallacious.
Intuitively though, you can't know in order to know the nature of the universe unless you have a universe that allows you to know.
__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN

"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 03:31 PM
Contra_Mundum's Avatar
Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 5,194
Thanks: 75
Thanked 3,371 Times in 1,193 Posts
Calvin starts the Institutes with epistemology, but it is not an argued-for epistemology. It is a "self-evident" epistemology, an interdependent epistemology.
Quote:
Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain.
The first things we know and and aware of are ourselves and God. And what takes priority is indiscernible.

Knowledge of God is inseparable from that which has been pre-interpreted by the divine mind (we think his thoughts after him), and inseparable from his being as Creator, which is inseparable from his identity as law-giver.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:14 PM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
Bruce,

Calvin here is, I think, assuming an epistemology because he's writing theology, not philosophy. If we are to have a theology then naturally we would start with God. However, in philosophy we have to start with ourselves because that is all we have to start with (Cogito Ergo Sum).

In terms of metaphysics, though, I do think that we can reason from epistemology to metaphysics simply because if we know something, then it follows that there is something to know.

In terms of axiology, I will admit that we cannot reason from metaphysics to axiology, but we cannot have axiology without epistemology first. We have to know the good, after all.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:18 PM
chbrooking's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 783
Thanks: 248
Thanked 393 Times in 179 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh View Post
However, in philosophy we have to start with ourselves because that is all we have to start with (Cogito Ergo Sum).
Doubt is not a solid foundation for epistemology. How could a believer think that it is?
__________________
Clark Brooking
Pastor
Living Hope Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Clarksville, MD
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:41 PM
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 44
Thanks: 1
Thanked 17 Times in 7 Posts
Bruce,
Thanks for the quote. Excellent thoughts from Calvin. I can agree that there is an interdependency that happens between the two. Thanks for sharing.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 04:55 PM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
Clark, I'm presenting the Cogito as a basis for certainty, not necessarily as the only basis. In essence, we first have to know that we exist before we can know God.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 05:02 PM
Contra_Mundum's Avatar
Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 5,194
Thanks: 75
Thanked 3,371 Times in 1,193 Posts
If you tell me that in order for me to think cogently, or have a philosophy, that I have to jettison thoughts of God before I even begin, because I have to start with the naked mind (as if it were theoretically possible to *think* absent God), I'd have to say along with Calvin: that's literal nonsense.

A humanistic philosophy doesn't describe reality. So, it is ultimately uninteresting. Humanistic philosophy is only interesting insofar as it helps me understand why nonbelievers think as they do, have the conundrums they have, etc.

But if you are studying philosophy to understand truth, then for a Christian, there can be no value in defining reality first of all in terms of the naked soul, God unconceived. IOW, philosophy without an integrated theology is worse than speculative--it's capitulation. It is forfeiting the game before taking the field.

Somewhere on the board recently, I had a short dialog with Ben Maas (sn=Confessor) on my take re. Descartes. RD's starting point, I still believe, seriously begs the question, beside being at the end of the day a thorough humanistic system.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Contra_Mundum For This Useful Post:
chbrooking (08-31-2009), Prufrock (08-31-2009)
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 06:18 PM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
I would present God as another basis of certainty via a) a modal ontological argument b) via an argument from being. I would say that the next logical step from the Cogito would be the existence of God. From the existence of God, one then has certainty, given that God is holy and perfect in being.

I start with the self and conclude that God exists from that premise alone. At the end of the day, I'm a Reidian not a skeptic.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 07:00 PM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,330
Thanks: 260
Thanked 434 Times in 289 Posts
Quote from P. F. Pugh
Calvin here is, I think, assuming an epistemology because he's writing theology, not philosophy. If we are to have a theology then naturally we would start with God. However, in philosophy we have to start with ourselves because that is all we have to start with (Cogito Ergo Sum).

Starting with fallen, finite and fallible human thinking logically leads to utter scepticism and ninlism.

If man wasn't fallen, e.g. an unfallen philosopher, God would be the most real thing in his world. He would say, Because God exists therefore I know, because God exists therefore I am.

Even in his fallen state, God is still presupposed, while at the same time being often denied, in e.g. Man's use of logic, science and morality.

Without his knowledge of God, hypothetically speaking, the best Descartes could have really said would be, "Thinking is happening". As to the Cogito if Descartes smelled, he may have been as well saying, "I stink therefore I am," because the sensation of stinking would be as much evidence of his existence as the sensation of thinking.

As it is, without his innate knowledge of God, Descartes could neither have concluded Cogito ergo sum or I stink therefore I am.
__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-31-2009, 08:46 PM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
If God is, indeed, presupposed, then all that has to be done is to reason backwards to Him. I don't start with human thinking--I start with human being. Once we have human being, we have the imago Dei.

If you want a good corollary, Ambrose Bierce said, Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum "I think that I think therefore I think that I am."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2009, 08:53 AM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,330
Thanks: 260
Thanked 434 Times in 289 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh View Post
If God is, indeed, presupposed, then all that has to be done is to reason backwards to Him. I don't start with human thinking--I start with human being. Once we have human being, we have the imago Dei.

If you want a good corollary, Ambrose Bierce said, Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum "I think that I think therefore I think that I am."
Well in saying Cogito ergo sum Descartes was e.g. using the laws of logic. Where did he get them from? Did he just pluck them out of the air? Or do they reveal an innate and instinctual knowledge of God - which he was unconsciously using - when he formulated the Cogito?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2009, 11:05 AM
P. F. Pugh's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 372
Thanks: 17
Thanked 120 Times in 76 Posts
Descartes had already concluded that the laws of logic and mathematics are necessarily true. We might indeed say, therefore, that he had knowledge of God, but only in hindsight.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
The Following User Says Thank You to P. F. Pugh For This Useful Post:
Richard Tallach (09-02-2009)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69