Thread: 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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Madcow

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.

yeah? ok, let's do it!

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).

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.

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.

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

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.

Calvin starts the Institutes with epistemology, but it is not an argued-for epistemology. It is a "self-evident" epistemology, an interdependent epistemology.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

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?

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.