In my experience, epistemology and apologetics are two terms which most people meet with confusion regarding their definitions and function in everyday life. They are prematurely labeled as concepts only for the academic, instead of being acknowledged for how each works within every single person.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus gives the evangelistic task to every believer (Matthew 28:16-20). We have great examples throughout the New Testament of first century Christians, such as Paul, responding to this very task. Considering that “our modern secular world is much like the pagan world of the Apostles…it would behoove us to consider seriously their defense of the faith as the proper model for ours.”
Not only does a proper understanding and use of apologetics and epistemology significantly aid in the task of evangelizing, but it is a Biblical mandate to have a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). This verse causes tension in the lives of certain fideists whom would like to deny the positive role of reason in the Christian life. At best, they would consider reason unnecessary, and at worst they would consider the use a reason a way of hindering the Holy Spirit.
As believers, we must never diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in bringing repentance, however “even if arguments and reasons are insufficient to produce biblical faith, that doesn’t imply that they are irrelevant.” This essay will serve to define, stress the importance, and explore the relationship between both the disciplines of epistemology and apologetics.
Foundationalism
Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, however much ink has been spilled in defining what knowledge actually is. The most commonly accepted definition of knowledge, and how the word will be used throughout the rest of this essay, is justified true belief.
Everyone has a belief system, this seems rather obvious. We all hold certain beliefs, though most differ in either context or tenacity of how the belief is held. Belief systems are held together in a variety of ways, and this section will argue that the foundationalist system is the most appropriate.
Foundationalism is a belief system of which justification is found by correspondence with reality. This is shown through a structure of which certain beliefs are justified based on previously justified beliefs, through means of deduction, induction, and abduction. At the foundation of this structure lies basic beliefs, which cannot be justified by means other than their obvious correspondence with reality. Included in this foundation would be certain truths such as mathematical truths, things that are true by definition, incorrigible mental states, and laws of logic.
The laws of logic are particularly interesting, because they cannot be denied without at the same time assuming them. For example, for one to argue that the law of non-contradiction is false, they are invoking the law of non-contradiction to try to make their point that this law contradicts what is true. Same is true of the law of identity. By someone attempting to argue that the law of identity is not true, they are assuming the law of identity by implying that this law is not the same as the absence of this law. “Logic is a transcendental condition for knowledge.”
In addition to foundationalism, another type of system which some subscribe to is the coherence belief system, stating that a justification is found solely within the cohesion of the beliefs. This system is worth some reflection, because theoretically, a Christian could subscribe to this system and be correct, because we know that the Christian worldview is the only consistent, coherent, and applicable livable system. Francis Schaeffer even encourages this as a strategy when he advises we push people to the logical conclusion of their beliefs in order to show the do not properly cohere with how the person lives on a daily basis. However, cohesion is more of an observation of our beliefs, rather than the reason why we belief. Cohesion is a necessary condition; however it is not sufficient because its justification does not rely on correspondence with reality.
Foundationalism is a belief system of which justification is found by correspondence with reality. This is shown through a structure of which certain beliefs are justified based on previously justified beliefs, through means of deduction, induction, and abduction. At the foundation of this structure lies basic beliefs, which cannot be justified by means other than their obvious correspondence with reality. Included in this foundation would be certain truths such as mathematical truths, things that are true by definition, incorrigible mental states, and laws of logic.
The laws of logic are particularly interesting, because they cannot be denied without at the same time assuming them. For example, for one to argue that the law of non-contradiction is false, they are invoking the law of non-contradiction to try to make their point that this law contradicts what is true. Same is true of the law of identity. By someone attempting to argue that the law of identity is not true, they are assuming the law of identity by implying that this law is not the same as the absence of this law. “Logic is a transcendental condition for knowledge.”
In addition to foundationalism, another type of system which some subscribe to is the coherence belief system, stating that a justification is found solely within the cohesion of the beliefs. This system is worth some reflection, because theoretically, a Christian could subscribe to this system and be correct, because we know that the Christian worldview is the only consistent, coherent, and applicable livable system. Francis Schaeffer even encourages this as a strategy when he advises we push people to the logical conclusion of their beliefs in order to show the do not properly cohere with how the person lives on a daily basis. However, cohesion is more of an observation of our beliefs, rather than the reason why we belief. Cohesion is a necessary condition; however it is not sufficient because its justification does not rely on correspondence with reality.
Therefore, I submit that foundationalism is the best system, but it must necessary cohere. As we form our structures with proper justification and correspondence with reality, we are also forming common ground with can be shared with the unbeliever, due to the objective nature of our justification.
Knowledge presupposes a knowable world, and this shows that there is a knowledge source existing outside of ourselves. The door is wide open for sharing the gospel, because God is the only way we can make sense of any of this. “The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to work reliably in the world He created...God created the mind to know truth.”
Just as there are different epistemological methods, there are different approaches to apologetics, including the evidentialist strategy, the presuppositionalist strategy, the experientialist strategy and a classical or cumulative strategy. The cumulative strategy draws off of the former three as a way of seizing every opportunity to make Christ known. Due to the fact that every argument can be used to help remove intellectual road blocks from the mind of the unbeliever, I do not see a reason why we should not utilize each strategy.
Knowledge presupposes a knowable world, and this shows that there is a knowledge source existing outside of ourselves. The door is wide open for sharing the gospel, because God is the only way we can make sense of any of this. “The reason our minds and senses are trustworthy is that God designed them to work reliably in the world He created...God created the mind to know truth.”
Cumulative Case Apologetics
Just as there are different epistemological methods, there are different approaches to apologetics, including the evidentialist strategy, the presuppositionalist strategy, the experientialist strategy and a classical or cumulative strategy. The cumulative strategy draws off of the former three as a way of seizing every opportunity to make Christ known. Due to the fact that every argument can be used to help remove intellectual road blocks from the mind of the unbeliever, I do not see a reason why we should not utilize each strategy.
The cumulative case strategy consists of creating various lines of evidence pointing to a triune God, drawing off of various angles and justification strategies. The strategy is to make an over determined case for the Christian Worldview, so that even if one or two points are not be accepted by the unbeliever, the case is still very strong and by far a better explanation than anything else the world has to offer. “Christian faith alone offers the solid, empirical, historical evidence of its truth.” The cumulative case is basically a “giant abductive argument.”
Apologetic arguments consist of premises which lead to conclusions. It can be seen that this process is very similar to the justification process in epistemology. Both epistemology and apologetics seek to find truth, and it can be said that certain apologetic arguments are the very justification which epistemology relies on to turn true belief into knowledge. Apologetics also, in the negative use, exposes lack of justification when other worldviews claim to have knowledge.
As Christians, we must take seriously the task given to us by the very person of Jesus Christ, and strive to do this the best we can. We must not create a false dichotomy between the role of reason and the role of the Holy Spirit in this take. “Once we start denying principles of reason we make revelation impossible.”
We also must not make the category mistake between epistemology and soteriology. We are never claiming that knowledge along gives us a reconciled relationship with God, however we do affirm that knowledge would appear necessary for the believer to respond to the task of evangelism. We need to be able to make a case our own presuppositions in order to form a common ground with our audience. We can “functional skepticism as a pruning knife” is our efforts to seek and become articulate in truth.
Logic is an appropriate place to start. Once it has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can make logical arguments which cannot be denied, our audience will be faced with a decision to affirm or deny reality. Apologetics lays out types of arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as knowledge.
Apologetic arguments consist of premises which lead to conclusions. It can be seen that this process is very similar to the justification process in epistemology. Both epistemology and apologetics seek to find truth, and it can be said that certain apologetic arguments are the very justification which epistemology relies on to turn true belief into knowledge. Apologetics also, in the negative use, exposes lack of justification when other worldviews claim to have knowledge.
Conclusion
As Christians, we must take seriously the task given to us by the very person of Jesus Christ, and strive to do this the best we can. We must not create a false dichotomy between the role of reason and the role of the Holy Spirit in this take. “Once we start denying principles of reason we make revelation impossible.”
We also must not make the category mistake between epistemology and soteriology. We are never claiming that knowledge along gives us a reconciled relationship with God, however we do affirm that knowledge would appear necessary for the believer to respond to the task of evangelism. We need to be able to make a case our own presuppositions in order to form a common ground with our audience. We can “functional skepticism as a pruning knife” is our efforts to seek and become articulate in truth.
Logic is an appropriate place to start. Once it has been affirmed as a basic belief, we can make logical arguments which cannot be denied, our audience will be faced with a decision to affirm or deny reality. Apologetics lays out types of arguments and uses them to apply to certain contexts, and epistemology holds us intellectually accountable to accept what has been proven as knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment