Quote:
Originally Posted by amishrockstar Does a single epistemological view have to be ultimate in a person's life? I mean, we can know some things rationally, some things empirically, and some things "revelationally," right? |
Wow. Great question. This has been an unending struggle for me personally. Ever since this question has plagued me in my philosophy class, I have dug my nails in Van Til and some of Sproul. I'm currently reading Plantinga—when I have time, of course—and he has a lot of insights that I think clarifies a lot. I think that there is an ultimate starting point in epistemology, but it is an interplay of revelational and an incipient epistemology. For Van Til, all knowledge must and has to begin with God, but more specifically with the Trinity. His justification for that is that if we have just a general idea of God, much like the debate that took place between Bertrand Russell and the Jesuit priest, Frederick C. Copleston, there will be plenary problems with other formulations or causal problems in theology; and for Van Til, theology is very important before the apologist's task. Van Til called this the problem of the One and the Many. Since this problem is placated by the doctrine of the Trinity, then other causal problems will not ensue. However, the doctrine of the Trinity or a Transcendental proof cannot solve for me the doctrine of innerency. This is why I take an interplay view of epistemology. I don't think that I am violating anything Van Til said, but I definitely think that the ultimate starting point should be transcendental.
This, of course, is a hypothesis that I'm working with. Reading Plantinga could raise significant issues that I might have, like the problem of existence having properties, but I will see. Does existence have properties? If so, how does Plantinga solve this problem? These are just questions that I am concerned with. I don't want to stray from the general question of this thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment