Knowledge is dependent upon the existance of God??

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I encountered recently a link to a huge pile of text that claims to establish logically that all knowledge must be based in the existence of God. I dunno. Sounds like they left reason behind somewhere towards the middle, IMO. What do you folks think?

[A Person]

I have to say that that article was one of the least comprehensible I have read recently.

Van Tilian's are presuppositionalists - they presuppose the existence of God and argue that the only way to make sense of the world is through special revelation i.e. the Bible. Further the bible is the only arbiter of truth. Knowledge gained in any other way is subordinate to special revelation and therefore conditional.

While this is obviously a circular argument they hold that all 'world views' rely on similar assumptions. e.g. Naturalism assumes that nature is all there is. Here they are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism - Newton was a methodological naturalist but a philosophical super-naturalist (theist). Presuppositionalism obviously does not establish the existence of God - it assumes it as an axiom.

The main thrust of the article seems to be that since the Platonic definition of knowledge is that it be true, believed and justified, that requires some objective standards. A condensation of the moral compass argument i.e. that without God there can be no objective standard for good or evil. Everyone agrees that good and evil exists therefore God exists. I think that's what he's getting at, just dressing it up a bit.

As such it may convince a theist but will hardly persuade a naturalist.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I have to say that that article was one of the least comprehensible I have read recently.

Van Tilian's are presuppositionalists - they presuppose the existence of God and argue that the only way to make sense of the world is through special revelation i.e. the Bible. Further the bible is the only arbiter of truth. Knowledge gained in any other way is subordinate to special revelation and therefore conditional.

While this is obviously a circular argument they hold that all 'world views' rely on similar assumptions. e.g. Naturalism assumes that nature is all there is. Here they are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism - Newton was a methodological naturalist but a philosophical super-naturalist (theist). Presuppositionalism obviously does not establish the existence of God - it assumes it as an axiom.

The main thrust of the article seems to be that since the Platonic definition of knowledge is that it be true, believed and justified, that requires some objective standards. A condensation of the moral compass argument i.e. that without God there can be no objective standard for good or evil. Everyone agrees that good and evil exists therefore God exists. I think that's what he's getting at, just dressing it up a bit.

As such it may convince a theist but will hardly persuade a naturalist.

I suffered through a long conversaion by e-mail with one of these guys. It amazed me that he thought that an observed fact (like the fact that the sun emits light) can't be called a fact until you first admit God exists...

[A Person]

It's the kind of thing that gives philosophers a bad name

While the argument might be valid for absolute knowledge, it certainly isn't true for real world knowledge.

You hear the argument a lot more frequently with regard to morals. BHL has alluded to it a few times. Without God there can be no moral absolutes. Morals must come from a God. Moral exist therefore God exists.

The argument falls apart when no two religious sects can agree on moral standards. Even Christian sects have huge differences and their bible inspired absolute morality changes by the decade.

Dawkins provided an excellent framework for the evolution of morality in The Selfish Gene over thirty years ago, which neatly explains most of the commonly agreed moral standards - perhaps a little too neatly, but in the subsequent thirty years his hypothesis has stood up quite well.

Beauty is another of these. While 'it is in the eye of the beholder' most people have broad agreement about what is beautiful and what isn't - even across races. Cultures sometimes single out a particular feature and that becomes over emphasised to the point of aberration: the extended necks of Kayan women, bound feet of Chinese women, exaggerated silicone breasts of American women (why is invariably women who suffer under this?) and standards change over time (Rubenesque women versus today's heroin chic)

Similarly there is quite a good broad agreement over what is right and wrong. This changes over time too. I don't worry that my sense of right and wrong is internalised because it seems to be consistent and as long as one group doesn't get to push its moral aberrations on the rest, society functions quite well.

[RebelSnake]

I suffered through a long conversaion by e-mail with one of these guys. It amazed me that he thought that an observed fact (like the fact that the sun emits light) can't be called a fact until you first admit God exists...

The whole thing does sound weirdly familiar does it not?

http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2007/01/no-good-reason-to-be-atheist-part-i.html

My unbelieving physical therapy co-workers know a lot about anatomy, exercise physiology and so forth. But, if the Christian worldview were not true, my unbelieving co-workers couldn’t know anything about bones and muscles and couldn’t do their job. So, my unbelieving co-workers have a job in physical therapy not because their worldview is right, but because my worldview is right. Even though they are taking the measurements of joint angles, strength, and cardiac output, it’s only on the basis of a Christian outlook on life that anything makes sense.

[A Person]

To which the only reply is to ask the philosopher to give an example of 'knowledge' obtained from God.

I challenge any theist to give an example of how scripture has a-priori led to a verifiable increase in knowledge of the natural world.

One discovery that was made as a result of special revelation?
One medical advance?
One advance in science?

The advances that have raised us from hunter-gatherers to civilization have all been obtained from observations, experiments, hypotheses and theories. Despite religion not because of it.

[RebelSnake]

To which the only reply is to ask the philosopher to give an example of 'knowledge' obtained from God.

I challenge any theist to give an example of how scripture has a-priori led to a verifiable increase in knowledge of the natural world.

One discovery that was made as a result of special revelation?

This raises the question in my mind: What is a special revelation and how do you know when you've had one? Sounds like a topic for another thread, does it not?

[A Person]

I was being quite careful with the term (but I should have capitalized it) http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/outlines ... ation.html
But primarily it means by visible manifestation (Christ) or scripture.

Personal revelation would be impossible to verify, but I am not aware of any scientist claiming a discovery about the natural world due to divine intervention.

To paraphase the Creationist rant: Religion always results in a decrease in information, you need science for an increase.