16 Jul '05 13:35>
The basic tenets of Christian philosophy can be demonstrated to be rational, for they are held by average, rational men and women. But surely, Christianity must still run into an epistemological problem—how does the Christian "know" without clashing with science and experience? How can the knowledge we gain through faith in Biblical revelation compare to knowledge gained by a scientific investigation of the universe?
The answer is not as difficult as one might imagine. When all is said and done, all knowing requires faith. Faith precedes reason or, as W. J. Neidhardt puts it, "Faith correctly viewed is that illumination by which true rationality begins."
While Marxists and Humanists like to portray science as primary knowledge and faith in Biblical revelation as some blind second-class epistemology or even superstition, the fact remains that all methods of knowing ultimately rely on certain assumptions. Edward T. Ramsdell writes, "The natural man is no less certainly a man of faith than the spiritual, but his faith is in the ultimacy of something other than the Word of God. The spiritual man in no less certainly a man of reason than the natural , but his reason, like that of every man, functions within the perspective of his faith.”
The basic problem of philosophy is not the old problem of faith versus reason. “The crucial problem,” says Warren C. Young, “is that some thinkers place their trust in a set of assumptions in their search for truth, while other thinkers place their trust in a quite different set of assumptions". That is Humanists and Marxists place their trust in certain findings of science and experience, neither of which can be rationally demonstrated to be the source of all truth. Christians also put their faith in science, history and personal experience, but they know such avenues for discovering are not infallible. Christians know that men of science make mistakes and that scientific journals can practise descrimination against views considered dangerous. Christians know that history can be perverted, distorted or twisted, and that some personal experiences are not a good source of fact or knowledge. On the other hand, Christians believe that Biblical revelation is true and that God would not mislead His children.
Christian philosophy does not throw out reason or tests for truth. Christianity says that the New Testament is true because its truths can be tested. Christians arn't asking the non-believer to believe a revelation of old wives' fables, but instead to consider some hitorical evidences that reason itself can employ as an attorney building a case uses evidences "in the law to determine questions of fact." Christians epistemology is based on special revelation, which is in turn based on history, the law of evidence, and the science of archeology.
Philosophical naturalists also make assumptions that they necessarily accept on faith. All naturalists agree there is no supernatural. "This point," says Young, "is emphasised by the naturalists themselves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.
Continued...
The answer is not as difficult as one might imagine. When all is said and done, all knowing requires faith. Faith precedes reason or, as W. J. Neidhardt puts it, "Faith correctly viewed is that illumination by which true rationality begins."
While Marxists and Humanists like to portray science as primary knowledge and faith in Biblical revelation as some blind second-class epistemology or even superstition, the fact remains that all methods of knowing ultimately rely on certain assumptions. Edward T. Ramsdell writes, "The natural man is no less certainly a man of faith than the spiritual, but his faith is in the ultimacy of something other than the Word of God. The spiritual man in no less certainly a man of reason than the natural , but his reason, like that of every man, functions within the perspective of his faith.”
The basic problem of philosophy is not the old problem of faith versus reason. “The crucial problem,” says Warren C. Young, “is that some thinkers place their trust in a set of assumptions in their search for truth, while other thinkers place their trust in a quite different set of assumptions". That is Humanists and Marxists place their trust in certain findings of science and experience, neither of which can be rationally demonstrated to be the source of all truth. Christians also put their faith in science, history and personal experience, but they know such avenues for discovering are not infallible. Christians know that men of science make mistakes and that scientific journals can practise descrimination against views considered dangerous. Christians know that history can be perverted, distorted or twisted, and that some personal experiences are not a good source of fact or knowledge. On the other hand, Christians believe that Biblical revelation is true and that God would not mislead His children.
Christian philosophy does not throw out reason or tests for truth. Christianity says that the New Testament is true because its truths can be tested. Christians arn't asking the non-believer to believe a revelation of old wives' fables, but instead to consider some hitorical evidences that reason itself can employ as an attorney building a case uses evidences "in the law to determine questions of fact." Christians epistemology is based on special revelation, which is in turn based on history, the law of evidence, and the science of archeology.
Philosophical naturalists also make assumptions that they necessarily accept on faith. All naturalists agree there is no supernatural. "This point," says Young, "is emphasised by the naturalists themselves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.
Continued...