From: Terry M. Gray (grayt@lamar.colostate.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 02:27:18 EST
David,
I've always thought that the critics of the Calvinistic epistemology
that Jan is advocating have misunderstood it. "Thinking right" is so
much broader than "merely" getting the "facts" straight. Here's a bit
from an essay I wrote while I was at Calvin. I (and C. Van Til, whom
I am discussing) don't hesitate to recognize "after a fashion" and
"common grace" correctness on the part of unbelievers. The question
is whether or not we want to call that "right thinking".
I'd be interested in what you think.
TG
____________________
From http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/Gray1999.html
Chapter 5
The Similarity of the Christian's
and Non-Christian's Science
Modern Christianity struggles with how to relate our Biblical
perspective on reality with present-day science. Science has been
very successful in explaining many aspects of our world, and the
fruit of science and technology is all around us. This struggle is
even more pointed when we see science linked to the anti-Christian
and anti-theistic agenda of Evolutionary Naturalists. Christians who
are also practitioners and students of science see that much of the
scientific enterprise can be conducted without reference to God. This
has led some to suggest that science is religiously neutral or that
science is category of description of the world that is largely
independent from and complementary to a religious description. Thus,
it is suggested that, as long as non Christian scientists do not step
outside of the domain of science, i.e. as long as they only deal with
properties, behavior, and the formative history of physical entities,
that the fruit of their science can be incorporated into a Christian
framework.
Practically speaking, it is probably the case that this approach to
science/faith issues works most of the time, however, it seems to me
that this strikes at the heart of a Biblical and Reformed view of
knowledge. In the work of Cornelius Van Til there is a sustained
critique of this way of thinking about science. Van Til argues that
the fundamental starting point for all knowledge is the knowledge of
God and the proper creaturely response to that knowledge. Every fact
of science is either interpreted rightly, acknowledging God as
creator, or wrongly, denying God as creator. In other words, "there
are no brute facts". Consequently, when the unbelieving scientist (or
any unbeliever, for that matter) claims some knowledge, because it
denies the most fundamental aspect of that creaturely knowledge, the
knowledge of God, Van Til would say that it is not true knowledge. He
writes in A Survey of Christian Epistemology:
"The argument in favor of Christian theism must therefore seek to
prove that if one is not a Christian theist he knows nothing at all
as he ought to know anything. The difference is not that all men
alike know certain things about the finite universe and that some
claim some additional knowledge, while the others do not. On the
contrary, the Christian theist must claim that he alone has true
knowledge about cows and chickens as well as about God. He does this
in no spirit of conceit, because it is a gift of God's grace. Nor
does he deny that there is knowledge after a fashion that enables the
non-theist to get along after a fashion in the world. This is the
gift of God's common grace, and therefore does not change the
absoluteness of the distinction made about the knowledge and
ignorance of the theist and the non-theist respectively."
There are three things to notice in this passage. First, the
Christian theist alone has true knowledge about science. (Van Til
talks about cows and chickens, but we could substitute chemistry,
biology, astronomy, engineering, etc. for cows and chickens.) This is
an extraordinary claim and one for which Van Til has received much
criticism. The idea is that apart from the knowledge of God as
Creator and Sustainer that any knowledge falls short of true
knowledge. Thus, only believers, who by the grace of God confess the
true God, can have true knowledge. Another aspect of this claim is a
moral one; the unbeliever "knows nothing at all as he ought to know
anything". Van Til is not saying that the unbeliever knows nothing.
But, since all knowledge carries with it a religious and moral
imperative to worship and serve the Creator, and since unbelievers
disobey that imperative, their knowledge falls short of true
knowledge.
The second thing to notice is that while Van Til denies that
unbelievers have true knowledge, he does admit that they have
"knowledge after a fashion". Unbelievers can know chemistry, biology,
astronomy, engineering, etc "after a fashion". Van Til's critics want
to call this "knowledge after a fashion" true knowledge, Van Til
wants to reserve the term "true knowledge" to knowledge that
recognizes the knowledge of God and includes the proper
religious/moral response. Thus, the unbeliever's knowledge of "brute
facts" is only "knowledge after a fashion" that allows the unbeliever
to get along in the world. For example, the unbelieving chemist can
mix salicylic acid and acetic anhydride to synthesize aspirin that
can be used to treat a headache. The chemistry and the pharmacology
works just as it does for the believing chemist. But, for the
unbeliever, this is merely "knowledge after a fashion" and not "true
knowledge".
The final thing to notice is that Van Til appeals to common grace as
the basis for this "knowledge after a fashion" that the unbeliever
has. Despite their rebellion and as part of the free offer of the
gospel, God allows unbelievers to live in this world that he has
created, He has made them in his image with the capacity to have
"dominion over the creatures", and he has endowed them with gifts to
learn about the world "after a fashion". Such a gracious posture on
the part of God will not endure forever. If they persist in their
unbelief and refuse to worship and serve the Creator, the judgment
day will come and the very things that were manifestations of God's
grace toward them will be used as evidence against them and they will
receive their eternal punishment.
>On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:33:45 -0500 Jan de Koning <jan@dekoning.ca>
>writes:
>> <snip>
>> We know as well that
>> through
>> the fall in sin, man destroyed a lot, including his ability to
>> (always?)
>> think right, and that through that fall in sin even our thoughts are
>> not
>> what they should be. We do indeed need Jesus Christ as our Saviour
>> to help
>> us. Those grounds are basic.
>>
>> <snip>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>
>Seems then that Galileo and Kepler were right in their thinking, but
>Newton (an Arian) may not have been. Goedel and Einstein clearly did not
>have the "ability to think right," but all the orthodox Christians do.
>This means that none of the brethren can contradict each other, so that
>some on the list must be pseudo-Christians. Or do you suppose that some
>Calvinists need to rethink what they say about the Fall?
>Dave
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 02:34:03 EST