Epistemology and Post-modernism

- introduced by Rob Munro

Most of the history of Christian epistemology (the theory of knowledge) has been in interaction with Rationalism and Modernism about what constitutes our grounds for knowing anything, with the supposition that things can be known. Post-modernism has assaulted that very assumption, by ascribing to the claims of 'knowledge' an assumption of the will to exercise power- that is, there cannot be neutral, 'global' knowledge, for any claim to 'know' something is seen as an assault on every other claim for knowledge of that thing. So while interaction with modernism, epistemology has sought a coherent understanding of knowledge, the every desire for coherence is an irrelevance or even to be treated with suspicion in the post-modern view.

Paul Blackham's Churchman article (113/3) gives a helpful summary of the place of Reformed epistmology:

(A summary of Blackham's chart)	Classic Christian	Modern Foundationalism	Reformed Epistemology	Presuppositionalism
Start-point & emphasis	Reason: esp. philosophical 'proofs' for God. Right reason leads to truth.	Evidence: esp. scientific/ historical research. Careful investigation leads to truth	Belief in God: esp. rooted in Calvin's sensus divinitas. Reason with a sense of God leads to truth	The Bible: esp. as the basis for all rationality. Believing the Bible leads to truth.
Main background	Plato, Augustine; Aquinas-rationalism	Aristotle; Bacon; Locke, Butler, 'common sense realism', Warfield	Calvin, Kuyper, Bavinck, Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Alston, Frame	Van Til,

The debate in reformed circles has revolved around the degree of common ground between the Christian and non-Christian in terms of knowledge. Classic Christian epistomology has tried to build on the concept of a core of 'self-evident' truths common to all. Plantinga & Wolterstoff have persuasively argued that such 'neutral' truth is untenable by its own criteria, and ungodly in elevating the 'self-evident' as ultimately an authority constraining God. Van Til and presuppositionalism have responded by arguing against real common ground in a philosophical way, between the Christian and non-Christian, because atheistic presuppositions will never reach theistic (much less Christian) conclusions. The weakness in this position, is that it does not fully account for the Scriptural assumption that because of God's covenantal relationship with all humanity, there remains, even in rebellious non-Christians, sufficient knowledge of God to hold them accountable to the covenant under God's justice (eg Rom.1:18ff). Van Til may be correct in identifying that Christians and non-Christians hold no truly common philosophical common criteria, but it is the recognition of Plantinga/Wolterstorff & Frame that epistemology requires more than a rational component, it also has an ethical dimension, (ie a heart commitment which is personal not just philosophical.)

 Post-modernism rejects rationalism as a means of establishing truth, but rather elevates the ethical over and against the rational: it's what you want your truth to DO that matters more than what it IS. In a post-modern view, it is acceptable to hold two contradictory or mutually inconsistent views, if they serve different purposes in your life in different ways: holding the sanctity of all life can justify anti-vivisectionism, but holding the sanctity of freedom justifies abortion. The philosophical inconsistency of this position does not daunt a post-modern, because the one view that is universally opposed is the view than any view universally applies! It is important to recognise however, that post-modernism is a reaction against the perception that truth claims (of a universal nature) have been the source of great conflicts, and as our cross-cultural experience has increased our experience of widely disparate world-views, this has strengthened their case that no truth can be universal. Truth for the post-modern is primarily experiential and not rational.

 This interaction of the rejection of rationalism and the embracing of experientialism, has a serious impact on our apologetics. When a post-modern person wants to 'know' about Christianity, they will tend to see knowledge as participation and identification rather than an issue of persuasion. The challenge for the church is to have Christian communities which are seen to live with integrity their profession. Authentic community becomes the foundation for evangelism, rather than merely effective communication. On the positive side, faith is understood more as a whole life commitment to Christian community; on the negative side, if Christian truth is not at the heart of it, there will be increased disappointment and cynicism about the reality of fallen Christians in their imperfect profession. The truth of Christianity in a post-modern world must be more than rationally persuasive, it must be incarnational - which is not a bad thing!

To make a coherent response to postmodernism from a Christian epistemology the following questions arise:

a. What is the extent of the knowledge common between a non-Christian post-modern & a Christian (if any)?

b. Is it possible to wholly pure abstract philosophical theory from the fallen minds which consider it. If not, how is our articulation of our theory of knowledge to respond to the post-modern accusation of power-bias?

c. How do we articulate a whole life understanding of knowledge that adequately respects the emotional, experiential and volitional as well as the rational?

d. In what ways and to what extent are non-Christians able to have a knowledge of God?

e. How can the church make inroads into a community where consideration of Christianity is irrelevant?

A Way Forward? - (in full admission it is 'cheating' on a one page starter!)

In the interests of being provocative, here are some home-grown thoughts about a way forward to help bring a Reformed epistemology to coherently address post-modernism;

• 1. We cannot deny to Christian epistemology either rationality or universality; but the reason we cannot, is the person of God and his attributes, not merely our philosophical presuppositions. If God is an infinite, personal, rational being, then truth cannot be local and irrational.
• 2. If God's person is the guarantor that 'knowledge' is a meaningful concept, then the common ground between Christian and non-Christian is (with the post-modern) experiential, because whether conscious or not there is a relationship between our person and God's person (whether of submission or rebellion). But it is also one that requires trust. Basic to any epistemology is a presupposition of the necessity of a concept of trust - whether trust in the consistency of rationality & logic, trust in the intelligibility of our own experience, trust in the sense of God or trust in the truth of Scripture. This definition of trust is not trust in a 'saving' sense obviously, but 'trust' in the sense of responding to a knowledge that shapes our life- which may include rational, experiential, or even emotional dimensions.
• 3. Trust itself becomes a rational and experiential foundation for knowledge, in that no intelligent life can communicate without it. Equally that sort of trust is a personal concept, unintelligible without a person being involved (as giver or recipient of the trust). Post-modern scepticism still requires of its adherents the concept of trust, if only in commitment to your perceptions. The issue is not that you trust, but what you trust. The reason for this being common is at the heart of what it is for humanity to be in the image of God- that capacity for trust being one of its characteristcs.
• 4. This articulation of the Reformed position has the benefit that it recognises that it is the whole of life, not just our rational mind, which is involved in knowledge. And it opens a way for a meaningful apologetic to the post-modern mind, where the personal encounter and the consequences of knowledge are more significant than the content of that knowledge.
• I'm sure there deep inadequacies with the above, but it seems to me in post-modern apologetics, it is the whole-life relationship we have with God in Christ, that is our strongest bridge to a world where experience and pragmatism reign. If we can agree THAT we trust, we can intelligently talk about WHAT or WHO we trust. What do you think?