Cogito ergo sum?

[twex]

The following is a quote from Tim Enloe, an Evangelical author (and apparently a presuppositionalist):

Now a definition. By "objectivity"/ "certainty" I mean (in addition to the cite above from the book Myth of Certainty) "detached, dispassionate analysis of neutral facts, from which rationally inescapable conclusions can be drawn". It is that principle (and not the mere concept of "plausible, justifiable historical knowledge") that I was writing against in the original essay. I believe this concept is a relic of the Enlightenment rationalism that nearly strangled the life out of Christian culture over the last few centuries. It is completely incongruous with basic Christian philosophical principles, and inherently incompatible with a thoroughgoing Christian apologetic. Like Descarte’s cogito, ergo sum, it assumes that epistemology precedes (and even grounds) ontology and that one can gradually build up indubitable knowledge from self-evident axioms and necessary logical deductions from those axioms.

Basically this seems to say that Christians must not agree with Descarte's methodology of using one's mind to discern basic truths. I'd like to know whether Enloe's opinion is consensus here. Is the human mind so corrupted that even "cogito ergo sum" must be regarded with suspicion?

 

[jbarcher]

Hm...let me think on this for a bit...

....assumes the [study of knowledge] precedes the [study of the nature of being]...

So he is saying, about Descartes dictum, that....okay, he is saying that ontology [study of the nature of being, I think] should precede epistemology.

...basically find out why we exist before epistemology...

---

To give a shot at your questions, finding out why we exist, if you are following some kind of procedure starting from the basics, then that would be the place to start. I was reading Descartes' methodology for epistemology, and basically all truths must be arrived at from a method. But then you would have to prove the method you used....

I think I'm missing the point here. Cogito, ergo sum; I think, therefore I am. :o

 

[II Paradox II]

Basically this seems to say that Christians must not agree with Descarte's methodology of using one's mind to discern basic truths. I'd like to know whether Enloe's opinion is consensus here. Is the human mind so corrupted that even "cogito ergo sum" must be regarded with suspicion?

I don't think that's really what Tim is going after here. Having seen his discussions with various people over the years, his primary point is simply that knowledge is not something that can be accessed "objectively" by a few people and "subjectively" for everyone else. This concept was brought up in response to those who claim that their own particular proofs will be "objectively" seen as true by an unbiased observer, while rejection of those proofs is a sure sign of prejudice.

His point about axioms is simply that many people conceive of historical proofs as something along the lines of a mathematical proof, with premises leading undeniably to the conclusion which lie latent "within" them. The same could be said for exegesis of texts, such as the Scriptures. The problem is that both history and large parts of the scriptures are narratives, a story if you will, that that one *infers* truths from, not axioms that one can *deduce* absolutely certain propositions from that can obly be denied at the pain of one's own corrupted subjectivity.

As for my personal view, I tend to be more on this side as well, though I think I would take a more nuanced view of knowledge in general. My thoughts are still somewhat in transition, but I think I would view inferential interpretation of both history and scripture in a more solid light than Tim would.

ken

 

[Blackhawk]

I don't think that's really what Tim is going after here. Having seen his discussions with various people over the years, his primary point is simply that knowledge is not something that can be accessed "objectively" by a few people and "subjectively" for everyone else. This concept was brought up in response to those who claim that their own particular proofs will be "objectively" seen as true by an unbiased observer, while rejection of those proofs is a sure sign of prejudice.

His point about axioms is simply that many people conceive of historical proofs as something along the lines of a mathematical proof, with premises leading undeniably to the conclusion which lie latent "within" them. The same could be said for exegesis of texts, such as the Scriptures. The problem is that both history and large parts of the scriptures are narratives, a story if you will, that that one *infers* truths from, not axioms that one can *deduce* absolutely certain propositions from that can obly be denied at the pain of one's own corrupted subjectivity.

As for my personal view, I tend to be more on this side as well, though I think I would take a more nuanced view of knowledge in general. My thoughts are still somewhat in transition, but I think I would view inferential interpretation of both history and scripture in a more solid light than Tim would.

ken

Froom what I think I understand from what I just read I think I agree with you. I do not think we can objectively know anything without first making assumptions. Since this is true then and our starting points and much thereafter is assumption more than logically deduced fact then epistemology is not 100% like mathematics. That is it is not 2+2=4 because we do not know if the 2 and 2 are really 2. We just do not and cannot (atleast now) gain the information needed to aleviate our problem. Maybe I am way off here but I agree from what I am reading into your reply.

 

[II Paradox II]

Froom what I think I understand from what I just read I think I agree with you. I do not think we can objectively know anything without first making assumptions. Since this is true then and our starting points and much thereafter is assumption more than logically deduced fact then epistemology is not 100% like mathematics. That is it is not 2+2=4 because we do not know if the 2 and 2 are really 2. We just do not and cannot (atleast now) gain the information needed to aleviate our problem. Maybe I am way off here but I agree from what I am reading into your reply.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about it is that it is in many ways more of an issue of attitude than anything else. What people like Tim and to some degree myself advocate is that we have a sense of humility about our ability to know things "objectively". This isn't to say that we everything is subjective, or that knowledge isn't possible, but that we as creatures need to realize our own limitations and biases when looking at the world.

This is especially true when dealing with issues of theology and history. These are areas which do not give up their truths to us very easily. In addition, people often get caught up in error because they don't make careful distinctions between *facts* that know and *interpretations* of those facts. For instance, it is a factual claim to say that Martin Luther said to Melancthon in one of his letters to "Sin Boldly!". Claims like this are verifiable fairly easily because they can be measured. However, it is a much different *analytical* claim to say that "Martin Luther believed you can sin as much as you want because he said 'Sin Boldly' in one of his letters".

These kinds of claims are inherently much more difficult to verify and discuss precisely because because we are making inferences from the evidence as to what the evidence means. In the same way the scriptures and history give us materials upon which we interpret, pulling inferences and sometimes deductions from them. These inferences can be skewed widely depending on our own biases, lack of knowledge, lack of skill etc...

hope that helps a little...

ken

 

[twex]

This is especially true when dealing with issues of theology and history. These are areas which do not give up their truths to us very easily.

Regarding the evaluation of history, which was the primary focus of Tim's article, it's easy to agree.

Regarding theology, it would be easy to agree if Tim was Orthodox and refused to delve into the details of divine operations. But if you're going to debate Rome on how justification works, can you honestly disclaim all influence from the rationalistic thinkers of the Enlightenment and call the whole movement a colossal failure?

That's what startled me.

 

[reformedfan]

'Naturalistic theology' is spoken of in Psalm 19:1-6. Some Pagan idol worshipper makes an idol & wonders who made the stuff the idol is made out of, knowing the answer already & the futility of vain idols, Romans 1:19. (That's presuppositionalism! I respectfully disagree that the quote you posted is anything but a defense of naturalistic theology. 'I think, therefore I can figure out deep truths of God & His essence.' John Calvin is so eloquent on this subject & in showing in great detail why this is fiction.)
Psalm 19:7-12 are the necessary ending to the start of the Psalm which acknowledges naturalistic theology. Believing in God isn't enough, everyone believes in God, including atheists. The Word of God is what's required to get a saving knowledge of God, as well as the cold, hard facts about who He is, and what's going to happen to us after we die.

 

[II Paradox II]

Regarding the evaluation of history, which was the primary focus of Tim's article, it's easy to agree.

Regarding theology, it would be easy to agree if Tim was Orthodox and refused to delve into the details of divine operations. But if you're going to debate Rome on how justification works, can you honestly disclaim all influence from the rationalistic thinkers of the Enlightenment and call the whole movement a colossal failure?

This is one area where I don't follow Tim's line of thinking. A couple of reasons for this:

1) Whereas the problems with inference from narrative applies well to both history, much of the OT and the gospels, it doesn't apply so much to the epistles and later books of the NT. Oftentimes they are commentary on the narrative portions of scripture themselves so can be treated in a much more straightforward fashion.

2) I'm not sure I agree with those who would attack the enlightenment as merrily as it is fashionable to do today. Every period and mode of thought has it's weaknesses and strengths, the Enlightenment is no different. I'm not an expert in this area, so I don't have a whole lot more to say about it except that I don't follow those who are currently villifying the era.

3) When I speak of humility in regards to knowledge, I mean basically just that. It's not a claim to skepticism or radical subjectivity, but to acknowledgement of the difficulties involved in interpretation and our debt and reliance on those who came before us. Essentially, it's an attitude towards our histroy of biblical interpretation such that we don't gloss over those who came before us when they disagree. I don't think the Catholics are right about justification, but I don't ignore the points they make in opposition to mine either, but I take them seriously, especially as their interpretation has strong roots in the early church.

ken