In the first installment in this series, we examined the importance of religious epistemology for the culture at large and for the Christian themselves and their families and communities. We also reviewed the history of Christian thought through the mid-twentieth century.
In the second half, we will look at the cutting edge of the field today and look at what Scripture has to say about how we know that Christianity is true and the role that the Holy Spirit plays in that understanding.
A Properly Basic Epistemology
Stripped down to its core, the foundations of most theories of epistemology are usually made up of what are considered “properly basic beliefs.” Typically, these beliefs fall into a few different categories, namely self-evident beliefs and incorrigible beliefs. Self-evident beliefs are historically held to be beliefs that are true without proof and/or using simple human reason. Examples might be the laws of logic and many simple mathematical formulae and axioms. Incorrigible beliefs are those related to experience or perception. For instance, the statement of a memory, such as “I left the stove on” might be an example as well as the testimony of one’s perception, such as “I see a tree.” It is properly basic that one remembers or perceives a certain object or phenomena. These beliefs are true in and of themselves and would require no proof or argument to verify.
It is important to note, however, that properly basic beliefs do not form a sort of network of beliefs that cannot be questioned. There is a philosophical difference between properly basic beliefs and whether those beliefs are themselves defeasible, meaning that they can be shown to be unwarranted or ultimately false. This is obviously a very important consideration when we evaluate religious truth claims. For instance, many will be familiar with the common Mormon testimony given of the “burning in the bosom” given as evidence of the truthfulness of Mormonism. This evidence is, indeed, properly basic for the individual but is not itself indefeasible, meaning that our warrant for trusting the validity of that experience can be brought into question by offering evidence against it.
The Cutting Edge
By this definition, the question of whether God exists has not traditionally been considered a properly basic belief.
Enter the work of Alvin Plantinga. Many in the apologetic world will have heard his name but those who have not studied his work in philosophy will not understand the breadth of his contributions throughout the field. Within epistemology itself, Plantinga reimagined the very foundation of the question of whether God exists in the rationalist tradition. Indeed, Plantinga actually called into question the sufficiency of the definition of what is properly basic. Much like the scientistic claim that science provides the best or most accurate truth, this truth claim does not stem from science itself and thus does not meet its own criteria, and the same seems to apply to properly basic beliefs. The belief that only self-evident or incorrigible propositions are properly basic is itself not a properly basic belief and, however reasonable, leaves the door open for further refinement.
Plantinga therefore drew on the notion of the Sensus Divinitatis of John Calvin in positing that human beings possess a natural capacity to perceive or acknowledge God’s presence, akin to simple and incorrigible matters of perception. Craig summarizes that “God has so constructed us that we naturally form the belief in his existence under appropriate circumstances, just as we do the belief in perceptual objects, the reality of the past, and so forth,” and this grounds belief in God in reason, not only in the world of faith.
Now, one could say that since many people continue to deny the existence of God or come to other religious beliefs concerning God, that this “Divine Sense” does not actually exist or must be otherwise indeterminate or broken. But this is actually to be expected given the Christian’s beliefs about the Fall and what are referred to as the “noetic effects” of sin. It is quite likely that human beings, in their fallen state, now possess a flawed or malfunctioning Divine Sense and our sense perceptions are, by definition, only as reliable as the “organs” of perception themselves. Just as someone who is blind or requires glasses to see clearly, some support of our senses is often required to ensure their reliability. And, for the Christian, this meshes perfectly with the Gospel message and the Bible as a whole. Mankind, in their fallen and sinful state, required help to know God once again, and this help came in the form of the Scriptures, the witness of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of faith.
The Role of the Holy Spirit in Epistemology
This discussion of the Fall naturally lends itself to transitioning into the role that the Holy Spirit plays in the life of the believer. Many Christian traditions affirm that saving faith comes from God’s gift of grace alone by faith alone, not through religious works, and Scripture seems to confirm this. Scripture actually contains many verses that describe the work of the Holy Spirit in aiding our epistemology regarding the truth of Christianity. One such passage is Romans 8:15-16, which reads that, “15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Christ also testifies Himself that “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you,” and John echoes this sentiment in his letters when he reminds his church, “20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge…the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.”
This is made even more clear in I John 5:9-10, “9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.” There are many other passages that remark on epistemology within the Scripture but these certainly show that there exists some foundational role in the life of the believer for the Holy Spirit to confirm, first-hand, the truth of the Gospel in Christ Jesus. If Plantinga and classical theologians are correct regarding their belief in an innate sense of God’s existence and His transcendance, this witness of the Holy Spirit builds upon and reinforces that innate sense, providing yet more support for the incorrigible and properly basic belief for the Christian.
In our review of the Christian scholarship done throughout history, there has not been one, clear view of the roles that reason and faith play in Christian religious epistemology. But Plantinga and his contemporaries in the modern age have certainly provided a synthesis of both philosophy and theology that seem to coalesce into what may be seen as a more holistic view. In this view, we see the conversion of reformed theology and rationalism that tells us that our incorrigible sense that God exists can be considered a properly basic belief by which we then proceed toward more advanced truth claims. And that the Holy Spirit provides a definitive witness to the believer that also represents a properly basic belief that confirms and builds upon that innate sense and provides the critical element of faith for the Christian.
It is very important to understand this “ministerial” use of reason as opposed to the “magisterial” use in service to the truth of Christianity. The magisterial use, evoking the example of a judge of “magistrate”, would seek to use reason to “preside over” Christian beliefs, whereas the ministerial use would see reason as being a tool with which we can show the warrant and rationality of Christian truth claims that are otherwise rooted more foundationally. To emphasize the importance of reason beyond its proper bounds can lead to some possible unbiblical implications. For one, if salvific belief in God requires sufficient reason and evidence to be considered trustworthy, this can effectively shift the blame from the individual in question to others or God Himself. In this view, someone who dies in unbelief simply may not have been presented with credible, rational arguments for belief in God, in contrast to what we find in Scripture which is a willful suppression of often obvious evidence from the world around them. Additionally, under the magisterial use, anyone who did not take the time and energy to produce a thorough, personal suite of rational beliefs regarding God would not be warranted in holding those beliefs. But such an expectation is not only itself unreasonable but also arbitrary as there is no clear threshold from which one moves from an “unreasonable” to “reasonable” level of warrant and evidence for those beliefs.
Defeaters and Falsifiability
In philosophy, there exists the concept of a “defeater”, that is, a condition or belief in contradiction to another given belief that, were it proven true, can be useful in refuting said belief. Addressing and understanding defeaters for one’s beliefs can be an important step in establishing the reliability of those beliefs and this concept is similar to a principle of scientific models known as falsifiability. In light of the scientific method of the past few centuries, falsifiability is an important and valuable element in evaluating scientific models. A scientific theory that is not at all falsifiable is considered to be a poor theory. If such an argument or theory is presented with few or no falsifiable claims, it presents itself with little to no ability for comparison and evaluation between competing theories. It also likely lacks the sort of observable or testable real-world implications that would give it much explanatory power as a theory and would therefore lack much usefulness for those looking for a tool and lens with which to form a more comprehensive view of reality.
This is no less true when considering religious truth claims. If we consider our religious beliefs to be objectively true, then falsifiable elements or potential defeaters of those beliefs serve to provide avenues of criticism and evaluation to better show their reliability. So, then, it would make sense to ask whether Christianity contains any such defeaters?
The answer is absolutely. For instance, Paul develops quite a complex example, indeed, in I Corinthians 15. Beginning in verse 3, Paul contends that “3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”
He concludes this train of thought in verse 12, that “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain…16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins…19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
So we see that the resurrection of the dead, for Christians, is quite the foundational belief and much of its credibility, for the believer and non-believer, is tied to the historical and future resurrection of the dead, primarily that of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If one could show or cast substantial doubt upon the historical claim of Christ’s resurrection, this would pose a substantial obstacle to the truth of Christianity as a whole.
Another potential defeater for Christianity might be that of creation. Christians have long held the belief in “creation ex nihilo”, that of creation from nothing. The term and its maturity in Christian theology extends from Irenaeus and later Augustine. From the very beginning of Scripture, Genesis 1 tells us that, “1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep” and the Hebrew term used here, “bara”, is used to connote novel creation from material that did not already exist, consistent with creation out of nothing. As well, in the New Testament, verses like Hebrews 11:3, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”, also give credence to this belief, that Scripture attests to God’s creation of the universe coming from nothing.
Christians may individually differ on the finer points of creation, such as the length of the days of creation, the nature of Adam & Eve, or the mechanism of biological diversity throughout creation. But creation ex nihilo has long been a differentiator and potential defeater for Christianity and has throughout human history stood in stark contrast to other popularly held beliefs. Within the scientific community, prior to the emergence of Big Bang Cosmology, Scripture contradicted both the classical Greek and Aristotelian notions and the widely held scientific theory of a universe that existed infinitely into the past. And, while science now largely agrees with Scripture on the finite nature of its creation, this belief still stands in contrast with other religions, like Hinduism, which holds to a cyclical universe.
All this to say that Christianity contains these and many other points of falsifiability and confirmability and thus subjects itself to many of the same rigorous methods of critical analysis that history and science consider reliable in this modern age.
Lastly, on the topic of defeaters, it is also important to note that simply calling into question the veracity of the Christian’s properly basic experience is not itself a defeater. The fact that other religions may claim a similar phenomenon as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit does not make all such claims spurious or problematic. The Christian can use reason and evidence to show warrant for their belief and use the same to offer defeaters for the claims of others. However, the use of reason to provide further justification or to adjudicate conflicting claims does not change the fact that it is still that internal witness that offers the foundational belief for the Christian, not the use of reason itself. The “witness” of reason serves the witness of the Holy Spirit, never the other way around.
The Bottom Line
So, where does this ultimately leave us in regards to apologetics? Ultimately, simply because the robust method of showing that Christianity is true is not itself necessary for one to know that Christianity is true, it does not follow that apologetics and finer theology is worthless. As we have covered in our article on What Is Apologetics, studying the reasons that give us further confidence in the truth of the Bible not only strengthens our own faith, it also provides answers and a bulwark against potential defeaters for our beliefs. And it also gives us further confidence in the sufficiency of our ability in pursuing evangelistic opportunities. Many of us may scoff at those who dismiss theology, saying things like, “I just believe in the Bible.” But while this sentiment can be dismaying, it is also hopeful in that we can have confidence that the Word of God is sufficient for salvation. Though the life of the believer is infinitely benefited by studying the deeper things of God, we do not have to possess all of the potential answers in order to be used by God. The Gospel is, indeed, enough.