Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SRB · 05-01-2003, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Van Til claimed that knowledge (as JTB) was only possible for God...

Did Van Til ever explicitly say "I am a know-nothing"? If so, where did he do that? How did he deal with the clear contradiction in claiming to know that he knew nothing?

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SRB
A much simpler, shorter and clearer version of the argument above, that captures its main point, is this:

(a) No person knows anything much.
(b) Therefore, no person knows anything much or Christianity is true [from (a) by addition].
(c) Therefore, if any person knows anything much then Christianity is true [from (b) by material implication].

This argument is deductively valid. Here premise (a) plays the part of premise (6) in the argument above. The argument I present here is far more efficient than the one above, but every bit as loopy. I can only think that the author got lost in the maze he created for himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like it! Although you do have some hidden premises (what are the conditions for knowledge, what is knowledge, etc). But I think you're right in that it pretty much captures what they're saying...

You can use any standard definition of "knowledge" that you like. From (a) it is possible to derive the result that if any person knows anything much then R is true, where R is any proposition whatsoever. Here is how that is done:

(a) No person knows anything much.
(b') Therefore, no person knows anything much or R is true [from (a) by addition].
(c') Therefore, if any person knows anything much then R is true [from (b') by material implication].

So if the author of the original argument accepts (a), he must also accept that if any person knows anything much then Christianity is false. He must also accept that if any person knows anything much then I am currently sat in a bath of custard. Do you think he would be happy with that?

SRB

Bill Snedden · 05-01-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SRB
Did Van Til ever explicitly say "I am a know-nothing"? If so, where did he do that? How did he deal with the clear contradiction in claiming to know that he knew nothing?

Oops! Sorry, that's my typo. That should have read "with" God instead of "for" God.

What Van Til claimed was that probability and chance cannot provide a foundation for claiming that one "knows" anything and therefore non-Christians are unjustified in claiming that they know anything. Only the Christian's knowledge is justified, becase his knowledge stands on the foundation of an orderly and rational universe created by an orderly and rational being.

So, with "knowledge" defined as JTB, Van Til claimed that only the Christian God provided the essential "J" for knowledge to exist.

This link may give you some additional background on his ideas. You might also try the "Why I Believe in God" link at the bottom of the page for an example of the "quality" of his reasoning abilities...

Quote:

Originally posted by SRB
He must also accept that if any person knows anything much then I am currently sat in a bath of custard. Do you think he would be happy with that?

Depends. What flavor?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bilbo · 05-01-2003, 03:35 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks to me like people, advocates and critics alike, disagree about what TAG is even supposed to be (much less whether it's any good).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most philosophers who write on the subject have a pretty good idea what a TA is, and what its basic formal structure is. Of course, neither they, nor their readers are necessarily numbered among the members of this forum.

Sniping at strawmen is unproductive, except as an exercise of net-rage. Of course, these forums can be functionally therapeutic for those with stressful day jobs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, debates over whether TAG is circular or otherwise flawed are only fruitful if everyone pins down what exactly the argument is under discussion. Otherwise, it's bobbing for greased fishies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite so.

Regards,

Bilbo.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 03:35 PM	#43
Bilbo Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 180	-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Looks to me like people, advocates and critics alike, disagree about what TAG is even supposed to be (much less whether it's any good). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most philosophers who write on the subject have a pretty good idea what a TA is, and what its basic formal structure is. Of course, neither they, nor their readers are necessarily numbered among the members of this forum. Sniping at strawmen is unproductive, except as an exercise of net-rage. Of course, these forums can be functionally therapeutic for those with stressful day jobs -------------------------------------------------------------------------- In any case, debates over whether TAG is circular or otherwise flawed are only fruitful if everyone pins down what exactly the argument is under discussion. Otherwise, it's bobbing for greased fishies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quite so. Regards, Bilbo.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.