I think one of the most important things I’ve learned in the past year or two is a scriptural understanding of epistemology - that “all thought is religious thought” (Frame).
Those that say “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science” betray exactly what they’re trying to deny: that the study of science is pistical (ie, deals in the realm of faith). Everyone enters the laboratory with certain presuppositions - no one is “purely objective.” All “observations” are actually just interpretations, and all interpretations are based upon presuppositions. (Even the belief that reality is ordered, and thus that observation will tell us something true and predictable about reality, is a presupposition - one which, by the way, requires a theistic worldview.) And, as everyone remembers from those uncomfortable conversations in high school and/or college, we always end where we start. That is, if we start with “God exists,” we’ll end with “God exists.” If we start with “there is no God,” we’ll end there as well. The idea of “religious neutrality” is a myth - it may be called “neutral,” but in reality it’s just pretended atheism (see Romans 1).
Secondly, even if religious neutrality were possible, science bereft of religion would yield only raw facts without meaning (Kuyper). What’s more, those facts would leave out the most important thing about whatever reality is under observation: that it was created by God, for his glory. And surely, what we’re really after in all our searching, all our philosophy, all our science, is just that - the meaning of reality and history. Just as the poet holds exclusive authority over the meaning of his poem, and the inventor the intended use of his invention, so also does the Creator hold exclusive authority over the meaning of reality as its Maker, and over that of history as its Author. We cannot understand reality or history truly, unless or until we embrace God’s interpretation of them; that is, until we “think God’s thoughts after him” (Van Til).
(This post inspired by Kuyper’s lecture, Calvinism and Science, among many other sources–such as: John Frame [one, two, three], and the sections in Calvin’s Institutes, the Systematic Theologies of Grudem and Berkhof, the first chapter of the WCF, and Goldsworthy’s According to Plan, that deal with the knowledge of God.)
gmail.com
7 responses so far ↓
1 Laur // Apr 3, 2006 at 12:47 am
geez. i guess you are a frame fan?
rts orlando is def on my list of highly possible… and i heart van til, esp his work on barth.
didn’t you decide against rts? may i be nosy and ask why?
2 Aron // Apr 3, 2006 at 11:16 am
Yes, I suppose I am a fan of Frame (except where he differs from Kline, re: theocracy and Covenant Theology). He was the main reason I was considering RTS, about which I’ve heard nothing but good things. I would absolutely love to be in the “academic lineage” of Bavinck, Kuyper, Berkhof, Van Til, Schaeffer, etc. (by going to RTS) but, bottom line, I just think I’m supposed to be at Wheaton. I could be wrong though; time will tell. God only knows what the future holds. I also considered WTS (even visited) and CTS.
3 The Flim Flam Man // Apr 3, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I felt really small after the second paragraph. Interesting way to put things, A-Ron.
What time of day do you write these observations? Is it planned, or spur of the moment writing? Both, I imagine.
4 Laur // Apr 3, 2006 at 3:04 pm
yeah, wts is the other biggie for me - the degree i want seems to be pretty weak at cts.
ok, so the grilling continues - what did you think of wts?
5 Aron // Apr 3, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Thanks, Tim (though I claim no originality of thought here). I think that’s exactly the response we should have. There really is no plan, I just post them as they come, and as I think they’re (at least somewhat) clear enough to share. Sometimes I ‘post-date’ them if I want a recent post to retain ‘first-billing’ for a while longer. So, mostly spur of the moment.
Laur: WTS has a great heritage, and I love their focus on sola scriptura and the emphasis on doing theology in the original languages, but I suspect it would be less open to a Grudem-ish understanding of cessationism; so I kind of backed off a bit (we charismatic and Reformed types are a rare breed). The very helpful Sam Storms recommended RTS or CTS over WTS for that reason. (BTW, have you seen all the free courses at CTS Worldwide? - check the links for course enumeration.) Overall, I think RTS (Orlando) would be my #1 recommendation, followed by a close tie for second between CTS and WTS. Though there are others out there with promise, too - like the small newcomer, Northwest Theological Seminary.
6 The Flim Flam Man // Apr 3, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Why are charismatic reformed Christians a ‘rare breed’?
(Can’t wait to hear your answer)
Snowing in Michigan.
Ethan Hunt for President.
7 Aron // Apr 3, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Oh boy. I don’t think I could even approach a sufficient answer to that question, Tim. But perhaps I’ll venture an opinion or two in a future post. Either way, there’s too much to consider, and it’s too significant a question, to be addressed here in a soon-to-be-buried comment. Great question though; I’ll think about it. In the mean time, though, the ball’s still in your court on another topic…
Leave a Comment