MISCELLANIES 1: Proposing a Continuum for Epistemological Theories

From now on, when I journal my own creative thinking on theoretical theological-philosophical concepts, I will title them "Miscellanies." The method and title are by no means original. One of my favorite dead teachers, Jonathan Edwards, kept a journal for the same purpose with the same title.

I've posted these sorts of thoughts-in-process on this blog in the past. It has been a very beneficial exercise for my own growth in understanding and, I pray, it is in some small way a demonstration of an aspect of the glory of God in his image bearers.

Please remember these are thoughts-in-process; therefore, they are by definition non-definitive. That means both the author and readers should remain highly critical of these works. I invite readers to offer any critiques that come to mind. What follows is a proposal with regard to categorizing epistemological (i.e. the study of knowing) theories.

1. Proposing a Continuum for Epistemological Theories.

The unqualified infinite requires, and perhaps could even be defined as, an unqualified primary referent.[1] To use apophatic terms, when we conceive the concept of absolute infinity we are bound, so to speak, to think in terms of timelessness and/or spacelessness, since time and space require multiple referents by definition. We could further simplify by defining time as bodies moving through space; therefore, the unqualified infinite is conceived of more simply as spacelessness. Speaking in terms of Cartesian coordinate geometry, the unqualified infinite is a single point. It is non-dimensional.

On the other hand, the finite requires, and perhaps could even be defined as, a multiplicity of referents. In other words, when we conceive of what it means to be finite we are bound to think in terms of beginnings and endings. We could further simplify by defining a beginning as a regressive end in opposition to a progressive end; therefore the finite is conceived of more simply as endings. Speaking in terms of Cartesian coordinate geometry, the finite is a series of related points (e.g. lines, planes, or volumes). It is dimensional.

I say all that to say this: we finite creatures are fundamentally defined by multiple referents. We simply cannot operate as an unqualified primary referent. We are fundamentally relational creatures.

With respect to the epistemological theories of the enlightenment, which have been broadly categorized as rationalism (i.e. viewing human reason as the first principle of knowing), we see that humanity distrusted all external referents and attempted to know as an unqualified primary referent. In other words, we see that humanity fundamentally ignored its relational nature and embraced a radical individualism in order to know on its own terms. This radical individualism, as Hume demonstrated, led to unqualified skepticism, undermining all certainty of knowledge.

Christian epistemology, however, recognizes the relational nature of humanity. Anselm spoke of Christian knowing as "faith seeking understanding." In other words, knowing must begin with faith. What is faith? It is trusting an external referent. Faith presupposes multiple referents. It presupposes relations.

Given the argument above, I propose that we might rightly place all epistemological theories on a continuum bound by these two poles:

1. Individualism- viewing oneself as an unqualified primary referent, rejecting faith, yielding no basis for certainty (i.e. skepticism), ultimately undermining understanding.
   
2. Relationalism- viewing oneself as fundamentally related to multiple referents (the primary being the infinite triune God), requiring faith, yielding a basis for certainty, ultimately establishing understanding.

One clarification comes to mind as I wrap this up. The description of relationalism above is not meant to speak to the issue of the quality of knowledge. It is only meant to speak to the fact and certainty of it. The quality of knowledge (e.g. whether it is true in whatever sense) is dependent on further factors, particularly the ultimate object of one's faith.

_______________


1. I have modified the term "infinite" with the term "unqualified" in order to remove senses from the discussion. One could argue that theoretically there is such a thing as an infinite line, plane, or volume. No doubt, those are real examples of infinity, in a sense. They are infinite in the sense of endlessness, which implies a qualification according to the finite (i.e. ultimately immeasurable multiple referents), but not spacelessness, which implies no such qualification.