The Bible Destroys the Strongholds of Epistemological Speculation
Since Thales in the 6th century
B.C., numerous theories of epistemology have been proposed over
those 2500 years.
There are the realists, the idealists, the materialists, the
intuitionists, the anti-realists, the natural scientists, the
rationalists, the empiricists, the feminists, and hundreds of
others with their particular slant on “how one knows.”
The situation borders on incredulity when one considers
the forceful dogmatism of many of these theorists in the
diversity of their profound disagreements.
There is no significant
agreement among major theorists, much less their neo-disciples
and variations on original themes.
But, guess what—communication (more or less) continues.
Papers continue to be written; lectures given; books
written and read by the millions, not to mention news reporters
around the world and casual conversations among the seven
billion people on planet earth.
taking place—mostly—in spite of profound theoretical diversity.
How can this reality be in light of profound
How often do epistemological theorists attempt
to bridge this gap in theory and practice?
Something must be sufficiently common in these scholastic
and everyday activities to allow communication to occur.
Even the postmoderns with their deconstruction of grammar
and language and their choice of
communicate in propositional statements!
What, then, can we conclude from this divorce of theory
First, there is some reality that transcends
Second, any one idea or method of epistemology is a as
good as any other.
If you balk at this conclusion, what can you bring in argument
with which someone else of equal or greater stature does not
we have a stalemate and my conclusion stands.
Third, for all the talk of “truth-bearers,”
the old propositional form is absolutely necessary, and dare I
say it, universal.
All the challenges that might be brought to bear on this
conclusion cannot be discussed here.
But I will mention one: symbolic logic.
I contend that symbolic logic fails in its intent.
First, its communication can take place only among a
select few who can follow its meanderings.
If an elite is necessary to understand epistemology, what
hope is there for is use by the common man, or even the
scholastic who is not familiar with symbolic logic.
Further, at some point the symbolic logic must be
translated back into communicable form, and we are back to the
old familiar form of propositions.
It just might be that in this “logical process,” a
juggling and obscuring of propositional manipulation is taking
For my project, I considered asking several
philosophers to give me their ten most challenging obstacles in
I began wondering, “What if I do not consider their choices as
challenging as mine? How can I argue against those challenges
that I consider to be inferior?
After all, every epistemological endeavor is quite
individualistic—even philosophers with considerable agreement
always differ in some ways, perhaps small or perhaps major—more
on individual beliefs later. No one in my audience is going to
agree with a choice of obstacles whether from the ten most
recognized epistemologists in the world or those of my own
choosing. So, why
not choose my own?”
Now, that makes me an easy target for you and for others.
“Who is this guy who thinks that he can make better
choices than those who are world-renown?”
But, I shoot back, “Is that not what we all do?
Who hesitates in their own minds or in conferences such
as these to differ with the ‘experts of the world?’”
Many papers here at this conference confirm my notion.
Thus, my project is to consider the
“agreed-upon Scriptures” as a text that overcomes major
epistemological challenges sufficiently to bear directly on
“Agreed-upon Scriptures” is my term for the 66 books of
the Bible that are “agreed-upon” by the three major branches of
Christianity: Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant.
While each of these branches adds to this core, these 66
books are “agreed-upon.”
Thus, they are my focus, but it does not take much effort
to realize that my conclusions bear on the other additions of
authority that each branch chooses.
I will not go into those here, as these discussions have
centuries of literature, not less in the 21st.
My project is not to consider the various traditional and
current apologies for Scripture, such as, extant manuscripts,
textual agreement, congruence of texts, and so forth except as
they apply to these obstacles.
Further, my project is not a “proof,’ it is merely an
argument that “If everything that is allowed today to be
discussed as valid considerations in epistemology, then
Scripture by over-coming these obstacles should be more at the
center of these discussions.”
Obstacle One: To know anything, one must know everything
What is it mean
“to know?” An
individual has a gradual awakening through his childhood and
young adult years that life is more complex than he realized.
There are major decisions to be made: what career to
choose, whether to—and whom to marry, where to live, what
friends to have, and what physical and metaphysical beliefs give
meaning in this life, and whether there is life after death.
It does not take long to realize that wrong choices can
come from wrong knowledge.
Consider what may be called “The Epistemology of a Flea”
which I have considerably abbreviated here—a
cute little story with powerful epistemological insight.
In meeting with his dissertation professor, a
graduate student told his mentor that he wanted to present an
epistemological proof of the non-existence of God by a study of
John Donne's "The Flea." By providing an exhaustive treatment of
one event, the existence of God, at least of the Christian
variety, would be disproved.
First, the student spent three years doing historical
research to “prove” that Donne’s treatment of the event actually
took place. But, his
professor came back, “"All you've done is to describe the event
itself. How did Donne arrive at his image of the flea as his
marriage bed?” You
are going to have to do some work in neurology and cognitive
science. Linguistics too, I suppose."
Over the next eight years, I worked in neuropsychology,
cognitive science, metaphor theory, linguistics,
psycho-linguistics, socio-linguistics, semiotics, and everything
else that might give me a handle on the interaction of brain,
language, and art.
But, then the professor gave a sly little smile, “"What about
the flea? Have you considered what it experienced? Did it feel
pain? What was it thinking?
I think you need to do some work on insect
neuropsychology." The conclusion of the story is a scene where
this “student” was writing in the foyer of a monastery where he
was to become a novitiate—he had given up completely
understanding the parody of a flea and its meaning in a
He came to the conclusion that at most points, simple
faith had to be exercised, and the greatest faith was to believe
in the One Who does know all things.
His epistemological project failed in two
ways. First, all
knowledge is dependent upon all other knowledge.
In natural science, this dependency is seen in the
Duhem-Quine thesis that all research depends upon prior research
And, it is common to hear these scientists say that “the
more we know, the more that we do not know.”
In linguistics, it is seen in the transition of words and
languages over millennia of transition.
In mathematics, there is no universal proof by Gödel’s
skeptic may think that he has an advantage, but a true skeptic
must be know everything to refute anything.
And, my little story demonstrates the interconnectedness
of all knowledge, for example, neuroscientists may want to
develop new fields of neuroethics, neurotheology, and
neuropsychology, but they are straight-jacketed by their own
presuppositions, in spite of their fanciful, erudite, and
I will address this “scientism” next.
The Scriptures have the answer to this
The God who is omniscient gives us considerable, but only
partial knowledge of Himself, the
kosmos, and ourselves
that is fully coherent with that omniscience.
Being made in His image, we can understand that
Obstacle Two: Ethics and Epistemology—Naturalistic Fallacies
Suppose that one came up with an inescapable
method of epistemology—one that every philosopher alive could
agree as certain—a truly universal and foundational
epistemology. There would remain an obstacle that would be just
as inescapable: how should that knowledge be used?
In a way, this confrontation of the unstoppable force
meeting the immovable object, reflects our prior problem of
Epistemology does not exist alone.
But, this focus on ethics illustrates a particular
dimension: epistemology can be considered a category of ethics,
or if this challenge is too great, epistemology must be guided
and controlled by ethics.
For example, the scientific method is championed by those
who do not know any better—primarily the professors in most
colleges and universities outside the philosophy department, and
often even there.
But no scientist, no matter how brilliant, is able to use that
expertise to answer ethical questions.
The Nobel Prize came from the distress of Alfred Nobel
when his discovery of dynamite was used in warfare to maim and
kill, and not just for the construction of dams, roads, and
other excavation projects. Was his invention of dynamite, “good
or bad?” We have the
technology to perform heart transplants, but is it ethical so to
do? A paper at the
2012 SE meeting of EPS said, “No!”
We have the technology for space travel, but is it
“right” to use taxpayer money for this endeavor?
Scientific expertise cannot answer these questions.
Immanuel Kant with his categorical imperative
and C. S. Lewis with his Tao had some of the best arguments for
a universal ethic, but their “universality” failed because
Scripture has powerful arguments for itself here.
It is a definitive approach, perhaps with more casuistry
than any other system.
It is the majority opinion in the world today.
And, most importantly and ultimately, “Thus says the
Augustine saw that authority was absolutely necessary for living
practically and theoretically, why not accept the authority of
Scripture from the omniscient God?
is a problem, but interpretation is central to all
epistemological endeavors, so we gain nothing by making
interpretation a separate issue.
Scripture has major claims to authority that no other
source of knowledge has.
Obstacle Three: The Great Debate of Our Day—Scientism vs. All Other
The logical positivism of the early 20th
century met a simple and shattering refutation in its being a
performative contradiction—that is, its claim to deny any
knowledge other than what was derived empirically was
inescapably not derived from empiricism.
Yet, today we have the developing fields of neuroscience,
already noted, in which the attempt is being made to derive
theology, ethics, psychology, and who knows what else from
studies of neurophysiology.
Scientism may be defined as the presupposition
that “in the dimension of describing and explaining the world,
science is the measure of all things, and of what is that it is,
and of what is not that it
is not.” Or, “the
view that only natural science deserves full and unqualified
credence”—to quote two noted authors—one in the 1960s and one in
I said that scientism opposed all other –isms,
but is that statement accurate?
The Bible speaks of light and darkness, of God’s way and
man’s way, of regenerate and unregenerate peoples, truth and
falsehood, etc. Two
opposing forces, two epistemologies—naturalism vs.
supernaturalism. I contend that the only truly opposing
epistemology to scientism is Biblical Christianity.
For example, Intelligent Design,
classical theism, and natural theology, ethics, and law are
half-way measures to Biblical Christianity.
Again, Scripture only speaks of two oppositions, and it
is our duty as evangelical to specify what those battle lines
For the past two years, I have spent a great
deal of time studying the philosophy of science.
I am amazed to find that its arguments are not utilized
more frequently in the evangelical community.
With natural science as the atheists only hope in
epistemology, to refute natural science is to refute the
overwhelmingly dominant epistemology of our day.
Its vulnerability was vividly demonstrated when the
physicist Paul Sokal submitted an article that was published in
Social Text, “a
leading North American journal of cultural studies.”
Sokal describes his article as a “parody” and
“liberally salted with nonsense,” yet “it sounded good”
and “flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”
Sokal employed “scientific and mathematical concepts in
ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take
seriously.” So much
for the objectivity of science.
One can twist the so-called “most objective of sciences”
for one’s preferred ethics.
Obstacle Four: Failure to Apply Logic
In the multiple “logics” of our day,
Aristotelian logic has fallen by the wayside.
However, this departure is premature and ridden with
Practically, as I have said, we cannot avoid logic—grammar,
syntax, and communication require it.
Even that enemy of Christianity, Frederick Nietzsche
stated, “I am afraid we
are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.”
Certainly, I cannot begin to discuss all that a coherent
application of logic requires.
Thus, I give only one example.
Postmoderns love to state, “There are no
absolutes,” or “Truth does not exist.”
But, again we have a performative contradiction.
For either statement to have any meaning, each must
The first becomes an “absolute” statement, and the second
becomes a true statement.
The law of noncontradiction inescapably demands that the
opposite be true, “There is at least one absolute.”
There are two, and only two ways out of this dilemma.
The first is to simply say, “Well, there must be another
explanation that we do not understand.”
This way is that of irrationality.
To choose it is to choose that language only means what I
or some group says that it means, as in a group of scientists
who argue for scientism—which I will address below.
That way also is the modern pluralistic notion of
multiple truths and multiple ways to God.
It is the way of meaninglessness and politically,
eventual totalitarianism—one ideology will always rise to
prominence and damn the to others.
The other way out is to accept logically that
there is one absolute or
one truth and begin to search for it.
All the fallacies of
logic and the demonstrations of dozens of philosophers of
science are sufficient to reject scientism, naturalism, and
naturalistic science from the start.
Logically, and categorically, that leaves
we search among supernatural explanations and choose the one has
the best evidence.
Again, I contend for Biblical Christianity, for many reasons,
but demonstrably the Christian West has produced the greatest
flourishing—for men and women in the history of the world.
And, as we have departed that Biblical orientation have
we been losing that
Christians for the most part have had a considerable
contribution to that decline.
Obstacle Five: “Objectivity” and the 21st Century Mind
In many quarters, the notion of “objectivity”
is passé. However, as
Mark Twain with whom I share a birth date, said, “The
reports of my death
are greatly exaggerated.”
Since I am given to simplicity in this paper, I submit
First, if one does not claim certainty, then one has no
claim at all. Even
99.9 percent probability is still probability.
Second, if one claims certainty, he has moved to an
absolute or totally objective position.
So, this postmodern notion of no absolutes is further
Kurt Gödel has said that
the notion of provability is weaker than the notion of truth.
For example, he truth of geometric axioms is intuitive as
truth. If they were
probabilities, then exceptions would exist and the whole system
What, then, do we find in
the “agreed-upon Bible?”
The text is essentially unchanged since it was formulated
into the canon. In
contrast to many artifacts of history, its text is more certain
today than at the time of its first formulation.
With the discovery of additional manuscripts, such as the
Death Sea Scrolls and hundreds of others of lesser quantity and
quality, scholars are more certain that we have the exact text
of the original autographs.
Minor variants exist, but none that affect any doctrinal
interpretation of consequence.
Further, the Bible has survived numerous historical
challenges, such as, whether writing existed at the time of
Moses, the existence of the Hittites, and the walls of Jericho.
And, there are numerous other evidences with which you
are most likely familiar.
And for good measure, as we
have seen, the Biblical text is the majority opinion on planet
earth—a position that leads into the matter of authority.
Obstacle Six: The Matter of Authority
Both moderns and
postmoderns abhor “authority.”
And, yet in the “real world” where we began this paper,
they live by authority in numerous decisions every day.
They ask neighbors what
car, refrigerator, or television to buy.
They may read Consumers Report or another authoritative
magazine. They trust
the authority of the persons that they read and quote.
They trust their own authority based upon nature and
nurture over which they have no control.
They trust “why there is something rather than nothing.”
They trust (without any good reason) that they have a
purpose and meaning in a cold, mechanical universe.
They trust their editors’
and their own judgments to filter out such articles as that of
Paul Sokal! And, in
hundreds of other ways, they trust authorities of varying
Augustine of Hippo
struggled with this problem of authority relative to Scripture.
He saw that we are always asking opinions of others
whom we trust—that is, in whom we place authority.
He found that the Manicheans were founded not on reason
alone, but basic principles of faith or trust in authority.
Indeed, he saw that any epistemology required
supernatural revelation because all other authorities had human
conclusion made it easy for him to accept the position that
today we call “the inerrancy of Scripture,” simply because the
God that he loved and worshipped wrote it.
So, “authority” as a way of
life is inescapable.
Then, the problem simply becomes what authority is ultimate for
me. “Thus says the
Lord,” then, becomes ultimately authoritative, its rightful
place in the scheme of epistemologies.
Obstacle Seven: Solipsism—The Problem of Other Minds
The best known epistemology to each of us is
that of our own minds.
But each of our minds is isolated from all the others.
There is no “Vulcan mind-meld” that Gene Rodenberry
invented for his Star Trek.
Of necessity, we must use “physical” senses to
communicate our “meta-physical” thoughts and expressions.
Who of us has not dreamed of a reality such that we talk
to others, try to run or jump, fly through the air, engage in
warfare, or even have erotic experiences, only to awaken from
them to be relieved to escape, or perhaps disappointed that the
dream was not “real?”
The problem of other minds, which on one hand is no
problem at all—you are here and so am I—we communicate.
On the other hand, proof of other minds is impossible.
I could be a brain-in-a-vat, deceived by Descartes’
demon, living in a computerized “virtual reality,” or just
dreaming. How can
one know? How can
one be certain?
Solipsism, in spite of its short shrift in recent times, may
the greatest obstacle
to a certainty in epistemology.
But belief in God, and His Scriptures,
overcomes solipsism with great certainty.
God created the universe and a history of mankind
beginning with Adam for some 4000 years of chronicled history.
That history links with the more available historical
records since the time of Christ.
It is simple for us to take that history, its
interactions and warfare among peoples, and know its
correspondence with our own reality.
God’s revelation of His Own Mind provides the reality of
other minds and confirmation of a reality that we all
problem of the past—brief mention.
The problem of “proving”
memory of past experiences is essentially the same as that of
“other minds.” The Bible also confirms memory—otherwise, the
past faces the same problems as the problem of other minds.
Obstacle Eight: Finding Reality in Common Communication
Paul Boghossian, Professor of Philosophy at
New York University, has written what is anathema to
epistemological texts—a short, easily readable book that
dissects strong postmodern arguments.
I quote from a summary of the book:
Boghossian focuses on three different ways of
reaching the claim that knowledge is socially constructed—one as
a thesis about truth and two about justification.
And he rejects all three.
The intuitive, common-sense view is that there is a way
the world is that is independent of human opinion; and that we
are capable of arriving at beliefs about how it is that are
objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of
appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or
Difficult as these notions may be, it is a mistake to
think that philosophy has uncovered powerful reason for
What Christian would have ever thought that a New York
University Professor would endorse the Common Sense Realism of
While there are considerable problems with this common
sense approach (which I will mention very shortly), it is a
powerful place in epistemology from which to start.
You and I are here at a conference where scholarly papers
are being presented; that is, we are communicating with each
other at a somewhat sophisticated level.
I mean, how much higher (or deeper, depending upon your
preference) can one strive than Gödel, Quine, Duhem, and Gene
Rodenberry? We have
labored for untold hours, travelled various distances, and spent
needed money (especially in this economy)
Communications works—mostly, as it is never perfect.
cosmos in which we
live necessitates a certain thinking and behavior.
The Hindu mystic and the most withdrawn gnostic must in a
mundane manner and on a daily basis—breathe, drink, eat, and
perform bodily functions.
No matter how much they invent anti-reality scenarios,
they don’t step in front of trucks, gravity holds them to the
earth, diseases affect their bodies, and they barter in the
distortions of the drug-induced alcoholic and the psychedelic
scenes of a person on LSD cannot avoid the” laws of nature”
with tragic life-changing or life-ending results.
Postmoderns may deconstruct almost everything, but they
still must use the rules of grammar, and worse from their
perspective—gasp!—propositions to communicate.
Yes, Virginia there is a demanding reality.
But before you think that I am unaware, there
are considerable problems with common sense reality.
The atheistic scientist, the Hindu mystic, and the
Biblical Christian interpret reality differently.
They have different purposes in living.
They have different perspectives on life, or non-life,
after death. So, I
do not want to take this philosophy as a complete
foundationalism, but I also think that the reality that
is necessitated by the
cosmos in which we
live brackets phenomenologically what theories of epistemology
There is a real world
subject to certain laws of thinking, communicating, and physical
philosopher who denies this limited reality lives hypocritically
and coherently, should keep his mouth shut!
Now, a reality necessitates a creator, or in
other words, this reality necessitates a supernatural
explanation—nature and its laws have to come from somewhere.
Supernatural explanations lead to supernatural religious
explanations, which leads one to examine which of those best
fits reality. For
me, Biblical Christianity is the best fit.
Immediacy in epistemology: rarely mentioned
I am going to shift from using the word
“knowledge” to the word “truth.”
Studied philosophers may quibble with this shift, but
knowledge and truth are really the same pursuit, and truth has a
more particular application to my concern here.
Truth has a certain urgency that I have never heard from
we do not have infinite time available to each of us on planet
earth. Second, not
everyone is either interested in studying truth or has the tools
of philosophy to pursue it.
Third, there are other obligations in life, such as,
making provision for oneself and one’s family to eat, drink, and
have clothing along with, a career to pursue.
Fourth, and most critical, death may be just around the
corner. There are
thousands in America, and perhaps millions around the world, who
die at young ages: car crashes, diseases, murders, and other
untimely ends, so this imperative exists for persons of any age.
I submit that eternal considerations are
Yet, when have you ever heard a college professor,
especially a philosopher, urge his students, “Seek your answers
to whether there is life after death with some haste!
Some of you will die shortly and will have never given it
Now, suppose some student was “lucky” to have such a
professorial challenge, and equally important, that within
himself he accepted the challenge as urgent for his own being.
Where could he go, say within a few weeks or months and
consider all the various options?
Well, first, he could not accomplish that goal
in a lifetime—there are too many philosophies and religions to
study them all, so (somewhat logically) he could choose the
major religions and philosophers, and rather competently
accomplish that project within a year.
Then, at least he would have done what he could to
immediately face his own death.
In this scenario, the Bible and the Christian
faith would fare quite well.
But first philosophers and other professors, as well, who
ignore this challenge are ignoring the most important issue for
their students—life is finite, life after death is infinite!
There is an urgency to epistemological considerations
that has eternal consequences!
Centrality of the Person: Mini-beliefs
I worked with a man on intellectual issues for
30 years. I suppose
that we discussed as many varieties of topics as any two men
ever did. We agreed
on perhaps 90-95 percent of those topics.
But we still differed, some matters substantially, like
the place of non-Christian rulers in civil government and the
definition of “day” in
the first chapter of Genesis.
But, beyond significant issues, there are “lesser
beliefs”, such as, “I believe chocolate ice cream is better… the
best route to Anderson, SC is the one that I took… the Georgia
mountains are the most beautiful in the world… Ford makes better
cars than General Motors…. etc.
Every person has an amazing diversity of beliefs!
I think this fact has been ignored by many philosophers,
but considered by many psychologists.
The human mind is almost infinitely diverse.
George Steiner, a literary critic and sometimes
We normally use a shorthand beneath which
there lies a wealth of subconscious, deliberately concealed or
declared associations so extensive and intricate that they
probably equal the sum and uniqueness of our status as an
Read that comment again...
Our minds are really a complexity of ideas,
concepts, beliefs, and other forms of knowledge.
No two people on planet earth think alike.
We could be identified by our beliefs, if we were able to
map them, as is done with fingerprints and genetics.
It would be close to the truth to say that “we are our
thoughts,” or as one Wise Man said, “As a man thinks in his
heart, so is he.”
These mini-beliefs have many ramifications, not least of which
is how any orthodoxy of thought can be achieved—because we all
differ in our various Christian beliefs. Someone has postulated
that there are now over 30,000 sects under the broad label,
"Christian." We should ponder what such an almost infinite variety
of beliefs may have on epistemology and theology.
can each variety of belief be stated so dogmatically?
I have presented some obstacles for all
approaches to epistemological certainty which, when coupled with
essential and profound
disagreements throughout the history of philosophy, give
uncertainty to the whole of the endeavor.
Within this lack of universal agreement, surely
Scripture, as one source of knowledge, should be more central to
I have briefly demonstrated how Scripture overcomes major
For these and many other reasons, I challenge Christians,
especially those in academic and scholarly pursuits,
to realize the
opportunity that exists for the insights and wisdom of Scripture
in the ongoing emptiness of epistemological discussions.
Especially, I challenge the Evangelical Philosophical
Society whose neglect of the Scripture in their flagship
Christi, is all too apparent.
Additional Relevant Thoughts
Examples of Scripture being ignored by Christian philosophers.
(1) Faith and
(2) Papers presented by the EPS.
(3) Textbooks, both basic and focused, written by
Topics: Intelligent Design, classic theism, philosophy of
religion, defense of theism vs Biblical Christianity, etc.
Subjectivity and objectivity—ontology, epistemology, and ethics
unified in God.
Only God has omniscience—knowledge of every detail of Himself
and His creation.
Therefore, only God can be totally objective, but being a
Person, He is entirely subjective.
So absolute objectivity and subjectivity are inherently
one in God. Note
too, that ontology, epistemology, and ethics are immediate and
intuitive in God.
Moses asked, “Whom may I say is sending me?”
God answered an epistemological question with an
ontological answer, “I am who I am?”
And, one attribute of God’s ontology and epistemology is
Thus, all the major branches of philosophy— ethics,
epistemology, and ontology—are perfectly unified in God.
Thus, the Jewish Shema has great philosophical, as well
as theological import, “Here O Israel, the Lord is our God.
He is One.”
Steiner on the transcendence of language and communication.
"Any coherent understanding of what language is and how
language performs, that any coherent account of the capacity of
human speech to communicate meaning and feeling is, in the final
analysis, underwritten by the assumption of God's presence....
the experience of aesthetic meaning, that of literature, of the
arts, of musical form, infers the necessary possibility of this
'real presence' .... The wager on the meaning of meaning, on the
potential of insight and response when one human voice addresses
another, when we come face to face with the text and work of art
or music, which is to say when we encounter the other in
its condition of freedom, is a wager on transcendence."
"This wager – it is that of Descartes, of Kant
and of every poet, artist, composer of whom we have explicit
record – predicates the presence of a realness, of a
'substantiation' (the theological reach of this word is obvious)
within language and form. It supposes a passage, beyond
the fictive or the purely pragmatic, from meaning to
meaningfulness. The conjecture is that 'God' is,
not because our grammar is outworn; but that grammar lives and
generates worlds because there is a wager on God." (George
Steiner, Real Presences, pages 3-4)
fascination with neuroscience has not escaped our own
organization in that the EPS will devote an upcoming
issue to neuroscience.
Consciousness and the Existence of God, (New York,
NY: Routledge, 2008), 4.
The first quote is by Wilfrid Sellars, and the
second is by Steven Wagner and Richard Warner.
for a plenary session at this conference.
“Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,”
Interestingly, in Charles Spurgeon’s time, this loss of
Biblical authority was called “the downgrade
With the downgrade of Biblical authority comes a
downgrade in human culture in every way.
thank R. C. Sproul, Jr. in a DVD presentation for this
simple but powerful argument.
of Knowledge: against relativism and constructivism,
(Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006).
no “laws of nature,” only our interpretation of the
regularity of nature.
After Babel, Third Edition, (Oxford University
Press, England: 1998), 172-3
a few exceptions, each issue would agree with the
requirements for the Gifford Lectures where Scripture is