Adapted from the upcoming book, War of the Worldviews.
Have you ever stopped to think about the foundation of your knowledge? When we make sense of the world, where do we truly begin? This question leads us into a fascinating discussion about "proximate" and "ultimate" starting points, concepts crucial for both epistemology (the study of knowledge) and philosophy. Let's explore how these starting points shape our understanding of reality, particularly from a Christian perspective.
Our Immediate Experience vs. The Ultimate Source
When we talk about knowledge, we must first acknowledge our proximate starting point: our immediate consciousness. It's through our human faculties – our senses, intellect, and emotions – that we first encounter and engage with the world around us. Our mind is the initial point of contact, the instrument through which we interpret everything we experience. If God were our proximate starting point, it would mean we were God, which isn't the case.
However, our consciousness cannot be the final authority. To avoid drifting into pure subjectivism or skepticism, where truth becomes relative or unknowable, we must recognize an ultimate starting point. From a Christian worldview, this ultimate starting point is God Himself – the source of all existence and the origin of all knowledge.
The Mind: An Interpreter, Not the Author
Our minds function as interpretive instruments, operating within the universe God created and sustains. Our thoughts are our immediate responses to the world, but they don't originate meaning in themselves. Placing the human mind at the helm, independent of God, leads to an overemphasis on human autonomy and disconnects us from the divine grounding necessary for objective truth.
Instead, we must insist that God stands behind our mental activity as the ultimate reference point. This view sees everything – every fact, experience, and interpretation – as fundamentally dependent on God for its meaning and purpose. This preserves the crucial Creator-creature distinction, reminding us of our ultimate dependency on God for genuine knowledge and understanding.
Our interpretations aren't created out of nothing; they are "re-interpretations" of God's facts, hopefully aligned with His truth in covenantal obedience. Think of the beautiful biblical picture where God brings the animals to Adam for naming. God, the Creator, invites Adam, His creation, to participate in understanding and ordering the world, naming the creatures in harmony with God's will. Adam's act wasn't autonomous; it was a responsive, interpretive duty within God's established reality.
This highlights how natural and Supernatural Revelation work together. Our knowledge, though processed proximately in our minds, always refers back to God, the ultimate reference point, allowing for a balanced, God-centered epistemology.
Worldviews: Grounding Our Everyday Reality
Just as in epistemology, philosophy utilizes these starting points. A worldview provides the ultimate starting point for making sense of the world, while our everyday experiences and commonly accepted facts form the proximate or temporal starting point.
We all share many proximate starting points – common notions about the world. However, we "ground" or contextualize these facts within different ultimate frameworks or worldviews. The Christian grounds them in God and His creation, while the non-Christian might adopt various other ultimate foundations.
Cornelius Van Til, in Foundations of Christian Education (get the book here), critiqued the idea that religion is just a "condiment" added to life, irrelevant to supposedly "neutral" facts. He argued that even simple statements hold different ultimate meanings depending on one's worldview.
Consider the statement "two times two equals four."
Proximately: Both a Christian and a non-Christian affirm this mathematical truth.
Ultimately:
For the Christian, this truth connects to the concept of numerical law (proximate), which is rooted in the nature and will of God (ultimate). This simple fact deepens their understanding of God.
For the non-Christian, this fact is also part of a concept of law, but they interpret that law as existing independently of God (ultimate). The same fact leads them further away from God, grounding meaning in a framework detached from Him.
Therefore, while knowledge might appear identical at the surface (proximate) level, the underlying presuppositions (ultimate) create a fundamental difference.
The House and Its Beams: Living in God's Reality
Think of the relationship between ultimate and proximate starting points like a house and its supporting beams.
The beams represent the ultimate starting point (e.g., God's existence and creation).
The house represents the proximate starting point (our experience of reality).
Temporally, you become aware of the house (proximate experience) before you might consciously notice the beams (ultimate foundation). However, the beams continuously support the entire structure.
One could deny the existence of the beams, but the house would still stand – because the beams are there, providing support regardless of belief. This creates an internal conflict: the presupposition ("there are no beams") clashes with the proximate reality (the house stands). Similarly, one can deny God, in whom "we live and move and have our being," but reality doesn't collapse. Denying an ultimate truth doesn't make it false.
This is a key aspect of Van Til's apologetic: Non-Christians can attain true knowledge about the world because, despite their denial of God, they live in God's created reality. However, this knowledge contradicts their ultimate presuppositions. If their presuppositions were true (if God didn't exist), they couldn't truly know anything. This tension arises because, being made in God's image and living in His world, people unavoidably encounter truths that their non-theistic worldview cannot ultimately ground.
Knowing Facts vs. Truly Knowing
It's undeniable that people who aren't Christians achieve great things: they analyze data, reason logically, debate morality, and make scientific breakthroughs. They correctly identify parts of reality. However, from Van Til's perspective, this factually correct knowledge is ultimately understood within a false worldview. The overall meaning is considered incorrect because it's detached from God.
Camden Bucy clarified Van Til's view: 'knowing' isn't just about factual accuracy. For Van Til, knowledge is fundamentally ethical – tied to our relationship with and responsibility to God.
'True' or 'truly knowing' meant understanding things 'faithfully', acknowledging their place within God's creation and purpose.
Even correct factual knowledge (mathematical truths, scientific observations) grasped by someone outside this faith is considered ethically rebellious and ultimately false because it is held apart from acknowledging God's ultimate authority and creative power.
To truly know something, in this view, means recognizing it as created by God, for His glory – something only possible for those reconciled to God through Christ. While a non-Christian possesses factually accurate information (proximate knowledge), their ultimate understanding is flawed because it operates without acknowledging God as the source and sustainer of all reality.
Conclusion: The Indispensable Link
Understanding the distinction and relationship between proximate and ultimate starting points is vital. While our minds are the immediate interface with reality (proximate), true knowledge and coherent understanding require grounding in the ultimate reality of God. He is the source, sustainer, and final reference point for everything, ensuring that our interpretations can find stable footing beyond mere subjective experience.
Discussion