Theology's Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide a Unified Response

by Kevin Diller

The problem of faith and reason is as old as Christianity itself. Today's philosophical, scientific and historical challenges make the epistemic problem inescapable for believers. Can faith justify its claims? Does faith give us confidence in the truth ? Is believing with certainty a virtue or a vice? In Theology?s Epistemological Dilemma , Kevin Diller addresses this problem by drawing on two of the most significant responses in recent Christian Karl Barth's theology of revelation and Alvin Plantinga's epistemology of Christian belief. This will strike many as unlikely, given the common stereotypes of both thinkers. Contrary to widespread misunderstanding, Diller offers a reading of both as complementary to each Barth provides what Plantinga lacks in theological depth, while Plantinga provides what Barth lacks in philosophical clarity. Diller presents a unified Barth/Plantinga proposal for theological epistemology capable of responding without anxiety to the questions that face believers today.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion

352 pages, Paperback

First published October 24, 2014

Reviews

[Jana Light · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this excellent, complex work, Diller tackles the excellent, complex question: Is there such a thing as theological knowledge? To frame his proposal, he looks at the claims of Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga, generally considered on different ends of the theological epistemological spectrum, and tries to argue that at heart, they share a similar theo-foundational view of this kind of knowledge that will help us put together a coherent understanding of what knowledge would look like in the theological sphere.

The "epistemological dilemma" to which Diller refers is this: We claim that knowledge of God is possible (it is at the root of our religious faith), while we also claim God to be "unknowable" and ourselves to be "broken." How do we find a way to reconcile the apparent conflicts between these three claims and form an internally-consistent view of theological knowledge?

Using the works of Barth and Plantinga, Diller argues for a view of theological epistemology that is wholly grounded in God's self-revealing to and redemptive work in man. We cannot fully reason our way "up" to God; theological knowledge must come from above and as such cannot be fully or perfectly expressed by any media by which we try to communicate these truths. As Diller says, "Christian theology must acknowledge itself an impoverished earthen vessel while daring not to diminish the value of the treasure it confesses." (1)

While I tend to disagree with Diller, Plantinga, and possibly Barth on their claims that we can have anything more than deep, confident belief about theological issues (knowledge being possible only in other, specific kinds of fields), Plantinga, as usual, is hard to argue with. I suspect my disagreement might stem from semantics rather than root concepts, but I will have to mull it over some more.

(Side note: I haven't read the works by Barth and Plantinga that Diller uses for his analysis, so I would be curious to hear what readers of those texts have to say about Diller's characterization of the men and their ideas. Diller's arguments appear sound to me, but I can't say for certain due to my limited familiarity with the primary texts.)

This is not an easy book, but it is incredibly rich and would make a great introduction, of sorts, to the field of theological epistemology. If you enjoy theology and philosophy, you should add this to your "must read" list immediately.

[Tim Wilder]

I simply don't buy Diller's interpretation of Barth. I don't think Barth really believed that Christianity was a matter of events in real space and time. That is, I don't think Barth thought of it as truth in the way Plantinga understands truth.

Remember Carl Henry's well known question to Barth at a press conference? Henry introduced himself as representing Christianity Today, and asked whether Barth thought that the resurrection of Jesus was the type of event that it would be the responsibility of the press to report. Barth got angry and retorted, Do you represent Christianity Today or Christianity Yesterday? Henry had trapped him. If Barth said yes, he would have betrayed his theology. If he said no, he would have exposed his theology. All Barth could do was evade the question.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

When Karl Barth, the great twentieth century theologian, famously denounced natural philosophy it appeared to some that he was anti-rational and no place for philosophy within his theological framework. Indeed he did reject a 'theology from below' which worked out a basis for belief in the Triune God through reason or from some generalized theistic position. But this does not preclude that possibility of Christian philosophy. Philosopher Kevin Diller (PhD, St. Andrews) brings the work of Karl Barth into conversation with Alvin Plantinga and argues that together they present a unified response to Theology's Epistemological Dilemma.

Diller aims at showing both the combined response of Barth and Plantinga to epistemic problems and their areas of incompatibility. The two great thinkers stand about a generation apart, and Plantinga did not interact much with Barth's theology. They occupied two different guilds in the academy, Plantinga's work is useful in some apologetics while Barth doubted the value of apologetics (102). In Barth, theology is personal while Plantinga jumps much quicker to propositional truth (100). Despite the differences, their respective projects both rest on the fact of Revelation as Divine gift.

Diller's book divides into two parts. In part one, Diller begins by identifying 'theology's epistemological dilemma. Modernity posits a high view of truth but is highly skeptical about human ability to apprehend truth. Postmodern approaches to epistemology are personal and pragmatic, valuing what is known by the individual but denying but is skeptical about an overarching Truth. Diller posits that neither option is available to the Christian theologian. Against post-modernity, Christians hold to a high view of truth; against modernity they assert that Truth can be known (albeit not through our cognitive means alone).

From here, Diller turns his attention to Barth's theology. In chapter two he illustrates that for Barth, theological knowledge is rooted in God's own self revelation, that knowing God is a personal, cognitive, participative knowledge (54), that it is self attested, Divine initiated grace (60), resulting in transformation and reconciliation with God (64). Chapter three explores the way that (and the degree that) Barth engages with philosphy. Contra Harnack and Pannenberg, Barth is not anti-rational and anti-philosophical but he does reject Enlightenment epistological assumptions, namely the: (1) the obligation assumption which argues that theological knowledge needs to account for the grounds of its metaphysical claims; (2) the general-starting point assumption which claims that such an account must stem from general epistemology; and the access-foundationalist assumption which anchors theological claims in trustworthy, readily accessible grounds (75). Over and against these, Barth argues that theological knowledge is not contingent on our fulfilling the obligation to give an account of said knowledge (76-7), that theological knowledge comes from above (through revelation) rather than being reasoned to from below (81), and therefore God is the ground for theological knowledge rather than nature (87-8). None of this negates the positive contribution of Philosophy. What Barth rejects is enlightenment style foundationalism and 'philosophy's presumed competency' to speak of God and matters of faith (90,92).

Diller than turns his attention toward Plantinga and shows how his idea of Warrant similarly calls the question on Enlightenment foundationalism and Scientific evidentialism. Yet, Plantinga is more positive on the role of reason though even positing a form of natural theology--a sensus divinitatis (147). Nevertheless, Diller sees ten areas of convergence between the two thinkers:

- The knowlege of God comes as a real gift.
- Tuth is 'theo-foundational'--grounded in God's self revelation.
- The revelation of God is transformational.
- Knowledge of God is corporately known through participation in the body of Christ (church).
- All knowledge of God is contingent in some way on the grace of God.
- Knowledge of God is both personal and cognitive (relational and propositional).
- Our knowledge of God is mediated to us through the Bible and church, but knowledge of God is not reducible to this medium.
- Communion with God is the only secure grounding for the knowledge of God.
- Theology is 'faith seeking understanding' and so is not concerned primarily with prolegomena but seeks to think in light of the givedness of God's self revelation
- Theological knowledge is coherent and warranted (169-72)
In Part Two, Diller explores further the tensions between Barth and Plantinga and the way that their unified response speak to the realm of natural theology and reason (chapter seven), the nature of revelation and human knowing (chapter eight) and the ontology and authority of scripture (chapter nine). Diller makes the case that Plantinga's version of natural theology is compatible with Barth's theology of revelation because it is rooted in God's revelation and does not function independently (219). Diller further demonstrates that their unified approach provides a beneficial place for apologetics (though a much more of a humble place than some of apologists' presume).

Diller's proposal of a unified Barth-Plantinga approach to epistemology is intriguing. I am a better reader of Barth than Plantinga and I think Diller does a good job of presenting Barth's views (especially as found in Church Dogmatics 1.1, which I am currently reading). He avoids many of the caricatures of Barth (i.e. he correctly points out that Barth is neither an apophatic theologian or against critical thinking). My knowledge of Plantinga's thought is mostly mediated to me through secondary literature, but I found Diller's description compelling. This does point a way forward for analytical theology and Christian philosophy and warrants careful study. I give this book five stars and recommend it for Christian theologians and philosophers. This is 'faith seeking understanding' at its finest. Five stars: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

Notice of material connection: I received this book from IVP Academic for the purposes of this review. I was not asked to write a positive review.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Combining the insights and work of Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga, Kevin Diller proposes a "theo-foundational" epistemology that utilizes Barth's doctrine of revelation with Plantinga's "warranted Christian belief." While this book is its own proposal in its own right, it also acts as a kind of primer for the thought of both mammoth 20th century thinkers. Being more "theologian" than "philosopher," some of the analytic stuff kind of went over my head, but acts as a nice help toward understanding the issues and questions that both Barth and Plantinga were facing.

There are all sorts of issues covered: natural law, faith and reason, ontology of Scripture, and much more. This is highly recommended for seminarians and academics, but might be a little confusing and laborious for lay readers.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it.

[Zach Brandt · Rating 4 out of 5]

- Skepticism: We cannot certify the reliability of our own noetic resources independently from those same resources. We cannot prove our reasoning is accurate without using our reasoning. Circularity is inevitable. We cannot demonstrate we are not deluded—not just regarding theological knowledge, but all knowledge. That’s not a problem. We can assume certain things without demonstration. We don’t have to play to the skeptic’s demands. We can assume there is such a thing as knowledge and we can assume the reality of the external world.

- Summary of Barth: Knowledge of God is from above to below. Revelation entails gratitude, not grasping. Unidirectional movement from God to us. There is no way to know God that is under our control. Theo-foundationalism. Barth breaks with the post-enlightenment epistemological assumptions. I don’t understand Barth’s view of propositional revelation. Is Diller right that Barth affirms some kind of propositional revelation? Are propositions second-order reflections on the knowing relationship the subject has with God, or are they the ground of that knowing relationship?

- Summary of Plantinga: Evidentialism is epistemic works-righteousness. There are no non-circular arguments for or against the existence of God. Plantinga’s A/C model: the human mind has a sense of divinity implanted by God. Though affected by sin, the Internal Instigation of the Holy Spirit (IIHS) can provide a human with the necessary conditions to form Christian belief. While Plantinga cannot prove this model is true, there is good reason to think that if God exists, then it is true. Under this model, Christian belief is warranted. Evidence is not necessary to have warranted faith in this model. Therefore, atheists cannot object to Christian epistemology as a means of objecting to faith. Rather, they must object to Christian ontology. Faith is grounded in the experience of God, but it is not an argument based on religious experience. It is an immediate apprehension of divinity. See Edwards.

- Diller’s Proposal: 10 points - 1) Knowledge of God is a gift. 2) Theo-foundational. 3) Freely transformational. 4) Corporatly known. 5) Knowledge of God by grace alone. 6) Personal and cognitive. 7) Mediated—but not reduced to the medium. 8) The only secure ground. 9) Theological epistemology, not prolegomena (begins with the revelation of God, doesn’t work toward it). 10) Coherent and warranted.

- Theology and Reason:
- 4 tips for engaging in natural theology: Refuse skepticist standards of knowing. Don’t be too logic-y. Don’t be disingenuous. Be committed to Christianity.

- Thoughts to explore:
- Doxastic experiences for Plantinga. Connection to Edwards and the sight of God’s glory. Dual meaning of doxa in Greek.
- Barth’s propositional revelation
- Does natural theology violate sola gratia? Does it play to Feuerbach?
- Is God bound to the creaturely medium of Scripture? If so, in what way? Implications for inerrancy?
- Can God intentionally speak falsehoods to reveal truths? Is this accommodation in Calvin’s sense?

[Ken Reese · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes you read a book that ties together related ideas with such precision that it creates a new framework—perhaps even a foundation—for your thinking going forward. This work crystallized and sharpened my research question for my dissertation and will likely be foundational for my thesis. Wonderful. Don’t skim; engage.

[Richard Mounce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good work. Interesting synthesis

[Harley Wykes · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good attempt at uniting the epistemologies of both the best Christian theologian and philosopher of the last century.

[Dan Lawler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Are Barth's Beliefs Warranted?

Knowledge of God is a human possibility only by the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. (Karl Barth)

Barth performs something of a semantic magic trick with the above statement by creating the illusion of meaning with undefined connotation words. When Barth, a professing Christian, employs the words "God" and "Jesus" he lets his readers infuse those words with meanings that more or less correspond to what the Christian Bible says about God and Jesus. That is not how Barth himself is actually using the terms. A better way to read the above statement is: "Knowledge of Entity X is a human possibility only by the self-revelation of Entity X in Being Y" and the only thing you can ever know about Entity X is what Entity X directly reveals to you through ineffable mental events.

Barth does not and cannot say anything that is objectively true about Entity X or Being Y. He can only reflect upon his own ineffable mental events received from Entity X, and while his reflections on the events include the words "God" and "Jesus," those terms do not necessarily correspond to how they are used in the Bible.

Author Kevin Diller attempts to buttress Barth's neo-orthodox theology with Alvin Plantinga's Reformed epistemology. The main problem is that there is no point of contact between the two when it comes to knowledge of God because Barth and Plantinga use the word "God" in completely different ways. Plantinga means the God described in the Christian Scriptures while Barth means the entity that produces ineffable events in Barth's mind and, from Barth's perspective, there is no way that Plantinga's God can be compared or contrasted to Barth's entity. Moreover, for all anyone can know, the cause of the mental events occurring in Barth's brain is not the God of the Bible but the fanciful workings of Barth's own imagination, or a delusion, or perhaps even some malevolent spirit entity disguising itself as an angel of light. No one can say for sure, not even Barth himself.

For Plantinga, epistemological warrant supporting belief in the truth of the propositions of Scripture comes from the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit who conveys to the believer a basic sense that what the Scriptures say is true (at least as to what the Scriptures say about the broader concepts of the gospel of Jesus Christ). Diller wants to extend this warrant, not to belief in the truth of Scripture, but to belief in the existence of an entity that causes ineffable events to occur in one's brain and that the mental events are the entity's disclosure of itself to the person experiencing the event. This supposed warrant would not extend, however, to any rational description of the event that the experiencer might come up with upon reflection. In other words, neither the experiencer nor anyone else would be justified in believing that what the experiencer has to say about the entity's self-disclosure is true.

Any information obtainable through Barth's theology is incommunicable, which raises the question of whether incommunicable information constitutes knowledge at all, and whether it is meaningful to speak of epistemological warrant for an incommunicable belief. In the end, Barth's theology cannot find warrant in Plantinga's epistemology.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a beneficial read. The last two chapters ("Faith and Revelation: What Constitutes a Genuine Human Knowledge of God?" and "Scripture and Theology: Warrant and the Normativity of Scripture?") are the best.