I think therefore, I think?

In several discussions I've had with atheists, when the issue of epistemology comes up (I try to start with that subject), I have often heard them respond by parroting Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Supposedly Descartes' formula gives them a basis for knowledge apart from God or divine revelation. When pressed to give an account of what they know, or how they know, the answer is often, "well, I think therefore, I am, that's where I begin." This is convenient for the atheist, and for all unregenerate men, because it supposedly give sufficiency to the autonomous human intellect. Indeed, many have even argued that with Descartes' famous formula, the modern world, or at least modern thought, began. But is it really sufficient, and does it really provide the unbeliever with a basis for knowledge claims?

Well, actually. No.

I used to get stumped by this one, and would try to go the route that "I think therefore I am" is not sufficient to give us a basis for knowledge of the outside world, or the assumption that our cognitive abilities reflect or "image" the world around us accurately. Only the assumption of the image of God could get us there. That is still a valid argument, and useful in certain contexts, but it gives the unbeliever too much. What do I mean? Well, "I think therefore I am" is simply a deductive argument with the assumption that "I" exists, hidden in its premise. Christian philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, and atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russel, pointed this out long ago. When Descartes said "I think," he already assumed 1) that he exists and 2) that he was the one doing the thinking. So to say "I think, therefore, I am" is similar to saying "all bachelors are unmarried." It tells us nothing new, and it certainly doesn't establish any basis for knowledge or knowledge of what exists through autonomous human reason. It merely assumes "I exist" and then smuggles that assumption into the premise and then the conclusion. If Descartes truly doubted everything he thought he knew in his meditations, he would have ended up simply with, "thoughts are occurring." That gets us nowhere, and it certainly establishes nothing about ontology (existence) or epistemology (knowledge). The title of this post is "I think therefore, I think?," but in reality it is more like, "there are thoughts, and so... yea?" Autonomous human reason fails here.

However, unbelievers know that they exist, they know that the world around them exists, and they know that their cognitive abilities can image the world around them, because ultimately they know God exists. But they know this in spite of their philosophy. In fact, their unbelief and commitment to independence from God distorts their thinking. This is why all lines of pagan thought and culture end in radical skepticism. That is why it is the Christian apologist's job to "push the antithesis," or to demonstrate that based upon their own premises, unbelievers can't know anything and they certainly cannot account for human experience. And actually, the more consistent unbelieving thought becomes, the easier it is to demonstrate the absurdity of it. Radical Skepticism's claims that "we can't know anything" is a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. Do they know that they can't know anything?

Man was not created to reason autonomously, but analogically. We were created to "think God's thoughts after him." The quest for intellectual autonomy began not with Descartes but with the Serpent when he invited Eve to reason autonomously apart from God and His revelation. As I mentioned above, unbelievers know that God exists because He is actively revealing Himself to them, both in the depths of their own consciousness, as well as in the world around them. Paul says in Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifestin them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." As Paul says, their problem is not intellectual but moral. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. And when he says suppress, he means suppress. They are not willing to admit to themselves or to others that they know God, because they are committed to independence from Him and do not want to face up to their cosmic treason. Yet their thinking about the world will continue to exhibit features that demonstrate they know God's existence. You can only hold a beach ball under water for so long. With Descartes it was the sense of "I" or personal existence, that he smuggled in. With the atheists it is often their strong sense of morality or "logic" which contradicts, and certainly doesn't flow from, their self-identified worldview.

Apologetics is done effectively then, when we demonstrate the insufficiency and impossibility of autonomous human thinking, while also pointing out the evidences in the unbeliever's own experience that demonstrates that they know God exists. Furthermore, and most importantly, they have no certainty, which undermines all of their knowledge claims. Only God's spoken Word and Spirit provides certainty about God, the world, and human experience as well as a context through which they are to be understood. We begin with the self-contained Trinity's spoken Word, not man's word spoken to himself, which gets him nowhere.

So the best way to begin with a transcendental argument from epistemology, is to simply ask an unbeliever if they could be wrong about everything they claim to know. If they are honest they will answer yes. If that is true they have no certainty, and thus no knowledge, according to their worldview. Contrast that with the Christian worldview, which says there are certain things that we cannot be wrong about, because God has revealed them, such that we can be certain. To see a practical example of this check out this.