This essay presents an emerging conception of truth and shows how it appropriates Herman Dooyeweerd’s conception. First I compare my “critical hermeneutics” with other reformational models of critique. Then I propose to think of truth as a dynamic correlation between (1) human fidelity to societal principles and (2) a life-giving disclosure of society. This conception recontextualizes the notion of propositional truth, and it links questions of intersubjective validity with Dooyeweerd’s emphasis on “standing in the truth.” While abandoning his idea of transcendent truth, I seek to preserve the holism and normativity of Dooyeweerd’s radical conception.

This study investigates the challenges to the legitimacy and authority of scientific research in late modern philosophy of science. The author suggests that the different challenges to the legitimacy of science have led to relativism and amount to a crisis. Keeping in mind the positivist background, he illustrates the legitimacy crisis of science in the period from Popper to the present. In particular his analysis focuses on the "historical school" (Kuhn, Feyerabend etc.) in philosophy of science. The main question of this study is: what are the causes and the nature of the legitimacy crisis emerging in the contemporary philosophical assessment of science? To answer this question, a few specific challenges to the legitimacy of science emerging in particular areas are analysed: for example the difficulties of anchoring scientific certitude to its proper object of study, the loss of objectivity, growing scepticism about the possibility of communication and scientific progress. After substantiating the gradual emergence of relativist and sceptical approaches in the abovementioned areas, this study provides a "diagnosis" aiming at identifying the causes of the crisis. The humanist ground motive of nature and freedom and the choice of anchoring scientific certainty either in the subject or in the object of knowledge are considered the main sources of the crisis. They lead to arbitrary absolutisations of particular aspects of the scientific enterprise and (in the case of subjectivist approaches) to sceptical approaches to the possibility of scientific objectivity, communication and progress. This study also indicates a few possible resources, available in the reformational tradition, to counteract the legitimacy crisis of science. The main resource indicated in this study is the recognition of the structural order for reality, which is accessible to scientific analysis, "constrains" scientific research but also constitutes a common ground for researchers. Other important resources are the recognition of the link between scientific and pre-scientific knowledge and the acknowledgment that universality and individuality are traits of everything that exists. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Philosophy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

This study investigates the challenges to the legitimacy and authority of scientific research in late modern philosophy of science. The author suggests that the different challenges to the legitimacy of science have led to relativism and amount to a crisis. Keeping in mind the positivist background, he illustrates the legitimacy crisis of science in the period from Popper to the present. In particular his analysis focuses on the "historical school" (Kuhn, Feyerabend etc.) in philosophy of science. The main question of this study is: what are the causes and the nature of the legitimacy crisis emerging in the contemporary philosophical assessment of science? To answer this question, a few specific challenges to the legitimacy of science emerging in particular areas are analysed: for example the difficulties of anchoring scientific certitude to its proper object of study, the loss of objectivity, growing scepticism about the possibility of communication and scientific progress. After substantiating the gradual emergence of relativist and sceptical approaches in the abovementioned areas, this study provides a "diagnosis" aiming at identifying the causes of the crisis. The humanist ground motive of nature and freedom and the choice of anchoring scientific certainty either in the subject or in the object of knowledge are considered the main sources of the crisis. They lead to arbitrary absolutisations of particular aspects of the scientific enterprise and (in the case of subjectivist approaches) to sceptical approaches to the possibility of scientific objectivity, communication and progress. This study also indicates a few possible resources, available in the reformational tradition, to counteract the legitimacy crisis of science. The main resource indicated in this study is the recognition of the structural order for reality, which is accessible to scientific analysis, "constrains" scientific research but also constitutes a common ground for researchers. Other important resources are the recognition of the link between scientific and pre-scientific knowledge and the acknowledgment that universality and individuality are traits of everything that exists. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Philosophy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

The key issue in recent debates of Christian apologetics is whether there is any common ground of data and criteria between believers and unbelievers. Two main schools are divided on this issue, namely: evidential and presuppositional apologetics. The evidential apologists claim that a common ground exists, and that objective proofs of theism are possible from this common ground. In contrast, the presuppositional apologists argue that there is no common ground; and they maintain that theoretical arguments (including apologetic ones) are unavoidably prejudiced by religious presuppositions. In this study, both sides are claimed to have their own flaws. The former apologetics has the flaw that its epistemic foundation (i.e., “classical foundationalism”) is fatally defective; and it is criticised by the reformational philosophical tradition, as well as secular contemporary (postmodern) epistemology. In contrast, the latter apologetics has the flaw that when the existence of common ground is entirely denied, the problems of circular reasoning (hence, relativism) and total communication breakdown are unavoidable. In order to clarify and deepen the issue, the tradition of reformational philosophy, which is represented by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and Van Til is first examined; and it is shown that all three scholars struggle with the tension between antithesis and common ground; and they attempt their own solution. Secondly, the contemporary anti-foundationalist epistemology is examined; and it is shown that the same tension exists between “radical” and “moderate” postmodern (anti-foundationalist) epistemologies; and their debate is on-going – without any satisfactory conclusion. As a solution, it is suggested that the notion of common ground should be distinguished by the ontological and epistemological dimensions. From the epistemological standpoint, all knowledge is prejudiced; and no objective conclusion (on the issue of e.g., theism) can be arrived at by so-called “neutral” rational arguments. However, from the ontological standpoint, it is undeniable that all kinds of knowledge are made possible by certain universal (transcendental) conditions, which constitute the ontic common ground. In this distinction, the confusion is caused by the false assumption that the ontic common ground is meant to function as an epistemic neutral criterion. In contrast, this study argues that the ontic common ground functions only as the condition for the possibility of legitimate knowledge (including apologetic arguments). As a result, this study claims that traditional apologetics, based on objective theistic proofs should be abandoned, and that (radical) presuppositional apologetics needs to be modified. Therefore, as an alternative approach, a new “integral apologetics” is proposed – on the basis of Dooyeweerd’s modal theory of reality. This approach emphasizes the need to utilize different types of knowledge, which together could strengthen the apologetic persuasion towards Christian theism, and take into consideration of the whole context of apologetic dialogue. / PhD (International Trade), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The key issue in recent debates of Christian apologetics is whether there is any common ground of data and criteria between believers and unbelievers. Two main schools are divided on this issue, namely: evidential and presuppositional apologetics. The evidential apologists claim that a common ground exists, and that objective proofs of theism are possible from this common ground. In contrast, the presuppositional apologists argue that there is no common ground; and they maintain that theoretical arguments (including apologetic ones) are unavoidably prejudiced by religious presuppositions. In this study, both sides are claimed to have their own flaws. The former apologetics has the flaw that its epistemic foundation (i.e., “classical foundationalism”) is fatally defective; and it is criticised by the reformational philosophical tradition, as well as secular contemporary (postmodern) epistemology. In contrast, the latter apologetics has the flaw that when the existence of common ground is entirely denied, the problems of circular reasoning (hence, relativism) and total communication breakdown are unavoidable. In order to clarify and deepen the issue, the tradition of reformational philosophy, which is represented by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd and Van Til is first examined; and it is shown that all three scholars struggle with the tension between antithesis and common ground; and they attempt their own solution. Secondly, the contemporary anti-foundationalist epistemology is examined; and it is shown that the same tension exists between “radical” and “moderate” postmodern (anti-foundationalist) epistemologies; and their debate is on-going – without any satisfactory conclusion. As a solution, it is suggested that the notion of common ground should be distinguished by the ontological and epistemological dimensions. From the epistemological standpoint, all knowledge is prejudiced; and no objective conclusion (on the issue of e.g., theism) can be arrived at by so-called “neutral” rational arguments. However, from the ontological standpoint, it is undeniable that all kinds of knowledge are made possible by certain universal (transcendental) conditions, which constitute the ontic common ground. In this distinction, the confusion is caused by the false assumption that the ontic common ground is meant to function as an epistemic neutral criterion. In contrast, this study argues that the ontic common ground functions only as the condition for the possibility of legitimate knowledge (including apologetic arguments). As a result, this study claims that traditional apologetics, based on objective theistic proofs should be abandoned, and that (radical) presuppositional apologetics needs to be modified. Therefore, as an alternative approach, a new “integral apologetics” is proposed – on the basis of Dooyeweerd’s modal theory of reality. This approach emphasizes the need to utilize different types of knowledge, which together could strengthen the apologetic persuasion towards Christian theism, and take into consideration of the whole context of apologetic dialogue. / PhD (International Trade), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The aim of this project is to discern possible patterns in the changes of epistemic frameworks and in the way in which factors cause or stimulate such changes. Article 1 illustrates forms of consensus between the views of various prominent 20th century philosophers of science on the characteristics and functions of pre-scientific frameworks in scientific activity. This is done by highlighting various helpful insights from the reformational tradition as a point of departure. Article 2 attempts to achieve more clarity on how changes in epistemic frameworks occur, whilst article 3 discerns the factors influencing framework change. Article 4 illustrates and evaluates the relationship between change and constancy in the viewpoints of various philosophers and scientists throughout history. The project suggests that change and constancy can be related to epistemic frameworks according to a pattern referring to the irreducibility of coherents where change and constancy exist in cohesion. As a consequence, change is never completely random or absolute. Although a broad variety of factors play a role in framework changes, a pattern can be discerned in the sense that some factors play a regulative role, so that change is dynamic but not arbitrary. / Thesis (PhD (Philosophy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

The aim of this project is to discern possible patterns in the changes of epistemic frameworks and in the way in which factors cause or stimulate such changes. Article 1 illustrates forms of consensus between the views of various prominent 20th century philosophers of science on the characteristics and functions of pre-scientific frameworks in scientific activity. This is done by highlighting various helpful insights from the reformational tradition as a point of departure. Article 2 attempts to achieve more clarity on how changes in epistemic frameworks occur, whilst article 3 discerns the factors influencing framework change. Article 4 illustrates and evaluates the relationship between change and constancy in the viewpoints of various philosophers and scientists throughout history. The project suggests that change and constancy can be related to epistemic frameworks according to a pattern referring to the irreducibility of coherents where change and constancy exist in cohesion. As a consequence, change is never completely random or absolute. Although a broad variety of factors play a role in framework changes, a pattern can be discerned in the sense that some factors play a regulative role, so that change is dynamic but not arbitrary. / Thesis (PhD (Philosophy))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

The task of a reformed apologetics is the application of both theology and philosophy in the confrontation with unbelievers, bridging the gap between the natural man and the Gospel of Christ and trying to do justice to the multi-aspectual, existential and constitutive sides of created reality. In the Festschrift of Cornelius Van Til, two well-known reformational philosophers, Herman Dooyeweerd of the Netherlands and Hendrik Stoker of South Africa, among others, discussed with Van Til the methodology of Christian apologetics (Jerusalem and Athens 1971: viii). The investigation focus on the reflections of Dooyeweerd and Stoker on Van Til’s method, which attempted to break away from classical methods and to reform apologetics biblically. Thence, constructive criticisms, methodological integration of reformational insights and the opening up of new avenues of apologetic discourse follows after a structural evaluation of the dialogue between the three thinkers, leading to a Trinitarian, Modal-spherical method (TMSA) of apologetics, while still presupposing the biblical and triune essence of Van Til’s pressuppositional apologetics. After absorbing and integrating inter-related elements in its Trinitarian framework, the new method of apologetics will be introduced to broader Christianity via two integralist accounts of traditional Christian philosophy, both inspired by an interpretation Neo-Thomism, which in many respects correspond to the Neo-Calvinist vision. So that after non-dualistically expanding TMSA’s methodological foundation and scope of interaction non-, it can be briefly introduced to other nuances of apologetics at the final step of the thesis, in the hope of contributing for the ongoing reformation of the Church and its apologetic endevour. / MA (Missiology), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The task of a reformed apologetics is the application of both theology and philosophy in the confrontation with unbelievers, bridging the gap between the natural man and the Gospel of Christ and trying to do justice to the multi-aspectual, existential and constitutive sides of created reality. In the Festschrift of Cornelius Van Til, two well-known reformational philosophers, Herman Dooyeweerd of the Netherlands and Hendrik Stoker of South Africa, among others, discussed with Van Til the methodology of Christian apologetics (Jerusalem and Athens 1971: viii). The investigation focus on the reflections of Dooyeweerd and Stoker on Van Til’s method, which attempted to break away from classical methods and to reform apologetics biblically. Thence, constructive criticisms, methodological integration of reformational insights and the opening up of new avenues of apologetic discourse follows after a structural evaluation of the dialogue between the three thinkers, leading to a Trinitarian, Modal-spherical method (TMSA) of apologetics, while still presupposing the biblical and triune essence of Van Til’s pressuppositional apologetics. After absorbing and integrating inter-related elements in its Trinitarian framework, the new method of apologetics will be introduced to broader Christianity via two integralist accounts of traditional Christian philosophy, both inspired by an interpretation Neo-Thomism, which in many respects correspond to the Neo-Calvinist vision. So that after non-dualistically expanding TMSA’s methodological foundation and scope of interaction non-, it can be briefly introduced to other nuances of apologetics at the final step of the thesis, in the hope of contributing for the ongoing reformation of the Church and its apologetic endevour. / MA (Missiology), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014