Abraham Kuyper’s Christian science and empirical science – different yet similar: An investigation into epistemological structures

Abstract

Abraham Kuyper wanted his fellow countrymen to accept biblically informed academic output as scientific and therefore authoritative. If Kuyper’s plans were to come to fruition, he would have to state the case for a Christian science in a way that made sense to an audience enamoured with empirical science. Kuyper did this when he adopted foundationalism as epistemological thought structure, just like empirical scientists did. He did also differ from empirical science in the sense that he took faith as the foundation for his epistemological thought structure. Although Kuyper’s choice for faith as foundation gave him the opportunity to introduce the Bible to scientific endeavour, his acceptance of foundationalism resulted in him dehumanising knowledge the same way empiricist scientist’s did.Abraham Kuyper se Christelike en empiriese wetenskappe - verskillend, dog dieselfde:‘n Ondersoek na epistemologiede denkstrukture. Abraham Kuyper wou dat sy tydgenote bybels-gefundeerde akademiese arbeid as wetenskaplike arbeid aanvaar. Ten einde dit tebewerkstellig moes Kuyper sy saak vir ’n Christen-wetenskap so stel dat dit sin kon maak vir sy tydgenote wat sterk onder die invloed van die waarde van empiriese wetenskapsbeoefening was. Kuyper het dit gedoen deur, soos die empiriese wetenskapsbeoefening, ook van ’n foundationalist epistemologiese denkstruktuur gebruik te maak. Hy het wel van die empiriese wetenskapsbeoefening verskil deur geloof as fondasie vir sy epistemologiese denkstruktuurte neem. Hoewel Kuyper se aandrang op geloof as fondasie hom die geleentheid gegee het om die Bybel by wetenskapsbeoefening te betrek, het sy aanvaarding van foundationalism tot gevolg gehad dat hy kennis op dieselfde wyse as die empiriese wetenskapsbeoefening dehumaniseer. [Full text article to follow]

Abraham Kuyper’s view of the natural sciences

“…Several scholars have reviewed and evaluated Kuyper's view of science these include van Woudenberg, 1999;Dooyeweerd, 2013;Ratzsch, 2013;Klapwijk, 2013a;Anderson 2003;Grönum andvan Rensburg, 2014. Ratzsch (2013, 323) is correct that Kuyper nowhere gives "a formal, detailed philosophy of science" although there are "there are bits and ints in many different places".…”