Papers by Erik Sorem
Orthodox MontaNika Conference, 2024
SOPHIA Conference, 2026
In this paper I take the famous quote from Tertullian, “What does Athens to do with Jerusalem?”, ... more In this paper I take the famous quote from Tertullian, “What does Athens to do with Jerusalem?”, and explore how the Eastern Orthodox Church understands the relation between philosophy (Athens) and faith (Jerusalem). I argue that while Christianity did not begin in the arms of philosophy, at times even marginalizing pagan Greek philosophical faith in reason, the Church nevertheless took terms and distinctions from pagan philosophers to articulate the Faith “once delivered for all to the saints” and help explain the truths revealed to us from God. Consequently, I inquire into how Christians should view philosophy and human reason specifically in relation to what has been revealed. I argue that the Eastern Orthodox Church did not accept the type of Natural Theology that later developed in the Latin West, which is different from what Orthodox call “natural revelation.” I articulate the differences between these two conceptions and argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has fundamentally a different view of faith and knowledge, one that places an emphasis on the experiential and incarnational reality of both. Orthodoxy does not attempt to epistemically justify her theology on autonomous human reason and philosophy, but rather on the transformative encounter with the living God through the revelation of the Holy Trinity and the life and person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, philosophy and human reason are only justified in light of the personal revelation to man from God.
SOPHIA Conference, 2025
In this paper I examine the very nature of epistemic theories and whether any theory can overcome... more In this paper I examine the very nature of epistemic theories and whether any theory can overcome the problem of its own justification. I will attempt to show that metatheoretical validation requires justifying the fundamental premises of an epistemic theory. These fundamental premises either cannot be justified because they are merely assumed without any supplementary warrant or they are justified because of other premises, which inevitably leads back to their justification either being the theory itself (epistemic circularity) or it gives rise to an endless chain of reasons in which the justification for each premise presupposes the justification of the previous premise and this of still another and so on ad infinitum. I conclude that although there may be conditions that serve to be "justifications" that give rise to real instances of knowledge at the 1st-order, the insurmountable difficulties with metatheoretical validation leaves us incapable of producing an epistemic theory that would allow us to assess those theories validity without already presupposing an unjustified answer to the original question about the nature of knowledge. In other words, it may be possible to have 1st-order knowledge, but we won't be able to say whether we have knowledge or not (2nd-order knowledge) without already begging the question about what knowledge is. I then offer a solution to this seemingly impossible problem and skeptical challenge.
This paper provides a philosophical analysis into the necessary conditions for the possibility of... more This paper provides a philosophical analysis into the necessary conditions for the possibility of knowledge and explores what could satisfy these conditions so as to provide a sufficient justification criterion for the existence of knowledge. More specifically, I look at two possibilities for grounding and justifying knowledge: theonomous epistemology (revelatory theism) and autonomous epistemology (what the mind could know apart from assuming divine revelation). I make a distinction between knowing (1 st order knowledge) versus claims about knowledge (2 nd order knowledge) to show that establishing "that knowledge exists" requires justification at the 2 nd order. I acknowledge that while it is possible to know something (1 st order) without knowing that one knows (2 nd order), claims about the existence of knowledge reveal a unique epistemic problem that requires justification at the 2 nd order. The consequence of this is that one can never affirm 1 st order knowledge statements without making 2 nd order knowledge statements, which results in epistemic-bootstrapping and vicious circularity. I argue that these problems specifically arise from autonomous epistemology and they make grounding and justifying claims that knowledge exists impossible. I show that theonomous epistemology avoids these problems and provides a solution to establishing the necessary conditions for the possibility of knowledge.
This paper argues that the ideologies of Modernity motivating our technological age pose one of t... more This paper argues that the ideologies of Modernity motivating our technological age pose one of the greatest dangers to humanity. I first outline the various ideas arising out of the Enlightenment project commonly associated with modernity and show how they give rise to “secular humanism.” Next, I argue that the idea of “secular humanism” dominating the modern technological movement was created within the theological framework of Western Christianity. In this way, I hope to demonstrate that the dangers of the Enlightenment experiment, and the rise of secular humanism, occur because of the West’s departure from the Orthodox Faith. Consequently, modernity’s atheistic moral-project leads man to a second fall, destroying the correct moral and ontological framework necessary for a proper anthropology. This has resulted in the rejection of God and tradition, amounting to a set of demoralized practices that views all of nature, including man, without any real objective meaning. Therefore, modern man in rebellion against God and the Holy Orthodox Church has resorted to power and production rather than truth and uses technology not to serve the highest concerns of man. Technology is now being used with the intention to increase production and profit, as well as maximizing control over people, the results of which have been overall destructive to humanity.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of apophaticism as the proper mode in preparing o... more The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of apophaticism as the proper mode in preparing one to encounter the divine and truly know God. I consider both the character of human thought and language as they relate to the Orthodox Faith and the ineffable nature of the transcendent God. I attempt to show that the only valid justification for the possibility of knowledge is for man to presuppose what has been revealed to the Orthodox Christian Church – that the essence of God is incomprehensible and greater than ever can be thought – which humbly prepares one for the apophatic ascent to the divine in order to participate in the life of God through His divine energies.
Thesis Chapters by Erik Sorem
Drafts by Erik Sorem
IOTA Conference, Volos Greece, 2023
This paper provides a philosophical critique of natural theology as it is commonly understood in ... more This paper provides a philosophical critique of natural theology as it is commonly understood in the West. I begin by discussing what is meant by natural theology and argue how this is different from the Eastern Orthodox conception of natural theology (i.e., natural revelation). I define natural theology as “a program of inquiry into the existence and attributes of God without referring or appealing to any divine revelation. In natural theology, one asks what the word “God” means, whether and how names can be applied to God, whether God exists, whether God knows the future free choices of creatures, and so forth. The aim is to answer those questions without using any claims drawn from any sacred texts or divine revelation, even though one may hold such claims.” Consequently, natural theology can be said to be what the human mind, by the “light of natural reason alone,” as Aquinas himself puts it, can know about God apart from revelation. The critique of natural theology, however, does not amount to abandoning reason in favor of fideism by simply presupposing God and His Divine Revelation. As I will discuss, this critique of natural theology is an epistemological analysis and attempt to establish a proper foundation for knowledge and reasoning that doesn’t rely on unjustified or arbitrary assumptions by showing that the natural theology is a philosophical project committed to several fundamental errors.
Publication forthcoming, 2021
This paper investigates the conditions of knowledge pertaining to science, distinguishing genuine... more This paper investigates the conditions of knowledge pertaining to science, distinguishing genuine science from pseudoscience as it relates to Covid-19. I discuss the relationship between science and socio-political structures, illustrating how science can be corrupted into scientism. I argue that the current dominating ideology of technocracy, a form of "modern gnosticism," is incompatible with Christianity, since it sees the cosmos not as a divine order but a man-made system created by a will to power to dominate man and nature. I show that this Promethean rebellion against God results in the Nietzschian deicide and gnostic recreation of the order of being that leads to our current technocratic totalitarianism and corrupted science concerning Covid-19.
This paper discusses the relationship between science and the socio-political structures in histo... more This paper discusses the relationship between science and the socio-political structures in history. I discuss how science can be corrupted and transformed into Scientism by what Eric Voegelin calls modern gnosticism. Identifying the radical shift in thinking that occurs in modernity, I argue that the cosmos is no longer seen as a divine order, but a man-made system created by a will to power and exploitation of nature. This gnostic recreation of the order of being inevitably leads to our current technocratic totalitarianism and corrupted science.
Uploads
Papers by Erik Sorem
Thesis Chapters by Erik Sorem
Drafts by Erik Sorem