# Scottish Common Sense Realism



## Romans922 (Aug 25, 2006)

Could anyone explain or find a link that would explain Scottish common sense realism, especially in the thoughts of John Witherspoon?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 25, 2006)

Morrison, Jeffry H. John Witherspoon and the Founding of the American Republic. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005.

is an excellent place to start. It will help remedy some of the mischief done by progressive evangelical accounts of CSR. Kim Riddlebarger's PhD (available via his blog) is also an excellent account. 

Bill Davis' PhD Diss (at Notre Dame available via UMI or inter-library loan) on Th. Reid is also very useful. 

The debate is whether and to what degree CSR was guilty of Enlightenment rationalism and to what degree and how it affected Princeton. The argument has been made for 40 years or so that CSR and and not theological and exegetical conviction is responsible for the Princeton doctrine of Scripture. 

rsc



> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Could anyone explain or find a link that would explain Scottish common sense realism, especially in the thoughts of John Witherspoon?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 25, 2006)

Gary North deals somewhat with Scottish Common Sense Realism and Witherspoon in _Political Polytheism_, and he makes reference to Mark Knoll as a "specialist in this field":



> Mark A. Noll (eel.), _The Princeton Theology 1812-1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1983). His footnotes in the introductions to each chapter lead the student into the background of Scottish realist philosophy.


.

Parnell McCarter also has an article which treats Witherspoon's philosophy.

Scottish Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century

Scottish School of Common Sense

Common Sense


----------



## caddy (Aug 25, 2006)

CSR is discussed quite a bit in Nancy Pearcy's Book "Total Truth"


----------



## Peter (Aug 25, 2006)

Isn't R.L. Dabney considered a CSR?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 25, 2006)

Mark Noll's account of CSR (and to some degree Marsden's) is one to which I was referring. 

Yes, the Princetonians were influenced by a version of CSR, but it was moderated by their commitment to orthodoxy (both catholic and Reformed). Did they have a high view of reason? Yes. Did C. Hodge, particularly, use some infelicitous language at times? 

It's allegedly pernicious effects have been quite overstated. Was there some effect? Yes. Exactly how and to what degree must be stated much more carefully than has usually been done, with the exceptions I listed above.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Isn't R.L. Dabney considered a CSR?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 4, 2006)

According to the Dabney biography I recently read, he reasoned with Common Sense.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 5, 2006)

What exactly is SCSR?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Sep 5, 2006)

It would seem to be an appeal to those things which everybody really knows, like the necessity for cause and effect, efficient causes, sufficient causes, and other such things. I believe it has been termed an "evidential" apologetic, as opposed to a "presuppositional" apologetic, which would indicate that it appeals to what is evident to all men to prove the existance of God etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Common_Sense#Philosophy_and_common_sense


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 5, 2006)

Actually, the version of CSR adapted by Princeton represented the dominant view in Reformed theology from the 17th century until recently.

That doesn't make it correct, of course, but it does create a certain presumption in its favor. 

I'm not a philosopher nor a son of a philosopher, but I've seen good arguments (that I cannot reproduce here) to the effect that Plantinga's version of CSR can be synthesized nicely with Van Til's apologetic.

At bottom, CSR (as adapted) simply says that, by virtue of creation, our sense perception (all things being in working order) are generally reliable. We can make decisions based on sense perceptions, as opposed to idealism (e.g., Plato) whereby our senses are said to be sources of illusion and we're sent "within" (to the soul) to find real (intellectual, eternal) truth.

I've found Plantinga's account of CSR useful as a way of accounting for how I can see and read Scripture and reasonably believe that I'm not seeing some illusion. 

It's also consonant with Paul's arguments in Rom 1-2, that all humans have roughly the same experience of natural revelation, that there are certain evident truths that they perceive and which convict them and leave them without excuse. All humans, by virtue of the natural revelation of certain of God's attributes have a true but non-soteric knowledge of God. They know the law (love God and their fellows). It's written on their conscience as well. 

Paul's argument for a sort of universal sense perception seems to be similar to a sort of CSR. 

Best,

rsc



> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> It would seem to be an appeal to those things which everybody really knows, like the necessity for cause and effect, efficient causes, sufficient causes, and other such things. I believe it has been termed an "evidential" apologetic, as opposed to a "presuppositional" apologetic, which would indicate that it appeals to what is evident to all men to prove the existance of God etc.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Common_Sense#Philosophy_and_common_sense


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 5, 2006)

Here is some comment on Dabney's philosophy from Nick Willborn's intro to The Sensualistic Philosophy (see NP)


> Next to The Practical Philosophy, Dabney considered The SensualisÂ¬tic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered (1875 and 1887) as his ablest work. He was, not unlike a number of very able eighteenth and nineteenth century theologians, a practitioner of Scottish ComÂ¬mon Sense Realism. Yet, he has recently been described as an eclectic in his utilization of the Common Sense Philosophy. Certainly he was no slave to a philosophical system that was in his day in substantial flux. Still it is accurate for categorization to label him a Common Sense Realist. As a Scottish Realist he held tenaciously to "œthat class of truths known as primary cognitions, innate ideas, [and] first truths." Dabney held these "œfirst truths," to be "œfaith assumptions," to borrow from Dr. Douglas Kelly. As such, the "œfirst truths" influÂ¬enced and shaped human reasoning. Furthermore, Kelly likened Dabney to Cornelius Van Til in the way he consistently showed how non-theists "œreasoned on the basis of unproven, faith assumptions." 1
> 
> In relation to the more famous Scottish names associated with Common Sense, Dabney followed Thomas Reid most closely. With his greatest energies Dabney plied his philosophical skills in reducing to absurdity the sensational philosophies of Berkeley, Condillac, Hobbes, Locke, James Mill, J.S. Mill, and Spencer. Evidence of his eclecticism and objectivity is seen in his many correctives offered to fellow Scottish Realist, Sir William Hamilton. Dabney´s criticisms of his fellow Realists and refinements to the philosophical system he utilized so fully make him an interesting and profitable study for conÂ¬temporary philosophers and apologists. This would be particularly true of those apologists who share Dabney´s commitment to Reformed or Calvinistic theology. Dabney is proof that regardless of our nuanced differences in apologetics, we can learn much from the older theology and philosophy.
> 
> ...


----------



## tewilder (Sep 5, 2006)

The best place to start on this topic is a series of articles in recent issues <i>Christianity & Society</i> (Kuyper Foundation) by David Estrada, Professor emeritus in the philosophy department of the University of Barcelona. 

There is also Roger Shult's master's thesis on Witherspoon that came out some years ago in <i>The Journal of Christian Reconstruction,</i> where he differs with Mark Noll's biggoted liberalism. 

Another avenue to take is the use of Reid in Reformed Epistemology. Wolterstorff is a member of the Reid Society and and written things friendly to Reid, and there are many footnotes to Reid in Plantinga's work. Also there is journal literature on Plantinga's use of Reid.


----------

