# One more question for the Clarkians



## Dan.... (Aug 14, 2007)

I'm reading Gordon Clark's Intro to Philosophy and one thing that I don't see where he covers (maybe someone can point out where he alludes to this, I probably missed it) is the following question in my mind:

How do we *know* what the scriptures say?

If we allow for the axiom that special revelation is knowledge and that the Scriptures are the special revelation of God, then for me to know anything requires that I hear/read scripture. But how do I do this apart from my empirical receptors (hearing/seeing)?

If the attainment of knowledge is dependent on the trustworthiness of what I read or hear (of Scripture), then can I say that I have truly heard or read? How do I *know* that my empirical receptors aren't misleading me (concerning Scripture)?


----------



## CDM (Aug 14, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> I'm reading Gordon Clark's Intro to Philosophy and one thing that I don't see where he covers (maybe someone can point out where he alludes to this, I probably missed it) is the following question in my mind:
> 
> How do we *know* what the scriptures say?
> 
> ...



a big big big  you just opened.


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 14, 2007)

mangum said:


> a big big big  you just opened.



Has this been discussed before? (it probably has).



...and, if I had not titled the thread, "one more question," I might ask a second question that just came to mind:

If I somehow were to conclude that my empirical receptors are trustworthy and that what I am hearing/reading is actually revealed knowledge (i.e., is actually the Scriptures), then, how do I know that I am cognitively understanding what I am hearing/reading?

...but alas, I messed up by saying, "one more question." 


If these questions have reasonable answers I might be persuaded to be a Clarkian.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

Dan:

How do you know you're reading Clark's book?


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Aug 14, 2007)

Remember that the process by which we know what the Scriptures say is not a problem only for Clarkians, it is a problem for all Christian philosophers. Don't hold me to it (as I am not an expert on Clark) but I believe his answer is that the knowledge of the Scriptures is a priori (rather than a posteriori)--and that it comes through the activity of the Holy Spirit. I am not too sure if I am correct, however...


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 14, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Dan:
> 
> How do you know you're reading Clark's book?



I don't *know* that I am reading Clark's book. Only, I believe that I am reading Clark's book. As per Agrippa's Trilemma (which isn't even knowledge), it would take an infinite regression of premises for me to prove that I am reading Clark's book, and I don't have the time, nor the desire to prove it (nor the ability for that matter).


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

Why do you distrust your senses? Is it because of Clark? How can that be if you're not sure you're reading his book?


----------



## Civbert (Aug 14, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> How do we *know* what the scriptures say?


 The Holy Spirit. 



Dan.... said:


> If we allow for the axiom that special revelation is knowledge and that the Scriptures are the special revelation of God, then for me to know anything requires that I hear/read scripture. But how do I do this apart from my empirical receptors (hearing/seeing)?


 Well how do you "know" _with _"empirical receptors". That is, how can physical stimuli be translated into propositional statements? Reading isn't empirical because it requires one to have a priori knowledge of words. One can not read unless one knows how to read. You don't simply receive visual stimuli (looking at a piece of paper with ink splots) and instantly "know" what it says. 

Clark has no problem with reading - he has problems with empiricism (knowledge from physical stimuli apart from a priori knowledge or innate forms. But don't confuse reading with empiricism. It's not the same thing. Empirical knowledge is knowledge based on physical stimuli alone. Reading requires a priori equipment - the capacity for language.



Dan.... said:


> If the attainment of knowledge is dependent on the trustworthiness of what I read or hear (of Scripture), then can I say that I have truly heard or read? How do I *know* that my empirical receptors aren't misleading me (concerning Scripture)?


 That's why we need the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, we are dependent on the work of Spirit of God for us to have knowledge. We must trust in God, not ourselves. 

But think of it this way. If I wanted to convey to you the knowledge "David was king of Israel", what is the most reliable way to do that: 1) give you a picture of a guy with a crown, 2) a say "David was king of Israel". The first an attempt to convey the knowledge empirically, and the second is through written language. 

Notice even the first is not truly empirical. The "crown" is a symbol that you might understand to mean royalty. If I give you symbols you understand already, it's not "empirical" knowledge. 

Does that help?


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 14, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Why do you distrust your senses? Is it because of Clark? How can that be if you're not sure you're reading his book?



It's not that I don't trust my senses, I trust them all day long. However, can I *know* that my senses are 100% accurate? Or, if they are not 100% accurate when do I know they are telling me the truth?


----------



## Civbert (Aug 14, 2007)

CatechumenPatrick said:


> Remember that the process by which we know what the Scriptures say is not a problem only for Clarkians, it is a problem for all Christian philosophers. Don't hold me to it (as I am not an expert on Clark) but I believe his answer is that the knowledge of the Scriptures is a priori (rather than a posteriori)--and that it comes through the activity of the Holy Spirit. I am not too sure if I am correct, however...


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 14, 2007)

CatechumenPatrick said:


> Remember that the process by which we know what the Scriptures say is not a problem only for Clarkians, it is a problem for all Christian philosophers. Don't hold me to it (as I am not an expert on Clark) but I believe his answer is that the knowledge of the Scriptures is a priori (rather than a posteriori)--and that it comes through the activity of the Holy Spirit. I am not too sure if I am correct, however...



Now I'm confused: Isn't it Clark's point that propositional knowledge requires special revelation? Where does "a priori" knowledge come from? How do we know that we know what we know "a priori"-ly ? Is "a priori" knowledge special revelation?


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 14, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Well how do you "know" _with _"empirical receptors".



I would think the answer is that I don't *know* with empirical receptors, as I am not certain that I can trust them (as per Des Cartes).



> That is, how can physical stimuli be translated into propositional statements? Reading isn't empirical because it requires one to have a priori knowledge of words.


Okay. So I've misunderstood the argument (that's probable). 



> One can not read unless one knows how to read. You don't simply receive visual stimuli (looking at a piece of paper with ink splots) and instantly "know" what it says.
> 
> Clark has no problem with reading - he has problems with empiricism (knowledge from physical stimuli apart from a priori knowledge or innate forms.



I'll re-read the pertainant sections with this in mind.

But, now this brings up a change in questions:

How does the Christian philosopher (whether Clarkian or whatever) answer Des Cartes concerning our inability to trust sense perception (argh.... I guess that means the title of this thread should be "3 more questions....") -Disclaimer: I have not read Des Cartes; I'm only going be hear-say.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 14, 2007)

Dan, if your looking for a good intro to philosophy, you should checkout Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Moreland and Craig: Amazon.com: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview: Books: J. P. Moreland,William Lane Craig

I enjoyed it, even though I disagree on some things (e.g. their position on free will and Craig on time). But I still recommend it, because there is a ton of good info. in it. Check it out. 

As for Clarkianism, I don't even really bother with it.


----------



## Don (Aug 14, 2007)

Dan, 

For a good book try William Alston's "The Reliability of Sense Perception". He is a much more capable philosopher than Gordon Clark in my opinion. 

Also Routledge's Intro to Epistemology by Robert Audi and The Theory of Knowledge: A Thematic Introduction by Moser, Mulder, and Trout are good. 

Don


----------



## JohnV (Aug 14, 2007)

I recommend the Syntopicon in the Great Western Books series. These essays are introductions and summaries leading to a quite thorough study on various topics included in the whole series of books.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 15, 2007)

I just noticed what was being recommended here. In order to know that you're reading a book you are recommended to read other books. Hmm. Something's not adding up here.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 15, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > ... How does the Christian philosopher (whether Clarkian or whatever) answer Des Cartes concerning our inability to trust sense perception (argh.... I guess that means the title of this thread should be "3 more questions....") -Disclaimer: I have not read Des Cartes; I'm only going be hear-say.
> ...


----------



## Civbert (Aug 15, 2007)

Don said:


> Dan,
> 
> For a good book try William Alston's "The Reliability of Sense Perception". He is a much more capable philosopher than Gordon Clark in my opinion. ...Don



What can you tell me about Alston. You comment that he is a more capable than Clark does not seem to recommend him. What's Alston's answer? How is his answer different from Clark's? 


I found a preview of his book here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zc...3_o31&sig=CZKkaYbtMFJQjThenoKUfZCsdCM#PPP1,M1


Unfortunately, it doesn't include his conclusions.

I did notice that his focus is on "beliefs" rather than "knowledge".


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 15, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Dan.... said:
> 
> 
> > Civbert said:
> ...


----------



## Civbert (Aug 15, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dan.... said:
> ...


----------



## Brian Bosse (Aug 16, 2007)

Hello Gentlemen,

I have seen Scripturalism presented as the answer to many of the philosophical difficulties in the area of epistemology. I have also seen many times answers thrown about by Scripturalists on the order of things like "we don't turst in sense perception...we trust in God." I count Civbert as a friend and a good thinker. However, I think he misses the main thrust of the criticisms of Scripturalism. Civbert says...



> Clark strongly makes that distinction, and his point is that true knowledge comes via the Word with the help of the Spirit...I would say a belief based on sensory perception may be very strong and reliable, but fall just short of "knowledge" (depending on how strongly you define knowledge).



He says beliefs based on sensory perception fall short of knoweldge. Yet, in some way the Holy Spirit is able to get around this. But here is the rub: "Wherever you are, there you are." What I mean by this is that we cannot get outside of ourselves. If the Holy Spirit gives me knowledge through some vehicle interacting with my mind, how do I _know_ it is the Holy Spirit? Where does that leave these impressions? You see, the "Holy Spirit" answer does not overcome the problem. Now, I appreciate much of what Clark says, but the problem one runs into with Scripturalism is that if they are consistent in their application of what constitutes justified true belief (knowledge), then they would have to say that there is no knowledge. The very vehicle they say provides knowledge, when closely looked at, fails the Scripturalist test. 

Sincerely,

Brian


----------



## Civbert (Aug 16, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> I have seen Scripturalism presented as the answer to many of the philosophical difficulties in the area of epistemology. I have also seen many times answers thrown about by Scripturalists on the order of things like "we don't trust in sense perception...we trust in God." I count Civbert as a friend and a good thinker. However, I think he misses the main thrust of the criticisms of Scripturalism. Civbert says...
> 
> ...


 Not sure what you are asking here. The point I am making is we still must depend on the Holy Spirit in order to know anything. We depend on him to guide us in a proper understanding of Scripture, for the Spirit speaks through Scripture (WCF 1:10). But this does not imply the meaning of Scripture is confused or contradictory. We believe it speaks with one voice. (WCF 1:9). One way we know the Holy Spirit is guiding us is when we can understand clearly the meaning of God's Word (WCF 1:5). The Holy Spirit and the Word of God go hand in hand. It is impossible for the Spirit to tell us something contradictory to the Word, because the Spirit speaks through the Word. So we can tell when the Spirit is speaking to us simply by reading the Word. 




Brian Bosse said:


> Where does that leave these impressions? You see, the "Holy Spirit" answer does not overcome the problem. Now, I appreciate much of what Clark says, but the problem one runs into with Scripturalism is that if they are consistent in their application of what constitutes justified true belief (knowledge), then they would have to say that there is no knowledge. The very vehicle they say provides knowledge, when closely looked at, fails the Scripturalist test.


 I'm not following you. But I guess you are asking how do we know what the Scriptures says if we can only know what the Scripture says. Are you asking what constitutes knowledge (true propositions), or how do we know (acquire true propositions)? These are not the same thing. Knowledge and knowing.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Aug 16, 2007)

Hello Anthony,

Let's start another thread. I will post something either today or tomorrow in this section. I will title it something along the lines of _Scripturalism Revisited_. 

Brian


----------



## BrianLanier (Aug 16, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Hello Gentlemen,
> 
> I have seen Scripturalism presented as the answer to many of the philosophical difficulties in the area of epistemology. I have also seen many times answers thrown about by Scripturalists on the order of things like "we don't turst in sense perception...we trust in God." I count Civbert as a friend and a good thinker. However, I think he misses the main thrust of the criticisms of Scripturalism. Civbert says...
> 
> ...





Great points Brian!


----------



## BrianLanier (Aug 16, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you distrust your senses? Is it because of Clark? How can that be if you're not sure you're reading his book?
> ...



Of course you couldn't *know* that your senses are 100% accurate, because it is not *true* that your senses (or anyone elses for that matter) are always 100% accurate.

Now you may mean that you can't know anything from your senses because your senses are not always 100% accurate. But if that is what you mean, why assume that knowledge must only come from infallible sources? That to know something entails having certainty is mainly a Cartesian constraint and has largely been abandoned in modern epistemology. But if this constraint is rejected, it (seems to me anyway) would appear to damage scriptualism as ordinarily construed.


----------



## MW (Aug 16, 2007)

Brian Bosse said:


> Now, I appreciate much of what Clark says, but the problem one runs into with Scripturalism is that if they are consistent in their application of what constitutes justified true belief (knowledge), then they would have to say that there is no knowledge. The very vehicle they say provides knowledge, when closely looked at, fails the Scripturalist test.



Well noted. This is the age old problem with idealism. It can only justify generalisations, and is unable to provide any plausible account of belief in particulars.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 16, 2007)

BrianLanier said:


> Dan.... said:
> 
> 
> > JohnV said:
> ...




The unreliability of the sense is without question - but that is not why one should reject empiricism. There are more difficult problems with empiricism. One is that the empiricism can not explain how one goes from physical stimuli to proposition truth. Another is, even if we simply say "it just is", empiricism leads to many contradictions. Also, there is no possibility of objective truth via the senses. There is only individual perceptions. 

As for "modern epistemology" - it has no choice but to abandon any resemblance of objectivity - not simply infallibility. That is a strawman used to cover the fact that most modern epistemology has a secular/evolutionary view of language. A Christian need not adopt the subjectivistic presuppositions of modern epistemology. We have the objective Word of God as the foundation of knowledge.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 16, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Brian Bosse said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I appreciate much of what Clark says, but the problem one runs into with Scripturalism is that if they are consistent in their application of what constitutes justified true belief (knowledge), then they would have to say that there is no knowledge. The very vehicle they say provides knowledge, when closely looked at, fails the Scripturalist test.
> ...




It's an age old _Greek_ worldview problem. The Greek philosophers had trouble explaining how something can be both a particular and belong to a universal category. So they developed epistemologies like Platonism. However, the Jews had a Creator/God, so this was not even an issue for them. The "one and the many" issue is not a problem in the Christian worldview paradigm. It's a no-starter.


----------



## MW (Aug 16, 2007)

Civbert said:


> It's an age old _Greek_ worldview problem. The Greek philosophers had trouble explaining how something can be both a particular and belong to a universal category. So they developed epistemologies like Platonism. However, the Jews had a Creator/God, so this was not even an issue for them. The "one and the many" issue is not a problem in the Christian worldview paradigm. It's a no-starter.



I couldn't have stated it any better. Which leads me to ask whether Clarkianism is to be categorised as Greek or Christian, seeing it severs the Creator from His creation, and makes universal axioms to be unrelated to the particulars of sense perception.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > It's an age old _Greek_ worldview problem. The Greek philosophers had trouble explaining how something can be both a particular and belong to a universal category. So they developed epistemologies like Platonism. However, the Jews had a Creator/God, so this was not even an issue for them. The "one and the many" issue is not a problem in the Christian worldview paradigm. It's a no-starter.
> ...



Christian since it distinguishes the Creator from his creation and since it explains universal propositions which give meaning to particulars.


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 17, 2007)

BrianLanier said:


> Of course you couldn't *know* that your senses are 100% accurate, because it is not *true* that your senses (or anyone elses for that matter) are always 100% accurate.



Since I can't *know* that my senses are 100% accurate at any point, then I am left to dealing with probabilities (however great the probability, it still isn't 100% certain). 




> Now you may mean that you can't know anything from your senses because your senses are not always 100% accurate. But if that is what you mean, why assume that knowledge must only come from infallible sources?



knowledge = justified true belief

My problem is that I don't understand how strictly we must define "justified." Is "justified" a matter of probability? Say, 99.5% probable? (Who gets to decide?) Or is "justified" 100% certain? And who can know that anything is 100% certain except for One who is infallible?



> That to know something entails having certainty is mainly a Cartesian constraint and has largely been abandoned in modern epistemology.



On what basis is Des Cartes' constraint abandoned? 
Is it that Des Cartes constrained justification for knowledge so strictly that skepticism is the only option?

Also, if we are not 100% certain about a matter yet call it "knowledge," then is knowledge a moving target? When we find evidence that goes against what we thought we *knew*, did the truth change?


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 17, 2007)

I think this debate largely plays on how we define knowledge. I have no problem saying _colloquially_ that I know things that I see, but when using a strict definition, Clarkians will resort to the infallible Holy Writ.


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 17, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Brian Bosse said:
> 
> 
> > Where does that leave these impressions? You see, the "Holy Spirit" answer does not overcome the problem. Now, I appreciate much of what Clark says, but the problem one runs into with Scripturalism is that if they are consistent in their application of what constitutes justified true belief (knowledge), then they would have to say that there is no knowledge. The very vehicle they say provides knowledge, when closely looked at, fails the Scripturalist test.
> ...



I echo Brian Bosse's question. How can we "know" that it is the Holy Spirit that is revealing truth [scripture] to us?

Earlier you said, "_Reading requires a priori equipment - the capacity for language._" - How do we *know* that our _a priori_ equipment is working?


----------



## Dan.... (Aug 17, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > Brian Bosse said:
> ...



I just noticed that Brian Bosse started a new thread on this subject. On post #3, located here, he says,


> The deductive apparatus itself must be axiomatic. This is one major flaw in Scripturalism.



...this is the jist of what I'm getting at (just stated in a more educated way). If you answer Brian there, then you can bypass answering me here (I won't take it personal), that way you wouldn't need to post the same thing twice.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## MW (Aug 17, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Christian since it distinguishes the Creator from his creation and since it explains universal propositions which give meaning to particulars.



Meaning to particulars? What kind of meaning is it giving to a particular which cannot be known? If you can never know A is B, that Socrates is a man, you have no ability to know anything concrete about this world. It is all abstract.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 17, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > Christian since it distinguishes the Creator from his creation and since it explains universal propositions which give meaning to particulars.
> ...



Do you know Socrates is a man? How do you know?


----------



## Civbert (Aug 17, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> I echo Brian Bosse's question. How can we "know" that it is the Holy Spirit that is revealing truth [scripture] to us?
> 
> Earlier you said, "_Reading requires a priori equipment - the capacity for language._" - How do we *know* that our _a priori_ equipment is working?



Can we "know" ultimately that we are not simply "a brain in a vat"? At some point we must just assume - it is inescapable.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 17, 2007)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> I think this debate largely plays on how we define knowledge. I have no problem saying _colloquially_ that I know things that I see, but when using a strict definition, Clarkians will resort to the infallible Holy Writ.



That is correct. To answer the Socrates question, 'how do we know Socrates was a man?', either we use a strict definition of knowledge (and we don't know except hypothetically), or we can use a loose definition of knowledge (and what we know might be subjective to individual perception). One definition limits knowledge to "Holy Writ" an what can be deduced therefrom, and the other allows for one to "know what they see with their own eyes", but results in the impossibility of absolute or objective knowledge: one person can know A and another person know not-A (at the same time and sense and place, etc).


----------



## MW (Aug 19, 2007)

Civbert said:


> Do you know Socrates is a man? How do you know?



Only a man possesses qualities A, B, and C, and Socrates possesses qualities A, B, and C. Ergo, &c.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 19, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know Socrates is a man? How do you know?
> ...




How do you know "_Socrates_ possesses qualities A, B, and C"?


----------



## MW (Aug 19, 2007)

Civbert said:


> How do you know "_Socrates_ possesses qualities A, B, and C"?



The same way you knew that I had written "Socrates possesses qualities A, B, and C" -- I see them.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 20, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know "_Socrates_ possesses qualities A, B, and C"?
> ...



Where? How do you know it's true?


----------



## MW (Aug 20, 2007)

Civbert said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Civbert said:
> ...



Your question assumes I know it's true. How do you know I know it's true? I know it's true in the same way you know I know it's true.


----------



## Civbert (Aug 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



OK. So you are saying you _read_ that "Socrates possesses qualities A, B, and C". So from the statement "Socrates possesses qualities A, B, and C" you conclude Socrates is a man. And your conclusion is hypothetical - that is, only if "Socrates possesses qualities A, B, and C" then Socrates is a man. 

Notice how this conclusion is based on words and language, not on sensory information. You did not see the qualities of A, B, and C. You read them and assume they are true. The hypothetical information is conveyed by words and language.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Aug 23, 2007)

Hello Anthony,



> Notice how this conclusion is based on words and language, not on sensory information.



Knowledge of what the actual words and language are through the act of reading is based on sensory perceptions. 

Brian


----------

