# Honest Questions for Clarkians--not a debate!!



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2006)

To my Clarkian brothers (Civbert, Bartel, and anybody else),

I know what it feels like to be misrepresented and straw-manned. In theological debates Reformed christians owe their brothers the Christian charity to fairly and accurately represent the opposing side. Sadly, in any discussion, this is almost never done. 

I have a few questions for you for clarification. I probably won't challenge anything you say. I just want to make sure I know what you are and AREN'T saying. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
_On Inductive Reasoning_
Is scientific reasoning, in its most empirical form, fallacious?
Would the below be accurate critique of scientific reasoning, empirical, from a Clarkian standpoint?

If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true.

(This is a logical fallacy. Would you all then critique scientific reasoning on the grounds that its methodology begs the question?)

On to more important matters:

_Assurance and Scripturalism_
If "Person x's" name isn't in the bible, then can he have assurance of his salvation? If no, explain in light of WCF XVIII:2's certainty....infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation.

Thank you for your patience


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I know what it feels like to be misrepresented and straw-manned. In theological debates Reformed christians owe their brothers the Christian charity to fairly and accurately represent the opposing side. Sadly, in any discussion, this is almost never done.



 



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> _On Inductive Reasoning_
> Is scientific reasoning, in its most empirical form, fallacious?



Yes.



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Would the below be accurate critique of scientific reasoning, empirical, from a Clarkian standpoint?
> 
> If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
> ...



The fallacy is the same and is called (as I'm sure you know) "œasserting the consequent."

When it rains, the streets get wet.
The streets are wet.
Conclusion: It must have rained.

All scientific "œreasoning" commits this fallacy, and therefore cannot lead us into truth.

Here are seven reasons given by Robbins (please don´t excuse them just because of _who_ gave them) as to why science cannot furnish man with truth:

The inconsistency of the senses.
The mutability of nature.
The use of arbitrary methods and choices in laboratory procedures.
The fallacy of induction.
The fallacy of asserting the consequent.
The arbitrary choice of one equation out of an infinite number of possible equations as a scientific law.
The use of assumptions that can not and do not describe the visible world.



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> On to more important matters:
> 
> _Assurance and Scripturalism_
> If "Person x's" name isn't in the bible, then can he have assurance of his salvation? If no, explain in light of WCF XVIII:2's certainty....infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation.



A person certainly and infallibly can be assured of his salvation. I fully accept the WCF and it´s section on Assurance.

How if I hold to Clarkian principles?

By creating a syllogism.

If one believes the gospel, they are saved.
I believe the gospel.
Therefore, I am saved.

The first premise is not problem, it is taken directly from scripture. People will object, and say that as a Clarkian, I can not hold to premise #2 consistently. I respond with, "œyes I can!" How? By appealing to scripture as well.

1Co 2:11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?  Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

I do not need to look outside myself to "œsee" if I have faith, nor do I need to rationalize it. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. A man is what he thinks. I think (or the synonym "œbelieve) the gospel.

As Matthew Henry comments on this verse:



> The man knows his own mind because his mind is one with himself.  The Spirit of God knows the things of God because he is one with God. And as no man can come at the knowledge of what is in another man's mind till he communicates and reveals it, so neither can we know the secret counsels and purposes of God till they are made known to us by his Holy Spirit.



or Calvin:



> A man's innermost thought, of which others are ignorant, is perceived by himself alone: if he afterwards makes it known to others, this does not hinder but that his spirit alone knows what is in him. For it may happen that he does not persuade: it may even happen that he does not properly express his own meaning; but even if he attains both objects, this statement is not at variance with the other -- that his own spirit alone has the true knowledge of it.



A man can know his own thoughts because his thoughts are his soul.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2006)

Thank you. That was helpful. 



> Here are seven reasons given by Robbins (please don´t excuse them just because of who gave them) as to why science cannot furnish man with truth:



Of course. John Robbins has given the most penetrating critique of natural law I have ever read. It is really good. I sympathize with a lot of his reasons, but I probably have a few questions I will ask later on the inductive method.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2006)

Another question concerning axioms:

Do you hold that it is an _uprovable_ reference point? I ask because in a few days I will post a summary of the self-authenticating claims of Christ.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 16, 2006)

Yes, by definition, an axiom is unprovable. 

From Webster's 1828:



> 1. A self evident truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight, that no process of reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; as, "the whole is greater than a part."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Yes, by definition, an axiom is unprovable.
> 
> From Webster's 1828:
> ...




fair enough


----------



## Civbert (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> To my Clarkian brothers (Civbert, Bartel, and anybody else),
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



This is the inductive fallacy that says in effect:
p1) H -> R
p2) R
c3) therefore H.

This is the error of "affirming the consequence".
It is a formal fallacy. Begging the question is an informal fallacy, which may in fact be formally correct, but circular. 

An argument that is circular, the question might look like:
a -> b
x
c -> d
y
e -> f
z

therefore x

This is circular because the conclusion is one of the premises. It is formally valid because x implies x.

Begging the questions happens when one of the key premises of the arguement is in just as much need of justification as the conclusion being proven. The conclusion may follow formally, but it is keyed to an assumed premise that itself requires justification.

But I want to add that saying an argument is a formal fallacy does not mean the conclusion is false. It only means that the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises. Clark defines logic as "the science of necessary inference". The conclusion of a valid deductive argument follows necessarily from the premises. That is - A implies B means that if A is true, then B must be true. And the science of logic is made up of the laws and rules for identifying necessary inferences.

The scientific method depends on a rules for analizing hypothesis that are technically a violations of deductive logic. In most cases, the conclusions (hypothosises) of science can not be deduced from a priori true propositions. They are based on observations and test that seem indicate the conclusion is true. If we could deduce the conclusion, then we would not need multiple observations and tests.

It says, if some A are B, then all A are B. If I observe 10,000 crows are black, then crows are black. This is an invalid inference - therefore the conclusion is fallacious (it may or may not be true).

My favorite quotes on science are:


> It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.
> --- Karl Popper
> 
> All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
> --- Bertrand Russell



But Clark's rejection of "natural science" was related to his rejection of empirical epistemology. Clark said that since knowledge is propositional (only propositions are true or false), then we can not learn propositions from "sensations". Empiricism is the philosophy that all knowledge comes from physical sensations. The mind at birth is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, that filled in with knowledge by experiencing sensations. But one can never get a proposition from a sensation any more than one can get a glass of milk from a fairy tale. They are categorically incompatible.

The scientific method draws conclusions based on observations. Observations are proposition, not the sensations themselves, but propositions we associate with the sensations based on past experience and a priori knowledge. One can not make a correct observation based on sensations alone. So observations are not really empirical. And the conclusions we draw from multiple observations using the scientific method is "asserting the consequence". So technically, no matter how often the conclusion is confirmed by observations, this does not prove the conclusion. 

Scientific hypothothies are technically opinions. Some are very strong, like Neuton's laws of physics, and some are very weak, like the Theory of Evolution. But they are "opinions" non-the-less.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> To my Clarkian brothers (Civbert, Bartel, and anybody else),
> ....
> 
> ...



I think there are two objects of assurance - the infallible assurance that God will save the elect, and the subjective assure that one is a member of the elect.

I've heard the following deductive argument for assurance:

God saves the believers in Christ,
I am a believer in Christ.

Therefore I am be saved.

The first statements is certainly true, but the second is a matter of personal opinion. It begs the question: do I truly believe in Christ.

There is inductive arguments for the truth of my faith in Christ. If I present evidences of true faith, good works, love, obedience - then it may be that I am one of the elect. The stronger the evidence, the more likely I am saved. But it is fallacious to say it is true that I am saved because I exhibit the signs and evidence of true faith. Certainty is not the same as knowledge.

The infallible assurance I believe is the assurance that God will do what He promises. It might also be "infallible" in that it is true that one _can_ have assurance that one is saved, but not that one can _know_ that one is saved. 

It would also note that "this infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith," ( WCF 18:3). That is faith (belief in the truth of the Gospel) does not logically imply one has assurance at all times after one first believes.

And also: "True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted;" (WCF 18:4). This also implies that assurance is not a necessary consequence of faith.

So one might believe one is saved, and might have assurance one is saved, but technically one can not deduce one is saved or "know" by proof - deduction from a priori knowledge - that one is saved. Assurance is not knowledge. Assurance is our reaction to the evidences of saving faith.

Clark might say one can not know (deductively) that he is saved. But one can have assurance (inductively) that one is saved.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Another question concerning axioms:
> 
> Do you hold that it is an _uprovable_ reference point? I ask because in a few days I will post a summary of the self-authenticating claims of Christ.



Yes. Axioms can not be proven from a priori true propositions. However, the are usually self evident or self attesting. One can not prove from a priori knowledge that the God of Scripture is the one true God, but God certainly is self attesting - "I AM".

I look forward to your summary of the self-authenticating claims of Christ. I hope my answer we as intelligible as Jeff's. We differ somewhat on assurance, but it is a technical difference, and he may be more correct. I'm not certain that one can "know" what one really believes, but one can certainly be certain what one believes and therefore be assured. :bigsmile:

Thanks for asking the questions.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Jan 26, 2006)

I (Calvinist4Him) got into it with a Clarkian here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=68538 :bigsmile:

Actually, I was trying to clear up his misrepresentations of Dr. Van Til. In the end, I failed to convince him, despite all the quotes I posted.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 26, 2006)

"If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
Experiment E does produce results R.
Therefore, Hypothesis H is true."

I don't know too much about Clark, but this isn't what science does. It would be better if the last line was something like "R does not contradict H." Also, if the scientist gets results ~R, then we know that H is false from MT.


----------



## Vytautas (Jan 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "If Hypothesis H is true, then Experiment E will produce results R.
> Experiment E does produce results R.
> Therefore, Hypothesis H is true."
> ...



This is not different in relation to this:

If it is raining, then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it is raining.

The second premise and the conclusion do not contradict each other but it is still an invalid argument. The reason it is invalid is because of the form and not if the propositions contradict each other.


----------



## SRoper (Jan 28, 2006)

I understand it is an invalid argument. My point is that science does not claim it is a valid argument, it only claims consistency.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I understand it is an invalid argument. My point is that science does not claim it is a valid argument, it only claims consistency.



I think the problem is that scientists does not just claim consistency, they also (for the most part) also claim that X is true or X is the case. As an example, the evolution vs. creationist debate would not occur if scientists did not over step their evidence.


----------



## Civbert (Jan 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SRoper_
> ...



Ditto.

Many Scientist call the Theory of Evolution a "scientific" fact. And the rest simply assume it is a fact. Not too many are will to question it.


----------

