One more question for the Clarkians

[Dan....]

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]

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, then can I say that I have truly heard or read? How do I know that my empirical receptors aren't misleading me?

a big big big you just opened.

 

[Dan....]

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]

Dan:

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

 

[CatechumenPatrick]

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....]

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]

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]

How do we know what the scriptures say?

The Holy Spirit.

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.

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....]

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]

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....]

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....]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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.

I would think Des Cartes is correct - we should not put out trust in our senses. As Christians, we put or trust in God.

 

[Civbert]

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]

... 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.

I would think Des Cartes is correct - we should not put out trust in our senses. As Christians, we put or trust in God.

This is true in a sense, but only part of the story. We do trust our senses every day practically. I don't know about you, but I look both ways before crossing the street. However, when it comes to epistemology, we must differentiate between our senses, which are fallible (and often show themselves to be so), and God's word which is not.

Senses are God's gift to me so that we might operate in this world, so while we ought to defend true biblical thinking, I also believe we should not degenerate the tools that God has given to us, given their proper role and place of course.

 

[Civbert]

I would think Des Cartes is correct - we should not put out trust in our senses. As Christians, we put or trust in God.

This is true in a sense, but only part of the story. We do trust our senses every day practically. I don't know about you, but I look both ways before crossing the street. However, when it comes to epistemology, we must differentiate between our senses, which are fallible (and often show themselves to be so), and God's word which is not.

Senses are God's gift to me so that we might operate in this world, so while we ought to defend true biblical thinking, I also believe we should not degenerate the tools that God has given to us, given their proper role and place of course.

Good points.

I was looking through William Alston's "The Reliability of Sense Perception" (see Google link below" and he talks about Des Cartes "sense perception" and it speaks of the reliability of SP for forming beliefs about the physical world. It does no seem to be making the the distinction between belief and knowledge. Clark strongly makes that distinction, and his point is that true knowledge comes via the Word with the help of the Spirit. This is not the exactly same issue being addressed by Des Cartes which focuses on the reliability of the senses for forming reasonable beliefs about the world around us.

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).

Also, Des Cartes "sensory perception" is not exactly empiricism. While one may reliable form reasonable beliefs from "sensory perception", it requires a priori knowledge for us to translate images and sensations into the propositions that are the interpretation of them. Empiricism is the theory that knowledge originates in the physical sensations alone (no a priori knowledge or forms). Like readings and hearing, Des Cartes "sensory perceptions" is not necessarily "empiricism".

 

[Brian Bosse]

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]

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...

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 knowledge. 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?

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.

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]

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]

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

Great points Brian!

 

[BrianLanier]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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