Attn Clarkian Prussups. - re:Epistemology

[Dan....]

From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Foundationalists respond to the regress problem by claiming that some beliefs that support other beliefs do not themselves require justification by other beliefs. Sometimes, these beliefs, labeled "foundational", are characterized as beliefs that one is directly aware of the truth of, or as beliefs that are self-justifying, or as beliefs that are infallible. According to one particularly permissive form of foundationalism, a belief may count as foundational, in the sense that it may be presumed true until defeating evidence appears, as long as the belief seems to its believer to be true.[citation needed] Others have argued that a belief is justified if it is based on perception or certain a priori considerations.

...

Another response to the regress problem is coherentism, which is the rejection of the assumption that the regress proceeds according to a pattern of linear justification. The original coherentist model for chains of reasoning was circular.[citation needed] This model was broadly repudiated, for obvious reasons.[citation needed] Most coherentists now hold that an individual belief is not justified circularly, but by the way it fits together (coheres) with the rest of the belief system of which it is a part.[citation needed] This theory has the advantage of avoiding the infinite regress without claiming special, possibly arbitrary status for some particular class of beliefs. Yet, since a system can be coherent while also being wrong, coherentists face the difficulty in ensuring that the whole system corresponds to reality.

Is Clarkian view of knowledge foundationalist, coherentialist, a combination of both, or neither? Please explain.

(If you are Van Tillian, do not reply to this thread. I will make another thread specific to the Van Tillian apologetics).

 

[Magma2]

From Wikipedia


Is Clarkian view of knowledge foundationalist, coherentialist, a combination of both, or neither? Please explain.

(If you are Van Tillian, do not reply to this thread. I will make another thread specific to the Van Tillian apologetics).

Too bad the citations were missing since that perhaps would have clarified some of the definitions.

First, I think Clark would agree, as I would hope all Christians, that the Scriptures are self-authenticating (would that be the same as self-justifying?), and that the axiom of Scripture (i.e., the Bible alone is the Word of God) is the starting point for the Christian system. Maybe some Christians would deny the second clause, but keep a close eye on their theology.

Clark also argued that all systems must start somewhere and that *somewhere* is that system's axiom(s). Being axioms they cannot be proven, however they can be disproved if either the axiom is self-refuting (self-contradictory) or various aspects of the system cannot be accounted for per its own axiom (which is why Clark's apologetic method relied on reductio ad absurdum in order to destroy an opposing system).

He would deny ideas like self-evident truths, although he would affirm men are endowed with certain a_priori equipment and innate ideas (see Romans 1 & 2 for example).

He also argues that the best evidence for the truth of Scripture (notice, not proof) is the Scripture's logical coherence (i.e., the consent of the parts - see God's Hammer). I don't know if this would make his Scripturalism coherentialistic, since the idea of "corresponding to reality" is too ambiguous and smacks of positivism which Clark thoroughly refutes. I think Clark might say it is the Scriptures that determine reality, not the other way around. Of course he did leave the possibility that there perhaps were other systems that were logically coherent and I think I recall somewhere he mentions that Russell at some point perhaps approached this ideal.

Basically for Clark the role of apologetics is to present the reader with a choice and that Christianity was always the superior choice because the axiom necessarily and satisfactorily covers all that follows (see An Introduction to Christian Philosophy and A Christian View of Men and Things).

Hope that helps.

 

[Civbert]

From Wikipedia


Is Clarkian view of knowledge foundationalist, coherentialist, a combination of both, or neither? Please explain.

Both seem to fit.

Scripture is the axiom of knowledge for man -> foundationalism
Scripture is logically coherent -> coherentialism

Clark also called is dogmatism - but I don't think wikipedia's description is what he had in mind. I think dogmatism is more like wiki's foundationalism.

 

[Magma2]

Clark also called is dogmatism - but I don't think wikipedia's description is what he had in mind. I think dogmatism is more like wiki's foundationalism.

I think it's interesting that Clark somewhere said he didn't really care what people called his system, just so that the main ideas were retained.

It seems to me that both foundationalism and coherentialism can be broadly applied to too many mutually exclusive and contradictory systems. But everyone loves labels, which is why John Robbins coined the phrase "Scripturalism" (I think it was John). As I recall he thought "dogmatisim" had too many negative connotations, as does foundationalism and coherentialism in certain circles. in my opinion these words are really simply buzz words allowing critics to simply ignore Scripturalism without ever having to interact with its main ideas. I suspect they're an excuse for philosophic snobbery which I've come across in more places than you might guess.

 

[Civbert]

I think it's interesting that Clark somewhere said he didn't really care what people called his system, just so that the main ideas were retained.

It seems to me that both foundationalism and coherentialism can be broadly applied to too many mutually exclusive and contradictory systems.

I agree. But it's also why they work. Realism and idealism are too narrowly defined to apply. But just to show how broadly defined foundationalism is, empiricism would fit under it. And coherentialism covers rationalism.

And according to Rev Goundry (VanVos), Vantilianism also fits under foundationalism and coherentialism.

 

[VanVos]

I agree foundationalism and coherentism are too broad of a category to be exclusive to any school of presuppostionalism. Although I think Vantiliansim does parts company from coherentism before clarkianism does. In my study I found clarkian presuppostionalism to have complete compatibility with coherentism.

VanVos

 

[Magma2]

I agree foundationalism and coherentism are too broad of a category to be exclusive to any school of presuppostionalism. Although I think Vantiliansim does parts company from coherentism before clarkianism does. In my study I found clarkian presuppostionalism to have complete compatibility with coherentism.

VanVos

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[VanVos]

mostly good, but stops short of providing the transcendental for rationality i.e. presupposes rationality of coherentism. In other words, logic is axiomatic within coherentism, and I would argue with clarkianism also.

VanVos

 

[Magma2]

mostly good, but stops short of providing the transcendental for rationality i.e. presupposes rationality of coherentism. In other words, logic is axiomatic within coherentism, and I would argue with clarkianism also.

VanVos

Seems like a lot of people would argue with "Clarkianism," I don't think always for the right reasons. Of course TAG has come under some heavy fire too over the last few years, and, interestingly, from within the VT camp.

Thanks for your response.