fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
I see a tree outside my window -
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
isnt this engaging in circular reasoning which may be label irrational by the philosopher?
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Sean states:
Yet earlier, when asked if he knows he exists, Sean hedged:
Sean finally states in no uncertain terms the truth of the matter, that he is willing to assert that he believes he doesn't know he exists. The reason this is germane is because Sean denies being a skeptic, yet he claims that he cannot know he exists. The problem is that Sean's knowledge of anything presupposes that it is true he exists. Accordingly, if Sean doesn't know he exists, then Sean can't know that it is true he exists; and if Sean doesn't know that it is true he exists, then Sean can't know anything.
I keep bringing him up? Is this like your inaccurate statement about Bahnsen and apparent contradiction?
Sean, you have convinced yourself that you don't know anything. When you know that it's true you exist, get back to me.
Your problems have salvific implications.
Ron
Yet earlier, when asked if he knows he exists, Sean hedged:
Sean finally states in no uncertain terms the truth of the matter, that he is willing to assert that he believes he doesn't know he exists. The reason this is germane is because Sean denies being a skeptic, yet he claims that he cannot know he exists. The problem is that Sean's knowledge of anything presupposes that it is true he exists. Accordingly, if Sean doesn't know he exists, then Sean can't know that it is true he exists; and if Sean doesn't know that it is true he exists, then Sean can't know anything.
I keep bringing him up? Is this like your inaccurate statement about Bahnsen and apparent contradiction?
Sean, you have convinced yourself that you don't know anything. When you know that it's true you exist, get back to me.
Your problems have salvific implications.
Ron
Gentlemen, the tit for tat is very unseemly. I think you guys need to give it a rest.
That said, let me say this like a Marine - this Clarkian stuff just doesn't work for me. I think MurrayA frankly said it the best about this discussion.
Here is my problem:
1. Nobody in the real world talks like this about knowing.
2. The Scriptures don't talk that way about knowing.
I have to hand it to you that you have a convincing way of presenting a philosophical basis to cast skepticism on the use of terms. You can tie the issue of knowledge up into a tight Aristotlean knot that is nigh impossible to untie but, in the end, it just does not resonate with the Scriptures. We just don't see men and women in the Scriptures hemming and hawing over whether or not they "know" the Red Sea is there. "Well I think the Egyptian Army is on my heals but I don't KNOW it infallibly."
Maybe it's just that we're in Apologetic and Philosophical threads when Clarkians talk like this. I've never had a fellow Church member who is one. Provided they don't qualify everything they say about knowledge to everyone they meet then I guess it would be OK. My biggest issue is that it would REALLY confuse the vast majority of Christians. I can really see a Clarkian zealot causing more harm than good with people who can't distinguish between the types of knowledge we're talking about.
My point here is not to be pejorative or even to dumb down the conversation. I just really think that, even if we can form such arguments, we always need to consider how it resonates with the way the Scriptures describe such things. I also think it is not inconsequential how the average Joe can synthesize the idea that we don't have "real knowledge."
That said, let me say this like a Marine - this Clarkian stuff just doesn't work for me. I think MurrayA frankly said it the best about this discussion.
Here is my problem:
1. Nobody in the real world talks like this about knowing.
2. The Scriptures don't talk that way about knowing.
I have to hand it to you that you have a convincing way of presenting a philosophical basis to cast skepticism on the use of terms. You can tie the issue of knowledge up into a tight Aristotlean knot that is nigh impossible to untie but, in the end, it just does not resonate with the Scriptures. We just don't see men and women in the Scriptures hemming and hawing over whether or not they "know" the Red Sea is there. "Well I think the Egyptian Army is on my heals but I don't KNOW it infallibly."
Maybe it's just that we're in Apologetic and Philosophical threads when Clarkians talk like this. I've never had a fellow Church member who is one. Provided they don't qualify everything they say about knowledge to everyone they meet then I guess it would be OK. My biggest issue is that it would REALLY confuse the vast majority of Christians. I can really see a Clarkian zealot causing more harm than good with people who can't distinguish between the types of knowledge we're talking about.
My point here is not to be pejorative or even to dumb down the conversation. I just really think that, even if we can form such arguments, we always need to consider how it resonates with the way the Scriptures describe such things. I also think it is not inconsequential how the average Joe can synthesize the idea that we don't have "real knowledge."
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
You just don't know, Rich!
What's the conclusion, and what are the premises. Is the conclusion also the premise.
P1: God provides us grounds for truth in his Word.
P2: God's Word says God created trees.
P3: What ever God says he created exist.
C3: Trees exist.
Since "Trees exist" is not a premise, then the argument is not circular.
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Gentlemen, the tit for tat is very unseemly. I think you guys need to give it a rest.
That said, let me say this like a Marine - this Clarkian stuff just doesn't work for me. I think MurrayA frankly said it the best about this discussion.
Here is my problem:
1. Nobody in the real world talks like this about knowing.
2. The Scriptures don't talk that way about knowing.
I have to hand it to you that you have a convincing way of presenting a philosophical basis to cast skepticism on the use of terms. You can tie the issue of knowledge up into a tight Aristotlean knot that is nigh impossible to untie but, in the end, it just does not resonate with the Scriptures. We just don't see men and women in the Scriptures hemming and hawing over whether or not they "know" the Red Sea is there. "Well I think the Egyptian Army is on my heals but I don't KNOW it infallibly."
Maybe it's just that we're in Apologetic and Philosophical threads when Clarkians talk like this. I've never had a fellow Church member who is one. Provided they don't qualify everything they say about knowledge to everyone they meet then I guess it would be OK. My biggest issue is that it would REALLY confuse the vast majority of Christians. I can really see a Clarkian zealot causing more harm than good with people who can't distinguish between the types of knowledge we're talking about.
My point here is not to be pejorative or even to dumb down the conversation. I just really think that, even if we can form such arguments, we always need to consider how it resonates with the way the Scriptures describe such things. I also think it is not inconsequential how the average Joe can synthesize the idea that we don't have "real knowledge."
You make some good points worth keeping in mind. And when you see the "experts" make convoluted arguments that can be translated to understandable terms - employing specialized language, then what good are they? Maybe amongst the academia, these things make a difference, but with the brothers and sisters in church, we have to be able to make these things understandable. Not that this thread has anyone I'd call an "expert" in philosophy.
Yet although some of us Clarkians really do a hatchet job with things, that's not always the case. If you've read any Clark, you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying he's "easy", but he is very precise and clear even if you need to give it some effort. Same with Aristotle. Christians need not be preached down too. They can lean the difference between epistemology and empiricism. We can all learn enough so we are not intimidated by the "academic" types and others who would tell us we are "in over our heads".
I'm no expert, and by taking part in some of these debates, I might be muddying the waters. I try to keep things clear, but I also forget that not everyone knows what terms like "ontological" mean. Still, it's worth learning these things if only to take back the ground that the academic have stolen from Christians who have fallen for the lie that religion is antithetical to reason.
I can't say much for Vantillians, but no doubt that contribute their fair share of confusion - Van Til was nothing if not confusing.
And his apologetics method is the de facto being taught in many seminaries. I think Ron is more Vantillian than Clarkian - although I can't say for sure - that would explain a lot. And the TAG argument tries to pull a fast one on people, especially Christians, which only adds to the confusing and makes Christians look foolish.But that being said. I know that the tit-for-tat is irritating. But I just can't help but confront people who present themselves as "experts" or one of the "intelligentsia" but then present clearly fallacious arguments. And when I confront them, they will try to dance around it. That's what a post-graduate education is good for, playing games with words and semantics to avoid dealing with sound reasoning.
The more I study philosophy and logic, the more I realize the "experts" are often sophists who try to wow people with their expertise and credentials. Well don't fall for it. If they can't explain things clearly or try to brush you off, then doubt them even more. Because the better you learn their language, the more you will see that they are making the same basic mistakes in reasoning as your average Joe will know. They are just better at hiding it with complexity and $2 words. Believe me, it's not as complex as they try to make it sound.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ronnie, please try and follow. I apologize if this is all new to you, so I´ll slow down a bit to help you. I´ve hedged on nothing and I explained quite clearly in a way that I thought you would easily understand. Seeing you still don´t get it, I promise won´t take your abilities for granted this time. Now follow carefully: The reason Clark never denied he exists is because the word exists can be predicated on everything, hence the word exists is meaningless. "œThe point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything. A word, to mean something, must also not mean something . . . Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information. That is why the Catechism asks, What is God? Not, Does God exist?" Maybe we should ask; what is Ronnie? Would you like me to take the first stab at an answer?
The real problem is your poor command of the English language, not to mention you´re complete inability to differentiate between different noetic states. You falsely accuse me of pyrrhonism, even though I affirm that one can indeed arrive at final truths and I´ve explained in sufficient detail, at least for these boards, precisely how this is possible. For a more detailed explanation (perhaps for those who want more than Van Tilian irrationalism and question begging) see Clark´s Christian Philosophy. Consequently, to repeatedly claim that my unwillingness to play your games makes me a skeptic is to operate from a noetic state I would call ignorance. You must be in bliss.
I think it useful from time to time to point out the incoherence and pure poison of VT´s view of Scripture if only for perspective when discussing Clark. BTW, if you want a citation please see Bahnsen´s volume Van Til´s Apologetic.
Is this another example of because you assert something it must be true?
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
1. Many people talk this way about knowing in the real world as the question "œhow do you know" is the first question that must be addressed if anyone is going to engage in philosophy. If you can´t explain how you know you can´t really say you know anything. Now, is every Christian required to have a coherent biblical epistemology and be able to explain how knowledge is possible in exacting detail? I don´t think that´s necessary at all. However, I think most Christians would agree that because the bible tells them so should be sufficient and that is the apologetic fruit of Clark´s epistemology. OTOH, Peter commands us to "œsanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence . . . (1 Pet 3:15)." I would like to think forums like this allows brothers to hammer out our answers -- and our differences -- so that we all can better give an account for the hope that is in us.
2. The Scriptures say a great deal about knowing and how we can know. For starters consider Isa 8:20; "œTo the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." I think this sums up the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark in a nutshell. As for "œsaying it like a Marine," maybe it would be better to first act like one and read Clark for yourself particularly the volume on Christian Philosophy I´ve linked to above. For what it's worth if you´re at all familiar with the works of Francis Schaeffer I think you will be very much at ease with Clark.
This is an apologetics discussion section of these boards so a certain amount precision would seem to be necessary. However, to my mind real harm and long term damage has been done to the Church by Van Til and his followers. Just to give you one salient example, John Frame writes; "œthe doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." Note carefully, the doctrine of justification is just as paradoxical and contradictory as any other Biblical doctrine in the Vantilian anti-system. Also, note how it is that we come to a paradoxical view of justification. Paradoxes arise precisely when we attempt to explain a doctrine in relation "œto rest of Scriptural truth." For the Vantilian, the doctrine of justification is as resistant to logical harmonization as are all other Biblical doctrines. This is the connection between Van Til´s doctrine of revelation and the current heresies over justification and other doctrines that have emerged in Presbyterian churches. So you might think these discussions harmful, in my opinion you don´t know the half of it.
The following is taken from John Robbins piece; An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark -PART 1 (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192):
I´m sure these are all things the most average of Joes can understand and appreciate.
Good points Sean.
OK...back to the tree...
The answer to the question original stated can be summerized by the "Clarkian" system as follows:
A presuppositionalist can no more "know" that the tree is outside than anyone else. Clark has demonstrated that
1) Empiricism cannot furnish us with truth
2) Rationalism cannot furnish us with truth
&
3) The Bible DOES furnish us with truth
but unfortunately, the Bible does not tell us in fact if or if not there is a tree outside my window.
It seems the only way for one to "know" that the tree is outside is to embrace the logical conclusion of their first principle, which in the first two cases leads to utter contradiction and skepticism, while the latter is silent on the issue of the tree.
OK...back to the tree...
The answer to the question original stated can be summerized by the "Clarkian" system as follows:
A presuppositionalist can no more "know" that the tree is outside than anyone else. Clark has demonstrated that
1) Empiricism cannot furnish us with truth
2) Rationalism cannot furnish us with truth
&
3) The Bible DOES furnish us with truth
but unfortunately, the Bible does not tell us in fact if or if not there is a tree outside my window.
It seems the only way for one to "know" that the tree is outside is to embrace the logical conclusion of their first principle, which in the first two cases leads to utter contradiction and skepticism, while the latter is silent on the issue of the tree.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Sean,
Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings and them existing as abstract entities. Accordingly, you think that Clark's never denying he existed seems to answer something germane to this discussion. First off, your whole reasoning process is equivocal, for you offered your remark about Clark in the context of actually existing as a person, not a mere idea. Even if Clark affirmed he existed in some regard, has he addressed the question of whether he physically existed as a soul before God? Moreover, having never denied something does not imply affirming that something! Accordingly, even if you were to "know" that Clark never denied something, which is rather a difficult thing to know even for a non-skeptic(!), this doesn't mean he affirmed that he existed, let alone physically existed. You don't think you know whether you exist as a physical person let alone a non-physical idea (yet your half-baked answers would seem to deny the latter, though it doesn't square with your views of truth), or whether you've trusted in the Lord for your salvation. Clarkians are rather cultish for reasons such as these!
I've read it several times Sean. Point me to where Bahnsen affirms apparent contradiction in the Scriptures. I missed that one. You're quite the master of avoiding the issue and not knowing who you are following or opposing.
Ron
Obviously you don't see the difference between pink men on mars actually existing as physical beings and them existing as abstract entities. Accordingly, you think that Clark's never denying he existed seems to answer something germane to this discussion. First off, your whole reasoning process is equivocal, for you offered your remark about Clark in the context of actually existing as a person, not a mere idea. Even if Clark affirmed he existed in some regard, has he addressed the question of whether he physically existed as a soul before God? Moreover, having never denied something does not imply affirming that something! Accordingly, even if you were to "know" that Clark never denied something, which is rather a difficult thing to know even for a non-skeptic(!), this doesn't mean he affirmed that he existed, let alone physically existed. You don't think you know whether you exist as a physical person let alone a non-physical idea (yet your half-baked answers would seem to deny the latter, though it doesn't square with your views of truth), or whether you've trusted in the Lord for your salvation. Clarkians are rather cultish for reasons such as these!
I've read it several times Sean. Point me to where Bahnsen affirms apparent contradiction in the Scriptures. I missed that one. You're quite the master of avoiding the issue and not knowing who you are following or opposing.
Ron
This is exactly the point that is trying to be made. The term "exist" applies to both abstract entities and pink men.
A more appropriate question would be "What ARE pink men on mars?"
Two answers are then possible, they are either:
1) the fanciful delusions of men with too much time on their hands
or
2) intelligent rational beings created in the image of God with an obsession with wearing pink clothing.
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
whoa my friend, i think your logic in this example is a bit off. the argument is circular because it requires a precommitment to belief in God to prove itself. It is basically like this:
p1 - God exists
p2 - the bible is the Word of God and it says God created trees
therefore God exists and He created trees because the bible says so
to say that the tree exists because God created it is begging the question because we must presuppose God exists and rely on that presupposition as the basis for the truth of the argument; it does not give us information about the tree itself. Now I certainly agree God made trees, and i do not deny that i myself will engage in some amount of circular reasoning (we all do, even bahnsen will admit to that), but i believe we are able to know things not only because I presuppose the existence of God but also the fact that a tree is made of matter, and the matter that determines the composition of a tree remains constant. for example, trees will never grow wings and fly because that would be inconsistent with the intrinsic nature of the matter that composes the tree. so i know a tree exists because sensory perception (given by God of course) has allowed me to observe, perceive and interpret information based on immutable properties of matter contained within what we commonly call a tree
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
You might check the index Ron. I looked it up last night. See for yourself. Bahnsen is in complete agreement with the irrationalism and hostility to the harmony of Scripture as was his mentor.
Do you know of anywhere he critiques Van Til's assertion that all of Scripture is apparently contradictory, that truth is analogous, and that there is no univocal point of contact between God's thoughts and man's thoughts? I admit I've never read anything by him that was critical of Van Til in this area, but then the focus of much of his writings seemed to lay elsewhere, specifically in furthering Theonomy.
As for the rest of your remarks
Of course I'm presupposing God exists!! But I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm not proving God exist, I'm proving trees exist. And more specifically, I'm presupposing that Scripture is God's Word. That is my axiom. Anything that follows from my axiom is done in a linear non-circular fashion.
Circular reasoning - ONLY ONLY ONLY is the case if the thing you are trying to show in your conclusion is being assumed with your premises. I'm NOT trying to prove God exists.
The argument is NOT circular. Notice the conclusion is NOT "God exists". No circle. Nada. Nope. Just a straight deduction based on the presupposition of Scripture.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
First you misread me in your carelessness; I point it out to you and you're off to another matter...
Knowing the difference and believing one is more real than the other are two utterly different matters.
One reason I can know that I exist as one who is physical is because Christ became incarnate to save physical people, of which I'm one. There are other reasons too but this fact points more to your gnostic tendencies on denying any possible way of distinguishing matter from non-matter.
Again, Civbert, you say you believe that you don't know you exist, whether as a physical person or a mere abstract entity. If you don't exist as a person, then you cannot know your axiom. If you say your axiom is true or believe it to be true, then you must exist to say so.
You do exist. You exist as a walking contradiction.
Ron
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Is this seriously what Clark taught?
If so, then he was full of baloney. I really hope that the above list is just not a good description of what Clark believed and taught. If it IS a good description, then I have to wonder why people would believe him?
If the Bible is the only source of truth, then virtually nobody between Adam and Moses had any chance of learning any truth. Nobody could say "the Bible told me so" because the Bible didn't even EXIST yet.
In fact, Scripture itself says that truth can be gained outside of Scripture. For example, Romans 1 says that certain attributes of God are "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" (v. 20). Any person who simply looks at creation can know the fact of God's eternal power and divine nature. In fact, it is this very knowledge that renders unregenerate men "without excuse"! And none of this knowledge comes from Scripture . . . it is all natural revelation.
If nobody can know anything without finding it in the Bible, then nobody can know about God's eternal power or divine nature without first reading the Bible. But if they don't know about His eternal power and divine nature, then they DO have an excuse!
If you want to render fallen man "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20), then you must accept the fact that knowledge can be had through God's revelation in nature . . . not through Scriptural revelation alone.
If the list quoted at the top of this post accurately depicts Clarkianism, then ironically, Clarkianism is self-defeating, due to Romans 1:20 alone.
But again, maybe the list quoted above does not accurately depict Clark's thought. I hope he wasn't so obviously careless.
Would anyone care to elaborate for me, please?
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph,
God's revelation, both general and special, is the only source of knowledge. Our only hope of justifying knowledge is through special revelation alone, for what can we appeal to in general revelation? From special revelation we can deduce sound conclusions.
I'll take it one step further. I can reason beyond Scripture, yet by Scripture, to conclude things not contained in Scripture.
Those convicted of sin exist in the flesh
I'm convicted of sin
I exist in the flesh
I can know not only that Jesus came in the flesh but that I too exist bodily.
Ron
God's revelation, both general and special, is the only source of knowledge. Our only hope of justifying knowledge is through special revelation alone, for what can we appeal to in general revelation? From special revelation we can deduce sound conclusions.
I'll take it one step further. I can reason beyond Scripture, yet by Scripture, to conclude things not contained in Scripture.
Those convicted of sin exist in the flesh
I'm convicted of sin
I exist in the flesh
I can know not only that Jesus came in the flesh but that I too exist bodily.
Ron
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Good thoughts. The truth is, people know God through general revelation, so your point is well taken, all men are without excuse. This does not mean that they can utter an intelligible case for knowledge apart from Scripture. Again, what is man's ultimate authority apart from Scripture, some sort of conceptual necessity for God?
Ron
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
