Poll - How Do We Know?

[Magma2]

But the point is that intent is only an opinion, is it not, because this relies on senses to determine whether what you're holding in your hand or measuring with has any real certainty. My problem with the conflation of language is that something that is mere "opinion" (I don't really know I'm cheating my neighbor because ephah relies on my senses) is something that God Himself calls abominable if we're not honest about.

Well, it's the opinion of a weaker brother that eating meat offered to idols is sinful and to use our liberty in a way that might violate the conscious of a weaker brother is sin. It seems to me that Scripture takes opinions very seriously.

An ephah is arbitrary measure or standard. Cheating requires the intent of the mind. If a particular scale is somehow off in either direction and we're unaware, then I hardly think we could be accused of cheating -- even cheating ourselves. Intentionally altering an arbitrary weight to take advantage of another is a different thing altogether. BTW I think there is a direct parallel here between an arbitrary measure and the meaning we assign to it and Moreland's discussion of propositions and linguistic tokens.

I think part of the problem is that most seem to think opinions are somehow irrelevant. They're not. We're to bring all our thoughts into submission to Christ, even our opinions. Consider this from Dr. Robbins on science and medicine written after his recent serious battle with cancer:

First, we know infallibly that the diagnoses stated in Scripture are true and accurate. Because Scripture is inerrant, we know that the man who was born blind (see John 9), for example, was in fact born blind. (The rulers of the synagogue tried to find out whether he was or not by questioning people, including his parents.) But there is no such knowledge in medical science. Patients sometimes lie; tests yield both false positives and false negatives; doctors jump to false conclusions; and patients are frequently misdiagnosed, sometimes for years. There is a very good reason that doctors speak of “second opinions”: All science, including medical science, deals only in opinions, not in knowledge, that is, not in proven truth. To suggest that the investigations of scientists can attain such knowledge demeans Scripture and propositional revelation. It also asserts a theory of knowledge that is itself false and logically indefensible. To understand science and its proper purpose, which is not cognition, one ought to study Gordon Clark’s book The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God. Scientists, including physicians, are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. They are properly interested in what works, not what is true. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=229

While opinions may work and even work very well, it is still important to make epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance. That doesn't mean that opinions have no value as some seem to assume. I think a much more serious problem is that often we over value opinions and raise them to the level of revealed truths.

 

[Magma2]

Sean,

I think you're missing my point.

If I cannot trust my senses for knowledge then I don't understand how I could know whether or not I'm being honest. I've been told, earlier in this thread, I can't even be certain who my parents are much less whether I'm measuring out 6 lbs of grain to my neighbor!

Here's a question. Suppose I intend to cheat someone by altering my little scale. I fiddle around with the thing and I'm happy that it will provide results that gives me an advantage over another. Unfortunately, what I don't realize is that my little scale was already unbalanced against me and my fiddling actually evened the scale, yet I think I'm cheating.

Am I sinning?

 

[Davidius]

I think part of the problem is that most seem to think opinions are somehow irrelevant. They're not. We're to bring all our thoughts into submission to Christ, even our opinions.

While opinions may work and even work very well, it is still important to make epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance. That doesn't mean that opinions have no value as some seem to assume. I think a much more serious problem is that often we over value opinions and raise them to the level of revealed truths.

This is exactly what I was getting at in my most recent question/observation. Can you open up more on these ideas of opinions being relevant/having value and "epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance"?

 

[Civbert]

From my reading of the thread as a newbie to all this, it seems like a lot of the strong reactions against what you're saying stem from the idea that something has to be "knowledge" in the way that term is being used in order to be useful (or would "knowing" in the epistemic sense and "knowing" in the assured sense be better?). In other words, for some it seems like it has to be all or nothing. If something isn't "knowledge" but only "belief," then it's worthless.

Right!

It would be helpful, for me at least, to have some clear definitions of knowledge and belief and some statements about why, for instance, what you're saying about not needing epistemic knowledge but only assured belief being a reasonable and acceptable way to view certain issues, particularly important ones like this one currently being discussed.

Sure thing. I've defined knowledge and know in the different senses, but maybe I can help by approaching it from the angle you are suggesting.

Should I make my own thread about true knowledge and belief? Or perhaps there are already some which I can peruse.

It's been discussed, but some of the threads have gotten pretty long. A new thread might be in order.

I'll be back to you on the "angle" and try to clarify that.

 

[Magma2]

This is exactly what I was getting at in my most recent question/observation. Can you open up more on these ideas of opinions being relevant/having value and "epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance"?

I don't know how you would like this opened up, but Karl Popper wrote:

“We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses . . . In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.”

It would seem to follow that the stock and trade of science are opinions. Popper called them "conjectures." Now, saying this, I don't think anyone would deny that science works and works very well. It makes computers and the internet so we can chat about knowledge and noetic states of mind, and it also makes nuclear bombs so we can turn entire cities into glass. However, science can never tell us for what purpose we ought to use our computers or glass making bombs.

Similarly, I would think Christians would be interested in pursuing and defending truth and not opinions or "conjectures." I would also think Christians wouldn't want to confuse the two, but it seems they do. We're not pragmatists after all, or at least we shouldn't be. Furthermore, I think that to equate or confuse even the conjectures of science with truth is to devalue propositional revelation which claims to have a monopoly on truth and is "a lamp shining in a dark place." The God of Scripture after all is called "the Lord God of Truth" and we know, or at least we claim to know, that God's Word is true.

I'm afraid that instead of knowledge being justified true opinion or belief, many now call that knowledge whatever passes through the sieve of epistemic "warrant." I think this is a serious defect in so-called "Reformed Epistemology" and is why I think these "epistemologists" have simply lowered the epistemic bar, and, in the process, have deprecated the uniqueness of God's propositional revelation. For example, on Plantinga and his book Warranted Christian Belief Wikipedia states:

"Plantinga applies his theory of warrant to the question of whether or not specifically Christian theistic belief can enjoy warrant. He argues for a specific model of how, if Christianity it true, this is plausible. Notably, the book does not address whether or not Christianity is, in fact, true."

While I'm in the process of reading WCB (and we're talking 600+ pages which evidently never even addresses whether or not Christianity is, in fact, true), I think if this is correct it is a serious defect in the entire RE enterprise and is disastrous for Christian apologetics in particular. While Plantinga and other RE proponents are hailed as innovators, I have to ask what ever happened to truth? Even in the introduction to WCB Plantinga states that he isn't interested in defending Christianity per se, but rather some sort of nondescript ecumenical or generic Christian theism. For what it's worth, and as an aside, I never understood the fascination in apologetics with defending theism since even Hell is filled with theists. Besides, if these men were truly Reformed they would understand that embracing theism isn't a first step in becoming a Christian or accepting Christ. Sometimes I think most of what passes for Christian philosophy and apologetics is really nothing more than various expressions of epistemic Pelagianism.

Off soap box now.

 

[Magma2]

This is exactly what I was getting at in my most recent question/observation. Can you open up more on these ideas of opinions being relevant/having value and "epistemic distinctions between different noetic states such as knowledge, opinion and ignorance"?

I guess the better response is the one Dr. Robbins already gave in his Introduction to Gordon Clark:

There are three sorts of cognitive states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. Ignorance is simply the lack of ideas. Complete ignorance is the state of mind that empiricists say we are born with: We are all born with blank minds, tabula rasa, to use John Locke’s phrase. (Incidentally, a tabula rasa mind - a blank mind - is an impossibility. A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Empiricism rests on a contradiction.) At the other extreme from ignorance is knowledge. Knowledge is not simply possessing thoughts or ideas, as some think. Knowledge is possessing true ideas and knowing them to be true. Knowledge is, by definition, knowledge of the truth.

Now this next part in Dr. Robbins' comments is what I believe drives his critics and other critics of Scripturalism nuts:

Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We “know” that we are in Pennsylvania; we “know” that Clinton - either Bill or Hillary - is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.” Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.

It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it. I can, however, prove that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. That information is revealed to me, not by the dubious daily newspaper or the evening news, but by the infallible Word of God. The resurrection of Christ is deduced by good and necessary consequence from the axiom of revelation. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=192

I think the above is really what all the fuss and discussion is about. Why of course I know Billary was the President of the United States and Dick Cheney, I mean George Jr., is the president now. This isn't an opinion. I know it. See, Scripturalism is nuts!

 

[Magma2]

For what it's worth, I think most of the objections against Scripturalism are, in one way or another, a form of the question; how do you know you have a bible in your hands? Of course, Clark might have countered; how do you get Justification by Faith alone from ink marks on a page? -- which was usually more than enough to leave his critics silent. Clark’s arguments weren’t always negative though, for example Clark responded to George Mavrodes' criticism concerning the question, "don't we have to read our bibles" as follows:

"The substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hands is a cunningly devised substitute.... In fact, until these [skeptical] arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point." (For the complete discussion and to try and grasp his first point see http://trinityfoundation.org/ammo/clark_refutes.asp )

 

[Davidius]

For what it's worth, I think most of the objections against Scripturalism are, in one way or another, a form of the question; how do you know you have a bible in your hands? Of course, Clark might have countered; how do you get Justification by Faith alone from ink marks on a page? -- which was usually more than enough to leave his critics silent. Clark’s arguments weren’t always negative though, for example Clark responded to George Mavrodes' criticism concerning the question, "don't we have to read our bibles" as follows:

"The substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hands is a cunningly devised substitute.... In fact, until these [skeptical] arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point." (For the complete discussion and to try and grasp his first point see http://trinityfoundation.org/ammo/clark_refutes.asp )

Thanks for the article. I just got back from campus and haven't had time to read it but I'll try to get to it later and digest that as well as the other things you've said. This last post was particularly relevant because the objection is the exact same one which seems to naturally arise in my own mind as I consider Scripturalism.

 

[Davidius]

"The substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hands is a cunningly devised substitute.... In fact, until these [skeptical] arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point." (For the complete discussion and to try and grasp his first point see http://trinityfoundation.org/ammo/clark_refutes.asp )

The link appears to be broken.

 

[Magma2]

Thanks for the article. I just got back from campus and haven't had time to read it but I'll try to get to it later and digest that as well as the other things you've said. This last post was particularly relevant because the objection is the exact same one which seems to naturally arise in my own mind as I consider Scripturalism.

Once again proving great minds think alike.

 

[Magma2]

The link appears to be broken.

Sorry. Here's Mavrodes:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=2

And Clark's reply:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/new_article.php?id=1

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Here's a question. Suppose I intend to cheat someone by altering my little scale. I fiddle around with the thing and I'm happy that it will provide results that gives me an advantage over another. Unfortunately, what I don't realize is that my little scale was already unbalanced against me and my fiddling actually evened the scale, yet I think I'm cheating.

Am I sinning?

Yes, because in my view of knowledge, I know that my fingers are real and the scale is real and that my sense of touch and sight leave me without excuse for what I'm doing. I do not merely have an opinion that a scale exists, an opinion that there is a 1 kg weight, or an opinion that my fingers are touching it.

My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I know either?

 

[MW]

My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I know either?

In traditional reformed ethics truth-speaking is not merely speaking according to fact, but speaking according to fact as we know it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think the above is really what all the fuss and discussion is about. Why of course I know Billary was the President of the United States and Dick Cheney, I mean George Jr., is the president now. This isn't an opinion. I know it. See, Scripturalism is nuts!

Well I'm happy to see you finally admit it.

Seriously, I understand from Anthony and you that you want to use terms like know in a philosophically certain way but I think that this insistence in most interactions does, in fact, make Clarkians appear silly to the outside world. I'm saying this not to be pejorative but to point out how it is received.

There is an acknowledgement from Clarkians that the word know (or what is translated as it) is used in a vast way throughout Scriptures. Yet when Christians want to speak as the Bible speaks about "knowing" something it seems that Clarkians want to be the word police and say "that's just opinion". It's almost as if some would be willing to take an apostle or prophet himself to task for using a word in a way you don't like.

This also gets to the perspicuity of the Scirptures. I don't consider myself a genius but I'm no dope either. I can be pugnacious at times but I do try to understand where people are coming from.

Witness our interaction and how nuanced it becomes just so you can maintain that knowledge is one thing and opinion is everything else. "Well", you say, "we are responsible for some of our opinions...."

Which ones? Which opinions are abominable and which are adiophora. I like red, you like blue. I use false scales, you use true ones. Both are sets of opinions. This creates such a vast and confusing array of opinions that the word itself becomes stripped of any meaning. Why? Not because the Scirptures use opinion to refer to things but because a Clarkian does.

I don't get it. Why not focus on the principle that matters and guard things we are certain about? Why not distinguish that term? Instead you take over a word (that you claim is just a mere symbol devoid of meaning in itself) and die on a hill while everyone else is wondering: "Is this really all about words?"

 

[Civbert]

My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I know either?

Does it. What if for the sake of argument you did something you believed was cheating? Does it matter if you have absolute proof? If you believe you cheated someone, and you do not correct that situation, what does it matter?

You still make the same mistake in assuming that a claim that sense experience leads to opinion makes it worthless. This does not follow.

Sean's example well demonstrated that one does not have to give a deductive proof of sinning in order to know one has sinned. The sin does not depend on your perception of "reality". It depends explicit on your intentions. If you intended to cheat, and believe you cheated, that is entirely sufficient for you to know you have sinned (given you believe God's Law).

The cheater in Sean's example clearly had no epistemic certainity that he cheated. His senses fooled him. His experience made him think he had taken advantage of someone when in fact, his scales were fair. He did not know the truth based on experience. But he still sinned because he intended to cheat.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anthony,

See my comments above. They sum it up.

I've understood the difference between mathematical certainty and "usefulness" for some time. Engineers can usually discard variables that are an order of magnitude off and create a predictable model and workable device over a limited curve of response. All digital signal processing discards some information but is able to preserve enough to be intelligible (this also allows some cool things to be done digitally that would be expensive to build an analog circuit for).

The point, in the end, is that if you insist on philosophical certainty to call something knowledge then I think this is always going to be met with opposition not the least of reasons is that the Scriptures themselves do not limit that use. I also believe that this is precisely what Paul has in mind when he talks about "vain philosophies" where people start arguing about children being swapped at birth. It's reminiscent of Xeno arguing that motion doesn't exist.

The Scriptures assume a general reliability of our sense perceptions because God Himself created them for us to use to His glory. I agree with you that our senses can be fooled and we cannot rely on them fully but that is different than conflating all language so that I must change all Scriptural language from "know" to "opinion" because "know" is always epistemic certainty.

I refuse to ever change the natural way that I speak or interact or to re-word the words of Scripture themselves simply to fit a philosophical model. I also think this places an unnecessary point of offense between the words of the Scriptures and a man I am trying to teach. If evangelism requires that I must first give a lesson in philosophy so a man can understand epistemic certainty to distinguish between my novel use of "know" and "opinion" then something is very wrong.

 

[Civbert]

Well I'm happy to see you finally admit it.

Seriously, I understand from Anthony and you that you want to use terms like know in a philosophically certain way but I think that this insistence in most interactions does, in fact, make Clarkians appear silly to the outside world. I'm saying this not to be pejorative but to point out how it is received.

Isn't that what Scripture tells us. We will appear foolish to the Greeks.

There is an acknowledgement from Clarkians that the word know (or what is translated as it) is used in a vast way throughout Scriptures. Yet when Christians want to speak as the Bible speaks about "knowing" something it seems that Clarkians want to be the word police and say "that's just opinion". It's almost as if some would be willing to take an apostle or prophet himself to task for using a word in a way you don't like.

No, we say you must understand words as they are intended by the authors. I love the way Scripture uses words, each and every time. But I don't insist that I must morph the definitions that Scripture uses into some ambiguous bloop and say this is what a word means. And it is wrong to impose a meaning onto a words in Scripture (or anywhere else) that is not intended by the writer.

Witness our interaction and how nuanced it becomes just so you can maintain that knowledge is one thing and opinion is everything else. "Well", you say, "we are responsible for some of our opinions...."

Which ones?

All of them.

Why? Not because the Scirptures use opinion to refer to things but because a Clarkian does.

Are you saying Vantilians have no opinions, or you don't. But Scripture is knowledge and so says Scripturalism.

I don't get it. Why not focus on the principle that matters and guard things we are certain about?

That is EXACTLY what Scripturalism does. It guards what we KNOW (the Scriptures and what is deducible therefrom) from those things which we arrive at independently of revelation.

Why not distinguish that term? Instead you take over a word (that you claim is just a mere symbol devoid of meaning in itself) and die on a hill while everyone else is wondering: "Is this really all about words?"

The devil's in the details, and so is God.

A word without definition is meaningless. A word used ambiguously leads to confusion. A word used equivocally leads to error.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The devil's in the details, and so is God.

A word without definition is meaningless. A word used ambiguously leads to confusion. A word used equivocally leads to error.

I think you would agree that regardless of what meanings these types or tokens may convey, "a set of culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules," much less "a sense perceptible string of markings" can hardly, in and of themselves, be truths. They are arbitrary and change from culture to culture or even within a culture.

Which is it? If a word is a set of "culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules" then why do you use something that is arbitrary and insist on its use in a way that is not in accordance with the way the culture understands it so you can convey its meaning?

 

[Civbert]

Anthony,
...The Scriptures assume a general reliability of our sense perceptions because God Himself created them for us to use to His glory. I agree with you that our senses can be fooled and we cannot rely on them fully but that is different than conflating all language so that I must change all Scriptural language from "know" to "opinion" because "know" is always epistemic certainty.

"Know" is not always epistemic certainity.

I refuse to ever change the natural way that I speak or interact or to re-word the words of Scripture themselves simply to fit a philosophical model.

Good! Who says otherwise??

I also think this places an unnecessary point of offense between the words of the Scriptures and a man I am trying to teach.

I disagree. Scripture is not ambiguous. Words in Scripture have specific univocal meanings. In the Greek there are several terms that are translated into the singe word "love". We know that to assume that each time the word loves is used in the Bible it has the same exact meaning is false. It is equally false to impose an alien definition on the word in any given case. And certainly the modern notion of love is a most alien of all.

If evangelism requires that I must first give a lesson in philosophy so a man can understand epistemic certainty to distinguish between my novel use of "know" and "opinion" then something is very wrong.

Or not. Especially when you consider that many definitions of terms used in the Bible have meaning that a novel to Scripture. Consider the biblical meaning of the term "hope". It is not that vague wishful feeling that is most common, and yes natural, for today. We must explain this to a person new to the Bible so he doesn't get the wrong ideas.

And there is nothing novel about using the term "know" as epistemic certainity - no more than using "know" to mean assured. It is unusual to use the term "know" to mean intimate relations with the opposite sex - but I'm not complaining. However, I also don't expect to get slapped if I say to someone I'd like to get to know you because I'm not using "know" with that particular yet completely biblical meaning.

And then there's really crazy concepts like ectypal theology. How are you going to explain that? Or the creature/creator distinction. Or the Trinity. Or how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man? And shall we talk about "the one and the many"? These are not things we can brush aside. And these ideas are not things that jump out at us when we read the Bible. They are the product of considerable contemplation and attempts to answer philosophical question from a Christian worldview. And make no mistake, Christianity is a philosophical worldview. We are making claims about the meaning of reality when we claim to be a Christian, with all the epistemic, ontological, and metaphysical implications a worldview entails.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anthony,

I think you arguments are more pugnacious than meaningful. I'll let the reader resolve which comports to the Scriptural witness and whether or not your ideas are resonant with the Scriptural witness.

I've made my point.

Blessings,

Rich

 

[Civbert]

Anthony,

I think you arguments are more pugnacious than meaningful. I'll let the reader resolve which comports to the Scriptural witness and whether or not your ideas are resonant with the Scriptural witness.

I've made my point.

Blessings,

Rich

Pugnacious. I like that word. I like "resonate" too. Is that similar to syncretism?

 

[Magma2]

My problem with the complete deprecation of all sense experience and calling it all opinion is that it casts everything into doubt if it's not philsophical certainty: both when I'm trying to be honest and when I'm cheating. Can I know either?

If you think one can arrive at true propositions from sense experience then that's where you should begin, but virtually no one does. You need to define what a sensation is? Then you need to show how sensations give rise to images and perceptions and from these on to abstract ideas. My problem is that those who assume sense experience can give rise to knowledge merely assert the very thing they need to demonstrate. They beg the question.

Also, to be clear, I haven't said anything about philosophic certainty at all. For what it's worth I don't even like the phrase. What I've said is that knowledge is true belief with an account of its truth. You act like this is some new and foreign discovery, some odd imposition on the Scriptures, yet even Greg Bahnsen held to the same definition:

“Beliefs that are arbitrarily adopted or based upon faulty grounds, even when they turn out to be true, do not qualify as instances of ‘knowledge’ . . . What is the additional ingredient, besides being correct, that a belief must have in order to count as knowledge? It must be substantiated, supported, or justified by evidence. Knowledge is true belief held on adequate grounds rather than held fallaciously or haphazardly. To put it traditionally, knowledge is justified, true belief.” [Van Til’s Apologetics, pg. 178]

Clark provides such an account starting from Scripture alone, whereas the empiricism which you desperately cling to rest on a fallacy (i.e., begging the question). It may rest on other fallacies or it might actually arrive at knowledge. Who knows, perhaps the great empiricists in history were all wrong and they didn't need Kant's a_priori after all?

As for my cheater, Anthony is correct, you missed the point entirely. Well, not entirely, because you think he is sinning even for the wrong reason. You'll note that his sinning had nothing to do with any notions about fingers or scales being "real" or a sensitive touch or even that scales "exist." It was the cheater's opinion that he was cheating others. That was his intent. It was his intent, his thought, that was sinful. The fact is, he wasn't really cheating anyone at all.

 

[MW]

Clark provides such an account starting from Scripture alone, whereas the empiricism which you desperately cling to rest on a fallacy (i.e., begging the question).

Rich has been resting his case on the Scriptural use of the word to know. It can't be question-begging to accept the authority of Scripture in a discussion which assumes the authority of Scripture.

 

[Magma2]

Seriously, I understand from Anthony and you that you want to use terms like know in a philosophically certain way but I think that this insistence in most interactions does, in fact, make Clarkians appear silly to the outside world. I'm saying this not to be pejorative but to point out how it is received.

Yet, what seems silly to you has been a central problem of philosophy since day one, or at least the first day when people started doing philosophy. Hey, that's why this thread is under "Philosophy." Besides, Christianity is silly to the outside world. So what? The point is that the outside world cannot account for any knowledge at all (even the inside world has problems with the idea that the Scripture alone provide both the content and the account of knowledge).

Clark demonstrated how starting with revelation (i.e., the Scripture's alone) one can provide an account for knowledge. Now, it may not be enough knowledge as some here may want, but we should be grateful for whatever little or much the Lord provides. If knowledge can be found outside of Scripture as so many assert, then the onus ought to be on them to provide the account. Ridicule is no substitute for argument.

There is an acknowledgement from Clarkians that the word know (or what is translated as it) is used in a vast way throughout Scriptures. Yet when Christians want to speak as the Bible speaks about "knowing" something it seems that Clarkians want to be the word police and say "that's just opinion". It's almost as if some would be willing to take an apostle or prophet himself to task for using a word in a way you don't like.

For what it's worth I think it's the other way around. Like I said to Manata, if I were to say on my honeymoon I knew my wife he'd probably ask me how did I know (and gentlemen never kiss and tell).

I use the word "to know" in the colloquial sense all the time, but since I started a poll dealing with knowledge in the epistemic sense I should try not to equivocate along the way. I wish my opponents sometime would show similar disciple and restraint.

Witness our interaction and how nuanced it becomes just so you can maintain that knowledge is one thing and opinion is everything else. "Well", you say, "we are responsible for some of our opinions...."

Which ones? Which opinions are abominable and which are adiophora. I like red, you like blue. I use false scales, you use true ones. Both are sets of opinions. This creates such a vast and confusing array of opinions that the word itself becomes stripped of any meaning. Why? Not because the Scirptures use opinion to refer to things but because a Clarkian does.

The point was raise that unless we know this or that we can't even know that we're sinning or being obedient. This is false. Preferring red or blue are not sins, but if God said either or both were, then they would be. Sins are whatever God says they are simply because God is ex-lex.

I don't get it. Why not focus on the principle that matters and guard things we are certain about? Why not distinguish that term? Instead you take over a word (that you claim is just a mere symbol devoid of meaning in itself) and die on a hill while everyone else is wondering: "Is this really all about words?"

Like I said at the outset, many would argue that unless you can explain how you know something you can't really say you know anything at all. I guess I'm just one of those people.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sean,

If you understood me then you would understand that I'm not *resting* on empericism but I'm just not denying my God created senses' ability to leave me without excuse at times for sins I commit. It's not all or nothing for me.

Nowhere have I argued that I can arrive at infallible certainty through my senses. I simply find it arbitrary to assign all knowledge derived from the world around us to the realm of opinion especially when God holds us accountable to the objects we perceive.

Ironically, you guys call words arbitrary but are the most insistent in the way that an arbitrary marker is utilized. You guys refuse to even acknowledge that words have meaning and distinguish between the awareness and the learning of a thing (and don't even know how we become aware of a thing or if we learn things apart from being aware of them) but then you are strangely insistent on defining knowledge as justified true belief.

You're honestly very hard to understand because you're insistent on the use of a word but then you deny that a word has any meaning.

 

[Civbert]

You're honestly very hard to understand because you're insistent on the use of a word but then you deny that a word has any meaning.

Yep. The pretty much sums up Scripturalism. We Clarkians deny words have any meaning.

Oooookay then. I guess that wraps it up.

....

Pugnacious. I like that word.

 

[Magma2]

Rich has been resting his case on the Scriptural use of the word to know. It can't be question-begging to accept the authority of Scripture in a discussion which assumes the authority of Scripture.

Jesus said if we abide in his words we will know the truth. He said nothing about if we trust our senses or believe what we see we will know the truth. He said nothing to support your many deeply held empirical beliefs. Further, Paul said we live by belief not by sight. I realize you don't accept that either and rather contend, without so much as a rational or even a biblical argument, that the "truth is out there" and not in any way limited to Scripture, but I see no reason to believe you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yep. The pretty much sums up Scripturalism. We Clarkians deny words have any meaning.

Oooookay then. I guess that wraps it up.

Anthony,

If you feel I have mischaracterized something please elaborate. I quoted two statements about words right next to each other above. If you want to explain to me how you resolve the two then I'm all eyes. Perhaps it's an apparent contradiction.

Here are the statements that I cannot resolve:

Originally Posted by Civbert
The devil's in the details, and so is God.

A word without definition is meaningless. A word used ambiguously leads to confusion. A word used equivocally leads to error.

But when referring to words Sean wrote:

Originally Posted by Magma2
I think you would agree that regardless of what meanings these types or tokens may convey, "a set of culturally arbitrary set of syntactical rules," much less "a sense perceptible string of markings" can hardly, in and of themselves, be truths. They are arbitrary and change from culture to culture or even within a culture.

You also previously could not answer how a person becomes aware of a thing in guarding against a question I had about learning how to use words in sentences, etc. It seems in one conversation you want to devalue words, grammar, and syntax but in another you want to insist they are used in a very precise way to convey meaning.

 

[MW]

Jesus said if we abide in his words we will know the truth. He said nothing about if we trust our senses or believe what we see we will know the truth. He said nothing to support your many deeply held empirical beliefs. Further, Paul said we live by belief not by sight. I realize you don't accept that either and rather contend, without so much as a rational or even a biblical argument, that the "truth is out there" and not in any way limited to Scripture, but I see no reason to believe you.

This in no way justifies your erroneous charge aimed at Rich. I am sure Rich wholeheartedly accepts the biblical teaching that we must walk by faith in relation to things which are not seen. Nevertheless, he maintains there are numerous Scriptures which use the word to know in relation to objects of sense. Rich is holding to the testimony of the Scriptures as to the trustworthiness of his senses.

 

[Magma2]

This in no way justifies your erroneous charge aimed at Rich. I am sure Rich wholeheartedly accepts the biblical teaching that we must walk by faith in relation to things which are not seen. Nevertheless, he maintains there are numerous Scriptures which use the word to know in relation to objects of sense. Rich is holding to the testimony of the Scriptures as to the trustworthiness of his senses.

And this coming from a man who has failed miserably trying to demonstrate that sensation has any cognitive role. I'm trying to figure out what you possibly can have left? The parable of the fig tree provided you no support. Pharisaic weather forecasting was of no use to you either and you failed to even identify Jesus' valid use of ad hominem. And doubting Thomas was a rebuke to your sensate Thomistic epistemology and you didn't even grasp that. Consequently, it's hard for me to conclude that Rich has chosen the right side in this debate.