Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
I am beginning a new thread with quite a provocative title, and as such I feel the need to qualify this. I am going to argue that Scripturalism as put forth by Sean (Magma2) and Anthony (Civbert) fails to provide an answer to the question “How do we know?” The thread where much of my thought was developed, and where I am taking Sean’s and Anthony’s conception of Scripturalism can be found here.
Introductory Comments
The question that must be kept central to the discussion is “How do we know?” By this, Anthony has clarified that what is really being asked is “How can we justify anything we say we know.” In other words, “What is the basis for being able to claim to have any knowledge whatsoever?” The answer given by Sean and Anthony is that Scripture alone is the foundation for knowledge. They point to the axiomatic system of Gordon Clark as the practical development of this. Gordon Clark says that his axiomatic system has one axiom, and that from this one axiom propositions can be derived that are rightly called knowledge. It is my position that Clark’s system as put forth by Anthony and Sean (from now on simply referred to as Scripturalism) fails to do this.
My Refutation
Clark’s axiom (the Axiom) is as follows – Axiom: The Bible alone is the Word of God.
From this argument, Clark means to be able to draw such conclusions as ‘Jesus is Messiah’ from this one axiom alone. I claim that this is a fool’s errand, and that there is needed additional knowledge to be able to derive any propositional truth from the Bible. To illustrate this I present one possible argument chain that gets us from the one axiom to our desired conclusion…
Premise 1A: All propositions of the Word of God are true.
Premise 2A (the axiom): All propositions of the Bible are propositions of the Word of God.
Conclusion A: All propositions of the Bible are true.
Premise 1B (conclusion A): All propositions of the Bible are true.
Premise 2B: ‘Jesus is Messiah’ is a proposition of the Bible.
Conclusion B: ‘Jesus is Messiah’ is true.
These are valid arguments and lead us to the desired conclusion B. However, there are serious problems with this.
Problem 1: Where does premise 1A come from? If this cannot be justified, then conclusion A is not justified. Now, someone may argue as follows…
Premise 1C: If God is a being such that He is omniscient, infallible and never lies, then all propositions of the Word of God are true.
Premise 2C: God is a being such that He is omniscient, infallible and never lies.
Conclusion C (our premise 1A): All propositions of the Word of God are true.
Again, this is a valid argument of the form Modus Ponens. However, for this argument to follow both premises 1C and 2C need to be justified, and Modus Ponens must be justified as well. Where does this knowledge come from? If the Scripturalist answers from Scripture, then he is arguing in a vicious circle. You see, he still has not justified how he knows anything from Scripture (this is what he is attempting to do), and in order to justify how he knows anything from Scripture any appeal to Scripture as knowledge is to simply beg the question.
Problem 2: Where does premise 2B come from? I would like to point out for whatever it is worth that premise 2B is not even Scripture. There is no proposition in Scripture that says, “‘Jesus is Messiah’ is a proposition of the Bible.” Again, the Scripturalist does not have an answer.
Problem 3: This is related to one of the issues mentioned in problem 1. For us to draw any of these conclusions in the two syllogisms above we have to be able to justify our thinking. Why is a syllogism of this form a valid deduction? One might try to justify it as follows…
Premise 1D: If a syllogism has two premises in the form of “All M is P” and “All S is M,” then the conclusion “All S is P” is a valid deduction.
Premise 2D: Syllogism A has two premises in the form of “All M is P” and “All S is M.”
Conclusion D: The conclusion “All S is P” is valid.
Where do the premises 1D and 2D come from? Again, if Scripturalist answers from Scripture, then he is arguing in a vicious circle. You see, he still has not justified how he knows anything from Scripture (this is what he is attempting to do), and in order to justify how he knows anything from Scripture any appeal to Scripture as knowledge is to simply beg the question. Also, this argument presupposes the logical law of Modus Ponens. Again, where does this come from?
Conclusion
The Scripturalist will not be able to overcome these objections even though they will try. You will see that in some cases Scripturalists will go to such lengths to justify their position that they will embrace irrationalism. I will do my best to point this out as they respond in this thread. Here is the sad thing in all of this. If they would simply acknowledge that there necessarily is needed some a priori knowledge to go along with the one axiom, then I believe the answer they provide would provide a rational justification to the question of “How do we know?” Their stubborn refusal to do this ultimately leads them to arbitrariness and irrationality. Parenthetically, I do think Clark acknowledged the need of a prior knowledge apart from Scripture. He referred to it as man’s innate ability. Here is where Clark most clearly says this…
Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must already be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and a priori categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and a priori categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge. This is Clark and not me. If one grants these things, then every objection I made above goes away. It is my hope that Anthony and Sean will have ears to hear Clark on this point.
Sincerely,
Brian
Introductory Comments
The question that must be kept central to the discussion is “How do we know?” By this, Anthony has clarified that what is really being asked is “How can we justify anything we say we know.” In other words, “What is the basis for being able to claim to have any knowledge whatsoever?” The answer given by Sean and Anthony is that Scripture alone is the foundation for knowledge. They point to the axiomatic system of Gordon Clark as the practical development of this. Gordon Clark says that his axiomatic system has one axiom, and that from this one axiom propositions can be derived that are rightly called knowledge. It is my position that Clark’s system as put forth by Anthony and Sean (from now on simply referred to as Scripturalism) fails to do this.
My Refutation
Clark’s axiom (the Axiom) is as follows – Axiom: The Bible alone is the Word of God.
From this argument, Clark means to be able to draw such conclusions as ‘Jesus is Messiah’ from this one axiom alone. I claim that this is a fool’s errand, and that there is needed additional knowledge to be able to derive any propositional truth from the Bible. To illustrate this I present one possible argument chain that gets us from the one axiom to our desired conclusion…
Premise 1A: All propositions of the Word of God are true.
Premise 2A (the axiom): All propositions of the Bible are propositions of the Word of God.
Conclusion A: All propositions of the Bible are true.
Premise 1B (conclusion A): All propositions of the Bible are true.
Premise 2B: ‘Jesus is Messiah’ is a proposition of the Bible.
Conclusion B: ‘Jesus is Messiah’ is true.
These are valid arguments and lead us to the desired conclusion B. However, there are serious problems with this.
Problem 1: Where does premise 1A come from? If this cannot be justified, then conclusion A is not justified. Now, someone may argue as follows…
Premise 1C: If God is a being such that He is omniscient, infallible and never lies, then all propositions of the Word of God are true.
Premise 2C: God is a being such that He is omniscient, infallible and never lies.
Conclusion C (our premise 1A): All propositions of the Word of God are true.
Again, this is a valid argument of the form Modus Ponens. However, for this argument to follow both premises 1C and 2C need to be justified, and Modus Ponens must be justified as well. Where does this knowledge come from? If the Scripturalist answers from Scripture, then he is arguing in a vicious circle. You see, he still has not justified how he knows anything from Scripture (this is what he is attempting to do), and in order to justify how he knows anything from Scripture any appeal to Scripture as knowledge is to simply beg the question.
Problem 2: Where does premise 2B come from? I would like to point out for whatever it is worth that premise 2B is not even Scripture. There is no proposition in Scripture that says, “‘Jesus is Messiah’ is a proposition of the Bible.” Again, the Scripturalist does not have an answer.
Problem 3: This is related to one of the issues mentioned in problem 1. For us to draw any of these conclusions in the two syllogisms above we have to be able to justify our thinking. Why is a syllogism of this form a valid deduction? One might try to justify it as follows…
Premise 1D: If a syllogism has two premises in the form of “All M is P” and “All S is M,” then the conclusion “All S is P” is a valid deduction.
Premise 2D: Syllogism A has two premises in the form of “All M is P” and “All S is M.”
Conclusion D: The conclusion “All S is P” is valid.
Where do the premises 1D and 2D come from? Again, if Scripturalist answers from Scripture, then he is arguing in a vicious circle. You see, he still has not justified how he knows anything from Scripture (this is what he is attempting to do), and in order to justify how he knows anything from Scripture any appeal to Scripture as knowledge is to simply beg the question. Also, this argument presupposes the logical law of Modus Ponens. Again, where does this come from?
Conclusion
The Scripturalist will not be able to overcome these objections even though they will try. You will see that in some cases Scripturalists will go to such lengths to justify their position that they will embrace irrationalism. I will do my best to point this out as they respond in this thread. Here is the sad thing in all of this. If they would simply acknowledge that there necessarily is needed some a priori knowledge to go along with the one axiom, then I believe the answer they provide would provide a rational justification to the question of “How do we know?” Their stubborn refusal to do this ultimately leads them to arbitrariness and irrationality. Parenthetically, I do think Clark acknowledged the need of a prior knowledge apart from Scripture. He referred to it as man’s innate ability. Here is where Clark most clearly says this…
But it (Theism) must assert that man's endowment with rationality, his innate ideas and a priori categories, his ability to think and speak were given to him by God for the essential purpose of receiving a verbal revelation...(page 135, Religion, Reason and Revelation).
Clark tells us that theism must assert (not deduce) that man must already be endowed with rationality, innate ideas and a priori categories. Why must this assertion be made? For the essential purpose of receiving verbal revelation! If we do not already have some knowledge of innate ideas and a priori categories coupled with rationality, then man is unable to receive verbal revelation and draw appropriate conclusions that could rightly be called knowledge. This is Clark and not me. If one grants these things, then every objection I made above goes away. It is my hope that Anthony and Sean will have ears to hear Clark on this point.
Sincerely,
Brian