Must Clarkians use some Emperical Analysis & Inductive Reasoning?
- Thread starter Brian Bosse
- Start date
- Status
That is arguably where you should have started. Context is everything.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
According to my understanding of Clark, this is slightly inaccurate. On page 63 of An Introduction to Christian Philosophy under the section “4. Does This Beg all Questions” we read…
Clark’s point here is that the one axiom is that the Scriptures are the word of God. The truths found therein would be next in the logical order – theorems of the one axiom, if you will. So, the start of Scripturalism is not with the truths of Scripture, but rather the assumption that Scripture is the word of God. However, there seems to be some confusion as to what is referred to in the axiom. Clearly, there is one axiom in Clark’s system. On page 59 under the section “1. A Suggested Axiom” we read…
On page 61 under the section “3. Definition of Revelation” Clark makes the point that there are two ways to understand ‘revelation’ – one of them being in terms of ‘natural revelation.’ He makes the point that this is not what he is referring to when he speaks of revelation being the suggested axiom. He states that the second meaning refers to “verbal communication.” He says…
This is still vague, but Clark continues to clarify. He states…
Again, this is still vague, but Clark does make it more explicit. In the very next paragraph on page 63 under the section “5. Is the Principle Broad Enough?” he says…
It seems when Clark is speaking of revelation and Scripture he is referring to the Bible. In section “8. Logic and Scripture” on page 69 is where Clark really begins to sharpen his definition of revelation in terms of the axiom.
Anthony, it seems clear to me that the first axiom refers to the written words of the Bible. The first axiom asks us to accept these written words as “the mind of God”. The truths that can be deduced via an analysis of these written words would be the theorems of the system.
I will stop here at this point. The other quote regarding deduction can be found in section “13. Trivial Technicalities” on page 89. The context is that Clark has just gone through arguing how his axiom solves problems and notes how certain technical philosophers will claim that his argument is sloppy and not as tight as one would find theorems derived from a truly formal system. He essentially is acknowledging that the truths derived from the Scriptures by us are not derivable via deduction only.
I will be out of town until the end of the week. This previous paragraph is not the one I want to focus on for the moment. Rather, I want to focus on what was said prior. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Brian
According to my understanding of Clark, this is slightly inaccurate. On page 63 of An Introduction to Christian Philosophy under the section “4. Does This Beg all Questions” we read…
Clark’s point here is that the one axiom is that the Scriptures are the word of God. The truths found therein would be next in the logical order – theorems of the one axiom, if you will. So, the start of Scripturalism is not with the truths of Scripture, but rather the assumption that Scripture is the word of God. However, there seems to be some confusion as to what is referred to in the axiom. Clearly, there is one axiom in Clark’s system. On page 59 under the section “1. A Suggested Axiom” we read…
On page 61 under the section “3. Definition of Revelation” Clark makes the point that there are two ways to understand ‘revelation’ – one of them being in terms of ‘natural revelation.’ He makes the point that this is not what he is referring to when he speaks of revelation being the suggested axiom. He states that the second meaning refers to “verbal communication.” He says…
This is still vague, but Clark continues to clarify. He states…
Again, this is still vague, but Clark does make it more explicit. In the very next paragraph on page 63 under the section “5. Is the Principle Broad Enough?” he says…
It seems when Clark is speaking of revelation and Scripture he is referring to the Bible. In section “8. Logic and Scripture” on page 69 is where Clark really begins to sharpen his definition of revelation in terms of the axiom.
Anthony, it seems clear to me that the first axiom refers to the written words of the Bible. The first axiom asks us to accept these written words as “the mind of God”. The truths that can be deduced via an analysis of these written words would be the theorems of the system.
I will stop here at this point. The other quote regarding deduction can be found in section “13. Trivial Technicalities” on page 89. The context is that Clark has just gone through arguing how his axiom solves problems and notes how certain technical philosophers will claim that his argument is sloppy and not as tight as one would find theorems derived from a truly formal system. He essentially is acknowledging that the truths derived from the Scriptures by us are not derivable via deduction only.
I will be out of town until the end of the week. This previous paragraph is not the one I want to focus on for the moment. Rather, I want to focus on what was said prior. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Brian
Sorry if I was not quite accurate about "axiom". Clark's system does start with a single axiom, that the Scriptures are the Word of God. This is the starting point and contains all that is necessary to understand doctrine and the Bible.
I think Clark used Scripture and Bible interchangeable at times. And sometimes he meant the specific verses, and sometimes he meant the meaning of the verses (the theorems). When specifically speaking of knowledge and truth, we are dealing with the propositional meaning of Scriptures, not any specific word and sentence. But Clark did not always go to that level of precision when he spoke of the Scriptures. It would have been tedious to keep making that distinction.
I disagree to the extent that the Bible is not a particular text, and can be written in any number of languages and with words that are not always translatable one a "one to one" bases. The words (and sentences) of the Bible do not stand alone, and can not be understood alone, but together as part of a whole system of thought.
I agree that "The truths that can be deduced via an analysis of these written words would be the theorems of the system." But I think it is these truths are what Clark had in mind as the implication of the Axiom - the Bible alone is the Word of God.
Either way, one still must go through the processes of analyzing the words and texts to deduce the theorems of the Axiom. It's not a direct implication to the theorems specific, by the theorems in general.
Does that make sense? I'm not satisfied with my explanation. But it's the implication from a A proposition to an I proposition.
If I said all that "All pages in this book are green", then the direct implication is "Some pages in this book are green". Now the sentence "some pages in this book are green" does not contain the words "12" or "13". But we can still say that the meaning behind the sentence implies also implies the more specific statement: "pages 12 and 13 are green". So the "A" proposition implies the "I proposition", and both propositions imply specific examples of pages. Does that help?
It all depends on how you define "Scripture".
The REPLY TO GEORGE I. MAVRODES may help explain some of this. I'm not saying your wrong, just that I'm not using the same definition of Scripture that you are. You are exactly write if Scripture referrers to the words and sentences of the Bible, and I am right when Scripture is defined as the theorems themselves (the propositional truths of Scripture). We still need to use analysis to get to the theorems. Looking forward to it.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
I am quoting Clark directly. Now, I do not think he is referring to the marks on the page as the mind of God, but rather to what the marks on the page refer to. However, it seems according to Clark that our knowledge of these propositions comes from an analysis of the marks on the pages of the Bible in whatever language it is in.
I think this point is captured in the phrase “implication of the Axiom.” Clark realizes that there are significant implications from the axiom that “the Bible Alone is the Word of God.” This is why he picked this proposition as his axiom. From this axiom flows the complete system.
I agree. In a formal system one, typically, but not necessarily, starts with a set of axioms and a set of rules of inference that allows one to deduce theorems from the axioms. (There are some systems that have axioms only, but they are rather bland.) In Scripturalism, there is one axiom. However, it is not clear if there are any rules of inference allowing one to take the axiom and deduce other theorems from it. In other words, if all we have is one axiom and nothing more, then there is no way to deduce consequences from the axiom. Rather, I submit that there is more than just the one axiom in Scripturalism. Also assumed are all the necessary noetic tools that allows one to draw conclusions from the axiom such as the laws of logic, rules of hermeneutics, etc…. What are your thoughts on this?
Sincerely,
Brian
I am quoting Clark directly. Now, I do not think he is referring to the marks on the page as the mind of God, but rather to what the marks on the page refer to. However, it seems according to Clark that our knowledge of these propositions comes from an analysis of the marks on the pages of the Bible in whatever language it is in.
I think this point is captured in the phrase “implication of the Axiom.” Clark realizes that there are significant implications from the axiom that “the Bible Alone is the Word of God.” This is why he picked this proposition as his axiom. From this axiom flows the complete system.
I agree. In a formal system one, typically, but not necessarily, starts with a set of axioms and a set of rules of inference that allows one to deduce theorems from the axioms. (There are some systems that have axioms only, but they are rather bland.) In Scripturalism, there is one axiom. However, it is not clear if there are any rules of inference allowing one to take the axiom and deduce other theorems from it. In other words, if all we have is one axiom and nothing more, then there is no way to deduce consequences from the axiom. Rather, I submit that there is more than just the one axiom in Scripturalism. Also assumed are all the necessary noetic tools that allows one to draw conclusions from the axiom such as the laws of logic, rules of hermeneutics, etc…. What are your thoughts on this?
Sincerely,
Brian
Seriously though. I think Clark said that the laws and rules of logic are implied by the Scriptures since they must be true for Scripture to be intelligible. Logical reasoning is demonstrated by Scripture in the arguments made by Christ himself and in the fact that the words used had meaning. So he did not make them additional axioms. However, I think this is a minor point.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
Yes, he does argue this. In fact, he argues very effectively that the one Axiom provides justification for the laws of logic. Because of the ontological reality that Scripture teaches us about, the Christian worldview has the ontological basis to account for the laws of logic, history, ethics, etc... In essence, God is the foundation for all reality, and we have learned this from the one Axiom via analysis.
The possible issue I am perceiving at this point is that just asserting that Scripture is true (i.e., that the Bible is the Word of God) is not enough to come up with the system called the Christian worldview. There must be something in addition to this. Namely, we must have rules of deduction that allow us to go from our axiom to the theorems of Scripture. I agree that these rules are justified by Scripture (all "all encompassing" axioms will have this sort of circular justification), but nonetheless, they are assumed prior to our understanding the justification. This is where the rub is for some people on this board. For us to draw conclusions from our one axiom we must use induction and empirical analysis to come to these conclusions. I think this is the point some people are making. What do you think of this?
Sincerely,
Brian
P.S. This does not take away in the least from Clark's very devistating criticisms of empiricism as a means of justification. When we get further along I will explain what my understanding is on this.
Yes, he does argue this. In fact, he argues very effectively that the one Axiom provides justification for the laws of logic. Because of the ontological reality that Scripture teaches us about, the Christian worldview has the ontological basis to account for the laws of logic, history, ethics, etc... In essence, God is the foundation for all reality, and we have learned this from the one Axiom via analysis.
The possible issue I am perceiving at this point is that just asserting that Scripture is true (i.e., that the Bible is the Word of God) is not enough to come up with the system called the Christian worldview. There must be something in addition to this. Namely, we must have rules of deduction that allow us to go from our axiom to the theorems of Scripture. I agree that these rules are justified by Scripture (all "all encompassing" axioms will have this sort of circular justification), but nonetheless, they are assumed prior to our understanding the justification. This is where the rub is for some people on this board. For us to draw conclusions from our one axiom we must use induction and empirical analysis to come to these conclusions. I think this is the point some people are making. What do you think of this?
Sincerely,
Brian
P.S. This does not take away in the least from Clark's very devistating criticisms of empiricism as a means of justification. When we get further along I will explain what my understanding is on this.
If they had actually said this much but I don't think anyone got that far.
I almost agree, but I hesitate to say we are using induction to draw conclusions from the "axiom" per say as much as we use induction and empirical analysis (not to be confused with empiricism) to develop the set of theorems that comprise our axiom. From the theorem's which comprise the axiom, we can only use deduction to justify additional knowledge.
Some of the theorems are easily understood from the Bible, and some are more difficult. And deduction is also the main means of testing theorems, based on the assumptions the Scripture does not contradict itself. You can not test a contradiction using induction. You can use induction to produce tentative theorem's and deduction to test them for consistency. I think that is essentially what systematic theology entails. Systematizing the knowledge of Scripture into a comprehensive and consistent whole.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
Thank you for taking the time to clarify things for me. I am finding our discussion very enjoyable.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by “the set of theorems that comprise our axiom.” Our axiom is not made up of a set of theorems. Our axiom is simply the proposition “the Bible alone is the Word of God.” No more, no less. We assume this proposition as being true. Based on this assumption we deduce other propositions. These other propositions are not the axiom, and they do not make up the axiom. Consider a formal system that uses the following axioms:
Axiom 1: (P→(Q→P))
Axiom 2: (P→(Q→R))→((P→Q)→(Q→R))
Axiom 3: ((¬Q→¬P)→(P→Q))
Rule of Deduction: Modus Ponens
This is one possible formal system that represents propositional calculus. From this I can deduce (P→P) in five steps. However, no one would say this theorem along with an infinite number of other possible theorems "comprise" our axioms and rule of inference.
Now, it seems you are also saying that it is ok to deduce theorems via induction and empirical analysis, but in order to justify “additional knowledge” deduction is the only form of reasoning allowed. Am I understanding you properly?
Sincerely,
Brian
Thank you for taking the time to clarify things for me. I am finding our discussion very enjoyable.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by “the set of theorems that comprise our axiom.” Our axiom is not made up of a set of theorems. Our axiom is simply the proposition “the Bible alone is the Word of God.” No more, no less. We assume this proposition as being true. Based on this assumption we deduce other propositions. These other propositions are not the axiom, and they do not make up the axiom. Consider a formal system that uses the following axioms:
Axiom 1: (P→(Q→P))
Axiom 2: (P→(Q→R))→((P→Q)→(Q→R))
Axiom 3: ((¬Q→¬P)→(P→Q))
Rule of Deduction: Modus Ponens
This is one possible formal system that represents propositional calculus. From this I can deduce (P→P) in five steps. However, no one would say this theorem along with an infinite number of other possible theorems "comprise" our axioms and rule of inference.
Now, it seems you are also saying that it is ok to deduce theorems via induction and empirical analysis, but in order to justify “additional knowledge” deduction is the only form of reasoning allowed. Am I understanding you properly?
Sincerely,
Brian
Let me put it this way.
Let us say: All dogs have four legs. This statement itself implies a universal set of things called dogs and predicates that each and every one has four legs. The implication of the statement is that my dog, and your dog, and the puppy in the window has four legs.
So now when I say: All Scripture is True, this immediately implies that if P1 and P2 and P3 are statements of Scripture, then they are true.
(We're not going to debate existential import now are we?!?)
When Clark says the Scripture is True, I think he is saying the truths which comprise the Scriptures are all true. The "all" in "All Scripture is true" means "each and every" propositional truth of Scripture. Scripture is not just a symbol that stands alone, it is a word with a definition.
I guess you could define Scripture as the set (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) to be more formal.
Let S = Scripture.
All S is True.
All (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) is S.
:.
All (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) is True.
All (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) is S.
:.
All (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) is True.
and
(P1 & P2) -> X
:.
X is True.
:.
X is True.
Now substitute "Knowledge" for "True" and you have
1) All Scripture is Knowledge
2) All things deducible from Scripture is Knowledge.
All that being said, I did not say how we find (P1, P2, P3, ... Pn-1, Pn) which define S. And that is were hermeneutics and the Holy Spirit come in.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
I think you and I are in agreement.
I think we need to be more precise in this discussion. So, let's stay with what Clark actually says is the axiom. He states it this way: Scripture is the Word of God. Since this is our axiom, we start with it as our foundation and it is assumed to be true. At this point, we know nothing more. We do not know any inferences that follow from this axiom...yet. It seems you are wanting to conflate the inferences that follow from our axiom into our axiom. This is not proper. Clark even makes this point when he says that he does not make the theorems of the system axioms. He realizes that there is a distinction between the two. We may be in agreement here, and this is merely semantics.
I agree that Clark believes that all theorems following from our axiom are true. However, I think it is important in our discussion to make the distinction between theorems and axioms clear, and to be consistent in our discussion regarding the distinction. Again, Clark goes to some length to discuss the nature of axioms versus theorems, and is critical of those who confuse the two. I can provide quotes and references if necessary.
At this point, I believe we are in agreement regarding how the theorems are derived. Now I want to go back and look at the question "How do we know?" I think the question is too vague. Is it speaking about how someone can build a system from axioms and rules of inference? Is it asking how someone's system can account for human experience? Is it asking how we know if anything is true?
Here is my take on Clark's philosophy at this point. Clark asks us to "try on" or to "try out" his system being that all other systems somehow fail to provide a grounding for our ability to know what really is true. He argues that his system provides a much better basis, and overcomes many of the problems found in secular philosophies. Based on these pragmatic results this in some sense provides rational justification for the system constructed on his axiom. What do you think of this take and how does it weigh on the question of "how do we know?"
Sincerely,
Brian
I think you and I are in agreement.
I think we need to be more precise in this discussion. So, let's stay with what Clark actually says is the axiom. He states it this way: Scripture is the Word of God. Since this is our axiom, we start with it as our foundation and it is assumed to be true. At this point, we know nothing more. We do not know any inferences that follow from this axiom...yet. It seems you are wanting to conflate the inferences that follow from our axiom into our axiom. This is not proper. Clark even makes this point when he says that he does not make the theorems of the system axioms. He realizes that there is a distinction between the two. We may be in agreement here, and this is merely semantics.
I agree that Clark believes that all theorems following from our axiom are true. However, I think it is important in our discussion to make the distinction between theorems and axioms clear, and to be consistent in our discussion regarding the distinction. Again, Clark goes to some length to discuss the nature of axioms versus theorems, and is critical of those who confuse the two. I can provide quotes and references if necessary.
At this point, I believe we are in agreement regarding how the theorems are derived. Now I want to go back and look at the question "How do we know?" I think the question is too vague. Is it speaking about how someone can build a system from axioms and rules of inference? Is it asking how someone's system can account for human experience? Is it asking how we know if anything is true?
Here is my take on Clark's philosophy at this point. Clark asks us to "try on" or to "try out" his system being that all other systems somehow fail to provide a grounding for our ability to know what really is true. He argues that his system provides a much better basis, and overcomes many of the problems found in secular philosophies. Based on these pragmatic results this in some sense provides rational justification for the system constructed on his axiom. What do you think of this take and how does it weigh on the question of "how do we know?"
Sincerely,
Brian
I'm probably not using the terms correctly (that is using the standard technical definitions).
That works for me. I think Clark was showing that the Christian worldview (as he understood it) provided all the essential desiderata of a coherent and rational and intelligible worldview system.
And it's beneficial to keep in mind that Clark's arguments were mainly directed at secular philosophies.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
At this point, I want to understand what you mean when you say that Scripturalism makes knowledge possible. I am assuming this is what was meant by Sean's thread "How do we know?"
Thanks,
Brian
At this point, I want to understand what you mean when you say that Scripturalism makes knowledge possible. I am assuming this is what was meant by Sean's thread "How do we know?"
Thanks,
Brian
I think in order for there to be a justification of a claim to knowledge (justified true belief), there needs to be some means of justifying knowing universal propositions (in contrast to particulars). One must justify that a proposition is not just true for you, but true for all time, places, and people.
And for that to be the case, one needs to have a ground or foundation for the knowledge one claims. I don't think secular epistemologies can provide that ground. I think at minimum one must posit an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally. It can not occur based on individual mans capacity for reason alone, and it can not be based on subjective observation. The first does not have an infallible ground, and the second can not point to objective truths. Scripturalism not only provides the foundation (Scripture), but presumes a perfect Mind has revealed those truths to man.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just to add a little to Anthony's reply, Clark writes in AITCP:
In addition:
It should also be clear from the above that Clark rejects general revelation or natural theology because "This understand of revelation simply returns us to empiricism, beset as it is with all the difficulties listed in the first lecture [which I'm not going to retype here
]."
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
This response was given in response to the question “How do we know?” So, when you ask the question “How do we know” are you really asking the question “What is your basis for being able to claim to know anything?”
Brian
This response was given in response to the question “How do we know?” So, when you ask the question “How do we know” are you really asking the question “What is your basis for being able to claim to know anything?”
Brian
Yes: what are the presuppositions or axioms or first principles that you are assuming in order to justify a claim to have knowledge. I think that question can include what methods of reasoning are involved (deduction, induction, etc).
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
This is good. However, let me make sure I understand before moving forward. The question being asked really amounts to asking what is the metaphysical basis (ontological basis) for epistemology. Your answer is that God ("the omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally") provides the necessary ontological underpinning for man to be able to know something. Is this a fair representation of your position?
Sincerely,
Brian
Brian said:
This is good. However, let me make sure I understand before moving forward. The question being asked really amounts to asking what is the metaphysical basis (ontological basis) for epistemology. Your answer is that God ("the omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally") provides the necessary ontological underpinning for man to be able to know something. Is this a fair representation of your position?
Sincerely,
Brian
I think my position is more practical than metaphysical.
I don't think Clark worried to much about metaphysical issues. He focused on epistemic issues. When you start getting into metaphysical questions, things get very speculative.
Issues of existence are really questions of what can be correctly predicated of something. Everything exists epistemically, and it's only a matter of what we can know about it. Mickey Mouse exists ... as a fictional cartoon character. The number 4 exists as a pure abstraction. When we start asking is 4 real then we are conflating metaphysics with epistemology. I'm more concerned about knowing what 4 means then if it is an abstraction or a concrete thing.
So when I ask "how do you know" it's just a question of epistemology, not metaphysics. I'll let Scripture (my epistemic foundation) answer questions of metaphysics so I don't have to speculate or make any assumptions about ontology. God is the creator and sustainer of all things - ergo my ontology is based on my epistemology, and not the other way around.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
When you say there must be “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally” you are making a metaphysical claim to answer an epistemological question. Essentially, you are making the claim that there must be some ontological underpinning for man to be able to know anything. This underpinning is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” No matter what you think of metaphysics you cannot get away from it. So, when you ask the question, “how do you know,” you will necessarily end up with some type of ontological answer when pushed far enough. What say you?
Brian
When you say there must be “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally” you are making a metaphysical claim to answer an epistemological question. Essentially, you are making the claim that there must be some ontological underpinning for man to be able to know anything. This underpinning is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” No matter what you think of metaphysics you cannot get away from it. So, when you ask the question, “how do you know,” you will necessarily end up with some type of ontological answer when pushed far enough. What say you?
Brian
We'll have to disagree then. I don't think the claim that an omniscient Mind is required for man to have univocal knowledge is an ontological claim. It's not about the existence of the Mind, but the need for an omniscient as a predication for God. If God is not omniscient, knowledge is not possible. I'm predicating the characteristic of omniscience to God because only in doing so can there be a mind capable of knowing universal truths. And the act of revelation from God so that man can know universal truths.
I think the ontological answers follow, but they do not "underpin" epistemology. In a sense, any knowledge implies an ontological position, but I think the ontology is a result of empirical presuppositions, not a basis for them. We can not put ontology before epistemology because nothing follows from ontology. That's how I see the logical order of things. Epistemology necessarily leads to ontology. Ontology presupposes epistemology.
Is this a key point for where you are going?
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
Awww…just at time when there was so much love!
Let’s go back to our original question, “How do you know?” You have said that what is really being asked here is, “What is the basis (justification) for your being able to know anything?” You stated that for anyone to have a basis what is required is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” Anthony, I do not see how this is not an ontological claim. If you are not asserting the existence of this omniscient Mind (an ontological claim) as the basis for us to know anything, then what are you asserting?
I get the argument that omniscience must be a predication for the being referred to as a Mind. The capital ‘M’ is yours and not mine. Clearly, you are using it to refer to God. But beyond this, you said that this being must exist when you said “an omniscient Mind is required.” If this “omniscient Mind” does not exist, then knowledge is not possible. Ultimately, this is about an ontological necessity for knowledge to be possible.
You stop too soon. If God does not exist, then knowledge is not possible. Here we see that ontology is foundational. In fact, I do not understand how you can say otherwise. I think Scripture clearly teaches that ontology is the underpinning of all existence. In Him we live and move and have our being. God upholds all things, makes all things possible, and makes all things intelligible. It is God who makes all the difference. No God, then nothing. This is an ontological claim.
I get this. But what you are talking about is the ontological nature of God. The being of God – if you will. You are talking about Theology Proper. These are ontological issues. God being omniscient is a statement about God’s being. God’s being is such that He is omniscient.
It is vague to say that “ontological answers follow.” This could be taken to mean that if we assume we have knowledge (the antecedent), then there are certain ontological requirements (the consequence). However, what this is really saying is that the consequence is a precondition for the antecedent. In fact, the proper logical representation of “A is a precondition for B” is B→A. So, ontological requirements (A) are a precondition for us to have knowledge (B).
I think this is wrong as explained above. The existence of God is the basis for everything. This means ontology comes before anything else.
Yes, this is a key point. I am going to argue that Clark agrees with my position, and that the Van Tillian does so as well, thereby establishing some common ground. When I say that Clark agrees with my position, what he is essentially doing is providing us with an Axiom by which we can deduce the “essential desiderata,” that is to say, those propositions asserting the necessary ontological reality that grounds our knowledge. The conclusion that I will draw from this is not that Scripture makes knowledge possible, but rather that entity which Scripture points to, i.e., God makes knoweldge possible. This is where the buck stops. If God does not exist, then there is no knowledge.
Sincerely,
Brian
Awww…just at time when there was so much love!
Let’s go back to our original question, “How do you know?” You have said that what is really being asked here is, “What is the basis (justification) for your being able to know anything?” You stated that for anyone to have a basis what is required is “an omniscient Mind which reveals knowledge to men univocally.” Anthony, I do not see how this is not an ontological claim. If you are not asserting the existence of this omniscient Mind (an ontological claim) as the basis for us to know anything, then what are you asserting?
I get the argument that omniscience must be a predication for the being referred to as a Mind. The capital ‘M’ is yours and not mine. Clearly, you are using it to refer to God. But beyond this, you said that this being must exist when you said “an omniscient Mind is required.” If this “omniscient Mind” does not exist, then knowledge is not possible. Ultimately, this is about an ontological necessity for knowledge to be possible.
You stop too soon. If God does not exist, then knowledge is not possible. Here we see that ontology is foundational. In fact, I do not understand how you can say otherwise. I think Scripture clearly teaches that ontology is the underpinning of all existence. In Him we live and move and have our being. God upholds all things, makes all things possible, and makes all things intelligible. It is God who makes all the difference. No God, then nothing. This is an ontological claim.
I get this. But what you are talking about is the ontological nature of God. The being of God – if you will. You are talking about Theology Proper. These are ontological issues. God being omniscient is a statement about God’s being. God’s being is such that He is omniscient.
It is vague to say that “ontological answers follow.” This could be taken to mean that if we assume we have knowledge (the antecedent), then there are certain ontological requirements (the consequence). However, what this is really saying is that the consequence is a precondition for the antecedent. In fact, the proper logical representation of “A is a precondition for B” is B→A. So, ontological requirements (A) are a precondition for us to have knowledge (B).
I think this is wrong as explained above. The existence of God is the basis for everything. This means ontology comes before anything else.
Yes, this is a key point. I am going to argue that Clark agrees with my position, and that the Van Tillian does so as well, thereby establishing some common ground. When I say that Clark agrees with my position, what he is essentially doing is providing us with an Axiom by which we can deduce the “essential desiderata,” that is to say, those propositions asserting the necessary ontological reality that grounds our knowledge. The conclusion that I will draw from this is not that Scripture makes knowledge possible, but rather that entity which Scripture points to, i.e., God makes knoweldge possible. This is where the buck stops. If God does not exist, then there is no knowledge.
Sincerely,
Brian
OK. I'll go along. God is prior to man's knowlege ontolgically and temporally. But in the the logical/epistemic sense, I think Scripture must have priority. I don't think man's knowledge can follows logically from the proposition "God exists". I think revelation must be the starting point of man's knowledge. Revelation is how we know "God exists" and revelation is how we know universal propositions. This is why Scripture, and not "God exists", is the epistemic axiom of Scripturalism. And since the question regards knowledge, the is what we must start with. And I was remined by Sean that Clark did say that since "existence" can be predicated of anything, the it in itself doesn't covey anything.
But now I'm interested in what comes next.
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Anthony,
Hang on buddy. I think this post may be a little provocative.
The claim is not that “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists.’” The claim is that the justification for knowledge consists of there being an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us. Knowledge is not justified by a proposition. Knowledge is justified by having the proper ontological basis. Because there is an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us, then we have a basis to claim to know stuff – namely, the stuff revealed to us by this omniscient, truthful God.
This may not be the question being asked by Sean. He asked, “How do we know?” By this, he was meaning, “What is the justification for knowing anything?” There could be at least two possible answers to the question “What is the starting point for man’s knowledge?” Here is a breakdown…
1. Man starts with certain physical and rational faculties – reason and senses that allow man to interact and draw conclusions concerning the world around him.
2. Man chooses as axiomatic the proposition that “Scripture is the Word of God.”
3. Man, using the faculties in (1), deduces that because the Scriptures are the Word of God, then everything taught in the Scriptures is truth because it comes from an omniscient God who does not lie.
4. Because of this ontological underpinning (an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us), man has a basis to claim he has justified true belief - namely, those propositions deduced from Scripture.
I think this breakdown provides an answer to Sean’s original question. Regarding the question of “starting point,” in one sense it could be answered by my number one above. In another sense, one could answer that the staring point must be God who provides the ontological basis for knowledge in the first place. Now, if by starting point you meant something else, then please clarify.
Revelation is the Scriptures. If you are using it differently, then you have changed the way Clark used it. So, you are saying that the Scriptures are how we know God exists. The problem with this is that prior to this there must already be some knowledge of God or you could not draw any conclusions from Scripture. For instance, if you did not already know that God was omniscient and truthful, then you could not conclude that the propositions of Scripture are true. Allow me to illustrate:
The book called **** is the word of ####.
If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.) The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent. There is nothing that tells me otherwise. However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true. Notice, this requires prior knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must already know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Brian
Hang on buddy. I think this post may be a little provocative.
The claim is not that “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists.’” The claim is that the justification for knowledge consists of there being an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us. Knowledge is not justified by a proposition. Knowledge is justified by having the proper ontological basis. Because there is an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us, then we have a basis to claim to know stuff – namely, the stuff revealed to us by this omniscient, truthful God.
This may not be the question being asked by Sean. He asked, “How do we know?” By this, he was meaning, “What is the justification for knowing anything?” There could be at least two possible answers to the question “What is the starting point for man’s knowledge?” Here is a breakdown…
1. Man starts with certain physical and rational faculties – reason and senses that allow man to interact and draw conclusions concerning the world around him.
2. Man chooses as axiomatic the proposition that “Scripture is the Word of God.”
3. Man, using the faculties in (1), deduces that because the Scriptures are the Word of God, then everything taught in the Scriptures is truth because it comes from an omniscient God who does not lie.
4. Because of this ontological underpinning (an omniscient God who does not lie and who has revealed stuff to us), man has a basis to claim he has justified true belief - namely, those propositions deduced from Scripture.
I think this breakdown provides an answer to Sean’s original question. Regarding the question of “starting point,” in one sense it could be answered by my number one above. In another sense, one could answer that the staring point must be God who provides the ontological basis for knowledge in the first place. Now, if by starting point you meant something else, then please clarify.
Revelation is the Scriptures. If you are using it differently, then you have changed the way Clark used it. So, you are saying that the Scriptures are how we know God exists. The problem with this is that prior to this there must already be some knowledge of God or you could not draw any conclusions from Scripture. For instance, if you did not already know that God was omniscient and truthful, then you could not conclude that the propositions of Scripture are true. Allow me to illustrate:
The book called **** is the word of ####.
If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.) The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent. There is nothing that tells me otherwise. However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true. Notice, this requires prior knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must already know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Brian
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Then it would seem the conclusion you draw will make God and not Scripture the axiomatic starting point of the Christian system. This raises the question of how do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?
Last edited:
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Then if this is your axiomatic starting point then you're really not saying anything at all. As Clark pointed out long ago any word like "existence" that can be predicated on everything logically means nothing. Talking about an omniscient "entity" who does not lie or any such thing outside of God's self-revelation is to beg the question.
Some deny men have sensations as did Clark. As already mentioned, no account yet has been give that man even has sensations, much less that they're cognitive. Frankly, no one yet on these boards has even taken a stab at defining what a sensation is? Consequently, your point #3 is just another assertion of the very thing that needs to be demonstrated in order for "reason and senses" to be considered "faculties" by which deductions from Scripture are made.
Well, it could be, but then I think you'd be guilty of begging the question which pretty collides headlong with the idea of knowledge as JTB. I think you're mistaken in a number of places, particularly per point #1 from which all else seems to flow. That's why your point #3 merely compounds the problem. See Clark's response to Robert Reymond in Clark Speaks from the Grave and see the discussion of Moreland and propositions per another thread started by Rich - I think it was called "what is this."
Brian Bosse
"The Brain"
Hello Sean,
Before I begin, let me assert that I find Gordon Clark to be a brilliant man, and I have been blessed by studying his work.
God is the ontological basis for knowledge to be possible…period. However, God has given us the Scriptures as a means for us to gain knowledge. As such, I can take as axiomatic the starting point of “the Scriptures are the Word of God” and use it as a means to gain knowledge. However, this is only possible because there is an omniscient God who always tells the truth and has revealed stuff to us. Apart from the ontological reality of God, the Scriptures are incapable of giving us knowledge. The Scriptures depend upon God and not the other way around.
Forgive me for repeating an earlier argument, but you did not reference it in your two posts, and it is one of my mains points and bears directly on your question. Consider the following…
Axiom: The book called #### is the Word of ****.
Since this is our axiom, we accept the proposition as being true. Whatever ‘####’ points to is asserted to be the Word of whatever ‘****’ points to. At this point, am I able to draw any truth-value conclusions about the propositions contained within the book called ####? The answer is no. I need more information about the nature of this book and the nature of the entity referred to by ‘****’. For instance, if this entity is omniscient, infallible and always lies, then I can conclude the propositions contained in the book called #### are all false. (Interestingly enough, this would give us a basis for knowledge because when we know something is false, then there is something we know that it true.) Now, let’s go back to your question…
You ask, “How do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?” The argument above makes the case that unless there is some prior knowledge concerning the nature of Scripture and God, then the axiom that “Scripture alone is the Word of God” is incapable of giving us knowledge. We have no rational basis to draw any truth-value conclusions concerning the propositions contained in the Scriptures from simply the assumption that our axiom is true. Therefore, if you believe that we can draw correct truth-value conclusions from Scripture (and you have maintained that we can), then you must assert that there is some prior knowledge concerning God and the nature of Scripture. I will answer the question more fully below.
I am not sure I follow you. I denied that the claim is “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists’” in the above quote. I did not affirm this. My position is that for man to be able to gain knowledge from the Scriptures, then there must exist a God who is omniscient and always truthful. As such, the ontological reality of God is the foundation upon which we can have justified true beliefs. My axiomatic starting point(s) would be as follows…
Axiom 1: There exists an omniscient God who always tells the truth.
Axiom 2: The Bible is the very Word of God.
Axiom 3 (our deductive apparatus): Man has been given certain cognitive faculties that when functioning properly are designed to produce true beliefs.
From these three axioms I can derive truth from the Scriptures. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with having more than one axiom in a formal system. It should also be noted that of the three axioms, axiom 1 is the foundation, but by itself it is not enough for us to be able to have knowledge. There must be revelation and an agent able to receive and process that revelation. That is why I have proposed three axioms.
Not if you make it your axiom. Go back and read Clark’s argument in his An Introduction to Christian Philosophy concerning the nature of axioms in light of the very objection you raised. If I remember correctly, he deals with it in a couple of places. One is given a complete section titled something like “Does this beg all questions?” I would also like to point out that my three axioms are completely consistent with each other, and as such the system derived from this is internally consistent. It should also be noted that the system derived from my three axioms would be the very system Clark subscribed to.
If man does not have cognitive faculties by which to process sensory inputs like the symbols on a page and is not able to properly draw conclusions from these sensory stimuli, then the Scriptures fail to be a source of knowledge for man.
See my response above, and Clark’s own answer to your objection. I would also like to point out again the argument that I repeated in this post. Essentially, if you deny my axioms 1 and 3, then you undermine your ability to know anything. I look forward to your response, and hope that Anthony chimes in as well.
Let me ask you a question, how do you think I would be perceived by those on the Scripturalist list? Do you think they would perceive me to be a friend or an enemy of Scripturalism?
Thanks,
Brian
Before I begin, let me assert that I find Gordon Clark to be a brilliant man, and I have been blessed by studying his work.
Brian said:
God is the ontological basis for knowledge to be possible…period. However, God has given us the Scriptures as a means for us to gain knowledge. As such, I can take as axiomatic the starting point of “the Scriptures are the Word of God” and use it as a means to gain knowledge. However, this is only possible because there is an omniscient God who always tells the truth and has revealed stuff to us. Apart from the ontological reality of God, the Scriptures are incapable of giving us knowledge. The Scriptures depend upon God and not the other way around.
Forgive me for repeating an earlier argument, but you did not reference it in your two posts, and it is one of my mains points and bears directly on your question. Consider the following…
Axiom: The book called #### is the Word of ****.
Since this is our axiom, we accept the proposition as being true. Whatever ‘####’ points to is asserted to be the Word of whatever ‘****’ points to. At this point, am I able to draw any truth-value conclusions about the propositions contained within the book called ####? The answer is no. I need more information about the nature of this book and the nature of the entity referred to by ‘****’. For instance, if this entity is omniscient, infallible and always lies, then I can conclude the propositions contained in the book called #### are all false. (Interestingly enough, this would give us a basis for knowledge because when we know something is false, then there is something we know that it true.) Now, let’s go back to your question…
You ask, “How do you know anything of God, such as God is omniscient, doesn't lie, makes knowledge possible, etc. without positing God's self-revelation first?” The argument above makes the case that unless there is some prior knowledge concerning the nature of Scripture and God, then the axiom that “Scripture alone is the Word of God” is incapable of giving us knowledge. We have no rational basis to draw any truth-value conclusions concerning the propositions contained in the Scriptures from simply the assumption that our axiom is true. Therefore, if you believe that we can draw correct truth-value conclusions from Scripture (and you have maintained that we can), then you must assert that there is some prior knowledge concerning God and the nature of Scripture. I will answer the question more fully below.
Brian said:
I am not sure I follow you. I denied that the claim is “man’s knowledge follows logically from the proposition ‘God Exists’” in the above quote. I did not affirm this. My position is that for man to be able to gain knowledge from the Scriptures, then there must exist a God who is omniscient and always truthful. As such, the ontological reality of God is the foundation upon which we can have justified true beliefs. My axiomatic starting point(s) would be as follows…
Axiom 1: There exists an omniscient God who always tells the truth.
Axiom 2: The Bible is the very Word of God.
Axiom 3 (our deductive apparatus): Man has been given certain cognitive faculties that when functioning properly are designed to produce true beliefs.
From these three axioms I can derive truth from the Scriptures. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with having more than one axiom in a formal system. It should also be noted that of the three axioms, axiom 1 is the foundation, but by itself it is not enough for us to be able to have knowledge. There must be revelation and an agent able to receive and process that revelation. That is why I have proposed three axioms.
Not if you make it your axiom. Go back and read Clark’s argument in his An Introduction to Christian Philosophy concerning the nature of axioms in light of the very objection you raised. If I remember correctly, he deals with it in a couple of places. One is given a complete section titled something like “Does this beg all questions?” I would also like to point out that my three axioms are completely consistent with each other, and as such the system derived from this is internally consistent. It should also be noted that the system derived from my three axioms would be the very system Clark subscribed to.
If man does not have cognitive faculties by which to process sensory inputs like the symbols on a page and is not able to properly draw conclusions from these sensory stimuli, then the Scriptures fail to be a source of knowledge for man.
See my response above, and Clark’s own answer to your objection. I would also like to point out again the argument that I repeated in this post. Essentially, if you deny my axioms 1 and 3, then you undermine your ability to know anything. I look forward to your response, and hope that Anthony chimes in as well.
Let me ask you a question, how do you think I would be perceived by those on the Scripturalist list? Do you think they would perceive me to be a friend or an enemy of Scripturalism?
Thanks,
Brian
Yes and no. If you mean "knowledge" in general, you are correct. But if you mean any particular proposition, then it is justified by being deducible from prior true propositions.
I agree, God is the ontological priority. But the epistemic priority is Scripture.
Yes, but that is a temporal order of things. And one can take that all the way back to God and creation.
I'll try.
I think you can take God as the temporal and ontological priority to man's knowledge. This is true. But I don't think that was point of the question. Sean was asking about epistemology and that is looking at the logical order of knowledge.
Temporal/ontological order is 1) God, then 2) revelation (Scripture), then 3) man's knowledge.
Epistemic order is 1) Scripture, then 2) man's knowledge.
We justify (logically) the knowledge of God from Scripture, we justify our ontology (God is the creator and sustainer of all things) from Scripture. There is no knowledge of God for man logically prior to God's revelation.
Revelation also includes direct auditory/spoken revelation, but that is not available to us now.
Temporally this is true. But we can not logically justify any knowledge of God prior to Scripture, because Scripture is the means through which God has given us knowledge of Himself, and the gospel, and man's duty. Scripture also tells us the Scripture is true. So when ask how do you know, I'm not asking about the temporal order, but the logical order.
I'll take your book example and add comments in <brackets>.
If I take this as my axiom, then I assume it is true. OK, so far so good. Now, where do I go from here? For all I know, the propositions derived from the book called **** could all be false. (The axiom is still assumed to be true.) < OK.> The set of propositions from the book could also be inconsistent. < Poor choice of an axiom.> There is nothing that tells me otherwise. <If this is your epistemic axiom, and it doesn't say it is true and consistent, then you are correct.> However, if I already knew that the word of #### is always true, then I could draw the conclusion that any proposition I derived from the book called **** is true. <But you can't know this if your axiom does not say so. You have no knowledge prior to the axiom.> Notice, this requires prior knowledge of ####. Here is my point, man must already know that God is always truthful and omniscient for me to be able to use the axiom to draw conclusions properly called knowledge. <Like I said, if ***** is your epistemic axiom, you can not have knowledge that is logically prior to it by definition. >
Epistemically, you can not justify any knowledge logically prior to you epistemic axiom. All justified knowledge most follow from the axiom, or it is not an axiom. I think what's going on in your example is a case of temporal priority. But even that would put Scripture first. You can't know God is omniscient prior in time to hearing the Word. You can't know that Scripture is inerrant and infallible prior in time to knowing what the Bible says about itself. You can't know God is the creator of all things prior in time to hearing that from God. So as far as our knowledge is concerned, Scripture is still prior.
The temporal order for me is:
- Anthony is born.
- Anthony is exposed to the Scripture.
- Anthony is regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
- From that moment on, Anthony has justified knowledge of God and man and all things necessary for life.
Notice that even temporally, I can not logically justify any knowledge prior to believing that Scripture is God's Word.
So the logical order of my knowledge is:
- Scripture
- All things that by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture
The ontological and temporal priority is ultimately God since God existed before me and created all things.. But when we want to justify a proposition is a justified true belief, we do so by showing it is deducible from a priori true propositions, and those from a priori true propositions, until we get to our axiom, which is Scripture.
So can we agree that God has ontological/temporal priority, and Scripture has epistemic/logical priority?
(P.S. to avoid confusion, I want to say the when I say "temporal" here, I'm not saying temporary, but that it has to do with time. Temporal order is the order something happens over time. Logical priority has to do with that truths are justified by other truths. I'm sure most people understand what I mean by "temporal" but I want to be sure. )
Well that depends on who you're asking about.
I myself am perceived by some on that list as an enemy of Scripturalism. I don't think there is a unity of thought on that particular list - at least that is the impression one gets from the vocal minority. I think almost anyone could be considered an enemy of Scripturalism buy some of the more vocal people on that list.- Status
