As a preface to this post, I've decided to take a break from blogging. I'm not sure for how long. I'd like to try to integrate some of the thoughts from my posts into a one-stop read for a coherent Christian apologetic, so I'll still be working on that if nothing else. But to be honest, every so often I just run out of things to write about that I find particularly interesting on which I feel I can make some sort of relevant comment. It takes some time for the motivation and creative juices to start flowing again.
Enough about that. Building on
The Gordon Clark Project and a post I wrote a while ago (
link), I believe the following illustrates how one can present the argument that an omniscient person is a precondition for knowledge by means of Clark's writings. There is a broader context in which I could have placed these quotes - namely, Clark's thoughts on necessary conditions in general - but I didn't want to over-complicate this clear line of thought:
Introduction
A system of philosophy purports to answer certain
questions. To understand the answers, it is essential to know the questions.
When the questions are clearly put, there is less likelihood that the answers
will seem irrelevant to important issues. (A
Christian View of Men and Things, 2005, pgs. 19-20)
A proposition can be judged ridiculous only if it contradicts some exceptionally well-established truth. If nothing has as yet been established, Descartes’ demon cannot be known to be ridiculous. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pg. 32)
The more the various subjects
are studied, the more their interrelationships will be seen. Indeed, the
breadth of philosophic discipline as opposed to the narrow specialty of a
single science depends on these manifold and intricate connections. (A Christian View of Men and Things,
2005, pg. 109)
This is a constant trouble with
philosophic subjects. One hardly begins a topic before one discovers that
another matter calls for prior attention. We are always being pushed back or
forward, until it seems impossible to solve any one problem without solving
all. Omniscience is the prerequisite, and omniscience is hard to come by.
(Gordon Clark, Modern Philosophy,
2008, pg. 28)
What follows if it is true that
psychological analysis presupposes a “complete knowledge of the psychological
possibilities of life”? It would follow, would it not, that historical analysis
also presupposes a complete knowledge of historical possibilities. In short, it
would be impossible to know anything without knowing everything.
Such a Platonic or Hegelian
requirement of omniscience is a serious philosophical problem. It is not to be
dismissed thoughtlessly. The meticulous scholar, J. H. Hexter, in his
Reappraisals of History, castigates historical relativism as a fad and insists
on the “rudimentary distinction” between knowing something and knowing
everything. But he omits all philosophic justification for this distinction.
Undoubtedly this distinction
must be maintained, if a human being is able to know anything at all. Make omniscience
the prerequisite of partial knowledge, and partial knowledge vanishes. But
Bultmann, like Hexter, offers no help: less help, in fact, for Bultmann lets
the requirements of omniscience stand. (Gordon Clark, Historiography: Secular and Religious, 1971, pg. 334).
Now, where the Ideas are important,
everything is related to everything else. To use a crude example, the
explanation of a desk lamp would require explanations of desks and lamps. The
desks would then lead us into carpentry, labor troubles, kinds of wood,
forestry, and governmental conservation. An explanation of lamps would include
the laws of electricity, and so on forever. In fact, before one could
understand a desk lamp, one would have to understand the universe.
This stress on the interrelations
of everything with everything can be developed in two directions. One may
argue: Since we know this one thing, we can deduce everything else; or one may
argue: Since we do not know everything else, neither do we know this. The first
direction has appealed to Hegel, to Bonaventure, Augustine, and Plato. (Ancient Philosophy, 1997, pg. 145)
Plato
But though there may be Ideas of some sort, when Plato
leaves mathematics for politics the plausibility of reminiscence vanishes. The
slave boy was easily able to remember the square on the diagonal, but neither
the Athenians nor the Syracusans could remember justice, not even with the
lengthy stimulus of the Republic.
Justice, of course, is a matter of ethics and politics;
and more will be said about ethics later. But the definition of man as a two-legged animal without
feathers is another case where reminiscence did not work too well. The
difficulty is that, after one grants the existence of suprasensible Ideas,
sensation stimulates different notions in different people. Whether the subject
is justice or piety or the planetary spheres, Plato had to reply on procedures
of ethics and science that cannot be completed.
The failure of Platonism to descend from Heaven to Earth,
or, if you wish, to ascend from Earth to heaven, leaves the theory ineffective.
Man before birth may have been omniscient, but here below the Platonic cave in
which man is a prisoner actually has no opening. Platonism therefore cannot be
accepted as the solution to our problem. (Clark
and His Critics, 2009, pg. 30)
Hegel
That relations are internal, and especially that the
truth is the whole, are themes hard to deny. Yet their implications are
devastating. So long as you or I do not know the relationships which constitute
the meaning of cat or self, we do not know the object in question. If we say
that we know some of the relationships – e.g.,
a cat is not-a-dog and admit that we do not know other relationships – e.g., a cat is not-an-(animal we have
never heard of before) – it follows that we cannot know how this unknown relationship
may alter our view of the relationship we now say we know. The alteration could
be considerable. Therefore we cannot know even one relationship without knowing
all. Obviously we do not know all. Therefore we know nothing.
This criticism is exceedingly disconcerting to an
Hegelian, for its principle applies not merely to cats, dogs, and selves, but
to the Absolute itself. The truth is the whole and the whole is the Absolute.
But obviously we do not know the whole; we do not know the Absolute. In fact,
not knowing the Absolute, we cannot know even that there is an Absolute. But
how can Absolute Idealism be based on absolute ignorance? And ours is absolute
ignorance, for we cannot know one thing without knowing all. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pg. 153)
A further insuperable hurdle for
rationalistic logic is a proposition’s meaning. The meaning of a sentence
depends on its context. Logicians recognize this fact, but they identify the
context as the totality of knowledge. Hence, as is all too evident with Plato
and Hegel, one must be omniscient to grasp the meaning of even a single
sentence. This obviously rules out all human
knowledge. (Thales to Dewey, 2000,
pg. 398)
William James
Reenactment of a thought is possible, nonetheless, because it can be separate from this immediacy without alteration. Not only so, it can be separated from other thoughts without alteration. Thus history becomes possible.
This self-identity of the act of thought has been denied by two extreme views. The first view is that of idealism, the theory of internal relations, the notion that everything is what it is because of its context. This makes history impossible. To know any one thing it would be necessary to know its context; i.e. to know the whole universe. Knowledge would thus be restricted to the explicit consciousness of the omniscient Absolutes; and Collingwood, though he may be Beckett, does not claim to be the Absolute.
At the same time, a second view, the view that all acts of thought are atomically distinct from one another, is as erroneous as idealism. This view does of course permit the detachment of a thought from its context, for really there is no context; there is only juxtaposition with external relations. A science is merely a collection of things known and a mind a collection of acts of knowing. (Historiography: Secular and Religious, 1971, pgs. 225-226)
William James, in his A
Pluralistic Universe stressed the disconnectedness of things. Wholes are to
be explained by parts and not parts by wholes, he said; one group of events,
though interrelated among themselves, may be unrelated to another group; there
is no dominating unity – however much may be reported as present at any
effective center of consciousness, something else is self-governed, absent, and
unreduced to unity. In one place James denied the need of answering a question
that many others have thought as important as it is difficult: “Not why evil
should exist at all, but how we can lessen the actual amount of it, is the sole
question we need there to consider.” Of course, if a question is literally
meaningless (such as, why is music oblong?) it is really not a question at all
and does not need to be answered. But if a question is not senseless, by what
right can a philosophy rule it out of court? Even if it were quite trivial, it
should find its place and its answer in some minor subdivision of the truth.
Then, too, one might ask how James discovered that some groups of events are
unrelated to other groups? Or, more exactly, since he allowed “external”
relations and denied only “internal” relations, one might ask how James could
discover that something is absent from and unreduced to unity by every
effective center of consciousness? In other words, did James have a valid
argument for the conclusion that there is no Omniscient Mind whose thought is
systematic truth? He may then be caught on the horns of the dilemma he tried to
escape. Irrational chaos and Hegelian monism were equally repellent to him. He
wanted to find a middle ground. But perhaps there is no escape from irrational
chaos except, not exactly Hegelian monism, but a logical completeness of some
sort. It would be surprising, would it not, if social stability could be based
on incoherence, or even large-scale disconnectedness?
At any rate, the suspicion that the introductory
questions are all related and that an answer to any one of them affects the
answer to every other would accord with the theistic belief in divine
omniscience. The discouragement, the reflection, the suspicion of the previous
pages do not prove or demonstrate the existence of an omniscient God; but if
there is such a God, we may infer that all problems and all solutions fit one
another like pieces of a marvelous mosaic. The macrocosmic world with its
microcosmic but thoughtful inhabitant will not be a fortuitous aggregation of
unrelated elements. Instead of a series of disconnected propositions, truth
will be a rational system, a logically-ordered series, somewhat like geometry
with its theorems and axioms, its implications and presuppositions. Each part
will derive its significance from the whole. Christianity therefore has, or,
one may even say, Christianity is a comprehensive
view of all things: It takes the world, both material and spiritual, to be an
ordered system. Consequently, if Christianity is to be defended against the
objections of other philosophies, the only adequate method will be
comprehensive. While it is of great importance to defend particular points of
special interest, these specific defenses will be insufficient. In addition to
these details, there is also needed a picture of the whole into which they fit.
This comprehensive apologia is seen all the more clearly to be necessary as the
contrasting theories are more carefully considered. The naturalistic philosophy
that engulfs the modern mind is not a repudiation of one or two items of the
Christian faith leaving the remainder untouched; it is not a philosophy that is
satisfied to deny miracles while approving or at least not disapproving of
Christian moral standards; on the contrary, both Christianity and naturalism
demand all or nothing: Compromise is impossible. At least this will be true if
the answer of any one question is integral with the answers of every other.
Each system proposes to interpret all the fact; each system subscribes to the
principle that this is one world. A universe, even James’ pluralistic universe,
cannot exist half-theistic and half-atheistic. Politics, science, and
epistemology must all be one or the other.
The hypothesis of divine omniscience, the emphasis on the
systematic unity of all truths, and the supposition that a particular truth
derives its meaning or significance from the system as a whole does not imply
that a man must know everything in order to know anything. It might at first
seem to; and Plato, who faced the same difficulty, tried to provide for two
kinds of knowing so that in one sense a man might know everything and in
another sense not know and learn a particular truth. At the moment, let an
illustration suffice. To appreciate an intricate and beautiful mosaic, we must
see it as a whole; and the parts are properly explained only in terms of the
whole; but it does not follow that a perception of the pieces and some
fragmentary information is impossible without full appreciation. Or to pass
from illustration to reality: A child in first grade learns that two plus two
is four. This arithmetical proposition is true, and the greatest mathematician
cannot disprove it. But the mathematician sees this truth in relation to a
science of numbers he understands how this sum contributes to phases of
mathematics that the child does not dream of and may never learn; he recognizes
that the significance of the proposition depends on its place in the system.
But the child in school knows that two and two are four, and this that that
child knows is true. Omniscience, even higher mathematics, is not a
prerequisite for first grade. (A
Christian View of Men and Things, 2005, pgs. 22-24)
The atheist who asserts that
there is no God, asserts by the same words that he holds the whole universe in
his mind; he asserts that no fact, past, present, future, near, or far, escapes
his attention, that no power, however great, can baffle or deceive him. In
rejecting God, he claims omniscience and omnipotence. In other words an atheist
is one who claims that he himself is God; and the pantheist must be said to
join him in the same claim. (A Christian
Philosophy of Education, 1988, pg. 38)
Is any proposition true in
isolation? Would an atom by itself be the same regardless of how the rest of
the world might change? There are plausible examples that it would not. Here is
a rock that weighs six pounds. But if an astronaut carries it into space it
weighs approximately zero. When he drops it on the Moon, it weighs one pound.
The truth of these propositions depends of the relation of the rock to the
other parts of the universe. No one is true in isolation. Obesity is cured by a
trip to the Moon.
Another example is a piece of
canvas painted half red and half green – or any other two colors. Through these
two halves of the canvas paint a stroke of gray, a mixture of black and white;
but it will not be gray on the canvas. The single stoke of paint will be one
color on the top half and a different color on the bottom half. Since
everything seen has a background, its color is a function of its background. It
is false to say it remains what it is no matter how the rest of the universe
changes.
One further example. If there
were no sense of sight, there would be no sense of hearing. If there were
nothing hard, there would be nothing soft. If there were no animals, there
could be no plants. The reason is that each of these terms expresses a
distinction from its opposites. Sight is a form of non-hearing. Were they the
same, we might have the term sensation,
but we would not have two terms of different meaning. The terms “plant” and
“animal” would not apply to different objects, if there were no different
objects. There might be “living beings,” but no plants and animals. Similarly,
there would be no living beings, if there were no non-living beings. This
should be sufficient to dispose of logical atomism. (Modern Philosophy, 2008, pg. 175)
Augustine and Clark
Plato and Hegel constructed theories of knowledge which, if pressed to their logical extreme, imply that man must be either omniscient or completely ignorant. If every item of knowledge is so intimately connected with every other that its true nature cannot be seen except in its relation to all, then either we know all or we know nothing. Plato and Hegel both had a hard time escaping this dilemma.
Now Moses said, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever” (Deut. 29:29). The Bible, therefore, both here and everywhere, assumes that we can know some truths without knowing all truths. Accordingly it is incumbent upon us to develop an epistemology in which the relationships are not such as to limit us to the disjunction of total ignorance or omniscience.
This epistemology may follow Augustine’s view that Christ is the light of every man: that is, mankind possesses as an a priori endowment at least the rudiments of knowledge, so that whenever anyone knows anything he is in contact with God. Or, the epistemology required may be more skeptical as to geometry and science and simply insist that God, being omnipotent, can be a verbal revelation make his truths understandable to me. (Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 1991, pgs. 245-246)
Absolutism, and theism, too, hold that everything must be
related to everything else in some way; there are no two things utterly
independent, though in spite of Lotze, they may nonetheless be distinct. (Modern Philosophy, 2008, pg. 288)
One of the main points that the
present volume wants to emphasize is the necessary logical connection of every
proposition in an intellectual system with every other. (Historiography: Secular and Religious, 1971, pg. 179)
…this entire volume has been insisting that everything is
connected with everything else. (Historiography:
Secular and Religious, 1971, pg. 183)
A knowledge of geometry, a
knowledge of anything, does indeed presuppose the possibility of detaching the
given proposition from the several contexts in which it has appeared historically.
Collingwood’s argument against idealism is irrefutable. If one must know
everything in order to know anything, one can know nothing. (Historiography: Secular and Religious,
1971, pg. 227)
Plato in his theory of reminiscence may have used a myth
to describe the disembodied soul of man contemplating the Ideas directly. This
might be taken to mean that each soul is omniscient. In the Christian system
this is not needed. Perhaps I have said that truth is the whole; at least I
have insisted that all truth form a consistent system and have their meaning as
parts of that system. But this does not entail human omniscience. At first it
might seem to, for the New Testament makes our contact with the Realities more
intimate than Plato does. In Acts
17:28 we read, “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” This could be
made to sound like pantheism, and indeed the apostle connects his own statement
with a similar sentiment in a pantheistic poet. When I have dared to connect
some of my views with excerpts from pagan philosophers, I have at times been
subjected to severe censure from certain quarters. But the New Testament is
clear: We live and move and have our being in God’s mind. The Old Testament also
in Psalm 36:9 says, “In thy light
shall we see light.” Therefore I reject Nash’s conclusion, buttressed by a
quotation from Etienne Gilson, that “The problem cannot be avoided simply by
saying that man is in contact with divine Ideas in the mind of man.” These
words really misstate the situation, for our existence in the mind of God puts
us in contact with Ideas in the mind of God, and not simply “in the mind of
man.”
The scripture presents the relationship between the mind
of God and the mind of man as a much more intimate relationship than is
commonly believed. In 1 Corinthians
2:16 the apostle says, ‘we have the mind of Christ’ (Noun Christou echomen). On this verse Meyer comments, ‘Since Christ
is in them…their nous, too, can
be no mental faculty different in kind from the nous Christou, but must, on the contrary, be as ideally one with
it, as it is true that Christ himself lives in them.’ See also Philippians 2:5, ‘Let this mind be in
you, which was also in Christ Jesus.’ Of course these verse do not equate
the person of Christ with our person, either pantheistically or existentially.
Their meaning is that our mind and Christ’s mind overlap or have a common area
or coincidence in certain propositions. Thus objections taken from the Parmenides are inapplicable to the New
Testament.
Note that Christ’s mind and our mind only overlap: they
are not coextensive. Plato may require omniscience, but Christianity uses
revelation; and man knows only so much as God has revealed to him. In my
publications I have never claimed more than a partial knowledge for man. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pgs.
144-145)
It cannot be charged with skepticism. If it is objected that it requires an
impossibility, viz. that a man be omniscient, the reply is that its
Hegelian form may involve such an impossibility; but this impossibility does
not occur in the Christian system where an omniscient God makes a definite
revelation to man. Hence, it is not necessary for a man to know everything
before he knows anything. The subjective knowledge of any man depends not on his
own complex of thoughts but on God’s system and on the fact of revelation. And
contrary to what seems to be Dr. Buswell’s opinion, this is not at all
inconsistent with God’s sovereign grace. (The
Bible Today 42.6, March 1948, cf. pgs. 173-177.)
Models of Epistemic Justification: Coherentism (God) and Foundationalism (Man)
Now since it is the conclusion of a demonstration that we
are trying to prove, and since it is proved by giving the premises, it follows
that the premises of demonstrated knowledge are better known than the
conclusion. If we did not know the premises, obviously we could not know the
conclusion. The conclusion cannot be more certain than the premises on which it
is based. The premises are the cause of the conclusion, and therefore they must
be prior to it. And also, in demonstration, although not in every formally
valid syllogism, the premises must be true. For demonstration is knowledge, and
there can be no known of the non-existent. The premises, therefore, must be
statements of what exists or what is so, i.e.,
they must be true.
Of course, there may be a chain of syllogisms in a
demonstration, as there is in geometry. But the chain must have a starting
point, and such a starting point must be, not only prior, causal, and true, but
in particular primary and indemonstrable. It must be an immediate, basic truth.
Nothing can be more certain than these basic truths, for if the least doubt
attached to them, doubt would likewise attach to all the conclusions; and this
would mean that science would be tottery. But the conviction of pure science
must be unshakable.
In the nineteenth century it was commonly believed that
science was as unshakable as Aristotle could have wished; but the prevailing
mood of the twentieth century is that science is tentative, and that laws stand
in need of constant revision. Therefore, the current objection to Aristotle is
that the science which he describes is non-existent. The formal validity of
syllogisms may possibly be foolproof, but their applications to concrete
material, and more especially the premises on which they are based, are not
completely beyond all doubt. To Aristotle this would mean that there is no
scientific knowledge, as he defined knowledge.
There was a similar difference of opinion in his day. Some said there is no
knowledge; others said all truths are demonstrable. But Aristotle agreed with
neither the one nor the other.
Those who denied the existence of scientific knowledge
argued that demonstration is the only method by which something can be known.
But demonstrations depend on premises. And if the premises are to be known,
they too must be demonstrated. This leads on back in an infinite regress, with
the result that the demonstration is never finished, or more accurately, never
begins. Accordingly, there is no scientific knowledge. The other group also
held that demonstration is the only method by which anything can be known; yet
they held that everything can be demonstrated because proof goes around in a
circle: Every premise is a conclusion, and there is a finite series in which
the end and the beginning are identical. Aristotle replies that a proposition
cannot be both prior and posterior as this view requires. Since the exact
number of terms is irrelevant, they may be reduced to three and the absurdity
becomes apparent. Circular demonstrations would be equivalent to saying that A
is B; Why? – because B is C; Why? – because C is A; Why? – because A is B. With
circular and infinite demonstration both ruled out, it follows that not
everything can be demonstrated and that there must be first, indemonstrable
truths.
A philosopher of a different school, Hegel for instance,
would no doubt admit that the three-term circle is an absurdity; but he might
argue that the exact number of terms is no so irrelevant as Aristotle thought.
A bad circle is a little circle; but if a circle can be drawn so as to include
everything, it is a beautiful circle. In a rational universe everything is
implicated in everything else; and precisely for this reason a three-term
circle is absurd: It fails to show the other relationships of A, B, and C.
Hegel might even attribute some very small and very bad circles to Aristotle
himself: He might ask, Is Aristotle’s reply anything more than a two-term
circle, in which demonstration is possible because there are primary truths,
and there are primary truths because there must be demonstration?
At any rate, against the two views, Aristotle asserts
that not all knowledge is demonstrative. There must be primary basic truths
because the regress in demonstration must end in these basic truths, and these
are indemonstrable. Therefore, besides the scientific knowledge, which is
demonstration, there is its originative source which enables us to recognize
the basic indemonstrable propositions. (Thales
to Dewey, 2000, pgs. 101-102)
The substantive point needing
discussion is whether the law of contradiction is the one and only test of
truth.
Ideally or for God this seems to
be the case. Since there is nothing independent of God, he does not conform
truth to an alleged reality beyond truth and beyond him. Since there is no
possibility of “vertical” (to use Carnell’s terminology) coherence, the
“horizontal” test, or, better the horizontal characteristic of logical
consistency seems the only possible one.
Weaver correctly notes that I do
not claim for human beings the ability to apply this test universally. In this
sense it is a “negative” or, better, an incomplete test. For this reason it
must be supplemented some way or other. (Clark
and His Critics, 2009, pg. 287)
Undoubtedly I hold that truth is a consistent system of
propositions. Most people would be willing to admit that two truths cannot be
contradictories; and I would like to add that the complex of all truths cannot
be a mere aggregate of unrelated assertions. Since God is rational, I do not
see how any item of his knowledge can be unrelated to the rest. Weaver makes no
comment on this fundamental characteristic of divine truth.
Rather, he questions whether this characteristic is of
practical value, and whether it must be supplemented in some way. It is most
strange that Weaver here says, “I must agree with Carnell,” as if he had
convicted me of disagreeing with Carnell by providing no supplementation
whatever. Now, I may disagree with the last named gentleman on many points, but
since it is abundantly clear that I “supplement” consistency by an appeal to
the Scripture for the determination of particular truths, it is most strange that
Weaver ignores my supplementation. (Clark
and His Critics, 2009, pg. 290)
One who believes in the unity of
truth may still believe that the false system entails contradictions; but to
prove this is the work of omniscience. (Historiography:
Secular and Religious, 1971, pg. 370)
Implications: Self-Authenticity
How then could God show to a man
that it was God speaking? Suppose God should say, “I will make of you a great
nation...and I will bless them that bless you and curse him that curses you.”
Would God call the devil and ask Abraham to believe the devil’s corroborative
statements? Is the devil’s word good evidence of God’s veracity? It would not
seem so. Nor is the solution to be found in God’s appealing to another man in
order to convince the doubter. Aside from the fact that this other man is no
more of an authority than the devil, the main question reappears unanswered in
this case also. What reasons can this man have to conclude that God is making a
revelation to him? It is inherent in the very nature of the case that the best
witness to God’s existence and revelation is God himself. There can be no
higher source of truth. God may, to be sure, furnish “evidence” to man. He may
send an earthquake, a fire, or still small voice; he may work spectacular
miracles, or, as in the cases of Isaiah and Peter, he may produce inwardly an
awful consciousness of sin, so that the recipient of the revelation is
compelled to cry out, “Woe is me! For I am undone, because I am a man of
unclean lips.” But whether it be an external spectacle or an inward “horror or
great darkness,” all of this is God’s witnessing to himself. (A Christian View of Men and Things,
2005, pgs. 182-183)
But if there is a revelation, there can be no criterion
for it. God cannot swear by a greater; therefore he has sworn by himself. One
cannot ask one’s own experience to judge God and determine whether God tells
the truth or not. Consider Abraham. How could Abraham be sure that God
commanded him to sacrifice Isaac? Maybe this suggestion was of the devil; maybe
it was a queer auto-suggestion. There is no higher answer to this question than
God himself. The final criterion is merely God’s statement. It cannot be tested
by any superior truth. (Today’s Evangelism: Counterfeit or Genuine?, 1990, pg. 113)
Since it is easier to distinguish the difference between
Christianity and Playboy’s
obscenities than it is to distinguish Riemannian from Euclidean geometry,
wisdom counsels us to rephrase the objection, to state what Dr. Montgomery
intended to state, and then to answer what he meant but did not say. What he
obviously meant was that a priori
principles, since they are not based on evidence, are arbitrary; and if
arbitrary, the a priori of Playboy is just as legitimate as the
fundamental principles of Christianity. Now, there is a certain sense in which
this is true enough. If neither set of principles can be based on evidence, and
if both sets are regarded by their advocates as the starting point for all
demonstration and argument, then obviously no one can support either set on
anything more fundamental. This is simply to say that every system of thought
must start somewhere.
Where then does Dr. Montgomery start? So far as I can
understand him, he professes to base the truth of the Bible on archaeological
and historical evidence. This evidence in turn is based on sensation or
perception. Or, more philosophically, one may classify Dr. Montgomery as an
Empiricist. As such he must hold that sensory experience is more reliable that
a divinely-given revelation. He must hold that sensation is
self-authenticating, and that the Bible cannot be self-authenticating. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pg. 96)
The second half of the
disjunction was: “or else the evidence is dependent
on the proposed authority itself, and the revelation fails, in consequence, to
win its credentials as a reasonable
source of trustworthy propositions.”
This disjunct faces two replies.
First, it assumes that a first principle cannot be self-authenticating. Yet
every first principle must be. The first principle of Logical Positivism is
that a sentence has no meaning unless it can be verified (in principle at
least) by sensory experience. Yet no sensory experience can ever verify this
principle. Anyone who wishes to adopt it must regard it as self-authenticating.
So it is with all first principles. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pgs. 46-47)
Implications: First Principles
The demonstration of a proposition, such as any theorem in geometry, is completed only when it is referred to the axioms. If the axioms in turn required demonstration, the demonstration of the proposition with which we began would remain incomplete, at least until the axioms could be demonstrated. But if the axioms rest on prior principles, and if these too must be demonstrated - on the assumption that every proposition requires demonstration - the proof of our original theorem would never be finished. This means that it would be impossible to demonstrate anything, for all demonstration depends on indemonstrable first principles. Every type of philosophy must make some original assumptions. And if the law of contradiction is not satisfactory, at least these Heracliteans fails to state what principle they regard as more so. Nonetheless, though the law of contradiction is immediately evident and is not subject to demonstration, there is a negative or elenctic argument that will reduce the opponent to silence. (Thales to Dewey, 2000, pg. 88)
Logically the infallibility of the Bible is not a theorem to be deduced from some prior axiom. The infallibility of the Bible is the axiom from which several doctrines are themselves deduced as theorems. Every religion and every philosophy must be based on some first principle. And since a first principle is first, it cannot be “proved” or “demonstrated” on the basis of anything prior. As the catechism question, quoted above, says, “The Word of God is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify Him.” (What Do Presbyterians Believe?, 1985, pg. 18)
But what about these assumptions
or axioms? Can they be proved? It would seem that they cannot, for they are the
starting points of an argument, and if the argument starts with them, there is
no preceding argumentation. Accordingly, after the humanist or theist has
worked out a consistent system by arranging all his propositions as theorems in
a series of valid demonstrations, how is either of them to persuade the other
to accept his unproved axioms? And the question is all the more perplexing when
it is suspected that the axioms were chosen for the express purpose of deducing
precisely these conclusions. (A Christian
View of Men and Things, 2005, pg. 26).
Basic worldviews are never demonstrated; they are chosen.
William James and Bertrand Russell may believe in a pluralistic universe, but
they can offer no demonstration of this, the most fundamental of their
intellectual beliefs. The mechanist believes that all natural phenomena can be
reduced to mathematical, quantitative equations, but he never gives a
mathematical demonstration of his belief. So it is with every world-view; the
first principle cannot be proved – precisely because it is first. It is the first
principle that provides the basis for demonstrating subordinate propositions.
Now if such be the case, the thoughtful person is forced to make a voluntary
choice. As a matter of fact, the thoughtless person as well is forced to
choose, though the necessity to make a choice and the particular choice made
may not be so obvious. It is obvious, however, that a thoughtful person, one
who wishes to understand, one who wants to think and live consistently, must
choose one or another first principle.
Still it remains true that no
demonstration of God is possible; our belief is a voluntary choice; but if one
must choose without a strict proof, none the less it is possible to have sane
reasons of some sort to justify the choice. Certainly there are sane reasons
for rejecting some choices. One most important fact is the principle of
consistency. In the case of skepticism inconsistency lies immediately on the
surface. Explicit atheism requires only a little analysis before
self-contradiction is discovered. Some statements of naturalism more
successfully disguise their flaws. But all these choices are alike in that it
is not sane, it is not logical, to choose an illogical principle.
Consistency extends further than a first principle narrowly
considered, so that it can be shown to be self-contradictory in itself; it
extends into the system deduced from the first principle or principles. The
basic axiom or axioms must make possible a harmony or system in all our
thoughts, words, and actions. Should someone say (misquoting by the omission of
an adjective) that consistency is the mark of small minds, that he does not
like systems, that he will act on one principle at one time and another at
another, that he does not choose to be consistent, there would be no use arguing
with him, for he repudiates the rules, the necessary rules of argumentation.
Such a person cannot argue against theism, for he cannot argue at all. (A Christian Philosophy of Education,
1988, pgs. 41-42)
No philosopher is perfect and no system can give man
omniscience. But if one system can provide plausible solutions to many problems
while another leaves too many questions unanswered, if one system tends less to
skepticism and gives more meaning to life, if one worldview is consistent whole
others are self-contradictory, who can deny us, since we must choose, the right
to choose the more promising first principle? (A Christian View of Men and Things, 2005, pg. 29)
The difference between naturalism and theism-between the
latest scientific opinions on evolution and creation; between the Freudian
animal and the image of God; between belief in God and atheism-is based on
their two different epistemologies. Naturalism professes to learn by
observation and analysis of experience; the theistic view depends on Biblical
revelation. No amount of observation and analysis can prove the theistic
position. Of course, no amount of observation and analysis can prove evolution
or any other theory. The secular philosophies all result in total skepticism.
In contrast, theism bases its knowledge on divinely revealed propositions. They
may not give us all truth; they may even give us very little truth; but there
is no truth at all otherwise. So much for the secular alternative. (A Christian Philosophy of Education,
1988, pgs. 138-139)
Implications: Causes of Axiomatic Disagreement
You or I might be induced to accept the Bible by the
testimony of the Church; but a Moslem would not. You or I might consider the
matter heavenly, but the humanists would call it pie in the sky. The literary
style of some parts of the Bible is majestic, but Paul’s epistles are not
models of style. The consent or logical consistency of the whole is important;
for if the Bible contradicted itself, we would know that some of it would be
false. Personal testimony as to the saving efficacy of the doctrine impresses
some people; but others point out that queer people believe queer things and
find great satisfaction in their oddities.
How then may we know that the Bible is true? The
Confession answers, “Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth
and divine authority [of the Scripture] is from the inward work of the Holy
Spirit.”
Faith is a gift or work of God. It is God who causes us
to believe: “Blessed is the man whom thou choosest and causest to approach unto
thee” (Psa. 65:4).
Empiricism has been demolished.
Unless, therefore, one chooses a Dogmatic first principle, one must choose
skepticism and irrationality. Neither of these has anything to oppose to
Dogmatism. Sanity therefore must be dogmatic. So much then for the status of
the argument.
What now is the question to be
answered? It is not, Shall we choose? Or, is it permissible to choose? We must
choose; since we are alive we have chosen – either a dogmatic principle or
empirical insanity. The question therefore, urged by atheist, evangelical
Christian, and evangelistic Moslem, is, Why does anyone choose the Bible rather
than the Koran? The answer to this question will also explain how a Christian
can present the Gospel to a non-Christian without depending on any logically
common proposition in their two systems.
Since all possible knowledge
must be contained within the system and deduced from its principles, the
dogmatic answer must be found in the Bible itself. The answer is that faith is
the gift of God. As Psalm 65:4 says,
God chooses a man and causes him to accept Christian Dogmatism. Conversely, the
Apostle John informs us that the Pharisees could not believe because God had
blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts.
The initiation of spiritual
life, called regeneration, is the immediate work of the Holy Spirit. It is not
produced by Abrahamic blood, nor by natural desire, nor by any act of human
will. In particular, it is not produced by arguments based on secular and
empirical presuppositions. Even if there were a common truth in secularism and
Christianity, arguments based on it would not produce faith. What empirical
evangelicals think is most necessary, is most useless.
Even the preaching of the Gospel
does not produce faith. However, the preaching of the Gospel does one thing
that a fallacious argument from a non-existent common ground cannot do: it
provides the propositions that must be believed. But the belief comes from God:
God causes a man to believe; faith is a divine gift. In evangelistic work there
can be no appeal to secular, non-Christian material. There is an appeal – it is
the appeal of prayer to the Holy Spirit to cause the sinner to accept the
truths of the Gospel. Any other appeal is useless.
If now a person wants the basic
answer to the question, Why does one man have faith and another not, or, Why
does one man accept the Koran and another the Bible, this is it. God causes the
one to believe. But if a person asks some other question or raises an
objection, he will have to read the argument over again. (Christian Philosophy, 2004, pgs. 100-101)
Conclusion
A sound epistemology cannot
demand omniscience or complete freedom from error: Its aim is not to show that
all men or any man knows everything, but that some men can know something. (A Christian View of Men and Things,
2005, pg. 210)
In view of this pragmatic dealing with history, its
positivistic denial of universal law, of metaphysics, of supernatural
interpretation, it may be permitted by way of anticipation to suggest the
conclusion that, instead of beginning with facts and later discovering God,
unless a thinker begins with God, he can never end with God, or get the facts
either. (A Christian Philosophy of
Education, 1988, pg. 31)
