Pages

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Did John Robbins know anything?

JONATHAN PHINEHAS SAID:

“I think it would be fairer to say that Robbins believes that all Biblical claims ‘rise to the level of knowledge’ and that because all extra-scriptural knowledge claims have not been verified by a word from God, one must offer justification for them which would be as certain as a word from God.”

That only pushes the question back a step. If Robbins says “no extrascriptural claim counts as knowledge unless it’s verified by Scripture,” that, itself, is an extrascriptural claim.

How does Robbins know that “no extrascriptural claim counts as knowledge unless it’s verified by Scripture,” that, itself, is an extrascriptural claim”? Is his extrascriptural statement about extrascriptural statements a true statement or a merely opinionated statement?

Since his general statement about extrascriptural statements would necessarily apply to his own extrascriptural statement, does his disclaimer about extrascriptural statements self-refuting? Is the disclaimer self-referential? That’s the point.

“Robbins’ would then ask for that justification.”

And I’m asking him to justify his extrascriptural statement about extrascriptural statements.

“IMU, for Robbins, knowledge is defined as justified truth believed, where justification is verification by a word from God.”

i) Did Robbins deduce that definition from Scripture?

ii) How does Robbins know what Scripture says–given his rejection of sense knowledge?

iii) Moreover, how does he know the laws of logic? Not from Scripture. For unless he already had a working knowledge of logic, he could make no sense of Scripture.

But if his knowledge of logic is innate, then that’s a significant form of extrascriptural knowledge.

iv) Likewise, verification is a logical procedure. How could you verify something from Scripture unless you knew the laws of logic?

“So, if a claim is justified as knowledge by virtue of it being a word from God, then any proposition not verified by a word from God must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God in order to be known.”

The statement that “if a claim is justified as knowledge by virtue of it being a word from God, then any proposition not verified by a word from God must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God in order to be known” is, itself, an extrabiblical statement. Is that a true statement, or a merely opinionated statement? And how, in practice, do you distinguish an opinionated statement from an ignorant statement?

“Any proposition which he does not hold axiomatically as being a word from God is opinions unless it can be shown to be as certain as a word from God.”

The statement that “any proposition which he does not hold axiomatically as being a word from God is opinions unless it can be shown to be as certain as a word from God” is an extrascriptural statement. So is that a statement of fact, or bare opinion?

Does an extrascriptural disclaimer disclaim itself?

“This doesn’t mean that extra-Biblical claims are not true. But apart from a word from God he does not claim to know them to be true. This is not to affirm that they are false. ”

That’s an extrascriptural statement about every extrascriptural statement. So is that extrascriptural statement true or false?

“Just because I cannot know that I am a man does not mean that it is not true.”

The question at issue is whether truth can be an object of knowledge.

“Robbin’s holds axiomatically that the propositions of the 66 books of Scripture are divinely inspired and are thus ipso facto epistemically justified. Accordingly, a proposition outside Scripture is not known unless justification can be provided for it which is as certain as a word from God.”

You need to distinguish between statements of Scripture and statements about Scripture. The immediate point at issue is not whether statements of Scripture are true, but whether statements about Scripture are true.

According to Scripturalism, can extrascriptural statements about Scripture ever count as knowledge? That’s the question.

“Again, I think Robbins would want to see such justification.”

How do I justify an extrascriptural statement? Wouldn’t any justification of an extrascriptural statement involve another extrascriptural statement?

I make an extrascriptural statement. To justify that statement, I must make other justificatory statements. My justificatory statements are also extrascriptural statements. Must I then justify my justificatory statements? Where does that process terminate?

“Again, it seems that if justification requires a word from God, anything which does not have verification by a word from God is not known. Robbin’s calls these claims opinions (which can be either true or false).”

And that very statement is, itself, an extrascriptural statement. So what is the epistemic status of your extrascriptural statement about extrascriptural statements?

“Again, it seems that if all Bible is knowledge because it is a word from God, then any other claim must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God. I think that until such justification is provided, Robbins is correct to call all such extra-Scriptural claims opinion or whatever.”

You yourself just made a universal extrascriptural claim about extrascriptural claims. Should we call your claim mere opinion? And how do we distinguish an opinionated claim from an ignorant claim?

You said Robbins is correct. Do you know that he’s correct, or do you opine that he’s correct? Is it even possible for you to know he’s correct given your Scripturalist constraint on what is knowable?

“IMU, Robbins would not argue in this way. By making Scripture axiomatic, the propositions of Scripture become the indubitables and are knowledge by nature of their place in his system.”

The fact that certain propositions are either axiomatic or deducible from axioms doesn’t make them true. That, of itself, doesn’t make them rise to the level of knowledge.

Also, at this point I think we need to introduce a semantic clarification. Statements never rise to the level of knowledge. Knowledge is a state of mind. Statements are either true or false.

You might distinguish between knowledgeable statements and ignorant statements. So, when you say that Scriptural statements count as knowledge. Is that:

i) Shorthand for claiming that Scriptural statements are true?

ii) Or claiming that Scriptural statements are knowable?

I’d add that what is true and what is knowable are two different things. In principle, a falsehood is knowable. It can be known to be false.

For Scripture to “rise to the level of knowledge,” two conditions must be met:

i) It is true

ii) It is knowable

Even if Scripture is true, how can we know Scripture–given the Scripturalist repudiation of sense knowledge?

If we learn what Scripture teaches via the senses, then we can only form opinions about what Scripture says, right?

And, unlike Cheung, I don’t think that Robbins fell back on occasionalism–which has its own set of problems.

“All other proposition which are not Scripture are therefore not known apart from a word from God. This seems consistent to me. And you can call these other propositions whatever you want; Robbins called them opinions.”

Does this mean I should call your extrascriptural statement about extrascriptural statements mere opinion?

“Robbins claims that all Bible is knowledge. That is, there is nothing more certainly known than a word from God and the Bible is a word from God. All other claims to knowledge must be shown to be just as certain as a word from God.”

Once again, we need to distinguish between what the Bible claims, and what Robbins claims. Does an extrascriptural claim about a Bible claim amount to knowledge, opinion, or ignorance?

“I know there is great hostility between the VanTillians and Clarkians.”

I think Clark and Van Til both make some useful contributions to Christian apologetics. And I think both men also made some mistakes.

21 comments:

  1. Could one say that the claim about the bible is a priori?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If it's an a priori claim about the Bible, then it's not a claim from the Bible itself. But if the Bible is the only source of knowledge, then an a priori claim about the Bible, being an extrabiblical claim, does not amount to knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We all have to start somewhere, could one just say that the bible is truth. This of course being a priori claim or axiom, but then basing everything off of that?

    The way I see it would be that the person would hold that the bible and the bible alone is truth that can be justified. If you start with that I didn’t think you had to prove it since that is your starting point or axiom.

    So claiming that the bible is the word of God is the axiom, maybe I’m way out in left field on this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “We all have to start somewhere, could one just say that the bible is truth.”

    Yes, we could “just say that.” But is that merely a postulate, or do we know it to be true?

    Does a Scripturalist know that to be true? If so, how?

    “This of course being a priori claim or axiom, but then basing everything off of that?”

    Are you still defending Scripturalism? Or have you shifted to a different position? An a prior claim is not interchangeable with a Scriptural claim.

    “The way I see it would be that the person would hold that the bible and the bible alone is truth that can be justified.”

    That’s a purely programmatic statement. How do you propose to justify that statement?

    “If you start with that I didn’t think you had to prove it since that is your starting point or axiom.”

    The question you need to ask is not whether you can prove it, but whether you can know it to be true–with or without proving it.

    But, according to Scripturalism, you can’t know something unless you can account for it.

    Does this mean you don’t know if your Scriptural starting-point or axiom is true?

    “So claiming that the bible is the word of God is the axiom.”

    And how do you make good on that claim? How do you either know or prove a truth-claim to be true?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is where I get lost, perhaps because I’ve never thought about it.

    I would think that the starting point of the bible is the word of God is the axiom and I was under the impression that the axiom did not have to be justified or proven. Am I wrong on that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. BEN SAID:

    "I would think that the starting point of the bible is the word of God is the axiom and I was under the impression that the axiom did not have to be justified or proven. Am I wrong on that?"

    According to Scripturalism, you don't know something unless you can account for it. Axioms are unprovable.

    The question is whether an axiom can be knowably true apart from proof. I don't see how Scripturalism can make that move. In which case Scripturalism reduces to fideism and relativism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm curious, which Bible do Scripturalists believe is the Word of God? Are any English translations the Word of God? Or are only the Original Hebrew and Greek? Which textual variants comprise God's Word?

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to Scripturalism, you don't know something unless you can account for it. Axioms are unprovable

    I understand that to a Scripturalist that “you don’t know something unless you can account for it”, but the way I understand them or read them the axiom that the bible is the Word of God is what all things are based off.

    It seems that this is foundational to the argument. They start with that axiom. Now I suppose one cannot like that, but it seems if they start with that as their axiom and axioms are unprovable that they are consistent then within their stated axiom.

    If I understand correctly, you want them to prove their axiom and/or you do not like that they start with that as their axiom.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The issue is not whether the axioms are provable. Rather, the issue is whether unprovable axioms can be known to be true (apart from proof).

    If axioms are unprovable, and, a la Scripturalism, you can't know something unless you account for it (e.g. logical demonstration), then the axioms cannot be known to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mr Hays

    Would you please cast your eye over the arguments set forward on Gaychristian.net for same-sex marraige. They have a section for the opposing view but i would really like to see your views on it. In terms of value, my understanding is that this website is one of the most well known for christian with same-sex attraction. I think it would be worthwhile to know their arguments.

    http://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

    ReplyDelete
  11. You wrote

    …a la Scripturalism, you can't know something unless you account for it (e.g. logical demonstration),

    this is where my mind gets fuzzy, the way I understand it the Scripturalist does say that you can’t know something unless you account for it (in their case only by deducing it by Scripture), but that is based off of the very foundation that the Scripture is the Word of God.

    If I understand what you are saying then it’s that they start off with an un-justified axiom or in other words that their system is based on the understanding that unless you account for it you cannot know it. Yet even they have to start somewhere in all of this and this is where I guess I see them as starting off with the axiom that they do. If they had to account for their axiom then it would cease to be their starting point and it would just go on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You keep saying that everyone has to start somewhere. That's not the point. The point is whether our starting point is something we know to be true. Whether it's innate knowledge or empirical knowledge or tacit knowledge.

    You can't have knowledge that's based on something more ultimate unless the basis of your knowledge is knowably true. Subsequent knowledge must build on prior knowledge.

    And you're also skipping over the question of how a Scripturalist could even know the Bible. If one denies both sense knowledge and innate knowledge–restricting all knowledge to the Bible and propositions deducible from Scripture, then it's not possible to know the Bible. You can't come to Scripture as a blank slate and still makes sense of the Scriptures.

    At best, you would only have opinions about what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So the point is whether our starting point is justified truth?

    I was under the impression that the only people who can really understand the bible are those that have been born again and have the Spirit of God. Wouldn’t this be a case of knowledge that’s based on something more ultimate and this knowledge doesn’t build upon some prior knowledge?

    I guess I don’t see the Scripturalist approaching the bible with a blank slate, after all even they are made with the image of God and I would think that that would bring certain “privileges” (I know that is a bad word), but there is some intrinsic qualities that come with that.

    The way I would explain it is that we all are born with the knowledge of God and only the bible can tell us about the how/why/when/who/what that we need to know. No idea if this is Scripturalism or not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regeneration doesn't create knowledge. Rather, it restores a natural predisposition to believe revealed truth. Regeneration is not itself a source of knowledge.

    And appealing to regeneration also presumes a knowledge of Scripture regarding the work of the Holy Spirit. That fails to explain how a Scripturalist can know Scripture in the first place.

    If you appeal to the imago Dei as a source of knowledge, or inborn knowledge, then you obviously can't say that Scripture is the only source of knowledge, pace Scripturalism.

    You keep projecting what you think is reasonable onto Scripturalism. You need to practice the critical detachment that allows you to examine a position on its own terms.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Likewise, if you subscribe to an inborn knowledge of God's existence, then that's something you can know without having to give an account of it. If it's inborn, then you can know it without giving an account of how you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry I did not mean to imply that regeneration creates knowledge, what I meant to say was that only one that has been born again and has the Spirit of God can understand the bible.

    You are right in that I’m projecting what I think is reasonable onto Scripturalism and I should read more from Scripturalist to understand what exactly they mean.

    To me it’s like I stated above and that is that we are all born with the knowledge of God and only the bible can tell us about the how/why/when/who/what that we need to know.

    Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John Robbins has all the answers, now.

    He died last year.

    ReplyDelete
  18. andrew I agree vantil and clark are buddies now, annoyed pinoy pacman won are you proud to be pinoy?

    ReplyDelete
  19. When (the late) Robbins and Gerety write about Clark being hated or disliked, they are giving the reader the impression that what they say is TRUE. And this is deceitful, because Robbins and Gerety would admit that they do not know if it is true or not. They give the impression that they KNOW that people hated Clark when he was alive and that they KNOW that this hatred continues to this day. Every time Robbins and Gerety assert something that cannot be proven by Scripture, they are actually LYING, because their assertion are telling the readers "I know this to be true." In order for Robbins, Gerety and their ilk NOT to be lying, they MUST include qualifying statements such as "it is my opinion that ..." or "I opine that ..." To make an assertion *without* a qualifying statement is to lie.

    If it is stated that: "People hated Clark when he was alive," then that is a statement of fact. Yet Robbins and Gerety will admit that they do not know that it is a fact. So when they state this as factual, they are lying.

    see:

    www.outsidethecamp.org/efl270.htm

    http://www.outsidethecamp.org/efl61.htm

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ben said:

    "Yet even they have to start somewhere in all of this and this is where I guess I see them as starting off with the axiom that they do. If they had to account for their axiom then it would cease to be their starting point and it would just go on and on."

    Great point and you are definitely spot on. It's nice to see someone commenting on this blog who is actually on the right track.

    If you haven't, pick up Clark's Intro To Christian Philosophy. It's also available in the Christian Philosophy, The Works Works of Gordon Haddon Clark Volume 4 and also includes Three Types of Religious Philosophy and Religion Reason and Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. LonelyBoy,

    Honestly, I'm not sure if Christians should be watching or participating in "atheletic" events like boxing. The Triabloggers have discussed the topic of violent sports before (like in regards to MMA). Most of them argued in favor of, or slightly in favor of them.

    Everytime I've watched a boxing or mixed martial arts event, I inevitably both enjoy them, and feel slightly guilty for it. I'm still thinking through whether my feelings are because there's something really evil in watching it, or whether it's a manifestation of the false spirituality and legalism I've been struggling to shed because of my past in Catholicism and Seventh Day Adventism in my youth (mother's side Catholic, father's side Catholic and part SDA).

    Btw, I have no problem with *learning* self-defense and martial arts. I learned a little Balintawak and Kuntao from my cousin and uncle (through my cousin). I think it's every duty of a Christian to be able to defend himself/herself and family in cases of attack.

    So with the above caveat, personally, I am pround of the fact that a fellow Filipino is considered, "pound for pound, the best boxer in the world."

    Watching the many highlights on YouTube, I'm amazed at his skill. I'm still looking for a highlight of his recent fight against Ricky Hatton.



    Btw, LonelyBoy, you keep bringing up the question of whether I'm Filipino; would that be because you're pinoy yourself?

    ReplyDelete