Does the Bible adjudicate the debate between empiricism and rationalism? It's possible that Scripture attests a position that's less specific than either alternative. It's possible that Scripture doesn't divvy up knowledge in the way these two alternatives do.
i) Although empiricism is committed to sense-knowledge, commitment to sense-knowledge doesn't entail commitment to empiricism. Strict empiricism considers sensory experience to be the only source of our concepts and knowledge. But, in principle, you can espouse sense-knowledge without regarding the senses as the exclusive source of what we know.
Conversely, rationalism regards some or all of our knowledge as innate or intuitive and inferential. However, to say our knowledge is not acquired through the senses does not entail that our knowledge is innate. A third possibility is that our knowledge is acquired by extrasensory means. It could still be derivative.
ii) Sense-knowledge is fairly easy to prooftext from Scripture. God designed our senses (Exod 4:11; Ps 94:9). Scripture places great stock in the value of eyewitness testimony, in the broader sense of audio, visual, and tactile sources of information (e.g. Lk 1:2; Acts 1:3; Heb 2:4; 1 Jn 1:1-2).
This is sufficient to disprove rationalism, if rationalism is taken to mean that none of our knowledge is sense-knowledge.
iii) On the other hand, Scripture also affirms extrasensory knowledge. For instance, visionary revelation bypasses the physical senses to communicate information directly to the mind of the seer. A kind of telepathy. It simulates sensory stimuli. The seer hears and sees things in his mind or imagination. But there's no external stimulus producing or corresponding to that impression. It's not innate or empirical, yet it's still derivative.
Put another way, the seer acquires knowledge through experience, but it's not empirical experience. A posteriori rather than a priori.
At the same time, visionary revelation mimics sensory experience. To that extent, the intelligibility of visionary revelation depends on prior experience with the sensible world. That supplies an interpretive frame of reference. If a seer had no prior experience of the external world, the simulated imagery would be incomprehensible. For instance, to someone born blind or deaf, if his sight or hearing is restored, that will be very disorienting at first. It will take him time to adjust. To lean how to decode his newly-found sensory experience.
iv) Rationalism is often associated with logical, mathematical, and/or moral intuition. Scripture doesn't have a theory of logic. But Scripture does take informal logic for granted. Here's a classic discussion:
Of course, that, by itself, doesn't select for rationalism. Empiricists use logic too. And they attempt to ground and justify logic through empirical resources. We can debate how successful they are, but that's an essentially philosophical debate which goes well beyond the witness of Scripture.
v) It's difficult to prooftext rationalism from Scripture. 1 Jn 2:20,27 may be the closest. That suggests a kind of spiritual illumination which detects heresy. But it's not properly innate or a priori. It's the result of regeneration. And it operates in tandem with external revelation (e.g. apostolic teaching). In addition, it has a narrow scope.
One might also appeal to Jer 31:33-34 The question is how to unpack that metaphor. It is literally referring to internalized knowledge, or spiritual renewal? The latter interpretation is more likely.
At best, rationalism is underdetermined by Scripture. And we need to avoid a false dichotomy. You can be a rationalist about math, but an empiricist about astronomy or biology.
As I recall, Gordon Clark once defended rationalism by contending that Adam and Eve had innate knowledge. But there are two problems with that appeal:
a) Clark rejects inductive logic. If you see 50 black ravens in a row, the 51st raven may be albino. Clark can't extrapolate from Adam and Eve to humans generally. That would commit the "fallacy of induction." He can't derive a universal or even general conclusion that goes beyond the sample. Not to mention that a single breeding pair is a barely minimal sample to begin with.
b) In addition, Adam and Eve are hardly representative. Of necessity, they had innate knowledge because they were created as adults. That's not analogous to normal human cognitive development, which tracks maturation.
Moreover, even Adam and Eve subsequently acquired additional knowledge through their senses. Their empirical knowledge of the garden. Hearing God tell them things.
How do you define knowledge?
ReplyDeleteI did a quick search through what I have on Clark, and he does usually argue that all humans possess innate knowledge in virtue of being images of God. Scriptures he cites in these contexts: Romans 1-2, John 1:9, Colossians 3:10, or Ephesians 4:24.
Hi Ryan. Always good to hear from you. There's quite a lot to sort out.
Delete1) As you know (pardon the pun), the definition of knowledge in contemporary philosophy is complex and hotly-contested. The Biblical concept of knowledge won't have all the refinements and caveats we find in contemporary epistemology. And, of course, it will have its own distinctives, in contrast to secular theories.
The Biblical concept is informally expressed, and takes some things for granted. We have to content ourselves with a somewhat pretheoretical concept that's suggested rather than explicated over a range of Scripture.
2) Regarding Clark's prooftexts, I assume Rom 1-2 alludes to Rom 1:18ff., v32, and 2:14-15.
i) Rom 1:18ff. contains a number of literary allusions. Gen 1:20-27 supplies a general subtext. In addition, there are specific allusions to Deut 4:16-18, Pss 19:1-4; 81:12; 106:20, as well as the the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. None of that would count as innate knowledge. Rather, that derives from observing creation and reading history.
To some extent, Clark could try to get around this by claiming that observation merely triggers our repressed innate knowledge. But there are problems with that explanation:
a) It's not exegesis. Even if that was consistent with Rom 1:18ff., it's not what Rom 1 either states or implies. So Clark can't use Rom 1 to prooftext that model of knowledge. Rather, he has to get that from another source.
b) And even if that could finesse the allusions to Gen 1, it won't account for the allusions to OT history. Although creation is publicly and universally observable, we acquire our knowledge of OT history through hearing or reading the OT.
c) It's also a makeshift explanation. Why does one need the stimulus of the sensible world to recover what one allegedly knows (or knew) about the sensible world apart from sensory perception?
Cont.
Deleteii) The referent in 1:32 is obscure. What "decree," according to which these sins merit capital punishment, would be universally available to pagans? Commentators struggle with this.
Here's my suggestion: in this verse, Paul isn't talking about each and every pagan. Rather, throughout Bible history, segments of the pagan world come in contact with the Jewish world. And that was certainly true during the 1C Roman Empire. So Paul may be referring to pagans who, through their contact with Jews, become cognizant of God's law regarding these vices. That would dovetail with the social milieu of Paul as well as the audience for Romans. If so, it's not innate moral knowledge.
But even if we think it refers to moral intuition, the scope is far narrower than ascribing all knowledge to intuition.
iii) Commentators are split on whether 2:14-15 refers to Christian gentiles or pagan gentiles. If the former (which makes better sense if Paul is alluding to Jer 31:33), then this is acquired rather than innate. Something they know as a result of conversion and discipleship.
And even if it refers to universal moral intuition, that falls far short of ascribing all knowledge to intuition.
iv) In Col 3:10, the knowledge is hardly innate. It refers to a process of intellectual renewal, due to regeneration and sanctification. It's acquired knowledge, and it's incremental. Knowledge is the goal, which the Christian is striving go attain.
v) The same applies to Eph 4:24. In addition:
a) There's the question of whether "truth" functions as an adjective: "true righteousness and holiness." If so, this refers to moral formation rather than noetic formation. Moral character rather than insight.
b) If, however, "truth" is a separate attribute, then it's shorthand for the truth of the Gospel (cf 1:13; 4:15,21). That's acquired knowledge rather than innate knowledge. Something Christians learn from evangelism and discipleship. Bible study.
vi) Jn 1:9 is syntactically ambiguous. *Who* is coming into the world? Jesus? Or everyone? Normally, John describes Jesus as the one who comes (down from heaven) into the world. In addition, he specifically refers to Christ as the light coming into the world (3:19; 8:12; 12:46).
If that case, the "enlightenment" refers, not to some innate divine illumination which every man enjoys, but to the unique, external revelatory event of Christ's life and ministry. Selective and objective revelation rather than universal and subjective revelation. I think that fits with the progression of the Prologue, as well as the narrative contours of the Fourth Gospel generally.
Also, as a Calvinist, Clark is in no position to insist on the universal scope of "everyone."
Vern S. Poythress' book on Logic.
ReplyDelete