Suppose I'm strolling down a residential block. As I walk past a house with a tall solid fence, I hear something on the other side barking, snarling, growling at me. I infer that what I'm hearing was produced by a dog. And to judge by the sound, it's a big dog. I'm glad there's a fence separating me from what's on the other side.
But suppose I'm a disciple of Gordon Clark. In that event, should I infer that it's a dog? Is that inference justified?
Would that be fallacious? Would that be merely my opinion?
If so, are some opinions more reasonable, more likely, more warranted than others? Do I have any better reason to infer that what I'm hearing is a dog rather than a duck, or peach tree, or iguana? Would I be equally justified or unjustified in concluding that what's on the other side of the fence is a duck, a peach tree, or an iguana–barking and snarling at me? If I conclude that any one of those candidates (dog, duck, peach tree, iguana) is producing the sound, is my inference equally arbitrary?
When you said "barking, snarling and growling" before reading further, I thought it was a joke about liberals....
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/fkqWly3O0jI
ReplyDeleteHere she is with Steve Hayes: https://youtu.be/X2Em_fAfaQ8
ReplyDeletei) Sean, what do you think those YouTube clips prove? Does this mean you concede sense knowledge? Unless you think YouTube videos are a reliable source of information about the sensible world, how is that a counterexample to my post? You've generated a dilemma for your position.
Deleteii) There's a difference between a human imitating a dog and a human actually sounding like a dog. Since dogs and humans have different vocal equipment, barking humans are unconvincing canine impersonators.
iii) In addition, how do you know that some humans imitate dogs? Did you acquire that knowledge via sensory perception? Inductive experience? Isn't the phenomenon of a barking humans an empirical datum?
Do you think we're born with that knowledge? Is that deducible from Scripture?
iv) I notice that you dodge my question. If you think the noise behind the fence could be produced by a human, how does that address the question of whether ducks, iguanas, and peach trees snarl and bark?
Do you have any superior reason to infer that what you heard was produced by a dog rather than a duck or a peach tree? Or do you think it's just an arbitrary to conclude that a dog produced the sound? Would it be just as reasonable to think there's a barking peach tree behind the fence?
Sean, why do you think the person in that YouTube clip is a "she"? Did you rely on your senses?
DeleteThe clips demonstrate that you don't know you heard a dog barking, much less a "big one." And, just a style question, do you really think putting roman numerals in front of sentences makes you look clever for the one or two readers of your blog? As for barking humans being unconvincing, you looked pretty convinced in that video :)
DeleteFor the Lord had made the army of the Syrians hear the sound of chariots and of horses, the sound of a great army, so that they said to one another, “Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt to come against us.” (2 Kings 7:6 ESV)
ReplyDeleteSo you cite a case in which God miraculously causes the enemy to hallucinate. Was it your intention to derive a general lesson from that example?
DeleteDoes this mean the witnesses in Lk 24, Jn 20-21, and 1 Cor 15:6-8 might just as well have been hallucinating?
Are you saying there's no presumption that you yourself aren't hallucinating? Is your wife a hallucination? Are your kids a hallucination? What about your parents? What about your hands?
If you perceive a knife-wielding man break into your home, are you epistemologically justified in shooting him? What if you're just hallucinating? What if it's really your wife?
Should you have conjugal relations? Are you epistemically warranted in believing the woman is actually your wife? What if she's a prostitute whom you misperceive (in your hallucinatory state) to be your wife?
"What if it's really your wife?"
DeleteWhat if?
I really can't understand your irrational disdain for Clark, particularly since you have such a shallow understanding of what he actually thought. You seem to have received most of your pat objections secondhand from folks like Michael "Hare Rama" Sudduth and James "Paradox" Anderson.
Paul, unlike these self-styled "philosophers" said we should put no confidence in the flesh, but that seems to be your grinding axe. It's hardly news that empiricism has failed historically to account for knowledge and science, the apex of all empirical endeavors, has failed to arrive at any truth at all. Yet, you think just by making claims to "sense knowledge" everyone must bow to such "common sense" pronouncements. But, as Clark said; "Empiricism is perhaps a common sense view. It has also been the view of many philosophers. But it faces insuperable objections" (for just a few of those objections, besides your "knowledge" of barking dogs, see http://tinyurl.com/ou6h52a).
Beside, you must realize Clark faced your objections many times throughout his life and raised by those considerably more astute than you. Take for example his reply to Mavrodes:
Part III of the critique faces a major problem squarely. Here useless machinery is left behind. fThe substantial question is how do we know the contents of the Bible. If Louis XIV or my wife could be replaced with an imposter twin, then maybe the Bible in my hand is a cunningly devised substitute. Mavrodes lays this on rather heavily, and I am glad that he does. So few people are willing to give the point any serious attention. He also mentions, and I wish he had discussed, solipsism; there are also the skeptical arguments of Carneades and Aenesidemus; and as well Descartes’ omnipotent deceptive demon. In fact, until these arguments are successfully circumvented, no one has a firm basis on which to object to my general position. If anyone tries to avoid this material and, relying on common opinion, charges me with paradoxes, he has failed to grasp even the first point.
With great reluctance, for I sincerely admire the considerable talent of my present opponent, I must point out that he has not met the issue when he says, “Sense experience is required for the derivation of such [Biblical] beliefs,” and “every consistent epistemology which assigns a role to the Bible…must assign a role of equal scope and in precisely the same area to sense perception.” To make such assertions presupposes satisfactory answers to Aenesidemus and Descartes’ demon. Can it be shown that an imposter twin is impossible? Can we be sure that we have not overlooked a “not” in the sentence? There are even greater empirical scandals than these. How can one prove the reliability of memory? Any test designed to show which memory is true and which is mistaken presupposes that a previous memory is true – and this is the point in question. In large measure the psychological force of my position derives from the impossibility of empiricism.
No one in the history of philosophy has made a more determined effort than Aristotle to build knowledge on sensation. Surely Locke is no better; and contemporary phenomenalism with its experience that is neither mental nor physical is as meaningless and unverifiable as Spinoza's substance that is both. It was for this reason that the first Wheaton lecture used Aristotle as the exponent of empiricism. Therefore until my destructive analysis of Aristotle (in the first Wheaton Lecture and in Thales to Dewey) is overturned, an appeal to sensation is a petitio principii. (http://tinyurl.com/oy6pzyj )
And, that is exactly where you remain Steve. Perhaps if you actually read more Clark, or took the problems of philosophy more seriously, you might actually have something useful to say. Perhaps even contribute.
I think God has made you hallucinate Steve. The general lesson is you can't always trust your senses, including the sound of dogs barking. BTW you are the one making epistemic assumptions, the onus is on you to demonstrate your belief in "sense knowledge" (an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
Delete"Then Elisha prayed and said, “O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha." (2 Kings 6:17 ESV) I will trust the Lord instead of my senses. The senses promote fear, as you are doing.
Deletei) False dichotomy. The Lord gave you your senses. By systematically distrusting your senses, you distrust your Creator.
Deleteii) What's the basis for your claim that the senses in general promote fear? Does tasting delicious food promote fear? Does smelling a rose promote fear? Does hearing a songbird promote fear? Does admiring a sunset promote fear?
iii) BTW, I noticed that you ducked by response to your previous comment.
iv) I you distrust your senses, how do you drive?
The Bible often commands people to "hear the word of the Lord." But if you distrust your hearing, how can you trust the word of God?
DeleteSean Gerety
Delete"The clips demonstrate that you don't know you heard a dog barking, much less a 'big one.'"
You still don't get it. Given Scripturalist epistemology, how would watching a video "demonstrate" anything? Given your epistemology, what makes a video a source of knowledge?
"I really can't understand your irrational disdain for Clark…"
I don't disdain Clark. I disdain you.
"You seem to have received most of your pat objections secondhand from folks like Michael "Hare Rama" Sudduth and James "Paradox" Anderson."
Care to document your allegation?
"I think God has made you hallucinate Steve. The general lesson is you can't always trust your senses, including the sound of dogs barking."
i) If that's the general lesson, then why do you trust what you see and hear on a YouTube video clip?
ii) My post wasn't premised on the claim that we can always trust our senses. How did you become so confused?
iii) And I notice that you continue to evade the questions. Do you think it's more reasonable or probable to conclude that a dog produced the sound rather than a duck, a lizard, or a kumquat tree?
"BTW you are the one making epistemic assumptions, the onus is on you to demonstrate your belief in 'sense knowledge' (an oxymoron if I ever heard one)."
i) If sense knowledge is an oxymoron, then how can you appeal to your hearing?
ii) You commit a typical village atheist blunder. Your denial of sense knowledge is just as much a truth-claim as my affirmation of sense knowledge. Hence, you have your own burden of proof to discharge.
"And, just a style question, do you really think putting roman numerals in front of sentences makes you look clever for the one or two readers of your blog? As for barking humans being unconvincing, you looked pretty convinced in that video :)"
Do you just suffer from an uncontrollable urge to make idiotic statements? Are you afflicted with the intellect equivalent of Tourette syndrome?
Last time I checked the site meter, Triablogue had over 6 million hits. That's more than one or two readers.
Sean Gerety
Delete"The general lesson is you can't always trust your senses, including the sound of dogs barking."
Putting aside the fact that that was never a premise or presupposition of my argument, are you laying down, as a general principle, that for something to count as a source of knowledge, it must be uniformly reliable?
If so, memory cannot a source of knowledge inasmuch as we sometimes forget or misremember.
But how can Scripturalist epistemology survive if you automatically discount memory? A Scripturalist relies on his memory of the Bible. Relies on his memory of inferences he drew from Scripture.
"I disdain you." Very Christian of you. All the best with your imaginary dogs.
DeleteActually, you're the one who's running away with your tail between your legs.
DeleteSean, if you can't trust your senses, how do you tell the difference between real dogs and imaginary dogs?
DeleteSean,
DeleteIt's entirely understandable that you decided to reverse course, so that your bullet-riddled dingy would sink out of public view. Hopefully you have a life-preserver, and the sharks don't get you before you find dry land.
The Bible makes use of Spirit-aided sensory experience repeatedly when encountering God and His messengers. Indeed, even when encountering Satan and his messengers, and discerning the difference.
ReplyDelete"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6 ESV). Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThat example subverts your point. If sensory perception is not a trustworthy source of information, then Adam and Eve couldn't reliably distinguish between the forbidden fruit and permissible fruit. So you've just given them an alibi. Keep it up.
DeleteI also notice that you continuously dodge my counterarguments.
The sin was relying on their senses instead of God's Word. But you are already good at that and want to subject more to it. How does reliance on the senses promote fear? Adam and Eve relied on their senses, ate the forbidden fruit, and they were afraid to be naked. Elisha's servant saw the Syrian army, relying on his senses, and was afraid. The disciples see and experience a storm on a boat, relying on their senses, they are afraid. You hear a dog bark behind a fence, rely on your senses, and are afraid. Reliance on the senses is reliance on self and will always end in fear for it is reliance on something apart from God. You are promoting fear. Here end of the lesson.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I've ever heard an argument quite this ridiculous. Do I rely on my senses when I cross the street to check my mailbox? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Could you elaborate?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTrey,
DeleteYou have a habit of ducking questions you can't answer. How could they even avoid eating the forbidden fruit unless they could rely on their senses? When God tells Adam which fruit trees are permissible to eat from, and which fruit tree is forbidden, how can Adam tell the difference without using his eyesight? How can he know which fruit trees to eat from and which fruit tree to avoid without using his senses?
Trey,
Deletei) You're being silly. One function of the senses is to alert us to danger. It enables us to avoid certain hazardous situations.
There's nothing intrinsically sinful about fear.
ii) You also continue to erect a false dichotomy between reliance on the senses and reliance on God's word. But in many cases we must rely on the senses in order to obey God's word. If Scripture says it's permissible to have sex with your wife, but impermissible to have sex with a prostitute, how do you obey that injunction without using your eyesight to tell the difference between your wife and a prostitute?
Isn't engendering a fear of trusting one's sense perceptions a form of promoting fear?
ReplyDeleteDid God actually say .........
ReplyDeleteIt is written...
DeleteIf anyone is interested, here are a collection of links to Critiques of Clarkianism and Scripturalism
ReplyDeleteThey includes links to other Triablogue blogposts, Aquascum etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYawn. More pathetic anti-Christian contradictory Vantillian nonsense. You even have a post where Jame Anderson tries to defend VT's heterodox view of the Trinity. Let's not forget the posts from Michael "Hare Rama" Sudduth. There's a man we can all take seriously, although given what you defend I can see why he converted. Perfectly warranted you might say.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't begun to demonstrate that anything in my post, or response to you, or another Scripturalist commenter, was "anti-Christian," "contradictory," or Van Tilian."
DeleteIn fact, all you've demonstrated is your intellectual impotence. You have no counterargument to what I wrote. You resort to bluff and bluster because you have nothing in reserve when challenged.
Is this guy for real? Reminds me of David Stewart of the infamous "Jesus is Lord" web-rag, or maybe Manuel Culwell the Oneness troll, or possibly even Drake Shelton just before he lost his mind.
DeleteNot a spiritually well adjusted group.