Scripturalists (i.e. disciples of Gordon Clark) reject sense knowledge. This raises some intriguing questions about child-rearing.
Suppose you live in snake country. Timberback rattlesnakes are prevalent in your location. Their skin has patchwork patterns and colorations that blend into the background. That's advantageous for an ambush predator. It also affords them some protection against predators.
If a Scripturalist was raising curious young boys in snake country, would he warn them about rattlesnakes? Would he show them the different markings that distinguish a King snake from a rattlesnake?
Scripturalists regard vision as an unreliable source of information. And in the case of camouflage, that's designed to deceive the senses.
Does the fact that camouflage is designed to deceive the senses mean vision is useless is that situation? Or does it mean we need to take special precautions to avoid stepping on a rattlesnake? Is the fact that vision is even less reliable under these conditions than normal conditions reason to be more alert?
Would you warn your kids not to play in piles of fallen leaves where rattlesnakes might be hiding? Would you warn your kids to be careful about walking over logs, where a rattlesnake might be lurking on the other side? Likewise, would you warn them to be careful about rattlesnakes under the car or under the porch?
If you can't tell the difference between a coiled rope and a coiled snake, would you instruct them to first touch it with a long stick–to stay out of striking range in case it's a rattlesnake?
Or would you say such precautions are irrational given the "fallacy of induction"?
Don't forget that a true Clarkian would also critique the definition of snake, and engage in trivial nitpicking on previous people's attempt to define snake.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how Scripturalists could oppose the LGBT community since, both communities believe we merely opine our genders.
ReplyDelete#Boom! So much boom I thought it was Fourth of July!
Delete