B. K. Campbell
The hour is late and I am walking in the night. I can see the rain drifting through the street lights- it falls at a steady pace. To my right, cars pass by… the street is slick from rain. I have my headphones on; Dr. Gordon Clark is giving a lecture on the philosophy of Empiricism*. His students attempt to give him a hard time; to contradict his premise, but he is sharp and quick and refuses to affirm their false assumptions. With only a few words he exposes the fallacy of their objections. Clark carries on… the rain is slowly soaking through my coat- there is a hood over my face. As I look around the streets I can see that they are empty… cars pass by, and I know I am in a moment of time that has affected my life. Clark’s logic becomes clear to me- the power of his thought is like something suspended on my mind. Is there another listening to Clark as I am listening to Clark… is there another walking in the rain as I am walking in the rain? Again, Clark’s students seeks to contradict him, but Clark is quick with his reply:
“There’s no such thing as subconscious, things are either conscious or unconscious… can you have a pain without feeling it? It either hurts or it doesn’t hurt.” [1]
The force of his logic goes over their heads. Each student seeks to affirm the idea that there is a place known as the subconscious, but Clark points out that they have no conscious way of proving this place; he points out that the subconscious cannot exist because the function of the subconscious is no different from that of the unconscious. To say that something is contained in the subconscious is to say that we are not conscious. Hence, Clark’s accurate distinction is that there is no such thing as subconscious, for by subconscious one simply means unconscious.
Dr. Clark regains the attention of his student’s… they listen… I listen…
“Eventually people want to understand the meaning of justice, theft, pride and the square root of minus one. These are all abstract ideas (at least on the empirical position). So far as I know, the only empirical attempt to explain abstract ideas has been to pass from perception, through memory images- to the abstraction. Since the sensations and perceptions are momentary, they must produce images of longer duration- from which, the idea is abstracted.” [2]
Clark explains that a logical thinker will not be content with the empirical construction of reality. Men desire to know the meaning of abstract ideas- but these ideas cannot be explained or sustained through the empirical method. Clark assures us that there is no empirical formula, which can pass logical inspection. The progression from perception to abstraction implies the arbitrary inference of unqualified durations. So, the empiricist must remember what he perceived and then somehow transform the image into a concrete abstraction.
I continue to walk and the rain continues to fall. I remove my hood to feel the rain on my face. A quick glance at the sky… I see distant lights from distant cities… the clouds march slowly across the dark horizon. I raise my hood to cover my head- Clark continues his lecture…
“Empirical premises contain nothing but statements of empirical facts. They give observational data- they state what is. Hence, nothing but observational data can be put into the conclusion. If the premises state only what is, the conclusion cannot state what ought to be; there is no way of deriving a normative principle from an empirical observation. The logical positivists generally acknowledge this… and they dismiss moral judgments as, meaningless, emotional outbursts. I wish all empiricists were as clear-headed and consistent as the logical positivists… I am not interested in any distinction between Christian morality and secular morality. I’m trying to point out; there is no secular morality ” [3]
The idea of deducing morality from empirical philosophy is a logical contradiction. Clark’s point is that the premise cannot support the conclusion. Thus, there can be no secular morality because there is no such thing as an empirical premise, which can support a universal or moral standard. All empiricists that insist on the reality of normative ethics fail to comprehend the absurdity of the empirical premise. If all empiricists where as consistent as the logical positivist then there would be no need to refute unintelligible arguments that could never produce morality. Yes, we wish all men could accept the logical implications of their worldview.
Continuing to walk I come to a bridge, it is suspended above a freeway, cars are passing below- I feel wind on my face… the street is full of motion. There is only a small rail to separate me from the street below. I cross the bridge… the rain gets heavier as it falls. I can see a dark building up ahead- I move forward and take cover under a slanted roof. Clark concludes his lecture…
“If empiricism is impossible what sort of apologetics can there be? One thing is tautologically certain, there must be a non-empirical starting point, and the starting point must be chosen in view of a goal. The goal of apologetics (call it philosophy or theology if you whish) must be intelligibility or understanding. If the world appears disjointed to us, if the doctrines of Christianity seem to lack connection, if we are paralyzed by paradoxes, difficulties and contradictions, we have failed to understand and our interests remain unintelligible to us. We can’t put things together; our world and our minds are confused. Now, to understand a particular idea, be it an idea of astronomy, psychology or religion, one must see how it fits into a system. …Truth is not a haphazard aggregation of random propositions- this is particularly true of Christian theology. God is rational- not insane, His mind is orderly- not scatter brained, His truths are intelligible because they are logically connected. If then the aim of apologetics is to understand God’s systematic truth, our theology must have a logical starting point. What I am about to say surprises many people. The secularists think it absurd, and some Christians are nonplused. Nevertheless, if one stops to think, the solution will appear inevitable. To put it in its simplest form, one can say that every system of philosophy must have a starting point, for otherwise it couldn’t start. Even empiricism has a starting point, it may be the assumption that sensation is infallible- or it may be that only statements verified by sensation are meaningful. Such starting points (since they are starting points) could not possibly have been demonstrated by any prior reasoning, for nothing is prior to the start. Hence, every system of thought must be based on an indemonstrable axiom. Since no secular system can avoid an initial assumption the property of making such an assumption cannot be denied to Christianity. Therefore, I shall set down, as the basic principle of Christianity, the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. …We shall therefore, take the Bible as our starting point, inerrancy is the axiom- or to expand this somewhat, the Biblical teachings are the set of axioms from which the theorems of Christianity are deduced.” [4]
If we desire to have a meaningful system then we must have an axiom, which will allow for meaning. It is clear that empiricism has failed (as it must always fail). Other systems, which are content to affirm contradiction and confusion in the mind of God, have no business even speaking about God. If truth is not rational- if the law of contradiction is not a derivative of the nature of God- then truth is meaningless with or without God. If logic is merely the conception of the individual and God’s thoughts and man’s thoughts at no point concur, then everything known to man cannot be known to God- and everything known to God cannot be known to man. We are not claiming that man must have omniscience- we are claiming that, the salvation of God to man, must be the same for God as it is to man or else it can have no meaning for man. If God’s thoughts are not logically connected then the universe cannot have order. Mankind desires coherence, even in his most sinful pretensions; even if this coherence is centered on the individual, man still desires stability- be it stability unto more wickedness and rebellion, or stability unto God and His glory. All things must fit into a system because all things assume a starting point- and if all things assume a starting point, then all things are not a starting point. Hence, the start point must harmonize with the theorem. If this is not the case then knowledge cannot be possible. No man can actually know a premise if that premise cannot actually be deduced from one’s axiom. Further, we contend that this process presupposes a logical system, even as there is no system without logic. And even if our axiom is circular it remains no more circular than any other secular system. Man ‘s circle is the assumption of the authority of man- the Christian’s axiom is the assumption of the Word of God. The charge of circularity means nothing when all systems are circular.
The lecture has stopped and I remain standing under the slanted roof. The rain still falls and the streets are quiet, with only the occasional sound of a passing car. I have heard something great; it is clear that there is more to Dr. Clark than his critics admit. And I think to myself, in the dark, in the rain, if the men who criticize Clark really understand him? For if every system of philosophy has a starting point, then how could a Christian’s starting point, ever logically be anything other than scripture?
Notes…
* [Empiricism: entails that knowledge can only be gained, if at all, by experience. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[1] Extracted from, Defending the Faith, level 3, lecture 5, titled “Empiricism” by Gordon H. Clark
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
