Abstract
The philosopher Gordon Clark is perhaps best known for his conflict with the apologete Cornelius van Til (1985–1987) involving their respective epistemological frameworks. This conflict in and of itself was the result of differing understandings of the nature of human knowledge. Whereas Clark argued that true human knowledge, being rooted in divine knowledge, is qualitatively the same as the latter, even if there is a major quantitative difference, Van Til rejected this epistemic theory of Clark as fundamentally constituting a violation of the distinction between Creator and creature. In contradistinction he maintained that humans can never know anything in the same way that God knows it. This article takes a close look at Clark’s epistemology, highlighting what is widely considered to be one of the more controversial aspects thereof, namely his high appreciation of logic which lay at the heart of the aforementioned controversy.
Clark argues that true knowledge is only made possible inasmuch as God reveals it to the human consciousness. This revelation is in turn only enabled by the fact that the human mind is enlightened by God and thereby empowered to understand the eternal realities intended by the divine mind. The rational nature of humans ‒ something not shared with animals or plants ‒ makes humans in principle capable of grasping divine thoughts as their own and thus obtaining true knowledge. At least in this regard, Clark’s epistemological framework stands firmly in the tradition of Calvinist philosophy. According to Clark, the idea of tabula rasa, i.e. that the human mind is like a blank slate upon which knowledge can be imprinted, is a logical impossibility, since a priori presuppositions are necessary for acquiring any knowledge. Because apriorisms or presuppositions are an indispensable foundation for knowledge itself, it cannot be derived from anything else. He also criticizes rationalism and empiricism, asserting that the former necessarily ends in solipsism due to its erroneous presupposition that reason alone is the sole ground of all indubitable knowledge. This logically rules out all external realities ‒ not just the Creator but also creation itself ‒ as this framework does not allow for any true knowledge of anything outside consciousness itself. On the other hand, empiricism also fails because the senses themselves cannot generate knowledge without cognitive presuppositions through which those realities can be interpreted and understood. As such, at the heart of Clark’s epistemology lies a commitment to the inescapablity of aprioristic or pre-theoretical starting points which structure every aspect of human knowledge.
Clark’s understanding of the Greek concept of Logos, as used in the Gospel of John and in the Johannine epistles, constitutes the most controversial aspect of his epistemology. He believes that the word Logos should be translated as “logic” rather than “word”, as it is conventionally done, and that the word in itself is an expression of rationality or a rational discourse with significant epistemological objectives. Clark argues that true human knowledge and logic are essentially and substantively the same as divine knowledge and logic. For Clark, the origin of human logic lies in God breathing the divine Spirit into humans, which initially allowed humans to receive the accompanying divine logic. However, sin disrupts this pure rationality in humans, and sanctification also involves learning to think logically as God thinks. Therefore sanctification is not only a moral but also an intellectual process.
Clark’s epistemology is grounded in Aristotelian ontology and Aristotle’s idea of ontological dependence, according to which everything in the universe has a particular ontological dependence or foundation in a metaphysical first cause. Clark’s idea of creation as ontologically grounded in one divine will is decisive for his epistemology. Since all non-theistic realities are necessarily dependent on this divine will, the revelation of this divine will is necessarily the true foundation of all knowledge about reality. This infallible revelation is found only in the Bible, making it the sine qua non of all true knowledge. The Bible reveals Christ Himself as both the ontological Logos behind all reality as well as the epistemological Logos through which humans come to knowledge of that reality.
As such, Clark believes that true logic is impossible to achieve without the enlightenment of the divine Logos. Since logic involves deductions or deductive argumentation, and any inference can only be valid if the form of the conclusion is true every time the forms of the premises are, no true deductions can be made without the presupposition of the divine Logos as revealed in the Bible. Clark amplifies that there is a necessary and indispensable connection between presupposition or apriorism and all logical deductions from that apriorism. He thus rejects all inductive arguments as failed attempts to infer the essence of reality from particular created phenomena.
According to Clark, logic is normative in the sense that it tells us how we ought to think. Without logic, morality and ethics could not exist. Clark’s emphasis on the importance of logic places his epistemology in a unique position within the context of Christian and Reformed philosophy in particular. He holds that propositions are understandable only through logic, and that the Bible is largely propositional. Clark’s idea of normative logic is reminiscent of the epistemology of the German analytic philosopher Gottlob Frege, who considered logic to be the fundamental building block of human thought, and that which makes knowledge possible in the first place. Clark’s appreciation of Aristotelian logic as essential to theoretical thinking also distinguishes his Christian rationalism significantly from Herman Dooyeweerd’s Reformational philosophy.
Clark’s Presbyterian background and strict adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 played a crucial role in his view of the role of Logos as a central epistemological concept. Clark’s Christian rationalism or “Scripturalism” is based largely on the claim in Article 1.6 of the Westminster Confession that all knowledge is obtained through the Bible or through the logic of the Bible. This differs from the Amsterdam/Toronto school of thought which places emphasis on logic as part of a created reality, while Clark sees logic as an aspect or characteristic of the eternal divine will itself. This difference furthermore also highlights the structural difference between the distinctly ontological emphasis of the Belgic Confession of Faith on the one hand, as it begins with the doctrine of God, and the epistemological emphasis of the Westminster Confession on the other, as its first article deals with divine revelation in the Bible.
Clark’s approach is distinct from that of Dooyeweerd and Van Til, who acknowledge the paradoxes of revelation rather than emphasising its non-contradictory nature. Clark’s Christian rationalism, on the other hand, which emphasises cognitive presuppositions as the basis for faith thinking, has the potential to be a unique contribution in light of contemporary trends involving the Cognitive Science of Religion characteristic of the field of Religious Studies. Clark’s clear exposition of the nature of logic and his high regard for human rationality without falling into rationalism constitutes a valuable contribution to the field of epistemology – one from which philosophers, theologians, and religious scholars from various schools and traditions can benefit.
Keywords: Clark, Gordon; Dooyeweerd, Herman; epistemology; logic; presuppositions; Van Til, Cornelius
• The featured picture of this article is a detail from the cover of Douglas J. Douma’s biography of Gordon Clark, The Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark, available on Amazon.
Lees die volledige artikel in Afrikaans
Logos as logika: Die epistemologie van die Calvinistiese filosoof Gordon Clark (1902–1985)
Kommentaar
Insiggewend, dankie.