Gordon H. Clark's artificial epistemology

This entry (which has been sitting in my "incomplete files" since 2022) is more philosophy of science than science itself. It may have been better posted on my companion site. Nonetheless, here it is.

Gordon H. Clark is a Christian apologist who is also identified as a presuppositionalist. Yet Clark was no presuppositionalist in the way that Van Til was. That they both have the same "label" leads to the mistaken notion that they are the same. But there is a wide divide when the foundational presuppositions are considered. While there are good elements in Clark's philosophy it is my assessment that there are far too many bad elements too.

For instance, when it came to science, Clark,adopted an anti-empirical stance. It seems to me that Clark was a victim of the "scientific" zeitgeist of the 20th century. Many of the things he says about the philosophies of atheist scientist we can agree with. But Clark, rather than reconstructing a Christian philosophy of science, tosses the baby out with the bath water. He dismisses science as noncognitive, succumbs to and agrees with the merely operational view of science embraced by Dewey and others. This surrender is truly disappointing. His argument against atheist philosophy of science is to dismiss all of science. Clark in the final analysis was an Idealist and a Rationalist. He was also a Dogmatic Christian and believed only the Bible (held as the axioms) provided truth either directly or by way of formal deduction therefrom. Hoover has provided a critique of Clark here with which I agree.

Clark loves to wax eloquent on the fallacy of induction, Quotes from the Trinity Foundation provide examples of Clark's thought (Trinity Foundation link)

"The problem is simply this: Induction, arguing from the particular to the general, is always a fallacy." Gordon H. Clark

"Science is always false" Gordon H. Clark

This being a universal statement generalized from the particulars that G.H. Clark produces, is an inductive argument by G.H.Clark. But Clark declares this is a fallacy. So Clark declares himself to be false.

Clark has involved himself in a self-contradiction. Of the same sort as the "brilliant" logical positivists. But this type of self-contradiction is the hallmark of man made systems.

Logical Positivism - which scoffed at "metaphysical" inquiry (one should raise an eyebrow immediately) - tried to base its epistemology (without metaphysics!) on the premise that all truth is either empirical or logically derived (i.e., tautology). All else was metaphysical nonsense. The problem, of course, is that the foundational premise of Logical Positivism is neither a tautology nor an empirical truth. Thus, Logical Positivism is metaphysical nonsense -- self contradictory. It is metaphysical nonsense of the very sort they decried.

Clark agrees with this assessment, in his essay of Atheism he says:

"Every system of theology or philosophy must have a starting point. Logical Positivists started with the unproved assumption that a sentence can have no meaning unless it can be tested by sensation. To speak without referring to something that can be touched, seen, smelled, and especially measured, is to speak nonsense. But they never deduce this principle. It is their non-demonstrable axiom. Worse, it is self-contradictory, for it has not been seen, smelled, or measured; therefore it is self-condemned as nonsense."

In another argument against empirical science, Gordon H. Clark adduces a case where observers of an "airplane" at a distance later see it dive and catch a fish. He adduces this to "demonstrate" that people can err and therefore perception is always wrong?? That, in itself, is induction from a singular case to a general law, and thus a fallacy. But more so, the adduced example is not normative of scientific practice. The example is not an observation designed to induce a general law of nature. The scientific method relies strictly on the restriction of repeatable experiments in controlled environments.

But what is damning is that his example commits the fallacy of relevance. A more apt attempt would be a man trying to visually assess the length of stick at a distance. But that too is not relevant to science. From such a singular observation of a particular stick what of science is at risk? The correct method is to measure the stick with an instrument for measuring (such as a ruler).

Here is another example, one which would declare the Bible false for using empirical knowledge. Consider assessing the weight of an object by hand or with a scale. Of course the scale is the more precise instrument than the hand, and we would say the more scientific way; and to this we have (Proverbs 20:10). Clark may argue that no measurement is true, since we cannot know how to measure to infinite precision. But Clark agrees man is finite and such is impossible for man. But approximate measurements are not in the category of false knowledge. Otherwise, Proverbs 20:10 is meaningless. It would be declaring all weights of human construction an abomination.