In this book, the 25 year-old Bahnsen undertakes a lengthy refutation of Gordon Clark's apologetic method. As those of you who read this blog may know, I'm an admirer of Clark's contributions. That being said, I'm not very impressed by Bahnsen's criticisms. Since many presuppositional followers of Van Til and Bahnsen will consider this newest work the definitive word on Gordon Clark's method, I wish to do my part to give Clark a fighting chance, since he is no longer alive to defend himself, and his chief defender, John Robbins, has also recently deceased.
In the interest of brevity without the sacrifice of thoroughness, I'm going to treat each quotation one at a time, one per blog post.
The first quote appears on p. 142 of Bahnsen's book, and is from Clark's book, Historiography: Secular and Religious (from here on, HS&R):
That religion or Christianity in particular furnishes a better method than secularism is a possibility not to be dismissed without discussion. (p. 232 in the 1971 edition, p. 213 in the 1994 edition I have)
Bahnsen argues that Clark’s use of the words “better” and “possibility” as incomplete in stating the impossibility of a non-Christian worldview. He also indicts Clark for calling the end of non-Christian systems “human despair,” rather than meaninglessness.
Despite his claim to take a “charitable” reading of his opponents, Bahnsen does not take sufficient care with the manner of expression Clark has chosen in HS&R. The remark occurs at the beginning of Clark’s chapter outlining Augustine’s Christian construction of history. This chapter appears after the first seven chapters (more than half of the book), where Clark has been criticizing unbelieving viewpoints. The second half of the book is not simply an exposition of Clark’s own view, but of several ostensibly religious or Christian views, upon which Clark himself will level criticism. Bahnsen is criticizing Clark for failing to push the issue, whereas Clark’s aim is not to assert his position, but to engage in criticism of incomplete Christian views! The term "Christian" in Clark's usage is more general than Bahnsen's reading would suggest. Clark is not yet promoting his own apologetic position, but preparing the reader to engage several Christian constructions, which he himself will criticize.
As for the remark about despair being somehow a less complete refutation than meaninglessness, Bahnsen is simply splitting hairs. Elsewhere, in A Christian View of Men and Things (from here on, CVMT), Clark repeats in similar language the problem of any non-Christian viewpoint:
The two views [secular and Christian], however, have been sketched, as two pictures in outline. If the secular view is chosen, history has no significance [and without significance, what meaning?]; human hopes and fears are to be swallowed up in oblivion; and all men, good, evil, and indifferent, come to the same end. Anyone who chooses this view must base his life on unyielding despair. (p.57 of the 1998 edition)
Now perhaps Bahnsen prefers to use “meaningless” over “no significance” and “unyielding despair,” but can any reasonable and charitable reading argue that there is a substantial difference in the perceived outcome of the non-Christian view? Meaninglessness and despair appear synonymous rather than antithetical or incompatible.
10 comments:
I'm reading along.
Josh, just found your blog and am starting to go through your posts of Bahnsen's critique of Clark. Very interesting.
Joel (from DW)
Hi Joel, and welcome!
I hope you profit from my posts.
Joel,
I have not read any Clark. At this point it comes down to who's reading of Clark to trust; Bahnsen or you. You have your work cut out for you.
First, it seems like a strange way to structure a book the way you describe: Part 1-criticizing unbelieving viewpoints, part 2-criticism of incomplete christian views. You state that "Clark is not yet promoting his own apologetic position." In his critisism of unbelieving viewpoints and incomplete christian views, what method is he using? He hasn't established his approach yet. Given this context I think Bahnsen has a valid point.
Regarding "meaningless" vs. "despair", are they synomynous? Despair is basically the absence of hope. Meaninglessness has to do with reason. I believe Bahnsen would link despair to meaninglessness but not to equate them. In a philosophical context "meaningless" makes better sense.
Matt Caslow
Joel,
I have not read any Clark. At this point it comes down to who's reading of Clark to trust; Bahnsen or you. You have your work cut out for you.
First, it seems like a strange way to structure a book the way you describe: Part 1-criticizing unbelieving viewpoints, part 2-criticism of incomplete christian views. You state that "Clark is not yet promoting his own apologetic position." In his critisism of unbelieving viewpoints and incomplete christian views, what method is he using? He hasn't established his approach yet. Given this context I think Bahnsen has a valid point.
Regarding "meaningless" vs. "despair", are they synomynous? Despair is basically the absence of hope. Meaninglessness has to do with reason. I believe Bahnsen would link despair to meaninglessness but not to equate them. In a philosophical context "meaningless" makes better sense.
Matt
Matt,
Joel is not my name. My name is Joshua. Joel is a friend.
Also, I would recommend that you read Clark before you consider Bahnsen's criticisms valid. Bahnses was a smart man, but he wasn't infallible, and perhaps especially at 25 years of age.
I'm not sure what seems strange to you about the structure of the book. It isn't my structure, but rather Bahnsen's own.
Clark's books follow various structures, and he is explicit about his procedure. He has sometimes been criticized for writing in such a way that makes it confusing to the reader whether or not he is summarizing another person's view, or expositing his own. I don't find that criticism to be valid for any who would read Clark carefully.
Meaninglessness and despair are not the same thing, but Clark uses both ideas in his criticisms of unbelieving philosophies. The rhetorical choice of one or the other is largely a matter of the intended audience.
It is rather absurd to expect to grasp the salient points of my criticism if you aren't willing to read Clark, as many of my points are built upon the nature of the quotes that Bahnsen pulls from Clark's writings.
I echo my recommendation that you read Clark.
Godspeed,
~Joshua
Joshua,
Sorry I got your name wrong. I knew it was Joshua not Joel.
The very reason I am reading your critique is because I do not consider Bahnsen infallable. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do agree with his apologetic method. Just because I haven't read Clark doesn't mean I have to dismiss Bahnsen's critique. I have never read Barth, should I therefore not consider Bansen's critisism trustworthy? Neither did I say I was unwilling to read Clark. Now I do understand that in the world of scholarship reading your opponent is necessary. I am not in that world. I have no seminary training. I try to do my best with what I have. And what I have here is your blog defending Clark. If you can make a good defence of Clark then I would put Clark higher on my reading list and rethink Bahnsen. That's why I say you have your work cut out for you. Don't we all put faith and trust in our teachers to a certain extent?
Now I don't know what his age has to do with anything unless you or someone can find contradictory or retractions in Bahnsen's later work. As far as I know, Bahnsen's later years do not correct his early years regarding his apologetic method or view of Clark. Given the reputation of Bahnsen as a scholar and my teacher your expectation that I "should read Clark before you consider Bahnsen's criticisms valid" is not valid.
I also don't think you are providing local context for the quotes in question. You give the larger structure of Clark's book but not the particular passage of the quotes.
Would you admit that on face value the quotes in question are not of a presuppositional nature?
Could it be that this first quote Clark is demonstrating how an evidentialist/scholastic would respond?
Finally, it's Clarks structure not Bahnsens as you responded.
I will move on to your next post.
Matt Caslow
Although I agree with your general remark that we all must trust authorities to some degree, I hardly think comparing Clark to Barth is valid in this case. There is also a difference in the manner in which Bahnsen attempts to refute Clark and the manner in which Clark refutes Barth, for that matter.
Neither did I say I was unwilling to read Clark. Now I do understand that in the world of scholarship reading your opponent is necessary. I am not in that world. I have no seminary training. I try to do my best with what I have. And what I have here is your blog defending Clark. If you can make a good defence of Clark then I would put Clark higher on my reading list and rethink Bahnsen. That's why I say you have your work cut out for you. Don't we all put faith and trust in our teachers to a certain extent?
I'm flattered that you consider my blog to be an authority worth trusting with regard to Clark, but that is still no excuse for ignoring Clark's own writings. Even if the only thing you read was a Christian View of Men and Things, I think you would see that Bahnsen's criticisms are overstated. Regardless, I think my analysis will withstand your assessment.
Now I don't know what his age has to do with anything unless you or someone can find contradictory or retractions in Bahnsen's later work. As far as I know, Bahnsen's later years do not correct his early years regarding his apologetic method or view of Clark.
Young proteges often have an uncritical view of their mentor that shapes their investigation of opposing figures. I think it is noteworthy that in Bahnsen's later criticisms of Clark, only a very few of them from the critique written when he was 25 are expressed again. If his earlier arguments were so strong, why would he abandon them?
Given the reputation of Bahnsen as a scholar and my teacher your expectation that I "should read Clark before you consider Bahnsen's criticisms valid" is not valid.
I don't know who your teacher is, but Bahnsen's reputation as a scholar was not established when he was yet 25. Clark was a well-established scholar before Bahnsen came onto the scene. Why not apply your own criteria and give Clark the respect of reading but one of his major works? It won't be a waste of your time, and perhaps you will discover that a mild amount of scholarship is of value to the truth.
I also don't think you are providing local context for the quotes in question. You give the larger structure of Clark's book but not the particular passage of the quotes.
In this post that is not wholly unfounded, but in subsequent posts that is not true. For there I deal expressly with the immediate surrounding context of Clark's quotes. Read a bit further into the critique before passing final judgment on this point.
Would you admit that on face value the quotes in question are not of a presuppositional nature?
Could it be that this first quote Clark is demonstrating how an evidentialist/scholastic would respond?
Of course they aren't presuppositional in the sense of presenting a positive argument. But that is irrelevant because the entire point is that Clark is performing an internal critique of opposing views, which requires the arguer to adopt the principle of the opponent to demonstrate the contradiction: Modus tollens. As your second question alludes, Clark is, in every one of the quotes that Bahnsen criticizes, performing internal critiques.
Finally, it's Clarks structure not Bahnsens as you responded.
You are right, and I'm sorry I misread the first time I responded to your post. I'm still confused as to why this is a confusing structure, however. Modus tollens removes the barriers for the positive assertion, which Clark gives in his chapter on Augustine.
~Joshua
Joshua,
I am glad that you agree "that we all must trust authorities to some degree." Regarding Clark, I trust Bahnsen "to some degree". The fact that I am reading your refutation of Bahnsen show's that I am at least open to the possibility Bahnsen is wrong. But it's your burden to prove. You have acknowledged that the face value of this first quote is non-presuppositional. Context is everything.
The issue here is not whether or not I have read Clark. The issue is context. The issue is not Bahnsen's age or that he had an uncritical view of his mentor. This is an argument from silence. It is also an ad hominin and if it had any weight you would be in the same category. According to your profile you are only 28 years old. I could simply dismiss your blog as blindly following an uncritical view of Clark. But that is not what I am interested in. I don't know your credentials but if you are willing to go public and blog about this I give you the benifit of the doubt. It shows that you are familiar with Clark and his style of apologetics and I am interested in what a Clark fans have to say about Bahnsen's book.
The fact that I have not read Clark means nothing at this point. You recomend me reading "A Christian View of Man", but that isn't even where this first quote is found. This means that reading Clark is not as important as you make it out to be. Again, this doesn't mean I won't read Clark eventually. It doesn't mean I think Clark has no value. I do not doubt Clark has great stuff that would benifit me. But that is besides the point. The issue is the context of the statements Bahnsen quotes.
You state, "I deal expressly with the immediate surrounding context of Clark's quotes. Read a bit further into the critique before passing final judgment on this point." "This point" is the quote from Clark that Bahnsen claims is a departure from Van Tillian-presuppositional apologetics. I read your second post and you do not continue discussing it. I will read through the rest of the posts to see if you deal with it in detail.
Now you did provide more context in you last comment to me. You say, "Of course they aren't presuppositional in the sense of presenting a positive argument. But that is irrelevant because the entire point is that Clark is performing an internal critique of opposing views, which requires the arguer to adopt the principle of the opponent to demonstrate the contradiction: Modus tollens. As your second question alludes, Clark is, in every one of the quotes that Bahnsen criticizes, performing internal critiques."
I see this as a departure from Bahnsen. In doing an internal critique, Bahnsen would not say something like "Chistianity in particular furnishes a BETTER method than secularism is a POSSIBILITY not to be dismissed." The presupposition that Bahnsen targets in internal critiques is not the unbeliever's adherence to Modus tollens but to his rejection of Scripture as revelation. The non-christian rejection of Scripture undermines logic and reason in totality, not in possibility. Bahnsen is not after contradictions here and there. He is out to show that apart from God there are no contradictions period. There is no modus tollens.
Performing an internal critique of opposing views does not require the arguer to adopt the CONFESSED principle of the opponent. It requires the arguer to confront him with the consequenses of his UNCONFESSED principle: God and His Word.
Or maybe I just don't understand Bahnsen.
I am looking for a Clark book. I'm hoping someone from my church has one.
Matt Caslow
Matt,
Let me just say this much: the truth of Clark's value has little to do with whether I am able to persuade you given the "burden of proof" you established for me. I still find it odd that you would consider me a worthwhile expositor rather than reading Clark himself. Bahnsen thought it valuable to read Clark, after all, even though he disagreed with him.
If the issue is about context, then it is at least beneficial for the one evaluating that context to have read it, don't you think? I do think that the age of a criticism can be considered. For example, when I first became a convinced presuppositionalist, I had not yet had the time to press the implications of that view into all areas of life. That I've had a few years to think through the consistency of Biblical presuppositionalism, I've uncovered contradictions and discovered unseen arguments. I don't expect Bahnsen at 25 to be terribly different than me at 28, except that he is probably smarter and had an earlier start.
Besides, I can show you, from Bahsnen's own book, a blatant contradiction in how he argues against Clark. I'll do so in my next post, as an excursus.
I'll provide my credentials if you like. They aren't impressive, other than perhaps how much I've read of Clark, although reading does not imply understanding.
The fact that you have not read Clark does mean something, although I agree it isn't the most crucial point. If I can accurately portray Clark's ideas, that should be enough. I only ask you to read for your own benefit.
Also, I recommended A Christian View of Men and Things instead of the quoted book because I believe it a better introduction to Clark. Bahnsen pulls quotes from CVM&T as much, if not more than HS&R. I wasn't recommending it to prove a point about context, but to give you a place to start reading.
I'll address the departure from Van Tillian apologetics in the excursus.
Post a Comment