Lux Lucet

Section Summary: In light of the fact that there may be multiple, plausible philosophical systems and that limited time and energy make it difficult for us to adequately assess them, we may wish to suspend making a judgment about which one is true and use out time for something that appears to promise greater rewards. But avoiding choice is not so easy as it may seem, for the decision not to make a choice is itself a choice. The choice to believe in Christianity may expose one to ridicule from those who hold that the Christian worldview is fraught with difficulties, but secular philosophies have significant problems of their own. Further, if Christianity offers answers to important philosophical questions where secular worldviews fail, and if it does so within a coherent, non contradictory system, there is no logical reason to deny Christians the use of their more promising first principle.

In the prior section of A Christian View of Men and Things Chapter 1, Clark discussed the place of axioms within the context of a philosophical system. Axioms, he told us, are unproven first principles that stand at the beginning of all philosophies. By definition it is impossible to prove an axiom. If an axiom could be proven, it would no longer be an axiom. For whatever argument was used to prove it, that argument would then be the axiom. But while axioms cannot be proven, they can be tested. If it can be shown that an axiom logically implies contradictory ideas, that axiom has failed the test of the coherence theory of truth and may be rejected.

Clark now raises the question, what would happen if, after applying the coherence theory of truth test, we are left with multiple, incompatible philosophical systems? How, then, do we decide which one is right? Do we even have to make a choice? Wouldn’t it be easier to simple let well enough alone and get about the business of life?

The thought that we can suspend judgment is tempting. The intellectual equivalent of a punt at once can remove from us the onus of having to think through matters for ourselves. It also allows us to avoid messy conflicts with those who have other points of view. But while the idea of suspending judgment has a certain appeal to it, this is not so easy to carry out in practice. In fact, as Clark tells us, choice is impossible to avoid. There are two basic reasons for this. First, Clark addresses the problem from a practical standpoint,

“But suspension of judgment is more difficult than it would at first seem. It is difficult because the situation goes beyond the esoteric futility of the proverbial armchair and ivory tower and involves the most intense issues of personal and social stability. To use William James’ language, it is a forced and vital option.” (CVMT, 26)

To paraphrase a quote attributed to Lean Trotsky, you may not be interested in philosophy, but philosophy is interested in you. As Clark notes, questions of philosophy are not limited to the ivory tower academic debates, but rather intrude themselves into our daily lives. For example, consider the 2008 financial crisis in which arguments were put forth both for and against bailing out so-called too-big-to-fail-financial (TBTF) institutions. Supporters of the bailout argued that it was in everyone’s interest to save the financial system from collapse, “unless we save the banks,” they argued, “the whole financial system will fall apart and the world as we know it will descend into horrible anarchy.” On the other hand, those who opposed the bailouts countered by saying that it was unfair to allow Wall Street investment bankers, fellows who earned extraordinary profits during the housing bubble, to dump their losses on the US taxpayer when the mortgage backed securities that made them so much money turned out to be full of financial termites. “If bankers have a right to make money on mortgage back securities, they have a right to lose it on them as well. Let those who made the bad deals suffer the losses,” argued the anti-bailout crowd. Some anti-bailout types even went so far as to claim that there was no such thing as TBTF bank or company.

Both sides could make compelling arguments for their viewpoint, and yet the choices they offered – to bailout or not to bail out – were mutually exclusive. What is more, how congress voted on the bailout bill would affect the lives of every single person in this country. People were forced to choose sides. And this unavoidable and weighty matter ultimately was not a financial question, but philosophical one, the answer depending on one’s political and ethical views. We all know how the story ended, congress voted to bailout Wall Street and General Motors, but the question still remains, did congress make the right choice? This is not an idle question either, for it is very likely that in the near future taxpayers will once again be asked to ride to the rescue of some failing financial firm. When that day comes, what will you say? To bail out or not to bail out? That is the question. [N.B. The Bible nowhere grants governments the power to rescue banks or other failing businesses. To bailout Wall Street, Congress first had to harm the taxpayer by borrowing and printing the necessary money. The decision by congress to save the so-called TBTFs was unconstitutional and sinful. In effect, congress said, “let us do evil that good may come!”]

In the second place, Clark argues, it is logically impossible to suspend judgment. He continues,

“Suspension of judgment may seem possible and even necessary in relatively trivial matters…But even in these cases the refusal to accept the claims is not so much the absence or suspension of judgment as it is the acceptance of a different judgment…Suspension of judgment, so-called, is but a disguised, if dignified, form of unbelief…suspension of judgment is not easy to achieve. In fact, it is impossible…A choice, therefore, cannot be avoided.”

The philosophically minded may be repelled by the notion of choice because it seems to smack of unphilosophical arbitrariness. The theory of vital options dimmed the luster even of William James in some quarters. But it is easier to be repelled by the notion of choice than to show that choice is not necessary.” (CVMT, 28)

There was a time when I was repulsed by the thought that I had to make choices. Suspension of judgment in important matters seemed so much more attractive to me. I even recall being offended by Neal Pert’s lyrics in the song “Freewill,” not so much because of his atheism or advancement of the notion of freewill – after all, I was an Arminian in those days – but because Pert argued that men must make choices. Pert wrote,

“You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;

I will choose a path that’s clear-

I will choose Free Will.” (“Free Will” by Neal Pert, performed by Rush on the album Permanent Waves, 1980.)

While I cannot support Pert’s atheism and feel safe in saying his notion of freewill likely does not comport with the Westminster Standards, I am compelled to admit that when it comes to the matter of choice, Pert was right and I was wrong. Clark quotes the words of Christ to this same effect,

” ‘He that is not with me is against me,’ and, ‘He that is not against us is on our part’.” (CVMT, 29)

We are either with Christ or against him. There is no third option. A choice is required.

The theory of vital options Clark mentions in this section was an idea advanced by the American pragmatic philosopher William James. In his well-known essay titled “The Will to Believe,” James argued that we have the right to choose our beliefs without having to give a reason for that choice. In other words, James contended that we have the right to choose our axioms. James’ argument was directed against the proponents of the scientific view, who in his day held that the only justified beliefs were those for which there was empirical – that is to say measurable and observable – physical evidence. In his Thales to Dewey, Clark gives a devastating and rather humorous answer to the scientists when he writes ,

“The scientists believe that they should not believe without sufficient evidence, and they believe this without sufficient evidence.” (Thales to Dewey, pp.391-93)

Ultimately, Clark argues, it is impossible for one to arrive at his axioms by an appeal to some outside argument or fact. Choice is the only method. The reason for this lies in the definition of the term “axiom” that we discussed earlier. Clark explains it this way,

“Choice, however, is unavoidable because first principles cannot be demonstrated, and though some choices are arbitrary, the philosophical choice has regard to the widest possible consistency. Choice, therefore, is as legitimate as it is inevitable.” (CVMT, 29)

If axioms could be proven, they would no longer be axioms. Since axioms cannot be demonstrated, they must be chosen.

Clark concludes this section with a comparison between secular worldviews and Christianity. Secularists, he tells us, like to point out the supposed shortcomings of Christianity. What they don’t seem to consider is that their own systems abound with difficulties. Clark tells us,

“There has been an immense amount, not merely of inadequacy, but of inconsistency, in some of the greatest philosophers. In fact, a student might be tempted to suggest that the greatness of a philosopher is directly proportional to the number of his contradictions. Kant, for example, the source of all contemporary philosophies, or at least the funnel through which all modern ideas have passed, is unbearable self-contradictory.” (CVMT, 29)

Secularists may rail against Christians for rejecting the humanist program, but if Christianity provides answers where their systems fail, if Christianity is logically coherent while their program is full of contradictions, if Christianity gives hope when the world offers despair, the humanists have no grounds to deny us the right to choose the better axiom.

If anyone at this point is asking himself, “What is this better axiom? Where does the Christian begin his thinking?,” the answer is found in this axiom: The Bible alone is the Word of God. The fundamental doctrine of Christianity is not, as many suppose, the doctrine of God, it is the doctrine of Scripture. The Westminster Assembly witnessed to this truth by the organization of the Confession of Faith, the first chapter of which is titled Of the Holy Scripture. From this statement on Scripture flow the rest of the Confession’s doctrinal statements.

In Scripturalism, the name given to the philosophical system developed by Gordon Clark, we assume, we do not prove, that the 66 books of the Bible are the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God and from this foundation erect a Christian philosophy. The Christian philosopher takes his epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and politics exclusively from the express statements and necessary implications of the 66 infallible, inerrant, fully inspired books of the Bible.