(The following refers to "But what is knowledge?")

Mr. H, a Christian blogger, attacked your theological position on sensation and mentioned you by name, but I think some of the things that he said were already answered by you in your blog articles. I am not sure if he reads them.

I am leaving out the name of this blogger because (1) I wish to make a general statement here that will apply to other criticisms about me, and (2) I don’t want to start going back and forth with Mr. H on this. Except for the fact that I pretty much dislike going back and forth with anybody (except in friendly conversation with my wife), other reasons for this reluctance will be evident in what follows.

However, saying "Mr. H" is specific enough so that those who have read his blog entry will realize who I am talking about. Someone will probably point out this entry to Mr. H, and then Mr. H might or might not write something again. But if I am not careful, this will begin the very back and forth deal that I wish to avoid, and that I really have no time for.

So, I will say this now: Unless Mr. H comes up with something spectacular against me, I will not say anything else in reference to him. For me, this ends here. I will just give him the final word, that is, if he chooses to add anything else.

Here I will just refer all of you to the recommended readings listed on the blog entry in question (and listed again below) as my response to ALL criticisms that you can find ANYWHERE written by ANYONE on this subject. I have confidence in my products — they are accurate and irrefutable. Yes, people can write all sorts of things against anything (even the Bible), but as I will repeat below, not every attempted refutation is logically sound or successful.

Now, an irrefutable position is no good when read by a moron, so it helps that my readers are not stupid. As the above reader writes, "I think some of the things that he said were already answered by you in your blog articles. I am not sure if he reads them." Bingo! And if there is anything unanswered in my blog articles, it is because (as I have repeated several times on this site) they are intended as supplements to my books.

However, not everyone has at least this much sense. Many people are affected by the most recent thing that they read, and so when they read my writings, they are swayed by them, but then when they read an attempted refutation, they change and think that I am wrong. Then, I offer my response and they seem to be convinced again. Thus they are tossed back and forth between differing positions, and never attain intellectual stability.

There are at least two reasons for this problem.

First, my position is widely disliked, and I am able to convince anyone only by the sheer rigorous rationality and precise biblical exegesis of my arguments. On the other hand, most people favor some version of empiricism even without any persuasion, and even if they are initially awakened from their empirical slumber by my writings, it is easy for them to be swayed back to empiricism by even the flimsiest arguments, or even just a rhetorical question. That is, they will take any excuse to stay with what they already prefer to believe. Subjectively, the deck is stacked against me; objectively, there is nothing against me.

Second, many readers fail to apply the strict standards of rationality when they examine arguments and refutations. They fail to remember that not just any complaint is a valid refutation. Just like any sound argument, a refutation must have a conclusion validly deduced from true premises, and that contradicts its opponent’s position. Nothing that Mr. H wrote against me amounts to this. He gives us assertions, speculations, rhetorical questions, but no argument (refutation) that reasons from true premises to their necessary conclusion. Moreover, nothing that he wrote actually support empiricism. So even if he successfully refutes me, we would end up with skepticism at best.

He has attempted several typical ad hominem points, but I have already dealt with them in my writings — I either refute them as fallacious and irrelevant, or I swallow them down without suffering any damage to the coherence of my position. And again, an ad hominem does not amount to a positive support for empiricism.

Finally, "But What is Knowledge?" is intended to answer a particular objection against me; it is in itself not a refutation of empiricism — I have already done that elsewhere. However, Mr. H interacts with only this short blog entry as if I have presented my main or even entire case against empiricism there, and that what he says about the blog entry thus undermines my entire position about empiricism. But as I have pointed out, he fails to refute even my short blog entry.

If readers will go back to Mr. H’s post, you will see that he has failed on all counts. But I don’t want to direct this only against Mr. H, since all of his objections are typical, and will be used again and again by other people. It would be counterproductive for me to write a specific response to every rehash of the typical objections against my position, when I have already answered all of them.

Again, I have no problem in answering something that is new, something that I have never addressed, and my readers would testify that I never resort to evasive maneuvers, nor do I need to. But slight variations of old and refuted objections do not deserve my attention. Something that forces me to respond will have to be really, really good. Otherwise, there is no point in doing it.

I am not interested in defending my reputation or my competence, but I am concerned when readers might be misled. The simplest solution is to remind all of you that I have already dealt with all the typical criticisms in my writings (books, articles, blog), and all you need to do is to read or review them. You should ask, (1) Does the objector give us real arguments and refutations? and (2) Does the objector say anything that is not already answered in Cheung’s writings? It is impossible to write a specific reply for every attempted refutation — just don’t be taken in by an attempt just because it is new and differently stated. (And please, don’t email me every criticism against me that you find! I have no time for that.)

If it can be avoided, I hope that Mr. H will not take the above too personally, since I really do intend for this to be a generally applicable response to almost all criticisms against me. Again, barring some spectacular development, this will be my final word in reference to him.

As for those of you who are unfamiliar with my writings, I urge you to READ my materials, slowly and carefully, and REALLY try to understand what I am saying instead of dismissing me because of your traditions and assumptions, without actual refutations. And remember, an "actual refutation" must be more than an assertion or a rhetorical question, but just like any valid argument, it must be a conclusion validly deduced from true premises; otherwise, it is nothing more than an expression of one's subjective disapproval.

There is a related blog entry that I have composed several days ago and that will be released this week. Please watch for it.

Recommended:

Occasionalism and Empiricism

The Transcendental Argument for Materialism

The Atheistic Argument from Existence

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy

Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things

Gordon Clark, The Lord God of Truth

Gordon Clark, Clark Speaks from the Grave

Gordon Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God

Posted in Philosophy, Apologetics | Permanent Link