A Gangadeanian merely *thinks* that the principle of Clarity is true, but can't show that it is?

In a comment on my last post, Spencer directed me to the following talk given by a long time Gangadeanian, Kelly Fitzsimmons-Burton entitled, "What is Christian Philosophy?" As Spencer notes, Kelly says the following at the 26:49 mark.

"I am still learning... so what I'm going to say is that I *think* this is true...that there's this principle of clarity, that is, uh, part of philosophy--somethings are clear--and it's part of scripture. That part I'm not willing to let go of. But what I am willing to let go of is that I've gotten to clarity and I can show it to you...but I'm not willing to let go of this principle of clarity."

Kelly has been under Gangadean's direct instruction for decades. Somehow though, according to what she says here, she isn't in a position to prove that the principle of clarity (that some things are clear) is true. The essence of my last post about Gangadean's failure to show that we need clarity is pertinent---because the standard way that he tries to prove the principle of clarity is by purporting to show that if it's false, absurdities like skepticism and nihilism are sure to follow. Instead, Kelly seems to be saying that she simply chooses to assume that the principle is true. In other words, it's an article of faith. I don't have issues with philosophers assuming principles that they can't prove in general. We all gotta start somewhere--and any non-Gangadeanian philosopher is happy to admit this much. But for a Gangadeanian to do so is, quite surprising. Indeed this is what I've been trying to point out all along--that despite Gangadean's pronouncements (and criticisms of other philosophers for appealing to unproven principles), he, too must start with some basic articles of faith. Of course, Kelly hasn't said that Ganagdean himself is unable to prove the principle of clarity--but how strange for him to be able to do so, while someone under decades of his instruction, is unable. Surely, the proof can't be that complicated or hidden from his own followers--particularly, those that are as learned as Kelly.

I wonder if this means that Kelly isn't able to show that God's existence is clear to reason? Or what about the so called "laws of thought?" This would follow because if she could show anything to be clear, then she would have shown that the principle of clarity is true--that some things are clear to reason. Maybe she meant that she can't prove that some things must be clear vs. some things are clear. This would mean she misspoke because she explicitly says the principle of clarity is that some things are clear. Morever, since Gangadean rests his entire worldview on the necessity (rather than the actuality) of clarity, I don't see how that would help, either. So, I am not without some confusion.

There's a part of me that really appreciates this level of honesty from Kelly, though--at least if we take what she says at face value. I've never heard such a thing from a Gangadeanian (this isn't a jab--I'm being sincere about my experiences). Undoubtedly, the Ganagdeanians will find a way to explain this away--they will probably say that I'm misunderstanding or misconstruing what she has said, or that she simply misspoke although it's more likely that they'll just remain silent. Maybe they'll even cite the fact that she stated that she can't prove a conjunction (that the principle is "part of philosophy and scripture") so as to retain the principle in relation to at least one, but not both domains---although I think that would not help very much. One thing they won't provide is a proof that the principle of clarity is true. A tip of the hat to Spencer for bringing this to quote to my attention.

p.s. I've downloaded the file to my computer, just in case the link suddenly goes dead.