Introduction
Empiricism refers to the school of thought which says that all knowledge comes through sensations. That is, when we observe the world around us using our sensations, we gain knowledge. The major proponents in this school of thought were David Hume, John Locke, and George Berkeley. We have already refuted David Hume in the previous essay on agnosticism, so we shall not repeat the same here. Moreover, I will not give a critique of individual views here, since the refutation I outline here will apply to all of them. There have also been some religious men such as Thomas Aquinas and William Paley who have advocated empiricism and tried to build a case for God’s existence based upon that. I will include a brief critique of “religious empiricism” as well.
The First Principle
Empiricism alleges that all our knowledge comes through sensations. Therefore when we see, hear, touch, or feel something, we gain knowledge. Observation is the means of acquiring knowledge.
Now, the questions to be posed to empiricist is, How do you know that all knowledge comes from sense experience? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes from sensations, derived from sensations itself? If not, where did you get that proposition from? How do you know sensations are reliable? How can one state that all knowledge is derived from sensations, without demonstrating the reliability of sensations?
Empiricism collapses right at this level. The first principle is not self-authenticating, and does not make knowledge possible. We can dismiss empiricism right away, but we will pose some more questions and see the logical pitfalls in empirical epistemology.
How do you “sense” sensations?
How do you “know” what is a sensation? That is, how do you know you are experiencing a sensation? Do you know that also on the basis of sensation? If so, then, what is the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? In other words, how do you sense a sensation? And how do you sense the sensation (S2) which senses the first sensation (S1)? And how do you sense the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation (S1)? And you cannot stop there! How do you sense the sensation (S4) that senses the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? You will have to go ad infinitum. You can never even being your worldview if you want to hold on to your view that sensations convey knowledge.
What I have written above is neither a tongue twister nor an exercise for semantics. It is nothing but the logical outworking of empiricism. If it is true that all knowledge comes from sensations, then on the basis of empiricism, you cannot even start your worldview. With which sensation are you going to begin with? And why do you choose that sensation? Nobody has still answered the question of how they know they are having a sensation. Moreover, how do you know that you are not having a sensation? Again, on the basis of sensation? How do you “sense” that you are not having a sensation? You see, empiricism is fatally flawed right at the beginning.
Most importantly, how does sensation translate to knowledge in your mind? One has to write down in syllogistic form the argument defending the view that sensations can instill knowledge in the mind. All of them believe that the mind is a tabula rasa, which is like a blank slate, and sensations writes knowledge on the mind.
But how did you get to know that the mind is a blank slate in the first place? By sensation? Through which sensation did you sense that the mind is blank? Have you “sensed” your own mind the in the first place? How?
How did you sense that the mind is “blank”? If the mind is “blank” how did you manage to sense it? What is there in the mind for you to sense it, if it is blank? But, what is the “mind,” to begin with in the first place? Answer that question in a manner consistent with your epistemology. On the basis of sensations alone, first define what the “mind” is. Then, tell me how you got to know that this mind was blank. Again, answer that question on the basis of empiricism alone.
According to you, one has to sense everything to get to know it. But how do you sense a mind? Through sight? Sound? Touch?! Taste?!! Smell?!!! You see, I am simply drawing out the implications of empiricism for you. Do you see with your eyes what is in your mind? Do you hear it? Do you smell it?! Do you taste it?! Do you feel it? Now, tell me, how did you sense your own mind, let alone the minds of other people? Answer that question before reading further. I am holding you to the empiricism you are holding on to. Justify sensations, and then go ahead.
If the mind is “blank,” as empiricists claim, what is there for you to sense in the first place? There won’t be anything for you to sense! So, how in the world can you state that the mind is blank without even knowing what you are talking about? Are you trying to be funny or something?
And how do you sense when the mind is filled with sensations? And how do you sense the sensation that is conveying knowledge to the mind? Have you “sensed” these sensations? How do you know which sensations you are sensing? Again, on the basis of sensation? If you are bombarded with a whirlpool of sensations, which sensation do you pick out from to convey knowledge to you? Again, on the basis of sensation? You should answer all these questions if you seriously believe that empiricism is justifiable.
You see, I am asking, how do sensations translate to knowledge? Write down an argument in non-fallacious syllogistic form and demonstrate that sensations can convey and instill knowledge to the mind. It is impossible to write down that argument. Read again what I have underscored and then think of attempting such an endeavor. You will need all the luck in the universe, since you can never achieve formal syllogistic validity! How can you deduce a proposition form a sensation? Go ahead! I am waiting for some entertainment! Where will you start?! With which premise?!!! And again, if you want to maintain your consistency, you should first begin by justifying your “sensational” epistemology in the first place! (Pardon the pun, but I cannot avoid sarcasm here!) Getting my opponent into such a position is real fun, and resulting nuisance value is simply rollicking!
Are Sensations Reliable?
We know that mosquitoes bite and the water running between our feet in the beach sand feels good because we “sense” these events. However not everybody experiences this in the same way. People who have advanced leprosy will not be able to feel either a mosquito bite or the water running through their toes. People who are blind will not be aware that it is a mosquito which bit them. A thirty year old might not feel mosquito bite with the same intensity as a newborn. Also, if the mosquito bites you in the sole of your foot it won’t be as painful as a bite on your eyelid. People who have had a spinal cord injury might not be aware that they have legs in the first place, let alone experience a bite. And some people, who have had a limb amputated, might still feel that a limb exists (phantom limb phenomenon), and feel pain in that non-existent limb!
You see, the real feeling or sensation is impossible to settle upon on because there are wide varieties of individual factors which will vary from person to person and from time to time. You cannot “know a thing as it is” on the basis of empiricism. Sensations not reliable and it is impossible for people to have a unanimous decision on any given sensation. Just read the examples I have given above. Each person can come up with contradictory interpretations. Take the example of a mirage when you are driving on a hot summer day. You thought it was water, but when you came near it turns out to be nothing! This is the way sensations are. You can never arrive at epistemic certainty on the basis of empiricism.
The scientific discipline is subject to the same pitfalls. Scientists can observe the same set of data and come up with contradictory interpretations. In the next post on scientific epistemology, I will deal with this in greater detail.
Empiricism and Induction
But, wait! I am not done yet. Empiricism is plagued with induction, and you have to answer the following questions as well. Induction refers to the method by which general conclusions are arrived at on the basis of observing particular facts. Now, we have already shown the problems with observation and sensation, and we need not repeat it again. But empiricism is infiltrated with induction, which again damages it all the more.
In induction, you observe a limited number of instances and then conclude that is the case everywhere, all the time. For example, you observe thousand crows, and all of them happen to be black, and then conclude that therefore, all the crows are black. But how do you know that? Have you examined all the crows in the past, present, and future all over the world? There might be an albino. Based on your limited observation (not to mention the problems with observation per se), you can never claim certainty.
Have you known all the minds in the universe in the first place? The minds of all the people who have lived are living and will live in the future? Have you known about the minds of all the people all over the world? If not, how in the world can you shamelessly make an authoritative statement that the all minds are blank and that knowledge is instilled by sensations? If you are trying to be funny, I can understand that. You are truly “sensational.” I appreciate your sense of humor, but the place to be funny is elsewhere and not in the arena of logical argumentation.
Religious Empiricism
William Paley, Thomas Aquinas, R. C. Sproul, and William Lane Craig, are some of the many Christian apologists and theologians who hold to empiricism. It is not my intention to discuss comparative apologetics at present. That will be deserved for a discussion much later on. For now, we will see a major pitfall in their reasoning.
They try to start on the basis of observation and then make a case for the existence of God. Again, they have to answer all the questions posed above. They cannot do that. It is impossible for empiricism to have a self-justifying epistemology.
But there is another area of their arguments which I would like to focus on right now. It is about how they arrive at “God” right at the end of the argument. William Paley was a priest who is famous for his “watch-maker” argument. His argument is based on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. Since it is so, there has to be Designer whom he equates to be God. But how does a Designer in one premise suddenly become God in the next premise? Which God (?god)? This last part of the argument makes a leap in logic. The conclusion just does not follow from the premise.
Thomas Aquinas starts with motion. He finally lands up with a First Mover, and then suddenly makes the conclusion that “it” is God. But which God? The God of the Bible? Or the god of Islam? Or some neo-platonic conception of God? You see, right at the end of the argument, they make a leap from some impersonal entity to “God.” First, this argument is not valid since, if you trace the premises carefully, this conclusion does not follow them. Next, simply stating “God” will not do. Is this “God” the Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself in the Bible or the monistic god of Hinduism?
You see, it’s not some “generic” theism which Christians should defend and preach. We should defend a specific and exclusive Christian theism which will rule out all views contrary to it right from the beginning. I will write more on this when writing about comparative apologetics.
Epilogue (?Epitaph)
All has to do with empiricism has been discussed and refuted. If you still hold on to the view that knowledge comes through sensations, it is not because you are logically smart, but because you are irrational and hopeless. There is no hope for you unless the Morning Star rises in your heart to remove your intellectual blindness. Read on, and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.
