The Incoherence of Empiricism

NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to Captive to Reason. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.

(The following is an edited email message.)

One argument alleges that Scripturalism* is incoherent because the proposition, "All knowledge comes from biblical propositions and their necessary implications" is not itself a biblical proposition, and that it cannot be deduced from biblical propositions; therefore, if one accepts Scripturalism, one should reject Scripturalism.

However, this argument begs the question. In effect, it is just saying that Scripturalism is false because it is not true, but it says this without showing that it is not true.

But the principle can be deduced from Scripture. The Bible teaches that God is infallible, that the Bible is his infallible revelation, that God controls all things, that man is fallible, that man's sensations and intuitions are fallible, etc., etc. — put them together, and BAM, you have Scripturalism.

Then, just think about empiricism. Yes, it is often assumed that sensation is a generally reliable way to obtain knowledge. But consider just several of the problems connected to empiricism and science:

1. If empiricism is rational, then should not it be possible to demonstrate its rationality by a valid process of reasoning? What is this process of reasoning? And is it really valid?

2. If empiricism necessarily uses induction, then how can it avoid the logical problems that come with induction?

3. If empiricism is the very foundation of science, then how can science be considered eminently rational when we have yet to defend empiricism?

4. Then, how about the fact that the scientific method, by its very own nature, practices the fallacy of affirming the consequent in every experiment?

So, how can anyone who attacks anti-empiricism know anything by sensation by his own at least partially empirical epistemology?

He can't possibly prove it by "pure reason." Does he then claim that Scripture provides the preconditions for empiricism? It certainly provides the preconditions for us to understand that it is irrational and false, but does it provide rational justification to say that empiricism is true? Matthew 24:32 is not the only verse in the Bible. (And as mentioned, Matthew 24:32 itself cannot prove a "I see, therefore I know" epistemology.) How about John 12:28-29 and 2 Kings 3:16-24?

If Scripture shows only one instance when sensation is not reliable, then at least we need a reliable standard or method by which we can tell which instance of sensation is reliable. What is this standard or method? And is this standard or method really reliable?

Or, if they claim that one sensation verifies another one, then this begs the question, since we don't know which one is right, and maybe both are wrong.

So it doesn't matter how many passages they show, but as long as there is even one in Scripture that suggests the fallibility of sensation, then we are taken right back to the question of a standard and method to tell which instance is reliable.

But I have already said all of this in my books and articles, so you will read more about this eventually.

It is amusing to me that some presuppositionalists have been so passionately arguing against my anti-empiricism that it is as if they are now defending empiricism, and in a manner that often contradicts what they would say when they argue against evidentialism in apologetics.

Just don't forget to ask that, as they attack anti-empiricism, have they justified empiricism? How have they done this? And if empiricism (any degree or kind) is part of their epistemology, then they must first justify empiricism before attacking anti-empiricism; otherwise, they are just arguing in a circle while standing on thin air.

Finally, consider this. If they claim that one must use physical sensations to read the Bible, and that, in some sense, the words of the Bible are conveyed to the mind through the physical sensations themselves, and if they also admit that sensations are fallible, then whether or not the Bible is infallible immediately becomes irrelevant to them, since they can never have an infallible Bible in practice. This is because the Bible in effect will only be as reliable to them as their sensations.

Even if I allow them to believe that sensations are generally reliable, it is still irrelevant until they can show me how reliable they are, and even more importantly, how they know in which instances they are correct. If one cannot show me in which instances sensations are correct, then in effect it is as if none of the instances are reliable, since there is no way to tell one from the other.

Some of them say that the Bible teaches them that God has created man in a way that man can use his senses to gain some knowledge, even if the sensations are fallible. But there are at least two problems with this:

1. They just got through saying that you must use the senses to read the Bible in the first place, so how did they find out what the Bible says about sensations without first proving the reliability of sensation? They argue in a circle.

2. The Bible provides many examples showing that the senses are fallible, that they are often deceived. So even if we forget about #1, we are still at a loss as to in which instances sensations are reliable, and we are back to square one again.

Thus, it is really their view that is incoherent.

On the other hand, my scheme bypasses all of these difficulties, since I start from the mind of God, and not the senses of man.

At this point, they sometimes exclaim, "Well, then you can't know anything!" But this is not proof that empiricism is the way out of skepticism! So don't be fooled by arguments like this one.

In fact, my proposal is to overcome skepticism by starting with the Bible — that is, really start with the portion of the incorporeal mind of God that has been verbally revealed in Scripture — instead of just saying that we start with the Bible but then allow our fallible sensations as the only way to know what is in the Bible in the first place.

* Note: I do not apply the term "Scripturalism" to my own approach to philosophy or apologetics.

Recommended:

Short Answers to Several Criticisms

Occasionalism and Empiricism

The Transcendental Argument for Materialism

"But What is Knowledge?"

But Where is the Refutation?

Biblical Rationalism vs. Psycho Assertionism

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions

Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations

Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation

Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy