Empiricism—Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Logical Positivism, and Scientism (Part 1)
A Biblical evaluation and critique of empiricism
Empiricism—Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Logical Positivism, and Scientism (Part 1)
Psalm 34:8—“O taste and see that the Lord is good;…”
Proverbs 20:12—“The hearing ear and the seeing eye,
The Lord has made both of them.”
Biblically, experience is neither neutral nor independent of God.
God has created human beings with the capacity for sense experience—common senses like sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch (though sin distorts and damages these faculties physically and spiritually with such examples as blindness, deafness, etc.).
While experience is not the ultimate standard of truth or value, the Christian is not only called to the acceptance of abstract principles but to experience—“taste” and “see”—that the LORD is good.
Sense experience is competent yet limited because God defines and interprets reality.
We operate on the basic reliability of sense perception understanding sense experience to be a tool, not an authority. Not all worldviews acknowledge the basic reliability of sense perception (though they are usually inconsistent in this) and the Christian can acknowledge the value of sense perception while also acknowledging that the senses can be misled or that experience can be misinterpreted.
Eyewitness Experience and Testimony
God determined that the gospel would be partially based upon the experience and testimony of eyewitnesses (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7; 1 John 1:1-3). This was essential but not sufficient. For example, Thomas doubted the truthfulness of the resurrection of Jesus until he could experience it with his senses.
Thomas (John 20:24-29)
John 20:24-29—“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples were saying to him, ‘We have seen the Lord!’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.’
26After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ 27Then He said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ 28Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God [cf. John 1:1, 18]!’ 29Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.’” (emphasis added)
Thomas doubted the experience of others until he could experience something himself (John 20:25). Jesus granted Thomas’s request—an experience believers for thousands of years would like to have had and an experience that unbelievers often demand in order to believe. Thomas responded by calling Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Jesus declared a special blessing for those who had not seen Him but still believed in Him (John 20:29), which would be most of the readers of John’s gospel (cf. John 19:35; 20:31; 21:24).
While eyewitness experience and testimony were essential for establishing the historical fact of the Jesus’ resurrection, and while others are called to believe even though they had not experienced (e.g. seen, touched, etc.) the risen Jesus directly, sense experience was not sufficient nor ultimate. Experience of the event of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead does not guarantee correct interpretation of the theological significance of the resurrection—why Jesus rose from the dead and what it means.
A fact cannot exist independent of presuppositions. There are no such things as presuppositionless “facts.” This involves the philosophy of the nature of a fact. The concept of a fact has presuppositions included in it. How could a “fact” even be defined absent presuppositions? For something to be considered a “fact,” one must presuppose a network of other things. A fact cannot exist in isolation or disconnected from other facts. Experience cannot be considered experience without other presuppositions and assumptions.
Without understanding the authoritative theological significance to interpret data/events, empirical experience of resurrection of Jesus would not lead someone to the conclusion of Thomas: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). This conclusion about eyewitness experience was mediated and interpreted through a presupposed theological framework.
Peter (1 Peter 1:8; 2 Peter 1:16-19)
Peter was a leader among the disciples and a key eyewitness of Jesus Christ. This was even part of Peter’s preaching of the gospel (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39, 41). Peter as an eyewitness of the ministry, miracles, preaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus was key for establishing the historical reliability of the facts of the gospel, however, according to Peter, belief in Christ is not based on empiricism—observation through sense experience.
1 Peter 1:8—“and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,” (emphasis added)
The truth of the gospel and faith in Christ is not based on past or present sense experience. The Christian loves Christ even though he or she has not seen Him; and they believe in Him and rejoice with joy inexpressible even though they do not see Him now in the present. Even though Peter had experienced Jesus with his senses in a unique way, he explained that those sense experiences were not the ultimate authority,
2 Peter 1:16-19—“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’—18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” (emphasis added)
Even though Peter and his friends were eyewitnesses of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16) and heard God declare Him to be His Son from Heaven (2 Peter 1:17-18), the prophetic Word is still more sure than his experience (2 Peter 1:19). Experience, as important as it may be in its proper place, is not the fundamental test of truth and knowledge. Experience itself involves certain preconditions and presuppositions in order for experience to be intelligible.
Peter argues that the Word of God, spoken by the God of the Word who is the ultimate reference point and authority, is what authoritatively determines the basis of truth and knowledge and the environment in which meaningful experience can take place.
John (1 John 1:1-3)
John was also a key eyewitness of Jesus. His eyewitness testimony as an apostle of Christ was highly important for the report of the redemptive-historical fact of the gospel. John even emphasized the value of his apostolic testimony having experienced Jesus with his senses,
1 John 1:1-3—“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” (emphasis added)
John was probably dealing with an early Gnostic heresy that claimed that Jesus was not truly man and did not have a physical body (cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). In response to this, he proclaimed that not only did they “hear” and “see” Jesus but they “touched” and “handled” Jesus. The point, however, was so that John and the other apostles, along with the early believers, could communicate the significance of those sense experiences to others who did not experience them in order that they too might have fellowship with them, with Christ, and with the Father (1 John 1:3).
Ancient Historical Standards
Ancient history developed qualitative criteria to judge history. History comes with some inherent difficulties and challenges, namely, that we cannot observe the past. In history, just as in many areas of life, we must depend on the observations and experiences of others but that is not empiricism. Empiricism would undermine any historical study. Ancient history (just as modern history) prioritized eyewitnesses who participated in the events on which they reported, however, this was not always possible for one obvious reason—people cannot be omnipresent to observe or experience all things. The ancient Greek historian Polybius (ca. 200-118 B.C.) wrote,
“For since many events occur at the same time in different places, and one man cannot be in several places at one time, nor is it possible for a single individual man to have seen with his own eyes every place in the world and all the peculiar features of different places, the only thing left for a historian is to inquire from as many people as possible, to believe those worthy of belief and to be an adequate critic of the reports that reach him.”1
Jesus
In a parable in which a dead man wanted to return to warn his brothers, Jesus concluded by saying that if someone had the Old Testament Scriptures and still did not repent and believe, then someone would not be persuaded even if someone rose from the dead (Luke 16:31). In fact, without the theological framework of the Scriptures, observation of resurrection from the dead would make no sense.
Without prior presuppositions from an authoritative worldview, each piece of data and each event observed would lack significance, leading the observer to ask, “So what?”
John 10:37-38—“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.’”
Many people saw/empirically observed Jesus’ works and still did not believe.
Many purposely misinterpreted Jesus’ miracles, attributing them to the power of Satan (cf. Luke 11:14-23).
The Gospels even describe the disciples as not having gained insight from Jesus’ miracles. For example, after having observed Jesus feed the five thousand and calm the storm, Mark editorializes,
Mark 6:52—“for they had not gained any insight from the incident of [Lit had not understood on the basis of] the loaves, but their heart was hardened.”
Jesus often rejected giving evidence when those who asked for it lacked the authoritative theological framework in order to interpret the evidence correctly.
The Bible often describes people in rebellion against God as insensible—unable to rightly use their senses.
Isaiah 6:9-10—“He said, ‘Go, and tell this people:
“Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
10Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”
Spiritual insensitivity is often compared to blindness—the inability to see. While such individuals may be able to see physically (sense experience), their spiritual state renders them unable to “see” truth consistently. For example, after Jesus healed a man who had been blind from birth and causing a controversy among the Pharisees summarized the theological irony of the event,
John 9:39-41—“And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ 40Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’ 41Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, “We see,” your sin remains.’”
Sin precludes people from being able to experience the truth of God without the supernatural aid of God (cf. Ephesians 2:1, 5; Colossians 2:13; etc.).
Empiricism—rather than using sense experience as an instrument or tool—attempts to establish observation or testing through sense experience as an ultimate authority. Empiricism attempts to use observation or testing through sense experience to identify specific phenomena in order to reach probability.
According to empiricism, whatever can be known must be known by observation and nothing can be known generally or universally, only particular experiences of the senses in the present or past. Empiricism attempts to establish probable knowledge by rejecting all other general claims to knowledge instead starting from observations/sense experiences of individual human beings.
General/Universals vs. Particulars
According to empiricism, only particulars exist (no universal truths because there is no universal experience). Empiricism usually arose historically because of frustration with the vain speculations, inconsistencies, and internal contradictions of rationalism (see previous lesson).
Rationalism—“I think”
Empiricism—“I experience/observe”
Romanticism—“I feel”
Fideism—“I believe”
Skepticism/Agnosticism—“I doubt”
Can we trust empirical verification through sense experience?
A common logical fallacy—an error or mistake in reasoning—is the fallacy of reification which is usually expressed by saying something like, “The evidence speaks for itself” or “Science says/shows/demonstrates...” The truth is data must be interpreted; it is not self-evident. This is a serious problem for empiricism because it claims that knowledge can come from observation/sense experience, however, this lacks a standard by which to interpret and judge the evidence.
How would the unbelieving rationalist and the unbelieving empiricist object to the claim of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead?
Rationalist: “Dead people don’t rise from the dead.”
Empiricist: “I have never experienced resurrection from the dead so resurrection from the dead probably does not occur.”
Even if the empiricist was shown with evidence that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, that would simply be one piece of evidence that resurrection sometimes occurs but does not explain the significance of the resurrection. In other words, resurrection alone does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus is declared to be the Son of God with power (cf. Romans 1:3-4) and was raised for our justification (cf. Romans 4:25). Those conclusions come from the historical fact of the resurrection plus the Biblical-historical framework concerning the significance of Jesus’s resurrection.
The starting point of empiricism is human sense experience, while Biblical Christianity believes the starting point to be the fear of the LORD that defines and interprets human experience. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, not the end of it (cf. Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; 9:10).
Footnotes/Further Resources:
[1] Polybius, Histories, 12.4c.4-5, Online version
Applied Apologetics - Biblical/Christian Philosophy (YouTube Playlist)
Empiricism—Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Logical Positivism, and Scientism (Part 1) (YouTube)
Empiricism—Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Logical Positivism, and Scientism (Part 2) (YouTube)
Empiricism—Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Logical Positivism, and Scientism (Part 3) (YouTube)