# Empiricism ## Intro Empiricism says everything we know, or just about everything, comes from our five senses. We are born as blank slates (John Locke's famous phrase: *tabula rasa*). Experience writes on us. Take experience away and there is nothing left to know. This is the official philosophy of modern science and a lot of modern atheism. Hume, Locke, and Berkeley are the British founders. Hume took it to its sharpest edge: if a claim cannot be checked by sense experience, throw it away as meaningless. That is the move modern atheists use against theology: *"You can't see God. You can't measure Him. So you can't really know He exists."* There are real strengths in empiricism. Testing, evidence, and observation matter. The scientific revolution would not have happened without taking sense experience seriously. There are also serious problems with the strict version. First, the rule "all knowledge comes from sense experience" cannot be checked by sense experience. It is a philosophical claim about how knowledge works, which means the rule fails its own test. Second, math and logic are not learned from sensation. We do not see "two plus two equals four" through a microscope. Third, our minds clearly contribute things sense experience cannot supply: the categories of cause, space, and time, which Kant argued were built in. Fourth, on strict empiricism, you cannot know other minds exist (you only see bodies), you cannot know the past existed (you only have current memories), and you cannot know induction is reliable (Hume's own problem). For Christian apologetics, empiricism matters because the New Atheist demand for "scientific proof of God" assumes empiricism is the only legitimate way to know things. Once empiricism's own limits are out in the open, the demand loses force. Knowledge comes through multiple channels: sense experience, reason, intuition, testimony, conscience, and (Christians add) revelation. ## In full **Empiricism** is the epistemological position that **all (or substantially all) knowledge derives from sense experience**. The mind, on a strict empiricist account, begins as Locke's *tabula rasa*, a blank slate, onto which experience inscribes ideas through sensation and reflection. Empiricism stands opposed to [Rationalism](/codex/rationalism/), which holds that some knowledge is *a priori* / innate, accessible through reason alone. ## Core claim The empiricist principle (Locke's formulation, *Essay Concerning Human Understanding* II.1.2): > Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void > of all characters, without any ideas… Whence comes it by that vast > store, which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it > with an almost endless variety? To this I answer, in one word, from > *experience*." Stronger formulations (Hume, the logical positivists) add that **any meaningful synthetic claim must be empirically verifiable** in principle. Weaker formulations grant that mathematics and logic are *a priori* but insist that all *substantive* knowledge of the world is empirical. ## Historical development ### Ancient and medieval roots - **[Aristotle](/codex/aristotle/)**, *De Anima* III.4-5 and *Posterior Analytics* II.19, the famous dictum (later Latinized in scholastic thought as *nihil in intellectu nisi prius in sensu*, "nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses"). - **[Thomas Aquinas](/codex/thomas-aquinas/)**, *Summa Theologiae* I.84.6, adopts Aristotle's empirical principle while affirming the active intellect's abstraction of universals from sensible particulars. ### British Empiricism (the canonical trio) - **John Locke**, *Essay Concerning Human Understanding* (1689), the founding modern empiricist text. Two sources of ideas: sensation (outer experience) and reflection (inner experience). Distinguishes primary qualities (extension, motion, number, in objects) from secondary qualities (colour, taste, produced in us). - **George Berkeley**, *A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge* (1710); *Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous* (1713), *idealist* empiricist. *Esse est percipi* ("to be is to be perceived"). Eliminates material substance; reality consists of minds and their ideas, ultimately sustained by the divine Mind. - **[David Hume](/codex/david-hume/)**, *A Treatise of Human Nature* (1739-40); *An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* (1748), radical empiricism. Distinguishes "impressions" (vivid) from "ideas" (faded copies). All meaningful concepts must be traceable to a prior impression. Famously skeptical about causation, induction, the self, miracles, and natural theology. ### 20th-century logical positivism / logical empiricism The Vienna Circle (1920s-30s) gave empiricism its most linguistically explicit form via the **verification principle**: *a synthetic statement is meaningful only if empirically verifiable*. - **Moritz Schlick**, *General Theory of Knowledge* (1918, rev. 1925). - **Rudolf Carnap**, *The Logical Structure of the World* (1928); *The Logical Syntax of Language* (1934). - **A. J. Ayer**, *Language, Truth and Logic* (1936), the most popular Anglo-American statement; declared theology, ethics, and metaphysics literally meaningless ("non-cognitive"). - **Otto Neurath**, **Hans Reichenbach**, **Carl Hempel**, collaborators. The verification principle collapsed under its own weight by mid- century (the principle is itself not empirically verifiable; Quine's *"Two Dogmas of Empiricism,"* 1951, dissolved the analytic/synthetic distinction it required). ## Strengths - **Empirical sciences**: empiricism captures the methodology of modern natural science, observation, experiment, replication, falsification. - **Anti-dogmatism**: requires beliefs to be grounded in something beyond mere assertion. - **Cognitive plausibility**: human concept-formation does seem to begin with sensory experience (developmental psychology supports the broad claim). ## Weaknesses ### 1. Self-refutation (the master critique) The empiricist principle, *"all knowledge derives from sense experience"*, is itself **not derived from sense experience**. It is a philosophical / *a priori* claim. On its own criterion, it fails to count as knowledge. The same applies to the verification principle: *"a statement is meaningful only if empirically verifiable"* is itself not empirically verifiable. This is the standard self-refutation objection (see [Self-refutation](/codex/self-refutation/)), pressed by Christian philosophers ([Edward Feser](/codex/edward-feser/), *The Last Superstition*, 2008; [J.P. Moreland](/codex/j-p-moreland/), *Scientism and Secularism*, 2018) and secular critics (Putnam, Quine). ### 2. The problem of induction Hume's own analysis (*Enquiry* §IV-V): we have no *empirical* justification for the inference from past regularities to future ones. The principle "the future will resemble the past" is itself either *a priori* (which empiricism rejects) or based on past experience (circular). This destabilizes the empirical sciences from within. ### 3. Universal and necessary truths Mathematics ("2+2=4"), logic (the law of non-contradiction), modal truths (necessity, possibility), and ethical universals are *necessary*, they hold in every possible world. But sense experience only gives contingent particulars. Empiricism cannot ground necessary truth without either denying it (Mill, A.J. Ayer) or relaxing into rationalism. ### 4. Abstract objects, other minds, the past Numbers, propositions, sets, other minds, historical events, none are directly sense-experienceable. Empiricism either eliminates them, reduces them to sense-data (phenomenalism), or admits non-empirical knowledge. ### 5. The criterion problem Sense experience itself is interpreted via concepts not given in experience (Kant's reply to Hume, *Critique of Pure Reason*, 1781). Pure empirical "givenness" may be a myth (Sellars, *"Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind,"* 1956). ## Christian engagement Christian philosophy has had a complex relationship with empiricism: - **Aquinas / Thomism** is *moderate empiricist*, accepts *nihil in intellectu nisi prius in sensu* while affirming the intellect's abstractive power and natural-theological inference from sensible effects to God (the [Five Ways](/codex/cosmological-arguments/)). - **Berkeley** uses empiricism *for* theism: external reality requires a perceiving Mind, which is God. - **Hume** uses empiricism *against* theism: in *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion* (1779) he attacks the design argument, miracles ("Of Miracles," *Enquiry* §X), and the cosmological argument. - **Reformed [Epistemology](/codex/epistemology/)** ([Reformed Epistemology](/codex/reformed-epistemology/)) rejects strong empiricism's evidentialist demand: belief in God can be properly basic without inferential evidence. - **[Scientism](/codex/scientism/)** is empiricism radicalized into the claim that *only* science yields knowledge, usually deployed against theology. ## See also - [Epistemology](/codex/epistemology/), parent discipline - [Rationalism](/codex/rationalism/), opposing source theory - [Foundationalism](/codex/foundationalism/), classical foundationalism builds on empiricist epistemology - [Scientism](/codex/scientism/), empiricism radicalized - [Self-refutation](/codex/self-refutation/), the master objection to strong empiricism - [Reformed Epistemology](/codex/reformed-epistemology/), Plantinga's anti-evidentialist alternative - [Naturalism](/codex/naturalism/), frequently paired with empiricism - *John Locke*, *Essay Concerning Human Understanding* - [David](/codex/david/) Hume, *Enquiry*, *Dialogues* - George Berkeley, idealist empiricist - Thomas Aquinas, moderate empiricism in Christian thought - Hubs Roadmap
## Common questions this page answers **Q: What is empiricism in philosophy?** Empiricism is the epistemological position that all or substantially all knowledge derives from sense experience. The mind, on Locke's account, begins as a *tabula rasa* (blank slate) onto which experience inscribes ideas through sensation and reflection. It opposes [Rationalism](/codex/rationalism/), which holds some knowledge is innate or accessible through reason alone. **Q: Who are the main empiricist philosophers?** The canonical trio is British: John Locke (*Essay Concerning Human Understanding*, 1689), George Berkeley (idealist empiricism, *to be is to be perceived*), and [David Hume](/codex/david-hume/) (radical empiricism, *Treatise* 1739 and *Enquiry* 1748). Twentieth-century logical positivism (Schlick, Carnap, Ayer's *Language, Truth and Logic*) gave empiricism its strictest form via the verification principle. **Q: Is empiricism self-refuting?** The master critique says yes. The claim "all knowledge derives from sense experience" is not itself derived from sense experience; it is a philosophical claim. On its own criterion, it fails to count as knowledge. The verification principle ("a statement is meaningful only if empirically verifiable") suffers the same fate: it is not itself empirically verifiable. See [Self-refutation](/codex/self-refutation/). **Q: How do Christians respond to empiricism?** Several ways. Thomism is *moderate empiricist*: Aquinas accepts that knowledge begins in the senses while affirming the intellect's abstractive power and natural-theological inference ([Aquinas Five Ways](/codex/aquinas-five-ways/)). Berkeley used empiricism *for* theism, arguing external reality requires a perceiving Mind. [Reformed Epistemology](/codex/reformed-epistemology/) rejects strong empiricism's evidentialist demand: belief in God can be properly basic without inferential evidence. The New Atheist demand for "scientific proof of God" assumes a strong empiricism that fails its own test. **Q: What is the problem of induction?** Hume's own analysis (*Enquiry* §IV-V): we have no *empirical* justification for inferring from past regularities to future ones. The principle "the future will resemble the past" is itself either *a priori* (which empiricism rejects) or based on past experience (which is circular). This destabilizes the empirical sciences from within and is one of the strongest internal pressures on strict empiricism.