Geoscience
Research Institute
Origins 1(1):14-21 (1974).
Two philosophical systems — rationalism and empiricism —
established as methods for arriving at truth have vied for favor during the past 2500
years. Sense perception is the ultimate authority in empiricism. Reasoning is mainly
inductive and knowledge is conceived of as probable but not certain (1). Rationalism, on
the other hand, maintains that there is a special domain of knowledge acquired by means of
a capacity called reason and this knowledge is inaccessible through sense perceptions.
Reality transcends observable phenomena and empirically obtained knowledge is only a poor
substitute for the reality obtainable by mental vision alone. In rationalism mathematics
is considered the ideal form of knowledge and reason is the ultimate authority. Reasoning
is deductive and knowledge is conceived of as certain (2).
According to the internationally known science philosopher Hans
Reichenbach, rationalism is the philosophy of a man dissatisfied with sense experience and
who wishes something beyond. It is the emotional bias toward a world of imagination on
which religion has thrived (3). Whether or not his criticism of rationalism as a
psychological crutch of philosophers disgruntled with life is valid, his reluctance in
placing ultimate authority in human reason is warranted. Never are the conclusions of
rationalism superior to the axioms and postulates on which they are based (4). Fallacious
conclusions in rationalism may result from untrue premises, imperfections in language (its
ambiguousness) (5), fallible human reasoning ability, and defective human attitudes
(prejudices, unfairness etc.). Therefore Ellen G. White cautions against speculative
philosophies and exaltation of human reasoning above its true value (6). Rationalism, she
states, idolizes reason and sets aside the Bible while exalting human wisdom as the source
of religious truth (7).
Reason is also recognized as an indispensable tool in empiricism.
Reichenbach notes that "Observation informs us about the past and the present; reason
foretells the future" (8). It has a predictive function. Empiricism retains the
methods of rationalism but verifies its conclusions (predictions) by observation. Basic
then to the empiricist philosophy are the two assumptions: 1) sense perceptions are a
reliable guide to reality and 2) reality is uniform and consistent. If these assumptions
are considered self-evident, empiricism — using a combination of sense perception and
reason — represents a more efficient method of arriving at truth. The final authority
or test of truth resides in the sense perceptions. The reason — with its predictive
functions — serves in a subordinate role. That empiricism is probably the superior of
the two philosophical systems in at least a pragmatic or utilitarian sense is indicated by
the significant advances in communication, transportation, synthetic intelligence, medical
science and agriculture that it has nurtured.
EMPIRICISM: ITS LIMITATIONS AND FAILURES
The weaknesses of empiricism are in three directions: 1) its
apparent failure to solve moral and ethical questions, 2) the probabilistic nature of
knowledge obtained by the empirical approach and 3) from relying on rationalism in dealing
with past and future events and in all interpretation.
The success of empiricism has been ambiguous. While this success in
improving the physical and material condition of man has been significant, neither
directly (through psychology and the social sciences) or indirectly (as a byproduct of its
success in the material world) has it made significant advances in improving man's
spiritual (non-material and non-physical) condition (measured in terms of happiness, peace
of mind, security, human behavior and interpersonal relations). This may be regarded
either as only a temporary failure (advances forthcoming) or as a basic inability of
empirical philosophy to tackle this type of problem.
Empiricism contains no absolute statements on the nature of good or
bad; therefore empirical conclusions in themselves can only be amoral, always answering
questions of "what is?" rather than "what ought to be?" (9).
Nonetheless (perhaps unfortunately) scientists commonly use the empirically derived
knowledge and the practice (by scientists) of the empirical method as directives for
establishing general moral and ethical values (10, 11, 12). These efforts always must
start with the assumption that the principles of tolerance, fairness, justice and freedom
— as practiced by the scientific community — are desirable and good. From this
basis they then show that these principles will lead to the improvement of man's spiritual
condition. The failure then is seen not as the failure of empiricism or of its practice
but rather the failure of the governments, the statesmen, and the non-scientific community
in general to accept the guiding principles of the scientific community as moral
directives in everyday life (13).
The probabilistic nature of empiricism derives from the two assumptions
on which it is based. The uniformity of nature has been regarded as both the basis of the
validity of induction (as a method for arriving at truth) and as a conclusion from
applying the inductive method. Ordinarily the uniformity of nature is considered
self-evident and is then made the axiom on which the validity of inductive reasoning is
established (14). In any case the inductive reasoning of empiricism never leads to
certainty. Conclusions can only become more probable (15).
The uncertainty of empirical knowledge also results from the
fallibility of sense perception. That this sense perception is not always a reliable guide
to reality is demonstrated easily by the occurrence of optical illusions. Perhaps though,
a more serious problem involves the misinterpretation of correctly perceived objects or
events. The obvious initial interpretation of sense perceptions are often incorrect. Thus
the earth does appear flat, matter does appear continuous and the sun does appear to
circle the earth. (In fact, regarding the heliocentric system Galileo states: "I
cannot express strongly enough my unbounded admiration for the greatness of mind of these
men who conceived and held it to be true . . . , in violent opposition
to the evidence of their senses" (16).) It is at this stage that the advantage of
empiricism is most easily observed, for reinterpretation and verification of sense
perception always awaits the next observation — possibly in a form not yet thought of
and on instrumentation not yet available. This advantage, though, is ambiguous. Truth is
always being approached but never reached. Knowledge is uncertain and theories are
unstable. Further observation and improved instrumentation inevitably lead to scientific
revolution (17).
Both in the interpretation of sense perceptions and in the
extrapolation of present sense observations to historical or future events (a form of
interpretation), empiricism relies on reason and the methods of rationalism. In the realm
of interpretation, then, empiricism is liable to the same sources of error that occur in
rationalism. Interpretation — though a valid scientific pursuit — must be done
with appropriate caution and an awareness of its fallibility.
EMPIRICISM: THE SECULARIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY
The schoolmen of the Middle Ages approached truth via the
rationalistic philosophy. This fact, though, hardly warrants Reichenbach's conclusion that
rationalism is the philosophy of religion, because Luther, as a religious leader of that
time, attacked the rationalistic philosophy of schoolmen (7). Both philosophical systems
are better considered as either areligious — neither supporting nor denying the
validity of Christianity — or more likely as religions in themselves — separate
from Christianity. Adulteration of Christianity with the false tenets of either of these
"religions" might give Christianity the appearance of depending on or based in
one of the respective philosophical systems. It may have been rationalism during the
Middle Ages but would probably be empiricism today. Pure Christianity, however, belongs to
neither philosophical system. It contains elements of both but goes beyond either.
The religious nature and structure of rationalism and empiricism are
well-defined. They have their gods (reason and the sense perception of nature) and their
laws (laws of logic and laws of nature). The parallels between the nature and structure of
empiricism and Christianity are fully developed by the noted contemporary scientific
philosopher Karl Popper (23) and C. F. Weizsacker (18). Weizsacker shows that the religion
of scientism (or empiricism, to use our terminology) is a product of the secularization of
Christianity. Thus the structure retains the principles of justice, tolerance, honesty,
etc. as a basis for the moral action of the scientific community. The concepts of freedom
and authority in empiricism (19) are closely allied to but are an adulteration of their
Christian counterparts. The function of problems (as unfulfilled expectations) and
experience (or experiment) in Christianity find their parallel in empiricism (23), and the
nature of scientific discovery can be considered analogous to the nature of conversion
— the discovery of God. The Christian structure of empiricism has thus remained more
or less intact, but the purpose has shifted from that of seeking spiritual success to the
seeking of material success.
Empiricism is a religion in its own right but has borrowed heavily from
Christianity. The validity of its existence depends on whether it has made any additional
contributions of its own or whether on the contrary it has merely usurped Christian
authority and apostatized.
CHRISTIANISM
Christianism refers to the religious system, tenets and practices of
Christians. The basis and uniqueness of Christianity is reconciliation with God — the
reestablishment of a relationship with God. Here the term christianism is specifically
used in referring to a third philosophical system. Although this system places value in
both reason and sense perception, it maintains that there exists knowledge that is
inaccessible to either human reason or sense perception. Truth is arrived at by utilizing
special revelation as well as reason and sense perception. Revelation is considered the
ideal form of knowledge and the ultimate authority is God.
Revelation is being told what truth is by someone that has special
information. Since it is truth direct from the source of all truth, in a sense, it should
be the most efficient method of arriving at truth. Nonetheless in christianism as in the
previous philosophical systems there are apparent problems. As in empiricism they come
from three sources: 1) apparent failure to improve the spiritual condition of man, 2)
assumptions on which christianism is based and 3) the nature of truth as conceived by
christianism.
Revealed truth is not of such a nature that it can be readily
incorporated. Thus it cannot be obtained by the mere memorization of facts or the
committing of certain Biblical passages to memory (although this may be necessary). In
christianism truth is conceived of as important only as it becomes impressed on the mind
and becomes an integral part of the individual and thereby facilitating change. It
requires not only an act of revelation on God's part but a creative act or acts on the
part of the receiver.
The assumptions of christianism are: 1) that God exists and 2) that His
revelations are trustworthy. To observe their parallel structure the two assumptions of
empiricism can be stated here as: 1) uniformity in nature exists and 2) the revelation of
nature through sense perception is trustworthy. As faith in inductive reasoning leads to
verification of the latter set of assumptions, so faith in the revelation of God leads to
the verification of the assumptions of christianism. The conclusions in both cases are
based on circular reasoning, and they are not considered in either case as logically
foolproof. The attempt here is only to show the parallelism (at this one level) of
empiricism and christianism. Progress in either system requires an initial act of faith.
Along with empiricism, christianism is confronted with an apparent
failure (actually anticipated by christianism) in its attempts to improve the spiritual
condition of men. Christianism has claimed too that it had special power and knowledge in
this area. As in empiricism, though, this failure is seen not as a failure of christianism
but rather the failure of the world community to accept its principles as directives in
everyday life. However, for two reasons, the prognosis for the ultimate success of
christianism in areas of moral values and ethics is infinitely more encouraging than it is
for empiricism. Christianism provides people with a special power (unavailable in
empiricism) for bringing about improvements in their spiritual condition. It also provides
an absolute standard of morality. By this provision good and evil in christianism becomes
analogous to the true and false of empiricism, thus making the rightness of an action
amenable to the experimental method. It is ironic that moral action not amenable to the
experimental method in the philosophical system of empiricism (which relies so heavily on
the experimental method) becomes experimentally verifiable in christianism (where the
ultimate authority is revelation).
While experiment (or experience) does not hold the dominant role in
christianism, it does serve important subsidiary functions. Ellen G. White states that the
spread of Christianity (in recent times) became most rapid when "Men became
dissatisfied with the results of rationalism and realized the necessity of divine
revelation and experimental religion" (21). It is each individual's personal
responsibility to test for himself the trustworthiness of special revelation through
experimental knowledge. Further, the correct understanding of revelation can only be
approached through the experimental application of the revealed principles to real-life
situations. These two applications of the experimental method lead to growth in faith and
action respectively.
In christianism the source of knowledge is a triumvirate of reason,
sense perception and special revelation. Final authority resides with infallible
revelation. Sanctified reason and sense perception are the tools for correctly applying
revealed principles.
SUMMARY
Christianism has the potential for success in improving the
spiritual condition of man, and, in addition, it provides a matrix within which to develop
the concepts of past, present and future material and physical phenomena. Empirical
science finds its proper position only within the context of christianism. Here it
functions in the capacity of general revelation. The scientific method (in the restricted
sense as used by most scientists) is the application of the general philosophy of
christianism to the study of natural phenomena. Viewed in this way it becomes meaningless
to speak of applying the scientific method to Christianity, since the scientific method is
part of christianism, and it has always been inherent (if not always applied because of
emphasis on spiritual values) in the philosophy of christianism.
The use of the scientific method in the context of the philosophical
system of christianism has advantages over its use in empiricism. The unity of truth makes
the position of the scientific method within a system which encompasses all truth the more
reasonable and reliable alternative. Further, revelation provides in christianism a source
of information (available for use in the scientific method) unavailable in empiricism. In
this context revelation is viewed as a precious source of knowledge to be used to its
fullest extent in the pursuit of truth and not as a restriction to freedom. Revelation is
an authority (similar but not identical to the general authority of Polanyi) (22)
providing guidelines for the most fruitful activity.
REFERENCES
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
| Search
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| News
| Resources |