Epistemology: Descartes, Locke, or Kant

Christiana Manthei

1pm

#3362

February 21, 2015

 Manthei 1

Epistemology: Descartes, Locke, or Kant

Rene Descartes, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant each developed unique epistemologies

that accurately describe the knowledge capabilities of humans. However, within the Christian

worldview, Kants theory holds up the best. When Descartes and Lockes epistemologies are

viewed within the Christian context, problems start to arise. Even though all three views have

issues, Kants ceases to be a problem when seen within the Christian worldview whereas

Descartes and Lockes only intensify.

Descartes epistemology reflected his rationalism; he thought that the only way humans

could really learn was through the use of reason. He saw a problem with relying on senses for

gathering information because senses fail. Faulty instruments lead to faulty data. Absolute truth

cannot come from something that is flawed. Reason does not fail; therefore, it is the source of

absolute truth. He believed that all humans were born with innate knowledge and humans

learned by remembering what they have in their minds already. Descartes came to this

conclusion by systematically doubting everything he knew until he got to the base of knowledge.

Everything came down to that fact that he was thinking/doubting; and, therefore, he had a mind.

I think, therefore, I am. His famous statement that reflects the basic principle of his search for

knowledge. He builds on this and concludes that god exists because only imperfect things doubt,

yet he has the idea of perfection. In his view, god stamped this idea in all humans when creating

them and god exists because humans have this idea. This god has a stable conception of morality

because he is perfect. If there is such a god (and there is, according to Descartes), then he would

not allow his creation to continually be deceived by their senses and reason when they think their

senses and reason are correct.

 Manthei 2

Descartes argument sounds solid except for two parts. First, he thinks that only senses

fail, and that reason does not. Second, there would be no purpose for the created world if all

knowledge was inside human minds. To the secular philosopher, this first point sounds

reasonable enough; however, to the Christian it should cause pause. Reason has every capability

to fail as senses do when the noetic effect of sin is considered. When Adam sinned, not only did

physical degradation begin to occur, but also mental degradation. Humankinds ability to think

and reason was effected in a negative way. When human reasoning is flawed the same way

senses are, Descartes reason-based epistemology starts to crumble. Within the Christian

worldview, reason and senses both fail; therefore reasoning from innate knowledge cannot lead

to all truth or knowledge. In regards to the second point, God would not have needed to create a

physical world for humans to live in and experience because all that knowledge would already be

in the human mind. Mankind would just need to remember what they already know instead of

experiencing the world. This would also leave no point for the Bible because all of Gods infinite

knowledge would be with humanity already. It may help people to remember faster by reading

the Bible, but God could help people along in their introspective reasoning to find His truth.

On the other side of this debate is John Locke who believes that no knowledge is innate.

His epistemology states that humans are blank slates when born knowing no information or

truth at all. He refutes Descartes idea by stating that if children and idiots do not know the basics

of knowledge or cannot use it (put it into words) then there is no innate knowledge. Locke is an

empiricist; he thinks that humans must use their senses to gain information. According to his

view, there are concepts or objects humans cannot learn about by just thinking about them; an

investigation has to take place to know about them. Locke does

 Manthei 3

believe that humans can learn from reason; however, humans reason from the data collected

through sensory experience. He was an advocate of representative realism which divides

everything into two categories: primary (observable facts or objective knowledge) and secondary

(feelings and opinions or subjective knowledge).

With this view of human knowledge, Locke leaves out an important concept when

dealing with primary things: all observable facts are interpreted by humans through their feelings

or opinions. Facts may be objective, but people are not because they are not perfect. Senses may

provide data, but even if the same data is presented, the truth that comes from it will differ when

two people look at it. If everyone uses their reason to interpret sensory data, then why place the

emphasis on primary information? Truth ultimately will not come from primary but from

secondary information. Even within the Christian worldview not everyone will come up with the

same conclusions from the same facts. For example, some Christians see the fossil record as

evidence of the Great Flood of Noah, and others view it as evidence of evolution over billions of

years. With Locke, there is nothing inside human minds that was not obtained from experiences.

Therefore, there is nothing with which to find the truth from observable evidences.

Kant merged rationalism and empiricism and came up with his own unique epistemology.

He believed that humans must have rational and empirical data to make sense of the world and

have knowledge. He thought that there were no innate ideas, but that humans had innate

structures in the mind to organize data. Humans experience the world, and their minds shape

those experiences around the structures in place. All data must fit within the bounds of space and

time because our minds use those as organizational tools for perception data. Our minds also

look for relations and patterns, and use those to classify information within the mind. This can
 Manthei 4

lead to a disconnect from the world as it really is, and human understanding of the world.

Individual minds shape knowledge rather than the world itself shaping what humans know. With

these ideas, Kant changed how knowledge was viewed. Knowledge became what a singular

human experience could say instead of a universal truth.

Individual experiences and structures lead to knowledge that is based upon what one

person perceives the world to be. Postmodernism and relativism come out of these ideas of

knowledge. Absolute truth and objective knowledge either do not exist or humans cannot attain

them. All truth comes from each individuals experience of the world, and how the structures in

their mind shape those experiences. This thought process becomes hazardous to the world

because it relativizes morality, and creates inconsistency in the world.

Even though postmodernism and relativism are significant problems that arise from

Kants epistemology, they cannot come out of Kants theory when it is viewed within the

Christianity. The Christian worldview does not allow for everyone to have their own ideas about

truth and all be correct. God is the source of absolute truth. Kants ideas fit wonderfully when

God is added to the mix. God created humankind to live in this world using what He gave them

(senses, reason, and minds capable of processing both) to be creative, imaginative, and

reasonable. He wanted humans to thrive in the world and to learn about Him and the world. God

instilled human minds with structures to help humans process their experiences and

surroundings; and He created the world in such a way to fit with those structures. Space and time

bind everything finite in this world together, and that is what humans use to categorize data.

In terms of truth and knowledge, God contains all truth within Himself; He reveals parts

of the truth to humans. One person may experience part of the truth about an object or idea, and
 Manthei 5

another person a completely different part of the truth about that object or idea. This does not

mean that either is wrong about their knowledge of the truth, but that in their finiteness, they

only know part of the truth. However, some people claim to know the whole truth, and they do

not. If their knowledge does not align with the truth of God, it is false.

Kants view of epistemology holds up the best within the Christian worldview because

its main issue of devolving into postmodernism is resolved when it is set in Christianity. Kants

view inside the Christian belief system includes God as the grounding for absolute truth, human

finiteness in processing capabilities, and reason along with senses providing knowledge. It is the

most complete argument because of all three aforementioned components. Descartes and Lockes

epistemologies leave room for doubt when set in a Christian light because human finiteness is

not accounted for, and only reason or senses provide the greatest amount of knowledge. All three

arguments carry ideas that are not necessarily wrong or right; however, Kants carries the best

whole argument of epistemology for the Christian.