The Blank Slate Theory

In his work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Christian empiricist philosopher John Locke argues against the concept of innate knowledge, innate knowledge referring to awareness of something that is implanted in us from birth.  Locke posits that widespread disagreement about what constitutes innate knowledge helps illustrate that there is no such thing.  The idea that humans are born devoid of any innate knowledge is called the blank slate theory.  According to this belief, human minds enter existence totally empty and obtain knowledge by experience, with that knowledge amassing over time as the number of experiences increase.

First, I need to address Locke's argument.  Competing claims of innate knowledge cannot all be simultaneously correct, but disagreement does not mean there is no such thing as innate knowledge.  One must commit the non sequitur fallacy ("it does not follow") to say otherwise.  A being with the same epistemological limitations as myself simply cannot falsify all claims about humans being born with certain types of innate knowledge.

I must also acknowledge the possible role instinct plays with regards to this issue.  Instinct is an innate internal urge or drive for something.  Many people acknowledge the presence of instinct in biological creatures, and some definitions of instinct might qualify as descriptions of innate knowledge.  Even if instinct is not defined as such, natural instincts could easily lead to discoveries of actual knowledge.  An experience of an appetite for food or sex could lead to or at least facility obtaining knowledge about those things, for instance.  I must clarify, though, that before an instinctual desire is fulfilled one could only have innate awareness that the instinctual desire exists, not that anything exists which might sate it.

An example of a Biblical passage that some hold teaches innate knowledge is Romans 2:14-15, a cluster of verses that describes how humans can sense an inward pull towards perceived moral obligations.  No, experiences of conscience do not prove either that one's conscience is calibrated properly or that right and wrong even exist; conscience does not truly grant objective moral knowledge, only a subjectively compelling sense of morality [1].  But the Bible still teaches that people (or at least a significant portion of humans) find conscience itself is "written on their hearts", with the perceived demands of objective morality truly seeming compelling and powerful.

This leads me to comment that innate perceptions may not necessarily correspond to objective reality.  But that does not affect the fact that innate perceptions, instincts, or knowledge is logically possible.  I simply do not remember my first days after I was born, so I receive no assistance from memory in investigating this matter.  The important thing, regardless of what adherents to the blank slate hypothesis claim, is that I do now have actual knowledge of things that are absolutely certain and things that truly seem probable to me, and thus, what concerns me most is the knowledge I have now and not whether or not I was born with certain ideas.


Summary of observations:
1. The blank slate hypothesis is not provable, as highlighting the impossibility of conflicting claims about innate knowledge being true does not demonstrate that not a single one of them is true.
2. Instincts can be considered examples of innate knowledge, although what specific instincts exist and the forms they take may be difficult to identify.
3. One can have innate awareness of certain perceptions (i.e. conscience as Romans 2 describes) without having innate awareness of whether those perceptions conform to reality.


[1].  You can read about this more here:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html