Introduction

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, two schools of thought dominated philosophical inquiry: Continental Rationalism and British Empiricism. This paper will be concerned with comparing a representative from each school, Rene Descartes and David Hume, respectively. Although each philosopher built upon a different epistemological foundation , the philosophy of each is marked by skepticism, arbitrariness, and presuppositional inconSistency. Neither allows his philosophy to be founded upon and shaped by the self-attesting Word of God. Three key thrusts in their philosophy will be compared: epistemological method, substance and interaction, and the existence of God.

Epistemological Method

Rene Descartes (1396-1650)

Descartes craved absolute certainty. "1 always had an excessive desire to learn to distinguish the true from the false, in order to see clearly in my actions and to walk with confidence in this life." His primary goal was to pursue a certain, well ordered philosophy. ' Descartes' ideal of philosophy "was that of an organically connected system' of truths, that is to say, of truths so ordered that themind

passes from self-evident truths to other evident truths implied by the former" (Copleston 69).

Descartes, like the other Rationalists, believed in innate ideas. "Those propositions are both certain and true which present themselves dearly and distinctly to reason orman's consciousness" (Sahakian 13 7). These innate truths represent eternal truths and do not reqUire the verification of sense experience. Descanes held that since our senses "sometimes deceive us," we could not build a cenainsystem of philosophy on our sense perceptions. -Descartes identified five innate truths: God, ex nthtlo nihil fit, the law of noncontradiction, what is done cannot be undone, and dubito, ergo sum. Innate ideas coupled with mathematical fonnulas give us objective truth about the real world.

In order to achieve certainty, Descartes pursued methodological doubt. He set out to doubt everything which could possibly be doubted. He conduded with his famous statement, "Dubito, ergo sum." "I doubt, therefore I am." Descartes was cOnvinced that the self was the only foundation upon which man could construct a certain philosophy. God and the material universe could be doubted, but in the very act of doubting . these, man's existen.ce is confirmed. The self, then, is "the indubitable truth on which

14 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ~ October! November, 1994

Descartes proposes to found his philosophy" (Copleston93). Implicit in this reasoning is the unproven assumption that thinking requires a thinker.

Having laid the foundation for his philosophy, Descartes "came to the conclusion that I (he) might assume as a general rule that the things which we conceive very clearly and distinctly are tjUe." (Descartes,Meditattons 3) What did Descartes mean by "clear and distinct" ideas? "BUt the distinct is that which is so precise and different from all other objects that it contains within itselfnothing but what is clear." These clear and distinct ideas are known by intuition, "by which is meant a purely intellectual activity, an intellectual seeing or vision which is so clear and distinct that it leaves no room for doubt." (Copleston 73) From these intuitively known self-evident truths, we can deduce other truths which are also certain.

Descartes' philosophy was a dear break with the Aristotelianism of the past, and opened the door to the skepticism of the future. By making the mind of man the starting point of his philosophic system, Descartes revolutionized philosophy by subjectivizing philosophy.

"Indeed, the fact that his quest for absolute certainty should first lead Descartes to the self, that its existence J:,ecame the premise of his whole philosophy, was at once a symptom of the enormous change that had already occurred and a fotecast of the subsequent course of philosophic thought." Oones 668)

David Hume (1711-1776)

With John Locke and George Berkeley, Hume loathed the "abstruse speculation" of the learned. In order to free learning from these speculations, Hutne believed that "we must enquire

. seriously into the nature of human understanding." HUme was most

anxious that philosophical problems not be resolved by appealing to superstition and "metaphysicaljargon."

John Locke had already denied the innate ideas of the Rationalists. "Berkeley had denied the validity of any ideas abstracted from sensory experience" (Sahakian 161). It was now up to Hume to take his predecessors' empiricism to its logical conclusions. He denied that we lmow anything except our immediate sense perceptiOns. Hume held that it is impossible to know if there is anything beyondoursenseimpressions. "Hume was a thoroughgoing skeptic concerning the possibility of achieving certainty" (161).

We have already noted that Descanes pursued methodological doubt as the foundation for building his philosophical certainty. In his Enqu.iry, Hume comments on and destroys Descartes' method. While a moderate skepticism, doubt, is necessary if we are going to be objective in our philosophical pursuits and free ourselves from prejudice, a universal doubt of all our faculties and beliefs is destructive to that verycertaintywhich Descartes was trying to demonstrate.

There is a species of skepticism, antecedent to aU study and philosophy, which is much inculcated by Descanes and others, asa sovereign preservative against error and precipitate judgment. It recommends a universal doubt, not only of all our former opinions and principles, but also of ourvery faculties; of whose veracity, say they, we must assure ourselves, by a chain of reasoning, deduced from some original principle which cannot possibly be fallacious or deceitful. But neither is there any such original principle, which has a prerogative above others, that are self-evident and convincing; or if there were, could beadvanced astep beyond it, bu.t by the use of those very faculties, ofwltich we are supposed to bealready

diffident. The Cartesian doubt, therefore, were it ever possible to be attained by any human creature (as it plainly is not) would be entirely incurable; and no reasoning could ever bring us to a state of assurance and conviction upon any subject (Hume, Enquiry XII, i, emphasis mine).

Hume believed that all the perceptions of the mind could be divided into two classes: thoughts, or ideas, and impressions. All ideas are copies of sense impressions. The difference between the two is that our impressions are more vivid than our Ideas of those impressions. Hume denied that ourideas give us any object knowledge of the external world. We only know our impressions of the external world. Hume challenged all truths except those of mathematics and our sense perceptiOns. Whereas Descartes believed that innate ideas and mathematical formulas give us knowledge about the real world, Hume denied this, and held that what we lmow through our senses only tells us how we think, speak, and live, but can tell us nothing about the external universe, the self, or God.

Before moving on to their doctrine of substances and interaction, some concluding remarks seem appropriate. Descanes began with skepticism, and Hume concluded with skepticism. Descartes, with all of his disdain and distrust of the senses as the right foundation for philosophical speculation, retreated into the inner recesses of the self to develop this objective certainty . . He was both rational and irrational. He denied the reliability of his senses imd yet based his entire philosophy upon them.

The same can be said ofHume. He rationally condemns the very rationality which he abhors. Hume cannot pursue empiricism and skepticism without at the same time using his reason to determine that the

only thing he can trust are his senses. Thus, Hume's "Empirical Criterion of Meaning" does not pass its own imposed "criterion of meaning." Van Til has rightly said that within all unbelieving thought, there is a rationaV irrational dichotomy. The unbeliever irrationally (subjectively, skeptically) believes that man cannot know anything about ultimate reality. We are surrounded by absolute mystery. At the same time, he is dogmatically rational (objective, certain) when he claims that what the Bible says about ultimate reality cannot be true. The unbeliever has faith in ultimate mystery and ultimate rationality at the same time. However, one cannot have one's cake and eat it too.

Substances and Interaction

Rene Descartes

Descartes believed all that is real is either a substance or an attribute of a substance. A substance is "a thing which exists in such a way as to stand in need of nothing beyond itself' (Descanes, Principles of Philosophy). Descartes held that whenever we perceive an attribute of a subStance, heat, light, white, or black, there is a "present, unperceived substance." We do not perceive the substances themselves, but only the substances' qUalities.

Moreover, Descartes was a dualist. He taught that the universe is composed of two distinct and independently separate kinds of substances: mind and matter. There exists a thinking substance, the mind, and an extended substance, matter. This theory is known as Cartesian Dualism. This dichotomizing of mind and mailer makes certaintyim possible.

How do these two types of substances interact? While we perceive qualities of the substance, how can we from those qualities infer that the actual substance exists in the real world? It is here that Descartes was dependent on God, who created the universe, and

October! November, 1994 t THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 15

who because he is a good God, would not deceive man into thinking that the objective universe exists when it does not. (We will speak more of Descartes' doctrine of God later.) The mind and body interact through the pineal gland. There is a certain unity in the mind and body, which unity is created and sustained by God, which allows them to interact. However, Descartes has still not given a good philosophical answer to the dilemma of interaction. How can tWo substances, which are in two distinct realms interact at all? There remains an irresolvable tension between Descartes' knowing mind and material bodies.

Furthermore, even though Descartes relied upon the existence of the Christian God to guarantee the validity of man's thoughts and the existence of the material world, he could conclude that material things only "probably exist." They exist in that man can conceive of them clearly and distinctly.

And although I carefully examine all things, nevertheless I do not find that, from the distinct idea of corporeal nature I have in my imagination, I can necessarily infer the existence of any body .... And I ought not in the least degree to doubt the truth of those presentations, if, after having called together all my senses, my memory, and my understanding forthe purpose of examining them, no deliverance is given by anyone of these faculties which is repugnant to thatof any other: for since God is no deceiver, it necessari1yfollows thatlam not herein deceived. But because the necessities of action frequendy oblige us to come to a determination before we have had leisure for so careful an examination, it must be confessed that the life of man is frequendy obnoxious to error with respect to individual objects; and we must, in conclusion, acknowledge the weakness of our nature (Descartes, Meditations VI, emphasis mine).

Not only is Descartes' epistemology destructive of that vety certainty he was seeking to establish, but bymaking ideas asubjective state of mind between the world and the mind, he destroyed the certain existence of the external world. He also failed to discover any philosophically acceptable explanation as to how the mind can interact with matter. Descartes' rationalism destroys certainty and leaves man with skepticism, as he hopes that a God exists who guarantees the validity of human thoughts and the existence of the material world.

David Hume

According to Hume, a substance is nothing but a collection of simple ideas, that are united by the imagination, and have a particularname assigned to them, by which we are able to recall, either to ourselves or others, that collection (Hume, Treatise, I, i, 6).

Unlike Descartes, Hume had no problem with interactiOn between mind and matter. Since he denied that we could know anything beyond our sense perceptions, he did not believe that an objective proof for the existence of extemal objects existed.

The mind has never anything present to it but the perceptions, and cannot possibly teach any experience of their connection with objects. The supposition of such a connection is, therefore, without any foundation in reasoning (Hume, Enquiry XII, i).

It is important to recognize that Hume allowed his empiricism to lead him to total skepticism. Since all man can know are his individual sense perceptions, or simple ideas, there is no such thing as a substance, self, or identity. None of these three have ever been experienced. Therefore, they do not exist; or at least, we cannot prove that they exist. Hume went a step further than George Berkeley. He allowed his empiriCism to deny spiritual substances as well.

16 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ~ October/ November, 1994:

What about cause and effect? Surely we can say that one object or event acts causally on another. Our experience tells us this. Hume denied it. Once again, we see that Hume is willing to be governed by his presuppositions. All we can know is our individual sense perceptions moment bymoment. There can be no identity between these events. Hume admits that it seems that certain ideas are connected together. In his Enquiry, he identifies three possible principles of connection: resemblance, contiguity in time, and cause and effect. Hume writes that all reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of cause and effect (IV).

However, there are no demonstrable arguments which would prove cauSe and effect.

From causes which appear similar we expect similar effectS. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusion (IV).

Hume held that arguments forcause and effect from past experience beg the question. His argument goes something like this. All arguments regarding existence are founded on cause and effect. Our knowledge of cause and effect is based on experience. All of our experimental conclusions proceed upon the supposition that the furore will be like the past. Upon what is this last premise based? If you answer, "On the basis of experience," you beg the question.

It is impossible, therefore, that any argument from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the furore; since all these arguments are based upon the supposition of that resemblance" (IV).

How then do you explain the appearance of cause and effect? Custom or habit.

All inferences from experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of

reasoning (V,i) ... All belief of matter of fact or real existence is derived merely from some object, present to the memory or senses, and a customary conjunction between that and some other object (IV,i).

It is the habit of our mind to join one event to another, and 10 assume that the event is the cause of the other. In this way, we erroneously assume the future to be like the past. Hume held that it is impossible 10 discover a principle of necessary connection between one event and other. One event does follow another. Our senses confirm this. But it is impossible to discover any inward impression which suggests the idea of necessary causation. What Hume has just done is render a solution to the problem of induction impossible apart from submission to the triune God. In a universe governed by absolute chance, there is absolutely no philosophical reason for the future to be like the past.

When we say, therefore, that one object is connected with another, we mean only that they have acquired a connection in our thought, and give rise to this inference, by which they become proofs of each other's existence: a conclusion which is somewhat extraordinary, but which seems founded on sufficient evidence (VII, ii).

As you can imagine, Hurne's theory has devastating consequences. Prediction in science becomes an impossibility. Scientists can only report past events. There is no connection between past and future events. Every occurrence is a brand new occurrence. Had Hurne been willing, the logical conclusion of such a theory would have been to deny all meaning. Man could not communicate. Each word he uttered would be a new idea never

before heard orunderstood. But, Hume had a major dichotomy in his own thinking. He frequently alluded to the fact that philosophers must speculate and think one way, and man must act and live in another. We must act as if there is cause and effect, self, a matelial world. It is a psychological necessity! Hume himself admitted that it was impossible to live with his skepticism, so he would spend time with his friends and play backgammon. But, we must remember that however we must act for the sake of our sanity, there is no

Hume's arguments. And it is really a shame that many apologists still give the atheist so much credit. Through the grace and providence of the Lord jesus Christ, David Humeis a great gift to his church. We can stand on his shoulders and refute the enemies of the Gospel!!!

The Existence of God

Rene Descartes

Nowhere are the differences between Descartes and Hume so apparent as in their attitudes toward

the existence of the Christian God. As we noted earlier, the first steps of Descartes' epistemology was to affirm the existence of the self. From there, he proceeded to demonstrate the existence of God. Descartes argued that nothing less than God is suffiCient for our idea of God. Descartes realized that God was necessary to guarantee the

shred of demonstrable evidence which certain existence of the self and the gives us any certainry about the real world! This is an arbitrary distinction, which Hume has not empirically observed. It celtainly appears that Hume was sinking into those "abstruse speculations" which he loathed in the Rationalists.

By his own admiSSion, Hume is defeated. What Hume has done is proven that apart from the God of the Bible, it is impossible to prove the existence of anything. Wesimplymust assume that the future must be like the past. We must act as if there is a God. With Descartes, such a God as the Bible presents is a philosophical necessity away from which even the most blatant of atheists cannot run! He has done Christian apologists a great favor. He has shown us the logical outcome of an atheistic denial of the living God. It is too bad that neither Christians nor nonChristians have suffiCiently dealt with David

material world. The "self" is finite, but it has this idea of the infinite .. Therefore, God must exist. He argued that "necessity implies existence." Descartes argument also assumes that "there is at least as much reality in the cause of a thing as there is in its effect." However, this is an unargued philosophical bias in Descartes' system.

As philosophically bad as the above argument is, as a Christian apologist, I am far more interested in the terrible apologetic technique utilized by Descanes. Rene Descanes was a Christian. There can be no doubt of this. Moreover, he was anxious to demonstrate the certainty of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Listen to his own statements on the subject which are found in his prefatory address to the Dean and Doctors of Sacred Theology at the University of Paris.

October! November, 1994 ~ THE COUNSEL of ChaIccdon t- 17

For although to us, the faithful, it be sufficient to hold as matters of faith, that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it yet assuredly seems impossible to persuade infidels of the reality of any religion, or almost even any moral virtue, unless, first or all , those two things be proved to them by natural reason .. . and although it is quite true that the existence of God is to be believedstnce itis taught in the sacred Scriptures, and that, on the other hand the sacred Scriptures are to be believed because

unbeliever will always give you the philosophical rope by which you can hang him. As the Scriptures say, only if we self-consciously submit ourselves to the Words of truth can we know the truth and have certainty (Prov. 22: 17-21;]ohn8:31). AlthoughHume has his own problems in this area, he is quite right in criticizing Descanes on this very point.

To have recourse to the veracity of the supreme Being, in order to prove the veracity of our senses, is surely

.

was a matter of faith not reason. He considered those who tried to defend the Christian faith through the use of reasoned argumentation «dangerous friends" and "disguised enemies." Hume believed. that God can only be known "from the experience which we have of his productions, in the usual course of nature" (X, ii). However, this approach leaves us at the mercy of past observation and the testimony of others. · Given Hume'scommitment to skepticism regarding cause and effect,

they come from God (emphasis mine), nevertheless, this cannot be submitted to infidels, who would consider that the reasoning proceeded in a circle.

"De6carte6, like 60 many modern evidential apologi6t6, i6 de6troyed phil060phical/y

by Hume becau6e when it come6 to philofjophy, he

refu6ed to build hifj hou6e

the certain existence of the self and the material world, and the reliability ofwimesses, he would call all those who profess the Christian religion, fideists. God cannot be known through reasoning nor

I find it ironic that Descartes' statement concerning the self-attesting authority of the Scriptures to be so plain and clear, but that he finds it necessary to depan

through human experience. To be a Christian, a man must blindly submit himself to the Bible, and go against his experience. He held that

upon the rock, Je6u6 Chri6t." Christianity was a revealed '-_________________ ---' religion.

from the authority of God's Word in his effort to convince unbelievers of the ttuthfulness of the same. Descanes, like so many modem evidential apologists, is destroyed philosophically by Hume because when it comes to philosophy, he refused to build his house upon the rock,jesus Christ. He was left with nothing with which to challenge unbelieving thought.

As a result, Descanes em ploys an apologetic method so much in vogue today. He uses something else . to demonstrate the existence and authority of God. Such an approach seems to imply that man heeds God to guarantee the cenainty and validity of . his philosophical system, rather than as the self-contained, Triune God who himselfis the fountain of all knowledge and wisdom. It also denies that Christ has made foolish the wisdom of this world (I Cor. 1:20), and that the

making a very unexpected circuit. If this veracity were at all concerued in this matter, our senses would be entirely infallible; because that, if the external world be once called in question, we shall be at a loss to find arguments, by which we may prove the existence of that Being or any of his attributes (Hume, Enquiry XII, i).

bavid Hume

Unlike Descartes, David Hume had no desire to retain the knowledge of Godin his thinking, and as Paul says, he became blind in his imagination. Raised in a Christian hOl1le, Hume rejected the God of the Bible. Unlike Locke and Berkeley, Hume was willing to allow hiscommitment to empiricism . to le<ld him to total skepticism. He did not back down when dIscussing the · existence of God.

Hume held that the Christian faith

18 ~ THE COUNSEL of ChaIcedon ~ October! November, 1994

Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity; and whoever is moved by faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience (X,ii).

David Hume challenged the traditional, theistic proofs for the existence of God. Because Hume believed that we could know nothing beyond our individual sense perceptions, the ontological proof for God'sexistencewasmeaningless. This is a matter 0 f fact, and all man can know are his own experiences.

Because there is no causality in the world, there is no point in dIscussing an ultimate cause of a universe which we canneverexperience. ·Hume'sc<Jl11!1lents on this point are worth quoting:

Youseemnottoremember, that all your reasonings on this subject can only be drawn fmm effects to causes; and that every argument, deducted from causes to effects, must of necessity be a gross sophism; since it is impossible Jor you to Imow anything oj the cause, but what you have antecedently, not inferred, but discovered to the full, in the effect.. .. While we argue from the course of nature, and infer a palticular intelligent cause, which first bestowed, and still preserves order in the universe, we embrace a prtnciple which is both uncertain and useless. It is uncertain; because the subject lies entirely beyond the reach of human expertence. It is useless; because our knowledge of this cause being dertved entirely from the course of nature, we can never, according to the rules of just reasoning, return bac1'from the cause with any new inference, or mal'ing additions to the common and experi.encedcourse of nature, establish any new principles oj conduct and behavior (XI, emphasis mine).

Hume disposed of the teleological argument by denying that we can infer from one creative act that the God of the Bible is the designer of that universe. There could be numerous designers; there could be numerous worlds. Hume argued that the pain, brutality, and death in the world seriously undemlines the argument from design. When it came to arguing for the existence 0 f God, Hume was consistent with his empiricism. He destroyed the evidential apologetics of Butler's Analogy, and his refutation of the traditional usage of the theistic proofs for God's existence has not been refuted by those in our own day who are so in love with the apologetical method of the evidentlalist school!

However, Hume did not believe that there were any actual atheists.

Although the existence of God cannot be demonstrated through reason or experience, and although his existence would go against human experience, men must act "as iP' God exists. Once again, we see that Hume's philosophy is totally unworkable. He dichotomizes life and philosophy to such an extent that they are radically separate from one another. I think one way; I must live another.

Finally, Hume has some major inconsistencies in his arguments against God's existence. First of all, Hume speaks. On the basis of his empiricism, thisisimpossible. Words are meaningless except as momentary sense perceptions. Hume's division of speCUlative philosophy from daily living is arbitrary . He has a metaphysical ax to grind. He hates God and so he constructs an arbitrary, unw~rkable philosophy behind which he can hide from the God whom he knows exists!

Second, Hume constructs an ethiC. On the basis of his worldview, this is an impossibility. There is no such thing as right and wrong, good and evil! Moreover, Hume cannot pose the problem of evil as a problem with the teleological proof for God's existence, because on the basis of Hume's philosophy, there can be no such thing as good and evil. Hume, like all other philosophers, cannot escape his own ultimate presuppositions. He knows that God exists; and yet he suppresses that knowledge in hateful rebellionagainst Ahrlighty God. Furthermore, Hume stresses that we can know nothing about ultimate, metaphysical reality. Really? To make such a statement, Hume would have to know everything about ultimate, metaphYSical reality. Hume's own commitment to empiricism is itself, not empirical. As we said earlier, Hume is both an

empiricist and a skeptic: an irrationalist and a rationalist. Only faith in the Word of God, and submission to the epistemic Lordship of Chrtst can rescue Hume from his self-deluding skepticism.

Conclusion

Whatistheconclusionofthewhole matter? "Fear God, and keep his commandments:for this is the whole duty of man" (Eccles. 12: 13). Solomon's statement is true ethically, and it is true philosophically. Descartes and Hume end up in worse shape than they began because they refused to submit to the Lord of glory, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2: 3). Their philosophical systems, although built upon different foundations, leave their adherentsin darkness, skepticism, and arbitrariness. The only way to escape their dilemma, as well as the philosophical dilemmas of our day is to come to God, the Light in whom alone we see .light (Psalm 36: 9).

WORKS CITED

Brown, Colin. Philosophy and the ChristianFaith. Illinois: Inter Varsity, 1968.

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

Descartes, Rene, Benedict Spinoza, and Gootfried W.l.eibniz. The Rationalists. New York: Doubleday, 1960.

Jones, W.T. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: HBj, 1952.

Locke, john, George Berkeley, and

David Hume. The Empiricists. New York:

Doubleday, 1961.

Sahakian, William S. HistoryofPhilosophy. New York: Harper Collins, 1968.

Chris Strevel is currently Youth Pastor of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church. He is prepaJing for ordina­tion to the Gospel ministry while pursuing his studies through the Southern Califomia Center for Chris­tian Studies.

Octoberl November, 1994 r- THE COUNSEL of CbaIcedon r- 19