Hume, Kant and Descartes Theories on God Existence Paper Example

#Question One: On Hume and his Empiricism

Empiricism differs from rationalism on the extent to which individuals are reliant upon their sense experience in their effort to gain knowledge. Rationalism, on Descartes' proposition of the existence of God, is premised, claims that there exist ways in which the concepts and knowledge of individuals can be derived, independent of their sensory experiences. On its part, empiricism holds that sense experience is the ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge, hence providing Hume the basis to argue against the idea of the existence of God. Rationalist views are developed in one of two ways. Firstly, rationalists argue that knowledge and concepts outstrip the information provided by sense experience. Secondly, rationalists construct accounts of how reason in some form or another offers further understanding of the world. Empiricism is based on complementary lines of thought (Swinburne, 4). Foremost, empiricists develop accounts of how information cited by rationalists is based on experiences. Secondly, rationalism attacks rationalist accounts of how concepts of knowledge are derived from reason. This paper explains how Hume, as an empiricist, would critique Descartes' 'proof' of the existence of God based on their perspectives of the relationship between sense experience and knowledge.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The first of Descartes's rationalist claims is captured by intuition and deduction thesis which holds that certain propositions in particular subject areas, such as that on the existence of God, are knowable to humans entirely through intuition alone while others are knowable through deduction from intuited propositions (Swinburne, 5). Based on this thesis, rationalists derive metaphysical claims such as that the existence of God is not objectionable. In addition to this, based on the same thesis, rationalists such as Descartes would vary the strength of their view through the adjustment of their comprehension of warrant. As such, warranted belief, in the rationalist perspective, would go beyond even the slightest doubt. Descartes's interprets warrant to be the belief of the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt (Gibson, 2). The existence of God is, therefore, believed beyond any reasonable doubt. Hume would reject the intuition and deduction thesis using the empiricism thesis which holds that there is no source of knowledge in the existence of God, or for the concepts used in the existence of God other than sense experience. He would rely on the empiricist perspective that, insofar as humans are knowledgeable in the existence of God, such knowledge can only be a posteriori, meaning that such knowledge can only result from sense experience (Himma, 3).

Hume would divide true propositions to the intuition and deduction thesis into two. His first category of human inquiry would be the 'Relations of Ideas.' The second category would be 'Matters of Fact.' Under the first category, Algebra, Arithmetic, and Geometry, which are all part of the sciences, would be necessary (O'Sullivan, 2). As such, every affirmation would need to either be demonstratively or intuitively certain. For instance, that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides in a right triangle is a proposition that expresses a relationship between sides of the geometrical figures would be demonstrable. Equivalently, that five times eight is equal to half of forty would express a relation between these numbers. Such propositions, Hume would posit, are discoverable by the mere operation of thought without any reliance on another object that is existent in the universe (O'Sullivan, 4). Certainly, this approach would be inapplicable to the existence of God in the rationalist sense. Regarding 'Matters of Fact,' Hume would hold that evidence of the truth of propositions need to be factually determined. As such, the contrary of every matter would be possible because it may be contradictory and conceived by the mind with the same distinctness and facility as if ever so conformable to reality.

Still, on intuition and deduction, rationalists maintain that it can offer knowledge of essential truths similar to those that exist in logic and mathematics. In the rationalist's perspective, such knowledge of the external world is not substantive (Dawkins, 1). Descartes would maintain that knowledge premised on mathematical propositions is only anchored on our ideas and cannot be employed in the understanding of the existence of God. However, Hume's response on the extrapolation of this argument towards morality would be presented through the analysis of human moral concepts on which knowledge is gained empirically, specifically of matters of fact. According to Hume, taste, and sentiment supersede morality and criticism in as far as objects of understanding are concerned (Himma, 6). So, regarding the concept of the values of God, which among other things are presented as representing ultimate beauty, Hume would maintain that moral or natural beauty is better felt than perceived. Alternatively, if Hume were to succumb to a bit of Descartes' proposition of what represents God concerning beauty, he would focus on mankind's general taste as the basis of inquiry and reasoning (Gibson, 7).

Hume would also bring forth his argument regarding quantification as an argument against the existence of God as forwarded by Descartes. In this regard, Hume would deny our possession of sufficient knowledge to further such an argument (O'Sullivan, 2). He would, for instance, ask if in taking any volume of school metaphysics or divinity, it would contain any abstract reasoning regarding number or quantity. Further, Hume would ask if such a line of reasoning would provide room for any experimental reasoning on the crucial element of existence and matter of fact (O'Sullivan, 3). Hume would thus conclude that, based on its deficiency of aspects that make the arguments tangible, such propositions represent nothing but illusion and sophistry.

Further, Hume would rely on logical positivism to thwart the idea of intuition and deduction (Himma, 5). Using this basis, he would seek to clarify the nature of meaning and language. Based on logical positivism, propositions would be weighted on two extremes. On one side would be the consideration of a proposition as a tautology that is entirely true based on the meaning of terms and the absence of any substantive information regarding the world. On the other end, the proposition would require empirical verification. Logical positivism holds that no a priori knowledge can exist of reality. Therefore, Hume would conclude that truth based on pure reason would only be admissible based on the absence of factual content which is against the principles of empiricism (Himma, 8). Anything to the contrary would require confirmation in sense experience. Descartes' proposition of the existence of God leans towards the former.

Another basis relied upon by Descartes in proofing the existence of God is the Innate Concept thesis. It posits that humans have some of the concepts which they employ in a particular subject area, such as that on the existence of God, as part of their rational nature (Himma, 10). Based on this concept, some of human's concepts are not gained from experience. As such, in his argument of the existence of God, Descartes points to the argument that concepts and beliefs are part of the rational nature of humans such that, while sense experiences may trigger a process by which they lead to consciousness, experiences do not provide the concepts or determine the implicit information (Swinburne, 6). Hume, with his empiricism, would deny the implication of the innate concept, that humans have innate ideas regarding the existence of God. The empiricist (Hume) would reject the belief in God as mere speculation given that it does not extend to what can be learned from experience.

Descartes advances the idea that the human idea of God originates from God. Descartes's Innate Concept holds that God is an infinitely perfect being (Guyer, 2). Hume would respond to this rationalist thinking, first, by highlighting the fact that to explain how someone would acquire innate qualities would be elusive to even the rationalist. He would follow this observation with counterexamples. Foremost, he would point that children and people from cultures that do not share in the concept of the existence of an innate God do not entertain the idea as it remains confusing. Secondly, Hume would mention the fact that there is no pressure on the part of humans to acquire innateness. What would then remain would be to explain how through experience humans get all their ideas.

On the rationalist view that the mind is not a vacuum in which experiences are recorded and referenced, hence the proposition that everything begins from the point of knowledge derived from God, Hume would respond with the example of a person who has had the privilege of exposure to all shades of blue but one over a thirty-year period (Gibson, 15). Upon being introduced to all the shades, including the one that was previously missing, Hume would insist that the person would outrightly acknowledge the sharp contrast between the new shade and those they are accustomed. As such, sense experience, in this case, related to sight, would be essential for the perception of the existence of something (O'Sullivan, 12).

The rationalist view held by Hume would maintain that existence is a matter of cause and effect. As such, substance and quality would need to derive their existence, and begin to exist from due application and operation of some being (O'Sullivan, 4). Therefore, some point of reference would need to exist for the existence of something to be considered. This idea is contrary to the innate quality of God forwarded by Descartes and would not be admissible. In Descartes' case, the understanding of the existence of God would have to be derived from God, meaning that a point of reference other than God would not exist (Gibson, 14). Incomparability, on which rationalism bases the idea of the existence of God does not allow for verification and explanation beyond a reasonable doubt, which would be the premise of Hume's empiricism (Dawkins, 16).

#Question Two: How Kant's Philosophical Stance Rests Between Hume and Descartes

Kant's version of the argument for the existence of God lies between Hume and Descartes' propositions. Kant argued that the theoretical arguments for the existence of God are not successful and that the 'postulate of practical reason' is a more rational argument (Kant, 1). In his view, a rational, moral being must at all time aspire to achieve 'the highest good' that is exhibited by a world composed of people who are both happy and morally good. Also, moral virtue must be the condition for happiness. Kant also held that a person could not rationally will for such highest good without harboring the belief that it is successfully attainable through moral actions. Kant's argument is both pro-Descartes' and pro-Hume's position on the existence of God whom he presents as a moral being that is responsible for the character of the natural world (Kant, 3). There is a great balance that Kant's argument finds between Descartes and Hume on the matter of morality and the existence of God.

Whereas Kant's and Hume's moral standings majorly lie parallel to each other, there are several vital connections between the standpoints of their arguments. For instance, Hume challenges Descartes's argument of the existence God based on the lack of a reference point on which an empiricist approach would be admissible (Guyer, 4). Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, argues that no argument for the existence of God can be based on reason alone. As such, it agrees and disagrees in equal measure with Descartes' argument while doing the same with...