René Descartes Proof For The Existence Of God
In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes outlines his proof for the existence of God. However, philosopher David Hume offers a rebuttal in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that questions not only Descartes’ proof for God but also his notion concerning how humans acquire knowledge. In what follows, I will examine Descartes’ proof for God’s existence and then argue that Hume would disagree with it. Furthermore, Hume responds to Descartes' claims that God is the source of our knowledge by asserting that we are limited to knowledge based on experience.
After analyzing Descartes’ proof for God’s existence, I conclude that Hume would disagree that Descartes proves God’s existence. In his Third Meditation, Descartes attempts to …show more content…
Hume provides an argument against Descartes, who believes the existence of God determines our capacity for knowledge. Descartes explains that he “must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver.” Furthermore, he posits that if he is uncertain of God’s existence, he “can never be quite certain about anything else” (Descartes 25). On the contrary, Hume believes that our knowledge derives from “compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience” (Hume 11). Moreover, Hume states that “all our ideas [...] are copies of our impressions” (Hume 11). He defines impressions as “all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will” (Hume 10). Therefore, Hume sees our capacity to have knowledge as limited by our experiences. He illustrates this concept by providing an analogy. The analogy proposes a situation where “from a defect of the organ [...] a man is not susceptible of any species of sensation.” In this scenario, due to a lack of sensing experience, the same man “is as little susceptible of the correspondent ideas” (Hume 12). Through this analogy, Hume demonstrates how human knowledge and imagination are both acquired and limited by the external world and how we sense it. Hume therefore opposes Descartes notion that God plants the seed for human knowledge and imagination. However, both would agree that these manifestations of the mind derive from somewhere other than ourselves. They simply disagree upon what our source
After analyzing Descartes’ proof for God’s existence, I conclude that Hume would disagree that Descartes proves God’s existence. In his Third Meditation, Descartes attempts to …show more content…
Hume provides an argument against Descartes, who believes the existence of God determines our capacity for knowledge. Descartes explains that he “must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver.” Furthermore, he posits that if he is uncertain of God’s existence, he “can never be quite certain about anything else” (Descartes 25). On the contrary, Hume believes that our knowledge derives from “compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing the materials afforded us by the senses and experience” (Hume 11). Moreover, Hume states that “all our ideas [...] are copies of our impressions” (Hume 11). He defines impressions as “all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will” (Hume 10). Therefore, Hume sees our capacity to have knowledge as limited by our experiences. He illustrates this concept by providing an analogy. The analogy proposes a situation where “from a defect of the organ [...] a man is not susceptible of any species of sensation.” In this scenario, due to a lack of sensing experience, the same man “is as little susceptible of the correspondent ideas” (Hume 12). Through this analogy, Hume demonstrates how human knowledge and imagination are both acquired and limited by the external world and how we sense it. Hume therefore opposes Descartes notion that God plants the seed for human knowledge and imagination. However, both would agree that these manifestations of the mind derive from somewhere other than ourselves. They simply disagree upon what our source