Creation Questions

Tag: History

  • The Five Major Challenges To Hume’s Skepticism

    The Five Major Challenges To Hume’s Skepticism

    In David Hume’s book A Treatise of Human Nature, he constructs what he calls the science of man. One cannot rightly understand any other species of science before this foundational science. The most radical and paradigm-shifting realization, for Hume, is that if all that exists are impressions and ideas, there are no grounds to truly justify putting any two impressions together causally, no matter how we might be inclined or disposed to do so, either by vulgar habit or through any rational means. This profound insight — that impressions are singular moments of a particular feeling with no relation except that of imagination — forced philosophers (including critics such as Reid) to deeply re-evaluate theories of knowledge acquisition and general epistemic concerns.

    Reid says this in his dedication for An Inquiry into the Human Mind, “His reasoning appeared to me to be just: there was therefore a necessity to call in question the principles upon which it was founded, or to admit the conclusions.” However, there are more reasons than the mere founding principles to reject Hume’s rationale. Drawing on a recent and rigorous debate, here are the five major critiques that make me skeptical of Hume’s skeptical conclusions.

    1. Circular Reasoning (The Problem of Induction)

    Hume uses causal reasoning (observing past regularities and inferring principles about human nature) to undermine the rational basis of causal reasoning. Suppose Hume justifies the separation of cause and correlation from experience, and he uses the distinction to describe and also argue against cause-and-effect as existing outside the mind (outside a relation/idea). In that case, he is making a circular argument. The implications of this circular reasoning are profound, as it challenges the very basis of our understanding of cause and effect. If belief in necessary connection is understood apart from reason, then there is equally no reason to undermine causal reasoning. The basis for an essential connection is reason and logical deduction. Thus, we can infer it from particular impressions, or it is not, and thus we can infer it based on specific impressions. Nothing falls on his skeptical rebuttal. You cannot easily conceive of a cause without an effect, any more than a premise without a conclusion.

    2. The Self-Refutation of Assertion and Communication

    The fact that Hume is making an argument refutes his point entirely. On what grounds can Hume either 1. make a distinction between kinds of necessity or 2. place either relations or matters of fact squarely into one category? Unthinkable things are equivalent to non-existent things, according to Hume. Therefore, you cannot make claims about external reality with reference to non-existent concepts. Even concepts of the imagination must exist by virtue of real impressions that have newly associated connections. Where are the impressions for a law such as non-contradiction?

    Hume believes we cannot know a table exists, so this is not simply descriptive. His outward attempts to convince others, and the fact that he has followers who support his theory, testify against him. Psychological interpretations of reality are false simply because meaning exists apart from the mechanical goings-on of the mind, and that meaning is communicable. The very fact that Hume is articulating his theory indicates such. Even a phenomenological view is better than psychologism.

    3. The Ad Hoc Assumption of External Existence

    Hume asks for the impression that gives rise to the idea of continuation and external existence separate from our perception, but where does he get the idea of continuation and external existence in the first place? If everything is sense impressions, how is he arguing against anything contrary to sense impressions? This is all very ad hoc. Calling concepts fabrications of the imagination and such. Does he not realize that by doing so, he’s condemning his very principles, which allowed him to condemn continuation and external existence?

    4. The Active Nature of Impressions, Not Raw Data

    There is also another popular critique of Hume. That is the notion of the tree falling in the woods. The tree falls without making a sound. A sound is something that can only be heard. The point being, Hume’s impressions already imply cause-and-effect before they are even interpreted or registered. Here is another thing. If two people hear a recording of an orchestra, but one of them has finely tuned ears for orchestration while the other does not, then, on first glance, the one with finely tuned ears will hear the counter-melody played on the violin. The one that does not is not surprising. However, Hume would have to acknowledge this as an impression reflected, interpreted by relation (all of which in a near-instant), yet that implies a higher acuity has been granted to the one in the realm of a particular sense. If sense is raw data, and therefore something that you receive and not create, it stands to reason that you should not be able to improve in the tacit reception of raw data. This analogy highlights the inherent contradictions in Hume’s argument, suggesting that our senses are not passive receptors of information but active interpreters that can improve over time.

    5. The Flawed Equivalence of Conceivability and Possibility

    A rigorous philosophical objection to Hume’s conclusion on necessity centers on his premise that what is conceivable is logically possible. Hume argues that because we can conceive of a cause without its usual effect (e.g., imagining the sun not rising) without contradiction, the necessary connection is not a truth of reason, but of habit. However, this conflates a psychological possibility (what we can imagine) with a metaphysical possibility (what could actually happen in reality). Contemporary critics argue that our inability to conceive of a contradiction in a causal break may reflect our epistemic limitations —our ignorance of deep, non-obvious natural laws —rather than a statement about the world itself. Therefore, the supposed “freedom” of the imagination that underpins his skepticism is merely a function of our ignorance of actual natural necessity, and his argument fails to prove that the necessity is truly absent from the objects themselves.

  • The Nature of Society: Where We Stand as Individuals

    The Nature of Society: Where We Stand as Individuals

    From my perspective, society isn’t some grand, top-down invention or a purely artificial construct. Instead, it’s a natural outgrowth of human interaction, an organic creation. This organic origin gives society a fascinating, dualistic nature: it’s both a source of conflict and a fertile ground for cooperation, a necessary evil, and a crucial tool for individual flourishing. I see these seemingly opposing ideas not as separate or contradictory, but as deeply intertwined.

    The inherent conflict within society comes from the undeniable reality of human imperfection. As fallen creatures, individuals will always have competing interests, differing desires, and a natural lean toward self-interest and corruption. This doesn’t mean we’re in a constant state of overt warfare, but rather a perpetual tension over resources, values, and the direction we take as a collective. Yet, our natural inclination to interact also fosters cooperation. Things like specialization, security, the pursuit of knowledge, and companionship make a collective invaluable. Society, then, emerges from this very tension—the delicate balance between individual will and collective order.

    Our Place as Individuals in the Social Fabric

    An individual’s relationship to society is equally nuanced. In my view, the paramount command for each of us is to love our neighbor and orient our lives toward God. This core Christian ethical responsibility dictates an outward-looking concern for others, yet it critically anchors responsibility within our own sphere of influence. While the collective good is undeniably important and should be prioritized when we can genuinely affect change, our ultimate responsibility isn’t to the totality of society—what Dostoevsky called ‘general love of humanity’—but for what we can directly control: the self.

    This means cultivating personal virtue, making ethical choices in daily interactions, and contributing positively within our own communities. Society, in turn, has a duty to its members, but this duty is reciprocal. It flows from the recognition that individuals have responsibilities toward each other. It’s not a top-down benevolence, but a framework of mutual obligation.

    Understanding Freedom and Authority

    Freedom, in this context, isn’t absolute license. All freedom is either freedom from or freedom to. We should possess freedom from things that cause harm—whether it’s physical violence, coercive manipulation, or the unjust suppression of conscience. Equally, we should have the freedom to choose things that benefit us, to pursue our vocations, and to act on good impulses. Crucially, to exercise these freedoms, we must also be free to express our perceptions about what’s beneficial and harmful, and to act on the former while restricting the latter.

    Broader, or higher, societal authority should be clearly codified into law, discriminating against no one group. These laws should ideally be general rules of conduct, equally applicable to all, providing a predictable framework for individual action rather than dictating specific outcomes.

    This idea comes from a fundamental principle of governance, which I derive from thinkers like Hayek and Mill: broader authority—the state or collective institutions—should err on the side of fewer restrictions and regulations. Its role is to establish and enforce the rules of the game, not to direct the play itself. Conversely, narrower authority, extending to its most narrow point in the self, should err on the side of being too restricted. This means exercising personal moral discipline and self-governance.

    This plays out with a clear distinction: the king declares that murder is forbidden, establishing a universal legal boundary, while the individual forbids hate in his own heart, engaging in the continuous, internal struggle for virtue. The former creates external order; the latter cultivates internal righteousness. The moment this moral hierarchy is dismembered is likely the same moment society begins to decline.

    The Unending Struggle

    Human beings are fallen creatures, and none of this will ever play out as a utopian vision. We’re not so malleable, in a Marxist sense, that our nature can be entirely shaped by policy or environmental conditions; there are inherent tendencies and proclivities that resist perfect social engineering. Nor are humans so inherently good that they don’t tend toward corruption when power is consolidated or accountability is removed. While humans are capable of immense wonders, they are equally capable of great atrocities. It’s not wrong to call humanity bad in its fallen state, but to call us irredeemable would be antithetical to the Christian ethos that informs my worldview.

    The telos of man, our ultimate purpose, is to obey God’s commands. Ideally, institutions should facilitate that process, creating an environment conducive to moral flourishing. However, due to human imperfection and the inherent limitations of collective structures, institutions are, perhaps, not capable of reaching that ideal state in their earthly manifestation.

    In many ways, I identify strongly with Friedrich Hayek’s arguments in The Road to Serfdom. His critique of collectivist policies and central planning resonates with my understanding of human nature and the necessary boundaries of societal authority. Hayek meticulously demonstrates how attempts to centrally plan society toward specific, desirable ends, even with the best intentions, inevitably lead to a loss of individual liberty and an escalation of coercive power and totalitarianism. I maintain a tentative rule-of-law position while I wait for the Lawmaker.

    Further Reading:

    • Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov
    • Hayek, F. A. The Road to Serfdom
    • Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto
    • Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty