Hume and Descartes on God, Miracles, and Knowledge
This paper examines the philosophical positions of David Hume and René Descartes on the existence of God, the credibility of miracles, and the nature of human knowledge. Drawing on Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Descartes' epistemological framework, the paper argues that both thinkers — despite differing significantly on the reliability of the senses — ultimately conclude that belief in the supernatural lacks rational or empirical justification. The paper traces Hume's skepticism toward scriptural testimony and miraculous claims, contrasts it with Descartes' dream-based doubt about perceptual certainty, and considers how both positions challenge theological absolutism.
- Introduction: Theology, divine intervention, and Hume's rejection
- Hume's Empirical Skepticism and the Problem of Miracles: Hume disputes supernatural knowledge and scriptural testimony
- Descartes, Dreams, and the Limits of Human Knowledge: Descartes uses dream doubt to question perceptual certainty
- Where Hume and Descartes Diverge: Contrasting positions on senses and miraculous claims
- Conclusion: Both thinkers deny rational basis for God belief
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses direct quotations from both Hume and Descartes (via Newman) to anchor its analytical claims, grounding interpretation in primary source evidence rather than assertion alone.
- It establishes a clear thesis early — that belief in the supernatural is irrational — and uses the Descartes counterpoint to test and refine that thesis rather than simply repeat it.
- The conclusion draws both thinkers into a shared conclusion despite their differences, demonstrating comparative philosophical reasoning rather than isolated summary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: it identifies a shared conclusion (God's existence lacks rational basis) while carefully distinguishing the reasoning each thinker uses to reach it. This technique — agreeing on a destination while mapping different routes — is particularly effective in philosophy essays because it shows nuanced engagement with each thinker's framework on its own terms before synthesizing them.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a five-part structure: an introduction establishing the theological context, a section developing Hume's skeptical position with quoted evidence, a counterpoint section introducing Descartes' dream-based epistemology, a reply section that returns to Hume's strongest claims and contrasts them directly with Descartes, and a brief conclusion that reconciles both positions. This structure mirrors a classical argument–counterpoint–reply format common in undergraduate philosophy writing.
Introduction
A great many ideologies produced throughout human history are connected to divinity and the idea that God, or some other divine force, will selectively intervene in human affairs in order to bring about otherwise impossible events. Any such theology must be underscored by a belief that some higher force — one with a direct interest in the affairs of humanity — both exists and has the capacity to manipulate events accordingly. This is an idea that British philosopher David Hume categorically rejects in Section X of his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
Works Cited
Hume, D. (1910). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Harvard Classics, 37. P.F. Collier & Son.
Newman, L. (1999). Descartes' Epistemology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.