An Enquiry Concerning What?

I'm taking a philosophy class, so that's cool. I enjoy it. Three weeks ago the instructor assigned a short essay. We were to choose from a list of philosophic concepts, explain the one we chose, and then give reasons for either agreeing or disagreeing with it. The list was full of topics that we had learned in class, so nothing was super unfamiliar, but the whole "agree/disagree" thing was a little rough. For example, here's what I chose:

Explain Hume’s “empirical test” of ideas. How do ideas arise? What does Hume’s test imply about ideas such as God and the soul? Do you agree with Hume’s empirical test? Why, or why not?  

Oh. Sure. Let me form a yes or no stance on empiricism. No big deal. Sarcasm, that was. Yoda. What? Seriously though, here's why that is a big deal: Hume's copy principle (empirical test) is the golden child of empiricism. Now, empiricism states that knowledge is gained through experience; everything we know, we gathered after birth. It stands in direct contrast to rationalism, which holds to reason and innate ideas as our main source of knowledge. They're two opposing schools of thought. And apparently I'm supposed to agree with one or the other. Considering the centuries of development on both sides, I hardly think I'm adequately informed to kick one to the curb.

I ended up throwing cosmology into the mix and calling it good. Honestly, I think it's a horrid idea to attempt one argument or the other in a two page essay, but the instructor didn't mind my little cosmological rabbit trail that wasn't actually...very...cosmological. In fact, Owen, you would know better, but I believe arguing God in relation to His incommunicable attributes would be an ontological argument. I think Anselm used something like that in his theistic proofs. But I did bring it back to creation, so maybe it was a sad combination of the two.

Anyway, here's the essay for what it's worth. If anything, you can learn a little about Mr. Hume.

*ahem*

Scottish philosopher David Hume stands as a monumental figure in the development of modern philosophical thought. His work A Treatise of Human Nature and its revision, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, helped establish empiricism – one of the two primary epistemological schools of thought. In classic empiricist form, Hume’s fundamental concept maintained that all true knowledge is gained through sensory experience alone. In other words, immediate, physical sense experience is the sole source for true ideas.

Hume defined the empirical source of knowledge through his Copy Principle, stating that each and every authentic idea is a copy of some past impression – a sensory experience – or a combination of multiple ideas that also are copies of impressions. One might test the legitimacy of an idea by pinpointing the impression from which the idea is copied. This empirical test led Hume to reject the rationalist concept of innate ideas and, instead, affirm John Locke’s Tabula Rasa, or “blank slate” state of mind. That is, a newborn mind is a fresh canvas awaiting strokes of life experience and sensation. Ideas arise through that sensation and create what Hume called in Section VI of A Treatise of Human Nature, “a collection of different perceptions”, or the mind. This position, therefore, argues that no one is born with a pre-established knowledge of divinity, free will, or the soul.

Indeed, Hume’s empiricist foundation leaves very little room for God or an eternal soul. This is particularly evident when, in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he states the aforementioned empirical test: “When we entertain, therefore, any suspicion that a philosophical term is employed without any meaning or idea…we need but enquire, from what impression is that supposed idea derived? If it be impossible to assign any, this will serve to confirm our suspicion”. When we recognize that ideas of God and the soul are generally considered to be innate, the empirical test quickly labels them as illegitimate. After all, as Hume would contend, we have no immediate sense experience of a perfect deity, and thus no genuine idea of one.

The empirical test, however, is flawed insofar as it neglects cosmological arguments. For when an idea is traced to an impression, it is necessary to assume that the impression was experienced physically – be it internally or externally. The issue arises when one takes a step past the physical world and considers its origin. In the case of an eternal creator, we must assume that its existence is independent of immediate physical sensation. Granted, Hume held that we acquire ideas of God from “reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness and wisdom”.  However, God as a creator cannot be derived from a collection of augmented human characteristics, for such a deity, in fact, possess incommunicable attributes. That is, qualities that are unique to his being and unshared by anyone else.

Understanding the Copy Principle and using the empirical test is very practical for examining the legitimacy of ideas. In his Enquiry, Hume writes, “By bringing ideas into so clear a light we may reasonably hope to remove all dispute, which may arise, concerning their nature and reality”. This goal is admirable. But physical experience alone cannot account for anything beyond itself. As a result, the empirical test fails to accurately refute a divine source of the physical world we experience. So while it is practical in many ways, we cannot depend on the empirical test to provide or disprove metaphysical knowledge.