How Can You Know For Sure? (Formal Paper)

Stephen Thornton

   

Dr. Joshua Fullman

Great Books III

October 12, 2019

How Can You Know For Sure?

Descartes’ A Discourse on Method focuses on the idea that reason is superior to faith. In the book we find that Descartes is trying to discover truth, and in doing so he also discovers what is morally true. Descartes is said to be the first modern philosopher who used the practice of skeptical critique as a means to shut out all certainty with exception to the thinking ego (Woo 47). In the process of discovering what is morally true, Descartes realizes that before he can begin to argue what is true he must argue what is real. Therefore, he questions himself and his own existence, making sure that he himself is real. By questioning his own reality, Descartes makes the famous quote, “I am thinking, therefore I exist” (Descartes 29). This statement brings the reader to the realization that in order to think, one must be real, because without thought there would be no consciousness of reality. If what is true can be known using The Method, then Descartes is also able to discern what is morally good using The Method. In other words, The Method gives the reader a guideline to follow. If men have boundaries and stay on track, then they will reach the goal much faster than if they were allowed to roam aimlessly. If we can use The Method to find what is true, then we can use it to prove the existence of miracles. It is a battle to defend the things unseen, but “we are making progress, one small step at a time” (Boethius 39). In  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume’s  argues from an empiricist’s point of view, specifically addressing the controversy of miracles. He dissects many of the concepts that have been believed throughout human history and measures them up to his standards of what is real or imaginary. From the perspective of Hume, miracles do not happen because they do not hold strong enough evidence to prove their existence, and if he is right, then Christianity into a house of cards and Hume has removed the bottom card. Though Hume rejects the existence of miracles, Descartes’ method can be used to prove objective truth and the work of God through miracles.

In order to discover what makes Descartes’ findings true, we must first look at his method of knowing what is true. Descartes has a four-step process with which to make his 

conclusions. The first step is the “step of facts” as some might say, to “never accept anything as true that [he] did not incontrovertibly know to be so” (Descartes 17). What Descartes is trying to accomplish by the previous statement is avoiding all prejudice and premature conclusions (Descartes 17), and to include nothing in his judgments other than which has made itself so clear and distinct that he would have no reason or logical, reasonable chance to doubt it. The second step is a “problem solving step.” In this step Descartes’ goal is to “divide all the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as many as were required to solve them in the best way” (Descartes 17). No one eats a whole cake in one bite. Some might call the third step the “step of order.” Descartes’ primary focus in this step is to “conduct his thoughts in a given order, beginning with the simplest and most easily understood objects, and gradually ascending, as it were step by step, to the knowledge of the most complex; and positing an order even on those which do not have natural order of precedence” (Descartes 17). This way the reader should focus on the easiest part of his problem and work his way up to the more complex parts of his problem. Step four could be called the “big picture step.” Descartes describes the fourth and final step as being one in which he “was to undertake such complete enumerations and such general surveys that I would be sure to have left nothing out” (Descartes 17). This way the reader should finally revise and review their conclusions to make sure that they have been thorough and not left anything out. 

Descartes says that we have the ability to know that we exist based on  our ability to think about ourselves thinking. If one has the ability to think about themselves thinking, then they can know that they are in at least some form of reality. Descartes says that the only known truth in the statement is that in order to think one must exist (Descartes 29). From this realization, Descartes concludes that anything that can be known clearly and perceived distinctly is true, but that it can be very hard to identify what we conceive to be distinct (Descartes 29). The search for moral truth begins when Descartes decides to look for the source from which he had learned to think. Descartes’ realization that he exists because he has the ability to think brought him to the incontrovertible realization that there must be a nature that was more perfect than him that created him (Descartes 29). This incontrovertible realization completes the first step of The Method. Descartes then goes on to analyze  his own reasoning. He eliminates the flaws in his argument and puts his thoughts in order, beginning with the simple parts of his philosophy. Then he ascends to the more complex and difficult parts. He says that the realization that there must be a nature that is superior or more perfect than human nature would naturally point to the idea of God because it is inherent that if man was created that the capacity of the man can be no greater than that of his Creator. Therefore, the capacity of the Creator must be greater than the capacity of the man. Therefore, if there is a perfect God, there must be a perfect law by which we must abide. The elimination of flaws and the structure of order completes the second and third steps of The Method. Descartes then paints the big picture and makes a point to leave no loopholes in the argument in order to complete the fourth step of The Method. He eliminates the loopholes by saying that the reason that a perfect law should exist would come from the fact that God is more perfect in nature than we are since He created us. If humans make up moral or ethical standards, then it must mean the concept of standards came from God because the creation is only as perfect and knowledgeable as the Creator created it to be. Therefore, God will have standards as well. God having standards is explained clearly in Scripture in Matthew 5:48 (NKJV), which reads, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

Knowing that objective moral truth exists because of a perfect God, we switch our  to Hume. Hume claims that miracles do not happen because there is not strong enough evidence to support them. We, as humans, can only think or imagine what we have experienced with our senses (Hume 79). Anything that we think is a direct result of what we have already seen or experienced in some way. The same is true  for what we can know for certain physically. Therefore, Hume says that the senses carry more evidence than the testimonies of the authors of The Bible because we cannot experience what the eye-witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus claim to have experienced for themselves. If Hume is right about the miracles of Christ being impossible, then he will have completely destroyed the entire argument of Christianity. Christianity believes entirely in the miracles of the Old and New Testament. Its foundation is built on one miracle - the resurrection of Jesus Christ – but if one can use The Method to know that objective moral truth exists because of God then one must be able to use The Method to know that miracles are true as well.

            The first step of the method would be to find what is incontrovertibly true. Miracles cannot be incontrovertibly true. A miracle is an act that defies the known laws of nature and may be reasonably attributed to the intervention of a deity, and many have been claimed to be real throughout history. The next step is to divide the problems in the argument up into different parts. There are three main problems with miracles. The first problem is that they have not been seen and will not be seen by most people in their lifetime. Therefore, they do not happen regularly. The next problem is that the universe is set up in an orderly fashion and was designed to remain constant in its function. And the last problem is that the testimony of any given person is not as strong an evidence as our senses. The next step here is to discuss the problems of the argument in order from least complex to most complex. Therefore, the first problem is the problem of how often miracles occur. Even though most people will not claim to have seen a miracle in their lifetime, it does not mean they do not happen. The next problem would be the testimony of The Bible. The Bible’s miracles are recorded from testimony, meaning that the apostles could have lied for personal gain. The apostles could have lied in order to create their own religion, but this belief seems outlandish given that anyone with access to a Bible has the ability to know what happened to them. The apostles were all killed for Christianity in very brutal fashion, and there are hundreds of copies of manuscripts written describing the Christ after His resurrection. Therefore, one must ask why the apostles and so many others would have died to start a religion that they would never see succeed or fail (given that they died for it), that pointed to worship someone other than themselves, and that they knew was not true. The last problem is the universe being constant in its function. It has already been proven that there is a moral objective truth given from God using The Method. Therefore, God could be a reasonable explanation as to why something could happen outside the laws of nature because if God made the laws of nature He can exceed them. The last step of The Method is to paint the big picture: the concept of miracles is not beyond human comprehension, and knowing there is a God means that miracles are absolutely capable of happening.

            In conclusion, Hume’s empiricist views have provided us with a very detailed and well reasoned argument for why he believes miracles can never have existed. It is hard for humans to automatically accept something that we have never seen or experienced before. But if Hume is correct, then Christianity means nothing. If he is wrong, then the case for the supernatural is made infinitely stronger. Ultimately, each man must pursue the truth. “I am thinking, therefore I exist” has shown Descartes that he can be certain that he exists. From this statement, Descartes can also know that anything that is clear and distinct is most likely true. Descartes then realizes that he is the source of knowing that there is something more perfect than himself. The realization of this knowledge leads him to know that there has to be a nature more perfect than his own, and this nature could belong to none other than what we know to be God. In light of these evidences, miracles can be supported from the existence of objective truth using The Method.

Works Cited

Descartes, René. A Discourse On The Method Of Correctly Conducting One's Reason And Seeking Truth In The Sciences. Trans. Ian Maclean. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Hume, David, and P. J. R. Millican. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Boethius, and David R. Slavitt. The Consolation of Philosophy. Harvard University Press, 2010.

Woo, B.Hoon. “The Understanding of Gisbertus Voetius and Rene Descartes on the Relationship of Faith and Reason, and Theology and Philosophy.” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 75, no. 1, Spring 2013, pp. 45–63. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=aph&AN=112779306&site=ehost-live.