Written by Dr. Marcus J. Serven
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Proverbs 1:7
Introduction:
Not long after I had visited Edinburgh, Scotland for the first time, a friend asked me, “Did you rub the big toe of David Hume?” I was a bit shocked at this question, but when I asked her, “What do you mean?” she explained that people oftentimes “rub” the big brass toe on Hume’s statue out of appreciation for his philosophy. This statue is placed right in the center of the Royal Mile in Edinburgh and it is a tribute to David Hume the famous skeptic and leader of the Scottish Enlightenment. Once I was clear on the meaning, I gave a firm answer to my friend that I would never even think of “rubbing” the big brass toe of that statue because I did not appreciate the philosophy of David Hume and his inveterate skepticism.
What exactly is skepticism? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it with these words: “Philosophical skepticism is the position that certainty in knowledge is never achievable, questioning the validity of beliefs that are typically taken for granted, such as those regarding the external world, causality, or sensory experience. It involves suspending judgment, arguing that justification for knowledge claims is always insufficient.” Or as some people would assert, “Question everything!” All of this sounds comfortably “neutral.” It is a view of reality that our postmodern culture would greatly appreciate. There are, however, serious problems with skepticism that I believe demonstrate it to be a flawed system of thought. Dallas Willard notes, “We live in a culture that has, for centuries cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can almost be as stupid as a cabbage as long as you doubt.” (Willard, Hearing God) In short, it is good to remember that any fool can be a skeptic.
Exposing the Bias:
Skepticism has at its very core a bias against supernaturalism. This is the idea that a transcendent God has revealed himself in nature (i.e. General Revelation) and in the Bible (i.e. Special Revelation). The concept that truth can be known outside of oneself is foreign to the skeptic. Instead, the skeptic elevates his or her own thinking to such a high level that anything outside of their own thoughts and impressions is to be doubted. In this respect it is a system of thought built upon the self. It is therefore biased towards any source of knowledge outside of the self; anything that is transcendent or supernatural. John Frame notes,
The skeptical conclusion—that we know precisely nothing—is…so implausible, so unlikely, that it actually functions as a reductio. If an argument logically entails skepticism…there must be something wrong with the premises. Pure skepticism, of course, is irrefutable, since the skeptic allowed his critic no knowledge on the basis of which to debate. But we know that the skeptic is wrong; for if we don’t know that, we don’t know anything else. And if we do know that, it is evident that we know some things (e.g. that skepticism is false) that we cannot prove.
— Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, 704
Since the time of the Reformation, skepticism has produced many adherents—David Hume (1711-1776), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) are a few notable examples. These are the “children” of the Enlightenment. One of the more famous skeptics in the 19th century was the British philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Mill was a skeptic along the lines of David Hume in that he rejected God’s revelation to man as well as the fallen sinful nature of man. Stated briefly, he rejected all divine revelation and elevated his own judgements over all that God said in the Bible. He believed knowledge (i.e. Empiricism) stems only from personal observation. Anything outside of what a person can personally observe and verify is not to be trusted. Mill concludes, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Mill, On Liberty). R. C. Sproul summarizes Mill’s belief system in this way,
A philosopher, John Stuart Mill, considered the manifest presence in the world of pain, suffering, violence, and wickedness, and he concluded that what we encounter on a daily basis belies any hope of a good and loving God. In skepticism he said that if God is a God of love yet he allows such pain and suffering, then he is powerless to prevent it and is nothing more than a divine weakling incapable of administering peace and justice. If, on the other hand, he has the power to prevent evil but chooses not to, standing by and allowing it, then he may be powerful but he is not good or loving. The complaint Mill raised against historical Christianity is that either God is good but not all powerful, or he is all powerful but not good. What is missing from Mill’s oversimplified equation concerning the economy of grief and pain in the world is the reality of sin.
— R.C. Sproul, An Expositional Commentary on Romans, 268
R. C. Sproul, I believe, rightly identifies what is missing in Mill’s philosophy—“the reality of sin.” It is Mill’s over-reliance upon his own intellect to objectify reality and the rejection of any notion of sin against God’s law and sin against fellow human beings. Wikipedia notes, “In his views on religion, Mill was an agnostic and a skeptic, though Mill believed, in terms of the right answer to the question of God’s existence, that it is ‘a very probable hypothesis.’ He also saw as perfectly rational and legitimate to believe in God as an act of hope or as the result of one’s efforts to discern the meaning of life as a whole” (Wikipedia, “John Stuart Mill”). In essence, Mill believed that it was helpful to believe in God as an “act of hope.” This type of thinking is only a hopeful fiction and not a solid foundation upon which to build a person’s ethics, morality, and essential principles. If everything is subjective, then logically nothing is objective.
Providing an Alternative View:
In contrast, every man must become epistemologically self-conscious. This means that we must recognize our own intellectual limitations, and build our life upon a reality that is outside of us (i.e. extra nos). In this way, our understanding of reality is not held captive to our own personal observations and thoughts. Moreover, man must reconcile himself with the belief that he is but a creature—fallen, finite, and mortal. Whereas, God is holy, infinite, and eternal. This type of thinking maintains the “Creator-creature” distinction. John Calvin begins his celebrated book, Institutes of the Christian Religion, with the essential premise “that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.” Calvin writes,
Our wisdom in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as those are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes, and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts toward God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves, nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone.
— John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:1:1)
Cornelius Van Til explains Calvin’s essential theory by stating,
From this quotation, certain things are clear. Calvin never did start a chain of reasoning about man’s nature and destiny by taking man by himself. He did not start with man as with an ultimate starting point. Calvin did start with a general a priori position. His position is as radically opposed to that of Descartes as it is to that of Hume. Most apologetic writers who have come after Calvin have allowed themselves to be influenced unduly by Cartesian philosophy on this matter. Calvin recognized fully that if man is to have true knowledge of himself he must regard God as original and himself as derivative. He did not place God and man as correlatives next to one another, but he recognized from the outset two levels of existence and two levels of interpretation, on the one hand the divine and eternal, and on the other hand the human or temporal. To him it is perfectly obvious that the endowments that we possess are not of ourselves, but of God. Hence he says that, “not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found, which does not flow from him: and of which he is not the cause.”
— Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 156-157
As human beings, then, let us not begin our search for reality with the false premise that man’s individual judgements and observations are an adequate foundation for finding the truth. Instead, in humility, let us build upon the premise that God is our Maker, and that all truth and reality stems from Him; in other words, outside of us. Solomon summarized this principle by writing, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). This starting point in man’s quest for understanding, I believe, is a superior foundation for discerning reality and truth. It is not founded upon our own temporal thoughts and impressions (which are always changing), but upon the eternal realities of a sovereign God who has objectively established time, space, and reality. The Apostle James wisely exhorts, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you” (James 4:10). Therefore, a foundation of humility removes the bias of skepticism from the mind of all thinking persons. It is beneficial for all human beings to follow this sage advice.
Resources for Further Study:
Brown, Colin. Philosophy and the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968.
Burtt, Edwin A., ed. English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill. New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 1939.
- David Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding; Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
- John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism; On Liberty
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics, no. 20-21. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1960.
Comesaña, Juan and Peter Klein. “Skepticism” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2026 Edition. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman, eds. Accessed June 11, 2026: URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/skepticism/>.
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
- “Empiricism” by David A. Rausch
- “Epistemology” by Paul D. Feinberg
- “Hume, David” by David A. Rausch
- “Naturalism” by Michael H. Macdonald
- “Philosophy, Christian View of” by Stanley R. Obitts
- “Reason” by Winfried Corduan
- “Scottish Realism” by Douglas F. Kelly
- “Utilitarianism” by David B. Fletcher
Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994.
Frame, John M. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015.
Johnson, Paul. Intellectuals. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1988.
Magee, Bryan. The Story of Philosophy: 2,500 Years of Great Thinkers from Socrates to the Existentialists and Beyond. New York, NY: Barnes and Noble, 2006.
Russell, Bertrand. Why I Am Not a Christian. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1957.
Sproul, R.C. An Expositional Commentary on Romans. Orlando, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2009.
Sproul, R. C. Lifeviews: Understanding the Ideas that Shape Society Today. Old Tappen, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1986.
Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts the Shaped Our World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000.
Van Til, Cornelius. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Second Edition. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007.
Willard, Dallas. Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God. Updated Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2024.
Dr. Marcus J. Serven, ThM and DMin
The Genevan Foundation – Copyright 2026 – All Rights Reserved
Leave a Reply