David Hume, a noted historian and philosopher, was Scotland’s most famous member of the 18th Century Enlightenment. Like Isaac Newton, Hume embraced radical skepticism and the inductive experimental method of scientific inquiry. He believed that everything we know comes from our senses. Hume attended Edinburgh University when he was in his teens. He hoped to become a professor, but was accused of being an atheist and was unable to find a position.
Instead he spent his life traveling, tutoring, and writing. In his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume attempted to define the principles of human knowledge, which he classified as either “impressions” from sensations or inner consciousness, or “ideas” derived by manipulating these impressions. Much of Hume’s work was concerned with discovering how knowledge is acquired. In other words, he was interested in how we know what we know.
In An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) he addresses the roots of human morality and altruism. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was published posthumously in 1779. Comprised of discussions between fictional characters, this work examines the existence of God and the foundations of religious belief. Hume attacked both the teleological and cosmological arguments for belief in God. Hume tried to disprove the existence of God in three ways.
He argued that the design or teleological proof for God’s existence, which says that the complexity of the world and the efficiency of it as a functioning system, prove that a divine intelligence must have created it was fallacious. Second, he asserted that the world is material and that all events have a rational, natural cause. Therefore, miracles, a type of metaphysical magic, could not have occurred because they would be outside of natural law. Thirdly, Hume professed that the idea of a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God was irrational.
He posited that if God were good and all-powerful, he would not allow evil and pain to exist. Therefore, God is either not benevolent or not omnipotent. Although everyone agrees that Hume made significant contributions to the field of modern philosophy and epistemology, some agree that his arguments against the existence of God disprove Christianity while other concur that his arguments against the existence of God are not valid and do not disprove the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.
Hume’s arguments against the existence of God are not logical or valid for three reasons: the reality and complexity of the universe is evidence for the existence of God; the nature of a miracle is that it interrupts the closed, natural world; and the fact of free will must allow for the existence of a choice that is in opposition to God, or what we call evil. The first reason that Hume’s arguments against the existence of a Christian God are not valid is that the reality and complexity of the universe is evidence for the existence of God.
In his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume attempted to refute the proposition that God exists because the universe must have been designed and created. The idea of an unmoved mover, first cause, or demiurge was not only the belief of JudeoChristians but can be traced to the Socratic philosophers. St. Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics defended the teleological argument. According to Hume, however, the teleological or design argument seems to depend upon our experience, and its proponents “always suppose the universe, an effect quite singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a cause no less singular and unparalleled. (AN INQUIRTY… Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, suggested that, even if the world is a more or less smoothly-functioning system, this may only be a result of the “chance permutations of particles falling into a temporary or permanent self-sustaining order, which thus has the appearance of design. ” He even suggested that there may have been many worlds, produced by an incompetent designer, whom he called a “stupid mechanic. ”
The creator, being God, would necessitate him being “singular and unparalleled. ” There is no reason to believe that the universe, which is created and finite, is the same thing as an uncreated and eternal God. The chance that the universe is random is so small as to be scientifically unsound. Many scientists are theists because they believe that the likelihood of life forming by chance is improbably small. One study estimated the chance at 41300, a number so large that even in 13 billion years it could not have occurred. Hume’s final point that there are numerous failed worlds produced by an incompetent creator not only has no basis in empirical science, but would suggest that there is a God, even if he were not perfect. The second reason that Hume’s arguments against the existence of a Christian God are invalid is that the nature of a miracle is that it interrupts the closed, natural world. Hume argued that all supposed miracles have a natural, scientific cause, even though we may not yet understand the cause.
He stated that there is more reason to believe that a person is lying or deluded than that an actual miracle took place. However, his argument is circular; the nature of a miracle is that it interrupts the closed, natural world. That’s why it’s a miracle! Miracles are God’s breath touching us; they are his voice whispering in our ear. The reality of just one miracle destroys Hume’s entire premise that the world is a self-contained, self-reliant, and d system. The greatest miracle is Christ’s resurrection.
The testimony of multiple witnesses disproves Hume’s assumption that people who witness miracles are lying or being lied to. The resurrection of Christ was not observed by one person or at one time, but by many people over a period of weeks. Also, skeptics and those who persecuted Christians, like Saul, were converted after God’s miraculous intervention. Saul was an educated, close Hellenized Jew, who would * It should be noted that all scientists do not agree and the issue is heavily debated in the scientific community. not easily have been deluded.
Finally, people who confessed belief in Christ were often persecuted and brutally martyred. Thousands of people would not be imprisoned, tortured, or martyred for a lie or delusion. The third reason that Hume’s argument against a Christian God are not valid is the fact of free will must allow for the existence of a choice that is in opposition to God, or what we call evil. Hume argued what is called “the problem of evil”: if God is good why is there evil in the world? He assumes that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God is inconsistent with the existence of evil and suffering.
In other words, if God is able to stop evil and prevent suffering, but not willing, then he is malevolent; and, if he wants to stop evil and prevent suffering but is unable then he is impotent. Hume’s assumptions are false. The fact of free will must allow for the existence of a choice that is in opposition to God, or what we call evil. Just because God is able, but not willing, to eliminate evil and suffering does not mean that he is malevolent. God gave man free will to choose him or reject him: to choose good or evil. If God simply stopped evil, then there would be no choice.
Man would be a robot unable to love. Love requires a choice. Additionally, God may allow evil to help people know Him and experience a fuller understanding of who He is and what heaven will be like. Suffering in the world is allowed by God, so that man understands his constant need for God, and the failure of self-reliance. The Bible and Church fathers give us numerous examples of holy men and women who suffered for God and became saints. Some claim that Hume is correct because a good God would not allow good people to suffer. The Bible addresses the question of why bad things can happen to good people.
The sun shines on the just and unjust” If God allowed only good things to happen to good people, then people would act in a certain way, out of complete self interest; people would turn to God to get what they could from Him, without loving, knowing, or trusting Him, This would make God simply a mechanism compelled to dispense rewards; God is like a candy machine. Also, one could ask who “good people” are, since “all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. ” (Romans 3:23) Others argue that Hume’s argument is valid because evil could not have been created by a good God.
This is fallacious and illogical. Hume seems to accept the existence of evil. But, how can he propose the existence of evil without presupposing that God or an absolute moral standard exists? Goodness is what God is; Evil is the absence of what God is. This is not the same as creating evil. God defines the good and without God there is no good. Hume has no basis for his belief in moral absolutism. Therefore, for these reasons, Hume’s arguments that a good God would not allow good people to suffer, and that evil could not have been created by a good God, are invalid.
Hume’s arguments against the existence of God are not logical because: the reality and complexity of the universe is evidence for the existence of God; the nature of a miracle is that it interrupts the closed, natural world; and the fact of free will must allow for the existence of a choice that is In opposition to God, or what we call evil. It is important for Christians to understand the arguments against Christianity so that they can refute them. Christian apologetics makes us stronger in our faith and able to defend what we believe.
