Where Is David Hume When you Need him?

 Where Is David Hume When you Need him?


David Hume, the Scots sceptic, lived from 1711-1776 AD.  I remember reading his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" while in seminary.  In it, Hume pretends to defend somewhat conventional orthodox religious viewpoints through characters he named "Cleanthes" and "Demea."  But one "conversationalist" named "Philo" certainly represented Hume's own inclinations--though, I would argue that Hume was more of an atheist than Philo is represented to edge toward.

 

. . . But the point I would like to focus on is Hume's detestation of "causality."  He seemed (to me) to constantly harp on the idea that we can never tie "causes" to "effects"; and that these things were simply random happenings, with no real reference to one another.  Of course, in doing this, Hume was hoping to chisel away at the Christian concept of the Creator, the providence of God; and cosmology and teleology as tools to demonstrate the necessary existence of God.

 

But the interesting, and somewhat amusing thing, is that at every turn Hume employs the very (necessary) categories of "cause" and "effect" to make his strenuous objections against them (cause and effect).  All concepts, especially as they are expressed in words, are themselves the results of constructs of chains of "causes" and "effects."

 

So, the "problem," at least for those people who do not like the existence of God, is that the history of western empirical science took a decidedly "opposite" turn, (from that of Hume's type of skepticism).  Instead, of "denying" causality, it went on the "search for the holy grail" of causes.  This is clearly seen in secular biology (evolution); and it is evident in secular cosmology (the search for astrophysical origins).

 

Hume probably saw the strength of the traditional Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, as well as the Teleological Argument (for the same).  And, because of this, he felt he was compelled to do whatever he had to, to "get rid" of any sense of "causality."

 

Today, if an atheist wishes to employ Hume and his arguments, he (the atheist) is likely not going to attract much of an audience.  But, the conundrum that Hume faced, viz. how do I dispose of this idea of a First Cause (God)?, is still the dilemma that the other atheists face today (who do not profess to believe in a First Cause).

 

But really, at the end of the day, no one who possesses ordinary capacities of cognition, can believe either atheistic alternative.  No causes and no effects?  No way, (even they would say).  No prior primeval "soup" out of which everything eventually came?  This we also cannot concede, (so they would say).  But the question still has to be asked, "From whence came your alleged 'soup'?"  (The same question could be proposed for the origin of the supposed "Big Bang.")

 

For those who are now very comfortable with the truth of the idea of a Creator, a "First Cause," these further words of sacred scripture are of precious value to us: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made," (Jn. 1:1-3/ESV).

 

Rev. Mark J. Henninger

Treatise #136

18 September 2026

 

https://theologicaltreatisesinretirement.blogspot.com

https://henningerdevotions.blogspot.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Movie Review: "A Great Awakening"

How Do we Know we Are Right?

Women In Worship