Hume and the Existence of God

Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 2013

Hume's thoroughgoing religious scepticism is set within the context of the Scottish Enlightenment. Against some interpreters, it is argued that, although elusive, his ‘attenuated deism’ (Gaskin) is not wholly dismissive of all forms of religious thought and practice. His position is further compared with contemporary expressions of ‘new atheism’. Despite some obvious similarities, Hume's position is judged more nuanced both in terms of content and rhetorical strategy.

Hume's thoroughgoing religious scepticism is set within the context of the Scottish Enlightenment. Yet, against some interpreters, it is argued that, although elusive, his 'attenuated deism' (Gaskin) is not wholly dismissive of all forms of religious thought and practice. His position is further compared with contemporary expressions of new atheism. Despite some obvious similarities, Hume's position is judged more nuanced both in terms of content and rhetorical strategy.

Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 2015

Hume is justly famous for his criticisms of theistic proofs. However, what is less well-known is that Hume also criticized the claim that belief in God, simply because it is natural, is justified without supporting argument. Hume certainly encountered this claim in his own Protestant milieu, as various textual clues throughout his corpus indicate. His own endorsement of natural beliefs raises the possibility that religious belief might be justified without argument. One of Hume’s chief aims in The Natural History of Religion was to show that religious belief is not natural in a way that makes it justified without argument.

Journal of The History of Philosophy, 2010

A view that continues to pervade modern philosophy is that despite the counter-intuitive nature of Hume's philosophy, there is little scope for getting around the arguments he makes for it. This is the kind of challenge presented to Catholic philosophers in the matter of reasoning about God and existence. Robert A. O'Donnell considered Hume, and likewise Kant accomplished philosophers, but not sages. The legacy of Hume is reflected in this essay in light of attempts to reason for the existence of God.

The agnosticism of the sensist pan-phenomenalist David Hume (1711-1776) concerning the existence of God is a direct consequence of his gnoseological immanentism (we only know our subjective perceptions, internal states of consciousness, which ends up in an ontological agnosticism concerning the existence of the extra-mental beings of an external reality and a denial of the affirmation that objective metaphysical efficient causality truly operates among the beings of extra-mental reality). Hume writes in A Treatise of Human Nature: "Now since nothing is ever present to the mind but perceptions, and since all ideas are derived from something antecedently present to the mind, it follows that it is impossible for us so much as to conceive or form an idea of anything specifically different from ideas and impressions. Let us fix our attention out of ourselves as much as possible; let us chase our imagination to the heavens, or to the utmost limits of the universe; we never really advance a step beyond ourselves, nor can we conceive any kind of existence, but those perceptions which have appeared in that narrow compass. This is the universe of the imagination, nor have we any idea but what is there produced." 1 For Hume, "nothing can be present to the mind but an image or perception. We cannot prove that perceptions are caused by external objects entirely different from them, though perhaps resembling them in some way. Experience is silent here, for we have before the mind only perceptions. We observe a relation of cause and effect between two perceptions, but we can never observe it between perceptions and objects; hence we cannot proceed by causal inference from perceptions to objects...For Hume, the objects of all our knowledge are impressions and ideas derived from them. There is no evidence that these are caused by external objects, or an unknown substance, or by God. Impressions and sensations simply appear and reappear in our experience. All we can do, then, is to limit ourselves to the world of our impressions and ideas." 2 Against immanentism and its principle of immanence, and in favor of metaphysical realism, Juan José Sanguineti writes: "In quanto l'essere è fonte d'intelligibilità e prima condizione della conoscenza, l'essere è indipendente dal venir conosciuto e non viceversa (il che non si oppone al fatto che gli enti più nobili conoscono, poiché la conoscenza appartiene alla pienezza dell'essere). Questo principio così ovvio è il cardine del realismo metafisico. Le posizioni non realistiche, invece, in base all'apparente fatto che «non possiamo uscire dal nostro pensare», ritengono che un essere indipendente dal pensiero sarebbe incomprensibile o almeno ignoto (principio di immanenza). Viene bloccata in questo modo la trascendenza metafisica della mente umana. La tesi immanentistica poggia sul falso principio dell'impossibilità di trascendere il nostro intelletto pensante.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND ANALYTICAL REVIEWS (IJRAR.ORG), 2024

The controversial 18th century philosopher David Hume's view of God is still widely discussed in recent times. In his incredible work "Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion", he explained a character that seems to our mind that he established his own position, and the character name is "Philo". In this whole book Philo deliver his concept on God is totally skeptical. On the one hand it may appear that he is speaking for God and on the other hand it may appear that he is speaking against God. He expressed an ambiguous doctrine "doubt, uncertainty, suspense of judgment in "Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion". Since this characterization of Philo is consistent with Hume's view, many commentators claim this characterization as Hume's doctrine. For in his other books, such as "Natural History of Religion" and "A Treatise of Human Nature", he has made clear the natural causal relationship. In which he repeatedly expressed the fear of presenting God as the first cause and analysed natural phenomena in detail with logic. However, he completely ignores the existence of God as described in traditional religions in his writings. Because he thinks that these are nothing but religious dogmas which are not acceptable in any way. Since he admits skepticism about God, he certainly tries to provide sufficient arguments for rejecting God's existence as well as for a total argument for God's existence. Now we will see how exactly he tried to establish the matter. Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion", Thus Hume, although he repeatedly claimed to be an atheist in his writings, ultimately failed to take a clear view of God and led his doctrine to agnosticism, which is the subject of our discussion.

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2014

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume (1779/1993) appeals to his account of causation (among other things) to undermine certain arguments for the existence of God. If ‘anything can cause anything’, as Hume claims, then the Principle of Causal Adequacy is false; and if the Principle of Causal Adequacy is false, then any argument for God’s existence that relies on that principle fails. Of course, Hume’s critique has been influential. But Hume’s account of causation undermines the argument from evil at least as much as it undermines arguments for theism, or so I argue. I then suggest that Hume’s account of causation can be used to formulate an alternative argument against classical theism.

Aither, 2022

Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 2023

Contrary to what has been stated in most accounts that Hume intends to make arguments against the existence of God, he aims to attack the claim that religious propositions can be argued; not completely reject these propositions. He considers these propositions epistemologically outside of human knowledge but ontologically accepts the existence of God. With such a view, we can dismiss atheistic-agnostic interpretations and relate him to a kind of mysticism. The key to deciding whether or not Hume is a mystic is to determine what criteria we have to consider someone a mystic. Two very influential components here are (1) the belief in the existence of God; (2) the belief that the existence of God is far from our usual reasoning (antirational or irrational). And the second component is enough to call someone like Wittgenstein a fideist. We claim that there is clear evidence of these components in Hume's works; therefore, what reason do we have to remove Hume from the circle of fideism and mysticism? In this study, after an introduction to the concept and types of fideism, we show that Hume, based on his works, surpasses skepticism and manifests a special kind of fideism. While there is an emphasis on the mystery of the proposition that God exists, he combines Christian faith, in aform that is inseparable from illogical and mysterious propositions such as the incarnation of God. Thus, Hume can be called a Christian mystic.