The 18th Century Scottish philosopher David Hume was a leader of the Enlightenment. He was a renowned empiricist who is often credited with destroying the argument from design. But this characterization may not be entirely accurate. Did Hume accept the argument from design for God’s existence? Did he believe that the order we observe in the universe “proves” an omnipotent mind behind it all?
Larry Arnhart, a conservative blogger, includes the following in a post from earlier this year:
... the common assumption that Hume was an atheist is, I think, mistaken. While criticizing "false religion," Hume defended the "true religion" of "philosophical theism." Although he criticized many of the extravagant claims made for the argument from design--the same argument that is today made for "intelligent design theory"--Hume did accept a qualified version of the design argument.
Near the end of his Treatise of Human Nature, Hume wrote: "The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind; that is, a mind whose will is constantly attended with the obedience of every creature and being. Nothing more is requisite to give a foundation to all the articles of religion, nor is it necessary we should form a distinct idea of the force and energy of the supreme Being."
At the end of his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume sketches his philosophical theism in the language of his character Philo: "If the whole of Natural Theology, as some people seem to maintain, resolves itself into one simple, though somewhat ambiguous, at least undefined proposition, That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence ...
This assumes, of course, that his fictional character, Philo, fairly represents Hume’s own ideas. It is also true that he goes on to state that any intelligent being inferred from Natural Theology would have no bearing upon human beings. Nevertheless, Hume, often represented as the atheist who destroyed the argument from design, apparently saw some legitimacy in the argument from design.
A tip of the hat to Bradford at Telic Thoughts.
13 comments:
Hi Cliff,
I think that we have a simple case of the mistaken use of words here. Look up deism and theism.
Hume is deist I think.
Tellic Thoughts have some pretty weird stuff including creationist rhubarb so I am not surprised to see such a simple (blatant) "error".
Cheers,
Psi
Psi,
True enough about Tellic Thoughts. The site has multiple authors, and their posts run the gamut of I.D. But they were not the original source for this post.
I agree with you, that Hume was a deist. In fact the next to the last sentence of my post says as much. That is beside the point. I'm certainly not claiming Hume as "one of our own." (If we took all of Hume's writings, you would likely agree with him far more often than I would.) But that is the point! It is Hume's very rejection of most religious forms, and his rejection of Christianity, and his contribution to Empiricism and the Enlightenment that make his comments significant to me.
Nor would I suggest that Hume's comments settle any argument. My conclusions from Hume's words are quite modest, I think. I am merely saying that the empiricist Hume adds weight to the idea that order in the universe says something about purpose and design.
Well If you get comfort from that kind of language then good luck to you and I suggest you read the Biography on Einstein by "Isaacson"? - plenty more comfort for you there.
Oh and its a very fine book as well. Pretty clear expositions of relativity and quantum with no maths.
Regards,
Psi
Psi,
Did I say something about getting comfort from Hume?
Well yes and no. You didn't use the word but that's how I interpreted your post.
Comfort or support perhaps by drawing out interpretations from folks that reject your own theism but have deist views ( which are still the only kinds of views your "reasons to believe" support).
Anyway what did you mean?
Cheers
Psi
Psi,
The difference between how you read Hume's remarks and how I do boils down to an earlier discussion you and I had ... in which you contended that deism is a subset of atheism, and I that deism is a subset of theism.
Yes, my reasons to believe might just as well support a deistic belief as a Christian theistic belief. However, remember two things:
1) I was clear that my "Reasons for Belief" were mere starting points. They open the door for a reasonable and rational pursuit of God. If he is a personal, interested God, such a pursuit will be fruitful and fulfilling. It is for me. And, as I stated then, the most powerful reasons for my personal belief are experiential and subjective. Such "evidence" is only available to those who begin with the assumptions that God exists, that he may be personal, and that pursuing him will be fruitful (as the Bible declares).
2) By my memory, you objected to every reason I stated. You did not simply say they support deism, you took issue with their logic and cogency. So, I should think that you would find it at least interesting that an empirical philosopher of Hume's stature would, in essence, agree with one of my top reasons for belief.
Thanks, btw, for the Einstein biography lead. When I get some time ....
Hi cliff
actually I said that theism is a subset of deism and you said the opposite.
We have discussed my view on the argument from authority before.
Yes I did pick up the lack of cogency in such arguments.
Still do.
Don't really care who you tell me disagrees.
But only because that does not an argument make.
Not that u don't respect people. Just that I don't respect all ideas.
Cheers
psi
Psi,
We have discussed my view on the argument from authority before .... Don't really care who you tell me disagrees .... But only because that does not an argument make.
Methinks thou doth protest too much. I was not making an "argument". I merely found it interesting that the very voice often credited with dismantling the design argument in actuality stated clearly his acceptance of it.
I'm not attempting to persuade anyone of anything. The most I said to you was that I thought you might find it interesting.
Hi Cliff,
Ok just ignore everything else he wrote then.
Not what I call "A balanced view"
cheers
Psi
Psi!
I don't ignore everything else he wrote. I have said that he is credited (by many) with dismantling the argument from design. I have said you would find much more to agree with in Hume than would I. I have said that I definitely do not claim him as "one of us". What more can I say?
I merely find his statement "The order of the universe proves an omnipotent mind" interesting in light of the above. You've made it clear that you don't find it interesting. Okay then. But don't accuse me of some kind of misrepresentation. Just tell me what you think of that statement, or go on ignoring it!
Psi,
You see, despite everything else Hume said and did in his many critiques of the theistic "proofs" and of Christianity, when an eminent empiricist uses the word "proves" with respect to an "omnipotent mind" (which, btw, goes beyond anything I've ever said!), it strikes me as profoundly significant.
I know from all of Hume's writings that this is exceptional. Hume was no theist. In fact, he probably was far more an atheist than a deist. But here we have a clear and forthright declaration that the existence of some God is proven. What do you make of it? Perhaps it was only a chink in his armor, evidence that even the confirmed atheistic philosopher David Hume questioned some of his own conclusions. Do you agree? or do you see some other explanation? or did he really not write that? or do you prefer to ignore it and seep it under the rug?
I'm not trying to win an argument for God's existence. But how can you simply set aside such words coming from Hume's pen, and say they mean nothing?
I was just pointing out that he is a deist not a theist.
You yourself have only given deist reasons for belief and yet your are a theist and I find this interesting.
Rather than debate the reasons for your theism your dig of deist comments and put them forward as vaguely defending theism.
Very interesting.
I think that I am getting into psychology.
Cheers,
Psi
Psi,
I think if you read my last comment more carefully, you would see it differently.
"Deist reasons for belief" are not vague supports for theism. Rather, they provide a credible basis for theism. If you accept the premise that a Creator God (of some sort) is possible, even likely (and I believe the evidence is that some kind of Creator God is likely), add to it the possibility that such a God may be deeply interested in his creatures (not a far-fetched notion, IMO), and then pursue that God, I have found that you can connect to God on a personal, experiential level.
If you choose not to try, there is nothing I can do to convince you. But then again, you reject the deist arguments to begin with.
"Rather than debate the reasons for your theism ... "
Yeah. It is impossible for me prove to a skeptic that my subjective and experiential data supports theism. You would object that my data is mostly subjective! And you would be right!
My point in presenting deistic proofs is to provide a rational basis for a reasonable belief in God. It is only a starting point.
Post a Comment