David
Hume was a great British philosopher yet I must stipulate that his
work seems especially dated to me. Some concepts seem wrong or off
key so far as they have any claim to scientific accuracy. The Essay
Concerning Human Understanding is a kind of epistemological work. The
'copy principle' of mind and perceptions that is used in Human
Understanding tends to be the criterion for that on Natural Religion
too. In a way it is all kind of social solipsism with impressions
drawn from historical circumstance. Some may of course feel that
Hume was being a deadpan existential relativist concerning religion.
At the end he seems to recognize the irresistible logic for it
although he may be doing so while having already disqualified all
human knowledge as historical circumstance. In particular per example
the problem Hume found with cause and effects was taken badly for
generations. That seems an unrealistic way of viewing empirical,
material affairs. Newton's third law for example, of action and
reaction, easily can represent cause and effect even if there is a
proceeding cause of the proximal cause.
Hume's
concluding discourse by Philo is apposite to the Christian paradigm
that he seldom mentions- the unspoken natural religion he is often
speaking of. In fact it is a surprising logical affirmation of
certain important Christian theological points. God is unapproachably
perfect and good and is offended by sin. Mankind has original sin and
could in no way have a relationship with God except through an
intermediary acting to renormalize saved elements of humanity to God.
That individual is the Lord Jesus Christ. I shall quote the relevant
section from chapter twelve pages 248-9; “It is contrary to
common sense to entertain apprehensions or terrors upon account of
any opinion whatsoever, or to imagine that w e run any risk hereafter
by the freest; use of our reason. Such a sentiment implies both an
absurdity and an inconsistency. It is an absurdity to believe that
the Deity has human passions, and one of the lowest of human
passions, a restless appetite for applause. It is an inconsistency to
believe, that, since the Deity has this human passion, he has not
others also; and in particular, a disregard to the opinions of
creatures so much inferior. To know God, says Seneca, is to worship
him. All other worship is indeed absurd, superstitious, and even
impious. It degrades him to the low condition of mankind, who are
delighted with intreaty, solicitation, presents, and flattery. Yet is
this impiety the smallest of which superstition is guilty. Commonly,
it depresses the Deity or rather indeed endeavour to entertain,
suitable notions of his divine perfections: As the only persons,
intitled to his compassion and indulgence, would be the philosophical
Sceptics, a sect almost equally rare, who, from a natural diffidence
of their own capacity, suspend, or endeavour to suspend, all judgment
with regard to such sublime and such extraordinary subjects. 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: If this
proposition be not capable of extension, variation, or more
particular explication: If it affords no inference that affects human
life, or can be the source of any action or forbearance: And if the
analogy, imperfect as it is, can be carried no farther than to the
human intelligence; and cannot be transferred, with any appearance of
probability, to the other qualities of the mind: If this really be
the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious
man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the
proposition, as often as it occurs; and believe that the arguments on
which it is established, exceed the objections which lie against it?
Some astonishment indeed will naturally arise from the greatness of
the object; some melancholy from its obscurity; some contempt of
human reason. that it can give no solution more satisfactory with
regard to so extraordinary and magnificent a question. But believe
me, Cleanthes, the most natural sentiment, which a well-disposed mind
will feel on this occasion, is a longing desire and expectation, that
heaven would be pleased to dissipate, at least alleviate, this
profound ignorance, by affording some more particular revelation to
mankind, and making discoveries of the nature, attributes, and
operations, of the divine object of our faith. A person, seasoned
with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to
revealed truth with that he can erect a complete system of Theology
by the mere help of philosophy, disdains any farther aid, and rejects
this adventitious instructor. To be a philosophical Sceptic is, in a
man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a
sound, believing Christian; a proposition, which I would willingly
recommend to the attention of Pamphilus :”
Hume
ended Kant's dogmatic slumber, though I cannot recall what it was
Hume wrote that stimulated Kant to think along lines leading to the
Critique of Pure Reason. Perhaps it was Hume's propensity for
reasoning about things itself, even if not perfectly in key these
days. The idea of the prime mover of causality may have been Hume's
target in devising his thought leading to the end of causal
relations. I would tend to have a modern point of view on the topic
myself that would view matter in its quantum context; as emergent
elements in a Higgs field as particles containing elements of force.
Hilbert spatial representation and physical content bring selected
and necessary states of configuration into being. In the steady-state
quantum configuration of matter in-the-Universe mass follows
thermodynamic principles. Not to labor the point, I believe one need
use a fuzzy logic accounting system for attributing causes and
effects. High pressure and low pressure, high temperature and low
temperature, Boyle's law, equalization of pressure and temperature
and allocation of a force follow consistent lines.
Hume
wrote in chapter twelve of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
that “still it must be acknowledged, that, as terror is the
primary principle of religion, it is the passion which always
predominates in it, and admits but of short intervals of pleasure.”
I don't agree at all that mankind has stimulus-response S/R
conditioning and fear of worse in eternity as his primary motives.
Knowledge is an end-in-itself that mankind tries to get. A sentient
being has just so much that he or she may do; physical and
intellectual things running even toward the spiritual. Seeking a
knowledge of God for-himself rather than trying to explain away all
of human experience and interests as biological activities solely and
dismissively are quite opposite activities. The former seeks to
enlighten the mind while the latter acts to extinguish thought.
