You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
David Hume (1711–1776) is one of the most important philosophers in the Western tradition and arguably the most significant critic of religious belief in the history of philosophy. A Scottish empiricist, historian and essayist, Hume mounted devastating challenges to the rationalist arguments for God's existence, to the credibility of miracles, to the design argument, and to the very possibility of establishing religious truths by reason or experience. His philosophical works — especially A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) and the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in 1779) — remain essential reading for AQA A-Level Religious Studies, where he is the named critic of both the design and the cosmological arguments and the central authority on miracles.
Hume's whole philosophy rests on empiricism — the view that all genuine knowledge of matters of fact derives from sensory experience. He begins from a theory of the mind's contents: all our perceptions divide into impressions (the lively, original data of sensation and feeling) and ideas (the fainter copies of impressions that we use in thinking, memory and imagination). His governing principle is that every simple idea is a copy of a prior impression. This gives him a powerful critical tool: if a supposed idea cannot be traced back to any impression, it is empty — a pseudo-idea masquerading as a concept.
Key term: impressions and ideas. For Hume, impressions are the vivid, first-hand perceptions of sense and feeling; ideas are their faint copies, recalled or recombined in thought. Since every legitimate idea must derive from some prior impression, a term that answers to no impression (Hume argues) has no genuine content.
In the Enquiry Hume sorts all objects of inquiry into two exhaustive categories, the distinction later called Hume's Fork:
Key term: Hume's Fork. The exhaustive division of all knowable propositions into relations of ideas (a priori, necessary, empty of factual content) and matters of fact (a posteriori, contingent, informative). Anything claiming to be both substantive and knowable a priori — as many traditional proofs of God claim to be — is, on this scheme, impossible.
The implications for religion are severe. Claims about God's existence are not relations of ideas (denying God's existence is not self-contradictory), so they cannot be established by a priori reasoning — which undermines the ontological argument. But if God's existence is a matter of fact, it can only be shown through experience — and God is not an object of sensory experience. We do not see, hear or touch God. Hume drives the point home with notorious force:
"If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." — Hume, Enquiry, XII.3
Hume is candid that his own empiricist principle faces a puzzle, which is worth knowing as it shows the limits of his system. He notes the case of the missing shade of blue: a person who had seen every shade of blue except one could, he concedes, form the idea of the missing shade without ever having had an impression of it, simply by recognising the gap in the spectrum. This is a counterexample to his rule that every simple idea copies a prior impression. Hume admits it but waves it aside as "so singular" that it is not worth altering the principle for — a move critics regard as too quick. The episode matters for religion because it concedes that the mind may, in special cases, generate ideas that outrun experience, which slightly softens the force of the empiricist objection that we can have no idea of God lacking a corresponding impression. Even so, Hume would insist the concession is marginal and does nothing to license the vast metaphysical claims of theology.
Hume's analysis of causation is central to his critique of the cosmological argument and of any reasoning from effects to causes (including arguments to God). We never directly perceive a necessary connection between cause and effect. What we actually observe is only:
But we never observe the power or force by which one event necessarily produces another. Our belief in causal necessity is a habit of the mind — a psychological expectation that the future will resemble the past — not a rational insight into the structure of reality. We feel the "must," but we do not perceive it.
The consequences for theistic arguments are severe. The cosmological argument reasons from the universe (an effect) to God (its cause); but if we cannot read necessity off experience, we have no rational guarantee that the universe must have a cause — still less a single, necessary, divine one. And we have no experience of universes being created, so we cannot apply our ordinary causal habits to so unique an event. Even granting that the universe has a cause, the effect alone cannot tell us the cause's nature: it might be one God, many gods, an impersonal force, or something wholly beyond our concepts.
Hume's analysis of causation leads to the problem of induction — one of the deepest problems in philosophy. Inductive reasoning infers general conclusions from particular observations ("the sun has risen every day so far; therefore it will rise tomorrow").
Hume argues that induction cannot be rationally justified:
This matters for religion because it undercuts any move from observed regularities to a divine designer: if we cannot even rationally justify the assumption that nature is uniform, we cannot treat nature's order as secure evidence for God. (Hume's own resolution is psychological, not logical: induction is a natural, unavoidable habit by which we live, even though reason cannot ground it.)
Because the AQA specification names Hume as a critic of the cosmological argument (specifically Aquinas's Third Way), it is worth drawing his objections together. Three strands of his thought converge on it. First, his analysis of causation denies that we ever perceive the necessity the argument needs: we observe constant conjunction, not a power that must produce its effect, so the demand that the universe must have a cause is not something experience can warrant. Second, in the Dialogues he presses the fallacy of composition: even if every member of the chain of causes is contingent and dependent, it does not strictly follow that the whole chain or the universe-as-a-whole is contingent and requires an external cause; as Hume's Philo puts it, "the whole" may be explained once we have explained each part, and to ask for a cause of the totality may be to ask a question that does not arise. Third, he challenges the very idea of a necessary being: for Hume, "necessity" properly belongs only to relations of ideas (logical necessity), and "whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent," so the notion of a being whose non-existence is inconceivable is, he argues, incoherent.
Bertrand Russell later sharpened the first and second points into a memorable refusal: pressed on what caused the universe, he replied that "the universe is just there, and that's all" — a brute fact, with the mistake lying in assuming that the universe must belong to the same explanatory order as the things within it. Defenders of the cosmological argument reply, as the Aquinas lesson notes, that the argument concerns a here-and-now dependency of borrowed existence, not a temporal first event, and that calling the cosmos a "brute fact" simply stops explaining where explanation is most demanded. The exchange is one of the most examinable in the philosophy of religion, and a strong answer presents both the Humean objection and the Thomist reply.
Section X ("Of Miracles") of the Enquiry contains Hume's famous argument against the rational credibility of miracle reports — one of the most discussed arguments in philosophy of religion and a core AQA topic. Hume defines a miracle as "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent." He then argues that it is never rational to believe, on testimony, that a miracle has occurred.
Key term: miracle (Hume's definition). "A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent." The definition builds in violation of a law of nature, which is what makes the evidential bar, on Hume's argument, so high.
The "in principle" argument:
The "in fact" arguments. Hume adds four practical considerations:
Hume's argument has provoked extensive debate, and AQA rewards engagement with both sides:
A balanced verdict is that Hume is strongest against accepting miracles as proofs of doctrine on weak testimony, but weaker if pressed into the claim that no testimony could ever rationally support a miracle, since that risks closing inquiry by definition.
It is worth noticing that much of Hume's argument depends on his definition of a miracle as a violation of a law of nature, and the AQA specification deliberately pairs him with Maurice Wiles, who rejects that very framework. Wiles, troubled by the selectiveness implied by violation-miracles (why would a good God part the Red Sea yet not intervene at Auschwitz?), preferred to see God's single great "act" as the creation and sustaining of the whole universe, rather than as a series of interventions that suspend natural law. On this anti-interventionist view, Hume's argument loses much of its target: if miracles are not violations of law at all, the clash between testimony and "uniform experience" does not arise in Hume's stark form. Others, such as R. F. Holland, redefine a miracle as a remarkable and religiously significant coincidence of natural events (the "contingency" concept), which again escapes Hume's violation-based attack. The lesson for evaluation is that how one defines a miracle largely determines whether Hume's objection succeeds — a point examiners reward highly.
Hume's most sustained critique of theistic arguments appears in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published posthumously in 1779; Hume had delayed publication, wary of controversy). Three characters voice different positions:
The design argument, as Cleanthes frames it, reasons by analogy: human artefacts (machines, watches, houses) show order, purpose and design, and we know they have intelligent designers; the natural world also shows order and purpose; like effects have like causes; so the world is probably the product of an intelligent Designer — God.
Philo (and through him Hume) raises multiple objections:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.