The Scottish philosopher, economist and historian, David Hume, (7 May 1711 [26 April O.S.] – 25 August 1776) was an important figure in the history of Western philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment. “Hume is often grouped with John Locke, George Berkeley, and a handful of others as a British Empiricist.” *1
The text below is from Hume’s Pamphilus To Hermippus, a Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is a corrected version of the 1854 Works. In his dialogues, David Hume discussed how God’s ideas were not a true explanation of the material world,
since a mental world required a cause just as much as any other. And if we had to stop our questioning there, then why not stop at the material world? *2
The page numbers in brackets refer to the Kemp Smith edition. The text below is from St. Anselm College’s Department of Philosophy * 3
[161]
Again, when we will needs force Experience to pronounce some sentence, even on these subjects which lie beyond her sphere, neither can she perceive any material difference in this particular, between these two kinds of worlds; but finds them to be governed by similar principles, and to depend upon an equal variety of causes in their operations. We have specimens in miniature of both of them. Our own mind resembles the one; a vegetable or animal body the other. Let experience, therefore, judge from these samples. Nothing seems more delicate, with regard to its causes, than thought; and as these causes never operate in two persons after the same manner, so we never find two persons who think exactly alike. Nor indeed does the same person think exactly alike at any two different periods of time. A difference of age, of the disposition of his body, of weather, of food, of company, of books, of passions; any of these particulars, or others more minute, are sufficient to alter the curious machinery of thought, and communicate to it very different movements and operations. As far as we can judge, vegetables and animal bodies are not more delicate in their motions, nor depend upon a greater variety or more curious adjustment of springs and principles.
How, therefore, shall we satisfy ourselves concerning the cause of that Being whom you suppose the Author of Nature, or, according to your system of Anthropomorphism, the ideal world, into which you trace the material? Have we not the same reason to trace that ideal world into another ideal world, or new intelligent principle? But if we stop, and go no further; why go so far? why not stop at the material world? How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world. By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be God; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humour which it is impossible ever to satisfy.
[162]
To say, that the different ideas which compose the reason of the Supreme Being, fall into order of themselves, and by their own nature, is really to talk without any precise meaning. If it has a meaning, I would fain know, why it is not as good sense to say, that the parts of the material world fall into order of themselves and by their own nature. Can the one opinion be intelligible, while the other is not so?
We have, indeed, experience of ideas which fall into order of themselves, and without any known cause. But, I am sure, we have a much larger experience of matter which does the same; as, in all instances of generation and vegetation, where the accurate analysis of the cause exceeds all human comprehension. We have also experience of particular systems of thought and of matter which have no order; of the first in madness, of the second in corruption. Why, then, should we think, that order is more essential to one than the other? And if it requires a cause in both, what do we gain by your system, in tracing the universe of objects into a similar universe of ideas? The first step which we make leads us on for ever. It were, therefore, wise in us to limit all our enquiries to the present world, without looking further. No satisfaction can ever be attained by these speculations, which so far exceed the narrow bounds of human understanding.
It was usual with the Peripatetics, you know, Cleanthes, when the cause of any phenomenon was demanded, to have recourse to their faculties or occult qualities; and to say, for instance, that bread, nourished by its nutritive faculty, and senna purged by its purgative. But it has been discovered, that this subterfuge was nothing but the disguise of ignorance; and that these philosophers, though less ingenuous, really said the same thing with the sceptics or the vulgar, who fairly confessed that they knew not the cause of these phenomena. In like manner, when it is asked, what cause produces order in the ideas of the Supreme Being; can any other reason be assigned by you, Anthropomorphites, than that it is a rational faculty, and that such is the nature of the Deity? But why a similar answer will not be equally satisfactory in accounting for the order of the world, without having recourse to any such intelligent creator as you insist on, may be difficult to determine. It is only to say, that such is the nature of material objects, and that they are all originally possessed of a faculty of order and proportion. These are only more learned and elaborate ways of confessing our ignorance; nor has the one hypothesis any real advantage above the other, except in its greater conformity to vulgar prejudices.
[163]
You have displayed this argument with great emphasis, replied Cleanthes. You seem not sensible how easy it is to answer it. Even in common life, if I assign a cause for any event, is it any objection, Philo, that I cannot assign the cause of that cause, and answer every new question which may incessantly be started? And what philosophers could possibly submit to so rigid a rule? philosophers, who confess ultimate causes to be totally unknown; and are sensible, that the most refined principles into which they trace the phenomena, are still to them as inexplicable as these phenomena themselves are to the vulgar. The order and arrangement of nature, the curious adjustment of final causes, the plain use and intention of every part and organ; all these bespeak in the clearest language an intelligent cause or author. The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony: the whole chorus of Nature raises one hymn to the praises of its Creator. You alone, or almost alone, disturb this general harmony. You start abstruse doubts, cavils, and objections: you ask me, what is the cause of this cause? I know not; I care not; that concerns not me. I have found a Deity; and here I stop my enquiry. Let those go further, who are wiser or more enterprising.
I pretend to be neither, replied Philo: and for that very reason, I should never perhaps have attempted to go so far; especially when I am sensible, that I must at last be contented to sit down with the same answer, which, without further trouble, might have satisfied me from the beginning. If I am still to remain in utter ignorance of causes, and can absolutely give an explication of nothing, I shall never esteem it any advantage to shove off for a moment a difficulty, which, you acknowledge, must immediately, in its full force, recur upon me.Naturalists indeed very justly explain particular effects by more general causes, though these general causes themselves should remain in the end totally inexplicable; but they never surely thought it satisfactory to explain a particular effect by a particular cause, which was no more to be accounted for than the effect itself. An ideal system, arranged of itself, without a precedent design, is not a whit more explicable than a material one, which attains its order in a like manner; nor is there any more difficulty in the latter supposition than in the former.
More about Hume – From wikipedia *4:
During his lifetime, Hume was more famous as a historian; his six-volume History of England was a bestseller well into the nineteenth century and the standard work on English history for many years, while his works in philosophy to which he owes his current reputation were less widely read during his day.
Hume was heavily influenced by empiricists John Locke and George Berkeley, along with various French-speaking writers such as Pierre Bayle, and various figures on the English-speaking intellectual landscape such as Isaac Newton, Samuel Clarke, Francis Hutcheson, and Joseph Butler (to whom he sent his first work for feedback). *5
In the twentieth century, Hume has increasingly become a source of inspiration for those in political philosophy and economics as an early and subtle thinker in the liberal tradition, as well as an early innovator in the genre of the essay in his Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. *6
Hume and Religion — From wikipedia *4:
It is likely that Hume was sceptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d’Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume’s position is best characterised by the term “irreligion”. O’Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume “did not believe in the God of standard theism. … but he did not rule out all concepts of deity”. Also, “ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion”.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume (retrieved 2/12/2010)
- http://www.pantheism.net/paul/cause.htm (retrieved 2/13/2010)
- http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm (retrieved 2/13/2010)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume (retrieved 2/12/2010)
- In the Introduction to his A Treatise of Human Nature, (New York: Dover, 2003 edition), p.xi.fn., Hume mentions “Mr Locke, Lord Shaftesbury, Dr Mandeville, Mr Hutcheson, Dr Butler, etc”. as philosophers “who have begun to put the science of man on a new footing, and have engaged the attention, and excited the curiosity of the public” (from *1)
- Published in various editions, under several titles, between 1741 and 1777 in London and Edinburgh (from *1)
December 31st, 2009 at 4:33 pm edit
December 31st, 2009 at 11:50 pm edit
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:36 pm edit
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:49 pm edit
You are very welcome.
January 18th, 2010 at 2:17 pm edit
Look these philosophies up.
It’s a view I also hold{as an anti-theistic Agnostic-Deist who tends towatds PanDeism/PanenDeism}. It’s what a growing segment of deists are starting to adopt, and it the view{whether knowingly or unintentionally} many physicists and cosmologists believe in{from Einstein, to Davies, Hawking, and others.} It is often pre-fixed by a degree of Agnoticism as well, and perhaps an anti-theistic view about theism and revealed religions.
Einstein, for example, denied there could be a personal god, but he denied atheismk and theism as well. he did once call hiself agnostuc{and atheist in the eyes of a jesuit priest; but then deists and buddhists and muslims and anyone is an atheist in the eyes of a priest}.
Scientific Pantheism is just superflous silliness, “sexed up atheism’ is just atheism, they should just simply say they are atheists therefore. For that reason AND because they are taking the word away from actual real Pantheists and giving the publci a false impression of what Pantheism actually is.
Bill Baker
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:45 am edit
Thank you for your comment.
June 12th, 2010 at 4:33 pm edit
June 13th, 2010 at 5:38 am edit
I deleted that spam, once in a while a few get through my spam blocking efforts
July 1st, 2010 at 8:41 am edit
July 1st, 2010 at 8:43 am edit
July 1st, 2010 at 8:57 am edit
September 8th, 2010 at 11:05 pm edit
December 16th, 2010 at 9:36 am edit