If we accept the common account about David Hume, we could be tempted to think that he was a kind of theological anti-thesis of the Apostle Paul, who was a hard-core Christian theist.
But as I argued in this post, David Hume was a kind of moderate theist, not an atheist (nor an agnostic). He was a critic of the classical arguments for God's existence, but this position is perfectly compatible with God's existence and even with believing in God's existence on other grounds, which was Hume's case.
What's astonishing about Hume's theism is that it was grounded in a reason very similar than the one held by the Apostle Paul.
In Romans 1:20, Paul says:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Paul's view seems to be that "from what has been made" (i.e. the order and features of the universe) testifies God's existence. One could think that Paul is thinking about a kind of design argument; but perhaps a better interpretation is to say that Paul was thinking about a kind of properly basic belief in God's existence based on the experience of the creation.
Compare with David Hume's view on The Natural History of Religion:
The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquierer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion... Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .All the things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughtout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author" (pp.21, 26)
According to Hume, like Paul, the whole frame of nature (i.e. nature considered as a whole) testifies the existence of God, namely, of an intelligent author. Moreover, Hume stresses the fact that no rational thinker can, after serious and deep thinking, suspend his belief in theism. It follows that atheism is IRRATIONAL (or at least, not based on serious reflection).
Hume'`s emphasis in "serious reflection" suggests that, unlike Paul, he was thinking about a design argument (i.e. an argument based on premises which include the whole frame of the universe, and concludes for the existence of an intelligent author as a sufficient cause of it). Paul's view seems to be that God is a properly basic belief based on observation (not on inference); Hume's view seems to be that observation of the particular features of the world (considered as a whole, not just specific parts) gives us a good reason to think that such world has an intelligent author, and hence that theism is more rational than the alternatives (atheism, agnosticism, polytheism, etc.).
Hume'`s emphasis in "serious reflection" suggests that, unlike Paul, he was thinking about a design argument (i.e. an argument based on premises which include the whole frame of the universe, and concludes for the existence of an intelligent author as a sufficient cause of it). Paul's view seems to be that God is a properly basic belief based on observation (not on inference); Hume's view seems to be that observation of the particular features of the world (considered as a whole, not just specific parts) gives us a good reason to think that such world has an intelligent author, and hence that theism is more rational than the alternatives (atheism, agnosticism, polytheism, etc.).
On the other hand, note the similarity between Hume and Paul regarding the divine qualities which can be apprehended from the universe. Paul talks about "eternal power and divine nature", and Hume talks about "invisible, intelligent power". We could add that, for both Paul and Hume, the evidence speaks for ONE God (not a plurality of divine beings). So, Hume and Paul agree with monotheism too.
Hume/Paul argument implies the irrationality and spiritual blindness of atheism:
Regardless of whether Hume/Paul argument is correct, we can draw a further implication of this argument: atheism is irrational and product of spiritual blindness.
According to Paul, atheism is due to the effects of SIN. That is, atheists are prey of the spiritual effects of sin, and as consequence their cognitives faculties don't work properly, specially regarding spiritual matters. Hence, they are blind to the existence of God and even suppress the truth regarding God.
According to Paul in Romans 1:18:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness
When you discover atheists asking "What Caused God?" or falsely claiming that the cosmological argument is based on the premiss "Everything has a cause", Paul's words come to mind: These atheists seem to be intellectually impaired, for spiritual reasons, to understand even a basic argument for God's existence. They seem to be simply blind to understand even a basic argument like the cosmological argument, and in fact suppress the truth about the argument for God's existence. (see egregious and intellectually incompetent examples in atheists Michael Martin, Theodore Schick Jr., or Sam Harris).
According to Hume, no rational investigador, after serious reflection, can doubt (suspend his belief) regarding the first principles of theism and religion, for example the principle that there is a God who is the intelligent author of nature.
For Paul, the reasons for atheism are mainly moral and spiritual. For Hume, the reasons have to do with a lack of intellectual insight or rigour: after serious rational reflection, atheism is exposed as irrational. This is a difference between Paul and Hume, which are fully complementary.
Hume seems to be impressed, in particular, by the order of the universe. Interestingly, this was the same kind of argument which impressed Hume scholar, former philosophical champion of atheism and then a theist like the late Antony Flew:
There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
Flew expanded his view and the reasons for his conversion in his excellent book There Is a God:
But we have to be careful here. There is a design argument based on basic features of the universe, and we have have a design argument based on biology.
Hume seemed to be impressed by the first kind of the argument, namely the order of the WHOLE frame or structure of the universe. Keep in mind that Hume wrote in a time when nor the universe's coming into being (in the Big Bang) nor the fine-tuning of the universe was scientifically known. If Hume was impressed by the whole order of the universe and believed that theism was more rational than atheism or agnosticism on that ground, then a fortiori the discovery of the universe's very fine constants, the fine-tuning for life and the absolute coming into being of the universe "out of nothing" would have clinch Hume's belief in the superior rationality of theism over any other worldview competitor.
In my opinion, based on Hume's theism, a design argument like the following one ought to be persuasive to Hume:
Flew, on the other hand, seemed to be be impressed not only by the design argument related to the whole universe, but also with the evidence for design in biology, specially regarding the origin of life.
In my own case, the Kalam Argument has been instrumental to my conversion to theism. I also find persuasive the argument for consciousness, the argument for rationality, the moral argument, the design argument for the fine-tuning of the universe and many others, but I'm still more or less agnostic about the value of the design argument in biology, even though I'm currently extremely skeptical of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which I consider to be mostly a pseudoscience.
If Hume was impressed by the whole order of nature, which was sufficient evidence for accepting theism, you can imagine what Hume would have thought about J.J.C. Smart or, even worst, Quentin Smith, who prefer madness or "nothingness" (non-being and "no reason at all") as good reasons for preferring atheistic naturalism over theism...
Anti-scientific dogmatism of the most objectionable, close-minded, irrational and prejudiced kind.
0 comments:
Post a Comment