Hume’s Argument on Religion
Many scholars have dismissed Christianity in ancient times, and many arguments have been developed against the religious practice. David Hume was one of the first philosophers to explore religion as a natural occurrence. His arguments proposed that religious convictions could arise from natural causes instead of supernatural ones. Hume displayed moral, skeptical, and rational assertions against dominant religion and philosophers’ religious doctrine. Davide Hume was essentially an atheist. He asserted that humans are not justified in trusting miracle testimonies because proof from nature is always greater. He questioned the veracity of religious texts such as the Holy Book, which use miracles to teach moral standards. Hume repudiated the truth of any divine revelation. According to the philosopher, if a religious doctrine is subverted in any way, it can have bad repercussions. He asserted once more that rational arguments could not lead people to a divinity.
Most religious analogies are based on minimal human experiences. In this respect, it is practically impossible to prove the presence of a morally just and infinite cosmic human. He asserted that these generalizations are insufficient for notifying other facets of life, such as the presence of eternal life. Furthermore, Hume reasoned that the survival of human suffering nullifies the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. Hume’s assertions and opposition should preferably go mostly unaddressed. He articulates a range of views on religion and other metaphysical problems. Consequently, it can be contended that Hume’s postulates fall into one of three classifications: atheist naturalism, skeptical agnosticism, or various types of deism.
Since its publication, Hume’s attack on the Design argument was used by a variety of non-religious camps. Most atheist groups to illustrate religion’s deficiency have authored hundreds of Hume’s threats on Design. Hume’s assertions, nevertheless, are not comprehensive. Hume’s analogies are centered on a narrow scope of evidence. For instance, the scholar only authorized testimonial evidence in a case of miracles. He ignored the prospect of residual corroborating evidence favoring miracles. Most miracles, in theory, leave physical and ephemeral traces, such as healed individuals or changed lives. Hume’s arguments are based on the idea that miracles can only be observed, not personally encountered. Furthermore, this philosopher overlooks that most intelligent persons base their opinions on facts instead of chance. As a result, his assertions confused the amount of evidence with the quality of the evidence. Hume ignored the fact that various forms of evidence weigh differentially.
Hume’s arguments from Design provide theists with knowledge and insight into their concept of God. Cleanthes asserts in his analogies that God represents human intellect. This point of view is problematic since it diminishes the Supreme Being’s capabilities. Moreover, from the standpoint of conventional theism, this stance presents idol worship. As a result, it is no better than religious faith. Hume’s positions become much more skeptical if Demea’s understanding is abided. Furthermore, the arguments support the atheist claim that humans know little about God’s nature and character traits. David Hume used the dialogue method to pit theist groups against each other. He employed this technique to demonstrate that God’s nature is uncertain and incomprehensible. Hume illustrated that both theist stances were no better than atheism by playing off different factions of theists. His design assertions are profound and radical. They are, however, inconclusive because, in the final section of the Dialogues, Hume reverses some of his assertions and makes substantial concessions to Cleanthes’ role. According to this perspective, atheists may concede to the concept of God. Eventually, Hume’s analogies do not entirely demonstrate God’s non – existence. Instead, they disclose that God’s nature is an unexplained mystery beyond human understanding.
Possible Response to the Problem
Empiricism is a good foundation for understanding Hume’s views on theism. Hobbes’ work, which endorsed comparable empiricist viewpoints regarding the underpinnings of human understanding, showed excellent capability for empiricism to generate skeptical findings of our understanding of God. There are numerous Christian responses to the problem of theism. Some Religious people believe that taking the time to comprehend why evil and suffering are existent is pointless because God’s will is beyond human understanding. Another approach to the problem is from a theoretical viewpoint, making sense of it through reason. Some Believers believe that the presence of evil presents a chance to react practically and compassionately. Belief in an intelligent, invisible creator and sustainer of the universe is a universal belief rooted in and backed by logic. From this vantage point, no one sincerely acknowledges “speculative atheism.” Hume’s “naturalistic” method to religious doctrine seeks to refute theism’s assertions and presumptions.
Although these claims are true, there is an underlying religious tone to his discussion. Despite being an atheist, Hume opposed the idea of those who objected to his philosophical philosophies by claiming that he had not engaged with people that hold such identities. In this regard, Hume identified himself as antagonistic among his fellow philosophers, but as a common person, he would recognize himself as an atheist. As a result, establishing his true identity in the case of religion is extremely difficult; however, his antagonistic personality is evident in numerous dialogues. It was necessary to evaluate the theoretical constructs that supported God’s existence. Despite his skeptic personality and irrational arguments against religion, he also presents assertions that drive people to accept the existence of a Supreme Being. The majority of his cases were geared toward exploring and evaluating aspects of natural religious doctrine. Hume was concerned with the relationships between ethics and the origins of people’s religious beliefs about God’s existence. Although Hume is not regarded as an atheist, some of his assertions remain unknown, such as the debate over eternal life. In the case of religion, he also contends on the presence and unidentified nature of God.
Megill, Jason. “Hume, Causation and Two Arguments Concerning God.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6, no. 2 (2014): 169-177.
Pakaluk, Michael. “Cleanthes’ case for theism.” Sophia 27, no. 1 (1988): 11-19.
Ribeiro, Brian. “Hume’S Changing Views on the ‘Durability’of Scepticism.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 7, no. 2 (2009): 215-236.
 Megill, Jason. “Hume, Causation and Two Arguments Concerning God.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6, no. 2 (2014): 169-177.
 Ribeiro, Brian. “Hume’S Changing Views on the ‘Durability’of Scepticism.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 7, no. 2 (2009): 215-236.
 Pakaluk, Michael. “Cleanthes’ case for theism.” Sophia 27, no. 1 (1988): 11-19.