David Hume’s Denial of the Omnipotent Power in the Universe

David Hume’s personal perception of religion as well as his contributions to shaping religious beliefs throughout history has had an enduring influence and a contemporary significance. In Section XI, “Of a Particular Providence and of a Future State”, Hume shockingly argues that God does not exist and He is not the Creator, Designer, nor the Controller of the universe. This argument was very surprising during his time, around the middle 1700’s, because most people did not dare to challenge the Roman Catholic Church or question the truth of religion. Religion was the backbone for their lives and morals. Even John Locke, René Descartes, and Michel de Montaigne believed in God’s existence, maybe not on the same level with each other or as strict Christian believers, but they still shared the belief in a higher Superior Being, Who created the world and everything in and around it. In contrast, Hume undermines God and religion, while he asserts:

The religious philosophers…paint, in the most magnificent colours, the order, beauty, and wise arrangement of the universe; and then ask, if such a glorious display of intelligence could proceed from the fortuitous concourse of atoms, or if chance could produce what the greatest genius can never sufficiently admire…It is sufficient, if I can prove, from this very reasoning, that the question is entirely speculative, and that, when, in my philosophical disquisitions, I deny a providence and a future state, I undermine not the foundations of society, but advance principles, which they themselves, upon their own topics, if they argue consistently, must allow to be solid and satisfactory (Hume 98).

This long quote sums up Hume’s perspective on religion as he not only doesn’t believe in God, Who is in charge of the natural order of the universe, but he also doesn’t believe in Heaven or the afterlife. He believes God and life after death are unjustifiable, as the reasoning from “effect” back to its “cause” necessitates a balanced correspondence, which is proportionality. Thus, the world and everything else does not demand or need a godlike and divine explanation because everything on this earth can be explained naturally without drawing on religious beliefs. Additionally, Hume reveals to his readers his belief that God does not direct the world and everyone in it while the “future state” is gratuitous. This means the popular religious beliefs people relied on so heavily during his time, such putting faith in eternal life and God’s plan or divine control over the world, are not certainties or truths. People have free will and all human’s actions have causes, meaning something prior to their action influenced and persuaded she or he to act; without effect then there is no cause. In other words, causation is not real, which is the base of human knowledge currently. However, Hume argues causation is just as mystical as God.

His proof to support this claim is due to the fact there is not one thing or evidence to point or show there is some sort of divine ruler or of God’s power. Hume believes the causation of each human’s belief is derived from nature; everything is caused into existence naturally. He also highlights since there is evil, pain, and corruption in the world then there is no absolute all good, almighty, and perfect God because the messed up world is incompatible with the belief that God provides providential care to all his children. If God were all omnipotent and omnibenevolent then he wouldn’t let the world have so much sadness and wickedness. Ultimately, Hume is making the argument that considering not one person experienced the universe being created from the very beginning, there is no reasonable basis for God as a cause. I believe this book makes him one of the first philosophers to methodically analyze religion as natural occurrences instead of by supernatural and godlike causes.

Rather than relying on spiritual reasoning, Hume depends on mathematical and experiential logic to justify his assertions. He ends the book by clarifying “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 120). This is probably one of the most extreme, astonishing, and revolutionary statements made by an empiricist during the Enlightenment. Humans’ knowledge is only limited to their experiences and consequently, there is no divine being directing nature because we haven’t experienced it. In this quote, Hume is acknowledging humans’ limited academics for the study of metaphysics because it’s focal points are insufficient in theoretical reasoning along with analysis with scientific rigor

In connection to his overarching thesis, Hume calls for the necessity to have a more stringent center of interest on the scientific assessment of philosophical questions and concepts. Most of what humans’ perceive as a cause and effect are really just natural patterns or coincidences. This relates to another theme of Hume’s, which is the truth that nothing is ever really 100% certain. Yet, if you really think about it, this last quote somewhat contradicts his whole book and own advice that presented to the readers, because does his argument contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? I would say, not really. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Then shall we as readers commit his book to the flames and reject his book?