Quest of the Spirit: From Suffering to Acceptance

119. A Modern Skeptic: David Hume!

                                                   David Hume: On the Inscrutable Nature of God

        During the eighteenth century, the principles of reason and order prevailed as natural laws governing man and the universe. As a carryover from Newtonian physics, men viewed the world as a series of causes and effects, all working toward the universal good of mankind, as God designed the cosmos and looked down upon His creation. As spokesman for the Augustan Age, Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man" epitomized the literary trend of the period, most especially in its concluding quatrain which proceeded thus: "All discord, harmony not understood: All partial evil, universal good: And spite of Pride, in erring Reason's spite, One truth is clear. WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT" (Pope 458). In contrast, English skeptic David Hume poses a contrary view regarding the Age of Enlightenment in which he expresses doubts and uncertainty concerning the Deistic tenets of reason and order, as well as the Christian doctrines of faith and grace. The following excerpt from Hume's Natural History of Religion reveals the author's skepticism:"The whole is a riddle, an enigma, an inexplicable mystery. Doubt, uncertainty, [and] suspense of judgment appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny concerning the subject. But such is frailty of human reason, and such the irresistible contagion of opinion that even this deliberate doubt could scarcely be upheld"(Hume 74).

              To Hume, God was neither clock maker nor the divine healer, but rather, the unknowable and unattainable. Nonetheless, the existence of the Deity is never questioned but His attributes are, as the philosopher-historian proceeded to prove in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Like Newman and Carlyle, Hume clings unequivocally to his faith, yet rejected the Deistic notions of his time. Instead, he maintained that the limitations of any orthodox belief reduce the stature of both God and man because of His inscrutable power and mystery. His view, in essence, expressed an even greater faith in the omnipotence of God. Just as Carlyle proposes a new ethical clothing to replace the concept of social progress in his time, so does Newman suggests a new primitivism to supplant the dead traditions of his generation. In each case, the existing philosophical foundation must undergo an ideological transformation to challenge the consistency of the faith, even in the case of the Church, as Newman discovered. Ironically, institutions must undergo transformation, much like individuals. This process of growth or change is what Spengler discusses in his analogy of plant cycle to history, or civilizations. If these necessary changes fail to occur, however, those suffering societies can also undergo a form of neurosis , as do people; and if the society's struggle to regain prominence fails or is hindered, the process can equally manifests itself in patterns of national paranoia, aggression and hostility, as Frankl suggests in Man's Search for Meaning. Thus, growth, whether singular or collective, must be tempered by dignity, compassion, and equity for all. This is Russell's message in Why Men Fight, and what Schweitzer calls a "Reverence for Life." Here, Hume strongly adheres to his belief in God, yet questions his contemporaries' view on the attributes of the Supreme Being. As a result of his skepticism, critics labeled Hume an atheist, yet his religious convictions in no respect support such a claim. Renan's contemporaries equally accused him of atheism; however, his belief in God's ultimate glory and heavenly triumph overwhelmingly corroborates his faith in the greatest of all miracles i.e. man's spiritual transformation. Even Schweitzer turned to the forms and practices of the First Church, casting aside the traditional ceremonies of his time.

             In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume realizes the danger of publishing material so ostensibly unorthodox at the time, and therefore, structures his ideas in the form of a conversation between three individuals—Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. As Hume illustrates through Pamphilus in the Dialogue's introduction, "Any question of philosophy . . . which is so obscure and uncertain that human reason can reach a fixed determination with regard to it, if it should be treated at all, seems to lead us naturally into the style of dialogue and conversation"(Hume 504). Thus, the inadequacy of reason to resolve man's basic questions is explicit, as Hume points out in the selection. The author's disclaimer ironically refers to his readers as "reasonable men" who "may be allotted to differ where no one can reasonably be positive" and who can "afford an agreeable amusement . . . at opposite sentiments even without any decision" (Hume 504). In essence, Hume's flattering appeal is one of deliberate derision. Through the use of a persona, Hume presents both his personal views and the views of Christian and Deist, as they discuss the theological issue much in the same way that eighteenth-century gentlemen would debate an issue. Thus, by imitating the dialogues of Plato and Cicero, Hume airs his own opinions without fear of persecution or reprisal, however, conflict exists over whether Phil or Cleanthes actually represents Hume's position. Nevertheless, such a deliberate vagueness regarding the character roles reinforces the author's theme of ambiguity and uncertainty.