David Hume famously argued with contemporary beliefs about the existence and nature of God. In this paper, I will explicate some of his reasoning, focusing largely on the nsture of God as an architect, and also touching briefly on the problem of evil.
Hume’s response to the argument from design states that the reasoning that the world must have been intentionally created by a divine being is unrealistic, as the world is so imperfect. Hume argues that if the world was created by a divine being—effectively an ‘architect’—then it cannot be that the architect is good, let alone perfect. Although it can be argued biblically that God made changes to the world after its creation in order to correct or improve it, Hume states that this is not a reasonable argument for God’s creation. After all, if God is truly omniscient, it is reasonable to believe that his architecture would be perfect from the very beginning. For the proposed architect to have made mistakes in the initial creation process implies, according to Hume, that the architect is a poor one, and it is therefore unreasonable to use this as an argument for God’s design.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"David Hume: The Existence And Nature Of God".
If we therefore understand the idea of the architect of the world as a flawed image of a poor architect, Hume then takes this argument in order to draw conclusions about how God could be seen in this light. If the ‘design’ in question was said to be an ordinary house, and the architect human, it seems reasonable to suggest that the house should provide adequate living conditions—i.e. shelter, warmth, stability—from the outset. If this were not the case, we would likely describe the architect as incompetent and criticise his capability of design. In the same way, as God’s design has arguably failed for a number of reasons—not least of which are the problem of evil, the extremities of weather, the presence of disease—Hume suggests that if God did indeed design the world, then he should be criticised as an imperfect, incompetent architect.
In a similar way, Hume critiques the presence of natural and man-made disasters, essentially suggesting that God should not or cannot be considered a benevolent being, as if he has power and does not use it to help people, he cannot be considered a morally good force. Hume makes the comparison again with humanity, stating that if humans were to have the power to prevent disasters or to provide aid to those in need, and they did nothing, we would criticise them as evil and corrupt moral beings. Likewise, if God has the power to do these things and does not, then he cannot be reasonably considered to be benevolent.
John Hick, a prevalent philosopher of religion in the twentieth century, argued strongly against Hume’s reasoning in this regard. Hick suggests that the problem of evil can be explained by the necessary process of ‘soul making’ by which human souls are refined by suffering in order to create and purify a better capacity to love. Whereas Hume emphasises the ambiguous morality of God in his neglect of human suffering, Hick instead points to the practical good and freedom that comes of suffering. If we were made to exist in God’s direct presence, there would never be a chance to learn love in free relation to both God and the rest of the world.
Although I do not know which of these approaches is necessarily right, I think that Hick’s reasoning is more comprehensive. Hume’s arguments rely on comparison between God and humans, while Hick incorporates ideas of morality in terms of freedom, which Hume does not address.
- Hick, J. (n.d.). Soul-Making and Suffering: The Vale of Soul-Making’ Theodicy.
