Hume says, “The most
perfect philosophy of the natural kind only staves off our ignorance a little
longer.” This caused me to pause and think. Although I do not agree with the
entirety of Hume’s framework for interpreting life, this supposition struck me
as quite true. In order to understand the ‘hidden mechanisms’ of our world, in
this age we traditionally look to science. Mainly physics or chemistry. Within
physics we have forces, and these forces act on atoms, and the atoms are
composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Each successive layer reveals
another layer that has yet to be understood. Hume proposes here that there is
no end to the proverbial onion. I think he is correct. However, Hume never
proposes what is at the core of these hidden forces. For example, what are
atoms made of, what causes opposites charges to be attracted, and how does
gravity work? Here, Hume and I
diverge in our thoughts. Hume appears to believes there is no true core,
because every natural “law” is derived from our experience. There is really no
true cause and effect. I agree that empirical evidence is how we learn about
the world, however I also see that behind gravity and other ‘natural laws’ lies
God. Although we can learn things about gravity, magnetic forces, and other
natural phenomena, it is not false to say that the reason an apple falls to the
ground when it becomes dislodged from its branch is because God made it that
way. We know that gravity is the law attributed to the falling of the apple,
but the fact remains unchanged that God created the particles in the apple to
behave according to these ‘laws.’
Hume’s thoughts on
thoughts can be categorized into three general areas. He considers thoughts to
be divided into mathematical reasoning, empirical observation, and tradition.
Because Hume is a rather intelligent fellow, arguing with the reasoning he
employs is no easy task. Supposing that he is correct, the Christian may wonder
if there is still grounds for belief in God. Is there any empirical evidence
that indicates the presence of God? Beyond empirical evidence, can there be any
other ‘proof’ for God?
We can begin by ‘playing
by Hume’s rules’ and examining only empirical evidence. Next, we can attempt to
find some sort of philosophical truth that we know for certain to be true. I
have not researched extensively on this subject, but I have read pieces here
and there. From what I have read, there is significant evidence for a creator
in biology. We can draw this conclusion from what we know empirically about
creation versus chaos. A pile of sticks in the woods does not indicate a creator,
whereas a log cabin located in the woods does. By the same reasoning, the vast
complexity of life indicates a creator. Beyond the empirical evidence, we can
also look for what Hume says is impossible: a truth that we implicitly know
without tradition or empirical evidence. Although there are hundreds of
possible proofs that I could give, ranging from empirical to emotional and from
historical to philosophical, one that immediately comes to mind is a quote from
C.S. Lewis. He says in his book, Mere
Christianity, that “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never
have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the
universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark”
(Lewis.) Here Lewis concisely states a contradiction in terms. It may be rather
Cartesian of me to say, but there is no reason for people to think ‘on higher
levels’ if there are no higher levels to think on.
