Evaluating David Hume’s Critique of the Cosmological Argument

 by Amelia Cooper

The Cosmological Argument is an inductive, a posteriori argument meaning that it is based upon empirical knowledge that is observed and obtained through previous experience. This argument outlines the idea that, as many things in our universe which we can visualise do have causes that are obvious to us, everything in our existing universe must have a cause. In this argument, this cause is seen as God. The Classical part of the Cosmological Argument is unlike other philosophical arguments such as the Ontological, as this involves deductive reasoning and is a priori meaning that it is gathered from deductions which we have made about the world around us rather than from observation or experience. Scottish Philosopher David Hume counter argues this theory in multiple ways and is arguably successful in rendering the original Cosmological Argument relatively obsolete and anachronistic.

Hume could be seen as successful in his critique of the Cosmological Argument through his analysis and idea of the universe being necessary. He argued that if the term ‘necessary’ simply means ‘an imperishable being’, then why are we so convinced that there is an eternal and infinite God or being who originally created the universe? If there are things within the universe and on Earth that are contingent, and we know this to be true, then could the universe itself not be the necessary and everlasting component in this argument? This idea of the origins of humanity itself and our surrounding universe is seconded by Bertrand Russell, who stated that the universe may just be a ‘brute fact’ and so simply cannot be explained in a deeper way, aka a prime mover such as God. Hume’s use of logic is seen to further his analysis of necessity within the creation of the universe, as he states that no proposition about existence can be logically necessary and we as humans cannot even understand the idea of necessity because it would need for the certain thing to be eternal and perpetual which humans cannot fathom as it is so opposite to our existence on Earth. Aquinas argued that God is humanity’s necessary being as he seemingly is all of the things needed for something to be classed as necessary: unchanged, immovable and uncaused. However, he is not stating that God is de dicto necessary (logically necessary) and is instead demonstrating the idea that He is instead de re necessary (in reality) Both David Hume and Bertrand Russell agree that it is irrational to visualise a correlation between the creation of the universe and the creation of all of the components within the universe, as they are two completely different series of events.

Contrary to this idea, the Cosmological Argument could be seen as strengthened by things such as modern science and the revolutionary technological advancements which have allowed humanity to become more aware and to come to justifiable conclusions on the origins of the universe. There has been much recent discovery that has shown us that the universe may have been created from the Big Bang, meaning that the universe perhaps is not necessary as some of Hume’s arguments may state. However, Hume counters this idea by stating that as we do not have a very broad knowledge of the origins of the universe itself, we still do not have a secure understanding and so ability to make inferences such as these. He criticises these ideas which have originated from modern science further by exploring recent investigations into quantum physics which have suggested that something can indeed come from nothing. Linking back these discoveries from modern science to the Cosmological Argument itself, Hume states that it is unwise and irrational to create an inference between cause and effect as it is, in his words ‘a psychological concept’, and so asks why it is seen as unacceptable to believe that the universe caused itself even though it is widely agreed with from theist perspectives that an unaused God is very plausible.

Within Hume’s critiques of the argument he analyses the idea that the premise of the Cosmological Argument, which is that every event must have a cause, cannot be fully proven as we do not have a great enough understanding of the universe. Hume demonstrates this counter to the Classical Argument itself by looking at the fact that we, as the human race, simply do not have enough evidence to even say whether there was a first cause to the universe let alone to inspect who or what originally caused the universe to exist. This idea from Hume is arguably strong and successful, as it uses logical reasoning to debate the idea of everything having a cause in the universe and uses the fact that our huge lack of empirical evidence when it comes to the birth of the universe prevents us from being able to make any kind of legitimate assumptions on the world around us. Hume argues that as Christians believe that God Himself came into existence without a cause, why is it not plausible for others to believe that the universe does not have a cause? Why are we so intent on determining that the universe does have a cause, and for many that this cause is God? Hume utilises the fallacy of composition to strengthen his questioning here, as in this view it is often argued that if we know that there is a specific cause for one thing in the universe then the same is true for everything else in the universe and even the universe itself. In Hume’s point of view, this perspective of the universe is completely illogical. It cannot be utilised to create a justified idea of the universe’s creation as it is solely based upon assumptions and illuminates the way in which the Cosmological Argument is inductive and centres its features around reckoning rather than fact. British academic Bertrand Russell also furthered his disagreement with this idea about the universe by stating that ‘this is the same as saying that because all humans have a mother, the entire human race has a mother’: showing that the construction of an answer to the whole universe itself based upon the answer to one small thing in the universe is irrational.

Overall, as Hume used logic to analyse the ideas within the Cosmological Argument, it can be seen that he was mostly successful in his critique of the argument. Hume’s idea that we cannot come to attainable conclusions from correlating the fact that we know the causes of some things in the universe to that of the wider world is arguably an extremely strong argument as it utilises simple logic in order to demonstrate the faults with the original Cosmological Argument. Additionally, Hume’s criticisms of the Classical Argument itself are very strong in terms of how he expressed the universe as perhaps being its own necessary cause. This idea is seen as strong because we do not have a clear understanding of immortality and eternalism which is needed for a certain being or thing to be classed as a necessary being. Therefore, Hume is successful in his critique of the Cosmological Argument.