Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Section XI contains a conversation between Hume and a friend. Their argument is on

religion and how religious people often misrepresent God. From Hume's point of view, religion

has made a mistake of trying to explain the existence of God through reason. The concept of

cause and effect is used continuously by these religious people to describe what they do not

understand about God. Their explanations are never built on experience or understanding but

mere guesswork. Hume cautiously continues to explain why he believes that the current religion

is messed up. Examples are provided to emphasize his points as he tries to convince his friend

that he is right. Religious belief cannot be explained through reasoning alone as it requires divine

revelation and encounters to understand the nature of God.

Humes does not completely refute the existence of God. He almost sounds that he is also

a believer in the divine nature of God. The main issue here is in how people brand God.

According to him, people ought not to believe that since one event occurred as a result of God's

power, then a subsequent one might also be attributed to him. Such remarks might be right

(Ariew and Eric 590). Many other effects might not necessarily be associated with God unless

there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, while I agree with his argument, I also believe

that he fails to consider the elements of spirituality in his case. A religious explanation might

argue that since the world is God's, then all things that occur therein are his own doing. The

conversation in cause and effect ought to have started right from the creation of the universe. For

Surname 2

instance, since God is the one who created the world, then every unexplained thing might only be

attributed to him (Carroll 1). He is the one who designed it to react the way it does.

Unfortunately, the conversation could have been hindered based on differing views on the

world’s existence.

Hume tends to see God as an empty hypothesis. Mere acts of reason cannot define God's

doing. Some events that are believed to follow each other habitually. For instance, when we

realize that the grass outside is wet, then we automatically assume that it rained. People never

confirm if the witness was as a result of something else since they are used to the fact that an

extensively wet surface is often caused by raindrops (Ariew and Eric 590). Such an argument

makes sense since it is justifiable based on human experience. Using the same explanation,

Hume needs to understand that, like nature, there are numerous interlinked occurrences in

religious circles. For instance, the idea of answered prayers, where a person's blessings are

tagged to the prayer that was made. If people have breakthroughs each time they pray, then it is

wise to associate such results to the prayers. While it might be true that some religious

explanations are falsified, it must be known that they are based on past trends and people's

perception of God. Religion has shown people how God operates. Notably, religious people can

spot Good in a storm, in near death experiences and even in miraculous healings since they have

enough reasons to back their claims.

"Cause" can also be used to a specific effect not yet confirmed. For example, if the road

is wet as a result of the rains, then it is evident that the grass is slippery. The inference is also

based on previous experience of the multiple effects of a storm. Further conclusions can be

drawn from a single cause. However, there is a limitation of such type of reasoning in the

spiritual realm. God is unpredictable in his ways. While he might follow trends, inferring many

Surname 3

effects to a single event attributed to makes God very predictable. Chiefly, it means that human

beings expect God to act in a specific way each time they act in a predetermined manner.

However, some people are likely not to have the same experience multiple times due to the

nature of God. He decides when and how to bless. Therefore, on this point, Hume might be right

to argue that further effects should not necessarily be attributed to a single cause.

According to Hume, God is different from our inference of the rains. Unlike God, storms

has been part of our lives for years. We have grown up seeing it and associating it to many

effects in our world. When we infer specific effects to it, we are sure of it since we have never

been wrong in our inferences. However, God has only been part of our belief systems. He has not

been as visible as the rains, and his existence has often been based on our individual beliefs. For

this reason, Hume believes that God is an empty hypothesis whose predictability is almost

impossible. Nothing can be said about him other than what has already been witnessed.

While Hume's tends to express his disbelief in the existence of God, he cautiously

distances himself from the argument by revealing them as someone else's. He never wants to

take responsibility for any of them. His friend also distances himself from the debates by

presenting his thesis as coming from Epicurus. Hume does not utterly condemns religion but

only expresses his concerns on people's perceptions. Their cautiousness further demonstrates the

complexity of faith. Both understand that they do not have enough information to handle the

conversation about religion effectively. Unlike sciences, religion has gaps that are yet to be

filled. God's nature is not entirely understood, and his presence in certain situations is hard to

tell. Notably, this shows why the two do not provide a convincing conclusion on the same.

Chiefly, it also confirms why they distance themselves from the discussion. None knows the

influence of God and religion on their individual lives.

Surname 4

The discussion by Hume and his friend is a sensible one. Like any other human beings,

they argue with the intention of finding answers to issues concerning religion. However, their

shortcoming is affected by their philosophical explanations. Religion cannot be confined within

the boundaries of philosophy as its interpretation is linked to spirituality and not religion.

Nonetheless, their argument on cause and effects is an eye-opener. Religion should not base its

explanations on assumptions but rather on justifiable facts. I admit that this might be the most

challenging task as it would require people to put a convincing argument that describes and

confirms their spiritual encounters. However, this is not the nature of religion as it cannot be

confined in a box. Explanations are deemed to change as people have different encounters that

define their lives.

Surname 5

Work Cited

Ariew, Roger, and Eric Watkins, eds. Modern Philosophy. Hackett Publishing, 2009.

Carroll, Sean M. "Does the Universe Need God?" (2012).

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."