Hume's Argument Against the Cosmological Argument: A Philosophical Analysis

David Hume's skepticism towards metaphysical claims, including the argument from causality and the cosmological argument, has been a central theme in his philosophical works. Hume famously argued that in metaphysics, there is no necessary connection between a cause and its effect. This essay aims to delve into Hume's arguments and explore the rationale behind his skepticism, as well as how Immanuel Kant defended Hume against his critics.

David Hume: Skepticism in Metaphysics

In his work Treatise on Human Nature, Hume presents his arguments in metaphysics. He defines a cause as an object that precedes and is contiguous to another, such that the idea of the one determines the mind to form the idea of the other and the impression of one to form a more lively idea of the other (Hume, 1939, p. 170). Hume's distinction is significant because it clarifies that his argument is not against natural causes in the world but rather against a priori, metaphysical connections between events.

“A cause is an object precedent and contiguous to another, and so united with it, that the idea of the one determines the mind to form the idea of the other, and the impression of the one to form a more lively idea of the other.”

Interpreting Hume's Argument

The common misunderstanding is that Hume questioned the validity of causality in nature. However, Hume's argument tackled a more fundamental issue: whether the concept of cause and effect can be derived from pure reason without reference to empirical experience. He posited that a priori reasoning, which is necessary in metaphysics, cannot establish a necessary connection between the world of experience and a higher, transcendent cause.

“But Hume suffered the usual misfortune of metaphysicians of not being understood … the question was not whether the concept of cause was right useful and even indispensable for our knowledge of nature for this Hume had never doubted but whether that concept could be thought by reason a priori and consequently whether it possessed an inner truth independent of all experience.”

Immanuel Kant’s Defense of Hume

Immanuel Kant, in his Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, defended Hume against his critics. Kant elaborates on the limitations of metaphysical knowledge and the necessity of a priori reason. According to Kant, metaphysics cannot rely on empirical evidence but must use concepts that are necessary and universal.

“For as concerns the sources of metaphysical knowledge its very concept implies that they cannot be empirical. Its principles, including not only its maxims but its basic notions must never be derived from experience. It must not be physical but metaphysical knowledge, namely knowledge lying beyond experience. It can therefore have for its basis neither external experience, which is the source of physics proper, nor internal, which is the basis of empirical knowledge.”

Kant further illustrated this concept using mathematics as an example. Unlike empirical knowledge, which is contingent and subject to experience, mathematics provides necessary truths that are derived from the structure of the mind itself. If Hume had considered such a priori reasoning, he might have been more optimistic about the prospects of metaphysics.

Implications for the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument proposes that the universe must have a first cause or a transcendent being that initiated and sustains everything. Hume's skepticism stems from the impossibility of deriving this necessary connection from pure reason. The argument requires a demonstration of a necessary connection, which cannot be found in the world of experience alone.

Shifting the discussion to Socrates, we find a parallel in his critique of Anaxagoras's argument for the principle of Mind or Intelligence as the ordering principle of the natural world. Socrates argued that Anaxagoras pointed to empirical evidence in the natural world to establish a connection to a Transcendent principle, much like the cosmological argument.

“You can read what Socrates had to say in Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates. He made the very same point made much later by Hume then by Kant.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, Hume's argument against the cosmological argument is rooted in his skepticism towards a priori reasoning that seeks necessary connections in metaphysics. Kant's defense underscores the importance of a priori reasoning in metaphysics, which must transcend empirical evidence. Despite these challenges, the possibility of speculative philosophy remains open as long as it aligns with the critical demands outlined by Kant.