Examining David Hume’s (1711–1776) Approach to Knowledge

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

David Hume was born in 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland, and pursued law before devoting himself to philosophy. He explored subjects that were hotly discussed during the European Enlightenment, a period marked by trust in human reason and an eagerness to explain reality without appealing to spiritual causes. Hume took a skeptical position, claiming that human knowledge was grounded only in sense experiences. He divided all statements into two categories: those expressing relations of ideas and those reporting matters of fact. Relations of ideas include definitions or mathematics, which need no observation to verify their truth. Matters of fact involve claims about the world, studied through sense experiences.

Hume argued that human understanding rests upon habitual associations rather than absolute rational certainty. Observers notice that certain events usually follow other events, but Hume said no one ever perceives a hidden metaphysical “tie” guaranteeing they must be connected. He used the example of the sun rising daily, insisting that although its daily appearance is consistent with past experience, there is no philosophical necessity forcing tomorrow to mirror yesterday. He insisted that cause-and-effect reasoning relies on custom, not any demonstrable proof of inherent necessity. This approach undercut many rational arguments that earlier thinkers had used to prove God’s existence or the reliability of miracles.

Hume’s approach stands at odds with the biblical perspective that God created an orderly universe and upholds it. Colossians 1:17 expresses that all things are sustained in Christ, implying that the observable regularities of nature are neither a product of blind habit nor uncertain expectations. Believers can maintain that the world’s consistent patterns reflect divine faithfulness. Hume’s doubt about whether the sun will rise tomorrow, or whether there is a real causal tie between events, contrasts with passages like Jeremiah 31:35-36, which portrays Jehovah’s established order in the heavens and the earth. The Christian approach affirms that while human observation cannot wholly penetrate God’s sustaining power, the reliability of nature is well-grounded in the Creator’s steady governance.

Hume’s Skeptical Test for Meaningful Statements

Hume famously challenged all philosophical or theological statements that could not be classified as demonstrably true by definition or verifiable by direct sense experience. He claimed that if a given book contained neither purely analytical reasoning (such as mathematics) nor empirical verification of matters of fact, it should be discarded. This severe stance disqualified discussions of God or the supernatural as “sophistry,” since references to an infinite, immaterial Being cannot be tested through the five senses or proved like a geometric proposition.

Critics observed that Hume’s standard refutes itself. His principle—that only statements derived from sense experience or logical tautologies are truly meaningful—is neither a tautology nor something derived strictly from sense data. It is a philosophical assumption that cannot be proved by Hume’s criteria. Hence, if one used Hume’s own standard against him, it would undermine his position. Believers note that a similar tension arises when some modern thinkers assert that empirical verification is the only measure of truth. This principle itself is not a truth that can be verified through a laboratory experiment. A more balanced approach recognizes that human knowledge is broader than mere sense perceptions, a concept consistent with Romans 1:20, which implies that God’s invisible qualities can be perceived through the things made, even if those qualities are not physically measured. The rational mind can infer from the order and design of creation that a divine cause exists. Such inferences do not violate reason; indeed, they align with a view that the cosmos bears evidence of a Creator.

Hume’s Disdain for Miracles

Hume is best remembered for his objection to miracles, particularly as laid out in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He defined a miracle as a violation of natural laws and claimed that the weight of uniform human experience opposes believing that miracles ever occur. He argued that because the uniform testimony of nature stands on one side, and miracle stories on the other, no wise person should accept the miracle. He also dismissed miracle reports as the product of unreliable witnesses or ignorant ages. According to Hume, testimonies of the extraordinary typically arise among the uneducated or the credulous, so an enlightened observer can dismiss them.

Believers counter that Hume’s definition of a miracle as a violation of nature is incomplete. The Scriptures describe miracles not as random intrusions but as purposeful acts by the Creator, the same One who established the laws of nature. Exodus 14:21 reports that a strong wind parted the Red Sea for Israel’s escape, credited to divine action, not blind chance. Likewise, Daniel 3:27 highlights the protection of three faithful servants in a burning furnace. These are presented as extraordinary occurrences within God’s sovereign control. Rather than “violations” of natural law, they are special acts of the God who oversees nature at all times. A Christian perspective sees the laws of nature as daily expressions of God’s consistent will, while miracles reflect special expressions of that same sovereign power. Hence, miracles need not undermine science’s basic premise that creation usually follows consistent patterns. Instead, they show that the One who established these patterns is free to act extraordinarily as He deems wise.

Hume also placed high confidence in what he called “uniform experience.” He claimed the entire testimony of history tells us that the dead do not return, so it is beyond all probability that a resurrection ever happened. Yet this trust in uniformity runs contrary to his own earlier argument that the future may not resemble the past. If such consistency in nature is uncertain, it is contradictory for him to claim unshakable uniformity when rejecting miracles. A consistent reading of Hume’s skepticism would deny that one can be sure about the unbroken constancy of nature. The biblical account of the resurrection of Christ, recorded in all four Gospels, is presented not as a commonplace event but as the unique triumph of the Son of God over death. First Corinthians 15:20 says Christ has been raised, depicting Him as the firstfruits from the dead, so the event’s uniqueness cannot be dismissed simply by appealing to ordinary experience.

Assessing Hume’s Empirical Atomism

A major feature of Hume’s philosophy was his assertion that events appear to the human mind as isolated “atoms” of experience, loosely conjoined by habit but not necessarily linked by real causal connections. From a biblical vantage point, this atomistic view of reality is foreign. The Scriptures portray a creation unified by God’s sustaining power, in which cause and effect reflect real relationships. Believers observe that daily experience testifies to the fact that certain actions produce predictable outcomes, not merely because of “custom” but because of an ordered creation. James 5:7-8 references the farmer’s confidence that the fruit of the earth will come, implying an inherent reliability in how seeds grow under the conditions Jehovah ordained.

Hume’s denial that we can observe a real bond between cause and effect contradicts the sense of agency humans experience within themselves. When someone composes a sentence or lifts an object, they ordinarily experience an internal awareness that their action has a meaningful causal impact. This sense is neither reducible to random atoms of experience nor to mere custom. Many consider that Hume tried to apply his approach to all external phenomena while ignoring direct experience of personal causation. From a Christian perspective, acknowledging that one’s choices produce real effects aligns with human accountability to God. Joshua 24:15 calls for a decision to serve Jehovah, implying that human beings are genuine agents. Scripture consistently treats personal decisions as causal, resulting in blessings or punishments. Hume’s suggestion that causality is merely an assumption grounded in custom does not resonate with the conviction that humans, created in the image of God, exercise real power to alter outcomes.

Hume’s Position on God’s Existence

Another area where Hume’s skepticism emerges is in his discussion of arguments for God’s existence. He attempted to reduce the universe’s cause to something finite or indefinite, insisting that an infinite cause was unproven and unnecessary. He objected to classical proofs like the cosmological argument, claiming that the principle of causality lacked proof. He also argued that a flawed or finite world might only need a flawed or finite cause, undermining the possibility of an all-powerful Creator. He suggested that an infinite regress of causes could be possible, removing the need for a First Cause.

This stands contrary to the biblical teaching in passages such as Psalm 90:2, which confesses, “From everlasting to everlasting, you are God,” affirming an eternal Creator who transcends the created order. Romans 1:19-20 contends that nature’s design and order point to the power of the invisible God. Even though Hume desired an approach limited strictly to sense perception, believers assert that reason can interpret observable data to perceive that something beyond finite contingencies must exist. Hebrews 3:4 states, “Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God,” a principle akin to the cosmological argument. Christian apologists do not claim that sense data alone compels faith; they maintain that thoughtful examination of cause, order, and contingency in the cosmos resonates with the testimony of Scripture regarding an eternal, self-existent Being.

Responding to Hume’s Objections to Design

Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion also challenged the idea that the world’s apparent design points to a Designer. He thought the argument from analogy—comparing the universe to a crafted machine—was flawed, because the universe is too distinct to be considered analogous to human artifacts. He proposed that the patterns seen in nature might be the product of random chance over immense periods. Modern variations of this theory often reference evolutionary processes, attributing life’s complexities to gradual changes without a guiding mind.

A biblical rebuttal notes that Romans 1:20 speaks of God’s “eternal power and divine nature” as clearly perceived in creation. While Hume’s argument highlights the limitations of purely analogical reasoning, Christian apologists point out that the presence of intricate design in biology, physics, and astronomy strongly suggests more than blind accidents. Psalm 19:1 proclaims that “the heavens declare the glory of God,” indicating that the extraordinary order of the cosmos reveals an intelligent cause. This conclusion rests not merely on an analogy to human artifacts but on the consistent testimony of God’s Word that creation proclaims its Maker’s wisdom. Rather than attributing the universe’s orderly structures to endless random attempts, Scripture depicts a purposeful Creator who established the heavens and the earth. Isaiah 45:18 says that Jehovah “did not create it empty; he formed it to be inhabited,” implying intentional design.

Hume’s Disregard for Metaphysical Certainties

Hume famously doubted that statements about God, the human soul, or other metaphysical subjects could be meaningful. Yet this approach stands in tension with the scriptural claim that God communicates truth about Himself. Amos 3:7 declares, “Jehovah God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets,” suggesting that God has chosen to provide objective revelation. If the God of Scripture exists, then believers see no reason to limit knowledge to sense impressions alone, for the supreme Being can speak authoritatively about realities beyond immediate human observation. Hume’s system lacks room for inspired revelation, yet the biblical record consistently states that the Creator reveals truths about spiritual realities, moral guidelines, and future events.

Hume’s limitation to sense data also stumbles at the biblical reports of historical events that were once observed but are no longer reproducible for further testing. The crossing of the Jordan in Joshua 3 or the feeding of the multitude in Matthew 14 are not repeated experiments but singular occurrences grounded in eyewitness testimony. If one refused to accept anything that cannot be repeatedly tested, much of our historical knowledge would vanish, including events from relatively recent history that cannot be duplicated. The Scriptures place value on reliable witnesses, as in Deuteronomy 19:15, which requires corroboration of testimony, and Luke 1:1-4, where the Gospel writer states he investigated the accounts thoroughly. The Christian contends that Hume’s dismissal of singular historical miracles rests on an a priori refusal to allow such events, rather than on an honest evaluation of the evidence.

Contradictions in Hume’s Practical Life

Hume acknowledged that his philosophical skepticism could not be fully lived out. He remarked that engaging in backgammon or social activities allowed him to escape the despairing implications of his own theories. Despite his philosophical stance that cause and effect lack demonstrable certainty, he operated as though certain activities would indeed yield predictable outcomes. The Scriptures underscore that human beings function daily on the basis of trust in reliable patterns. Genesis 8:22 assures that seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, day and night, will not cease so long as the earth remains. Hume’s acknowledgment that he practically relied on the uniformity of nature while theoretically denying we can justify such reliance shows the tension between skepticism and lived reality.

Christians argue that consistency in daily routines, moral judgments, and reasoning about the future all reflect the truth that God ordered the world for rational creatures who can rely on stable patterns. Hume’s stance that uniformities in nature are grounded only in custom does not align with the biblical teaching that God’s providence undergirds the cosmos. Psalm 119:89-90 addresses Jehovah’s faithfulness, linking it to the earth’s endurance. A biblical worldview maintains that the same God who upholds these patterns is also free to work miracles, which is not a contradiction but an affirmation that the Creator is not confined to the normal processes He established.

Hume’s Arguments Against the Resurrection

Hume insisted that uniform human experience contradicted the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. He argued that because all experience points to the dead remaining in their graves, there was no reasonable basis to trust any contrary report. In response, defenders of Christ’s resurrection note that the event is presented as a unique historical occurrence attested by multiple witnesses who claimed to have seen and interacted with the risen Jesus. First Corinthians 15:3-8 enumerates various appearances, including to more than five hundred at once. This direct testimony cannot be negated simply by appealing to the usual course of nature. The whole point of the resurrection is that it transcends the usual. The Gospels highlight that Jesus was crucified under Roman authority, died, was buried, and left behind an empty tomb discovered on the third day. Such testimony does not rely on an everyday event but on a recorded historical claim with eyewitness support.

Skeptics often ask for repetition of the same event, forgetting that unique historical realities are unrepeatable by definition. One cannot replicate the founding of a city or the birth of a famous person either. The relevant question is whether the testimonies are credible, consistent, and grounded in reality. Luke 24:36-43 depicts Jesus standing among His disciples, inviting them to touch Him and even eating a piece of fish in their presence, aiming to demonstrate He was not a mere vision. Believers hold that the best explanation for this remarkable claim is that God indeed raised Jesus from the dead, as was foreshadowed in prophecies like Isaiah 53:10-12. Hume’s principle that such events violate uniform experience presupposes that natural patterns cannot be interrupted by a sovereign will, an assumption the Scriptures directly refute.

Why Hume’s Skepticism Persisted

Hume’s personal beliefs about God were shaped by his skepticism, which he felt freed him from theological dogmas prevalent in his time. He was wary of religious authorities imposing doctrines not grounded in empirical observation. Yet Christians respond that the God of Scripture is not constrained to human verification methods. Believers maintain that the Lord does not require the permission of human observation to act in extraordinary ways. Daniel 4:35 declares that Jehovah does according to His will in heaven and on earth, and no one can stay His hand. Hume’s approach effectively dismissed the possibility that a supreme Being can operate beyond the usual patterns He sustains.

While Hume considered metaphysical statements meaningless, the believer sees them as indispensable truths revealed by God. John 1:1 describes the Word existing from the beginning, equating the Word with deity, implying that ultimate reality extends beyond empirical data. The assumption that only that which is physically observed can be true sets an impossible standard for a God who transcends the created order. Some refer to Hume’s thought as “epistemological gatekeeping,” restricting knowledge to narrow boundaries. The Bible, however, consistently acknowledges the interplay between God’s revelation, human reason, and the evidence of creation. Proverbs 1:7 teaches that “the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge,” revealing that a reverent acknowledgment of God stands at the root of genuine understanding.

Upholding the Historical-Grammatical Interpretation

Believers employing the objective historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation maintain that scriptural accounts of miracles are written as factual historical events, not allegories. The crossing of the Red Sea, the feeding of the five thousand, or the resurrection of Christ are intended as literal occurrences in space and time. Hume’s skepticism leads him to label these narratives as unsubstantiated or impossible. Yet the question is not whether such events align with common experience but whether they truly happened as recorded. The biblical writers present these occurrences in historical contexts, citing particular locations, rulers, and cultural details. Luke 3:1-2 mentions Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, and Herod, grounding the account in a defined historical framework around 29 C.E. This is not the style of myth or legend but the work of someone who, in Luke 1:1-4, explicitly states that he has carefully investigated everything.

Hume’s approach to history was constrained by his conviction that unusual events must be disbelieved, but that stance begs the question if the One who established regularities can never do something beyond them. The biblical narrative rests on a different assumption: The God who created the universe can intervene. If that assumption stands, then miracles are logically possible. None of this denies the normal consistency of nature, any more than the extraordinary design of a watch denies the normal functioning of gears. It merely ascribes to the Creator the right and ability to accomplish extraordinary deeds.

Concluding Thoughts on Hume’s Skepticism

David Hume’s skepticism challenged many aspects of Christian apologetics, especially regarding the reality of miracles and the existence of a transcendent God. He argued that humans can only trust sense experience and that all talk of the supernatural is unwarranted. However, careful analysis reveals contradictions in his system. While preaching a kind of radical doubt, he relied on assumptions of uniform experience to reject miracles. He also required an arbitrary rule that knowledge must stem from sense impressions or analytic truths, a rule that cannot be demonstrated by sense data or logic alone. He insisted that cause and effect is unprovable yet expected uniform cause-and-effect sequences to dismiss events like resurrection. He could not fully live by his skepticism, as shown by the practical inconsistencies in his daily life.

In contrast, the Scriptures proclaim a universe fashioned and upheld by an all-powerful God who normally governs through consistent laws but may act extraordinarily to accomplish His purposes. The belief that miracles occurred in biblical history, including the resurrection of Christ, rests on testimonies preserved in the written record. While the regularity of nature is acknowledged, believers affirm that Jehovah is not confined to that regularity. Matthew 19:26 notes that with God all things are possible, an expression of His sovereign freedom. Hume’s refusal to accept any supernatural explanation stems from presuppositions foreign to the biblical worldview, which sees coherence in both daily order and miraculous events.

David Hume offered a compelling expression of skeptical empiricism in the 1700s, framing the Enlightenment debate about faith versus reason. Although his critiques have influenced many modern thinkers, his arguments do not force rejection of Christian claims. The approach of Scripture is to declare that the Creator reveals Himself through the cosmos, through historical acts, and through inspired writings. Psalm 119:160 affirms the sum of God’s word is truth, presenting a firm foundation transcending the limits of Hume’s empirical skepticism. The biblical believer rests confidence in both the regular patterns of God’s creation and His capacity to act in extraordinary ways. Thus, Hume’s approach ultimately does not overturn the Christian conviction that God exists, that He intervenes in history, and that trust in Him is well-grounded in the testimonies and realities Scripture proclaims.

You May Also Enjoy

What Is the Role of the Holy Spirit in Apologetics?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).