Formal Paper (GB 3)

Kailey Franklin  

Dr. Taten Shirley  

GB 2301  

2 November 2024  

The Wonderful Perception of Ideas 

Psalm 65:8a says, “So that those who dwell at the ends of the earth are in awe at your signs” (ESV). Throughout the Bible, God encourages his children to wonder at creation, to wonder at His very essence. However, David Hume has a different perception than the Biblical view of wonder in creation. Hume explains through An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that a person’s ideas stem from impressions, but man’s idea of miracles is flawed because he allows emotions such as wonder to affect his reasoning, which in turn, affects the way mankind views the idea of God.   

To begin understanding how Hume believes that a human’s reasoning is flawed, one must start with the breakdown of Hume’s view on ideas. According to him, every idea stems from an impression or an experience (Hume 11). One can only comprehend an idea in its entire essence if he has been through the experience in question. For instance, one cannot truly understand the concept of grieving a loved one unless he has lost someone close to him. The idea in this scenario is grief while the impression is the experience of the loved one passing on to the next life. Hume says, “Ideas are nothing but copies of our impressions, or in other words, that it is impossible for us to think of any thing, which we have not antecedently felt, either by way of our external or internal senses” (41). Essentially, everything someone knows, thinks, or perceives stems from what he has gone through internally or learned externally. This perception is linked to the way people interact with the world using the five senses of touch, sight, hearing, smell, and taste. These five senses create impressions that produce a more objective perception of the true essence of an idea. By using the same senses, Hume believes that animals react similarly to humans regarding impressions and ideas. He reveals, “It seems evident, that animals as well as men learn many things from experience, and infer, that the same events will always follow from the same cause” (Hume 70). As such, both men and animals may form flawed ideas based on their previous experiences (70). This perspective unveils the similarities between men and animals by observing how they react to experiences identically.  

Furthermore, Hume brings man down to an animalistic level when he compares their reasoning regarding the way ideas are affected by impressions. He defines the resemblance between man and animal when he describes their reasoning process: “[T]hat the animal infers some fact beyond what immediately strikes his senses; and that this inference is altogether founded on past experience, while the creature expects from the present object the same consequences, which it has always found in its observation to result from similar objects” (70). Hume’s explanation shows that man and animal view cause and effect in the same manner. They observe that the same reaction will happen from similar causes, leading man and animal to learn how to react appropriately from their collective experiences. One of the first instances Hume uses the word “wonder” is in relation to the exemplification of men and animals. He claims that humans cease to wonder if they realize their reasoning is based on the same experimental reasoning animals participate in as previously mentioned. Hume demonstrates his thought process by saying, “But our wonder will, perhaps, cease or diminish; when we consider, that the experimental reasoning itself, which we possess in common with beasts, and on which the whole conduct of life depends, is nothing but a species of instinct or mechanical power” (72). This interpretation of men and animals leads him to question the logical foundation of a supreme being if the reasoning that such instinctual beings share can be so fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, he believes wonder plays a vital role in one’s biased perception of ideas, but once one understands the logical basis of reasoning, this wonder significantly diminishes. Hume says, “But our wonder, will perhaps, cease or diminish; when we consider, that the experimental reasoning itself, which we share in common with beasts (. . .) is nothing but a species of instinct” (72). The way Hume views wonder is similar to the way society views novelty by highlighting the delight society has for experiences that are new and completely unknown. Once an experience ceases to be novel, a person’s emotions decline, and he can make more thoughtful decisions rather than emotionally based decisions. These views rationalize why Hume thinks that a person’s belief in miracles tends to be irrational. Furthermore, if a human’s belief in miracles is inclined to be irrational, then a belief in a higher being must also have the predisposition to be flawed.   

Hume believes man’s love of wonder creates flawed reasoning in the objective understanding of ideas. People always appreciate delving into the supernatural, but Hume appears to say that this tendency to lean into the fantastical leads humanity to believe irrational concepts, such as miracles. He reveals, “The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived” (Hume 78). Man loves the ideas that are unknown to him, which can lure him to believe diabolical lies simply because he is captivated by what is foreign. However, as one learned earlier, in order to truly understand an idea, one must first have an impression of it. Hume believes miracles enter into the fantastical realm quickly because they derive away from instincts and break every law of nature. Moreover, he considers using emotions such as wonder flawed because it does not allow most people to experience ideas from their own impressions, but rather from the emotional impression of hearing it from other miraculous accounts. Hume imparts, “But if the spirit of religion joins itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority” (79). He proposes that if man is more predisposed to believe and delve into fantastical subjects, then, man’s testimonies on subjects such as miracles, and therefore God, loses credibility. Claiming that the sense of wonder harms common sense, he seems to divulge that this concept is another way that men accept miracles as fact and rationalize believing in a higher deity.   

Additionally, Joshua Kulmac Butler provides another perspective on the irrational predisposition to believe in the miraculous by comparing David Hume’s theological beliefs to Thomas Kuhn’s scientific beliefs. For instance, Butler argues that a person’s belief in miracles is rationally justified if he also believes in scientific anomalies. He says,   

In short, we are sometimes justified in believing miracle-testimony—where “miracle” is understood as a violation of the laws of nature—because miracles are analogous to PCA’s [paradigm theory-conflicting scientific anomaly] in the relevant ways, and we are sometimes rationally justified in believing testimony in favor of these anomalies. (Butler 40)  

Butler reveals that if people believe in scientific evidence which breaks the laws of nature, then it is hypocritical to not give miracles the same measure of plausibility. Butler goes on to say, “Hume’s account leaves open the possibility that multiple credible reports could rise to the level of providing justification for belief in miracle-testimony. Each report of a miracle lessens our certainty that the miracle did not occur” (54). If multiple people eyewitness a miracle, it is rationally justified to believe this miracle may have happened. However, Hume’s argument that emotions cloud one’s judgement still holds its own weight against Butler’s analyzation of science and miracles. In both subjects, one’s love of wonder can affect his reasoning causing him to view both scientific anomalies and miracles irrationally. For example, the slogan “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid” came from one man influencing a large group of people to commit suicide by instilling wonder in them for a seemingly higher purpose. However, a majority of eyewitnesses does not necessarily mean that they are all credible sources. Hundreds of people died from this event, meaning that most of this group was most likely under the spell of wonder and not able to think critically.   

Hume discounts emotions such as wonder and places man’s intelligence higher than the use of such feelings. Man’s wonder affects the way he views the idea of the supernatural, creating an imperfect view of spirituality. If utilizing wonder in one’s reasoning is flawed, then man’s entire perception of God and spirituality is entirely shattered. As stated earlier, God encourages the use of wonder within man. If man is not able to use this internal gift, then he is no longer able to fully reflect the glory of his creator. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 

 

Works Cited 

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. 

Kulmac Butler, Joshua. “A Kuhnian Critique of Hume on Miracles.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 86, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 39–59. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-019-09699-x.