Hume's Natural Religion and the Limits of Perception
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Critique of human perception and skepticism
These are notations on David Hume. Abstract objects, relations, space, matter, and time are all considered by Hume to be mind-dependent perceptions. In other words, perceptions are all there is.
He rejects revealed religion, that is the religion of the śāstras, and embraces natural religion, that is, a religion wherein the existence of God can be proved or even shown to be probable by argument and reason.
According to Hume, we really know nothing of God, for at the most we can only know our people's ideas of God, and these are but perceptions.
It would thus seem that it is impossible to know God according to Hume's natural religion, because the senses are admittedly imperfect, and these are the only instruments of certainty, Hume admits in his natural religion.
What is that natural religion? Well, he says the self is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement.
So he says there's nothing but perception. He rejects revealed scriptures as such. But he says, "The heavens and the earth join in the same testimony.
The whole course of nature raises one hymn to the praises of its creator. I have found a deity, and here I stop my inquiry. Let those go further who are wiser or more enterprising."
But why did that our senses are imperfect? That is admitted. And God is perception. But whether he believes actually in the existence of God... He believes in the existence of God. And what is his perception of God?
If he believes in God, then he must give some idea what is God. He has no idea other than the fact that anyway, if he believes in God a fact, then uh, is that so-called perception? Why
not understand from God? But he says, "Well, our senses are impossible." We admit that there is God. Now, if our senses are imperfect, how we can imagine God is like this, God is like that? Actually, if
Divine revelation versus material speculation
God explains Himself, why should we not accept it? In his... Hume appears opposed to the search for God in the ideal world. He writes, "Why not stop at the material world?
How can we satisfy ourselves without going on ad infinitum forever? If the material world rests upon a similar... this ideal world must rest upon some other, and so on without end."
It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world. Material world means full of miseries. Therefore, those who are advanced, they are searching after another world where there is no misery.
This is the idea. And this searching after a happy world, that is parāvara, everyone is searching after that. And that is not unnatural. But actually, there is such a world.
And if there is, why should we not, uh, hanker after that world? He appears opposed to things. This world is experienced. Nobody is happy. Unless he is an animal.
Animals, they do not know what is happiness, so in any condition, they remain satisfied. But a man, he feels pain. Just like our speaking, there are reports that we call: the children cry sometimes, women squeal.
This is the world. And actually there have been many cases. So from a practical point of view, this world is not happy, that is a fact. Now, if there is a happy world, why one should not try for it? He
says, "The sooner we arrive at that divine being, the sooner we arrive at God, so much the better." No. In the search for God, the sooner we find God, the better.
He says, "When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor which it is impossible ever to satisfy." What? I do not follow him. What is the meaning of this?
He appears... uh, he's opposed to the search for God in the other world. No. Uh, you cannot search God out in your present condition. You have got some glimpse of an idea that there is God;
only admit there is God, then you are, uh, advanced. At least you are, you are better than the atheist. But by speculation you cannot understand what is God.
Similar is there to a passionate person: one who is very seriously searching after God, God is within himself, He reveals.
And the other process is that you are searching after God, then you know it from the person who has already known God, or directly from God.
Direct perception through Vedic knowledge
But the Bhagavad-gītā is direct perception from God. So with our all reasons, all logic, if we try to understand what He taught, then we understand what we do.
Hume is a famous skeptic, and he would reject a revealed scripture. Uh, he looks towards science. He says all the new discoveries in astronomy...
Then I... he... he's a skeptic, then why one should believe his words and take his instruction? He's skeptical. So others skeptically reject his statement also. So there is no use of his talking.
Well, he felt that... you said that he's skeptical. Oh yes, he felt he's also skeptical. So why people should be induced to believe him and hearing? He's immediately rejected.
He felt that instead of basing belief in God... should not think because nobody will take, uh, his instance. He does not believe others. Does not take other statements, why his statement should be acceptable?
Well, well, he believes at least in the material senses. Everyone believes that; materially everyone believes. But if he says none of them are correct, so how he... so how himself is correct? He's rejected in it.
He says all the new discoveries in astronomy, which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of nature, are so many additional arguments for a deity according to the true system of theism—that is his natural, what he calls natural religion.
In this way Hume rejects the necessity or desirability of miracles as well as the conception of a God transcendental to His creation.
Defining the opulences of God
He says it's not the being of God that is in question, but God's nature. This nature cannot be ascertained through study of the universe itself.
However, if the universe can only be studied by imperfect senses, what is the value of our conclusion? How can we ever come to know the nature of God? Nature of God, it can be explained by God Himself.
That is our daily process. We know who is God, and He explains: "My nature is this." Just like He said: "I am the greatest principle. Mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat — there is no more high principle than Me." This is fair.
If something is greater than God, then how one can become God? That is not possible. So God means He's great in everything. He's great in richness. He's great in reputation, He's great in influence,
He's great in bodily power, He's great in beauty, and He's great in renunciation. If we can find out somebody that he uh tallies with this greatness, then he's God. So that we find in Krishna. Krishna is the Supreme Lord.
And what He says in the Bhagavad-gītā, we accept as fact; and if we analyze His statements intelligently, prudently, then we find that what Krishna says, that is fact.
Philosophical foundations of religious law
Concerning different religions, he says: "All religious systems, it is confessed, are subject to great and insuperable difficulties.
Each disputant triumphs in his turn while he carries on an offensive war and exposes the absurdities, barbarities, and pernicious tenets of his antagonists.
But all of them, that is, all of the religions, on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the skeptic who tells them that no system ought ever to be embraced.
A total suspense of judgment is here our only reasonable recourse." No. Our principle is to know God from God, and religion means the principles given by God. Just like the law means the principles given by the state.
Similarly, the principles given by God, that is religion. Otherwise, it is pseudo-religion. If there is no conception of God, there is no direction of God, that is not religion. Religion is not a kind of blind faith.
Religion is actual, and that actual religion can be given by God Himself. And if we know God and what His instruction is... Well, he believes that religion is necessary.
He says religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all. Yes, that we also agree. But religion without philosophy, logic, it is sentiment that will not help us.
So, this is like religion given by Krishna: «man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru». Always think of Me. So if we think of God always, that is good for us. We become purified. So this is religion.
We have to meditate and meditate upon God, think upon God. Therefore, temple worship, Deity worship is necessary, so that we can constantly think of God. But if we do not know what is God, what is the form of God,
how can we offer Him worship? How can we think of Him? Then it is pseudo-religion. This type of religion will not help the follower.
One must be definitely in understanding what is God and what does He speak and how to abide by His order; that is religion.
Social functions and universal brotherhood
His conception of religion is utilitarian and social; he says the proper office of religion is to regulate the heart of man, humanize their conduct, infuse the spirit of temperance, order and obedience.
Yes, that is our system. We say the social solidarity: no illicit sex. If people indulge in illicit sex, the society is in a chaotic condition. No meat-eating.
If we go on eating meat, then we revolt against the will of God, because God is the father of all living entities.
He does not like that one of His sons is unnecessarily killed by another son on the plea that he is an advanced son. The father cannot agree that the advanced son kills the ignorant, foolish son. The father will not agree.
Therefore we say no meeting. When other foods are available, why one should eat meat? When there is life, why there should be it is itself. So, religion means one should be good character. That is religion.
This is one of the qualifications we can say, that one who is actually religious, God-conscious. All the good qualities, either socially, politically, everything, even politician, religious, described.
He was on the battlefield. This is politics. But because he was a devotee, he was hesitating to kill his enemies also.
So this is the character of a devotee, that he can sacrifice his own interest because he has become a devotee. Others cannot do. This is the conclusion of Hume.
Faith reason and cosmic proprietorship
He felt that one must first be a philosophical skeptic before accepting the revealed truths of religion. Ultimately, Hume maintains that these truths can only be accepted on faith, not experience or reason. Why not reason?
We think that everything has some proprietor. So it is quite reasonable to think that this vast land, vast sky, vast water, nature, they must have some proprietor. What is the fault in this little logic?
Why they conclude that there was a chunk, there was some gas and there was something like that? So why they think like that? Is that very reasonable?
Wherefrom the chunk came, wherefrom the gas came, wherefrom the fire came? So this is reasonable. So there is a proprietor, as it is described in the Bhagavad-gītā. Mayādhyakṣeṇa. So there must be some proprietor.
That is logical, that is philosophical. How one can think an existence without the owner or proprietor? So this is not like there is no proprietor. This is illegitimate, without any philosophy.
But to think that there is a property, this is completely logical. As far as we can ascertain, Hume personally had no religion, no faith in the Christian or any other God.
He also rejected that argument or reason could justify a faith. Thus, Hume is a complete skeptic who denies the possibility of ascertaining certainty outside of a mere sequence of perceptions or ideas.
If he does not believe in anyone's statement, why is thinking his statement will be accepted? Then he's foolish. He's a child. Instead of becoming a philosopher, he is a ch— He
maintains that man cannot know ultimate reality or possess knowledge of anything beyond a mere awareness of phenomenal sensory images. That is subject.
But if man cannot have any knowledge, so who is going to take your knowledge? You... better you stop, don't talk. Is it though? So much for you. That's the end of you. But I mean is that that is the conclusion.
He is skeptical, he does not take other statements. Why he expects that his statement will be taken? Why, why does he propose any statement? Does he think that he is the greatest of all? When everyone can think like that.
Is that skeptic has no good. He cannot stay. If he's skeptical, he should stop. He should not stay. Why write so many books? Huh? Why write so many books? He was a Scotchman.