A View of Natural Theology: Hume pt. 1

Moving from the doctrine of revelation and discussion of the special revelation (specifically that of the Scriptures), I think it serves us well to take a look over the next couple of days at some views of general revelation, or natural theology. History has provided a vast number of philosophers to examine during this survey, but for our current purposes, I'd like to look at David Hume (Dialogues Concerning Human Understanding) and John Henry Cardinal Newman (A Grammar of Assent) . While Hume is hopefully at least a recognizable name to you, Newman dwells in the realm of obscurity, unfortunately. Their views, however, I find particularly illuminating, given our current study.
For David Hume the foundations of faith are built on the foundations of epistemology. Acknowledgment of the Supreme Being, he argues, is a fact that even atheists believe. “No man,” Hume’s persona Demea remarks in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, “at least, of common sense, I am persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt with regard to a truth so certain and self-evident.” What separates the faithful from the rest, then, centers on the assent and epistemology in the acknowledgement of that Deity. In his Dialogues, Hume debates this issue at its core foundations concerning natural theology. For John Henry Cardinal Newman natural theology serves as the starting point for all theology, as all other elements of the Christian faith are built upon it. While Hume provides the forum for discussion on this issue and the value of Creation in ascertaining the nature of God, Newman offers a delicate solution and compromise. Employing the opening chapters of the Apostle Paul’s letters, Romans and 1 Corinthians, we find that Hume and Newman devise an empirical epistemology and a philosophical base for Christian theology.
In Romans 1:20 Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” For Hume’s characters, Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes, the dialogue concerns exactly how God makes His qualities known. Paul says that regardless of all other things, God makes Himself known through Creation, but how exactly He does so remains in question. Demea aptly points out thus, “the question is not concerning the being but the nature of God.”
In true Aristotelian fashion the debate requires prior work. To engage in the “science” of natural theology Hume requires a panegyric person, well-versed in the social and applied sciences of the age. While Philo believes that one must first think as a total skeptic of all natural laws and sciences in order to ascertain which are truly valuable in the search for God’s nature, Cleanthes criticizes this viewpoint with great fervor. For Hume the expertise one acquires through his lifetime is useless without experience and participation in the common life. Cleanthes argues, “in vain would the skeptic make a distinction between science and common life, or between one science and another;” adding that he who would seek God and deeper philosophical truths, “must act, I own, and live, and converse like other men.” If Creation is God’s blueprint and medium by which His invisible qualities are made known, man must live and experience that world and draw as much as he can from Creation.