How does Hume criticise The Cosmological Argument?

The handout below was written out of frustration. I have been frustrated at the lack of coherent accounts of David Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument. As always with Hume, the arguments require some careful reading. I have advised my students that they should try their best to use the language or examples which Hume himself uses. There is a danger of losing the essence of Hume if his ideas are dumbed down as some text books do. I don’t think that Hume is that inaccessible (provided that the necessary support is given to ensure students understand each idea). I expect the strongest candidates to be able to get to grips with all of the criticisms and others to grasp the majority (if they spend the appropriate time on them).

It is important to note that, although the specification pairs Aquinas and Hume, the criticisms are general criticisms of the cosmological argument and not written to rebut Aquinas’ arguments personally. Knowing when your philosophers were born and died, who was a contemporary of whom and whether they were separated by 500 years of human history can make a real difference to an answer. It is a basic mistake that is alarming in its regularity and should be guarded against at all costs: if in doubt, leave it out.

David Hume’s Criticism Of The Cosmological Argument (Download)

A note of caution: Hume’s mythical bus?

On a similar theme, good philosophy should involve getting to grips with the original texts if at all possible. One of the reasons I encourage my students to use Hume’s own examples is to avoid potential confusion. Any examiner worth their salt would be happy to read about Hume’s twenty particles as an explanation of the fallacy of composition. However, I have read some terrible explanations of Hume’s fallacy of the affirmation of the consequent by using the example of a bus. The example runs as follows:

If you were at a bus stop then put your hand out to stop an on-coming bus you could not rightly say that you had caused the bus to stop. There is no way you can know that there is anything other than correlation between the two events. Any link made would be a link made by you in your own mind.

At this point you may be thinking ‘What’s wrong with that as an explanation of the fallacy of the affirmation of the consequent?’. My issue is not with the example itself (I think it is a very good way of explaining the fallacy). The issue is with the way that some students use it. They make it sound as if it is David Hume’s own example! How many buses or bus stops do they think existed in the 18th Century? The message is clear: Use the examples that philosophers use in their own work and then give your own examples to demonstrate understanding. But make sure it is clear which is your own example and that of the philosopher you are describing. It is made worse by the feeling that the student was very close to what the philosopher said but lacked the basic ability to run the common sense filter.