There are three principle levels of criticism by Hume that Phillips addresses. The first “is Philo’s claim that we cannot infer more about God than the evidence allows” (Phillips 57). Philo “claims that God’s nature must remain an incomprehensible mystery to us” because “we have no experience of divine attributes and operations” (58). Cleanthes believes that the evidence of the universe points conclusively to a deity. Phillips states that “[w]e may say that there is some reason, in some circumstances, to react in either way” (58). He says that if the best we can arrive at through evidence is a “mixed bag,” then we do not have grounds to believe “in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. We cannot arrive at such a belief on an experiential or experimental basis. Phillips gives the example of the secret gardener to illustrate his point.
Tennessen objects to what he sees as the attempts of believers to judge God with a double standard. Either we judge God by the usual standards, in which case he would be found guilty, or “beyond these moral standards, the consequence being that we find him in the place reserved for monsters” (60). He points to the God depicted in the book of Job in the Bible, and describes how Job found God to be “a ruler of grotesque primitivity, a cosmic cave dweller, a braggart and a rumble-dumble, almost congenial in his complete ignorance about spiritual refinement…The new thing for Job is not God’s quantitative greatness; he had realized this in advance…his discovery lies in God’s qualitative smallness” (61). Tennessen believes this is the god of the Old Testament and represents “the blind forces of nature, completely indifferent to the human need for order and meaning and justice…the unpredictable visitations by disease and death, the transitoriness of fame, the treason by friends and kin. He is the god of machines and power, of despotism and conquest, of pieces of brass and armoured plates” (61). Phillips states that there are other interpretations that a believer may have of God which does not paint this being as a “god of caprice” (62).
Phillips describes one possible interpretation of Christianity that describes the creation of the world in terms of abidication, and God’s only power “is that of love” (63). He describes how Zeus “became intimate with man, by sharing in his suffering” (63). Phillips argues that “the primary use of language of religion is not factual, idiomatic or metaphorical” (64). He says that “although there are metaphors in religious language, its primary use is to offer us a way of thinking about our relation to the world. It is as though religion says to one, ‘Think like this’. Phillips says that we do not “have to infer the character of nature’s Author from mixed evidence. Rather, in ancient and Christian religion, we are offered a way of thinking about the mixed character of our lives. Thus, in contemplating this way of thinking, we are not involved…in a vain attempt to avoid Hume’s criticisms” (65).
I’m not sure that this response satisfies me. It seems like a slight of hand and trickery to say that God is just powerful “in love.” This is not a truly all-powerful, all-knowing God if he is limited to just abdication, love, and sacrifice. This God shows lack of foresight and lack of ability to effectively prevent harm for the people he loves – eternal punishment in hell is no minor thing. Even with the sacrifice of Jesus, this does not resolve the issue, since each person must accept it or else they are damned forever. This does not seem very loving. So, this “way of thinking about the mixed character of our lives” may be a pleasant contemplation for the believer, since he believes his salvation is secure, but what of the many who have everlasting suffering to which to look forward? Besides, this sort of maneuver seems to miss what the origin of this supposed revelation is – second-hand supposed “inspired” writings? There are obviously many subtleties within religion, but I believe that Hume’s criticism stands: we should not infer more than the evidence allows. I agree with Philo that “God’s nature must remain an incomprehensible mystery to us.” I would probably not use the term God, but something like “the great mysteries of life.”
