Hume: a cross examination

(Cliques are all over the room. Discussions flare. Some sit. Some stand. Some are alone. Others have company. Matt edges his way to the podium. Hume looks as confident as ever. His cross-examiners look confident themselves. Indeed, they're a formidable group: Thomas Sherlock, Gottfried Less, and William Paley.)

Matt: Welcome back! We are through with Spinoza for now. The only stage left for Spinoza is a cross-examination of my own. For now, we have Thomas Sherlock. Mr. Sherlock, what say you to Mr. David Hume.

Sherlock: Thank you Matt. Let's get straight to the point, shall we? Imagine a man who lived his entire known life on a tropical island in the South Pacific. Can you do that?

Hume: I do, in fact, have the capacity for abstract thought, Mr. Sherlock. Yes, I can imagine that. May I ask where you're going with this?

Sherlock: Sure. On the one hand, you say we have the witness of nature; on the other, we have human testimony. And the resurrection of Christ seems to violate the laws of nature. But we have the testimony of the disciples that they saw the resurrected Christ. But, no matter, you say! We also have the witness of nature, and she never lies. So those conniving disciples have to be lying or deluded. In so many words, that's your position, no?

Hume: Beautifully paraphrased, thank you.

Sherlock: Back to my guy on the tropical island.

Hume: Oh yes. Him. What of it?

Sherlock: Suppose he has never seen water in a solid form. Suppose he had never seen ice.

Hume: Okay . . .

Sherlock: What if an inhabitant of Siberia testified to him that there was such a thing as ice?

Hume: Well, uh, . . . I guess he shouldn't believe it, but . . .

Sherlock: Of course, he should believe it. Especially if more and more people testified to it. But using your warped logic, the tropical man shouldn't ever believe it. And why? Because the witness of nature - at least, the nature he has experienced - is against it. Using your logic, he disregards valid human testimony contrary to his experience of the witness of nature. And that's absurd.

Hume: Oh, well, tell me what you really think . . .

Sherlock: And I will. And another thing. What if I claimed to you that I was once dead for 3 days?

Hume: I'd be shocked and wouldn't believe it!

Sherlock: What exactly wouldn't you belief? The fact that I was alive?

Hume: The fact that you were ever dead.

Sherlock: Exactly! And why would you disbelieve I was dead, rather than alive.

Hume: Because I see you're alive.

Sherlock: So, can I use human testimony to prove that I was never dead on the relevant dates?

Hume: I suppose so . . .

Sherlock: Look at it the other way. Suppose we read that a year ago, we saw a certain man executed for high treason. But then we heard reports that was alive! What then?

Hume: I doubt that . . .

Sherlock: That he died?

Hume: No, that he was alive.

Sherlock: And in each case, what was doubted wasn't what we saw, but what we didn't see. All this proves is that we tend to trust our senses over reports from other people. So, let's say you're one of the disciples. You saw Christ died; and then you saw Him alive again 3 days later. You say: Sherlock! I saw Christ died; and now He is alive! I'd respond: Yea right! I saw him die too - there's no way you saw him alive. By your logic, this is a good response. But wouldn't I be foolish not to believe you from your point of view?

Hume: I admit, I would be flustered.

Sherlock: And Houtteville is right - the 'course of nature', as we call it, is just in our imagination. What we experience are objects behaving in accord with the laws of nature. If I said the laws cannot be suspended, do I say something based on experience?

Hume: I suppose not. So, you're accusing me of overstepping my case. I'll note that.

Sherlock: That's all from me.

(Sherlock steps down. His delivery was succinct, as if practiced in a mirror beforehand. Gottfried Less takes the stage. He is an obsessive type, exacting. Detail is key. Hume still appears unwavering.)

Less: Good evening, Mr. Hume.

Hume: Good evening.

Less: Why don't we start by talking about the disciples.

Hume: By all means.

Less: You say they were unlearned, unsophisticated fisherman, low on the social-class totem pole.

Hume: That's right. I always found it rather strange that the testimony for miracles never comes from a cultured, civilized area.

Less: I'll get to that in a second, but let me ask you. What specialty of learning do you have to have to notice that a guy who was once dead is now alive? And no, this isn't a trick question.

Hume: I guess I'd say some medical knowledge was necessary . . .

Less: Isn't it true that a child can tell the difference between a formerly dead person and their present living status?

Hume: I don't suppose the ancients were idiots.

Less: As a pre-industrial society, they probably had more common sense than your average Enlightenment thinker, wouldn't you think?

Hume: I don't know about . . .

Less: And Ancient Rome . . . Yes! I entirely agree. Utterly savage and uncivilized. And the capital of a Israel, Jerusalem, a major Roman territory. Is this the rural outpost you're talking about? Are you out of your mind?

Hume: Ok, I admit that Rome was the apex of . . .

Less: And if the reports are true, the miracles were performed in front of hundreds. They weren't done in a secret place in the presence of some cult following. There were friends and foes alike!

Hume: That is, IF the reports are . . .

Less: And you say they have to be honest and trustworthy?

Hume: Well, if you'll let me get a word in . . .

Less: Is martyrdom a good enough criterion? Being boiled alive? Crucified? Crucified upside down? Scalded by hot tar? Stoned? Drawn and quartered? Beheaded? Yep. These sound like insincere liars, don't they?

Hume: I will admit their sincerity burned beyond reason . . .

Less: So it seems like the disciples were trustworthy, right?

Hume: Well, they were sincere. But that doesn't mean I should trust them.

Less: That's what I mean. They, at least, weren't lying. Will you grant that?

Hume: If they were sincere, then they weren't lying, which leaves delusion, but I'll let it go there.

Less: Alright. Let's move on to why you think miracles are impossible.

Hume: Indeed.

Less: Let's talk about Nature in general. Do you think Nature is the way it is because God willed it that way?

Hume: If I believed in God, then it's plausible, I suppose.

Less: If God willed a miracle, then, the miracle is willed in the same way any other event in Nature is willed, right?

Hume: It would more rare, though.

Less: No one denies that. The will behind the event is the same, in any case. How many times have you gone to Church?

Hume: Not many. Why?

Less: Well, when you willed to go to Church, this was the same will that you used when you do things you do more often. For instance, you like to read, and read more often than you go to Church. But when you went to Church, you used the same will you use when you choose to read.

Hume: So, my going to Church is on the same level as God doing a miracle.

Less: Only in the sense that each event is more rare than other events. One kind of event is willed less than other events.

Hume: I follow.

Less: Consider this as well. Should the Church have believed Copernicus that the earth wasn't the center of the universe?

Hume: Of course! That's where the evidence pointed.

Less: But the evidence pointed to something that was contrary to everyone's experience at the time. According to your logic, the Church shouldn't have believed Copernicus, because Copernicus was telling everyone something that wasn't a part of anyone's experience.

Hume: I think your twisting my logic around, but . . .

Less: Then what about this? Suppose I said that Jesus rose from the dead.

Hume: Then I would say that event probably didn't happen. Dead men stay dead.

Less: Why?

Hume: Experience unanimously says so.

Less: But you can only say 'unanimously' if you also prove this: Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Hume: I did prove that. I said experience unani . . . oh . . . I suppose I can't say 'unanimously' without first proving 'Jesus did not rise from the dead'. Hmmmm.

Less: Right. You can't say the disciples were wrong because they go against experience unless you also prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

Hume: There's got to be something wrong in your logic here.

Less: Well, think about it. There's no rush. I'm done. Thank you.

(Less steps down. Thomas Paley makes his way to the podium. Hume looks visibly distressed. Yet he is still confident that the format of the interchange is keeping him from responding rightly. After all, there's only so much you can talk about in dialogue format.)

Matt: We'll take a short recess and then Paley will continue the cross-examination.