Phillips Vs. Hume

I really like Hume’s points about the human position in the search for the evidence of a creator god. His views really echoed with my own in that we both feel that the existence of a god and his/her workings are beyond the realm of human experience. Before the advent of modern technology, it was a reasonable assumption to think that the goodness of fit between man, animals, and nature could have been the work of a creator god, but when supplanted by Darwin’s theories the inferences about him/her melt away.
I also must agree with Phillips on this one. He states that Hume’s arguments are weak in that he does not offer anything else to replace the creation theory, and in doing so misses out on an opportunity to practice the hermeneutics of contemplation. I feel that it is all well and good to offer criticisms of a theory when there are glaring faults with them, but to do so is to lack appreciation for alternative explanations. In insisting that there is no evidence that god exists, but not considering the alternatives, he becomes just as dogmatic as the religious theorists that he denounces.