Excellent question.

First, I would say that since there is an infinite body of knowlege and opinions, the quest will never objectively end. Someone will always pipe up with “did you ever wonder if . . .?”We all take the answer which most appeals to us, whether we admit it or not. How do we know that what appeals to us is truth?

We have it from St Augustine whose saying, “our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee” implies that our souls recognize the Truth in Jesus Christ and though this defies logic, it is sufficiently compelling to tell converts to call off the search.
Catholics believe in Natural Law; that the laws of God are written into the human heart. If we instinctively know for example that murder is wrong; we must be able to intrisically recognize the Way the Truth and the Life, Jesus Christ Himself. The only remaining question is will we submit to a realtionship with Him surrendering our own wills?
The search for Truth isn’t a search for cold hard facts. It’s a search for a relationship with God, whether the seeker knows it or not.
Once the relationship is attained, enlightenment comes day by day, as one draws nearer the source of all Truth.

God reveals Himself in the Spirit via the spirit (the peak of the soul) and it is by faith we know the Truth, God Himself, in our hearts, the centre of our being. The intellect, via the operation of reason illuminated by faith, catches up (somewhat) to the heart during the course of a lifetime. In a sense we gradually come to know He Whom we have known (in our hearts) all along, i.e., since God revealed Himself to us. We are saved by grace. God infuses life and informs and gradually transforms our entire being: body, mind and spirit. By cooperating with grace we are gradually configured to the Truth, growing in holiness.

The Compendium of the Catechism instructs us well:

27. What does it mean in practice for a person to believe in God?
It means to adhere to God Himself, entrusting oneself to Him and giving assent to all the truths which God has revealed because God is Truth. It means to believe in One God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

28. Faith is the supernatural virtue which is necessary for salvation. It is a free gift of God and is accessible to all who humbly seek it. The act of faith is a human act, that is, an act of the intellect of a person – prompted by the will moved by God – who freely assents to divine truth. Faith is also certain because it is founded on the Word of God; it works “through charity” (Galatians 5:6); and it continually grows through listening to the Word of God and through prayer. It is, even now, a foretaste of the joys of heaven.

Tom Cabeen, a belated welcome home!

Although I stand by my generalities of Hume I don’t find them necessary for furthering the conversation. As far as skepticism is concerned I feel comfortable stating that Hume’s philosophy fits almost all definitions of skepticism. This is not my own thought but the accepted analysis of Hume whether with or without prejudice to skepticism per se.

Hume does have interesting and often true insights. I would not disagree with you there. The problem with this is that all known philosophers have great insight into the human person. This is what keeps the philosopher relevant through the ages whether it is Plato, Aristotle, Jerome, Augustine, Aquinas, Averroes, Nietzsche or as you mentioned Hume. My initial problem with Hume, and anyone can disagree with this, is that Hume works largely on antitheses. I recognize the appeal to Hume. This may be an aside but I would put Hume more in the category of a Stephen Hawking, a great thinker, even highly logical, but not a philosopher in the same way we speak of say, Aristotle.

In concerns to staying away from certain philosophers I would strongly suggest it without proper guidance. That may not seem politically correct but I stand by it with all my being. The reason is that certain philosophies can be easily misunderstood and perverted. I am not making a moral statement here. I would just as quickly tell someone to hold off on studying Hume as I would tell somebody to hold off on studying Augustine. As my first philosophy professor said in his intro; “philosophy is a damn bloody business”. The twentieth century was the bloodiest in the history of man and most of that blood was spilled over a philosophy.

With that being said I hope you realize I am not interested in being condescending toward any certain philosophy. I don’t take philosophy personal and try to keep it as dry as possible in hopes of progressing understanding. I am interested in what specifically in Hume’s teachings you find appealing, if you don’t mind me asking.

and further, hume’s philosophy as “amateur and sophmoric?” a bold statement for sure. the implications of skepticism can indeed be frightening, though they are not to be avoided simply because some might consider them “dangerous.” from my experience, hume’s work is logically rigorous and insightful.

Either way if that is the only critique I have no issue. However, I’d prefer to stay on the original topic.

For anyone wondering about Hume he is the only notable (maybe with some disagreement) philosopher who argues that an infinite regress is not necessarily illogical. When I say “necessarily” I am speaking in strict philosophical language. Hume however was not truly recognized as a philosopher but as an historian and economist, similar to a Locke. I would consider Hume’s philosophy as amateur and sophomoric at best and leaning more towards dangerous. Hume’s arguments can be deduced to this: everything we humans consider reasonable is based on assumptions that we consider to be reasonable as well. These assumptions are not in fact based in true logic / reason and therefore cannot be trusted. Hume is a true skeptic, which is interesting due to his profound historical and economic declarations. Let me take this a step further for anyone still interested in this nonsense.

The end result of following Hume’s philosophy is suicide. Doctorates in philosophy in Europe have killed themselves because of a strange infatuation with Hume. Fortunately, this phenomenon has not spread far past the UK and northern parts of continental Europe. The phenomena is illogical in and of itself but follows this thought process: the world is illogical, I am a logical being, therefore I am above this world and this world has nothing for me worth living; since this is the case I am better off killing myself in hopes of ending up in a logical world that is worthy of my existence, at worst I am dead and no longer suffering in this illogical world.

If anyone was not bored out of their minds by that please let me know and I will further highlight Hume’s fallacies. I’m sorry for all of you who drudged through that but I felt it important to at least address the issue.

Jon, perhaps you misread me; I did not appeal to the authority of the Catholic Church, but to the historical record.

Jesus lived. This is historically documented in a number of contemporary non-Christian sources.

He was killed by the Romans. Killing the leader of a religious or other minority group that they found troublesome was a common Roman tactic. It usually worked.

Instead, within a century, Christianity had spread across the empire. Despite strong efforts to suppress it, it thrived. Within 500 years, Christianity had converted Europe and north Africa, and was working on Asia.

How?

People were willing to die for Christianity. Why?

Most of the Apostles were also martyrs. Why?

Virtually all the popes for the first three or four centuries AD were martyrs. Why?

What lie would you be willing to be burned to death for? What falsehood would you be willing to face lions for? What myth would you be willing to be crucified upside down to defend?

The people who knew the truth died proclaiming that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead. And if they had denied that claim, they’d have lived longer.

Not one of the Apostles recanted.

When a person gives his life to tell you something, you should listen.

When hundreds of people do it, across a span of centuries, it’s hard to write off as a simple mistake.

What explains this historical record?

Only one thing that I can see.