Britannica Sources used in this answer

Why did Hume think causal reasoning cannot establish knowledge of a supersensible reality?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Marble bust of Aristotle with a beard and draped robe, showing detailed facial features and wavy hair, set against a dark background. — metaphysics Detail of a Roman copy (2nd century bce) of a Greek alabaster portrait bust of Aristotle (c. 325 bce); in the collection of the Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome.

David Hume argued that causal reasoning cannot establish knowledge of a supersensible reality because he redefined the nature of causality itself.12

Hume contended that causal relations are not internal, intelligible ties between cause and effect, but are instead matters of factual connection reduced to regular precedence and succession observed in time. Because our idea of a "necessary connection" between events is derived solely from the psychological habit of associating frequently occurring experiences, it lacks an objective basis in sense perception.134

Consequently, causal relations can only hold between items of experience. Hume concluded that if the temporal element is removed from causality, nothing remains; if it is kept, one cannot logically infer the existence of anything beyond the sensible world. Since all inferences from experience are products of custom rather than rational demonstration, they cannot justify claims about a reality that lies outside the reach of our immediate sense experience. Thus, any attempt to use causal reasoning to bridge the gap between the sensible and the supersensible is, in his view, philosophically invalid.135