This work critically examines David Hume's notion of causality, which he posits as ananathema to traditional understandings of cause and effect. In classical philosophy, causality isseen as a necessary and intrinsic link between cause and effect, forming the basis of scientificinquiry and rational thought. Hume, however, challenges this view by arguing that our perception ofcausality is not derived from any inherent connection but from habitual association formed throughrepeated experiences. This skepticism casts doubt on the reliability of inductive reasoning and thefoundations of scientific knowledge. The paper explores Hume's arguments, their implications fornatural laws and scientific practice, and critiques from philosophers like Immanuel Kant, who assertthe necessity of causal reasoning for coherent experience and scientific inquiry. By integratingthese perspectives, the paper proposes an alternative framework for understanding causality thatreconciles empirical observation with the rational structures of the human mind.