I understand your point about Jesus' reference to children, but I see it differently. I don't think Jesus is suggesting we return to a state of innocence or instinct by abandoning reason. Instead, He may be highlighting qualities like openness, trust, humility - things children naturally possess. These qualities should be integrated at a higher level of development or consciousness, not by dropping reason but by combining these traits with our developed sense of ethics, reason, and spirituality.

Being children to God might imply humility before the divine, but it doesn't mean we should dumb down our reason. It's about combining innocence with wisdom at a more evolved level, rather than reverting to pure impulse or instinct.

From both Christian theological and a contemporary philosophical perspective, the Hume's idea that reason is the slave of the passions is problematic. In Christian thought, reason is a divine gift that helps govern passions in alignment with God’s will and moral truth. In contemporary philosophy, reason and emotion are seen as interdependent, with reason playing a vital role in managing and moderating emotions, not merely serving them. In Ken Wilber's framework (e.g. "The Eye of Spirit"), reason is an important stage of development but is ultimately transcended and integrated into even higher levels of spiritual awareness, where it harmonizes with emotion and intuition rather than being ruled by passions.

Passion (drive, energy) becomes compassion, altruism, dedication, divine selfless love. This transformation allows passion to serve a greater, more holistic purpose rather than being merely a reactive, personal force.

Isn't it exactly visible in Jesus? Maybe, we just meant different passions? 'Lower sphere' passion (instincts, ego, personal desires) vs 'higher sphere' passion I described above?

Which passions Hume meant? (I am not that closely familiar with his works)