Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
David Hume: essays
David Hume: essays
Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: David Hume: essays
"I was from the beginning scandalised, I must own, with this resemblance between the Deity and human creatures."
--Philo
David Hume wrote much about the subject of religion, much of it negative. In this paper we shall attempt to follow Hume's arguments against Deism as Someone knowable from the wake He allegedly makes as He passes. This kind of Deism he lays to rest. Then, digging deeper, we shall try our hand at a critique of his critique of religion, of resurrecting a natural belief in God. Finally, if there's anything Hume would like to say as a final rejoinder, we shall let him have his last word and call the matter closed.
To allege the occurrence of order in creation, purpose in its constituent parts and in its constituted whole, regularity in the meter of its rhythm and syncopations, and mindful structure in the design and construction of Nature is by far the most widely used and generally accepted ground for launching from the world belief in an intelligent and omnipotent designer god. One does not have to read for very long to find some modern intellectual involved in the analysis of some part of Nature come to the "Aha!" that there's a power at work imposing order, design, structure and purpose in creation. Modern religious piety salivates at the prospect of converting scientists and will take them any way it can. From Plato to Planck the problematic lion of religion must be rendered safe and tame. Religion must be reasonable, after all, we are reasonable "men." Einstein writes that the scientist's "religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
We have been struck dumb, however; we can no longer be incautious with such temptations to believe, with such sirens sounding for sensible, systematic sureness. The Design Argument has been mortally wounded by David Hume. The god arrived at by arguments on the one-way street of effect to the cause is dead; we should never have allowed him to live. In Section XI of the Enquiry, and throughout the Dialogues Hume subjects the Argument from Design to searching and searing philosophical analysis, to the point in his mind that it is forever dead, and to the point in our minds that we wonder why the world has not yet received the obituary.
In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it appears to us in this life, different from what a Man or such a limited being would, beforehand, expect from a very powerful, wise, and benevolent Deity?” Additionally, Hume argues for the existence of an omnipotent God. According to the author, a world with this much evil in it, one can’t logically assume that there exists an all powerful God that knows everything. Interestingly, Hume simply argues that we can’t infer that there is a God that exists who is all knowing and all powerful with the tremendous amounts of evil that exists in the world. More importantly, Hume speculates on the creation of the universe. One hypothesis contends that the universe was created without good or malice. In other words, according to Hume, our universe was more likely created by something other than a God with good intentions. However, throughout the essay Hume presents arguments for the existence of God and against the existence of God. Hume further argues that humans would be able to comprehend an omniscient G...
"Miles made big waves when he took over the lead as the Ultimate Universe’s Spider-Man after that Earth’s Peter Parker died in the line of duty. Since that time, he quickly built a following of fans
Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote one of his famous writings, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in 1779, which is a conversation between three individuals discussing religion and the various aspects surrounding it. The three members of the dialogue are Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes. Demea represents fideism, which means that he believes that one has to rely on faith, not reason. Philo represents skepticism and is the individual whose ideas are closest to Hume’s own personal views on religion. Cleanthes represents theological rationalism, which is the belief that one can learn about God through evidence in nature. A major topic of discussion in Hume’s Dialogues between Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes is the argument from design.
Rindfuss RR, VandenHeuvel A. 1990. Cohabitation: a precursor to marriage or an alternative to being single? Pop. Dev. Rev. 16:703 26
Cohabitation is “to live together as if married, usually without legal or religious sanction; to live together in an intimate relationship” (Dictionary.com). In the past thirty years, there have been several changes in trends of American families. Cohabitation of males and females has been happening earlier and more frequently resulting in it being viewed as normal (Waite 19). The median age of first marriage has risen approximately by six years (Morris). Between late 1940s and early 1960s the amount of women who have cohabitated by age twenty-five increased by thirty percent. The increase in cohabitation correlates with a decline in marriage (Waite 20). You might say that couples who were already living together no longer felt the need to get married because they were already living together. **Cohabitation can lead to intimacy, so if a couple is living together before marriage they are likely to be intimate before marriage. At one point in time, cohabitation and intimacy would have been unacceptable before marriage but now they are seen as the norm. In A Brave New World, they mock that at a time, children having sex would have been frowned upon. “…erotic play between children had been regarded as abnormal (there was a roar of laughter); and not only abnormal, actually immoral (no!): and had therefore been rigorously suppressed” (Huxley 34). People are thankfully arrested today for crazy
Hume presents his argument with three phases; the first proves the Principle of Determinism, he then goes on to prove Human Freedom also exists, coming to the conclusion the two are compatible. The foundation of his...
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument of design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in the universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosopher holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Section VI and VII, David Hume concludes that there is nothing to our belief of causation with the exception of constant conjunction, and no means by which we can analyze into it further. I agree with Hume because I too concur that we are incapable of justifying the causal connection with effect in which everything that happens happens respectively with some type of necessity or law. Although, those necessities or laws are beyond the bounds of our understanding/beliefs.
It is not a new thought that today’s young Americans are facing issues, problems and difficult decisions that past generations never had to question. In a world of technology, media, and a rough economy, many young adults in America are influenced by a tidal wave of opinions and life choices without much relevant advice from older generations. The Generation Y, or Millennial, group are coming of age in a confusing and mixed-message society. One of these messages that bombard young Americans is the choice of premarital cohabitation. Premarital cohabitation, or living together without being married (Jose, O’Leary & Moyer, 2010), has increased significantly in the past couple of decades and is now a “natural” life choice before taking the plunge into marriage. Kennedy and Bumpass (2008) state that, “The increase in cohabitation is well documented,such that nearly two thirds of newlyweds have cohabited prior to their first marriage”(as cited in Harvey, 2011, p. 10), this is a striking contrast compared with statistics of our grandparents, or even parents, generations. It is such an increasing social behavior that people in society consider cohabitation “necessary” before entering into marriage. Even more, young Americans who choose not to cohabitate, for many different reasons, are looked upon as being “old-fashioned”, “naive”, or “unintelligent”. This pressure for young people to cohabitate before marriage is a serious “modern-day” challenge; especially when given research that states, “... most empirical studies find that couples who cohabited prior to marriage experience significantly higher odds of marital dissolution than their counterparts who did not cohabit before marriage”, stated by Jose (2010) and colleagues (as c...
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
In William Paley’s paradigm, the world is perfectly designed by a benevolent God who purposefully created everything and “superadded pleasure to animal sensations” (RP 47 ). Paley strongly believes the existence of a God who is wise and benevolent enough to create everything on earth with happiness and a purpose. For Paley, science is a tool to complement the greatness of religion and prove the importance of Design (RP 46). In order to support his paradigm, Paley illustrates the contrivance and work of God in nature with the methodological assumption of First Cause (the belief in the existence of God) and Final Cause (the belief that a God creates an object with a purpose). Additionally, the metaphysical assumption of a close, active God underlies the paradigm as a premise that influences e...
There are a number of approaches that can take the teeth out of an economists bite, and they all involve the government. The government can do any of the following: Create laws that encourage competitive markets, regulate the monopoly or own the economy” (CPE pg.131). The Ontario government decided on the third option. Typically, governments take control of a monopoly for social reasons like nurturing an industry that otherwise could not materialize domestically without the government providing that service (Air Canada and Petro-Canada was created for these reasons). Selling liquor is quite different from this as there would be few barriers to trade in the free market. Convenient stores and many other merchandisers could easily provide the service that the LCBO provides at a cost significantly less at the cost of producing the item. Therefore, the artificial market managed by the government is not efficient like many monopolies. However, the monopoly own by the government is producing a significant firm surplus at the expensive of the deadweight loss it creates as resources are not being managed as efficiently as it could
Empiricism (en- peiran; to try something for yourself): The doctrine that all knowledge must come through the senses; there are no innate ideas born within us that only require to be remembered (ie, Plato). All knowledge is reducible to sensation, that is, our concepts are only sense images. In short, there is no knowledge other than that obtained by sense observation.
Marriage and cohabitation play a central role in how family life is carried out. The way in which society views marriage and cohabitation is changing as individualism becomes an increasingly mainstream ideal. Marriage rates have decreased significantly on average over the past 60 years, but different groups show different rates of change. While certain sects each have their views, the general trends are showing decreasing marriage rates in lower income individuals, and increasing marriage rates in higher income educated individuals. These rates are directly connected to racial-ethnic groups, leading to larger gaps in socioeconomic status.
An obvious cause that is probable for the influx in cohabitation rates is low levels of commitment. Ideally, marriage is implied to be the “ultimate level of trust” between two people (Perelli-Harris). This union between two people branches off into different dimensions of commitment; security and stability, emotional, and the role of loved ones in the declaration