Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: David Hume: essays
Anti theodicy is the argument that it is wrong to seek theodicies, that is, it is wrong to seek answers to the problem of evil. Anti theodicy is prompted by the religious effects of theodicizing. Theodicizing has been accused of risking our faith in God by questioning Him, wasting time, reducing divine mystery in case we succeed in understanding the problem of evil, and increasing self-satisfaction when we realize that there are reasons behind the evil and we stop fighting against it. It says we should not try to seek the hidden ways of God but rather try to find the path that we shall walk on when evil attacks. What anti theodicies fail …show more content…
Hume tried to solve this problem by claiming that God had no morals. He backed his claim without trying to deny the existence of God, since he needed the concept of God’s existence to account for divine providence. He understands the problem of evil as a challenge to belief in the nature of God. He believed that the problem of evil drove people towards superstition, violent passions like love, hatred and humility and fanaticism. Hume believed that what was important in terms of religion for the support of a good common life was a general manifestation of divine care. First of, he asserted that the existence of evil can be used to prove that some of the arguments for the existence of God cannot be relied on. Secondly, there exist judgements about the goodness and badness of actions, about what a person can do and cannot do, of whether a particular action violates a person’s rights. As far as the punishment for the evil and reward for the bad are concerned, Hume declares that the arguments on the existence of evil alongside God are based on the supposition that God has qualities beyond what he has shown in the entire universe. It is better for us to believe and know that whatever the Divine being has done is actually the best rather than us wanting what seems best for
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...
It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This is where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be.
This sums up what has been said about humans having moral objections to good and evil, evil distorting good reality and evil objective nature. This chapter urges the reader to think deeper about the creation of the universe and why there is so much evil in it, whether Christian, atheist or anything else you cannot deny the logical facts given that prove the existence of evil is just one more thing that points to the existence of God.
Hume uses the two characters in his essay to display the human point of view regarding the problem of evil, so that he can theorize using actual human experience, feelings, and sensations rather than logical assumptions and scientific hypotheses regarding a universe outside and beyond our own human existence. The essay suggests that the human experience is usually, for the most part, an unhappy one. Hume believes that all humans experience pain, sickness, anguish, nervousness, fear, sadness, embarrassment in some point during their lives. The “good” feelings humans experience in life, such as joy, love, excitement and pleasure are often few and far between and always less enduring than the “evil” feelings. For example, I...
David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made. In this three-sided debate, Hume’s depiction of an empiricist is clearly the winner.
... The psychological argument Hume proposes supports his claim, and also suggests the cyclic behavior human beings take. While his philosophical contributions are more extreme than Locke’s, Hume’s definition of liberty and the psychological component to his proposition provide an argument for proving all things are determined, but free will is still possible.
God is the source of evil. He created natural evil, and gave humans the ability to do moral evil by giving them a free will. However, had he not given people free will, then their actions would not be good or evil; nor could God reward or punish man for his actions since they had no choice in what to do. Therefore, by giving humans choice and free will, God allowed humanity to decide whether to reward themselves with temporary physical goods, and suffer in the long run from unhappiness, or forsake bodily pleasures for eternal happiness.
In An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume demonstrates how there is no way to rationally make any claims about future occurrences. According to Hume knowledge of matters of fact come from previous experience. From building on this rationale, Hume goes on to prove how, as humans we can only make inferences on what will happen in the future, based on our experiences of the past. But he points out that we are incorrect to believe that we are justified in using our experience of the past as a means of evidence of what will happen in the future. Since we have only experience of the past, we can only offer propositions of the future. Hume classifies human into two categories; “Relations of Ideas,” and “Matters of Fact.” (240) “Relations of ideas” are either intuitively or demonstratively certain, such as in Mathematics (240). It can be affirmed that 2 + 2 equals 4, according to Hume’s “relations of ideas.” “Matters of fact” on the other hand are not ascertained in the same manner as “Relations of Ideas.” The ideas that are directly caused by impressions are called "matters of fact". With “matters of fact,” there is no certainty in establishing evidence of truth since every contradiction is possible. Hume uses the example of the sun rising in the future to demonstrate how as humans, we are unjustified in making predictions of the future based on past occurrences. As humans, we tend to use the principle of induction to predict what will occur in the future. Out of habit, we assume that sun will rise every day, like it has done in the past, but we have no basis of actual truth to make this justification. By claiming that the sun will rise tomorrow according to Hume is not false, nor is it true. Hume illustrates that “the contrary of every matter of fact is still possible, because it can never imply a contradiction and is conceived by the mind with the same facility and distinctness as if ever so conformable to reality” (240). Just because the sun has risen in the past does not serve as evidence for the future. Thus, according to Hume, we are only accurate in saying that there is a fifty- percent chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. Hume felt that all reasoning concerning matter of fact seemed to be founded on the relation between cause and effect.
David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design
... where Hume’s doesn’t really consider religion as a threat to society since it is pointless to understand the whole concept of religion if man doesn’t understand.
7). Mr. Bell describes deism in his introduction as a view that approximately consisted of the view that what is necessary to hold a religious belief is what can be substantiated about God and his nature, as well as religious duty, by reasoning (pg. 6). He goes on to explain that some deists desired to show that Christianity is a reasonable and analytical religion, others believed that religion was a natural and obvious reaction to attestation of God’s providence. (pg. 7) However, Hume believed deism was an entirely incorrect belief (pg. 7 & 8). He believed that religious beliefs began with emotional needs, such as vulnerability and insecurities, reactions to the hostilities of the world surrounding us, and that religious beliefs are a means of bringing comfort to the suffering (pg. 8). This is a conclusion Hume brings about in Part XII of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Philo states that the horrors of religion frequently dominate more than its solace, and that men tend to find comfort in religion when they are anguished by depression and ill health (pg. 136). Yet when men are not afflicted by these deplorable states and in a joyful state, that man is suited for the tasks at hand, be they toil, friendship, or recreation, and that he pays no attention to religion (pg. 136-137). Therefore, Philo contends, this is proof enough that religion is allied with sadness more than joyfulness (pg. 136). Throughout the conversation, Philo is referred to as a skeptic, for he questions and argues what the others take for granted as fact, and yet this is also his quality, as he takes nothing for granted as being true unless he has experienced it to be the case. It is no surprise then, Philo’s ultimate admonition: that it is of utmost importance for men of thought, men who love wisdom, to be skeptical. (pg.
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.
In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.
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.