From the two excerpts of David Hume it is understood that Hume finds fear of the future to be the cause of religion. This is noted when he states in the first sentence provided “religion of mankind arises chiefly from an anxious fear of future events.” According to Hume, peoples’ anxieties of the future cause them to create a scenario in which there is some kind of deity which will both care for them and enact its own system of justice. It is evident that Frank Manuel also believed fear to be the driving force behind religion as on page 58 of The Changing of the Gods, in the first full paragraph he states that “hope was always accompanied by the anxious fear that it might not be fulfilled”
Hume sees people taking their emotions and applying some to their deity and believes that if some “human passions” are applied to the deity that the deity will see the opinions of any creatures as inferior and thus would not care about the fears that the people used to create these religions, or the fears they bring up
…show more content…
But another result of these fears would lead people to create “an excellent and divine” deity, allowing people to find comfort in their times of fear and uncertainty. According to Hume’s view on religion and its origins, a person must have a fear of death and/or the future in order to be religious and these fears lead them to be unstable emotionally as they can go from one extreme to another. Of being joyful at one time and another being equally “superstitious” and having feelings of dejection. Fear, to Hume, would be the most controlling of one’s emotions as it drives one to not only create a god or god that does not exist, but to create rules that this deity or deities want everyone to follow in order to please
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...
With this one can see why people practice religions in general, because religion gives a sense of security through stressing that faith is the key to getting through suffering. Faith in the everlasting soul, faith in God, or faith that one will end in the right place. Faith is the common factor among religions, and suffering brings out the faith in people.
Religion is one of the most scared aspects a person has in his or her life; for many practitioners
Science and medicine in the eighteenth-century began to make incredible progress (Gingras and Guay 157). For example, diseases began to prolong the average lifespan (Olsen 275) and most industrial sectors developed more reliable technologies (Olsen 301). While at the beginning of the eighteenth-century, when science and technology began to improve, many believed if they led a virtuous life, then their death would result in living in Heaven for eternity (Olsen 288). In the later part of the eighteenth-century the rapid advancements in science and technology allowed for religious beliefs to be questioned, as science seemed to become more reliable than God (Olsen 280). This, in turn, may have caused a fear of one’s own death and the afterlife. It also may have separated society as a whole, those that believed in God and those that trusted in newer
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
...en civilization and the individual. Living in a nation still recovering from a brutally violent war (Germany), Freud began to criticize organized religion as a collective neurosis, or mental disorder. Freud, a strong proponent of atheism, argued that religion tamed asocial instincts and created a sense of community because of the shared set of beliefs. This undoubtedly helped a civilization. However, at the same time organized religion also exacts an enormous psychological cost to the individual by making him or her perpetually subordinate to the primal figure embodied by God.
In the midst of his already successful career, Sigmund Freud decided to finally dedicate a book of his to religion, referring to the subject as a phenomena faced by the scientific community. This new work, Totem and Taboo, blew society off its feet, ultimately expanding the reaches of debates and intellectual studies. From the beginning, Freud argues that there exists a parallel between the archaic man and the contemporary compulsive. Both these types of people, he argues, exhibit neurotic behavior, and so the parallel between the two is sound. Freud argues that we should be able to determine the cause of religion the same way we determine the cause of neurosis. He believes, since all neuroses stem from childhood experiences, that the origins of this compulsive behavior we call religion should also be attributed to some childhood experiences of the human race, too. Freudian thought has been dominant since he became well known. In Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, religion becomes entirely evident as a major part of the novel, but the role it specifically plays is what we should question. Therefore, I argue that Freud’s approach to an inborn sense of religion and the role it plays exists in The Last of the Mohicans, in that the role religion plays in the wilderness manifests itself in the form of an untouchable truth, an innate sense of being, and most importantly, something that cannot and should not be tampered with.
Religion comes from religare, which means have a reunion. Aneel Baquer says that humans have a need to connect with others, the ability of myths and thoughts of religion is a desire that humans need to bond. In most civilizations, religion is the reason why civilizations are successful. Religion give, people a motive to survive or do what they do. Sometimes the religions actually make their civilization expand and even more successful. not only does religion give us a motive to survive. Still today, religion is one of the biggest factors in modern civilizations. In several religion motives are used for example, christianity. In christianity to meet with god, you must do good. Religion can change a persons personality by aiding from stress, to giving hope. Religion can also reduce the fear of death. In ancient civilizations, egyptians did not fear death. In their religion they believed that living on earth was the beginning of life. Once dead it sends you to the beginning of happiness or horrible. Religion can also expand. If you have a strong connection to your religion, some people spread the word of their religion to other people. It also teaches manners and the difference between the good, and the evil. Vikings were such a significant civilization than any other because of their religion. Religion for the vikings have given them motivation to expand territories, learn between the good and the bad, and not to fear death but to welcome death; reasons why are from being taught was from viking mythology, heroic people and their warlike god.
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.
Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.
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.
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 the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light…'(Gen 1:1.5) '…then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. '(Gen 2:7) This part from the bible is a typical example of what people used to believe before scientists came and gave logical explanations to the questions of mankind.It is possible, of course, to define a non-supernatural "religious" worldview that is not in conflict with science. But in all of its traditional forms, the supernatural religious worldview makes the assumption that the universe and its inhabitants have been designed and created by "forces" or beings which transcend the material world. The material world is postulated to reflect a mysterious plan originating in these forces or beings, a plan which is knowable by humans only to the extent that it has been revealed to an exclusive few. Criticising or questioning any part of this plan is strongly discouraged, especially where it touches on questions of morals or ethics. Science, on the other hand, assumes that there are no transcendent, immaterial forces and that all forces which do exist within the universe behave in an ultimately objective or random fashion. The nature of these forces, and all other scientific knowledge, is revealed only through human effort in a dynamic process of inquiry. The universe as a whole is assumed to be neutral to human concerns and to be open to any and all questions, even those concerning human ethical relationships. Such a universe does not come to us with easy answers. We must come to it and be prepared to work hard. According to Thomas W. Clark science and religion are in a battle from the day that scientists got in the fields of the theologises
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.