Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of science on religion
The effect of science on religion
The effect of science on religion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hume's Views on Kant's Concept of God
For Hume, all objects of human reason are divided into two kinds: Relations of Ideas and Matters of fact. All reasoning of matters of fact are founded on Cause and Effect. Cause and Effect play a big role in Hume's philosophy. David Hume is a man of logic, who believes in experience over knowledge. This is the main in idea in his philosophy.
Contrary to many critiques Hume does believe that there is a God, however he does not believe that God is all greatness like society commonly assumes and excepts. Hume argues that because one sees an effect that doesn't mean that we can automatically know or assume its cause. This argument can be used to explain the creation of the world. We know that the universe is here but we don't know if God make it or if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the world. Perhaps the most obvious example of Hume's argument is.
Of course, it is hard for such a man to believe in extraordinary claims without being there to witness them. Especially when such events require a lot of faith. In order for an event to be deemed a miracle, it must disobey the laws of nature. However, it is these same laws that disprove almost any miracle that has ever been reported. He writes that some events that people report as miracles truly are not. For example, it is not a miracle that fire burns wood, or that a healthy man dies, because both of these are within the laws of nature. If a person does seemingly commit a miracle, they must do something that obviously defies the laws of nature and be able to do it repeatedly, as to prove that it is not a fluke.
Hume strongly depends on the laws of nature to disprove miracles because it is something that he knows will hold up through experience. Even if something happens that is extremely rare, for example, snow in June, we can disprove this as a miracle because it has been our experience in life that the weather is never constant and under extreme conditions we can get very cold weather during the summer. He is so skeptical against miracles, that he says he cannot even believe someone claiming to have witnessed a miracle, without first examining their reason for making such a claim.
First, Hume is what we call a compatibilist. A compatibilist is someone who thinks that causal determination is true, thus free will is true. In order to justify these claims, Hume uses his specific definitions of liberty and necessity. Essentially Hume makes liberty and necessity compatible with one another by concluding that people only thought they were not compatible because they had confused ideas about what liberty and necessity actually meant. So, Hume defines them as so: Necessity is that something appears to follow a commonly observed correlation. For example: if we drop a pen we know it will fall to the ground because we have observed that every time we drop something, it falls to the ground. Hume defines liberty, however, as "a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" (Hume, 10). For example: You can choos...
Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”
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...
In conclusion, Locke influenced the Founders of the United States heavily. The rights of man in the preservation of their property, lives and liberty have been guaranteed because of these ideas. Hume, though a skeptic, I believe would not be as skeptical now because there is now history of a government by the consent of the governed. Rousseau’s ideas have been vanquished by Locke’s ideas.
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.
Before Hume commits himself to this affirmation, he establishes several things first. He explains that all reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on the relation of Cause and Effect. In support of this, Hume explains that, if asked, any man believing in a matter of fact would give as a reason in support of this fact, some other fact. It is from this that Hume concludes that all reasonings concerning fact are of the same nature. It is here that one continually assumes that there is a connection between the current fact and that, which is inferred from it. Furthermore, Hume states where there nothing to bind them together; the inference would be entirely precarious.
In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.
Simply put, Hume believes that because we are incapable of perceiving the totality of existence and the natural laws that dictate it, we falsely connect events in an attempt to derive a visible rationale for everyday occurrences. Yet, given how precise actions and results are, they must be the product of a natural and necessary force --- which, coincidentally, is why we see what we think are connections in the world surrounding us.
Hume’s discussion of God in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding does not explicitly state whether or not God exists, his idea of God is also one based on Him being infinite, good, and intelligent as well. Hume’s discussion of the idea of God, “arises from reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting” His qualities. The idea of God with all his attributes is thus one based on copies of sentiments or feelings. After all, ideas come from sense perception. Yet, one cannot have a sense impression of God, since He is a metaphysical idea. He therefore does not
So why does the existence of miracles have any meaning at all? Belief in miracles helps to bring a sense of the divine existence of God to those who believe in a material way. Miracles are a way for signs from God to be transferred to mankind, in a way that we are able to understand. These miracles or signs from God can help to show divine favour, and to support our moral beliefs and ideology, to let us know that we are on the path of righteousness for those who believe. But what then, constitutes a miracle? A miracle, according to Hume, is a violation of the laws of nature, something that cannot happen, but does. (Hume, 1777,E10.12) I believe that Hume believes that the the laws of nature, cannot ever be violated, for if one believes that this is possible, then the laws of nature are fallible and belief in the laws of nature which should be unalterable, would no longer apply. It is therefore, far more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature, which have proven themselves over and over again, are in fact to be believed and accepted over any possiblity for the existence of a miracle.
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
In Part II of David Hume’s Dialogues of Natural Religion, Demea remarks that the debate is not about whether or not God exists, but what the essence of God is. (pg.51) Despite this conclusion in Part II, in his introduction to the Dialogues Martin Bell remarks that the question of why something operates the way it does is quite different from the question why do people believe that it operates the way it does. (pg. 11) This question, the question of where a belief originates and is it a valid argument, is much of the debate between Hume’s three characters in the Dialogues. (pg. ***)
He made this claim based off of three points: first, he said that everything that happens in nature and in the course of time is the result of divine decree, and that miracles/events that contradict nature, would also contradict the nature of God. Second, he said that miracles do not help us gain a greater understanding of God, but instead order and eternalness in his natural laws are what give us understanding of his nature. Lastly, third, he pointed out that in scripture it calls for the killing of those that claim to be able to perform, or have had miracles performed on them, for it leads them away from God and to false prophets. The miracle described above has components that fall under each of these claims, and likewise are what I will use to criticize this
You had to be one hundred percent certain on something to consider it knowledge. He didn’t agree with the questionable ideas of chance. Hume relies more on the seven philosophical relations when it comes to our knowledge and the ideas that we have. Hume believes that we believe God to exist because we go to church and are taught his ideas and life through the Bible. Because he existed there, he must still exist now. Unlike Descartes who believes the existence of God reflects our knowledge, Hume thinks God has nothing to do with our knowledge. The seven philosophical reasons do not allow knowledge of the outside world to be considered, and in this case God would be considered the outside world. He exists in a world besides the ideas the flow through our head. Sure, we can have knowledge in the sense that we believe God exists, however there is absolutely no proof of God’s actual existence. We can’t force someone to believe in something based on the ideas and thoughts we have running through our minds. He also believed that just because something happened in the past, there is no chance that the same result will ever happen
As the first premise states, “the evidence [of a miracle], resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual” (75). In other words,