Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Society affect morality
Hume philosophy essay
David humes philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Why does God let people suffer analysis? 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... ... middle of paper ... ... seems to acknowledge. After reviewing the work of David Hume, the idea of a God existing in a world filled with so much pain and suffering is not so hard to understand. Humes’ work highlights some interesting points which allowed me to reach the conclusion that suffering is perhaps a part of God’s divine plan for humans. Our morals and values allow us to operate and live our daily lives in conjunction with a set of standards that help us to better understand our world around us and essentially allows us to better prepare for the potential life after life. For each and every day we get closer to our impending deaths and possibly closer to meeting the grand orchestrator of our universe. REFERENCE PAGE Hume, David. “Why Does God Let People Suffer?” Twenty Questions, an introduction to Philosophy. Ed Bowie, Michaels, Solomon. Thomson Learning, USA. 2000. 62-67.
is part of the human suffering due to his cherished relational nature with humans. However,
If God loves us, why does He allow us to suffer? The central question in Shadowlands challenges traditional religious and moral conventions. It is a question asked by many, with few satisfactory answers. Before attempting to answer the question, and explore its relationship to Shadowlands, let us first define the question, so its implications may be more clearly understood. At the heart of the question is a doubt in the goodness of God, "If God loves us". From the beginning it is clear that God is being judged and criticized by the question. Then the second phrase follows"Why does He allow us to suffer?". The assumption made in the second phrase is that God has enough control over the world to prevent suffering. If He can prevent suffering, and He really loves us, then why shouldn' t He excercise that control, and prevent needless suffering?
Hume attempts to counter Paley’s argument by saying that the universe is more like an animal than a work of human art. He says that because the universe is not a human art, it does not need a maker, just as animals do not need makers. Therefore, Paley argues, the universe also does not need a designer, and because of this, God does not exist. Hume does not effectively counter Paley’s argument because he simply replaces a complex watch with an even more complex animal in his statements. He does not successfully address the fact that animals were at some point created as well.
It is easy to place the blame on fate or God when one is encumbered by suffering. It is much harder to find meaning in that pain, and harvest it into motivation to move forward and grow from the grief. It is imperative for one to understand one’s suffering as a gateway to new wisdom and development; for without suffering, people cannot find true value in happiness nor can they find actual meaning to their lives. In both Antigone and The Holy Bible there are a plethora of instances that give light to the quintessential role suffering plays in defining life across cultures. The Holy Bible and Sophocles’ Antigone both mirror the dichotomous reality in which society is situated, underlining the necessity of both joy and suffering in the world.
In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Hume believes that the differences between men arise from nature, from habit, and from education. Hume believes no skeptic, no matter how doubtful, can claim that there are absolutely no moral distinctions. Also, he accepts if we disregard these skeptics, we find that they eventually give up their unconvincing claims and come over to the side of common sense and reason. In this paper, it will be shown that ultimately Hume maintains that benevolence is not the basis for self-love, rather it focuses on the utility to please, and the need for benevolence for its own sake.
To provide a logical flow for his argument, Sinnott-Armstrong presents a process of elimination, stating that gratuitous suffering exists, therefore, an all-good and all-powerful God must not (85). To prove this point, Sinnott-Armstrong gives a series of analogies, mainly involving cases of suffering towards babies (84) as an example of the extreme unfairness of evil, as it affects even the most innocent of humans, undeserving of any form of suffering, calling attention to suffering’s gratuitous nature which God supposedly allows. In addition, Sinnott-Armstrong further justifies his conclusion by critiquing eleven main responses Christian theists have posed throughout history to account for the existence of evil, taking the angle that humans cannot prove that suffering has any purpose that may be proven to be directly linked to God, therefore making it more likely that gratuitous suffering exists
...plain why evil exists if god is all knowing, all good and benevolent. A benevolent god should be more than capable of creating morally sound humans (and animals) who wouldn’t need a bigger picture to appreciate the good and remain moral. My only criticism of Hume is that his arguments are not necessarily timeless. We are not as limited as we used to be and we continue to thrive everyday, however that is expected of Hume since he hadn’t experienced the medical and scientific strides achieved over the years and knowledge must first be experienced.
There are those who believe wholeheartedly in an all-powerful, benevolent, creator God, and those that believe putting one’s faith in such a thing is ludicrous. Simon Blackburn questions the existence of such a God with “the problem of evil.” Essentially, it means since there is evil, pain and strife in the world it would be illogical to believe in an infallible, benevolent God. Why would God create a world with so much evil? If this God exists, then the world would be perfect. The world is not perfect. Therefore, there can be no such God. Blackburn confronts many possible criticisms to his argument. He attacks the idea of the world being a test for who goes to heaven or hell, our misunderstanding of God’s morality as human morality and the free-will argument. I believe he successfully debunks these criticisms, but he does not address the issue of dichotomy. Everything in the world is relative, and things are defined by their opposites.
Suffering can be defined as an experience of discomfort suffered by a person during his life. The New York Times published an article entitled what suffering does, by David Brooks (2014). In this article, Brooks explains how suffering plays an important role in our pursuit of happiness. He explains firstly that happiness is found through experiences and then, suffering can also be a motivation in our pursuit of happiness. In other words, suffering is a fearful but necessary gift to acquire happiness. This paper is related to motivation and emotion, two keys words to the pursuit of happiness (King, 2010).
In David Hume’s, “Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion”, Hume explores whether or not religious belief is indeed rational. Upon researching Hume I found that he is an empiricist, which is someone who thinks that all human knowledge comes from experience rather than learning. Being an empiricist sways Hume to believe that belief is on rational if it is properly supported by evidence. So the question posed is, “Is there enough evidence in the world to allow us to believe that there is an infinitely good, wise, powerful, perfect God?” The topic at hand is not whether we can rationally prove that God does exist, but rather if we are capable of concluding God’s nature.
Due to the ideas of David Hume, some may believe that one cannot support the existence of God, as Hume belief was that one cannot assume that the earthly parallels the universe, in other words, that which humans believe can happen on Earth, may not necessarily be able to be applied to the whole universe. “However, we may flatter ourselves that we are guided, in every step which we take, by a kind of verisimilitude and experience, we may be assured that this fancied experience has no authority when we thus apply it to subjects that lie entirely out of the sphere of experience.” (Hume 51) Hume extensively believes that philosophers are unable to validate the existence of God through using the theory of the first mover, as it relies on things of which humans do not have certainty over and many causes and creators are unseen.
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.
God allows humans to exercise free-will to choose their actions. When humans take advantage of their God-given free-will and make choices that are self-serving, they inflict pain and suffering on others. Human suffering is a result of man’s need to make himself a god and be king over other people. Humans have the choice to do evil or good. When they choose to do evil, they cause their fellow man to suffer. God gives man a choice of actions. When man chooses to act selfishly, he causes suffering. Although God has ordained every event that happens from the beginning of time, and gives humans the freedom to choose their actions, He is not the author of evil. God does not like evil, nor is he the creator of it. God only allows evil if it serves His greater purpose and plan for His people. God only allows evil if it serves the purpose of his plan or strengthens the faith of His believers. God can also use suffering in a person’s life to help them realize their current favorable situation is not a result of good luck or fortune, but because God allows them to be prosperous. Men do not realize all the earthly blessings they possess are given by the hand of
Suffering is one of the things that make us human, it is what lets us enjoy the good times and thank God for them. Because it is though suffering and trials of life that ...
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual who survives his physical death; let feeble souls, for fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts." 1930 (1)