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.
... Egyptians close behind. As the bible explains the miracle takes place the Red Sea splits leading the Israelite’s to freedom. As the Egyptians were crossing the sea it closed it’s gates and let them drown with in the waters of the sea. In justifying whether Hume would discredit this miracle he would definitely see how one may say it is a miracle, but again would have a hard time validating the testimony of the miracle. Again we see the pattern of the fact that there is no one to testify for the event. We can only view this as a truthful experience through our belief in God and the bible. It is what we are taught to believe through religious texts, and our house of worship. It is the individuals perception of reality and what he or she believes to be a valid event. In conclusion, a miracle is actually based on an individuals own perception of past and present experiences. The belief in a miraculous event tends to have no real evidence through mans hope, it tends to be something better through our expectations. I can not debate the belief of a miracle. There is no right or wrong belief. It is viewed through our own individual perception and faith, our existence and sense of reality.
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...
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.
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.
Hume is an empiricist and a skeptic. He develops a philosophy that is generally approached in a manner as that of a scientist and therefore he thinks that he can come up with a law for human understanding. Hume investigates the understanding as an empiricist to try and understand the origins of human ideas. Empiricism is the notion that all knowledge comes from experience. Skepticism is the practice of not believing things in nature a priori, but instead investigating things to discover what is really true. Hume does not believe that all a posteriori knowledge is useful, too. He believes “all experience is useless unless predictive knowledge is possible.” There are various types of skepticism that Hume differentiates, antecedent skepticism from consequent skepticism form his own skepticism that accounts for the limitations of the human kind while at the same time keeps our tendency to be excessive under check.
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
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. ***)
David Hume’s two definitions of cause found in both A Treatise of Human Nature, and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consistency between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the account presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the Author’s Advertisement that the Treatise was a “work which the Author [Hume] had projected before he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it successful, he was sensible of his error in going to the press to early, and he cast the whole anew in the following pieces, where some negligence in his former reasoning and more in the expression, are, he hopes, corrected.” (Hume 1772, xxxi) Generally the inconsistencies are cited from the Treatise, which fails to recognize the purpose of the Enquiry. This brings us to the possible tension between the two definitions. J.A. Robinson, for example, believes the two definitions cannot refer to the same thing. Don Garrett feels that the two definitions are possible, but only with further interpretation. I will argue that the tension arises from a possible forgetfulness on the part of the reader about Hume’s aims as a philosopher, and that Hume’s Enquiry stands on its own without any need for a critic’s extrapolations. To understand Hume’s interpretation of causation and the arguments against it, we must first follow the steps Hume took to come to his conclusion. This requires brief consideration of Hume’s copy princi...
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.
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.
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,