In Dialogues concerning Natural religion Hume explores whether or not faith is rational. as a result of Hume is AN philosopher (i.e. somebody WHO thinks that every one information comes through experience), he thinks that a belief is rational given that it's sufficiently supported by experiential proof. therefore the question is absolutely, is there enough proof within the world to permit North American country to infer AN infinitely sensible, wise, powerful, excellent God? Hume doesn't raise whether or not we are able to rationally prove that God exists, however rather whether or not we are able to rationally return to any conclusions regarding God's nature. He asserts that the primary question is on the far side doubt; the latter is ab initio undecided.
Hume's claim against miracles is that it does not matter how strong the evidence for a miracle it may be it is rather more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. Hume states that there are two ways in order to decide to believe a piece of evidence. The reliability of a witness is the first factor. A witness can be dishonest or be ignorant about a situation which would make their claims worth little. So Humes says to take in consideration how reliable the witness is.
1. How does Clark defend belief from Clifford? Clark defends against W.K. Clifford's claim that it is wrong to believe anything on the basis of inadequate evidence, and that belief in God without evidence or argument is nevertheless rational. He also concludes that theistic arguments are redundant to understanding God because God would not put the obstacle of difficult thinking between people and Himself. 2.
When it comes to Hume’s theories, specifically the principles of ideas, we can evaluate them based on their identities. Out of the three associative principles, “causation is the strongest and the only one that takes us beyond our senses” (Morris and Charlotte). Causation establishes a link between the present and the past and this can be compared to the relation between the cause and effect. Hume tries to show the ways we associate ideas, and the reasons why it’s supposed to stay that way. He doesn’t focus on explaining why we do it this way, he automatically assumes that humans understand this concept.
The clergy’s actions during the first scaffold scene demonstrate the hypocrisy of Hume’s idea of suspension of justice regarding the sinner. Upon being coerced into extorting Hester’s repentance, the young minister beseeches her to “name thy fellow-sinner and fellow-sufferer... What can thy silence do for him, except it tempt him--yea, compel him, as it were--to add hypocrisy to sin?” (Hawthorne, Ch. 3). Although equally guilty, Dimmesdale’s position within the theocracy enables him to transfer the responsibility of confessing to his lover.
First, he notes that skepticism is hard to turn against one’s own ideas. How do you point a rhetorical gun at yourself? Elbow’s point is that it’s easier, and more fruitful, to welcome in new ideas. In doing so, we might see in them the good that our own ideas and beliefs lack.
People try to rationalize the Christian religion, from miracles to the existence of God where there is no evidence. Hume raises the question: As rational beings, we already do not believe based solely on word of mouth; how then should we be justifying these things by reason when even its first believers believed through testimony? The only evidence there is is in the design of the world; everything else can only be inferred or
Hume’s posited system of belief contained within A Treatise of Human Nature maintains a uniquely contemporary outlook in the discipline of philosophy as well as contemporary psychology. Within the Treatise, special consideration is given with regard to how one forms a belief and how one revises a belief. Given the continued important role of beliefs in relation to resultant actions as well as the ramifications of personal beliefs within a community, it becomes necessary to examine how one comes to belief and how one corrects or revises a belief. It is the intention of the following work to examine Hume’s account of belief as well as belief revision (correction?) and further assess the possible contributions to contemporary psychological research
In the movie 12 Angry Men it showed many examples of Hume’s ideas such as skepticism, pluralism, relativism, and reasonable doubt. First let me explain what skepticism is, skepticism doubts the validation of knowledge or particular subject. Pluralism is the position that there are many different kinds of belief—but not all just as good as any other. Relativism is when the position that each belief is just as good as any other, since all beliefs are viewpoint dependent. Reasonable doubt is lack of proof that prevents a judge or jury to convict a defendant for the charged crime.
Response to “On Being an Atheist” Ida Hart PHIL 201 – B30 LUO Dr. David Beck McCloskey’s article, “On Being an Atheist” contains arguments that he uses to explain Atheism, the non-existence of God. Using the claims made by theists and attempting to taint the character and nature of the Christian God, he points out what he calls several defects of the arguments. In his introduction he offers a brief reminder to fellow atheist stating the grounds and the inadequacies of these grounds for theism. He later calls them “proofs”, alleging that the proofs do not provide adequate justification for believing that God exists. This only proves that he is among the many that choose to use the arguments in the wrong way.
Hisham Khoury 7.1.16 Debate between Rationalists and Empiricist Team R (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz) Team E (Hume, Locke) * “Continental rationalism” VS “British empiricism” Team R: Descartes: Descartes uses the strategy of doubt to reveal any uncertainty about the truth. He begins doubting the truth of everything, and then he comes to a conclusion that if some truth couldn’t be doubted any more then this indubitable truth is a certain foundation of knowledge.
Hume’s response to this is through is character Philo, Philo said that we should not judge the attributes of god on something like Paley proposes. Philo argues that we cannot judge the entirety of the universe on one single part of nature because nature has an infinite number of springs of principle. Also that we cannot base God on our
Descartes and Hume. Rationalism and empiricism. Two of the most iconic philosophers who are both credited with polarizing theories, both claiming they knew the answer to the origin of knowledge and the way people comprehend knowledge. Yet, despite the many differences that conflict each other’s ideologies, they’re strikingly similar as well. In this essay I will attempt to find an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideologies of both philosophers all whilst evaluating why one is more theory is potentially true than the other.
Fortunately, Immanuel Kant takes on the challenge of refuting Hume, but what makes Kant different is that he is not resorting to philosophical excesses like his predecessors. He instead develops a framework that deals with the fundamental basis of reason, which contains a priori truths, or truths before we perceive. To understand how Kant reached this conclusion, it must be understood that he already believed that we had reached universal truths (causation for example) via science and common sense. So he does not do what previous epistemological philosophers have, by trying to understand how humans acquire knowledge and then compare that to science to see if it is verifiable, but does the exact opposite. He develops a framework under the assumption that we already have verifiable knowledge through science and he looks to see how we acquired it.
However, there is one type of testimony we shouldn’t listen. Hume claims that testimony on miracles is unreliable. Our knowledge of miracles comes solely from the testimony of people who claim to have seen miracles can never be truthful. They experience them firsthand then try to help us understand them without our own personal experience of it. According to Hume, there was never a miracle confirmed by wealthy and educated people.
