This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Week 7 Title God and the Meaningfulness of Nature Week 7a Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Parts 1-5, Including opening Letter) Basics of the Dialogue-We exist in a natural world and we are natural beings..what is so meaningful about this? You can say there isnt anything meanignfullit is just pretty and no meaning in itother people disagree, nature if actually something designed. We hhear about this ID -Intersting: it is not newit taken serious by people who believe in God-Theory is oldin Europe and asia-Hume wrote a dialoge on this issuewheter we can know something about entity that designed naturecan we have this knowledgethis is probably our best way to kno about existiance of Godjust look around at how intellengent things are Hume takes a different view and is a bit skeptical. He had a funny foundationhe thought that knowelge utlimetly rested on perception Hume argued that if this is only foundation of knowelge, most of things we want to say about wordl are without foundationie. The sun will risetomro is the calim that logic cant prove-From this POV we ddont know if sun will rise 2moro -Hume: I figure that is no way to live life-Same kind of apprcoh about question of nature about nature.-Can we know about something that designs nature? -Some say we just got to look around and we can see how beautiful it is!-kNOWELedge eventually lies on our ability to perceive -Even claims like the sun will rise: logic cant prove that it will rise tomorrow. -same kind of approach of nature of nature Dialogue written by the famous British Empiricist, David Hume Empiricists believe that knowledge is founded on perception Told by the narrator Pamphilus Dialogue is between three characters Characters Demea : proponent of a priori or rationalist arguments for the existence of God- Cleanthes : proponent of a posteriori or empiricist arguments for the existence of God- Philo : the philosopher, primarily against superstition, and willing to consider alternative explanations for the existence of the universe-More of the philosopher -All 3 characters posit existence of God and say that that is not under question!! Basic Questions of the Dialogue All three characters agree that the existence of God is not under question Rather, the question is: (a) what are the attributes of God, and (b) why do we have to posit God as an explanation for the universe?-Politically, you wer not allowed to say there is no God. You can get into troublehe is not trying to prove that there is no GodThey differ with respect to attributes of God and (B)-Intesting: Syaing you believe in God doenst tell us anything else. They disagree about that what means wen explaining origoon of universe-He coudnt prove that he doesnt exist Meaning of Life?...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/31/2011 for the course PHIL 100 taught by Professor James during the Spring '11 term at University of Toronto- Toronto.
- Spring '11
- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding