Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Dialogues...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion David Hume Philo = Hume and Clianthes = Bailey, Demea = Religion on faith Natural religion- truths about God that can be known by reflecting on the phenomena in nature Demea - Beli ev e s t h a t Go d c a n't b e pr o v e n t hr o u g h o n t olo gic al a n d c o s m olo gic al a r g u m e n t s (h e h a d r ef u t e d it b ef or e wit h Philo) - He w a n t s t o r e s or t t o h a vi n g fait h in Go d. Pro bl e m is t h a t if y o u d o n't k n o w a n y t hi n g a b o u t a n d h a v e e v e r y t hin g b a s e d o n fait h, mi s sio n a r y work is VERY difficult. - You c a n m o v e t o t h e fait h a r g u m e n t , b u t t h e n y o u'r e s t u c k! No pr o of of a n y t hi n g for y o u t o m o v e o n forw ar d in e x pl ainin g y o u r s elf. - Epis ti m olo gy- s t u d y of kn o wl e d g e . All r eligio n s h a v e v a s t k n o wl e d g e . Th eis t h a s t o c o m e u wit h p oin t s of h a vi n g a c h urc h, w h y Go d e xis t s, e t c. Cle a n t h e s - Take s t h e a r g u m e n t fro m d e si g n s t a n d p oi n t (t el e olo gic al a r g u m e n t) Philo - Wa nt s e m piric al pr o of ( proof fro m e vi d e n c e ) Hu m e - S u p e r s m a r t a t h ei s t c hild pr o di gy - He's a n e m piricis t ( e vid e n c e , m ai nly e x p e ri e n c e , c o m p ris e s t h e m aj ority of w h a t w e k n o w), h e n c e Philo a s kin g for pr oof. - Sci e n c e is h o w o ur m o d e s of in q uiry s h o ul d b e a p pr o a c h e d . Of w h a t y o u'v e e x p e ri e n c e d y o u d r a w c o n cl u sio n s. If yo u h a v e n't e x p e ri e n c e d s o m e t hi n g y o u s h o ul d n't b e m a ki n g c o n clu sio n s - Fa m o u s for sk e p ticis m Philo's o bj e c tio n t o Clia n t h e s : Th e w e a k n e s s of t h e a r g u m e n t its elf is e n o u g h t o c a u s e d o u b Th e c o n cl u sio n is n e v e r r ef u t e d , ju s t t h e m e t h o d a t a p p r o a c hin g t h e c o n cl u sio n. Philo's first o bj e c tio n: w e a k a n al o g y "But w h e r e v e r yo u d e p a r t, in t h e le a s t, fro m t h e si mil arity of t h e c a s e s y o u di mi nis h pr o p or tio n a bly t h e e vi d e n c e ; a n d m a y a t la s t b rin g it t o a v e r y w e a k a n alo g y, w hic h is c o nf e s s e dly lia bl e t o e rror a n d u n c e r t ai n t y" Philo p . 4 6 Just b e c a u s e o bj e c t s h a v e t h e s a m e pr o p e r t y A, B, a n d C d o e s n't m e a n pr o p e r t y D is t h e s a t o o. o Wh a t's it like ridin g o n t h e b a c k of a y a k? It's lik e t hr o win g a r u g o v e r a r u s t y 1 0 s p e e d ridin g it o n t o p of rock s. 1 0 s p e e d = slow, r u g = y a k h a s c u rly n a s t y h air s o y o u n e e d a rock s = ro u g h t e rr ai n. How e v e r, m a c hi n e NEVER e q u al a ni m al...EVER! He uris tic- t e a c hi n g d e vic e: a n al o g y, m e t a p h o r, di a g r a m . Th e y'r e u s e d t o ai d a n a r g u m e n t, t h e y'r e n or m ally n o t w h a t htole a r g u m e n t is b a s e d o n. w he o Provin g t h a t Go d e xis t s t hr o u g h o nly a n alo g y = v e ry s h a ky o An a n alo gy is o nly a s s tr o n g a s t h e t w o t hi n g s it c o m p a r e s . So t h e s e t w o b e t t e r n o t div e all- t h e m or e t h e y div er g e , t h e w e ak e r t h e a n al o gy. o To c o m p a r e t w o o bj e c t s y o u n e e d t o k n o w all t h e r e is a b o u t b o t h of t h e m . Wat c h v s. u niv e r s e- b u t w h a t all d o y o u k n o w of t h e u niv e r s e ? Si milariti e s of w a t c h a n d u niv e r s e m br e a k d o w n if w e le ar n m o r e a b o u t t h e u niv e r s e . We o nly k n o w 2 0 % a b o u t t h e u niv e r s e now (tops). And none of us saw its creation, so who are we to know about it? Without evidence we don't know about the conception of t he universe let alone its designer Philo = conser vative view. When you can't justify what you're arguing, you should remain s until you can. That 's why he questions ever ything, to m ake sure Clianthes can justify it. Section 9 - Humes version of the fallacy of composition. You can reread it for fur ther understanding. - Ar tifact vs natural object. Hume wants to ex tend the analogy to t he designers of both. Des of ar tifacts could be m ore t han one person (assembly line), finite, fallable (make mistakes). Defor med watches m ay be thrown away until one works. - Hume argues that Pales and Clianthes haven't ruled out t hese possibilities - This m ight be a tossed out world (not opti mal), made by a com mit tee, etc... These possibilit are com patible with there being a world and a designer but that designer not being God. ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online