Philosopher Of The Month --- Hume

[Dr Adequate]

Let's talk about David Hume.

His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm) would be a good place to start. I like a good dialogue, and unlike in so many other dialogues by other philosophers, Hume does seem to give weight to the various sides of the argument, rather than writing a "dialogue" consisting of a smart guy who's right steamrollering dumb people who are wrong.

There are lots of good points for discussion here, and like so much prose from the Enlightenment, the book is beautifully written.

[lifegazer]

Care to summarise his philosophy for us, or the essential points of that philosophy?

[Dr Adequate]

No. The POM threads are not for people who wish to deal in glib trivialisation and oversimplification. I have provided you with a link to one of his works. Feel free to read it.

[Kiless]

Um, this is probably glib. Sorry.

The title itself is significant - it demonstrates his belief that the centrality of the notion of human nature for his thinking, reason being 'the slave of the passions'. If reason is dethroned, then human passions and instincts take on greater significance and aid our understanding of the way we interact with the world.

Hume didn't mention Hobbes much, did he (I know more about Hobbes)? I was under the impression that Hobbes did, however, influence Hume in terms of his view on human freedom? But Hume isn't a materialist or an atheist, however.

I remember that the role of instinct and fixed preferences in the lives of animals (including humans) gives a philosophical opening for the work of Darwin, and I was struck by this passage (Part X, 198):

"You ascribe, Cleanthes (and I believe justly), a purpose and intention to Nature. But what, I beseech you, is the object of that curious artifice and machinery, which she has displayed in all animals? The preservation alone of individuals, and propagation of the species. It seems enough for her purpose, if such a rank be barely upheld in the universe, without any care or concern for the happiness of the members that compose it. No resource for this purpose: no machinery, in order merely to give pleasure or ease: no fund of pure joy and contentment: no indulgence, without some want or necessity accompanying it. At least, the few phenomena of this nature are overbalanced by opposite phenomena of still greater importance."

His notion that the power of kinship is demonstrated in his 'principle of sympathy'. But he then extends by saying despite the bias we hold for those we have in close relation, we should not have a morality limited by reason. Instead, morality is an expression of our human nature, an outcome of a basic trait (but that's getting into Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, which is another book).

I find Hume poetic in his writings -
"And from the dregs of life, hope to receive
What the first sprightly running could not give"
and that also makes him pleasurable to read.

I hope that wasn't too glib. :(

[Yahweh]

Finished reading it (although technically, I didnt actually "read" it as that would have been exhausting, I copied and pasted it into my text-to-speech program and listened).

I dont have anything immediate to comment on, as reading the dialogue required many hours, and the intake of it all at once has left me "fried".

But, thank you nonetheless, Dr. A, for recommending it :)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kiless
Um, this is probably glib. Sorry.

The title itself is significant - it demonstrates his belief that the centrality of the notion of human nature for his thinking, reason being 'the slave of the passions'. That was, in fact, glib. "Natural religion" is a precise technical term meaning what we can know about religion just by studying nature, as opposed to "Revealed religion", which is how God reveals his nature to us by miracles (voice out of a burning bush stuff).But Hume isn't a materialist or an atheist, however. No-one will even tell me what a materialist is.

* sulks *

But certainly he is a theist. Stamenflicker and I wanted to discuss him because, even if you're an atheist, you've got to admit that he's the thinking mans theist --- and if you're a theist, you've got to admit the exact same thing.

I remember that the role of instinct and fixed preferences in the lives of animals (including humans) gives a philosophical opening for the work of Darwin... I support Darwinism only for empirical reasons. If you can show that Darwin requires some supporting "philosophy", my waste-paper basket awaits his works.... and I was struck by this passage (Part X, 198):

"You ascribe, Cleanthes (and I believe justly), a purpose and intention to Nature. But what, I beseech you, is the object of that curious artifice and machinery, which she has displayed in all animals? The preservation alone of individuals, and propagation of the species. It seems enough for her purpose, if such a rank be barely upheld in the universe, without any care or concern for the happiness of the members that compose it. No resource for this purpose: no machinery, in order merely to give pleasure or ease: no fund of pure joy and contentment: no indulgence, without some want or necessity accompanying it. At least, the few phenomena of this nature are overbalanced by opposite phenomena of still greater importance." And this is a perenial problem for theists. As Darwin put it: "What a book a devil's chaplain* might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"

* "Devil's chaplain" --- Victorian slang for "atheist".I find Hume poetic in his writings... and that also makes him pleasurable to read. There is an effort at both beauty and precision in the prose of the age of reason which makes for excellent reading.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Finished reading it (although technically, I didnt actually "read" it as that would have been exhausting, I copied and pasted it into my text-to-speech program and listened). Why?

I dont have anything immediate to comment on, as reading the dialogue required many hours, and the intake of it all at once has left me "fried". It would. If you gave me, say, a sci-fi novella of the same length, I could have read it at a sitting and asked for another. Reading the dialogues, I had to keep putting the book down and thinking.

When the last POM (C S Lewis) was discussed, the OP said that posters should read part 1 before they started discussing part 1, rather than reading through the whole thing. In the same way, we can start our discussion at the beginning --- after all, presumably Hume put the beginning at the beginning for some reason, and it would be sensible to begin by discussing the foundations of his work.But, thank you nonetheless, Dr. A, for recommending it :) Sure. I avoided Hume for a long while because his reputation is as a dogmatic skeptical atheist, blah-de-blah. I read him just because I thought, as a "classic", I ought to know what he actually said. I was pleasantly surprised to find a theist in ardent debate --- with himself. The issues he handled are still live issues, but he expressed better the arguements --- on both sides. Now there is a philosopher whom we can admire.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And this is a perenial problem for theists. As Darwin put it: "What a book a devil's chaplain* might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"

* "Devil's chaplain" --- Victorian slang for "atheist". There is an effort at both beauty and precision in the prose of the age of reason which makes for excellent reading.
Darwin never challenged the idea that God exists. He just challenged Genesis - and only then, if you read it literally.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Darwin never challenged the idea that God exists. He just challenged Genesis - and only then, if you read it literally. What are you arguing with? The quotation from Darwin is accurate, and it does not suggest that God does not exist. Indeed, his use of the phrase "devil's chaplain" to mean "atheist" suggests that when Darwin wrote that, he took a very different theological view from, say, mine.

But Darwin is correct to point out, as I have pointed out, and as Hume (let's return to the OP) pointed out, that the cruelty and waste in nature is an argument against a divine designer of nature. Perhaps not the conclusive argument, but only a fool would deny that it isn't a telling blow.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But Darwin is correct to point out, as I have pointed out, and as Hume (let's return to the OP) pointed out, that the cruelty and waste in nature is an argument against a divine designer of nature. Perhaps not the conclusive argument, but only a fool would deny that it isn't a telling blow.
Not so, doc.
Your reaction is naive: it fails to reconciliate the existence of God with the experience of suffering; thus rejecting God because of this negative experience.
However, you have neglected to ponder the possibility that 'suffering' might be of benefit to God's long-term purpose. Thus, your (and Hume's?) gut-instinct to reject a God (or to lose faith in 'IT' that would allow such suffering - regardless of whether you comprehend the reason for it) is an emotional reaction and carries zero rational-ammo to make it a worthwhile philosophical-point.

You (Hume?) beg the purpose of 'suffering'. But you (nor Hume) say anything to negate the existence of God.
Darwin proved nothing. He just challenged Genesis - as I said - and only then if you read the bible literally.

[Dr Adequate]

Lifegazer --- would you like to read and discuss the text which I have linked to?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Lifegazer --- would you like to read and discuss the text which I have linked to?
My previous response was a cutting thrash into the idea that Darwin somehow has any philosophical significance when it comes to contemplation of reality.
You were the one that said that Darwin is correct to point out that the cruelty and waste in nature is an argument against a divine designer of nature. So either Hume used this so-called 'truth' or you have misrepresented him.
... If the former, then Hume has failed to give a purely rational analysis of experience. If the latter, then you have failed.

This is either a major blow to Hume, or to yourself. In which case, I suggest that you either respond to my post or submit that you have misread Hume.
The ball's in your court. At this juncture, I'm not obliged to do anything.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Originally posted by Yahweh
Finished reading it (although technically, I didnt actually "read" it as that would have been exhausting, I copied and pasted it into my text-to-speech program and listened).
Why?
Eyestrain. And it helps to hear the works of Hume spoken in the voice of a female Stephen Hawking.

[Dr Adequate]

Lifegazer --- would you like to read and discuss the text which I have linked to?

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A

It's going to take maybe two or three more nights to finish reading. I'm sure this question will bear out later in the narrative, but what do you make of these three statements:

If we distrust human reason, we have now no other principle to lead us into religion.

It is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these sacred obscurities.

Our ideas reach no further than our experience.

Quote #2 is taken from the section regaring God's "Being" which is according to Hume essentially unknowable-- and even profane to parade around thinking we know.

So if we take Quote #1 and #2 together at face value, can the theist go anyplace at all? Since the "being" of God is a sort of sacred obscurity for Hume is it therefore outside human reason and to be deemed non-pursuable?

I'm not sure how he plays out Quote #3, but I like it. Maybe it fits in there someplace, I'll need to read some more.

Nice thread,

Flick

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
It's going to take maybe two or three more nights to finish reading. I'm sure this question will bear out later in the narrative, but what do you make of these three statements... Well, that is very easily answered. There is indeed a wild inconsistency between these statements, and the reason is that the first statement is that of Cleanthes, the second that of Demea, and the third that of Philo. Should we wonder if these statements are completely inconsistent, when they are represented as the opinions of three different people arguing from three different points of view?

And if you want to ask me: "Very well, what did Hume himself really think on this subject?" --- then I should say that being a man of the Enlightenment, if he really thought he knew that, then he'd have told us all about it in thumping good prose --- no dialogue required. But he didn't think that he knew, so he had this dialogue going on inside himself which he wrote down as beautifully, truthfully, and accurately as he knew: treating no argument with fear nor favour.

This is why I thought this text was particularly suitable for POM: Hume himself is eloquently arguing all sides of his own question. Let's join in!

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Why?
Eyestrain. And it helps to hear the works of Hume spoken in the voice of a female Stephen Hawking. [/QUOTE]

Cool. I was about to add but came in late, that there's several reasons that spring to mind as to why Yahweh would choose to have a voice reading the works. Is there a certain program that you use, Yahweh, because I think that would greatly benefit some of my students.

[Kopji]

Cleanthes and Philo pursued not this conversation much further: and as nothing ever made greater impression on me, than all the reasonings of that day, so I confess, that, upon a serious review of the whole, I cannot but think, that Philo's principles are more probable than Demea's; but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth.


He says this at the end. But how did he decide which principles were more true?

The reasoning is good for 'belief' but does not seem to touch at all on whether it is true or not. Suppose I look at the earth and heavens and don't see anything at all of some human-intelligent like force behind it?

So (and I respect Hume a lot), I don't see how this can be more than an elaborate appeal to authority: Hume is a great philosopher, he is a theist, so we should be too.





Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

[CFLarsen]

The Philosopher's Song
(Monty Python)

I.....mmanuel Kant
was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger
was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume
could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel
And Wittgenstein
was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche
couldn't teach ya'
Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed...

John Stuart Mill,
of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say,
could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle
was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes
was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kopji
He says this at the end. But how did he decide which principles were more true? But the "I", deciding and reporting is just another character in the story (compare Plato's Socratic dialogues). So (and I respect Hume a lot), I don't see how this can be more than an elaborate appeal to authority: Hume is a great philosopher, he is a theist, so we should be too. Well, Hume is not asking "is there a God"? He asks: is "natural religion", as defined above, even a possibility? He lets his characters bat the question around from saying "no, absolutely not" to endorsing ID. His characters are all theists. So? It is still a fascinating discussion written by a genius.

And... an appeal to authority? I'm not appealing to Hume's authority for theism. I'm an atheist. You read me wrong. I just invited everyone to discuss Hume's ideas: I didn't endorse all of his ideas, nor appeal to him to endorse any of mine.

[FireGarden]

On style of presentation, I have to say: "If you're going to use dialogue format, then write it as a play." I don't understand Yahweh.. This is much easier to read than to hear! :)

Thanks for your comments on natural religion, Dr A. It's important to bear that in mind when comparing this:
"You propose then, Philo," said Cleanthes, "to erect religious faith on philosophical scepticism; and you think, that if certainty or evidence be expelled from every other subject of enquiry, it will all retire to these theological doctrines, and there acquire a superior force and authority."
To Philo's earlier statement:
when these familiar objects, I say, are so inexplicable, and contain circumstances so repugnant and contradictory; with what assurance can we decide concerning the origin of worlds, or trace their history from eternity to eternity?
Revealed religion would stand apart from anything that humans reason about. But natural religion would have to be based on experience and reason. Whether that difference is a good thing - well, perhaps he gets into that later.


I liked this part:
[Stoics and skeptics] seem founded on this erroneous maxim, "That what a man can perform sometimes, and in some dispositions, he can perform always, and in every disposition." When the mind, by Stoical reflections, is elevated into a sublime enthusiasm of virtue, and strongly smit with any species of honour or public good, the utmost bodily pain and sufferings will not prevail over such a high sense of duty; and it is possible, perhaps, by its means, even to smile and exult in the midst of tortures.
You have to be in the zone to be an Uber-skeptic - someone that denies anything can be known. Reality will keep knocking on your door until eventually your attitude relaxes and you accept the evidence of your senses.

Philo's response is (paraphrase) "Well, we can't be perfect all the time. But there will always be a flavour of our highest ideals in everything we do." Skeptisism needs to be balanced. And then he talks about the "absolute necessity of acting" - to own things, to live and converse. If we confine ourselves to worldly things, then our reasoning can have a basis - though that doesn't automatically make it correct. In other situations we get "quite beyond the reach of our faculties."

Cleanthes asks some questions:
In reality, would not a man be ridiculous, who pretended to reject Newton's explication of the wonderful phenomenon of the rainbow, because that explication gives a minute anatomy of the rays of light; a subject, forsooth, too refined for human comprehension? And what would you say to one, who, having nothing particular to object to the arguments of Copernicus and Galileo for the motion of the earth, should withhold his assent, on that general principle, that these subjects were too magnificent and remote to be explained by the narrow and fallacious reason of mankind?

[...] These sceptics, therefore, are obliged, in every question, to consider each particular evidence apart, and proportion their assent to the precise degree of evidence which occurs. This is their practice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and political science. And why not the same, I ask, in the theological and religious? Why must conclusions of this nature be alone rejected on the general presumption of the insufficiency of human reason, without any particular discussion of the evidence? Is not such an unequal conduct a plain proof of prejudice and passion?

[...] and it is now in a manner avowed, by all pretenders to reasoning and philosophy, that Atheist and Sceptic are almost synonymous. And as it is certain that no man is in earnest when he professes the latter principle, I would fain hope that there are as few who seriously maintain the former.
I'm not sure I get Philo's response to that. He seems to drop the "no real skeptics" argument and move on to one regarding priests adopting the principles that best suit their conclusions. Cleanthes turns that back at him.

Perhaps Philo does not claim to be an Uber-skeptic that denies everything, so Cleanthes is making a straw-man.

I suppose that I'm pragmatic, in that I ask for things to have a measurable effect before I take them seriously. That's the form my skepticism takes. I don't go so far as to say that all of my senses are suspect all of the time.


Getting through this whole thing is going to take a while. I need a break! Great thread, Dr A.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Kiless
Is there a certain program that you use, Yahweh, because I think that would greatly benefit some of my students.
I downloaded the first available text-to-speech freeware I could find, called ReadPlease (http://www.readplease.com/). There are probably some better ones, but it gets the job done :)

[Kiless]

Originally posted by FireGarden
On style of presentation, I have to say: "If you're going to use dialogue format, then write it as a play." I don't understand Yahweh.. This is much easier to read than to hear! :)

A philosophy group at my school wrote a performance version of the Trial and Death of Socrates and it greatly helped discussion of Plato's works as a group. I'm certain someone could rework this text too. In terms of not understanding Yahweh, I'd say that you have to take in consideration learning preferences and possible conditions as eye strain and dyslexia. I have several students who learn best via a mixture of presentations or prefer one style of presentation of material.

[Kopji]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But the "I", deciding and reporting is just another character in the story (compare Plato's Socratic dialogues). Well, Hume is not asking "is there a God"? He asks: is "natural religion", as defined above, even a possibility? He lets his characters bat the question around from saying "no, absolutely not" to endorsing ID. His characters are all theists. So? It is still a fascinating discussion written by a genius.

Agreed. At the end he seems to make a decision and take sides. That is what interests me. I would have expected a never ending rotation of views in looking at the different positions. Yet he (a pretty smart guy) somehow chooses. What is it that finally stops the wheel of opinions from spinning and land on a conclusion that is less than arbitrary?


And... an appeal to authority? I'm not appealing to Hume's authority for theism. I'm an atheist. You read me wrong. I just invited everyone to discuss Hume's ideas: I didn't endorse all of his ideas, nor appeal to him to endorse any of mine.

I was not accusing you of anything, it's a good thread.
The output of the discussion seems arbitrary to me. Am I missing something in the dialog that justifies a specific conclusion one way or another?

Hume arrives at a conclusion, yet I can't see how it's done.




When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should have really happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of the testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. - Hume

[FireGarden]

Kiless
A philosophy group at my school wrote a performance version of the Trial and Death of Socrates and it greatly helped discussion of Plato's works as a group. I'm certain someone could rework this text too. In terms of not understanding Yahweh, I'd say that you have to take in consideration learning preferences and possible conditions as eye strain and dyslexia. I have several students who learn best via a mixture of presentations or prefer one style of presentation of material.
A performance where different characters are played by different people would be nice. But even so, my mind would wonder too often. There's too much in this that's thought provoking.

I suppose that with a pause/rewind buttons it could work. I have go back and reread things. For instance, the first quote I gave for Cleanthes... I thought he was misrepresenting Philo's position as pro-religious when Philo was in fact anti-religious. Whereas Philo is arguing against natural religion based on observation and reason, not revealed religion.

Actually, the best way for me to approach this sort of thing is a reading/discussion group, such as POM. :) It's always better than reading on my own.




Any response to part 1? Especially Cleanthes' last point.
Do religious claims have a larger burden of proof compared to say... Black holes? And are we being inconsistent if we demand that it should?

I would say that some religious claims do have a larger burden of proof. Especially the Uber-omni varieties. I could happily believe in the Greek/Aztec/Ancient Egyptian gods if I saw one. God = powerful being? Fine, there can be proof for that. But how would I test a being that claims to be all-knowing? At best, they could prove that they're more knowledgable than me. That wouldn't make them all-knowing! How would I test uniqueness? How would I test that they're present in Andromeda at the same time they're here in this galaxy? An Uber-omni god would have to make me an Uber-omni god in order to convince me of there own nature. But then they contradict the uniqueness criterion!

[stamenflicker]

I finished it this morning. I must say it would be much easier to read if the characters dialogue were presented in different colors. Sometimes the switch between them was buried in a phrase too easy to skim.

It seems to me that Hume is using Philo's character to argue his points more than the rest. And Demas' character has less to offer than either of the other two, for obvious reasons: he feels its not his place.

I suppose from here I would be most interested in which of the three the readers find most convincing... realizing that might be hard for an atheist. Philo's arguments are strong, but he misses the mark (IMHO) regarding the suffering of creation. Cleanthes exptroplates beyond reason regarding the divine attributes, but he seems fine with that, even if it is illogical.

I think I've read this correctly, but ironing it out in a thread would be beneficial for me.

Flick

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kopji
Agreed. At the end he seems to make a decision and take sides. That is what interests me. I would have expected a never ending rotation of views in looking at the different positions. Yet he (a pretty smart guy) somehow chooses. What is it that finally stops the wheel of opinions from spinning and land on a conclusion that is less than arbitrary? ... Hume arrives at a conclusion, yet I can't see how it's done. The narrator find Cleanthes' views more probable than those of Philo. But the narrator is not Hume: it is Pamphilus, who on account of his "youth" is a mere "auditor" of the discussions.

My own feeling is that Hume was protecting himself. What is original and Humean in the book is the voice of Philo. He may have represented his ideas in this narrative frame out of a fear that he had, somehow, overeached himself --- and he may also have feared that "Philo"'s views, set out plainly as his own, would result in charges of being anti-religion. Speculation apart, it is a fact that he did not have the book published in his lifetime, but arranged to have it published post-Hume-ously.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I finished it this morning. I must say it would be much easier to read if the characters dialogue were presented in different colors. Sometimes the switch between them was buried in a phrase too easy to skim. Maybe, but you could look at it the other way round:The remarkable contrast in their characters still further raised your expectations; while you opposed the accurate philosophical turn of Cleanthes to the careless scepticism of Philo, or compared either of their dispositions with the rigid inflexible orthodoxy of Demea. They represent stereotypes philosophical views --- so in fact you can figure out who's speaking by what they're saying.It seems to me that Hume is using Philo's character to argue his points more than the rest. And Demas' character has less to offer than either of the other two, for obvious reasons: he feels its not his place. Certainly Cleanthes' points are not original, but just very well expressed, and Hume's originality goes into Philo.I suppose from here I would be most interested in which of the three the readers find most convincing... realizing that might be hard for an atheist. (1) We have a lot of respected theist posters, including kittynh, The GM, Roadtoad, Kitty Chan, jmercer, MyLynn ... and ... you. You're not alone here. You could practically found the parish church of St Thomas and St Jude right here and hold services every Sunday...

I keep meaning to start a thread to list all our non-looney theists. At least it'll be a help next time some fundie nutter turns up and tells us that logic and reason are inventions of Satan and that we all hate God.

(2) There is a division amongst atheists. There are negative atheists ("I don't believe in God, just as I don't believe in alien visitors mutilating cattle") and positive atheists ("I believe that there is no God, just as I believe that not everything is a walrus").

Now it is clear that a negative atheist should believe that natural religion is a vacuous concept --- because if they could deduce anything about God from nature, they could become either a positive atheist or a theist. On the other hand, a positive atheist does believe that at least one thing can be deduced about God from nature, namely that he doesn't exist.

(There should ideally be a term for someone who is agnostic as between negative and positive atheism --- hey, if we're going to split a hair, let's split it three ways!)

So the two sorts of atheist should really be split over the question of how far natural religion is possible just as deeply as are the theist characters Cleanthes and Philo.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
We have a lot of respected theist posters, including kittynh, The GM, Roadtoad, Kitty Chan, jmercer, MyLynn
Add to that: Cleopatra, Rolfe, Renata, geni, Joshua Korosi, and our resident Wiccan priest Zaayrdragon.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Add to that: Cleopatra, Rolfe, Renata, geni, Joshua Korosi, and our resident Wiccan priest Zaayrdragon. I'm not sure that I can count zaayrdragon. "Respected", yes, up to a point, but his various theological/magical "beliefs" seem to be founded on the deep epistemological principle of "I can if I like". I mean, he's having fun, bless him, but is he really a "theist", given that he apparently believes stuff just for fun? --- and is he really, from a theological point of view, "non-looney"?

From my own memory I should have put Rolfe and geni on my list --- sorry, guys, leaving you out was just carelessness on my part.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Let's talk about David Hume.

His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm) would be a good place to start. I like a good dialogue, and unlike in so many other dialogues by other philosophers, Hume does seem to give weight to the various sides of the argument, rather than writing a "dialogue" consisting of a smart guy who's right steamrollering dumb people who are wrong.

There are lots of good points for discussion here, and like so much prose from the Enlightenment, the book is beautifully written.

That's because Platonic dialogues aren't actual debates, they are a progression from one thought to another. Plato (or Socrates) is just leading you through something like a Euclidian proof, although not quite as straightforward. These strawmen he inserts are just there to keep the argument flowing, probably to prevent the audience from getting bored. Plato, unlike a lot of philosophers, has the patience to lead you through everything. Of course if you try to argue with him as you go along it's rather infuriating.

But anyway, Hume. Yeah. Give me time to read the full dialogue.

[FireGarden]

Part 2 paraphrased (except where quoted! :))

Demea ::: Blimey, It seems like you're condescending to argue with atheists. All sensible men believe in God. That leaves us to discuss the nature of God - its longevity, level consciousness, etc. Whatever that nature is, it must be perfect.

Philo ::: By definition - Whatever was the cause of the universe is God. Atheists should be derided. But we can never comprehend the attributes of a deity.

Cleanthes ::: Of course we can. Take Paley's watchmaker argument. All things created are designed, all things designed are the product of intellect. QED by analogy.

Philo ::: Argument by analogy is poor. EG: circulation of blood in animals VS circulation of sap in plants.We know the nature of architects not because we have seen houses, but because we have seen architects.

Cleanthes ::: Oh I'd be an idiot if I said I had offered proof. I merely have a conjecture.

Demea ::: "Zealous defenders of religion allow, that the proofs of a Deity fall short of perfect evidence!" Why are we arguing about this?

Philo ::: Cleanthes started it! "Were a man to abstract from every thing which he knows or has seen, he would be altogether incapable [...] to determine what kind of scene the universe must be, [...] every chimera of his fancy would be upon an equal footing" We may assume that similar causes will bring about similar results, but every difference has an effect and there is much different between a house and the universe. And why take our small planet as a model for the entire universe? Investigation of a leaf will not tell us the nature of the entire plant. "Nature, we find, even from our limited experience, possesses an infinite number of springs and principles, which incessantly discover themselves on every change of her position and situation. And what new and unknown principles would actuate her in so new and unknown a situation as that of the formation of a universe, we cannot, without the utmost temerity, pretend to determine."

Cleanthes ::: But then, to be consistent when we accept Copernican astronomy, we have to see other Earths which move...

Philo ::: Indeed we do, and we have. Is not the moon "an earth orbiting". In fact, Galileo, in his famous work on the subject, begins by challenging the idea that celestial bodies were intrinsically different to terrestrial (eg: natural darkness when not illuminated) so that terrestrial ideas could be justifiably extended to the celestial. "In this cautious proceeding of the astronomers, you may read your own condemnation, Cleanthes."

[FireGarden]

Dr A
Now it is clear that a negative atheist should believe that natural religion is a vacuous concept --- because if they could deduce anything about God from nature, they could become either a positive atheist or a theist. On the other hand, a positive atheist does believe that at least one thing can be deduced about God from nature, namely that he doesn't exist.

So the two sorts of atheist should really be split over the question of how far natural religion is possible just as deeply as are the theist characters Cleanthes and Philo.
But with the added complication that Hume has defined God as "Whatever was the cause of the universe." That's much harder to address than the Uber-omni god I reffered to above.

With modern understanding of radioactivity, which is convincingly treated as entirely random and without cause (unless you count the existence of matter as a cause!), it's entirely possible that the universe could be similarly without cause. Would I expect to find evidence of that in Nature? Until evidence is found, what should be the default position?

Since time itself is created in the Big Bang, I don't entirely understand how the concept of cause and effect applies. Which was the cause if you don't know which was first?

To be fair to Hume, he would have known neither of those modern assumptions that I've used. I couldn't find a good angle without going modern, however!

[stamenflicker]

You seem to reason, Demea, interposed Cleanthes, as if those advantages and conveniences in the abstract argument were full proofs of its solidity. But it is first proper, in my opinion, to determine what argument of this nature you choose to insist on; and we shall afterwards, from itself, better than from its useful consequences, endeavour to determine what value we ought to put upon it.

I like this statement. Cleanthes seems to be saying that sure, his premise may be a big fat assumption, but at least from that point there is a way in which his premise approaches reality. He seems to support his statement with this quote:

I shall further add, said Cleanthes, to what you have so well urged, that one great advantage of the principle of Theism, is, that it is the only system of cosmogony which can be rendered intelligible and compleat, and yet can throughout preserve a strong analogy to what we every day see and experience in the world.

Also, I'm curious as to what the community thinks about this statement from Philo:

There may four hypotheses be framed concerning the first causes of the universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness; that they have perfect malice; that they are opposite, and have both goodness and malice; that they have neither goodness nor malice. Mixed phenomena can never prove the two former unmixed principles; and the uniformity and steadiness of general laws seem to oppose the third. The fourth, therefore, seems by far the most probable.

Flick

[renata]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Add to that: Cleopatra, Rolfe, Renata, geni, Joshua Korosi, and our resident Wiccan priest Zaayrdragon.

Erm- I am not a theist. I do think MLynn and Luke are, though.

[epepke]

My favorite story about Hume is that he pointed out at a conference of skeptics that, nevertheless, all of the atendees entered through the door and none through the window.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by renata
Erm- I am not a theist. I do think MLynn and Luke are, though.
Oops, my apologies, I thought I remembered reading that you were Jewish :)

[FireGarden]

Part 3 - Cleanthes responds to Philo's warning regarding the dangers of extrapolating from experience.

Cleanthes ::: Suppose "an articulate voice were heard in the clouds," Louder than any human voice, simultaneously speaking to every nation in its own tongue; and conveying a benevolent message. Would you hesitate to assume a design behind the voice, even though it is so different to a human voice? Would you assume there was no intelligence behind it because a human voice must choose a language? Suppose that books reproduced like animals, would you then doubt their original cause was one of intentional design? How much more intricate is an eye?

Demea ::: When we read a book, we can comprehend the reasoning, and so recognise it as reasoning. But when we read nature, it is too much of a riddle for us to understand the nature of the mind that wrote it. There is a danger that we model God on ourselves. But what use has a deity for gratitude or envy or any other human attribute?



Part 4 - The pope is an atheist and turtles all the way down.

Cleanthes ::: I am surprised by your insistence, Demea. "How do you mystics, who maintain the absolute incomprehensibility of the Deity, differ from Sceptics or Atheists, who assert, that the first cause of all is unknown and unintelligible?"

Demea ::: Sticks and stones, my friend! Theists say that God sees past, present and future all at once. But men's minds pass lightly and rapidly over every thought. How is this compatible? They also say "what God is this moment he ever has been, and ever will be, without any new judgment, sentiment, or operation."

Cleanthes ::: Such simple minded theists are just as much mystics. "They are, in a word, Atheists, without knowing it." They give God contradictory attributes, since a mind that does not change is no mind at all.

Philo ::: But you've called almost everyone an Atheist! You are trying to describe what you cannot study. More so, if this world must rest (for its cause) upon another... What of that other world. What does it rest upon? "It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world. By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be God; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humour which it is impossible ever to satisfy." If you allow God to form himself, why not allow the same for this universe?

Cleanthes ::: But even in this world cause must have causes. Does this stop us naming them? "You ask me, what is the cause of this cause? I know not; I care not; that concerns not me. I have found a Deity; and here I stop my enquiry. Let those go further, who are wiser or more enterprising."

Philo ::: We are, indeed, in the same boat - utterly ignorant of initial causes and able to explain nothing.

[FireGarden]

Part 5 - Classic arguments against Paley's Watchmaker. No real response from Cleanthes. It would be interesting if the theists on this board could give their responses in place of the "????" I inserted below.

Philo ::: Given your principle, Cleanthes, of "Like effects prove like causes"... How do you attribute anything infinite to the deity? How do you attribute perfection? Without your principle, we can assume perfection and excuse the apparent imperfections of nature by noting the limits of our finite understanding. But if "Like effects prove like causes," and we judge the universe as a work of deistic art by analogy to to a work of human art, in which the imperfections are due to the imperfections of the artist... Well, we cannot give attributes to the artist without judging the art. Such a judgement may still be beyond our abilities... How do we judge originality?

Cleanthes ????

Philo ::: "Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labour lost, many fruitless trials made; and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making. In such subjects, who can determine, where the truth; nay, who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still greater which may be imagined?" Is this world one of the best or one of the worst?

Cleanthes ????

Philo ::: What about unity of the deity? Human endeavours do not support that idea. Why not generations of deities?

Cleanthes ????

Philo ::: Why stop the anthropomorphism? "Why not assert the deity or deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, etc.? Epicurus maintained, that no man had ever seen reason but in a human figure; therefore the gods must have a human figure."

Cleanthes I do not suppose any of those things. (Though I cannot tell you why). And "you never get rid of the hypothesis of design in the universe, but are obliged at every turn to have recourse to it. To this concession I adhere steadily; and this I regard as a sufficient foundation for religion."

FG ::: Hmmmm! [With plenty of sarcasm]



Part 6 and 7 - The ancient view of the soul of the world; attack upon argument by analogy and in particular on Cleanthes' insistence upon design as the best analogy.

Demea ::: Being uncertain about the nature of the deity/deities, how should we worship them? [This gets overlooked, at least for a while]

Philo ::: Here's an old idea, "maintained by almost all the Theists of antiquity." Who has ever seen a mind without a body? Ergo, if the deity is conscious, then it has a body.What do you think of that, Cleanthes? "And it must be confessed, that, as the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance, if our limited analogy could ever, with any propriety, be extended to the whole of nature, the inference seems juster in favour of the ancient than the modern theory."

Cleanthes ::: That's new to me. I need to thinik about it. [...] I would have compared the world to a vegetable rather than an animal. Where in the world is the seat of thought? If the deity is eternal, then the world should be eternal... But is it in fact eternal? There are indications of its youth. EG: plants and animals only recently having reached the West.

Philo ::: Indications but not proof. So your principle allows too many things to be on an equal footing. If the universe seems more like a living thing, even a vegetable, than a contrivance, .. Then Cleanthes' principle of analogy would demand that it arose through generations not design.

Demea ::: "What data have you for such extraordinary conclusions?"

Philo ::: Exactly my point. By what means do we choose the correct analogy? In our limited experience we find different means of construction - design/generation - how many others are there that we have no experience of?

Demea ::: But does a world that can "sow the seeds of new worlds into the infinite chaos", not need a designer?

Philo ::: "Compare, I beseech you, the consequences on both sides. The world, say I, resembles an animal; therefore it is an animal, therefore it arose from generation. The steps, I confess, are wide; yet there is some small appearance of analogy in each step. The world, says Cleanthes, resembles a machine; therefore it is a machine, therefore it arose from design. The steps are here equally wide, and the analogy less striking. And if he pretends to carry on my hypothesis a step further, and to infer design or reason from the great principle of generation, on which I insist; I may, with better authority, use the same freedom to push further his hypothesis, and infer a divine generation or theogony from his principle of reason. "

Cleanthes ::: "I am not ashamed to acknowledge myself unable, on a sudden, to solve regularly such out-of-the-way difficulties as you incessantly start upon me: though I clearly see, in general, their fallacy and error." You offer no solutions, only objections. You puzzle but don't convince.



FG ::: I'm half way through! :)

[Dr Adequate]

There may four hypotheses be framed concerning the first causes of the universe: that they are endowed with perfect goodness; that they have perfect malice; that they are opposite, and have both goodness and malice; that they have neither goodness nor malice. Mixed phenomena can never prove the two former unmixed principles; and the uniformity and steadiness of general laws seem to oppose the third. The fourth, therefore, seems by far the most probable. The universe does appear to be morally neutral, doesn't it?

What does the law of gravity have in common with the law "thou shalt not kill"?

Or as Hume puts it:A being, therefore, who knows the secret springs of the universe, might easily, by particular volitions, turn all these accidents to the good of mankind, and render the whole world happy, without discovering himself in any operation. A fleet, whose purposes were salutary to society, might always meet with a fair wind. Good princes enjoy sound health and long life. Persons born to power and authority, be framed with good tempers and virtuous dispositions. A few such events as these, regularly and wisely conducted, would change the face of the world; and yet would no more seem to disturb the course of nature, or confound human conduct, than the present economy of things, where the causes are secret, and variable, and compounded. Some small touches given to Caligula's brain in his infancy, might have converted him into a Trajan. One wave, a little higher than the rest, by burying Caesar and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have restored liberty to a considerable part of mankind. There may, for aught we know, be good reasons why Providence interposes not in this manner; but they are unknown to us; and though the mere supposition, that such reasons exist, may be sufficient to save the conclusion concerning the Divine attributes, yet surely it can never be sufficient to establish that conclusion. It is very hard to deny that what we see is not what we would expect to see had nature been framed by justice, mercy, and love.

[FireGarden]

Part 8. - Does matter require Reason to set it in motion? Philo almost predicts self-replicating molecules, evolution, the selfish gene, DNA, ... I exaggerate!

Philo ::: Consider motion due to gravity. Does that require a conscious decision? [Jack Chick might think so, given the way he believes atoms are held together by force of miracle!] Whatever the cause of forces like gravity, matter will move. If it begins in chaos, then it may move to another state of chaos. Then another. Any pattern or order that arises by chance may be immediately removed in an instant. But may it not, after many ages, without losing momentum, arrange itself in such a way "so as to preserve an uniformity of appearance, amidst the continual motion and fluctuation of its parts? [...] May we not hope for such a position, or rather be assured of it, from the eternal revolutions of unguided matter; and may not this account for all the appearing wisdom and contrivance which is in the universe?"

Cleanthes ::: But why would such a self-sustaining world be so beneficial to Humanity? How do you account for the benevolence that gives us beasts of burden and the like?

Philo ::: I agree that the idea is incomplete and imperfect. But aren't all ideas on this subject equally lacking? And so, for as long as no idea can defend itself from attack, the skeptics defend the only tenable position.



Part 9 - Agreeing to assume the self-evident. Philo contributes a nice math analogy!

Demea ::: Let's start with what we agree on.

Cleanthes ::: Tell us what we agree on so we can decide if we agree!

Demea ::: "Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being absolutely impossible for any thing to produce itself, or be the cause of its own existence." So either an infinite chain of causes ("turtles all the way down"), or some Prime Mover. The first is silly, since we can ask for the cause, not of the individual turtles (that's assumed), but of the chain of turtles. If the Prime Mover is not necessary, then there being Something and there being Nothing are equally reasonable. So why is there something rather than nothing? Can Nothing cause Something to come into being? Surely not! Evidently, Something and Nothing are not equally reasonable, so the Prime Mover is necessary. Proof by contradiction.

Cleanthes ::: "Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction." What once existed may not exist now. And even if you're right, why can't the universe itself be that necessarily existant being? Regarding having to justify the infinite chain of causes, "How can any thing, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time, and a beginning of existence?" That we percieve each legitimately caused event as part of an endless chain is a trick of our perceptions. We need no justification for the Whole, we have justification for the Parts.

Philo ::: Is the trick of casting out 9's a design feature of our number system, or is it an inevitable accident? Could not the whole universe be similarly inevitable?







Mmm,
I think Flick understood something differently from the beginning of part 9. I don't see Cleanthes referring to his own assumptions at all in that section. It's not a major point though.

[FireGarden]

Part 10 - This world's misery is the inspiration for religion; the problem of evil

Demea ::: In my opinion, everyone has faith deep in their heart. "The miseries of life; the unhappiness of man; the general corruptions of our nature; the unsatisfactory enjoyment of pleasures, riches, honours; these phrases have become almost proverbial in all languages." We all seek the help and protection of greater powers.

Philo ::: Which is why, when it comes to converting, eloquence is more effective than reason.

Demea ::: Everyone agrees that the world is in a sorry state.

Philo ::: Liebnitz disagreed [and said "we live in the best of all possible worlds", best defined as the minimum of laws giving the maximum possibilities.]

Demea ::: Did he know he was wrong? The world is agony from birth to death.

Philo ::: "Every animal is surrounded with enemies, which incessantly seek his misery and distruction."

Demea ::: Man may be an exception, since we can, through co-operation, dominate all other animals.

Philo ::: But then invent enemies out of superstition with which to torment ourselves! "Man is the greatest enemy of man. Oppression, injustice, contempt, contumely, violence, sedition, war, calumny, treachery, fraud; by these they mutually torment each other; and they would soon dissolve that society which they had formed, were it not for the dread of still greater ills, which must attend their separation."

Demea ::: Let us not forget disease, nor madness.

Philo ::: All men have complained, in all ages. We only go on living because we are afraid of death.

Cleanthes ::: "I can observe something like what you mention in some others, but I confess I feel little or nothing of it in myself, and hope that it is not so common as you represent it."

Demea ::: Good for you, Cleanthes. But even the powerful, such as Charles V, have had cause for complaint. "Ask yourself, ask any of your acquaintance, whether they would live over again the last ten or twenty years of their lives. No! but the next twenty, they say, will be better."

Philo ::: Do you also maintain that the deity is benevolent? "Epicurus's old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?" When, Cleanthes, you investigate the purpose of nature, compare the pleasures of music to the pains of injury. Only those that say 'the attributes of God are incomprehensible', can claim those attributes are perfect.

Cleanthes ::: "If you can make out the present point, and prove mankind to be unhappy or corrupted, there is an end at once of all religion. For to what purpose establish the natural attributes of the Deity, while the moral are still doubtful and uncertain?" And it is your aim, Philo, to destroy religion.

Demea ::: Philo's argument is not that of an atheist. Pious people throughtout the ages have addressed the same point. Our views are limited, we cannot see the big picture within which what we blinkeredly percieve as evil is explained.

Cleanthes ::: No, no, no! We cannot assume things that we cannot see. "Whence can any hypothesis be proved but from the apparent phenomena? To establish one hypothesis upon another, is building entirely in the air." I say the deity is benevolent because "Health is more common than sickness; pleasure than pain; happiness than misery."

Philo ::: Does not an hour of pain outweigh a month on insipid enjoyments? Ecstasy lasts but an instant, and then it fades; but agony becomes more painful the longer it endures. And you rest the whole foundation of religion upon the happiness of man; something all authorities argue against; something for which the balance-sheet can never be calculated. Your religion must forever have uncertain foundations! But even allowing what you can never prove, that happiness outwieghs misery, that is not what we expect from infinite wisdom and benevolence. Why is there any misery at all? More to the point, how can you, given the undeniable presence of misery, deduce infinite goodness and thus justify the claim that your religion is Natural?



Part 11 - The finite option is considered; Philo reveals his preference amongst the unknowable attributes.

Cleanthes ::: The word 'infinite' is over-used, and infinite attributes are bound to lead to absurdities. I prefer finite perfection in the deity, though perfection far above that of humanity.

Philo ::: If you start believing that, then you will never have reason to change your mind. But what reason have you to believe what you believe? [...] A badly built house will always earn its architect condemnation. It may still be consistent, though not inspired by circumstances, to call the architect 'the best architect' - but you'd condemn him none the less. [It's worth reading the following monologue in full :)]

Evil is based on four circumstances:
(1) That animals are motivated by pleasure and pain, rather than pleasure alone. Why is pleasure alone insufficient?
(2) There are laws of Nature. Without them, we would not be able to reason; but could there not be a substitute for reason? Even as things are, we still cannot predict everything. If we knew the principles by which we could, why then we would have better control of events.
(3) We've been given the bare minimum needed for survival. There seems to be no margin for error. It's not that I want the wings of an eagle, but why not "a greater propensity to industry and labour", that would solve all the problems.
(4) "The inaccurate workmanship of all the springs and principles of the great machine of nature. [...EG:] Rains are necessary to nourish all the plants and animals of the earth: but how often are they defective? how often excessive?"

Were all these unavoidable? Given the options of a deity that is all good, or all bad, or a mixture of good/bad, or ambivalent to good/bad ... The evidence suggests a universe that favours neither goodness nor malice. Its author must then be amoral.

Demea ::: I thought we were allied upon proving the attributes were unknowable through reason. "But I now find you running into all the topics of the greatest libertines and infidels, and betraying that holy cause which you seemingly espoused."

Cleanthes ::: You only just noticed?

[Demea leaves]



Part 12

Cleanthes ::: Do you hold anything sacred, Philo?

Philo ::: You know me, you know how pious I am. All the sciences, even from the days of Galen, attest to the efficiency and sublime complexity of Nature. It's like the signature of an intelligent designer to all but the most obstinate. I would like to ask an atheist 'How much more conclusive could the evidence have been'.

Cleanthes ::: Theism is the most natural theory. Its detractors can do no more than sow doubt. They certainly cannot give a more precise theory - the facts would contradict them before long if it weren't for their obstinacy.

Philo ::: Perhaps the argument is merely one of semantics. Nature is like a work of art, so we should assume an artist; but it is like no human art, so we should assume a different sort of artist. Rather than have semantic arguments, we should aim for clear definition. Then the debate will move onto the degree of a quality. Theists will agree that there is an huge difference between the human and the divine mind. An atheist too will agree that there is similarity between the effects of nature and the effects of intelligent thought. They both agree the quality is there. They argue about degrees. And I would say to them "If you cannot lay aside your disputes, endeavour, at least, to cure yourselves of your animosity." By the way, I should say that since the artistic analogies are closer than the ethical, we must be further from the deity in our morals than in our art. Those are my true feelings on the matter. And bear in mind my distaste regarding mindless superstition.

Cleanthes ::: My taste is otherwise; "Religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all."

Philo ::: And religious wars?

Cleanthes ::: "The proper office of religion is to regulate the heart of men, humanize their conduct; [...] its operation is silent [...] When it distinguishes itself, and acts as a separate principle over men, it has departed from its proper sphere, and has become only a cover to faction and ambition."

Philo ::: All religion will go that way. "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." Only fools will distrust a man purely on the basis of his doubts upon theology. Those who are mistaken as wise may distrust a man on the basis of his strong faith. Those whose character makes them most in need of a moral system to follow, are least able to reason a path to it.

Cleanthes ::: Don't let your distaste of false religion undermine your love of the true religion. ..."a Being perfectly good, wise, and powerful; who created us for happiness; and who, having implanted in us immeasurable desires of good, will prolong our existence to all eternity, and will transfer us into an infinite variety of scenes"

Philo ::: Most men are more conscious of the terrors of religion.

Cleanthes ::: Men find comfort in religion.

Philo ::: Sometimes. "Both fear and hope enter into religion." But it should be realised that we risk nothing by doubting and questioning. It would be absurd to attribute to the deity "the lowest of human passions, a restless appetite for applause. ... it depresses the Deity far below the condition of mankind; and represents him as a capricious demon, who exercises his power without reason and without humanity!" We must ask questions, though human reason may not be suffiecient to provide satisfactory answers. Aware of the imperfection of our reason, we will yearn for heaven to dissipate ignorance with a revealed truth. The Dogmatist, on the other hand, will strive in vain for a complete system based on philosophy alone. Therefore, you must be a skeptic before you search for revelation; before you can be a Christian.






Flick
I suppose from here I would be most interested in which of the three the readers find most convincing... realizing that might be hard for an atheist.
I think Hume wanted Philo to be the most attractive speaker. Philo gives many points of view, he could have been represented as a multitude of characters. Part 12 is a real turnabout! It turns out that Philo really does believe in God! But only by appealing to the same hair-splitting semantics that he's supposed to be objecting to. "Whatever was the cause of the universe, that is God!"

From a modern point of view, I can imagine that there was no cause to the universe. Nothing can produce Something, according to modern theories. I'm too much of a pragmatist to believe in something that might be true. I need to know what measureable difference it will make. Otherwise there's no way of testing it.

I'm still an atheist. And the disagreement is not over a matter of degree. It would have been if we were asking "Are dogs intelligent?" or "Are computers intelligent?" I liked Philo's speech in part 8. The apparent design could be the consequence of patterns that naturally repeat themselves. The casting out of nines is not a design feature of arithmatic, it's an accidental bonus.

It's tough trying to guess what I would have thought had I read this in the 18th century.

[renata]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Oops, my apologies, I thought I remembered reading that you were Jewish :)

No need to apologize. First off, I dont consider that an insult :) Second of all, I am Jewish- but there are plenty of Jewish atheists and agnostics.

[FireGarden]

Philo's final argument is that to be a Christian you have start as a skeptic, since only a skeptic would realise that human reason is insufficient and hence look for a revelation from God. But this assumes of God the attribute "Able and willing to make a revelation". And it assumes our ability to authenticate such a revelation.

And I think Hume could have made more of the idea of order in mathematics. Does anybody think that such order has to have a designer?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by FireGarden
Philo's final argument is that to be a Christian you have start as a skeptic, since only a skeptic would realise that human reason is insufficient and hence look for a revelation from God. But this assumes of God the attribute "Able and willing to make a revelation". And it assumes our ability to authenticate such a revelation. But given Hume's own argument against believing in miracles ... if you put the two arguments together, you can't have natural religion and you can't have revealed religion. That seems to lead to the conclusion that you can't have any good reason for being religious. So did Hume draw this conclusion? Was he in fact a closet atheist (variety negative)?

[Dr Adequate]

Having thought for a bit about my own question, I realise that there is a problem with Hume's arguments.

They are too good for their own good. They are what I call "over-general arguments" (if there is an existing technical term, please let me know).

His argument against the argument from design applies to any set of circumstances. This argument is too good. His arguments apply equally well whatever we find in nature. By contrast, I have argued on my "Darwin Or Bust?" thread, that if Darwin is wrong we really should have to believe in intelligent design.

In the same way, his argument against believing in miracles is too good. It discounts every possible miracle. Whereas in fact, if God did some miracle to make the stars in the heavens spell out the words "LOOK, I EXIST, OK, AND JESUS IS MY SON" in Hebrew leters, then I wouldn't go around saying "Well, which is more likely --- I've gone nuts, or this is a real miracle? I guess I've gone nuts."
____________________________________

Yay empiricism!

[FireGarden]

Dr A
But given Hume's own argument against believing in miracles ... if you put the two arguments together, you can't have natural religion and you can't have revealed religion. That seems to lead to the conclusion that you can't have any good reason for being religious. So did Hume draw this conclusion? Was he in fact a closet atheist (variety negative)?
Might not Hume have been a deist? If asked to name the author of Kopji's earlier Hume quotation, I would have guessed Thomas Paine, as per Age of Reason.

Then again, Philo may have been asking for a personal, direct revelation from God. Not second hand testimony regarding miracles. The problems I gave before would then apply.

OTOH
Demea has gone and Philo's real audience, since he isn't going to convert Cleanthes, is Pamphilus. He could be saying, "Start as a skeptic. Wait for a message from God." If Hume is an atheist, maybe he implies the wait will be very long. We won't know without a follow up piece on how to interpret/recognise divine revelation.

Is Pamphilus' final "Philo's principles are more probable than Demea's; but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth" a sign of Hume's pessimism? Does Hume expect to loose the argument? - in the sense of failing to convert his listeners, that is.
His argument against the argument from design applies to any set of circumstances. This argument is too good. His arguments apply equally well whatever we find in nature.
Philo's arguments are general if what you're looking for is certainty. If you're willing to base belief on reasonable doubt, then you can extrapolate from experience - as Philo allows Galileo/Copernicus to do.
Whereas in fact, if God did some miracle to make the stars in the heavens spell out the words "LOOK, I EXIST, OK, AND JESUS IS MY SON" in Hebrew leters, then I wouldn't go around saying "Well, which is more likely --- I've gone nuts, or this is a real miracle? I guess I've gone nuts."
How do you know it was God? Does being all-powerful mean you were the creator?

If it is Him, how do you know he's telling the truth? Does being all-powerful make you honest?

And yes, you could have gone nuts. How can anyone prove to themselves that they are not delusional? That takes us into Uber-skepticism, where you doubt your own senses. Do we want to go there?