Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 08:31 pm
Do you agree with Hume that appealing to the existence of God to support the belief that there is an external world (as Locke and Berkeley do) amounts to philosophical hypocrisy? Why or why not?

Do you agree with Hume's reasoning that it is impossible for us to ever have certain knowledge of the principle of cause and effect? Construct an argument to convince Hume that the principle of causes and effect is indeed valid.

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,960 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 09:06 pm
@Andrew13,
I'd be more interested in hearing what you think of this essay assignment.
Andrew13
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 10:02 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I think a lot of things that I can't seem to put into an answer. I agree with Hume. It does not seem to me that a philosopher would come to the conclusion that a God exists, especially since it's something that we've never experienced. To quote "there is no empirical or rational evidence for God or traditional metaphysics and we have no good reason to believe in the laws of science that are used to organize, explain, and predict events in our world. "

It's hard to get into a philosophical state of mind.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 01:15 pm
@Andrew13,
Quote:
…...that appealing to the existence of God to support the belief that there is an external world…...amounts to philosophical hypocrisy?….
Drew, for the benefit of us not so literate you might briefly explain his reasoning. For what it's worth, probably not much, I don't see the connection. My immediate reaction is, if there's a God who can do practically anything, maybe She's simply putting something over on us

Quote:
Do you agree with Hume's reasoning that it is impossible for us to ever have certain knowledge of the principle of cause and effect?
Again, what knowledge and how

…...I ask because determinism v freewill might figure into the discussion, in which case the extent of our threads on the subject suggest Hume is right

http://able2know.org/topic/196759-1

Quote:
Construct an argument to convince Hume that the principle of causes and effect is indeed valid.
I'm not sure what his concept of the principle or whether it would satisfy him, but the following observation seems to support the idea: Given any simple experiment, the more carefully one controls its conditions, the more likely to achieve the same result



Tautology aside it seems impossible to have certain knowledge, according to the general principle that nothing is entirely anything…. Still for the benefit of us not having studied Hume…..

Quote:
It does not seem to me that a philosopher would come to the conclusion that a God exists,….
Forgive me Drew but reviewing the OP, Her existence or non- doesn't seem to be the issue
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:47 pm
@Andrew13,
Andrew13 wrote:
I agree with Hume. It does not seem to me that a philosopher would come to the conclusion that a God exists, especially since it's something that we've never experienced.


And yet quite a few respected philosophers have come to this conclusion. Perhaps the problem is in defining 'god.' See what Baruch Spinoza had to say about that a couple of hundred years before Hume. Or the Arab philosopher alKindi a couple of hundred years before Spinoza. [Hint: Spinoza used the words 'God' and 'Nature' virtually interchangeably.]
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 03:04 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Drew, Andy, I'm still confused:

Quote:
Andrew13 wrote:
….. It does not seem to me that a philosopher would come to the conclusion that a God exists…….
But is Her existence the issue. ie,

Quote:
Do you agree with Hume that appealing to the existence of God to support the belief that there is an external world
This q doesn't seem to ask about Hume's belief in God but instead seems to say, let's assume there's a God; now does Her existence increase the likelihood that the World is real (as contrasted, I suppose, with the notion that it's some sort of dream)

Quote:
Perhaps the problem is in defining 'god.'
Okay then let's make that assumption

Quote:
…..Baruch Spinoza…...before Hume. Or……alKindi…….before Spinoza. [who] used the words 'God' and 'Nature' virtually interchangeably.
Very interesting to your Average Clod (me) to learn how the viewpoint of a pantheist (me, my No. 2 Son and perhaps three other a2k participants) agrees with that of these two philos

That is, She is indeed a natural phenom. Her body for instance being the Universe and Her mind all the activity therein

However that's OT so I am hoping someone might rephrase the OP so we might better address the intended subject
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » David Hume
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 06:48:52