It seems almost embarrassing to refute so sophisticated an objection by such a simple consideration, but this answer nevertheless seems to me to be entirely correct. Hume allows that we can still use induction, like causation, to function on a daily basis as long as we recognize the limitations of our knowledge. Generally, we see that they do not and that human beings tend to act out of some other motivation than their best interest. First, according to this hypothesis science is impossible. For Cleanthes, if we cannot fathom the greatness of God, then the deity cannot be an object of praise, nor can we use God to inform some notion of morality. On his own criteria, it seems that he would attempt in vain to demonstrate the falsehood of a miracle, just as he says it would be in vain to attempt to demonstrate the falsehood of the sun not rising tomorrow. In respect of these events, which engage our deepest hopes and fears, we are generally ignorant of the causes that are involved in producing them — especially when human beings are in a more primitive and backward state of society.
One of the most sustained discussions of this general theme is in The Natural History of Religion, where Hume compares the effects of polytheism and theism on their believers Sects. Most often cited as a strong argument against Paley were ones put forward by David Hume. Consequently, the authors included in the book, In Defense of Miracles, each considers different important details as the defining factors in the debate of the existence of miracles. There could be a god, but this god could have no authority over Hume. In the absence of such understanding, human nature is such that we tend to assign agency to effects, since that is the form of cause and effect that we are most familiar with. The common factor between these men was a focus on sense experience.
Suppose the evening news announces that the number picked in the lottery was 8253652. As defined, a miracle may occur without any person observing it i. Alexander the Great is erased. His criticisms can be separated into three major distinctions: His first objection is that we have no experience of world-making. One would have to know all experience for all people in order to know that all experience is uniform. Call it the Inference Problem. The argument itself has been roundly criticized due to problematic entailments, such as there being no atheists, but the originality of the idea makes the piece merit-worthy.
Habermas, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1997, pages 73-85. First, there is no clear logical relationship between order and a designer. And when we have to do with a man, who makes a great profession of religion and devotion; has this any other effect upon several, who pass for prudent, than to put them on their guard, lest they be cheated and deceived by him? I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it. Intellectual honesty requires a consistent level of credulity. In presenting these sources, all Philo needs to show is that it is likely that at least one of these circumstances could be modified so as to produce less suffering. This reply, however, is incorrect.
Nothing, that is directly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Historically Hume is aligned with the British empiricists Locke, Berkley, Bacon, and Reid. Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. This physic causes two significant problems. From the divine perspective, viewing the universe as one system, the removal of such ills or afflictions would produce greater ill or diminish the total amount of good in the world. This is telling because Cleanthes is a theist, though for Hume, ultimately misguided about the success of the design argument. The evidence for this is that our conduct is usually guided with a view to the pleasures and pains, rewards and punishments, of this life and not a future state T, 1.
The foundation of this, however, rests with egoism and moral scepticism. The enlightened world has been freed of these childish assumptions, and now the world must cast off the miraculous vestiges of that pre-modern world. Dawkins argues that a this line continues ad infinitum, and b it does not explain anything. In conclusion, the safety net is unsuccessful because it assumes if one miracle is true, then all miracles are true, and because it assumes that a miracle must objectively signify what is subjectively communicated. However, this assumption was also based upon ignorance. It is important to remember that Hume predates Paley by 20-30 years.
Any degree or kind of unnecessary evil — however small — would tell against the existence of God as an infinitely powerful and perfectly good being. Hume recognized that his epistemology did not allow for uniformity, now it is seen that his metaphysic denies uniformity. . If he had to stretch his empiricism to the breaking point in order to affirm this, so much the worse for his empiricism. But notice how this will influence our estimation of the probability of miracles. Generally, Hume held that religion, especially popular monotheism, does more harm than good and he thereby develops a critique of religion based on its detrimental consequences.
Hume argues that some principles simply appeal to us and others do not. The same psychological forces that give rise to polytheism gradually transform it into a system of theism. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. Only if there is a personal God can there be reason, morality, and uniformity. Religion becomes the only escape from this brutish existence. While the Dialogues investigates the former, the explicit task of the Natural History is to explore the latter. Hume was given more than enough proof for the existence of both God and miracles that he will not be able to stand in the Day of Judgment.
Basically a miracle is something that happens which is contrary to what would happen given the structure of the universe. There is, therefore, no basis for the a priori claim that there necessarily exists an original, self-existing being that is an immaterial, intelligent being i. We posit deities that help us and deities that oppose us. However, considering the inaccuracies of the Caricature Argument will help us to arrive at a more accurate reconstruction. Although an event of this kind may be improbable, it does sometimes occur. He gives four arguments of this form, which argue that some feature or other of human life does not fit well with the view that we were designed by a just God for life after death: 1.
The same holds true for Hume. It is possible that this essay contains material that was originally intended for publication in the Treatise but was withdrawn. He seeks to show this weakness through his first three arguments. If at the core nature is governed by chance, then order cannot exist. There is, therefore, no contradiction involved in denying that God exists.