Hume and Knowledge Creation

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we are introduced to three characters that serve the purpose to debate God and his nature, more specifically, what can mankind infer about God and his nature. The three characters; Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes all engage in a debate concerning this question and they all serve the purpose of supporting their views on the subject. It is the “argument from design” put forth by Cleanthes that is the focal point of the discussion, and it is Demea and Philo who attempt to discredit it.

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

As humans, where does our knowledge come from? In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes outlines his proof for the existence of God. However, David Hume offers a rebuttal in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that questions not only Descartes’ proof but also his notion of how humans acquire knowledge. In what follows, I will examine Descartes’ proof of God’s existence, then argue that Hume would disagree with it by maintaining that humans can conceive of God through mental processes. Furthermore, I will show how in responding to Descartes' claim that God is the source of our knowledge, Hume asserts that we are instead limited to knowledge from experience.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

The modern philosopher, David Hume, argued that the proof of self existence was not possible. Hume stated, “If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner” (Kolack and Thompson 642). Although Hume made some valid arguments, his views on self existence are both wrong and arrogant. The existence of self can be, and has been, proven.

Because it is so prominent, everyone notices that a central concern of Hume's Dialogues is empirical natural theology—how one can discern from Nature, using empirical facts and "experimental" forms of inference available to anyone, the existence and nature of an Author of Nature. But few connect this concern to the simple fact that the Dialogues is itself authored. It is a text with an author, David Hume. At the very least, then, on Cleanthes's approach, (3) there should be some resemblances between the world and this text, insofar as they both imply an intelligent "author;" at the most, this analogy of authorship might prove even more fruitful for theological understanding than the mechanical and biological analogies mentioned by the characters in Hume's text. By this, I do not mean that we can prove God's

     Knowledge is gained only through experience, and experiences only exist in the mind as individual units of thought. This theory of knowledge belonged to David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume was born on April 26, 1711, as his family’s second son. His father died when he was an infant and left his mother to care for him, his older brother, and his sister. David Hume passed through ordinary classes with great success, and found an early love for literature. He lived on his family’s estate, Ninewells, near Edinburgh. Throughout his life, literature consumed his thoughts, and his life is little more than his works. By the age of 40, David Hume had been employed twice and had failed at the family careers,

Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.

David Hume wrote Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 1748, right in the middle of the Enlightenment and on the eve of the Industrial and Scientific Revolution. So it only makes sense that some of the ideas and comparisons used are slightly outdated, but science, if anything, helps his argument regarding causality. Hume is ultimately concerned with the origins of causality, how we are able to gain knowledge from causality, and if we can even call the knowledge derived from causality real knowledge. This is essentially the problem of induction, and is a central pillar of Hume's overall philosophy. There are some significant objections to Hume's ideas concerning causality, but they do not hold much clout and are no match for his

David Hume was a British empiricist, meaning he believed all knowledge comes through the senses. He argued against the existence of innate ideas, stating that humans have knowledge only of things which they directly experience. These claims have a major impact on his argument against the existence of miracles, and in this essay I will explain and critically evaluate this argument.

Although like Descartes, Hume practiced the art of radical skepticism, he felt that if he could not utilize his senses to prove something it was meaningless. Hume continued development of Leibniz’s analytical-synthetic distinction, or in Hume’s words “…a distinction between relations of ideas and matters of fact” (Palmer 197). Analytical propositions are true by definition and are a priori, and therefore necessarily true. Synthetic propositions are not true by

Humes suggests that relations of ideas can be proven true by deduction since the negation is a contradiction. Matters of fact, however, cannot be proven using deduction as the

The great project of Empiricism, in its incipience, was to discover, in Locke's words, "...the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge..." (1) In his Treatise of Human Nature, Hume is intent upon developing a "science of Man" (2) which would acquaint us with "the extent and force of human understanding, and [which] could explain the nature of the ideas we employ, and of the operations we perform in our reasonings." (3) Hume hoped that this 'Science of Man' would serve as a solid foundation for all other sciences, both natural and philosophical, and that it would ultimately eradicate conflicting theories in all fields by defining the limits of human knowledge.

Although Hume’s definition of necessity and its association to human actions seems to be progression well, his abrupt argument that constant conjunction between human motives and actions is problematic; therefore, making his whole argument thus far faulty. He states that any apparent

In this essay, I will first explain Hume’s arguments and how Hume arrives at his conclusions. Once I explain everything Hume contends, in full, I will contrast Hume’s view with the arguments set forth by his predecessor Plato. After comparing the opinions of both philosophers, I will go over potential flaws in both articles, give my own opinion on the matters discussed, and state who I found to be more persuasive. Lastly, I will provide a conclusion that sums up the ideas and opinions discussed in this essay.