View source for David Hume - Wikipedia View source for David Hume ← David Hume Jump to navigation Jump to search You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons: Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by Jon Kolbert (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is Open Proxy: Webhost: Contact stewards if you are affected . Start of block: 20:12, 23 July 2019 Expiry of block: 20:12, 23 January 2022 Your current IP address is 40.76.139.33 and the blocked range is 40.76.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki or send an email to the stewards OTRS queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details. You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to a block affecting your IP address. This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages. Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. See below if you do not believe you have done anything wrong. Editing from 40.76.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪SQL‬ for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN. We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption. If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider. Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator. This block has been set to expire: 16:25, 2 June 2023. Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators. For information on how to proceed, first see the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful. Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked You can view and copy the source of this page: ===Religion=== Philosopher [[Paul Russell (philosopher)|Paul Russell]] (2005) contends that Hume wrote "on almost every central question in the philosophy of religion," and that these writings "are among the most important and influential contributions on this topic." Touching on the philosophy, psychology, history, and anthropology of religious thought, Hume's 1757 dissertation, "[[Four Dissertations#The Natural History of Religion|The Natural History of Religion]]", argues that the [[monotheistic]] religions of [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] all derive from earlier [[polytheistic]] religions. He went on to suggest that all religious belief "traces, in the end, to dread of the unknown."{{sfn|O'Connor|2013|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ntygPAezQJUC&pg=PA7&dq=hume+religion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1s_GU_r3KPPH7Abi94GgAg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hume%20religion&f=false pp. 7–8]}} Hume had also written on religious subjects in the first ''Enquiry'', as well as later in the ''[[Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion]]''. ====Religious views==== Although he wrote a great deal about religion, Hume's personal views have been the subject of much debate.For example, see {{harvtxt|Russell|2008}}; {{harvtxt|O'Connor|2013}}; and {{harvtxt|Norton|1993}}. Some modern critics have described Hume's religious views as [[Agnosticism|agnostic]] or have described him as a "[[Pyrrhonism|Pyrrhonian skeptic]]."{{Cite journal|last=Mullen|first=Shirley|year=2003|title=David Hume and a Christian Perspective on History|journal=Fides et Historia|volume=XXXV|pages=49–60}} Contemporaries considered him to be an [[Atheism|atheist]], or at least un-Christian, enough so that the [[Church of Scotland]] seriously considered bringing charges of infidelity against him.{{sfn|Mossner|1980|p=206}} Evidence of his un-Christian beliefs can especially be found in his writings on miracles, in which he attempts to separate [[historical method]] from the narrative accounts of miracles. The fact that contemporaries suspected him of atheism is exemplified by a story Hume liked to tell:{{sfn|Scharfstein|1998|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=iZQy2lu70bwC&pg=PA454&dq=hume++fishwives&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wi3KU6jOGMaM7AaRoIDYBQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=hume%20%20fishwives&f=false p. 454, footnote]}}
The best theologian he ever met, he used to say, was the old Edinburgh fishwife who, having recognized him as Hume the atheist, refused to pull him out of the bog into which he had fallen until he declared he was a Christian and repeated the Lord's prayer.
However, in works such as "Of Superstition and Enthusiasm", Hume specifically seems to support the standard religious views of his time and place.Hume, David. 1777 [1741]. "[https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/se Of Superstition and Enthusiasm]." Essay X in ''[https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/full Essays Moral, Political, and Literary (1742-1754)].'' Retrieved 19 May 2020. [https://web.archive.org/web/20180710222300/http://www.davidhume.org/texts/emp.html Archived]. Also available: [http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/hume.superstition.html Full text] and [https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/704#Hume_0059_254 Liberty Fund edition]. This still meant that he could be very critical of the [[Catholic Church]], dismissing it with the standard [[Protestant]] accusations of superstition and idolatry,{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=51}}{{Rp|70}} as well as dismissing as idolatry what his compatriots saw as uncivilised beliefs.{{sfn|Hume|1757|p=34}} He also considered extreme Protestant sects, the members of which he called "enthusiasts", to be corrupters of religion.{{sfn|Hume|1741|pp=73–76}} By contrast, in "[[Four Dissertations#The Natural History of Religion|The Natural History of Religion]]", Hume presents arguments suggesting that [[polytheism]] had much to commend it over [[monotheism]].{{sfn|Hume|1757|p=63}} Additionally, when mentioning religion as a factor in his ''History of England'', Hume uses it to show the deleterious effect it has on human progress. In his ''[[A Treatise of Human Nature|Treatise on Human Nature]]'', Hume wrote: "Generally speaking, the errors in religions are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous." Paul Russell (2008) writes that Hume was plainly sceptical about religious belief, although perhaps not to the extent of complete atheism. He suggests that Hume's position is best characterised by the term "[[irreligion]],"[[Paul Russell (philosopher)|Russell, Paul]]. 2008. ''The Riddle of Hume's Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. {{ISBN|9780199751525}}. while philosopher David O'Connor (2013) argues that Hume's final position was "weakly [[deistic]]." For O'Connor, Hume's "position is deeply ironic. This is because, while inclining towards a weak form of [[deism]], he seriously doubts that we can ever find a sufficiently favourable balance of evidence to justify accepting any religious position." He adds that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism…but he did not rule out all concepts of deity," and that "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion."{{sfn|O'Connor|2013|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ntygPAezQJUC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=%22but+he+did+not+rule+out+all+concepts+of+deity%22&source=bl&ots=ulLs4-GWED&sig=XcJNdJXP3jP-N0ynFZ8wroDbAUg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CtwmVd-BKueP7AbA14CYDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22but%20he%20did%20not%20rule%20out%20all%20concepts%20of%20deity%22&f=false pp.11, 19]}} ====Design argument==== One of the traditional topics of [[natural theology]] is that of the [[existence of God]], and one of the ''[[a posteriori]]'' arguments for this is the ''argument from design'' or the [[teleological argument]]. The argument is that the existence of God can be proved by the design that is obvious in the complexity of the world, which ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' states is "the most popular," because it is:[[#{{harvid|RE}}|RE]]{{unreliable source?|date=April 2015}}
…the most accessible of the theistic arguments…which identifies evidences of design in nature, inferring from them a divine designer.… The fact that the universe as a whole is a coherent and efficiently functioning system likewise, in this view, indicates a divine intelligence behind it.
In ''[[An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding]]'', Hume wrote that the design argument seems to depend upon our experience, and its proponents "always suppose the universe, an effect quite singular and unparalleled, to be the proof of a Deity, a cause no less singular and unparalleled."{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=148}} Philosopher Louise E. Loeb (2010) notes that Hume is saying that only experience and observation can be our guide to making inferences about the conjunction between events. However, according to Hume:{{sfn|Loeb|2010|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=6ECxW_2tAf0C&pg=PA118&dq=companion+hume+observe+neither+God+nor+other+universes&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Z0OMVMfjJob1UvykgLAN&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=companion%20hume%20observe%20neither%20God%20nor%20other%20universes&f=false p. 118]}}
We observe neither God nor other universes, and hence no conjunction involving them. There is no observed conjunction to ground an inference either to extended objects or to God, as unobserved causes.
Hume also criticised the argument in his ''[[Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion]]'' (1779). In this, he suggested that, even if the world is a more or less smoothly functioning system, this may only be a result of the "chance permutations of particles falling into a temporary or permanent self-sustaining order, which thus has the appearance of design."{{unreliable source?|date=April 2015}} A century later, the idea of order without design was rendered more plausible by Charles Darwin's discovery that the adaptations of the forms of life result from the [[natural selection]] of inherited characteristics.{{unreliable source?|date=April 2015}} For philosopher James D. Madden, it is "Hume, rivaled only by Darwin, [who] has done the most to undermine in principle our confidence in arguments from design among all figures in the Western intellectual tradition."{{sfn|Madden|2005|loc= [https://books.google.com/books?id=UKSZeRnuyjAC&pg=PA150&dq=teleological+god+hume+darwin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FvrIU4uBMYOu7AaV1oGQCw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=teleological%20god%20hume%20darwin&f=false p. 150, emphasis removed.]}} Finally, Hume discussed a version of the [[anthropic principle]], which is the idea that theories of the universe are constrained by the need to allow for man's existence in it as an observer. Hume has his sceptical mouthpiece Philo suggest that there may have been many worlds, produced by an incompetent designer, whom he called a "stupid mechanic". In his ''Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'', Hume wrote:{{sfn|Hume|1779|p=167}}
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.
American philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]] has suggested that this mechanical explanation of teleology, although "obviously ... an amusing philosophical fantasy", anticipated the notion of natural selection, the 'continued improvement' being like "any Darwinian selection algorithm."{{sfn|Dennett|2009|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=i1tNI9646Q4C&pg=PA620&dq=hume++anthropic+principle&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4zXKU_nGCqaw7Aa-w4GAAg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=hume%20%20anthropic%20principle&f=false pp. 620–621]}} ====Problem of miracles==== {{main|Of Miracles}} In his discussion of [[miracle]]s, Hume argues that we should not believe miracles have occurred and that they do not therefore provide us with any reason to think God exists.{{sfn|Bailey|O'Brien|2006|p=101}} In ''An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding'' (Section 10), Hume defines a miracle as "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent". Hume says we believe an event that has frequently occurred is likely to occur again, but we also take into account those instances where the event did not occur:{{sfn|Hume|1777|pp=110–111}}
A wise man…considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments.… A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experiments…and deduct the smaller number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior evidence.
Hume discusses the testimony of those who report miracles. He wrote that testimony might be doubted even from some great authority in case the facts themselves are not credible: "[T]he evidence, resulting from the testimony, admits of a diminution, greater or less, in proportion as the fact is more or less unusual."{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=113}} Although Hume leaves open the possibility for miracles to occur and be reported, he offers various arguments against this ever having happened in history.{{sfn|Hume|1777|pp=116–131|ps=, Part II of Section X}} He points out that people often lie, and they have good reasons to lie about miracles occurring either because they believe they are doing so for the benefit of their religion or because of the fame that results. Furthermore, people by nature enjoy relating miracles they have heard without caring for their veracity and thus miracles are easily transmitted even when false. Also, Hume notes that miracles seem to occur mostly in "ignorant and barbarous nations"{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=119}} and times, and the reason they do not occur in the civilised societies is such societies are not awed by what they know to be natural events. Finally, the miracles of each religion argue against all other religions and their miracles, and so even if a proportion of all reported miracles across the world fit Hume's requirement for belief, the miracles of each religion make the other less likely.{{sfn|Bailey|O'Brien|2006|pp=105–108}} Hume was extremely pleased with his argument against miracles in his ''Enquiry''. He states "I flatter myself, that I have discovered an argument of a like nature, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures."{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=110}} Thus, Hume's argument against miracles had a more abstract basis founded upon the scrutiny, not just primarily of miracles, but of all forms of belief systems. It is a common sense notion of veracity based upon epistemological evidence, and founded on a principle of rationality, proportionality and reasonability.{{sfn|Bailey|O'Brien|2006|pp=105–108}} The criterion for assessing Hume's belief system is based on the balance of probability whether something is more likely than not to have occurred. Since the weight of empirical experience contradicts the notion for the existence of miracles, such accounts should be treated with scepticism. Further, the myriad of accounts of miracles contradict one another, as some people who receive miracles will aim to prove the authority of Jesus, whereas others will aim to prove the authority of Muhammad or some other religious prophet or deity. These various differing accounts weaken the overall evidential power of miracles.{{sfn| Ahluwalia|2008|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=-PCV11VQ8PYC&pg=PA104&dq=%22Understanding+Philosophy+of+Religion%22+hume&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6qs4Vbe4EofXPeywgbgN&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Understanding%20Philosophy%20of%20Religion%22%20hume&f=false pp.104–106]}}{{failed verification|date=April 2015}} Despite all this, Hume observes that belief in miracles is popular, and that "the gazing populace… receive greedily, without examination, whatever soothes superstition, and promotes wonder."{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=126}} Critics have argued that Hume's position assumes the character of miracles and [[natural law]]s prior to any specific examination of miracle claims, thus it amounts to a subtle form of [[begging the question]]. To assume that testimony is a homogeneous reference group seems unwise- to compare private miracles with public miracles, unintellectual observers with intellectual observers and those who have little to gain and much to lose with those with much to gain and little to lose is not convincing to many. Indeed, many have argued that miracles not only do not contradict the laws of nature, but require the laws of nature to be intelligible as miraculous, and thus subverting the law of nature. For example, William Adams remarks that "there must be an ordinary course of nature before anything can be extraordinary. There must be a stream before anything can be interrupted."{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/stream/essayinanswertom00adamiala#page/14/mode/2up |title=An essay in answer to Mr. Hume's Essay on miracles |access-date=16 March 2017|publisher=London : White |year=1767 }} They have also noted that it requires an appeal to inductive inference, as none have observed every part of nature nor examined every possible miracle claim, for instance those in the future. This, in Hume's philosophy, was especially problematic.{{sfn|Levine|1989|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=fC3-d89f7qoC&dq=hume+miracle+criticism&q=%22hume+with+a+glaring%22#v=snippet&q=%22hume%20with%20a%20glaring%22&f=false p. 3]}} Little appreciated is the voluminous literature either foreshadowing Hume, in the likes of [[Thomas Sherlock]]{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/trialwitnessesr00shergoog |quote=witnesses Thomas SHerlock. |title=The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus - Internet Archive |publisher=John Eliot |access-date=16 March 2017|last1=Sherlock |first1=Thomas |year=1809 }} or directly responding to and engaging with Hume- from [[William Paley]],{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vqcRAAAAYAAJ&q=Nairne+intitle:Evidences+inauthor:William+inauthor:Paley |title=Paley's Evidences of Christianity: With Notes and Additions - William Paley, Charles Murray Nairne - Google Books |access-date=16 March 2017|last1=Paley |first1=William |last2=Nairne |first2=Charles Murray |year=1858 }} William Adams,{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/essayinanswertom00adamiala |title=An essay in answer to Mr. Hume's Essay on miracles : Adams, William, 1706-1789 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive |access-date=16 March 2017|publisher=London : White |year=1767 }} John Douglas,{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y4UNAAAAQAAJ&q=douglas+the+criterion+miracles&pg=PR1 |title=The criterion: or, Miracles examined with a view to expose the pretensions ... - John Douglas, John Douglas (bp. of Salisbury.) - Google Books |access-date=16 March 2017|last1=Douglas |first1=John |last2=) |first2=John Douglas (bp. of Salisbury |year=1832 }} [[John Leland (Baptist)|John Leland]],{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rt9JAAAAMAAJ&q=intitle:View+intitle:Principal+intitle:Deistical+inauthor:Leland |title=A view of the principal deistical writers that have appeared in England in ... - John Leland, William Laurence Brown - Google Books |access-date=16 March 2017|last1=Leland |first1=John |last2=Brown |first2=William Laurence |year=1837 }} and [[George Campbell (minister)|George Campbell]],{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ddsOAAAAIAAJ |title=A Dissertation on Miracles: Containing an Examination of the Principles ... - George Campbell - Google Books |access-date=16 March 2017|last1=Campbell |first1=George |year=1823 }} among others. Regarding the latter, it is rumoured that, having read Campbell's Dissertation, Hume remarked that "the Scotch theologue had beaten him."{{cite web|title=Campbell, George|url=http://historicalapologetics.org/campbell-george/|author=Huitt, Kyle|date=25 December 2016|website=Library of Historical Apologetics|access-date=16 May 2020}} Hume's main argument concerning miracles is that miracles by definition are singular events that differ from the established laws of nature. Such natural laws are codified as a result of past experiences. Therefore, a miracle is a violation of all prior experience and thus incapable on this basis of reasonable belief. However, the probability that something has occurred in contradiction of all past experience should always be judged to be less than the probability that either ones senses have deceived one, or the person recounting the miraculous occurrence is lying or mistaken. Hume would say, all of which he had past experience of. For Hume, this refusal to grant credence does not guarantee correctness. He offers the example of an Indian Prince, who, having grown up in a hot country, refuses to believe that water has frozen. By Hume's lights, this refusal is not wrong and the Prince "reasoned justly;" it is presumably only when he has had extensive experience of the freezing of water that he has warrant to believe that the event could occur.{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=113}} So for Hume, either the miraculous event will become a recurrent event or else it will never be rational to believe it occurred. The connection to religious belief is left unexplained throughout, except for the close of his discussion where Hume notes the reliance of Christianity upon testimony of miraculous occurrences. He makes an ironic remark that anyone who "is moved by faith to assent" to revealed testimony "is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience."{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=131|ps=, emphasis removed}}{{sfn|MacKie|1982|p=29}} Hume writes that "All the testimony whichever was really given for any miracle, or ever will be given, is a subject of derision."{{sfn|Hume|1777|p=113}} Return to David Hume. Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume" Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Page information Wikidata item Languages Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement