hume dialogues felder lecture notes

8/9/2019 Hume Dialogues Felder Lecture Notes

1/9


2/9

Cleanthes response to Philos Skepticism:

External objects press in . . .(p. 5)

Two kinds of skeptics (pp. 8-9):

brutish and ignorant. . . which gives vulgar and general prejudice against what

they do not easily understand . . .(A lot of THEOLOGICAL thinkers are like

this)

refined philosophical skepticswho are forced to proportion their assent to

the precise degree of evidence which occurs

In vain would the skeptic make a distinction between science and common life, or

between one science and another. The arguments employed in all, if just, are of a

similar nature and contain the same force and evidence.The point is that

Cleanthes wants to apply one standard of reason to all arguments, includingtheology.

READ pp.11-12; this is Philo.

Some Key Terms:

a priori --based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

All bachelors are unmarried.

Anselms Argument for the Existence of God

a posteriori -- proceeding from observations or experiences to the deductions of

probable causes.Some bachelors are lonely.

Design Argument for the Existence of God

inductive inference -- We draw a conclusion about something we have not seen,based upon something we have seen.

-chocolate on a childs face

-pile of stones at a fork in a trail-message written in sand at the beach

argument from analogy--When we draw a conclusion about a particular phenomenonbased upon another, better understood, but similar phenomenon.

-historical analogies (Iraq with WWI, WWII, and Vietnam)

cause --> effect

___?__ --> effect

*Some people think all arguments from analogy are false.


3/9

Demeas Initial Position

He asserts (p. 13) that nobody could doubt the existence of God; the question is hisnature.

Demeas definition of God is that he is Being without restriction.(p. 14)

His position (p. 13) is that its just about as bad to claim that we can understand God as

it is to claim that there is no God.

Demeaa fideistic skeptic. He believes that we cannot possibly come to know the

nature of God by human reason; Gods nature is beyond reason. However, he is no

skeptic. He believes in God (presumably the God of eighteenth-century European

Christianity), but he believes that faith, apart from reason, is the only way to really know

about God. Sometimes this position is known as fideism.

PhiloHe is a philosophical skeptic. He agrees that God is incomprehensible, though

he claims that he is not an atheist.

Cleanthesan empirical theist. He thinks we can know something about God by

reasoning from the natural world (of experience). Sometimes this position is called

empirical theism.

Philo

s Syllogism (p. 15)

Our ideas reach no farther than our experience.We have no experience of divine attributes and operations.Therefore, __________________________.

We can note how similar Philo

s and Demea

s positions are in this regard.


4/9

Cleanthes

Argument. (READ. p. 15)

Demea

s Objection to Cleanthes (p. 15)

God and men are not so similar.

By neglecting a priori arguments, and relying on experience, Cleanthes is supporting thecause of the atheists (because a posteriori arguments are arguments for probability).

Philos Objections to Cleanthes (pp. 16-21)

The key to his objection is that for an argument from analogy to work at all (even just forprobability) the comparison has to be close--the closer the better--and the more similarthe effects, the more likely the causes will be the same.

World doesnt really resemble a machine.

Cleanthes is reasoning from a part to a whole (like a hair to a man).

We have only observed a small part of the whole (universe).Does organic generation really require intelligence? Why privilege a little

agitation in the brain?

Cant reason from a late form to an earlier one.

Inferences depend on repeated observations, but this phenomenon (the creationof the universe) is unique. We need to observe a lot more universecreations. We can infer the builder from the house because we have seen alot of houses being built.

Cleanthes Response/Defense (pp. 23-26)

He claims that nature is something like an awesome, articulate voice.This may be his

way of saying he is arguing more for simple signs of intelligence than an argument from

analogy.

The anatomy of an animal is like a book--it shows reasoning and intelligence in it. (Post-Darwin we would say it shows design, but not intelligence.)

Examples of fine-tuninglike an eye, sexual reproduction, etc.suggest intelligence

behind their design.

Demeas Objections to Cleanthes (pp. 26-27)

When reading a book, we enter the mind of the author; this is not possible with God.

All our ideas derived from the sense are confessedly false and illusive, and cannot

therefore be supposed to have a place in a Supreme Intelligence.(READ on p. 27). His

point is that Gods mind cannot be similar to ours, which are flawed.


5/9

Cleanthes to Demea (pp. 28-29)

He says a mysticlike Demea is just like a skeptic or atheist, because by claiming God

is unknowable you are asserting we know nothing about God.

Philo Objects some More (pp. 29-43)READ pp. 34-35 as a summary.

Intelligent designerdoesnt help; where did the order in the designers mind come

from? (We can liken it to the infinite regression of tortoises.)

Also, order and thought do not necessarily go together.

Empirical theismdoes not get you to the God of Christian theism:

Not infinite.

Not perfect.Not one God.Not spiritual (but mortal, sexual, etc.)

Machine is not the only analogy possible; what about a body-soul analogy?

Cleanthes

response:

more like a plant than an animalthe universe is clearly not eternal

They are all accused of being atheists by the others:

Demea.Mystics, by allowing no content to God,void the concept.

Philo. Leads you to doubt the reasonableness of your belief.

Cleanthes. The best you can get is probability and what you come up with will be

anthropomorphic.


6/9

Philo develops his analogyPart VII

If the universe bears a greater likeness to animal bodies and to vegetables than to the

works of human art, it is more probable that the cause resembles the cause of the

former than that of the latter, and its origin ought rather to be ascribed to

generation or vegetation than to reason or design.(p. 44)

Demea responds: this power would still be an additional argument for design in its

author.

Philo responds that generation and vegetation are mindless processes; in all ourexperience, minds come from the mindless processes of bodies, not theother way around.

Particles in Motion

Part VIIIPhilo speculates the universe might be the product of randomly moving particles that

occasionally find themselves arranged in an orderly pattern. If these patterns prove

useful, they might survive. (This is a variation on the old Epicurean hypothesis: a

finite number of moving particles must eventually be arranged in every possiblearrangement.)

Demea objects that Philos moving particles have no mover.

Philo counters by saying it is no easier to understand how a mind could move matter

than to assume that the matter might be in motion already.

Cleanthes objects that the world we live in seems to be far superior to a world that is theproduct of random forces--we have eyes, ears, horses, camels, etc.--benefits thatspeak to the existence of a benevolent creator.

Philo agrees that his system has problems, but so does Cleanthes : weve never seen

mind influence matter, yet that seems to be what Cleanthes proposes. We just

cant know anything about the ultimate cause of the universe: its beyond our

experience.


7/9

Demeas Ontological Argument

Part IXEverything that exists must have a cause for its existence; nothing can produce itself.

This means we would have an infinite chain of causes unless (or until) we come to a

cause that is necessarily existent.

It is clear that Ais absurd.Though each link in the chain is sufficient to cause the

next, there is no cause for the existence of the chain itself. Why this particularchain? Why not no chain at all?

So what is the cause of the chain?External causes? There are supposed to be none.Chance is a word without meaning.

Nothing? Nothing cant produce anything.

We must therefore have recourse to a necessarily existent Being who carriesthe reason for his existence in himself . . .

In sum: everything in the universe has a cause but what is the cause ofeverything? There must be a necessary Being that requires no cause

(i.e., God).

Cleanthes Responds

Matters of factcannot be proven a priori. (Why?)

Nothing is demonstrable unless the counter implies a contradiction.Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.

Anything we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent.There is no being, therefore, whose non existence implies a contradiction.

Therefore, there is no being whose existence is demonstrable.

Further, why not just say the universe itself is the thing that is necessarily existent(if

such a concept is valid)?

Also, it seems absurd to look for the cause of an eternal chain; anything that is

externally existent doesnt need a cause.


8/9

Theodicy DiscussionPart X

Demea: each man feels . . . the truth of religion within his own breast . . . and from a

consciousness of his imbecility and misery rather than from any reasoning, is led to

seek protection . . .(p. 58)

Philo and Demea: Life is short (and miserable) . . . and then you die.

Philo:And is it possible . . .you can still persevere in your anthropomorphism and

assert . . . [Gods] justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude . . .? Is [God] 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?(p. 63)

Demea: This is an old question; already been answered: This world is but a point in

comparison of the universe; this life but a moment in comparison of eternity. The

present evil phenomena, therefore, are rectified in other regions, and in somefuture period of existence. And the eyes of men, being then opened to larger viewsof things, see the whole connection of general laws, and trace, with adoration, thebenevolence and rectitude of the Deity through all the mazes and intricacies of his

providence.(p 64)

Cleanthes: things arent so bad. (pp. 64-65).

Philo: maybe health is more common than sickness, but pain is a lot more durable andexercises much greater influence on us.

Cleanthes Responds to the Theodicy Discussion

Part XI

Cleanthes: But supposing the Author of Nature to be finitely perfect . . .a lesser evil

may then be chosen in order to avoid a greater; inconveniences be submitted to inorder to reach a desirable end; and, in a word, benevolence, regulated by wisdom

and limited by necessity, may produce just such a world as the present.(p. 67)

Philo: Maybe, if you had some good reason to believe that God was good, Cleanthes

idea might make sense, but with an a posterioriargument you could never get tothat conclusion. (Example: bad palace and a good architect.)

Philo: four preventable causes of misery:1.Pain. Why is pain necessary to protect/motivate animals?

2.Lawsthat govern the world. Why not have it ruled by Gods will directly so that

God could prevent, for example, children from falling out of trees and gettinghurt?

3.The frugality of faculties. Animals seem to have skills/abilities that just barelymatch the minimum requirements of survival.


9/9

4.Inaccurate workmanship. There is a tendency for elements of nature that seemgood in moderate levels to get out of whack: floods, droughts, excessiveheat/cold, etc.

Philo: The forces of nature seem to be driven by neither malice nor goodness.

Part XII

Uh????Whats wrong with religion?

Philo: To be a philosophical skeptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential

step towards being a sound, believing Christian . . .

Pamphilus: . . . those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth.

hume dialogues felder lecture notes

Documents