Whately, Richard. Historic Doubts Relative To Napoleon Buonaparte. (2012-05-12) Kindle Edition. This intriguing brief piece of satire, that Richard Whately has put together brings to light some of the oddities in David Hume’s argument against miracles. Not only does it provide a good sense of humor, but also a worthy criticism on certain points of view. It takes the arguments that Hume uses to disprove miracles and applies them to Napoleon’s life events. Whately presents himself in this satire as a strong follower of Hume’s view presented in his essay on miracles, tackling the impossibility that is Napoleon Buonaparte’s life accomplishments. Along with praising Hume, with statements like “The celebrated Hume”(15) and “Hume and other inquirers …show more content…
He would have come to the proper conclusion if he actually followed previously stated logical reasoning. Here is one of the biggest deviants away from David Hume’s actual argument and weakens Whately’s case. Hume, notes that the witness material is weak for the miracle accounts since their are no direct witnesses, and at that point in history, there was still not enough manuscriptual evidence supports to say whether the New Testament writers were actually writing with in the lifetime of eye witnesses. So, in Hume’s actual argument there was a possibility for there to be that disconnect and decay in the transfer from eye witness testimony to indirect accounts. Also, he puts no effort in ascertaining whether or not there actually was any informational gatherers or not. He just doubts it for no reason, again going back to his frowzy skepticism he is not only doubting the improbably and odd events, but facts and evidence that leads to an oddity. However, though that is a bad argument it is a good analogy for the satire. Since, Hume to my understanding does a similar thing at times. As with the textual evidence for the New Testament miracles he assumes the most skeptical approach because if he does not it has the possibility to lead to miraculous
The essay “God, Science, and Imagination” by Wendell Berry discusses fundamentalists, specifically ones of science and religion, and their need to humiliate their opponents through evangelism and conversion. He also criticizes Professor Steven Weinberg’s essay and his opinion on God and religion. Weinberg is in fact a fundamentalist of science who questions the existence of God. But, Berry argues that “If in fact the fundamentalist scientists were as smart as they think they are, and if the religious fundamentalists were as secure in their belief as they claim to be, then they would leave one another in peace… these camps keep pestering each other because they need each other” (25).The same could be said for the contestants in James Fallows’
It is often difficult to understand the thought process that other people’s might have had many years ago. A college professor and writer, Richard Godbeer attempts to explain the thought process of the people who were involved in witch trials in the year 1692 in his text “How Could They Believe That?”. He often tells students in college and high school that we can relate to how society was in 1692 and how their views on life, and specifically the supernatural forces, are completely justifiable. In this article he explains the social atmosphere, the environment in which the settlers lived in, as well as how thorough the process of persecution was.
This has to do with faith. Faith means believing in the existence of something without having any physical proof. Therefore, it could very well be a test of faith put into place by an all powerful and all knowing being to have people toy with the notion of its’ existence. As a result, Hume’s idea that we would be able to understand God’s plan is flawed. While we all can suggest that God would like for us to behave in a way conducive to showing we have love for all other human beings simply because this would allow for a peaceful universe, one can’t assume that this is God’s plan. Moreover, one definitely can’t assume that this enables us to understand God’s purpose for the world. Additionally, one can’t automatically assume that because our world is filled with various evils, an all powerful God does not exist. In fact, one could argue the exact opposite. Simply because our world is filled with evil acts and people committing these acts, there must be an all powerful God that exists in order to reward all those that manage to resist engaging in evil acts. Hume argues that we can’t infer that an all powerful being exists because of the tremendous amounts of evil that go on in our world. However, this could be an all powerful God’s way to get rid of all those he feels is not worthy of achieving eternal life in his heavenly kingdom. Therefore, this world could merely be a testing stage for humans to prove they
On the topic of the existence of God, Ernest Nagel and Richard Swinburne have construct arguments that challenge one another. In Nagel’s article, “Does God Exist?” he argues that if God is all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent; he would know when evil occurs and has the power to prevent it. Because evil occurs, God does not exist. This is the problem of evil. Challenging Nagel, the article by Swinburne, “Why God Allows Evil,” argues that God has the right to allow moral and natural evils to occur because those evils reap greater goods that make the lives of human-beings meaningful. He extends his argument to the idea that God seeks to provide human beings with goods such as freewill and responsibility of not only ourselves, but of the world and others. While Nagel utilizes the problem of evil as an objection to the existence of God, Swinburne employs it to show that God allows evil to occur to provide human beings with goods that go beyond moments of pleasure and joys of happiness.
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the
In his work, Candide, Voltaire uses satire as a means of conveying his opinions about many aspects of European society in the eighteenth century, a period known as the Enlightenment. This Age of Reason swept through Europe, offering differing views on science, religion, and politics. The following essay will outline the philosophical theory of Pangloss, a character of the novel and suggest how his optimistic worldview is challenged by numerous disasters. I will also justify the reasons Voltaire attacks hypocrisy, most prevalent in religion, and displays the cruel actions of the priests, monks, and other religious leaders. In the
He setups the argument up with a brilliant idea. Whereas, when an individual observes a ship, they formulate the idea that the carpenter who constructed the ship is profoundly knowledgeable and complex. However, an individual surprisingly finds out the carpenter is wholly opposite from their prior idea of the creator of the ship. Correspondingly, assume the human body and Earth is resembling the ship. Hume goes on to say that the creation of the earth may have had multiple creations, many useless trials made, and the constructing continued with trial in order. Furthermore, the Earth could have had several designers and each designer could have mocked the previous designer. Moreover, each designer was probably unlikely to be heavily intellectual. Equally important, in order for the watch and the ships construction to be so unique the creator had to be greater than unique. Hume objection testes the idea that Paley suggest that the creator of the universe is not a remarkable intelligent being. The creator of the universe may have fed off the intelligence of the creator before. The argument presents this to show that creator of the ship is not a remarkable intelligent being and the creator likely utilized ideas from people prior to their creation. Likewise, the creator of the earth utilized ideas from people prior to their creation of the universe. Whereas, the creator did not develop their own construction which weakens their intellect on creating a complex Earth and human body. In order to create the two, one has to be an remarkable intelligent being packed with
By analyzing Descartes’ reasoning behind his proof of God, I conclude that Hume would disagree with it as he believes humans can manufacture the idea of God using external sources. In his Third Meditation, Descartes attempts to verify that God exists through an ontological argument. Descartes believes his ideas are like “images which can easily fall short of the perfection of the things from which they are taken, but which cannot contain anything greater or more perfect” (Descartes 29). He then asserts that if the “reality” of any of his ideas is
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume is a philosophical piece concerning the existence of God. Arguments for and against the existence of God are portrayed in dialogue through three characters; Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. All three agree that God exists, but they drastically differ in their opinions of God’s attributes or characteristics, and if man can understand God. The characters debate such topics as the design and whether there is more suffering or good in the world. It is a very common view among philosophers that Philo most represents Hume’s own views. Philo doesn’t go as far as denying the existence of God but
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.
In order for an event to be deemed a miracle, it must disobey the laws of nature. However, it is these same laws that disprove almost any miracle that has ever been reported. He writes that some events that people report as miracles truly are not. For example, it is not a miracle, that fire burns wood, or that a healthy man dies, because both of these are
that if one asserts something then one must deny something. He then goes on by
David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.
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
With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country France from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people 's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people 's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.