I do not wish to go into a lengthy explanation of the rebuttal against Hume's criticisms of several arguments affirming the existence of God, except to respond to Hume's critiques in broad strokes only.
I need to address this to prevent us from being easily enchanted by the power of a philosopher's dialectic without critically examining it. This means we need other opinions to balance things out so that the dialectic does not end in a deadlock.
Hume critiques several forms of theological arguments regarding ontology and epistemology. This underscores Hume's skepticism, which is rooted in a narrow empiricism. However, I see this as a form of skepticism that is actually beneficial as a turning point for philosophers to reflect more deeply on their philosophical concepts.
Hume's critique serves as a jibe at philosophy to improve its reasoning in order to find the connecting points that bridge the gaps Hume pointed out in his works "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" and "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding."
Some of Hume's criticisms in philosophy are:
1) The Design Argument - Teleological:
Hume critiques the error philosophers make by drawing irrelevant comparisons in their efforts to find proof of a Creator by observing events where "something has a designer." Hume rejects this line of thinking as an irrelevant (unequal) analogy. The universe and human-made objects are not equivalent.
- Hume does not realize that the empirical composition of the universe and anything else consists of the same particles and quantum laws.
Hume also still believes in the classic philosophical deadlock that creation stems from chance.
If everything happens by chance, how can chance reveal certainty? Something cannot surpass its own limits without external addition. Therefore, if chance can surpass itself by ensuring, then chance is more universally certain.
There is no absolute randomness. https://dev.to/metaphilosophy/within-order-5548 Moreover, in today's era, misunderstanding Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can lead to errors.
2) The Cosmological Argument:
Hume critiques causality (cause and effect) as commonly done, questioning why there must be an uncaused cause if everything has a cause.
- Hume and others do not realize that the criticized causality is only relative, so it's natural to critique it. The context of "every effect has a cause" is limited to relative causality, so there is no need for an infinite regression of causes.
Hume considers the relative nature of cause and effect as indicative of instability, where an effect does not always originate from the same cause, questioning the necessity of believing in causality if there is no consistency.
- At that time, philosophy did not understand the concept of interconnectedness behind cause and effect. It is true that cause and effect have their relativity. Hume questions "WHERE IS THE NECESSITY IN CAUSALITY," and it lies behind the cause and effect, which many do not understand. This is recognized in the META understanding and also by Wolfgang Smith through his concept of "Vertical Causation." https://youtu.be/p0KPaj41pVw?si=VheehgDkCG8ODZQU
3) The Ontological Argument:
Hume critiques the notion that perfection does not necessitate existence. The existence of a perfect attribute does not imply the existence of a perfect entity, as existence is not an attribute that can be added to something. If there is an attribute, there must be an existence as its source. Perfection does not ensure existence because perfection is merely an attribute, not existence itself. Thus, according to Hume, it is impossible to assume the existence of something simply because it has perfect attributes.
Hume does not recognize the correlation between potential and actual, where actualization does not add anything to potential, which can be traced back to the law of conservation of energy: something cannot surpass itself without external addition, affirming that the absolute actuality of a cause does not come from outside but is inherent in its existence.
Attributes do not add anything to existence but affirm existence. Perfect attributes affirm the existence of a perfect entity. The question remains as to how definitively these attributes affirm the logical consequence of an existence characterized by absoluteness. Do not say that attributes do not affirm existence because the absence of attributes affirms the absence of existence and vice versa; they are inseparable.
4) Belief as a Subjective Basis:
Hume argues that belief is subjective and can be influenced by emotions, leading to conclusions that are not objective and prone to illusions.
When Hume considers religious belief as potentially trapped in illusion, efforts to think objectively might fall into the same trap.
This was not realized by philosophers at that time when they focused on logical fallacies but did not recognize the cognitive biases that cause logical fallacies. It’s like understanding a magic trick that seems realistic but is illogical because one cannot see the logical deception.
Hume did not realize the epistemological principle that philosophers themselves were unaware of, which causes the emergence of polemics.
Hume's thoughts actually aim to encourage philosophers to be more critical of their philosophical approach, although Hume himself could not propose a solution.
- This can be seen as a turning point for Hume to inspire philosophers to rethink their concepts.
IN SHORT...
Scaling Reasoning. Our limitations in understanding the universe do not mean we cannot understand the truth behind it. Here, not only Hume but others also get trapped by the inability to "scale reasoning" where understanding something large from a small scale is considered an illogical comparison, reducing it, which again is seen as violating the principle of logical fallacy (fallacy of composition). They think that reduction diminishes the composition of a large structure when simplified through a small scale.
They do not realize that in the current era:
Quantum physics studies the small scale (quantum) to understand the universe.
Scaling reasoning must be universal to be applied across scales, and at this point, Hume has not realized the structure of absolute causality newly recognized by modern philosophers like Wolfgang Smith.
The measure of reasoning is not limited to how far it violates logical principles but also how well we prepare ourselves not to be deceived by our cognitive biases https://dev.to/metaphilosophy/justified-cognitive-313m.
PHILOSOPHY LITERATURE
It would be too hasty to simply read classic philosophical writings without updating philosophical developments and metaphilosophy. Philosophizing is not just about translating classical writings and believing or considering it as philosophizing. Instead, it is a continuous effort of thinking and reflection not just to listen and accept past statements but also to critique them for better understanding.
Do not get trapped in "philosophizing" as merely learning past literature and positioning oneself in one philosophical school. This is not true philosophizing but merely adopting a philosophical style, which traps us in stereotypes and does not free ourselves as demanded by true philosophy: critical and appropriate freedom, not just arbitrary freedom. WHY?
WHEN PREDECESSOR PHILOSOPHERS LIKE HUME AND OTHERS WERE ACTUALLY IN CONFUSION, many today position themselves in that confusion without trying to solve the polemic, merely listening to the stories. Are you philosophizing like this? YOU ARE NOT PHILOSOPHIZING, just being confused but not willing to struggle to overcome the confusion. The blow from philosophy leaves you confused or seeking safety as a lifestyle.
🎯 Philosophy as an Active Process
Philosophizing should be an active process of thinking and reflection, not just studying past literature. Do not approach it by just learning and following past philosophical schools without critical thinking, trapping us in confusion due to a lack of readiness to philosophize.
Just as Hume critiques, we should also critique him appropriately without seeking justification but critiquing because there is indeed a deadlock. Hume critiques his own deadlock honestly - his critical limit is clear and not fabricated, so we should also respond to his criticism proportionally.
Top comments (0)