I think some of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Response: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) "[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) "Nature seems to have formed an exact calculation of the necessities of her creatures; and like a rigid master, has afforded them little more powers or endowments, than what are strictly sufficient to supply those necessities. An indulgent parent would have bestowed a large stock, in order to guard against accidents, and secure the happiness and welfare of the creature, in the most unfortunate concurrence of circumstances. Every course of life would not have been so surrounded with precipices, that the least departure from the true path, by mistake or necessity, must involve us in misery and ruin." (Dialogues) Response: "The third consideration which Hume proffers in support of his claim that (at least some of) the natural evil in the world is gratuitous is that, were the universe the handiwork of some benevolent intelligence, its inhabitants might have been expected to be better provisioned than they are with the wherewithal for their enjoying felicity. Again, Hume fails to supply adequate reason for supposing this to be so. For example, were sheep better able to evade the fox, then foxes would have been less well able to survive and flourish. Should it be suggested that the world would have been a better place had sheep been allowed to graze without any predators, we might wonder whether they might not then have reproduced beyond the point at which pastures might have been able to sustain them, ... and so on. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (4) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues) Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") Objection (5) "In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." (Dialogues) Response: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")
Philosophy is an ongoing conversation, so there are almost ALWAYS objections that can be raised to any argument. The question becomes one of the overall weight of the objections on one side or the other, and how we can propose counter-objections. And so it goes. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophythe problem is when people let their bias influence their teaching. No good teachers show their bias in their teachings. Should be common sense
In political philosophy plz explain with slides as you explain above arguments also explain equality, freedom, and reform in philosophy caahptr political philosophy in not so much leanthy pages but in normal way
Thanks for watching and commenting! I have many videos I want to produce, but as I'm teaching full-time, I have less time than I would like to get them done. Hang in there!
In the philosophy of religion, the relationship between faith and reason is a topic of considerable debate. Generally speaking, faith is often understood as a belief in something without or beyond empirical evidence, often relying on personal experience, revelation, or tradition. Reason, on the other hand, refers to the use of logic, evidence, and critical thinking to arrive at conclusions. There are various philosophical perspectives on how faith and reason relate to each other: Conflict: Some philosophers argue that faith and reason are fundamentally opposed and cannot coexist harmoniously. This view suggests that religious beliefs are irrational and unsupported by evidence, and therefore, they are in conflict with reason. Independence: Others argue that faith and reason are independent of each other and operate in separate domains. According to this view, faith is based on personal beliefs and experiences, while reason is concerned with empirical evidence and logical arguments. Therefore, they can coexist without contradiction. Integration: Some philosophers propose that faith and reason can be integrated, with each complementing the other. They argue that faith can provide insights and truths that reason alone cannot access, while reason can help clarify and interpret religious beliefs in a rational framework. Hierarchy: Another perspective suggests that reason should take precedence over faith, and that religious beliefs should be subject to rational scrutiny. According to this view, faith should be based on reasons and evidence, and irrational beliefs should be discarded. Overall, the relationship between faith and reason is complex and multifaceted, and philosophers continue to debate the nature of this relationship in the philosophy of religion.
All that wording should have been about what is rather than what wasn’t. Otherwise it becomes a lecture to learn nothing from. Galileo indeed claimed the sun was the center of the universe. He was wrong. David Hume claimed there was no metaphysical certainty. That doesn’t mean knowledge is impossible. It means to be omniscient is not possible. An ostrich and a penguin do not form a specific class of beings at any point. It is nonsensical to make an example of induction with them. Teleology is not limited to Christian teleology. One should start from presocratics to explain any such concept. The video demonstrates the lecturer’s want of education.
These are university trained converts who wholeheartedly swallow what they are taught. No different than religious zealots who do the same. I’m surprised RU-vid doesn’t have channels that has open minded discourse that discuss the best arguments of all sides. Or teachers who don’t show obvious bias.
