David Hume’s various writings concerning problems of religion are among the most important and influential contributions on this topic. In these writings Hume advances a systematic, sceptical critique of the philosophical foundations of various theological systems. Whatever interpretation one takes of Hume’s philosophy as a whole, it is certainly true that one of his most basic philosophical objectives is to discredit the doctrines and dogmas of traditional theistic belief. There are, however, some significant points of disagreement about the exact nature and extent of Hume’s irreligious intentions. One of the most important of these is whether Hume’s sceptical position leads him to a view that can be properly characterized as “atheism”.
The primary aims of this article are: (1) to give an account of Hume’s main arguments as they touch on various particular issues relating to religion; and (2) to answer to the question concerning the general character of Hume’s commitments on this subject.
1. Religious Philosophers and Speculative Atheists
2. Empiricism, Scepticism and the Very Idea of God
3. The Cosmological Argument and God’s Necessary-Existence
4. The Argument from Design
5. The Problem of Evil
6. Miracles
7. Immortality and a Future State
8. Hume’s Genealogy of Religion: Causes and Dynamics of Religious Belief
9. Religion and Morality
10. Was Hume an Atheist?
11. Irreligion and the Unity of Hume’s Philosophy
Bibliography
Hume’s Works
Primary Works
Secondary Works
Bibliographies
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
Does this help?
When hearing toward that it’s basically defined us towards our own way of our beauty and meaning of it
A.
The third person account explained in simple detail what was
happening on the bus. The first person account gave a more emotional and
distraught tone to the reader.
Answer:
- A Casual fallacy.
Explanation:
'Casual fallacy' or the 'questionable cause' is demonstrated as the informal flaw in reasoning in which a cause is identified or recognized inappropriately.
As per the given description, the members of the audience identified the statement as a demonstration of 'a casual fallacy' as it involves an incorrect identification of the cause that 'if an unrecognized person is seen running down the sidewalk in our neighborhood, he/she would be assumed as the criminal of an offence' and 'they must be handed over to the authority by calling at 911'. Since the deduction is based on an inappropriate cause, it exemplifies the <u>'casual fallacy</u>.'
Your answer is D
he is implying that if the king is happy then so will be his subjects.
