As I read Paul Russell’s, The Riddle of Hume’s Treatise, I continue to find excellent summaries of arguments for theism and Hume’s responses. Russell, it should be noted, is an avid atheist from Scottish Calvinist stock. Consequently, his analysis of Hume’s irreligious intentions reflect his own intentions. Nevertheless, anyone interested in the history of Apologetics would find Russell’s book to be an excellent survey of Hume’s contribution to the history of the discipline. The following is a summary of Hume’s engagement with apologist, Andrew Baxter. Andrew Baxter, in a defense of theism and in response to the atheism of Hobbes and Spinoza, argues that all powers found in nature must, of necessity, be caused by the power…
-
-
Clarke vs Hume
Samuel Clarke In Paul Russell’s masterful analysis of the irreligious nature of Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature entitled, The Riddle of Hume’s Treatise, Russell recounts an argument for theism by Samuel Clarke and Hume’s refutation. Russell shows how, in his efforts to defend a natural science of human knowledge, Hume is also attacking common theistic proofs. Clarke’s argument is as follows: Something existed from all eternity. If something had not existed from all eternity then something would have come from nothing. That which has existed from all eternity is unchangeable and independent. If there had not existed from all eternity something unchangeable and independent then everything that has ever existed would be changeable and dependent. If everything is changeable and dependent then it…