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 is equally possible…
-
-
The Dogma of Doubt
It is now mandatory to doubt. To claim to know anything with certainty is to fall foul of dogmatism, the stubborn refusal to subject beliefs to any test for truth. But is certainty the same as dogmatism? And isn’t the demand for universal doubt merely another form of dogmatism? First, to the latter point. It seems that to demand doubt is to assume a universal knowledge claim – something like: it is not possible to be certain of the truth of any belief, or, no human being can be certain of any belief, or even, no belief can produce certainty. Such claims, although different, have the added premise that no…
-
Riffing on Tripartite
The precondition of knowledge has traditionally been whether what is known is true, believed and justified: p is known iff p is true, S believes that p is true, and S is justified in believing that p is true. This definition of knowledge has been challenged by Paul Gettier and since then epistemology has revolved around what counts as justification for a belief (See the Warrant series by Alvin Plantinga for a good response to Gettier). I intend not to delve too far into the problem. Only make a few comments as the definition relates to Christian beliefs. First, the nature of truth. Christian Theism (CT) holds that God knows…
-
Defining Skepticism
What is skepticism? Michael Shermer, a self-described skeptic, defines it as “the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims” (see here for full article). Shermer argues that skepticism is not disbelief of all propositions, only the resistance to belief in any proposition without reason or evidence. Shermer, drawing upon ideas from Carl Sagen, provides five guiding questions in the examination of any claim. The first question is: does the source of the claim make many similar claims? One who claims to have seen a strange phenomena is rendered less believable if he or she is constantly claiming to have observed a strange phenomena. Second, has the source…
-
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…