Hume's Critique of Supernaturalism as Basis for Human Knowledge

David Hume Of Miracles: Skeptical Empiricism vs. Supernaturalism and Religious Faith (Philosophy and Christianity): Hume's Critique of Supernaturalism as a Basis for Human Knowledge

by Arline Kardasis

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	2155 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	71 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE

David Hume's critique of supernaturalism as a basis for human knowledge is one of the most influential philosophical arguments ever made. In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argues that we can only know things that are based on experience. This means that we cannot know anything about the supernatural, since the supernatural is not based on experience.

Hume's argument is based on the principle of induction. Induction is the process of reasoning from particular experiences to general s. For example, we might observe that every time we drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We then conclude that all balls will fall to the ground, even if we have not seen them all fall.

Hume argues that induction is the only way we can acquire knowledge about the world. We cannot know anything a priori, or before experience. This means that we cannot know anything about the supernatural, since the supernatural is not based on experience.

Hume's argument has been challenged by many philosophers. Some philosophers argue that we can have knowledge of the supernatural through faith. Others argue that we can have knowledge of the supernatural through reason. However, Hume's argument remains one of the most powerful arguments against the possibility of supernatural knowledge.

Hume's Argument in Detail

Hume's argument against supernaturalism is based on two main premises:

1. All knowledge is based on experience.
2. The supernatural is not based on experience.

From these two premises, Hume concludes that we cannot have any knowledge of the supernatural.

Hume's first premise is based on the principle of induction. Induction is the process of reasoning from particular experiences to general s. For example, we might observe that every time we drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We then conclude that all balls will fall to the ground, even if we have not seen them all fall.

Hume argues that induction is the only way we can acquire knowledge about the world. We cannot know anything a priori, or before experience. This means that we cannot know anything about the supernatural, since the supernatural is not based on experience.

Hume's second premise is based on the definition of the supernatural. The supernatural is defined as anything that is beyond the laws of nature. Since the laws of nature are based on experience, anything that is beyond the laws of nature cannot be based on experience.

From these two premises, Hume concludes that we cannot have any knowledge of the supernatural. This is because all knowledge is based on experience, and the supernatural is not based on experience.

Criticisms of Hume's Argument

Hume's argument against supernaturalism has been challenged by many philosophers. Some philosophers argue that we can have knowledge of the supernatural through faith. Others argue that we can have knowledge of the supernatural through reason.

One of the most common criticisms of Hume's argument is that it is based on a narrow definition of experience. Hume defines experience as anything that is present to the senses. This means that Hume excludes from experience anything that is not directly observable. However, some philosophers argue that we can have experience of things that are not directly observable. For example, we might have experience of our own thoughts and feelings. We might also have experience of God, even though we cannot see or hear God.

Another criticism of Hume's argument is that it relies on the principle of induction. Induction is a method of reasoning that is not always reliable. For example, we might observe that every time we drop a ball, it falls to the ground. However, this does not mean that all balls will always fall to the ground. It is possible that we will one day drop a ball that does not fall to the ground. In the same way, we cannot be certain that Hume's argument against supernaturalism is always true. It is possible that we will one day have experience of the supernatural.

Hume's critique of supernaturalism as a basis for human knowledge is a powerful argument. However, it is not without its critics. Some philosophers argue that we can have knowledge of the supernatural through faith or reason. Ultimately, the question of whether or not we can have knowledge of the supernatural is a matter of faith.

David Hume Of Miracles: Skeptical Empiricism vs. Supernaturalism and Religious Faith (Philosophy and Christianity): Hume's Critique of Supernaturalism as a Basis for Human Knowledge

by Arline Kardasis

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	2155 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	71 pages
Lending	:	Enabled

FREE