"wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty"
(Hume, Dialogues, Part II)

Is that from a Treatise on Human Understanding or whatever his major work is called?

Hume seems to be implying strongly that theological debate rests on weak, imprecise analogy which even if we go along with the analogies we can just as easily match the theist case with an equal case for explicit atheist and implicit atheist views.

(February 28, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Nestor Wrote: Is that from a Treatise on Human Understanding or whatever his major work is called?

I missed this comment, sorry. The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion are where that's from.

(February 28, 2015 at 11:13 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Nestor Wrote: Is that from a Treatise on Human Understanding or whatever his major work is called?

I missed this comment, sorry. The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion are where that's from.

Ah, stupid me. I should have recognized them had I did more than skim through the quotes. I think I underlined all those when I read that masterpiece---the last one you posted is especially good.

Yes I see the world as a metaphor for God, I don't believe in a personal god, but the world is something we will never fully realize, so its a mystery in many ways, instead of arrogantly believing we know all about it, I humble myself before it.

(February 28, 2015 at 11:17 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(February 28, 2015 at 11:13 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: I missed this comment, sorry. The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion are where that's from.

Ah, stupid me. I should have recognized them had I did more than skim through the quotes. I think I underlined all those when I read that masterpiece---the last one you posted is especially good.

It's the part that stayed with me the most. Hume had a really novel way of framing the atheist vs theist debate that most people don't go with. His tactic could be used to undercut the cosmological arguments; atheists can say the first cause isn't the universe or multiverse but it "probably bears some remote analogy" to the universe or multiverse. Why not? The analogy is just as good as theirs. If the first cause can be like a human, then it can be like a universe or other natural processes in the universe.

(March 1, 2015 at 12:09 am)Pizz-atheist Wrote: It's the part that stayed with me the most. Hume had a really novel way of framing the atheist vs theist debate that most people don't go with. His tactic could be used to undercut the cosmological arguments; atheists can say the first cause isn't the universe or multiverse but it "probably bears some remote analogy" to the universe or multiverse. Why not? The analogy is just as good as theirs. If the first cause can be like a human, then it can be like a universe or other natural processes in the universe.

It's as if when people believed all creatures were born of the earth and themselves made of clay, they made it a deity to be worshipped. Then they believed the Sun, which also creates and sustains life, was too a god.

I'm sure this time they're superstitious inclinations are totally legit though.

(February 28, 2015 at 11:22 pm)psychoslice Wrote: Yes I see the world as a metaphor for God, I don't believe in a personal god, but the world is something we will never fully realize, so its a mystery in many ways, instead of arrogantly believing we know all about it, I humble myself before it.

Humility before an awe-inspiring Universe is one thing. Preferring to worship it instead of seeking to understand it is quite another.