Hume weakened analogical arguments for God.

[Pizza]

I'm quoting a small large chunks of it; I could quote the whole chunk, but that would be crazy. Hume writes huge paragraphs. So many semicolons..
What Hume shows is that theism rests on imprecise analogy.

That the works of Nature bear a great analogy to the productions of art, is evident; and according to all the rules of good reasoning, we ought to infer, if we argue at all concerning them, that their causes have a proportional analogy. But as there are also considerable differences, we have reason to suppose a proportional difference in the causes

But there is a species of controversy, which, from the very nature of language and of human ideas, is involved in perpetual ambiguity, and can never, by any precaution or any definitions, be able to reach a reasonable certainty or precision. These are the controversies concerning the degrees of any quality or circumstance.

Where then, cry I to both these antagonists, is the subject of your dispute? The Theist allows, that the original intelligence is very different from human reason: The Atheist allows, that the original principle of order bears some remote analogy to it. Will you quarrel, Gentlemen, about the degrees, and enter into a controversy, which admits not of any precise meaning, nor consequently of any determination? If you should be so obstinate, I should not be surprised to find you insensibly change sides; while the Theist, on the one hand, exaggerates the dissimilarity between the Supreme Being, and frail, imperfect, variable, fleeting, and mortal creatures; and the Atheist, on the other, magnifies the analogy among all the operations of Nature, in every period, every situation, and every position. Consider then, where the real point of controversy lies; and if you cannot lay aside your disputes, endeavour, at least, to cure yourselves of your animosity.

---

Oh, I forget to say that I think! Hume has pointed out the weak, inconclusive nature of these analogies and of the analogy based premises in other arguments for god. Therefore, the case for theism and religion is very underwhelming and inconclusive.

[Angrboda]

"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)

[Mudhammam]

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

[Pizza]

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.

[Pizza]

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.

[Mudhammam]

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.

[psychoslice]

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.

[Pizza]

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.

[Mudhammam]

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.

[Cyberman]

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.