Hume was a Scottish philosopher, among other things, who lived in the early to mid 1700's. He argued in an attempt to disprove Anselm's argument that God really did exist. Anselm was a saint from Canterbury between 1033 and 1109, when he finally died. Anselm originally tried to explain the argument of God's existence through logic. It was one of the more well known ontological arguments, and according to a summary found online through the following link, http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/#H2 , apparently went something like this;
- It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
- God exists as an idea in the mind.
- A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
- Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
- Therefore, God exists.
Displeased with this argument, Hume decided to create his own rebuttal. In his 1779 work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, he made the following argument;
- Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction.
- Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction.
- Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent.
- There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction.
- Consequently there is no being whose existence is demonstrable.
An interesting concept entirely.
Thanks for doing this research. I was, and am still, confused by the use of contradiction.
ReplyDeleteI think it refers to a logical contradiction; consider the examples we use to prove the validity of a given argument. We can demonstrate the contradiction in a form to be certain of its invalidity.
DeleteBut yeah, the whole concept could use a lot more clarity I think.
If you read Hume carefully, his argument makes sense. I'd like to know exactly what he means by "distinctly conceivable" in 2. My main criticism is that Hume only says that we can't demonstrate God; but we also can't demonstrate our own existence. Is he true then when he says that the non-existence (the contrary) implies a problem in the original existent object (a contradiction)? Am I understanding this correctly?
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to know if anyone or Prof. Silliman knows what comments/criticism there have been on Hume.
Well, Chris, it is arguable to say there is more works of criticism on Hume than there are actual works by Hume! But anyway, Hume's argument does in fact make sense, at least in disproving Anselm. Since Hume is able to point out a contradiction in Anselm's logic, it therefore follows that Anselm can't hold his argument. It's essentially on of the first rules of philosophy: to make contradictions in your argument.
ReplyDeleteCarly, I quite agree with your take on language and philosophy. In order to convey our ideas as accurately as possible, and to try and make a true argument, we must be very careful about what exactly we say. I think, though, that this touches on Interpretive Charity. We must consider revising yet maintaining what the original speaker says (keeping all original content), and weighing that with what we believe ourselves. This will help us weigh the best possible argument against what we currently believe, and help us further our knowledge and understanding.
ReplyDeleteHume's argument is devastating to Anselm, but only at a rather high epistemological price -- if he's right, all beings are contingent, so we can't know anything about ourselves or the world with deductive certainty. Since he also argues that induction can't give us knowledge, a rather severe skepticism is an unhappy consequence. I happen to think he's right about Anselm and wrong about induction, but as Gus observes there is a large and difficult literature to confront if we want to settle the matter.
ReplyDeleteI like this post a lot because you clearly broke down things that were confusing to you and what you found out about them. I don't know if I can even try to make any sort of comment about the exact content, but through reading the other comments along with your original post I think I'm getting a little better with the vocabulary and setup of things I otherwise wouldn't understand. So thank you!
ReplyDelete