Excellent Dr. Sadler !! Love your teaching style ... It is very refreshing / welcoming . I can definitely see how you ignite critical thinking within your students - the catalyst in the molding of great minds . More teachers like you !! Peace / LOVE
Thank you Dr. Gregory. It was a very interesting introduction to some of these arguments. This has got me thinking about the nature of God on a whole new level.
thank you prof. Sadler, your lecture helped my a lot in understanding Hume's theory of religion! Since in Croatia we don't have his works translated, this was really really helpful because only reading Hume I haven't undestood everything said. Greetings from Croatia
Right now, I'm an adjunct, teaching just Intro and Ethics for Marist. At previous positions, I've taught about 20 or different courses in Philosophy and Religious Studies -- too many to list. If you go to my CV on my blog or on my academia.edu you can get more specific information about courses. It is a good major as far as satisfaction. It's ok, money-wise. Jobs teaching philosophy are hard to come by though
Dr. Sadler, Thank you so much for your great work and contributions as well. The quantity of help that your videos have provided me with is to much to take its measure. Best Genuinely, Mauricio A.
They did. As a philosophy student, myself, when asked a philosophical question, I am first silenced by thought, then I am silenced by my own internal rebuttals, and it can take several minutes, hours, years etc before I even attempt to answer it. It is more important that they are engaging the question, than trying to answer it quickly.
Well, there you have put your finger on Hume's strategy. And, yes, Philo's skepticism is only going to be allayed in the end by him adopting a completely fideist point of view (btw, echoing the skeptic philosopher in Cicero's own dialogue On the Nature of the Gods)
Oh, tell me it ain't true that college professors have forgotten Port Arthur, Texas' favorite daughter - Janis! Good lecture. glad you made it available.
If someone was to be convinced of the Prime Mover argument, how then could they reason "God" to then not be the cause of any negative attribute. I.e. Prime Mover and Omnibenevolence is a contradiction. Is there an argument that could address the prime mover, and at the same time dispel fault for evil? p1 The Prime Mover created everything p2 Everything is not "All-good" Therefore, The Prime Mover is not "All-good"
Great lecture. I guess I would sort of agree with Cleanthes on the issue of having a boundary for the "why" question. If all he is trying to do is develop an argument, that reveals even a small part of the nature of God, then it really isn't necessary for him to dismiss his argument because it raises another question. Philo's veiled skepticism could be taken to such an extreme, that it wouldn't be possible for him to know anything, because he would always require explanations of explanations.
I think we can provide counterarguments to many of Hume's objections. "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Response: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues) Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." (Dialogues) Response: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas") "But Leibniz makes a similar point in putting forward his own version of the rationalist cosmological argument, when he notes that if we were told that a certain geometry textbook had been copied from an earlier copy, that earlier copy from an earlier one still, that one from a yet earlier copy, and so on infinitely into the past, we would hardly have a sufficient explanation of the book we started out with. For why does the series of books as a whole exist with precisely the content they have rather than some other content? Tracing the series of causes backward forever into the past seems to leave the most important fact about the phenomenon to be explained untouched. " (Edward Feser "Five Proofs Of The Existence Of God")
Hume was my introduction to philosophy, picked up this book a decade ago when I was buying books for classes and wanted something to read that I wasn't required to. Looking back I think my natural inclination toward an ant-authoritarian sentiment might have been the essential reason I never graduated ( I once failed a class by never doing the reading or work and the next semester read the book and thought about it it intently the next semester, even though I never re-took it and never went back to it, I needed to prove to myself that I could easily do it and understand it, perhaps I just didn't like being told to do it...) I have had problems understanding some of Hume's stuff and am finding this helpful in clarifying the murky ground. thanks as always.
The students’ responses makes me appreciate how hard it must be to teach these subjects at the high school or even non major collegiate level. But some of the kids do seem interested, which is what you bank on, I assume.
at the J. Craig Venter Institute, a chemically synthesized DNA-molecule was placed in empty bacteria cells. the hybrid survived. (of course, the code was not 'programmed from scratch', so the apparent 'design' isn't man-made...)
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ? I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down. Prove that you love me and buy the next round, Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ? Everybody! Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends, Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Janis Joplin - watch?v=7tGuJ34062s "Mercedes Benz" Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends. Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends, So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ? Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ? Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me. I wait for delivery each day until three, So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
I was just answering your question as to who sang the song you quoted. I am studying Hume today. I have an exam tomorrow on natural theology. I'm trying to figure out how I am going to answer a question about this dialogue. I hope I figure it out by sunrise tomorrow.
Excellent Dr. Sadler !! Love your teaching style ... It is very refreshing / welcoming . I can definitely see how you ignite critical thinking within your students - the catalyst in the molding of great minds . More teachers like you !! Peace / LOVE
Thank you Dr. Gregory. It was a very interesting introduction to some of these arguments. This has got me thinking about the nature of God on a whole new level.
You're welcome
Good response! I do get to see who is thinking about the material when I read their papers -- at least 1 per week
I'm glad you like it -- and my style. I'm pretty much stuck with it, I think -- I don't really know how else to teach!
thank you prof. Sadler, your lecture helped my a lot in understanding Hume's theory of religion! Since in Croatia we don't have his works translated, this was really really helpful because only reading Hume I haven't undestood everything said. Greetings from Croatia
Glad to read that the video has been useful for you
Another fantastic lecture, Dr. Sadler. Cheers
So glad this video exists omg. I'm French and I have to translate some of the words, but this is helping me understamd my own textbooks haha
Glad it's helpful for you
Right now, I'm an adjunct, teaching just Intro and Ethics for Marist. At previous positions, I've taught about 20 or different courses in Philosophy and Religious Studies -- too many to list. If you go to my CV on my blog or on my academia.edu you can get more specific information about courses.
It is a good major as far as satisfaction. It's ok, money-wise. Jobs teaching philosophy are hard to come by though
Dr. Sadler,
Thank you so much for your great work and contributions as well. The quantity of help that your videos have provided me with is to much to take its measure. Best
Genuinely,
Mauricio A.
You're very welcome!
They did. As a philosophy student, myself, when asked a philosophical question, I am first silenced by thought, then I am silenced by my own internal rebuttals, and it can take several minutes, hours, years etc before I even attempt to answer it. It is more important that they are engaging the question, than trying to answer it quickly.
You're welcome!
part 2 of the class discussion on David Hume
Thank you for these videos. It has been a huge help to me.
I'm glad to read that. You're welcome!
Well, there you have put your finger on Hume's strategy. And, yes, Philo's skepticism is only going to be allayed in the end by him adopting a completely fideist point of view (btw, echoing the skeptic philosopher in Cicero's own dialogue On the Nature of the Gods)
Oh, tell me it ain't true that college professors have forgotten Port Arthur, Texas' favorite daughter - Janis!
Good lecture. glad you made it available.
Interesting -- yes, there's a lot more to be said about the argument in general, given how much more humans can "design" these dats
Thanks!
+Mike Masztal -- Yes, if they're sufficiently motivated
If someone was to be convinced of the Prime Mover argument, how then could they reason "God" to then not be the cause of any negative attribute. I.e. Prime Mover and Omnibenevolence is a contradiction. Is there an argument that could address the prime mover, and at the same time dispel fault for evil?
p1 The Prime Mover created everything
p2 Everything is not "All-good"
Therefore, The Prime Mover is not "All-good"
dakota demaris(caused, instead of created)
+dakota demaris good exists without evil, not evil without good.
Thanks.
Great lecture. I guess I would sort of agree with Cleanthes on the issue of having a boundary for the "why" question. If all he is trying to do is develop an argument, that reveals even a small part of the nature of God, then it really isn't necessary for him to dismiss his argument because it raises another question. Philo's veiled skepticism could be taken to such an extreme, that it wouldn't be possible for him to know anything, because he would always require explanations of explanations.
I think we can provide counterarguments to many of Hume's objections.
"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues)
Response:
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
“But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues)
Response:
"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"By tracing the origin of
the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology
places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the
physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds
that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as
grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the
physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things
which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
"In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that
which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then
is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer
that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several
distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by
an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of
things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in
a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of
the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the
cause of the parts." (Dialogues)
Response:
"Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go,
there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions
for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old
one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we
have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots.
But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For
example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather
than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there
being any robots at all? That question has not been answered.
In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is
caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have
an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There
might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings.
" (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")
"But Leibniz makes a similar point in putting
forward his own version of the rationalist cosmological argument, when he
notes that if we were told that a certain geometry textbook had been copied
from an earlier copy, that earlier copy from an earlier one still, that one
from a yet earlier copy, and so on infinitely into the past, we would hardly
have a sufficient explanation of the book we started out with. For why
does the series of books as a whole exist with precisely the content they
have rather than some other content? Tracing the series of causes backward
forever into the past seems to leave the most important fact about the
phenomenon to be explained untouched.
" (Edward Feser "Five Proofs Of The Existence Of God")
th-cam.com/video/GH5PhyPThpo/w-d-xo.html
Eventually, down the line, when I do a political theory video sequence, I'll discuss Hume's views on justice
Very interesting. Can you do a lecture/class on Hume's origins of justice? And why it is artificial?
Hume was my introduction to philosophy, picked up this book a decade ago when I was buying books for classes and wanted something to read that I wasn't required to. Looking back I think my natural inclination toward an ant-authoritarian sentiment might have been the essential reason I never graduated ( I once failed a class by never doing the reading or work and the next semester read the book and thought about it it intently the next semester, even though I never re-took it and never went back to it, I needed to prove to myself that I could easily do it and understand it, perhaps I just didn't like being told to do it...) I have had problems understanding some of Hume's stuff and am finding this helpful in clarifying the murky ground. thanks as always.
Flywheel Shyster Glad the video was useful for you. I had some similar "anti-authoritarian" experiences back in my day
ha-ha !! Thank you for posting these great classes ... GODspeed 'teach' !!
Another excellent lecture!! Do you think high school students are capable of studying this work?
The students’ responses makes me appreciate how hard it must be to teach these subjects at the high school or even non major collegiate level. But some of the kids do seem interested, which is what you bank on, I assume.
I don't find it hard to teach
at the J. Craig Venter Institute, a chemically synthesized DNA-molecule was placed in empty bacteria cells. the hybrid survived. (of course, the code was not 'programmed from scratch', so the apparent 'design' isn't man-made...)
The Dude teaches philosophy of religion. 'Come on, man, I'm not trying to scam anybody here!"
I usually get that when I've got my hair down
surprised no one knew a general definition of “a priori” and “a posteriori” in a college level course-even an introductory one. yikes!
I’m not. Nobody knew those terms before hearing them in classes when I went to college 30 years ago, including me
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
Everybody!
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
It makes me sad to see the students barely contributing at all and not really answering any questions. :|
Janis Joplin - watch?v=7tGuJ34062s
"Mercedes Benz"
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
God won't you give me a mercedes benz, I have heard Janis Joplin sing it.
Yep, as have we all. What's the relevance to Hume?
I was just answering your question as to who sang the song you quoted. I am studying Hume today. I have an exam tomorrow on natural theology. I'm trying to figure out how I am going to answer a question about this dialogue. I hope I figure it out by sunrise tomorrow.
Aha. I tend to remember just the course content, not the asides, from these class sessions
I can understand that.
are you onine?
Not sure what you're asking here. If you go to my TH-cam channel, you can see links to my online presence