Thank you, Mr. Furgusson, for a most stimulating video chat on David Hume. Like a fine wine, I never tire of hearing about this remarkable and brave thinker of his day. I wish to praise you for speaking tentatively on the matter of Hume's alleged atheism versus agnosticism. You were careful to not misinform. I like that about your presentation. I tend to suspect Hume was an agnostic myself. You have motivated me to read Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I most enjoyed your fine video ... applause!
Good overview of Hume, although there is a mistake with regard to his biography at 1:34: He was not born near Ninewells in the Scottish borders, but rather in a tenement in the Lawnmarket area of Edinburgh. He spent his childhood in Berwickshire before returning to Edinburgh at the age of ten to study at university.
Very useful. A biographical summary of an important philosopher, whose ideas are often found behind modern liberal opinion formers, at least in the theoretical aspects of their world views. This becomes obvious if you've ever debated skeptics, and tried to discover the source of their undeclared assumptions. I've found many will quote Hume as their authority, whether in academic places or on the train!
Maybe because I’m a lifelong atheist (never “converted”), I can’t stand the New Atheists, who are “more Catholic than the Pope,” as the saying goes. :) Personally, I care what people do, not what they say is their motivation-a very dicey thing to discover in oneself (as if “it” will be monolithic, monocausal), let alone report aloud with accuracy and courage. If I could press a button and live in a world of MLK, Jr.’s, I’d press it immediately. That said, sure, we can have a neat discussion about the metaphysics and so on-and that’s fine. But let’s not confuse that with a discussion of one’s value-in either/any direction. Unpopular viewpoint. I’d put it this way: if you want 100% certainty, nothing other than religion, technically, will give you that. It is not for us mere mortals to have total knowledge. That said, everyone goes with 99.9bar certainty when it comes to oncoming tigers, whether or not to jump off a tall building, etc. With that, scientific level of proof in mind, yeah, I don’t see any reason to believe in a god or gods. I can’t disprove it in exactly the same way I can’t disprove that you (me? everyone?) aren’t a brain in a vat imagining all this, including the words I’m about to type you couldn’t possibly know, but, hey, you can’t be 100% sure, right? In other words, the goal posts get moved from their normal position when “disproving or proving God” comes up. But not for, say, Zeus. Oddly. :) Again, though, this is meant as a philosophical discussion, not as a narcissistic, sociopolitical sorting-signalling mechanism, which seems to be all anything is good for nowadays. :) I call it “The Great Stupid.” On Hume, he was it seems a deist flirting with atheism-but, again, I’m not concerned to tot up Great Thinkers to see who is or is not on My Side. :)
Strange to hear someone who presumably believes in gods discussing a skeptic of religious beliefs and practices. I find it equally strange to hear a modern day scholar say that he holds the view that there is "something in the design argument".
He explains Hume pretty well, though-and I don’t think there’s anything to the design argument as an argument, per se, but it’s sort of like an “optical illusion” of the mind insofar as it just makes that kind of intelligible-common-sense that science gave up long ago-at least by the time on Newton, and, uncoincidentally, by commenters on and those insipired by Newton, like Hume himself.
Agreed. Could it be that's so because of the failure the 'liberal' research program to provide an adequate base for a synthesis of a naturalistic world view and the 'best bits' of a Judeo-Christian worldview? Keeping your cake and trying to eating it produces frustration, and defensive dogmatism. The solution is to admit your weaknesses, which in liberalism case is that it is an un-provable world view, a faith of sorts, not the obvious product of inductive logic. They need our compassion.
"People like Dawkins seem to state with almost total confidence that there is no God" Not trying to be a dick, but no. That's not true of Dawkins or almost any popular atheist thinker. He clearly states there might be a God but in the continuing lack of evidence that belief is irrational whether or not one exists. He does not "take us beyond the evidence." God people misunderstand Dawkins almost as much as they misunderstand Nietzsche.
That doesn't seem like an accurate description of agnosticism. An agnostic position is characterised by not adopting a view one way or another; the existence of a supernatural entity (that theists call God) is unknowable.
Thank you, Mr. Furgusson, for a most stimulating video chat on David Hume. Like a fine wine, I never tire of hearing about this remarkable and brave thinker of his day. I wish to praise you for speaking tentatively on the matter of Hume's alleged atheism versus agnosticism. You were careful to not misinform. I like that about your presentation. I tend to suspect Hume was an agnostic myself. You have motivated me to read Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. I most enjoyed your fine video ... applause!
This is the most brilliant summary of David Hume I have ever encountered.
It’s definitely good; I put it in a playlist of good Hume stuff on TH-cam: th-cam.com/play/PLLEMpXvr0s1Qtrjt7nnn3rP1dZUDEh-Da.html
This is really well done; fills a crying need for a decent, mature, accurate documentary introduction to Hume on the Tube of You. :)
Good overview of Hume, although there is a mistake with regard to his biography at 1:34: He was not born near Ninewells in the Scottish borders, but rather in a tenement in the Lawnmarket area of Edinburgh. He spent his childhood in Berwickshire before returning to Edinburgh at the age of ten to study at university.
Very useful. A biographical summary of an important philosopher, whose ideas are often found behind modern liberal opinion formers, at least in the theoretical aspects of their world views. This becomes obvious if you've ever debated skeptics, and tried to discover the source of their undeclared assumptions. I've found many will quote Hume as their authority, whether in academic places or on the train!
Maybe because I’m a lifelong atheist (never “converted”), I can’t stand the New Atheists, who are “more Catholic than the Pope,” as the saying goes. :) Personally, I care what people do, not what they say is their motivation-a very dicey thing to discover in oneself (as if “it” will be monolithic, monocausal), let alone report aloud with accuracy and courage. If I could press a button and live in a world of MLK, Jr.’s, I’d press it immediately.
That said, sure, we can have a neat discussion about the metaphysics and so on-and that’s fine. But let’s not confuse that with a discussion of one’s value-in either/any direction. Unpopular viewpoint. I’d put it this way: if you want 100% certainty, nothing other than religion, technically, will give you that. It is not for us mere mortals to have total knowledge. That said, everyone goes with 99.9bar certainty when it comes to oncoming tigers, whether or not to jump off a tall building, etc. With that, scientific level of proof in mind, yeah, I don’t see any reason to believe in a god or gods. I can’t disprove it in exactly the same way I can’t disprove that you (me? everyone?) aren’t a brain in a vat imagining all this, including the words I’m about to type you couldn’t possibly know, but, hey, you can’t be 100% sure, right? In other words, the goal posts get moved from their normal position when “disproving or proving God” comes up. But not for, say, Zeus. Oddly. :) Again, though, this is meant as a philosophical discussion, not as a narcissistic, sociopolitical sorting-signalling mechanism, which seems to be all anything is good for nowadays. :) I call it “The Great Stupid.”
On Hume, he was it seems a deist flirting with atheism-but, again, I’m not concerned to tot up Great Thinkers to see who is or is not on My Side. :)
Very well done...
An excellent discussion.
Strange to hear someone who presumably believes in gods discussing a skeptic of religious beliefs and practices. I find it equally strange to hear a modern day scholar say that he holds the view that there is "something in the design argument".
He explains Hume pretty well, though-and I don’t think there’s anything to the design argument as an argument, per se, but it’s sort of like an “optical illusion” of the mind insofar as it just makes that kind of intelligible-common-sense that science gave up long ago-at least by the time on Newton, and, uncoincidentally, by commenters on and those insipired by Newton, like Hume himself.
Agreed. Could it be that's so because of the failure the 'liberal' research program to provide an adequate base for a synthesis of a naturalistic world view and the 'best bits' of a Judeo-Christian worldview? Keeping your cake and trying to eating it produces frustration, and defensive dogmatism. The solution is to admit your weaknesses, which in liberalism case is that it is an un-provable world view, a faith of sorts, not the obvious product of inductive logic. They need our compassion.
"People like Dawkins seem to state with almost total confidence that there is no God" Not trying to be a dick, but no. That's not true of Dawkins or almost any popular atheist thinker. He clearly states there might be a God but in the continuing lack of evidence that belief is irrational whether or not one exists. He does not "take us beyond the evidence." God people misunderstand Dawkins almost as much as they misunderstand Nietzsche.
Then, he isn't an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes there is no God. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe. A theist believes.
That doesn't seem like an accurate description of agnosticism. An agnostic position is characterised by not adopting a view one way or another; the existence of a supernatural entity (that theists call God) is unknowable.
th-cam.com/video/thUt0TA7NL4/w-d-xo.html
He sounds like a mature Gryphon....
Dawkins cannot explain how rules that govern the world were created, so... there are flaws in his enlighted thought process.
I think an answer to that will probably come from physics, rather than the mind of a single ethologist and evolutionary biologist.
th-cam.com/video/thUt0TA7NL4/w-d-xo.html
@@solomonherskowitz This makes sense. THX.