Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In The Blind Watchmaker (1986), evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins discussed his choice to title his book after theologian William Paley's famous statement of the teleological argument, the watchmaker analogy, and noted that Hume's critique of the argument from design as an explanation of design in nature was the initial criticism that ...
The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal') also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument, is a rational argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world, which looks designed, is evidence of an intelligent creator.
However, Hume's argument also stems from the design argument. [31] The design argument comes from people being labeled as morally good or evil. [ 31 ] Hume's argument claims that if we restrict ourselves to the idea of good and evil, that we must also assign this to the designer as well. [ 31 ]
Hume's theory is often interpreted as involving an ontological claim about what selves actually are, which goes beyond the semantic claim about what the word "self" means. But others contend that this constitutes a misinterpretation of Hume since he restricts his claims to the epistemic and semantic level.
Arguments from analogy may be attacked by using disanalogy, using counteranalogy, and by pointing out unintended consequences of an analogy. [1] To understand how one might analyse an argument from analogy, consider the teleological argument and its criticisms put forward by the philosopher David Hume.
Hume's law or Hume's guillotine [1] is the thesis that an ethical or judgmental conclusion cannot be inferred from purely descriptive factual statements. [ 2 ] A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore 's open-question argument , intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties , which is asserted by ethical ...
Put simply, Hume defines a miracle as a violation of a law of nature (understood as a regularity of past experience projected by the mind to future cases) [1] and argues that the evidence for a miracle is never sufficient for rational belief because it is more likely that a report of a miracle is false as a result of misperception, mistransmission, or deception ("that this person should either ...
Against such interpretation is the fact that Hume himself in Section II calls the "missing shade of blue" as a «proof, that the simple ideas are not always, in every instance, derived from the correspondent impressions», [1] where in Section VI he defines "proof" as not a demonstrative argument but as an argument from experience that «leaves ...