Hume on an "intelligent author"
by KrauzeWhile on the topic of Steve Verdon, who accused an ID supporter of potentially quote-mining, here's a snippet from the NYT review of Daniel Dennett's book:
Dennett flatters himself that he is Hume's heir. Hume began "The Natural History of Religion," a short incendiary work that was published in 1757, with this remark: "As every enquiry which regards religion is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature." These words serve as the epigraph to Dennett's introduction to his own conception of "religion as a natural phenomenon." "Breaking the Spell" proposes to answer Hume's second question, not least as a way of circumventing Hume's first question. Unfortunately, Dennett gives a misleading impression of Hume's reflections on religion. He chooses not to reproduce the words that immediately follow those in which he has just basked: "Happily, the first question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least, the clearest, solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."
February 25th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Krauze,
bipod has already "clip-mined", in his Do YOU Believe in Reason? from "The God Genome" , Leon Wieseltier's NYT article where he "takes Daniel Dennett to task".
Unfortunately for him, bipod had not noticed, or given due consideration to the careless/derogatory way in which Wieseltier had bunched Intelligent Design is in the same league as Crude Creationism.
You sarcastically invited bipod, there , to poll and find out whether "that's the meaning of intelligent design that everyone in the educated society is working with today".
Now, returning to the site of crime, you take another take on the same mine.
I believe that, before we take issue with your issue, (which I suppose is how staunch atheistic advocates of "metaphysical" naturalism like Daniel Dennett are uneasy with the attitude towards Natural Theology of their supposed forerunners like David Hume), some terminological clarification is in point.
There is no doubt that, in his "The Natural History of Religion", Hume speaks about Theism as the attitude of the rational mind reflecting about God. Yet I believe we should examine also the notion of Deism, and how the two are related, and how they are different.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
Deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe
So we may say that, in the "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary", the purely rational approach, and "non interference" are stressed for Deism (as opposed to Revelation), whereas immanence (that is intimate presence, however that may express itself) is stressed for Theism.
Wikipedia
Theism: the belief in one or more gods or goddesses. More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe.
Deism: [S] The doctrine that God created the world but does not interact with it. This view emphasizes the deity's transcendence. [L] Historical and modern deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.
So, for Wikipedia, the definition of Theism is almost identical with the Merriam Webster's.
For Deism, there are two definitions.
[S] appears under the "Theism" entry, and again, like the Merriam-Webster, stresses "non interference".
[L] is the definition found at the "Deism" proper entry, and besides stressing reason's role, as opposed to revelation or tradition, stresses both the cosmological argument and the teleological argument fro God's existence.
Interestingly, to confirm that Hume's attitude is not so clear-cut, we find this note:
My opinion, however, is that Hume can be regarded as a "deist" (in the same "class" as Thomas Jefferson, see Letter to John Adams , see NOTE).
But the way Hume debunked poor Rev. William Paley teleological argument (the famous ""if I found a watch on a heath"¦" formulated in his Natural Theology), should make us wonder if, perhaps, the definition of "agnostic" would not be the most appropriate for Hume.
NOTE: I hope you don't mind if this beautiful letter was linked at "The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive" , in partibus infidelium (from "the land of infidel Darwinists").
Comment by Servetus — February 25, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
February 26th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Hi Servetus,
Don't you think the word "agnostic" has too broad a meaning to provide much information? You see, in the "Post-Wedgin' Away" thread, DataDoc has argued that even the Pope could be considered agnostic.
Comment by Krauze — February 26, 2006 @ 5:54 am
February 26th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Krauze,
I must admit that, as nobody (MikeGene first and foremost) bothered to reply my comment of February 20th, 2006 at 10:50 am on the "Post-Wedgin' Away" thread, I stopped looking it up.
Now, as you have given me new reasons to check it, I posted there my comment in reply to DataDoc's argument that "even the Pope could be considered agnostic".
The reason for my oscillating, here, for Hume's position regarding God's cognoscibility, between "deism" and "agnosticism" (besides "theism" and "atheism") is addressed there as a separate question (point ii)
I think the answer to this question is very difficult and elusive (see also Wikipedia's note on Hume reported in my previous comment): and reason lies with Hume himself who, contrary to the consistent and coherent image of "systematic sceptic" which is attributed to him, was in fact a "borderline" philosopher, at the junction of many crossroads.
Comment by Servetus — February 26, 2006 @ 10:30 am