How would Hume criticize a proof of God (St. Anselm or St. Aquinas)? 2-3 pages min 500 word essay with quotes.
Study some of these sites.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS374&q=Hume+proof+God&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=C9H5v3xlHTNWGO5SEygTtl5nAAQAAAKoEBU_QYvLy
Alice, you probably ought to review what inductive reasoning is, and Humes observation that it leads to error on causality.
To explain how Hume would criticize a proof of God put forth by St. Anselm or St. Aquinas, it is important to understand David Hume's philosophy and arguments. Hume was a prominent philosopher of the 18th century who challenged traditional beliefs and rationalist arguments. He was a skeptic and had a skeptical approach towards religious claims and the existence of God.
It should be noted that Hume did not specifically critique either St. Anselm's Ontological Argument or St. Aquinas' Five Ways, as these arguments were formulated long before his time. However, based on his general philosophy and skepticism, we can extrapolate how he would approach and critique these arguments.
First, let's briefly outline the Ontological Argument proposed by St. Anselm. St. Anselm claimed that God is the greatest conceivable being, and existence is a necessary characteristic of such a being. Therefore, if we can conceive of God, then God must exist, as existence is inherent to his nature.
Hume's critique of this argument would primarily revolve around his skepticism towards the concept of necessary existence. He would argue that just because we can conceive of an entity or attribute something to its existence does not necessarily mean it is real or exists in reality. Hume was a staunch empiricist who believed that all knowledge originates from experience, and any claim about existence should be based on empirical evidence.
In the case of the Ontological Argument, Hume would question the assumption that existence is a necessary quality of a perfect being. He would argue that the concept of a perfect being does not necessarily imply that such a being must exist in reality. Hume would assert that existence cannot be deduced from purely conceptual arguments, as they do not provide empirical evidence.
Now let's consider St. Aquinas' Five Ways, which offer five arguments for the existence of God based on observable and rational evidence. Hume's critique of these arguments would be more focused on their reliance on causation and the assumption that there must be a first cause or prime mover.
Hume, being an empiricist, would argue that causation, as we perceive it, is merely a regularity of succession in our observations. We observe one event following another, and out of habit, we assume that there must be a cause-effect relationship. However, Hume would contend that our observations of causation do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that there must be a first cause or prime mover behind the entire universe.
He would argue that the concept of a first cause or prime mover is based on a flawed inference from our limited experience, and there may be alternative explanations or unknown factors at play. Hume would assert that we cannot make grand metaphysical claims based on our limited perceptions of causality.
In conclusion, Hume's critique of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument and St. Aquinas' Five Ways would primarily stem from his skepticism and empiricism. He would question the validity of necessary existence based on conceptual arguments and highlight the limitations of our knowledge derived from causation. Hume's central argument would revolve around the importance of empirical evidence and the limitations of purely rationalistic arguments in establishing the existence of God or any metaphysical claims.