Free Will & Dualism

The idea that the argument for free will and separation of mind and body are completely independent of each other is not all that absurd. When examined closer the premise can be that the idea of physicalism can be intertwined with the argument for hard-determinism. Inversely, the thought that dualism and libertarianism are proponents of each other can also be argued for. Separation of the mind and body makes all the difference between barrier of acting according to natural laws and causal events or instigation of said events through agent causation in the brain.

Lets look at the idea of physicalism and hard-determinism. A steadfast hard-determinist such as Hume argues for the logical process of event-causality; that is to say a stream events influences the apparent 'choice' of the an intelligent being. When acting within natural laws the phsyiological contingencies provide easier clarification of sequence of events. One example in the identity theory, that mental states are identical to physical states (pain and the stimulation of c-fibers). By comparing folk psychology to a scientific psychology it is apparent that through a scientific psychology and understand of the brain we can determinedly predict the actions of a human through their traits, desires, habits, etc. via a complete understanding of the neurological processes and union of mind and body. As suggested, if a child is a raised to understand these physiological and mental processes at a complete neuro-scientific level the child would be able to predict the 'decisions' of another human eliminating any hint that the person had a choice of will.
This was instituted in the idea of "Mary Don't Know". Living in a black and white room being taught all the physical knowledge of colour, a similar understanding would allow us to predict Mary's reactions to the colour green when observed for the first time; Mary herself, would know what to expect.

However, there is the objection that knowledge is intentional. Complete physical knowledge is a different kind of knowledge. Physical knowledge is factual, where as Mary upon experiencing green for the first time gains a knew type of knowledge, both competent and acquaintance knowledge. This new light shows that there is an equivocation of knowledge, and further more that her experience is something new and felt inherently, causing her decisions to be determined internally as to how she reacts to colours. Her decision how to react cannot be predicted as it is a proponent of agent-causation (immanent causation according to Chisholm). By acting of her own accord despite the series of events reinforces her mind-body duality; her consciousness is related to non-physical properties - The Qualia Problem (as according Jackson). Ergo, the divide between the Dualism argument and the Free Will argument is not as big as expected, while the ties may be vast, the correlation is definitely apparent.

Active and Passive Euthanasia

                In Active and Passive Euthanasia (pg. 641-645 of our text), James Rachels argues that passive and negative euthanasia are morally equivalent actions. He begins with a simple statement that physicians, and most people, in most cases find nothing morally reprehensible in allowing a suffering patient to die. However, as decreed by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, “the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another – mercy killing – is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands...” It is against this claim that Rachels argues.

                One of the simplest situations where this topic would find relevance is in the case of a terminally ill patient with merely days left to live but whose pain cannot be alleviated. The patient does not want continue living through those days in intense agony, so he asks the doctor to end his life. The doctor can make one of two choices: euthanize the patient (active), or cease treatment and allow him to die (passive). If the doctor euthanizes the patient, then the patient’s suffering ends immediately. If the doctor chooses the latter option, then the patient will day perhaps a few days earlier than if the ineffective treatment had been continued. If these two options are all that remain, then the doctor has already decided that alleviating the patients suffering has surpassed in importance even the patient’s life. With this in mind, isn’t merely ceasing to treat the patient contrary to this other choice the doctor has already made? Rachel thinks so, as do I.

                One reason many people are opposed to active euthanasia is the bias that people have towards killing. Rachels brings up that this is mostly attributable to the situations in which killing and allowing to die are commonly compared. People find it very easy to imagine terrible situations involving killing; murders and wars surround us continually. But outside of the medical field being discussed here, people rarely hear of others being allowed to die. However, it is the nature of these acts that differentiates them morally, not how often they occur. A serial killer is motivated by greed, or anger or one of many other self-serving negative emotions and desires. The doctor, on the other hand, is understood to be acting with humanitarian goals in mind. Because we are so focused on the context of the acts, we forget that it is really the motivations behind them that we are judging. And if motivation and purpose are how the morality of acts can be distinguished, then active euthanasia is equivalent to passive euthanasia.

Some might wrongly try to attribute the cause of death to the disease itself, saying that if the cancer was the cause of sickness, then cancer is what caused the patient to die, not the inaction of the doctor. Therefor the doctor is not morally responsible. This can be tackled in many ways. Rachels uses the argument that when morally speaking, one cannot not act. Even choosing to do nothing is a moral action. Therefor you are responsible for whatever happens after the doctor’s ceased treatment. With this in mind, I would go back to a previous argument as further evidence. In this case the doctor is still making the same decision as before, that allowing suffering to end is more morally noble than prolonging a life of pain. If both these arguments are true, then not wanting to be the cause of someone’s death is not a valid standpoint.

                From the arguments presented, I can see no convincing argument morally differentiating active and passive euthanasia. So the real discussion then becomes whether or not euthanasia of any form is just, be it by suicide, doctor’s assistance, etc. The choice is truly about the value of life. In any relevant circumstance, continuing treatment in an attempt to preserve life and active euthanasia in order to immediately end suffering are the only valid options. Passive euthanasia is in fact the worst possible choice because not only does it allow suffering to exist, but it is also dishonest.

What is love?

Suppose a writer want to write a love story.  They loved the concept of romance and found it extremely heart warming.  However they had never actually been in a loving relationship.  The writer had read or watched endless quantities of romantic comedies and dramas, observed loved ones and asked questions about their relationship.  From all of the information they had gathered, the writer felt as if they had come to realize the true nature of love.  The writer was able to obtain all physical information possible on the topic, yet they had never actually fallen in love.  Is he or she really able to claim that they understand love?  Can a major league football coach able to play football?  The Platonic philosophy claims that only some subjects are permitted to claim that they understand the true meaning of love.  The Platonic philosophy behind love is seemingly the most accurate compared to any other theory pertaining to love.             

            So, what is love? Plato defended the Greek theory of Eros, which states one strives for beauty.  One is able to find beauty through a person, a hobby, idea, etc. and by discovering this particular beauty, one is able to find true beauty in the world.  The reason why Eros is such a precise definition is because it claims that love is both physical and mental.  There are theories that love is just strictly physical.  The reasoning why one may love another is only for mating reasons.  Another example is a mother who cares for her child.  Without that caring quality, the infant will most likely die without the constant acknowledgment and love from its mother.  For mating, without the desire to mate with another species, there would be no children.  This desire is a key element to Eros.  The strive for beauty, which could be through mating or taking care of a child, is a necessary quality for every species.  The mentality aspect of Eros is technically the proper form of love.  Although the physical quality is necessary, love is the exploration or reflection of an idea, which develops into the pursuit of true or ideal beauty. 

            One of the major questions that I have pondered is whether or not love is rational.  I truly believe that love exists but does it have any rationality.  After learning more about the philosophy of love, I believe that love is very rational.  The reason why it may appear irrational is due to how people act while in love.  Without love there would be no thrive for anything really.  We do the things we do because we enjoy doing them for the most part.  We love because we find beauty in the things we love and enjoy doing.  As stated before, love is a necessary quality to keep children alive and to mate.  The idea that people do irrational things while they are in love is actually perfectly rational.  Although some people may commit extreme acts to present their love for another, to them, they think that they are acting in a rational manner in order to keep their love thriving.  I am not agreeing with stalking or any other poor ways of presenting love, but I can say that what they think they are doing is rational.  Love is a beautiful, necessary and rational quality in which I am glad to have the ability feeling.  

What is Real?

            A much discussed topic in philosophy is the idea of what “real” is. To me, I think that people look too far into this topic. The concept of “real” isn’t something that actually exists. Real is just a word defined by humans to represent all of the things that humans are able to perceive with their senses. Real is also a relative term. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say, “Well how do we know if what we are experiencing is the real reality?” This is absurd! What we see, feel, touch, hear, and smell is real because that is all we can conceive is to be true. Maybe there is more than what exists in the universe, but these things would be in completely different reality. So I’d say that some of the arguments in are a bit pointless.

            There is all this talk in the book about examining things that are possible and impossible. What is the point of examining things like this? There are just two categories: real and unreal. The “squircle” is considered to be in the impossible section in the book and a unicorn is something that is considered possible. Both of these things are just unreal, and that’s all it amounts to. It’s kind of like when people say there is a sixty percent chance of rain. The reality is that there is always a fifty percent chance of rain. Either it will or it won’t. Likewise, things are either real or unreal. That’s it!

            I was actually just getting into a discussion with people in my dorm lobby about the topics dreams and alternate realities. When it comes to dreams, everyone surprisingly agreed with me in saying that dreams are actually a reality. All we experience during the day is just perception from our mind. Dreams are the same way; you just don’t have to rely on your senses. Also, Gabriel Elders asked me, “If this was all a simulation, would this be real?” I would have to say that yes, it would be real……real to us. That is not denying the fact that there would be another reality outside of this one. It is just that the one outside of ours is something that we can’t perceive at the moment. Therefore it is not real to us.

            So, I know that this isn’t a popular opinion among philosophers because it is too simplistic. But life is as simplistic as you want to make it. When you’re looking at a concept like “real,” it all comes down to the fact that it is a concept that we formulated into a word to make it seem like the concept itself exists in itself. But the fact of the matter is it doesn’t exists, we only think it does, because we can comprehend the idea. So, I guess my final thought on the matter is that “reality” is a concept which exists as only an idea and is determined by what we perceive.

My Qualia Problem

      The argument of Mind-Body dualism fascinates me. Separate or the same? There are countless arguments for and against either side, but I tend to find myself a dualist thinker. I switched to this side of the argument, surprisingly as I am a big proponent of science having an explanation for everything. Frank Jackson's The Qualia Problem was influential in my thinking that the mind is separate from the body, and I will now do my best to give a quick recap of the argument.
      The main point of the argument is that there are some experiences, despite having all knowledge and physical descriptions, definitions, etc., that cannot be completely be described as knowledge just from a physical aspect. The argument goes on to give two very clear-cut examples of how this can be true. Both examples use the sense of vision in humans. The first example uses an individual, "Fred" with an extraordinary ability to distinguish two types of red coloring in objects in which no other human can see. We might have all of the physical knowledge of the process of how sight happens from cones and rods to the brain  but we still cannot know what seeing these two colors would be like. This actual experience would bring about a new understanding of what Fred was going through. This new perception could be nothing more than new knowledge, which physicalism alone cannot explain.
      Now there would be some who would argue this point, fair enough. Most would attack the qualia argument through the concept of knowledge. For instance, the gaining of the incredible new sight Fred had would not be considered new at all, but rather a sort of affirmation of the physical knowledge already obtained.
       However, Jackson would probably argue that this reaffirmation is a little too in depth. Simply put, to me,  a new experience such as seeing a new color would definitely be new knowledge as opposed to an update on already understood information. The qualia argument just hits so home to me, being as clever as it is, in that I can relate to instances in which a new experience could not be explained by physical means alone. I could be told how the feeling of euphoria comes about in the brain and have all leading scientists tell me about how winning an NBA championship game would bring about this feeling, but there would be nothing like experiencing that actual winning of the NBA championship. I can't help but think I would learn something new that cannot be explained by physical means alone.

On Gertler's Argument

I find Gertler's argument for dualism to be sound. I should state as a preamble that I am perhaps a little biased, as I have believed in dualism since before I knew the word dualism. It has always been my way of coping with pain, both physical and emotional. I can handle pains I experience effectively by setting my mind apart from my body, believing that events such as stubbing my toe, splitting my head open, and even depression are simply caused by events pertaining to my body, but not necessarily to my mind, or soul. My faith is that there is something greater behind we human beings, something that not even science can hope to explain, that makes our lives worth living in this world riddled with suffering. Thus, I immediately find arguments that defend mind-body dualism, such as Gertler's argument, to be appealing.

I will do my best to summarize Gertler's argument for mind-body dualism: If we can conceive of an event, than it the event is possible. If two things are necessarily equal, than it would be impossible to conceive of one existing without the other. For example, we cannot conceive of water existing without H2O, and vice versa. Therefore, water = H2O. Physicalists believe that the mind is necessarily equal to the body. However, there are some cases in which we can conceive of the mind as being disembodied, or separate from the body. For example, we can conceive of ourselves experiencing pain while we are not actually experiencing that pain in our bodies. Thus, the mind is not necessarily equal to the body, and dualism is true.

After much rumination on Gertler's argument, I realized that it corresponds with my own justification for my belief in dualism. I can certainly conceive of my mind existing without the presence of my body. Through meditation I can imagine my mind, or soul, observing my physical body from the outside. Thus, my mind is not necessarily equal to my body.

However, there is one objection to Gertler's argument that keeps nagging me. While we have proven that the mind is not necessarily equal to the body, we have perhaps not proven that the mind and the body are completely separate. What if the mind is contained inside of the brain, so that it is not necessarily the same as the brain, but it still could not exist without it? As far as I can see, Gertler does not provide a rebuttal to this objection. If you, the reader, have an opinion concerning this objection, whether it is for or against it, I would love to hear it!

- Adam Nick

The Self-Immolation of Duc

 

On June 10, 1963, South Vietnam is a month into the Buddhist Crisis.  The government of President Ngo Dinh Diem is committing actions that restrict free religious practice by the country’s Buddhist majority.  In response, there has been a large movement of civil resistance and protest, led primarily by Buddhist monks and nuns, against the government and its repressive, anti-Buddhist policies.

Blocks away from the Presidential Palace, a crowd gathers around a group of some 350 monks and nuns, who plan to demonstrate against the South Vietnamese government.  A monk by the name of Thich Quang Duc and two other monks emerge from a car in the middle of the procession.  A circle has formed around them.

One monk places a cushion in the middle of the road; and Duc, prayer beads in hand, seats himself in the lotus position.  Duc, prior to this demonstration, has written a letter, in which he “respectfully plead[s] to President Ngo Dinh Diem to take a mind of compassion towards the people of the nation and implement religious equality to maintain the strength of the homeland eternally.”

In the middle of the road, Duc continues to sit calmly while the second monk pours on him gallons of gasoline.  Duc lights a match and then drops it onto himself.

David Halberstam of The New York Times wrote:

I was to see that sight again, but once was enough.  Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring.  In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly.  Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering.  I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think ... As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him.

This form of suicide, usually done in protest, is known as self-immolation.

 

In the article “In Defense of Mind-Body Dualism,” Brie Gertler puts forward her Disembodiment Argument.  According the argument, the identity theory of physicalists is false because it is supposedly conceivable and, therefore, possible for pain to be felt while disembodied.

I do not find her argument to be convincing because I do not believe that it is reasonable to appeal to disembodiment.  How can we ever have a “sufficiently comprehensive” concept of disembodiment if none of us has ever had the experience of being disembodied?

Instead, I believe that identity theory can be disproved by looking at events that actually have happened and have been observed.  According to the identity theorist, mental states are identical to particular physical states.  This applies universally.

From this, I believe that it is reasonable to say that the physical state of being on fire will, under the identity theory, be identical to, in all people, a mental state of extreme pain.  Who on fire would not experience extreme pain?  The identity theorist probably would argue that being on fire causes in the nervous system extreme pain, which the individual experiences in the mind, which is part of the body.

When looking at purported laws that are supposed to apply universally, one should look at extreme cases to see if the theory or hypothesis holds up under all circumstances.

The identity theory, in my opinion, is disproved by the self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc.  Fire causes a person extreme pain, and extreme pain causes a person to react.  Duc did not react when he was on fire.  As far as I see it, it is impossible for a person not to react to being on fire, unless that person has separated his consciousness from his body.  If the mind and the body are separable, then the identity theory is false and dualism must be true.

In other words:

1) Being on fire causes the nervous system to send to the brain signals that should trigger pain if the identity theory is true.  The pain that is caused by being on fire is so intense that a person’s body involuntarily will react if the identity theory is true.

2) It is impossible for a person not to react to being on fire if the identity theory is true because the nervous system signals being sent to the brain, which is physical, would be identical to the pain that should be felt by the mind, which is part of the body.

3) The only possible way to avoid such signals caused by fire from causing pain would be to separate consciousness from the body.

4) Thich Quang Duc did not react at all to being on fire; therefore, to endure being on fire, he must have, through meditation or some other method, separated his mind from his body.

C) Therefore, the identity theory is false.  Since the mind and body can be separated, dualism must be true.

The de facto First Lady of South Vietnam offered what I believe to be the only rational objection that an identity theorist could make in response to Duc not responding to being on fire:

 

 

Madame Nhu argued that Duc must have been intoxicated, which is why he did not respond to being on fire.  Whether any level of intoxication could prevent someone whose mind and body are identical from responding to being burned alive, I will let you be the judge.



Are We Free?

Are we really free to make choices? This question had come to my mind a few times in my life but I had never really given any serious thought to it. I had always just had the belief that I was choosing each and every decision that I made and that I was free to do differently if I wished. That nothing was controlling me to do a certain things and that my decisions were completely free. It wasn’t until reading and discussing this topic that I really thought about what I believed and began to question what my previous beliefs had been and what might be the actual cause to my actions. Many different philosophers have argued a wide variety of viewpoints on the topic of free will. One of these viewpoints is called determinism. Which argues that no actions are free by stating; that actions are free when they are uncaused, and that all actions are caused, therefore no actions are free. This is to say simply that every decision an individual makes is predetermined, and was directly caused by something else. And essentially that an individual’s future is completely decided and cannot be avoided. On the opposite side of this argument there is the idea that humans contain a “special sauce” or they are able to defy this idea of cause and effect and make decisions independently of any causes. This idea supports that there are transient, or natural causes, which is such that every event has a cause. And then there are immanent, or agent causes that defy natural causes and they incorporate this idea of human decisions. There are also other viewpoints in between these two extremes that include compatibilist view point that states that free will and determinism can coexist.

 After all the readings and discussion I have come to believe that this idea of compatiblism is what truly accounts for our actions. I believe that our choices are very much caused in the sense that there are circumstances that led to the decisions made. But the decision itself is very much up to the individual making the decision. The way I see it is like a pathway that at one point forks into two different paths, and the way to go is chosen by the traveler, and further along the path that they chose is another fork. The path that the traveler now decides to take was caused by the previous choice and if they had decided differently at the first fork they might not have to make this decision now. And again after they choose a second path they come to another fork and this third decision was caused by the last two, and if they had decided differently at either previous fork the decision now might be different. So our choices are cause by previous decisions in the sense that they lead us to different circumstances that would be different if we had decided differently, but each choice we make is not forced by previous causes. Take for example this blog post, the decision to write it was caused by many different things, or forks in the  path, and each of those things was caused by others, like me choosing to come to Hendrix, choosing to take this class, choosing to come to class the day the blog was talked about, my nature to do my homework. All these things caused me to write this post, and without these causes I wouldn’t be writing this post, but the actual decision is of my own free will. I could have, despite all these causes, chose to not write it and get a zero for it on my grade. Therefore I believe that we are free to choose to do what we want but the options we have to choose from are caused.

Personal Testimony

In Hume’s argument, "Of Miracles", he begins by addressing the function of evidence in supporting the particular claim of a miracle, defining miracle as a violation of natural laws with the interference of a holy power. The weight of the evidence determines which of the claims about the miracle we choose to accept and which we choose to reject. He regards human testimony as sufficient evidence with, “no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life”, establishing acceptable evidence for the support of miracles. The argument against the occurrence of miracles, however, also consists of human testimony by being based on the Laws of Nature, which draw evidence from human experience. The evidence against the incident of a miracle, then, is most likely to outweigh the evidence for a miraculous happening simply because the Laws of Nature are founded on an incomparable amount of human experience and a miracle is usually supported with only a single experience. What then do we do with testimonies of human witnesses? Does a Witness’s experience of a miraculous event ever outweigh the ancient laws of nature?

         While the reasonable and sensible side of me wants accept and support this argument I am torn by the first hand account of witnessing a ghost sighting. Yes it’s true I have, with my own two eyes, seen a ghost. Not just any ghost but the ghost of my grandfather Gene. I will be the first to admit that this claim sounds completely ridiculous, but it was the most amazing moment of wonder, fear, and belief that I have ever experienced. Although my grandfather was not risen from the dead, his human form appeared to me, as if he was flesh and blood standing in my home.

          Of course Hume would refute my claim by questioning my reliability as a witness. I was an imaginative child with a, to say the very least, odd sense of reality and I was going through the traumatic event of losing a loved one in my young life. This doesn’t account for the memory that has stayed with me for over fourteen years and seems to me as if it only happened yesterday. He may argue that I am working towards some personal holy campaign, using the supernatural as a force to gain followers. I am not a religious person though; I have no ulterior religious motives in telling you of my ghost experience. He may also argue that I have a tendency to believe in the unbelievable. I do not have a disposition towards believing in the supernatural though; I have always been taught to question the unknown. He may blame you, the audience, for being so entrapped by my story you have let your skepticism guard down and believe my story without proper scrutiny. Please by all means scrutinize this story as much as you possibly can.

         Obviously I am not the only witness in the world that would argue their claim of a miracle to no end. When someone has experienced something that has made such an impression it is virtually impossible to tell him or her otherwise. Hume’s reasoning of the weight of evidence and the importance of human experience in justifying or disproving a claim is sound reasoning. While this argument is a strong one for developing a belief about a miraculous occurrence it does not necessarily bring us to the truth of these events. 

Can We Give Singular Credit?

Sir Thomas Aquinas argues that “Everything in nature is directed to its goal by someone with understanding, and this we call god”.  He supported his argument with five premises. His argument is mostly valid and sound, however his second premise, the nature of causation does not give way to the possibility of two mutual causes to one event. 

         As we discussed the existence of God in class I couldn’t help but question how we could assume such singularity.  In nature we can notice that a hurricane is caused by more than one factor.  The water temperature, wind patterns and many other things must provide an ideal environment for the hurricanes formation. 

         We as human beings cannot reproduce (the very base to our existence on earth) without two parts… a sperm and an egg.  So is it a jump in logic to assume that there is a single “First Cause”. 

         Considering the vague objection I am making would quickly be argued through the very definition of God, as an all knowing, “first cause” accredits him as a single creator. 

         As many ideas that arise have already been thought of, I am sure that this one is not special but I can’t help but wonder…

If our scientific method is leading us to truths and the many theories concerning the origin of the earth have merit, and yet a significant percentage of the human populations believes in a higher power, God, Creator.  Can both these viewpoints not coincide to explain “the Beginning”?

         Some specific primary texts may be considered falsified in this attempt… raising hairs… but could god have cofounded our world while still maintain the reputation as all knowing, all good, and all powerful? I believe he can.  

The Importance of Definition

In philosophy, things can often get messy, as finding answers is never completely clear cut or simple. An important step in setting out to understand someone else’s argument or formulate your own is to define the terms used. While many times the words being used are not uncommon, like the word “beauty” or “truth”, the way the author means them does not always match up with the conventional definition. One person’s concept of what is beautiful is not necessarily the same as another’s. The fact that I like Dvorak does not make him universally appealing, just as my aversion for Wagner does not makes him unappealing to everyone.  Such subjectivity is equally applicable to definitions. The three statements that Mackie lays out – that God is all-powerful, all good, and the fact that evil exists– pose a logical problem when put together. However, each one can be reevaluated by focusing on the key word, “omnipotent”, “good”, and “evil”, as well as the concept of God.

We see the challenge of defining things in the dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro - Socrates repeatedly asks Euthyphro to tell him what piety is, and each time he finds holes in the logic presented to him until Euthyphro gets angry that the arguments seem “to move about instead of staying put”.  Finding the perfect combination of words to describe the concept of another is a hard enough task, and in philosophy it is important to remember that the definition the philosopher had in mind is almost never the same as what you yourself think.  Looking at the concept of goodness, vague terms with positive connotations come to mind. “Good” is one of the more primary words – when I try to find a describe it the first thing that comes to mind is merely “not bad”, which isn’t much better.  Thinking about what is evil is a little more fruitful, I unhelpfully think of “not good”, but also “bad, harmful, a cause of hurt and pain”. Recognizing whether something is good or bad is somewhat of an easier task on a basic level, we humans automatically sort everything into categories. Going with the assumption that God is all good, we now can attach another definition to each, so what is good is “of God”, while what is evil is “not of God”. It is important to make sure that the intended definition is understood. While “goodness” is an easier word, the term “God” is not.

Kyle already talked a little about altering the fixed view of what God is. Christianity thinks of God as an anthropomorphic figure who loves but judges all humans at death. If you redefine God as something other than this narrow concept, then you can by-step the whole conundrum Mackie sets out for us. For example, if “God” was actually “the gods”, as is the case with a polytheistic belief system, then there would be no problem accepting that fact that they were omnipotent and that evil existed, as it could easily be explained that the gods have conflicting interests. The fact that God is a like a human with motivations and consciousness is another debatable point.  Pantheists characterize God not as a figure, but as the sum of everything in the world, and so “God” is still omnipotent, because nothing exists outside of it; the concept of being good is not applicable because God is no longer a separate entity.  Looking at each part of the apparent problem can provide enough questions and discussions without even exploring the main purpose of the argument, but can help understand the proposed solution in the long run.

Hume's Of Miracles

In class on Friday, we defined a miracle as a violation of the laws of nature. For a miracle to exist, it must require a supernatural power to intervene and violate some natural law. In general, miracles are associated with God as his omnipotence is the explanation for the violation of accepted and proven natural laws. So it is easy for those who believe in an all-powerful God to accept miracles as their God’s works. But for those who question or do not believe in God, miracles remain without sufficient explanation. Because the existence of miracles goes back always to the existence of God, it is one that has been and will be disputed forever.

            In “Of Miracles”, Hume writes his essay on miracles in such a way that he is able to outline each of the arguments pertaining to miracles and if or how they exist. In reading about David Hume, I was primarily informed that he was atheist and a skeptic and many of his famous works reflected those views. However, while reading this particular essay on miracles, I found it very unapparent that he so adamantly believed that God did not exist; instead he simply outlined each side of the argument of the existence of miracles.

            Hume leaves the question up to the individual to decide whether the miracle did or did not happen. He allows us each to decide which sounds more miraculous: the miracle or the falseness of the testimony of the miracle. I very much enjoyed reading his response to miracles as it provides many different trains of thought useful when personally deciding whether miracles do or do not exist. And not being much of a natural philosopher, this approach is especially useful to me.

            It was interesting to me too that he mentions how miracles that were recorded in biblical times were those coming from people who are “barbarous” and that it is no wonder that miracles such as those do not happen much in modern times; Hume says that it is not only a modern concept to lie. And when we look at miracles in this sense, it seems sort of surprising to me that such debate has been going on for so long about whether miracles exist or not because all humans know how easy and appealing it is to lie for whatever reasons. It is easy to detect his skepticism throughout his essay and especially when he discusses the credibility of the testimonies of various miracles. The first point he makes in the second section of his article is that in all of history, there is no miracle that has been witnessed and recorded by a reliable and sufficient amount of men such that all of our doubts about their credibility are retracted.

            Each of the points that Hume makes in his essay leaves the question of miracles’ existence open-ended and for the individuals to decide for themselves, making it a wonderful starting point for forming and opinion and creating an argument on the topic.