tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post445253287271345994..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: David Hume and the Secular RightLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-37269982124165451032009-11-11T21:42:59.807+00:002009-11-11T21:42:59.807+00:00Does Philo (taken as Hume) really assent?? Philo&#...Does Philo (taken as Hume) really assent?? Philo's not the theist, but the skeptic; Cleanthes is the theist. In the earlier section of DONR he says (contra Cleanthes) that inferring like causes from like effects (ie machine-like nature to mechanic-like Deity) does not prove anything specifically religious. It could be one Deity, or 1000. <br /><br /> Philo-- if I recall Hume's chestnut correctly-- does change his tune slightly at the end, and does approve of "philosophical" theists only, not really orthodox judeo-christians (but still approves of philosophical skeptics, doesn't he)---so the text is inconsistent. Dennett uses it as ammo against the Design argument.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com