HQ

Samuel Clarke In Paul Russell's masterful analysis of the irreligious nature of Hume's  Treatise of Human Nature  entitled,  The Riddle of Hume's  Treatise, Russell recounts an argument for theism by Samuel Clarke and Hume's refutation. Russell shows how, in his efforts to defend a natural science of human knowledge, Hume is also attacking common theistic proofs. Clarke's argument is as follows: Something existed from all eternity. If something had not existed from all eternity then something would have come from nothing. That which has existed from all eternity is unchangeable and independent. If there had not existed from all eternity something unchangeable and independent then everything that has ever existed would be changeable and dependent. If everything is changeable and dependent then it is equally possible that everything exist and everything not exist. Since everything does exist there seems...

It is now mandatory to doubt. To claim to know anything with certainty is to fall foul of dogmatism, the stubborn refusal to subject beliefs to any test for truth. But is certainty the same as dogmatism? And isn't the demand for universal doubt merely another form of dogmatism?

The precondition of knowledge has traditionally been whether what is known is true, believed and justified: p is known iff p is true, S believes that p is true, and S is justified in believing that p is true. This definition of knowledge has been challenged by Paul Gettier and since then epistemology has revolved around what counts as justification for a belief (See the Warrant series by Alvin Plantinga for a good response to Gettier).

What is skepticism? Michael Shermer, a self-described skeptic, defines it as "the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims" (see here for full article). Shermer argues that skepticism is not disbelief of all propositions, only the resistance to belief in any proposition without reason or evidence.

Samuel Clarke In Paul Russell's masterful analysis of the irreligious nature of Hume's Treatise of Human Nature  entitled, The Riddle of Hume's Treatise, Russell recounts an argument for theism by Samuel Clarke and Hume's refutation. Russell shows how, in his efforts to defend a natural science of human knowledge, Hume is also attacking common theistic proofs. Clarke's argument is as follows: Something existed from all eternity. If something had not existed from all eternity then something would have come from nothing. That which has existed from all eternity is unchangeable and independent. If there had not existed from all eternity something unchangeable and independent then everything that has ever existed would be changeable and dependent. If everything is changeable and dependent then it is equally possible that everything exist and everything not exist. Since everything does exist there seems to be no determi...