He was quick to point out that Cleanthes arguments cannot be condensed and belittled down into one experience. Philo decreed that we all have experience with nature and how we know things are similar and how every action has an equal or opposite reaction such fire is hot and it will burn; this is also another one of doctrines he used which is cause and effect, (94). An example he uses is if we see a house we are to conclude that there must have been an architect to design and build such a structure. The earth too is a grand structure but with how much certainty can we say that the earth is also a design of …show more content…
I now can understand that truth seeking would have been a break from the normal traditions of religious following or a break from which it would have been the cultural norm to have a belief in some Deity(s).
In my opinion it is not that those whom believe in religion are less thought provoking or less intelligent, although there is current data and meta-analysis that has found some correlation of a lower I.Q. of religious believers than those who are atheists; however in during Hume’s era it seems it was such a daunting task to ask for evidence in reasoning, not only in believing in a Deity but any knowledge someone said they acquired about a subject, and upon asking their response would be, I know what I know because I experienced this or that.
Today, we absolutely must use research to find the cause of an experience, in order to know what effect, it will have on a person or object, modern technology helps us do this. The creation of social sciences tells us that this is true. Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology all use data collection and statistics (mathematical calculations) to study human interactions culturally, personally and individually. Through these sciences, we can answer theories and questions to better help society function. It is only through philosophy that we can even ask such questions and think of any sort of theory regarding human existence