Albert Rosales
Professor: Gill
Intro Philosophy: 213

In writing this paper, I was apprehensive by the immensity of the task that was required of me, having never studied Philosophy and philosophers before this class and not having a good understanding of it. I could not begin to comprehend Metaphysics, Ethics Epistemology etc. if it was not for this course. This may sound ignorant but I had never really given any thought to my worldview. If asked what I believed about something I would give my belief and that was that. What exactly is a worldview? A worldview is what it sounds like. It is the way one may see the world or as Nash puts it in his book Life’s Ultimate Questions “the sum total of a person’s answers to the most important questions in life(392).” Everyone has a worldview whether we realize it or not. How does one get their worldview? Our education, our upbringing, the culture we live in, the books we read, the media and movies we watch, all can help shape our worldview. Nash says, “Worldviews contain at least five clusters of beliefs, namely, beliefs about God, metaphysics (ultimate reality), epistemology (knowledge), ethics and human nature (14).” Using these five sections I will share my worldview. In general my worldview is a Christian one. I believe that there is one God who exists in three forms who created the Heavens and the earth. In the Bible Genesis 1:1 tells of how God is the beginning of everything; he created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. God did create the world and everything in it. He not only created everything in but he created it and said it was good. Since God created everything in the world I believe he can and does control the world. I do believe in miracles and believe that we as humans where put here on earth to worship the on true God. Where does Epistemology, better known as knowledge come from? I believe it comes God. We can get truth and knowledge from God through His word in the Bible because of this truth is not subjective. There is one truth and only one truth and that can be found in God. So is it possible to have knowledge of God and not know the truth? Yes. Sadly there are millions that fit this description. To me this is the most important view that makes up my worldview. Without my belief that truth and knowledge is found in the one and only true God Jesus Christ then truth would be subjective. The part of my worldview I struggle with the most is ethics. What is right or wrong and where do we get our moral filter to distinguish the two? The Apostle Paul tells us that our conscience is our moral compass that has been written in our hearts by God. What I struggle with is it maybe right to do one thing when in a situation but at other times that action is wrong. It seems that there is no clear black and white. The last part is Anthropology, which is the nature of human beings. Since the fall of man all humans are born in to sin. God created man with a mind to make his own choices; he gave us freely the will to choose between right and wrong. I believe in two eternal destinies either heaven or hell. We will either be in the presence of God in Heaven or separated from him in Hell. Jesus tells us in (John 14:6) that no one can come to God except through him. This scripture gives us instructions on how we should direct our lives in order to live out our eternal destiny in Heaven with God. Is there anything wrong with my worldview? My answer to that question is no. However I can see how one could find things wrong with it. First there is the issue with God. One may say how could there be evil if God created everything good? How could one person be in charge and hold the universe in his hand? As I stated at the begging of the paper I use to give my opinion and that was that. Now I would say lets look at this and come to a conclusion because there is only one truth and since there is only one truth one of us is wrong. The next issue is that of ethics. If one has a Christian worldview and believe in the Bible shouldn’t there view be black and white? There is no gray with God. As stated I struggle with this and could see how one would challenge this idea. Are there times when it is right to do what’s wrong? My worldview says no but I would say yes. Does this mean I do not have a Christian worldview? I would say no. Now that I have shared and critique my worldview lets look at the worldview of David Hume and Thomas Aquinas. David Hume is one of the most significant philosophers of the Enlightenment. Hume’s frequent recourse to man as the measure of all things, including God. R.C. Sproul states “Many believe that Hume destroyed once and for all the law of causality, and in doing so he opened the door to the idea that anything can produce anything (107). ”The big picture of Hume’s view of morality and religion is that they were social that is, manmade constructions that were subject to the same principles of logic as science, mathematics, politics, and other disciplines. Hume’s aw of causality which say “A causes B. But how do we know A causes B (sproul 109)?” wasjust the begging of Hume’s analysis of causes and effect. For Hume it was also abundantly clear that God was a human construction, or that, at minimum, nobody could satisfactorily produce evidence for the existence of a supreme being. He develops his ideas in this area in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and elsewhere in his writings.
In the Dialogues, Hume posits a teleological argument for the existence of God, such that the order of the natural universe implies “the idea of a contriver” an “a conclusion surely in favor of design” of the cosmos (1990, p. 65).
Indeed, even if God exists, human beings have faulty intellectual powers, which means that their ideas about the divine can “reach no farther than our experience; we have no experience of divine attributes and operations” (p. 53). In other words, who is mere man to compare human powers of deduction to what is held to be omnipotent and infinite? That does not mean Hume yields to the power of the unknown. Stories of miracles, he says, emerge “among ignorant and barbarous nations” (1990). Miracles may prove believers have faith, but they do not prove anything about reality.
Alternatively, manmade systems have an intrinsic integrity that speaks to humanity’s “slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making” (p. 77). To attribute such improvements to God diminishes the divine when the divine is supposed to be an infinite, not finite, presence in the universe, especially as there are so many imperfections in the natural world. The very most one could argue the possibility of, so to speak, intelligent design, would be in the big picture:
The active force is ineluctably human, for good or ill. It is at this point that the moral consequence of human agency enters the picture. It has been noted that Hume distinguishes between natural virtues and artificial virtues, or virtues of reason and virtues of sentiment (Schaffner, 1999, p. 369). Natural virtues refer to (for example) compassion and generosity, or “such as we are immediately carried to by a natural instinct [or reason as mental faculty]. Artificial virtues are formal constructions of human-constructed institutions; “justice, loyalty, and such as require . . . a certain reflection on the general interests of human society, and a combination with others” (Hume, 1977a, p. 122). That distinction was drawn in response to criticism by the Scottish clergy that he (Hume) was ignoring God’s law, and out of it Schaffner derives a morality of the whole that he likens to communitarianism.
Hume demands philosophical as well as scientific skepticism and a climate of free inquiry, not inquiry limited by institutions. Obviously that demands exercise of reason, but Hume does not believe that reason without linkage to reality can reveal anything in particular. Practical application of experience is required. Any knowledge of “matters of fact,” whether in law, science, or merely a sound of a horse approaching, “is not, in any instance, attained by reasoning’s a priori; but arises entirely from experience” (190). Every effect has a cause, even if the cause is not known.
Thus far, it would appear, Hume celebrates the achievements of mankind irrespective of divine intervention. However, by no means does Hume take the view that human experience is unproblematic. Indeed, the problem of evil is of concern to Hume’s philosophy because it is linked to the problem of God. Basically it comes down to a question: If God is good and if God is almighty (as the theists claim), how is it that there is evil in the world? Hume rejects out of hand the Christian argument that there is really no evil and that saying there is, is a denial of faith. Instead, “Hume takes the view that it is plainly contrary to human experience even religion (i.e., ‘superstition,’) is a source of fear and anxiety. the weight of evidence being on the side of the view that evil is, discussing it sensibly becomes Hume’s objective.
If God is not in the picture of evil, there is no anxiety of faith because there is no temptation to lay evil at the foot of God. That also prevents someone from believing what cannot be proved, hence betraying reason at its most useful. If evil is a proven fact, its source can be identified, and to the degree it can be considered a violation of morality, it is a manmade phenomenon.
The implication is the fight against evil is man’s, not God’s, that man has the moral responsibility to fight it. Irrespective of whether it is in fact necessary to reject belief in God in order to fight evil, Hume’s position is plainly that such rejection can only help ground Enlightenment thought in the tradition of social critique and reform.

Thomas Aquinas most influential teacher was Albertus Magnis, a German who wrote extensively on theological matters and questions of national science, especially biology. Albert was not his only influence Aristotle was another. Aquinas believed that there were not one but two types of knowledge Natural and super natural. Natural could be found in philosophy while super was revealed by God. Aquinas held the belief that if something was true in theology then it must be true in philosophy and other areas (Nash 167). Aquinas asks the question, Does God exists? Here he will prove the existence of God in five different ways. The first is taken form motion. Aquinas says that it is impossible for something to be moving and moved at the same time, in other words that something has to be moving itself. An object that is moving or being moved had has to be moved by another object. This cannot happen forever because at the end there won't be a primary or secondary mover. If a primary mover moves something this primary mover is understood to be God (Sproul73).
The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. Here, Aquinas tries to prove that if there is no first efficient cause there wont be no last efficient cause. Aquinas says that if it is possible to never come to an end in efficient causes there won't be no first efficient cause and there won't be know end or intermediate effect. Aquinas states that this is false. So we have to admit that the first efficient cause is God.
The third way is derived form the possible and the necessary. Aquinas begins by saying that if something does not come to an end there would nothing to follow it. If something does not exist at one point in time nothing existed. Aquinas says this is not true because if at one point nothing existed nothing could begin to exist. Not all beings are possible but we just need but we need something to exist before any beings could exist. Therefore, for a being to exist it has to have necessity through itself and causing other to have their own necessity. This being is God.
In the fourth way, Aquinas, tries to prove the existence of God through the grades of perfection found in things. Aquinas says that there has to be a reality that causes all things to exists, to be good, and have their own perfection. This reality is called God. For example, fire is the hottest thing you can find, therefore, fire is the source of all hot things.
The firth and final way, Aquinas, uses the governance of all things. Aquinas says that beings that are not knowledgeable always act for an end. The way they act is always the same way so they can get a constant and best result. They reach an end one-way or the other because the do it purposely. If intelligent beings exists, all natural things are directed to their end, this being id God.
. However, this was not all he was known for Like Augustine Aquinas believed the earth was governed by both physical and moral law. Thomas Aquinas had four laws eternal, natural human, and divine. The laws all part of one bigger law the eternal law. Aquinas believed natural law was for unbelievers while Gods divine law was for believers (Nash185). This paper has not been easy for me. While I did have some knowledge from being in the class and reading the assignments provided I found it hard to comprehend for the most part. One thing I did learn and to me the most important beside some philosophers view and beliefs is that having a worldview is important. Understanding your worldviews helps you have a better understanding of yourself and your beliefs.

Work cited
Hume, D. (1977a). A letter from a gentleman to his friend in Edinburgh. In E. Steinberg (Ed.), An inquiry concerning human understanding (by) Hume. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Hume, D. (1990). Dialogues concerning natural religion. M. Bell (Ed.). London: Penguin Classics.
Nash, Ronald H. Life's Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan House, 1999. Print.

Schaffner, K. F. (1999). Coming home to Hume: A Sociobiological Foundation for a Concept of “Health” and Morality. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24, 365-375.

Sproul, R. C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000. Print.