GCSE Philosophy and Ethics Practice Exam

David Hume argued that the laws of nature are more persuasive than religious experiences primarily because they are observable by every human. The laws of nature can be consistently tested and are evident through empirical observation, providing a basis that is universally accessible and verifiable. This leads to a stronger form of knowledge, as it relies on shared experiences and repeatable outcomes. In contrast, religious experiences are subjective and vary greatly from person to person, making them less reliable as a source of knowledge or truth. Their personal and often unverifiable nature does not hold the same weight in Hume's evaluation compared to the universally observable laws of nature, which provide a consistent framework for understanding the world. The other options, while they may have their own merits, do not reflect Hume's reasoning as effectively. For instance, the widespread nature of religious experiences does not guarantee their validity or persuasiveness. Scientific proof of religious experiences is a contentious issue, often disputed within philosophical circles. Historical texts can provide narratives about religious experiences but do not serve as empirical evidence to corroborate them in the way that the laws of nature can.