This from Owen Anderson.
In an important way, because David Hume failed to understand reason as the laws of thought and instead noticed that a given reasoning process may not represent reality we have been given 2+ centuries of skepticism about our ability to know with certainty (to Know). I've even been told by analytic philosophers, repeating Hume, that if there are laws of thought they don't get us very much as far as knowledge is concerned.
This post is related to my last one in identifying why there is skepticism about our ability to use reason to know God. We use reason to distinguish between God and non-God. In failing to know God we are attributing to "non-God" (the creation) properties such as eternal existence that are only attributable to God. This includes the claims that there is nothing eternal or that what is eternal is some aspect of the creation like the material world or the human self. By using reason to distinguish between what is eternal and what is not eternal (without beginning and with beginning) we can use reason (as the laws of thought) to know God and avoid conceptual idolatry.
