{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01763046544428773, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.693396226415095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Riddle of Hume's Treatise: Skepticism, Naturalism, and Irreligion

adoption of modern philosophical views may have been opposed to the theological heritage he sought to defend. For instance, the difference between the logical analysis of what is presupposed in our ordinary general concepts of matter in traditional physics and the reduction of matter through mathematical concepts in modern physics; the traditional realist view that knowing is a form of being and the modern idealist (including empiricism) view that being is a form of knowing; Aristotelian monism and Cartesian dualism in anthropology; and traditional partialism and modern impartialism in ethics. His standard textbooks in Christian doctrine – William Ames’s Medulla sacrae theologiae and Johannes Wollebius’s Compendium theologiae Christianae – probably did not restrain his antiAristotelian sources and views, and these rather non-technical works do not set out the traditional philosophical assumptions at any length. Edwards’s later estimations of François Turrettini and Petrus van Mastricht would expose him to more thorough argumentations that assumed traditional logic and metaphysics, but it is not clear that Edwards grasped the incompatibilities between the two frameworks. What we lack and need are studies that evaluate whether, and if so how, Edwards was able to fuse coherently Enlightenment thought with traditional philosophy.