If you've done one what did you do? If you haven't and could what would you do?

I'm thinking about Hume's logical critique of beliefs and then apply that to religion. But is there 10,000 words there?

Suggestions would be much appreciated!

No problem, I'm glad I could help. Just to garner more confidence for you, if the work ever seems like it's too much or you are worried that you will not meet a certain word requirement, always break it up. This has been a very useful trick in writing academic philosophy. When I did my thesis, for example, I was worried because I had this 18 page (up to book 10) document which was definitely overwhelming, but I didn't know how much I could write on it because there didn't seem to be enough material. So, what I did was set up the paper in such a way where it utilized the format of the book and an acceptable layout for my thesis. I did a thorough analysis of each of the 10 sections, which was basically like writing 10 individual papers. When I was done with that, I took two books and joined them with a summarization and linking section (usually a few paragraphs) and it all flowed quite nicely. In fact, by doing that, I developed a separate but better thesis statement in the long run because I looked at each book more objectively. The paper turned out to be 50 pages (15,825 words/ 84 paragraphs).

For you and Hume, you can do almost exactly the same thing, though it will not be plainly put like Aristotle had put his notions in separate books. You can for example take what was in the outline and make that your basic framework. As you come across different notions, such as cause and effect, you can explore that in detail with explanations in your own words what that means (which I would add impresses professors the most? when you put the notion in an explanation in your own words using contemporary examples). Then, when you have done a thorough analysis, just summarize and link. And when you come to the end of the overall analysis and you find yourself short, all you need to do is work backwards by adding more information on setting up the particular paper. You could talk about the similarities and the differences of Treatise and Enquiry, which would easily take up a few pages and link that with a summarization and linking context to the beginning of your substantial paper.

From what I have experienced, the lion's share of the thesis paper has little to do with the conclusion more than it has to do with the encapsulating thesis statement. I don't know if you know this (you probably do/probably don't) so I'll say it anyway. The objective of your paper is to develop a thesis statement (not just concluding the paper). This statement is the reason for the reader reading your paper. Contrary to most other papers, the thesis statement does not come at the end. It is inserted at the beginning, middle, and end, but especially in the middle. The introduction which is common in most papers is done away with completely in favor of a broad summarization. DO NOT WRITE AN INTRODUCTION! Introductions are traps that keep you set on one path or one particular note. But you do have a form of a thesis statement, which is Hume's theory of belief and the theological aspects. When you hammer out the body of your paper, always keep that statement in mind when you do your individual papers, because that will ensure you go in the right direction.

At some point in the middle of your paper, you are going to arrive at the theory of belief. This is where you put the bulk of your thesis statement and prove how you are going to move from setting up the paper in the first section to belief and God in the last section. You can, if anything introduce your thesis statement, "Hume's theory of belief and theological aspects" and then stating how you will prove or underline the concept with "I will first examine x, which in turn will lead to Y, and from these conclusions I can extrapolate Z." It's in a sense a mini introduction, which will then lead you through the rest of your paper (linking more of the individual papers we previously talked about) and to a basic conclusion.

Then when you are done, you can a) go back to the beginning and write your summarization of what you have just done in step by step form and underline your thesis (which you did in the middle part) at the end of this first part), b) add more to the substance of the paper by examining small aspects in each of you mini papers (because you are left room to do so because of the summarization and linking section), c) add filler to the paper by inserting before you delve into the substance of the paper the background on previously needed ideas and notions (which does not alter what you had done in your paper because it is background information.

If you need any other constructive help, let me know, I'm happy to help out.

I might add something a former teacher once told me: "If you are going to write a thesis, please be sure to have a thesis". I have never forgotten that.

Problem is that most times a thesis, much like a basic paper idea, never turns out the way you want it to. I think in a complex thesis, it constantly evolves based on your analysis of the information as you go along. I always leave room for a shifting of the topic.

Like Napoleon said, "It is a bad plan that cannot be changed."

Problem is that most times a thesis, much like a basic paper idea, never turns out the way you want it to. I think in a complex thesis, it constantly evolves based on your analysis of the information as you go along. I always leave room for a shifting of the topic.

Like Napoleon said, "It is a bad plan that cannot be changed."

I don't think that I said that the thesis could not be revised. Only that there should be one at the end.

I have only just joined the Philosopy forum. It seems that I may have made a mistake as the only thing I see here so far is the mere pendantics as to whether one is better than the other.

I will comment no further as first impressions can often be wrong.