Essay on An Analysis of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.

In Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion we are introduced to three characters that serve the purpose to debate God and his nature, more specifically, what can mankind infer about God and his nature. The three characters; Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes all engage in a debate concerning this question and they all serve the purpose of supporting their views on the subject. It is the “argument from design” put forth by Cleanthes that is the focal point of the discussion, and it is Demea and Philo who attempt to discredit it.

In David Hume’s essay, Why Does God Let People Suffer, he allows the reader to question if God exists in the world we live in with all the pain and suffering that goes on. Hume suggests that an all powerful God, such as the one most believe in, would not allow a world to exist with this much pain and suffering that goes on daily. Moreover, Hume basically argues that the existence of God is something that cannot be proven in the way in which scientists look for and gather proof about other scientific issues. In the following essay, I will demonstrate how David Hume feels that there is a God despite all the suffering and pain that exists in our world. “Is the World, considered in general, and as it

As humans, where does our knowledge come from? In Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes outlines his proof for the existence of God. However, David Hume offers a rebuttal in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that questions not only Descartes’ proof but also his notion of how humans acquire knowledge. In what follows, I will examine Descartes’ proof of God’s existence, then argue that Hume would disagree with it by maintaining that humans can conceive of God through mental processes. Furthermore, I will show how in responding to Descartes' claim that God is the source of our knowledge, Hume asserts that we are instead limited to knowledge from experience.

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume is a philosophical piece concerning the existence of God. Arguments for and against the existence of God are portrayed in dialogue through three characters; Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. All three agree that God exists, but they drastically differ in their opinions of God’s attributes or characteristics, and if man can understand God. The characters debate such topics as the design and whether there is more suffering or good in the world. It is a very common view among philosophers that Philo most represents Hume’s own views. Philo doesn’t go as far as denying the existence of God but

Carolina Ornelas Professor P Essay #4 18 May 2015 Problem of Evil In this dialogue of Concerning Natural Religion, there is an argument that concerns many as to why there is still evil in the world when God is supposed to be infinitely powerful, good, and wise. In order to understand Hume's philosophy of religion, it was crucial to understand the basic beliefs of his theory of knowledge. It was believed that all knowledge of matters of fact come through experience because you had to go out and investigate the world in order to understand it instead of hoping to come up with really great knowledge on your own. I will explain in detail the problem of error considered in this argument and its solution to it.

Within Part 9 of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), Hume has the character of Demea present an Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Demea attempts to argue that God’s existence can be proven wholly a priori and logically, rather than through the a posteriori design argument. A priori arguments say that if the reasoning is valid then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, which Demea argues is the case when it comes to the existence of god. The following essay will discuss Demea 's standing, Cleanthes’ responses and what this all means for both the theory and Hume 's own opinion.

Humans are not born into this world knowing anything. Everything we know is from experience or observation. A person does not come into the world knowing anything of religion or God, it is something he has been exposed too. If someone were born into this world and not told anything about God he would not consider the idea of being religious and would most certaintly never arrive to similar conclusions as Christianity. I am highly skeptical of there being a god and am most definitely not a theist by any standard defniition.

Scottish Philosopher David Hume’s famous written work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, constituted an attack for the existence of God (120). It became an influential and centrally focuses on the design argument because of the characters (120). The three characters Cleanthes, Demea and Philo differ in their arguments for existence of God. Humes allowed Cleanthes to begin forth the “debate with Demea and critic Philo does most of the serious arguments” (120). In my opinion, Cleanthes argued from the analogy and the interpretation makes it clear that was concerned about the whole universe (120). First, Cleanthes presented some aspects of the argument similar to Paley’s design’s argument, but with two ideal differences (120). “Look at the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it” (120). He focused on the whole universe and not specifically on living creatures and also opposed the idea that some things in nature are well-adapted to their purposes (120). Cleanthes also dwelt on the analogy between the whole universe and the human artifacts, based on similarity between the two (120).

To the ancient Greeks, belief in a complex and charismatic pantheon of gods was fairly universal, and the importance of these gods is apparent in every aspect of that culture. Since classical times, however, the increased application of empirical thought to all aspects of life has generated a divisive dialogue on faith that continues to this day. The Iliad takes as given an interpretation of the world in which the passions of the gods are determining factors on the human level. A complete reversal, David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion seeks to interpret the state of divinity through the fullest

David Hume was a great thinker and philosopher of his era who influenced other well respected thinkers. According to Hume this era was called the Age of Reason because the writers of that time used reason in religion, political, social and moral issues. In 1779 Hume wrote a book called Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in where four characters discussed the nature of God by using reason. The following dialogue is a continuation of Hume’s book Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion which consists of two of the same characters in Hume’s dialogue who are Philo and Pamphilus. Also, three new characters named Hunter, Scott and Kate. Which represents Hume (my understanding of who Hume’s character), Schleiermacher,

Hume argues in “Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding” that all of human enquiry falls into two areas, relations of ideas and matters of fact. I will begin by examining relations of ideas. Hume describes relations of ideas as discoverable through only thinking and calls them “intuitively or demonstratively certain” (Hume 19). We cannot envision the reverse of these relations of ideas. For example, we cannot picture a circular square because that goes against the very definition of a square. A key feature of a contradiction is its inconceivability, so our inability to conjure a contradiction to a relation of ideas serves as a reason to believe Hume’s view. I will now inspect the second group, matters of fact. Matters of fact concern what is the case, and one can imagine the opposite of a matter of fact since it could potentially happen (Hume 19). For example, if I live in a house on the beach, I know that I can see

Hume introduces his first argument by informing us that general laws of nature that God has created for all beings; animate and inanimate, govern our very existence and behaviour. ‘…the almighty Creator has established general and immutable laws by which all bodies from the greatest planet to the smallest particle of matter, are maintained in their proper sphere and function. (Hume 292). God governs animals by giving them ‘bodily and mental powers’ which controls or forces them onto the path they were destined. Hume argues that if a man filled with misery were to kill himself is justifiable because he is acting in accordance with these laws. The life that we are given follows the law of God and if we were to die

ABSTRACT: Understanding the world through the study of knowledge, the investigation of knowledge, more thoroughly known as Epistemology, is the realm of philosophy that studies the sources, nature, limitations, and rationality of knowledge. The most incisive expression of disapproval of naturalistic approaches to epistemology is that they are incapable of effectively dealing with standards and inquiries of justification. Epistemology without such norms, is supposed to be an endeavor not worth achieving. (Stroud,Alemder). What one induces of this is depends on whether epistemology is worth doing at all. Nevertheless, I shall verbally dispute, it is possible to reckon for justification within a naturalistic structure widely interpreted alongside with Quinean lines. In addition to, I shall propose a corrective to Quine’s acclaimed pronouncement that the Humean condition is the human condition.