Word Count:
Professor Nelson
Philosophical Perspectives
12 October 2012
Writing Assignment #1 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
…show more content…
For a God who does not have infinite power, the defeat of all sin and the defeat of the grave is almost a definite impossibility. To believe an impotent God could resurrect would be as illogical as to believe any human could complete this task.
The second portion asks if he is able but not willing. This would make him malevolent. God is supposed to be omnimalevolent, all loving and all good. A God who is able to stop all evil but doesn’t is clearly not loving then, correct? Christians would respond that this apparent ignorance from God is actually human sin and not God turning his back on us.
The final portion of the old questions asks “is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (Hume 198). It would seem logical that if God is omnipotent and omnimalevolent as Christians believe then he would be able and willing to stop all evil. Since there is clearly evil in this world, wouldn’t that mean that God is just evil and relishes in the suffering of humans? Of the three questions, this is the least logical. God could not be omnimalevolent and evil because, by definition, these two characteristics contrast. Someone could not be all good and evil at the same time.
Later on Philo, clearly the skeptic, brings up four sources of misery in the world that are, according to him, unnecessary. These four sources are physical pain, general laws, limited abilities, and the fragile nature of the universe.
The first source of misery that Philo addresses is physical pain.
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.
Or perhaps there is, but he is ignorant, or weak, or mean" (p.4) She thinks God must not care her because God lets her suffered. She provides a main argument to support her position which is "the existence of suffering is inconsistent with the existence of the all-perfect God." (p.17) She thinks there is evil but without God. Miller wants to convince Weirob to believe the possibility of God exists. His argument is that this world is the creation of an all-perfect Being, even if we admit that there is suffering in it. He claims that the existence of suffering is consistent with the existence of the all-perfect God. Their arguments are opposed to each other. So Miller has to convince Weirob that Christian God he believe in--- all perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent -- could possibly exist, even given as unimportant a bit of suffering as her flu.
God cannot determine the outcome of our free choice. So either there is no omniscient god or we are created without free will and therefore are forced/unable to avoid doing evil. Again this shows that god is not benevolent, nor omniscient, therefore he is non-existent. Theists may argue the following reason for god to have granted humans free will. It is possible that god raised homo sapiens to rationality giving the gift of abstract thought, language and disinterested love. And so it is arguable that god gave us free will to allow for love, as free will is necessary for love. Although this may be one of many reasons that god granted us free will, it is one that we may understand. Free will is necessary for both erotic and platonic love. One may argue that evil is only trumped by love. And that the existence of evil, although in its masses is worth it for the sake of
If god was all good, all powerful and all knowing, he would not allow the existence of evil.
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
Furthermore, god is supposedly full of wisdom, his wisdom is infinite, yet the world lacks heavily. One way this can be viewed is with nature, how nature scarcely tends to the need of human and animal happiness. One question that one may ask is can and is god able to prevent evil? Does he have what it takes; maybe god is impotent (lacking power, strength). According
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.
Ernest Nagel identifies that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving. However, if God has all of those traits, then why would He allow evil? This is where the problem of evil comes in. It says that if God exists, he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. Because God is omniscient, He knows when evil occurs. Since He is omnipotent, He has the power to prevent it and his benevolent nature would permit him to stop evil. Yet, evil occurs anyways. Therefore, a God with such traits does not
He proposes that nothing terminates our misery but the removal of its cause or another event which is the sole cure of all evil, from our natural folly, we regard with still greater horror and consternation. Philo then makes a powerful statement saying, “no method of fixing a just foundation for religion unless we allow the happiness of human life, and maintain a continued existence even in this world, with all our present pains, infirmities, vexations and follies to be eligible and desirable.” This presence of evil is not what would be expected from a God who possesses an infinite power, infinite wisdom and infinite goodness. Philo then asks why is there any misery at all in the world if these qualities are true about God? Philo then begins to propose a metaphor in order to better explain to the others his ideas on the discussion. Philo says that a person lives in a house or a palace. The conditions in this house are very poor, the structure has poor light, small spaces and loud noises among other problems. The resident, wanting to fix some things contacts the architect. The architect however, warns the resident against making improvements or
ABSTRACT: Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) may be read in the way Cleanthes (and Philo as well) reads Nature, as analogous to human artifice and contrivance. The Dialogues and Nature then are both texts, with an intelligent author or Author, and analogies may be started from these five facts of Hume's text: the independence of Hume's characters; the non-straightforwardness of the characters' discourse; the way the characters interact and live; the entanglements of Pamphilus as an internal author; and the ways in which a reader is also involved in making a dialogue. These and other analogies should reflect upon the Author of Nature as they do upon Hume's
The purpose of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is to determine whether we can come to understand the nature of God strictly through observations of the world and human reason. Unlike Christianity, Judaism, and other major organized religions, natural religion only entertains characteristics of God that are observable in this world; simply stating that God exists because of divine command and revelation seen in scriptures is inconclusive and insupportable, so therefore cannot be taken as true. To arrive at the conclusion of whether human reason alone can lead us to knowledge of God’s nature, Hume sets up a dialogue between three characters who represent the major viewpoints of the time. Demea is there to provide the orthodox religious
The problem of evil questions the nature of God and threatens his status as a figure worthy of worship. Surely human beings would not wish to worship a God that is neither all good nor all-powerful? The figure we call God is seen to be entirely perfect and flawless in every way. The problem of evil also questions God’s omniscience, in respects that he is all knowing. If God is omniscient then he must know the harm that evil does and the suffering it will cause. The attributes in question are the essence of the nature of God and without them he becomes more like a human than a God. If any of God’s characteristics are omitted, he
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,
God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, which makes us wonder what kind of morally sufficient reason justifies God to allow evil. We know that evil exists in our world, but so does God, so would God be the source of evil as well as good? We have established that God is the omnipotent and benevolent free creator of the world, but suffering and evil exist. Is God unable to prevent evil? If so, he would not be omnipotent. Is He able to prevent the evil in our world but unwilling? If this were then case then he wouldn’t be benevolent. A Persian thinker, Mani, suggested that the answer to this question was a kind of duality between the good and evil. This pluralistic view of the good and evil in our world would suggest that God is