David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

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.

Philalethes constantly ridicules religion by suggesting that its main goal is to monopolize societies while promoting the idea that only what agrees with its own teachings be the end all truth. He believes that belief in religion strips a person from their ability to question the

What Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? David Hume moves through a logical progression of the ideas behind cause and effect. He critically analyzes the reasons behind those generally accepted ideas. Though the relation of cause and effect seems to be completely logical and based on common sense, he discusses our impressions and ideas and why they are believed. Hume’s progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by

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.

Because it is so prominent, everyone notices that a central concern of Hume's Dialogues is empirical natural theology—how one can discern from Nature, using empirical facts and "experimental" forms of inference available to anyone, the existence and nature of an Author of Nature. But few connect this concern to the simple fact that the Dialogues is itself authored. It is a text with an author, David Hume. At the very least, then, on Cleanthes's approach, (3) there should be some resemblances between the world and this text, insofar as they both imply an intelligent "author;" at the most, this analogy of authorship might prove even more fruitful for theological understanding than the mechanical and biological analogies mentioned by the characters in Hume's text. By this, I do not mean that we can prove God's

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

David Hume wrote Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 1748, right in the middle of the Enlightenment and on the eve of the Industrial and Scientific Revolution. So it only makes sense that some of the ideas and comparisons used are slightly outdated, but science, if anything, helps his argument regarding causality. Hume is ultimately concerned with the origins of causality, how we are able to gain knowledge from causality, and if we can even call the knowledge derived from causality real knowledge. This is essentially the problem of induction, and is a central pillar of Hume's overall philosophy. There are some significant objections to Hume's ideas concerning causality, but they do not hold much clout and are no match for his

In explaining Hume’s critique of the belief in miracles, we must first understand the definition of a miracle. The Webster Dictionary defines a miracle as: a supernatural event regarded as to define action, one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity an extremely remarkable achievement or event, an unexpected piece of luck. Therefore, a miracle is based on one’s perception of past experiences, what everyone sees. It is based on an individuals own reality, and the faith in which he/she believes in, it is based on interior events such as what we are taught, and exterior events, such as what we hear or see first hand. When studying Hume’s view of a miracle, he interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a

David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for being an empiricist and for being skeptical of religion. Like Hobbes, he was also a big influence on western philosophy. Among his many works, his major writing include, treatise of human nature and enquiry concerning the principles of morals. In an enquiry concerning the principles of morals, Hume introduces his fovarism towards the role of sentiment. He argued reason solely cannot be a motive of any action and that reason can never resist the motive of passion "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions,"(pg 415). He explains that Moral distinctions are developed from the moral sentiments such as feelings of approval and disapproval felt by an action. Hume believes that pleasure and pain are the causes of the passions that drive our actions. According to Hume, it is the pleasure and pain that are the causes of the passions which drives our actions. He claims that it is the actual experience of the pain or pleasure, not the reason we adduce to their causes that drives us to act.” Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not

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

David Hume in his work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, reveals the reasoning for the cosmological argument through the character of Demea. Fundamentally, the main concept of the premises is the notion of causality. Demea argues that everything must have a cause since it is not possible for anything to produce itself. Therefore, in the nature of the universe, we either regress infinitely or conclude to an ultimate first cause. He further asserts that given the two options there must be an absolute self-caused being, or God. Even though Demea argues for the necessity of a creator, he does not clarify the source of God, implying that the alleged deity was the ultimate cause creating itself from nothing, which contradicts his own premise of causality and consequently resulting in an endless cycle.

Comparison between the Modern World and Hume The modern world was a time of growth compared to the medieval worldviews where science was now seen as dominant to religion, the theory of empiricism, and science is based on empirical observation. The modern worldviews had a great impact on the types of knowledge that were known which was very significant to a philosopher known as David Hume because he was the man who brought into consideration these two types of knowledge; the “Relation of Ideas” and “Matters of Fact”. In his discussion of “Relation of Ideas,” Hume uses the modern idea of empiricism to explain how this was relevant. A few examples to support the “Relation of Ideas” would be the concepts of geometry, algebra, and arithmetic.

David Hume was a Scottish empiricist who became renowned as a philosopher for his metaphysical skepticism and his account of the mind. Born in the 18th century, Hume follows Locke, a fellow empiricist and Descartes, an idealist, in the philosophic cannon. As a result he responds to each. From Locke Hume builds upon his concept of perceptions. Hume’s defining skepticism pertains to idealistic claims of substance, god, and the self.

Part II: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion In the first part of the “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”, David Hume introduces his three individuals with a differing philosophical approach to religion: Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes. Demea always belittles human reason while encouraging human deference to the teaching of religion; Philo, a character that allows, in the sphere of our direct experience, rely on human instincts; and Cleanthes who is an advocate on particularism1. In Part II, the both Demea and Philo emphasize that any it is not attainable to really understand the existence of God. Since everything in the Universe, including the Universe itself, must have a cause, human beings have no experience, and thus have no knowledge

I feel that religion has always been something that people have always depended on to give them something to believe in. But in the world today with modern technology being as advance as it is people aren’t needing to turn to technology to explain the unexplainable. When I was, a young child growing up religion was something families all over the world turned to as moral guides on how we should live our lives or as a guide adherents in which we determine between what is right and wrong. For instance, in “Christianity”, where many of the laws and rules are set forth by religious leaders and respective authoritative guides. In society, today religion is no longer needed because people can portray their own basis for their moral beliefs without the use of religion, so in my eyes I feel that religion has very much so became obsolete in today’s modern society. I enjoyed and support “Lynn Whites” opinions he raised in his essay. I do strongly believe that for many centuries “Christians” have linked the relationship between humans and god to mean that all humans are called to be “wise” caretakers of the earth. And “Genesis” has provided man-kind with a justification for the exploitation of nature without having regard for their