David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
What is natural religion? Well as defined by Merriam-Webster, natural religion is “a religion validated on the basis of human reason and experience apart from miraculous or supernatural revelation.” In David Hume's “ Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion”, he creates three characters that have different point of views on natural religion and if the belief in religion can be supported by reason. Cleanthes is set in the viewpoint of Hume, an empiricist, who believes that God is like the human mind and argues with the use of analogies. He believes that our universe is a well oiled machine which means it was created with the intelligence of a human and therefore means the world was created from an almighty power that is similar to a human.
The
issue with his argument is that one other character, Demea, represents a different argument and states there are two issues with Cleanthes’: that his views are based on observation rather than an understanding of how God works and that God cannot be human because he is the creator of life is far more sophisticated. Demea dislikes the way Cleanthes presents his argument because in order to prove his case he connects analogies to reason how God is human. He connects how human beings create machines that are finely tuned with our minds and that God’s creation of the universe is like a machine therefore stating he has the mind of a human. The problem with argument by analogy is that it attempts to prove credibility simply on presumptions rather than factual evidence to to support it. Demea states “ No demonstration of the Being of God! No abstract arguments! No proofs a priori!” (41)Demea is saying there is physical evidence Cleanthes has provided but rather has connected a chain of ideas to come up with a reason for why God is like a human. Also, there is no proof based on facts but rather with ideas that are indirectly related and the comparison on I believe that Cleanthes and Demea have irreconcilable differences because Hume has created these characters to represent their two sides of the argument on natural religion. Demea criticizes Cleanthes’ viewpoint but allows him to elaborate on the idea that God is human. Furthermore, Demea thinks basing a theory of religion on experience is a weak way to support an argument because good examples have situations or ideas that have been observed time and time again with many others to support one idea. An example of a bad argument is “If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely the species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy here is entire and perfect.”(43) Philo, who is on the side of Demea, supports the idea that weak analogies cannot support an argument because they are simple and have no in depth meaning. Cleanthes says the universe is like a machine that God had created so Philo also compares his evidence to a house and it’s obvious who created it because everyone knows an architect or builder created it but the creation of the universe is not that simple. Demea in no way shape or form will ever agree with Cleanthes because his analogies do not have sufficient evidence. Throughout the novel all three characters play a certain role in the discussion of religion. Cleanthes represents Hume’s point of view of religion by believing God is merely a human with high amount of power. Demea plays devil's advocate in order to allow Cleanthes to expand his analogies but tend to be very weak in form. Philo agrees with Demea that Cleanthes’ argument isn’t very solid and needs improvement. No matter what Cleanthes says it will not change Demea’s viewpoint of religion from an empiricist view.
The
issue with his argument is that one other character, Demea, represents a different argument and states there are two issues with Cleanthes’: that his views are based on observation rather than an understanding of how God works and that God cannot be human because he is the creator of life is far more sophisticated. Demea dislikes the way Cleanthes presents his argument because in order to prove his case he connects analogies to reason how God is human. He connects how human beings create machines that are finely tuned with our minds and that God’s creation of the universe is like a machine therefore stating he has the mind of a human. The problem with argument by analogy is that it attempts to prove credibility simply on presumptions rather than factual evidence to to support it. Demea states “ No demonstration of the Being of God! No abstract arguments! No proofs a priori!” (41)Demea is saying there is physical evidence Cleanthes has provided but rather has connected a chain of ideas to come up with a reason for why God is like a human. Also, there is no proof based on facts but rather with ideas that are indirectly related and the comparison on I believe that Cleanthes and Demea have irreconcilable differences because Hume has created these characters to represent their two sides of the argument on natural religion. Demea criticizes Cleanthes’ viewpoint but allows him to elaborate on the idea that God is human. Furthermore, Demea thinks basing a theory of religion on experience is a weak way to support an argument because good examples have situations or ideas that have been observed time and time again with many others to support one idea. An example of a bad argument is “If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely the species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy here is entire and perfect.”(43) Philo, who is on the side of Demea, supports the idea that weak analogies cannot support an argument because they are simple and have no in depth meaning. Cleanthes says the universe is like a machine that God had created so Philo also compares his evidence to a house and it’s obvious who created it because everyone knows an architect or builder created it but the creation of the universe is not that simple. Demea in no way shape or form will ever agree with Cleanthes because his analogies do not have sufficient evidence. Throughout the novel all three characters play a certain role in the discussion of religion. Cleanthes represents Hume’s point of view of religion by believing God is merely a human with high amount of power. Demea plays devil's advocate in order to allow Cleanthes to expand his analogies but tend to be very weak in form. Philo agrees with Demea that Cleanthes’ argument isn’t very solid and needs improvement. No matter what Cleanthes says it will not change Demea’s viewpoint of religion from an empiricist view.