Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Analysis of Part X and XI
Aubrey Burghardt
Phil 1301
In Part X, the three characters in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by David Hume, enter a debate on the existence of God, how to define God, and most specially formulate an understanding on how the powers of evil have influence on the way religion is viewed.
Demea, the religious character who believes without demand for physical or tangible evidence, opens the dialogue. Demea sets the tone by claiming that religion descends from misery and wickedness that occurs in the world. This starts like a bullet descending from a gun, it is unaware of the repercussions even after it lodges itself into the heart of the argument.
The character replying next is Philo, …show more content…
To reiterate, Philo undeniably agrees that there are many evils in the world, but this agreement does not yield without a tagline. To build a solid foundation to his response, he confirms that the power of evil draws everyone to religion for the sake of offering comfort . . . Philo decides the point of necessity lies with the idea that religion allows one to feel more deeply than just having feeling along. Sure, emotion channeled from evil is a natural and primal occurrence, Philo understands. What Philo questions is the need to accommodate the misery into a higher power representing kindness, mercy, and …show more content…
A massive theme that Philo chooses to emphasize on is that humankind are subjected to the natural world and that if humankinds are meant to experience pain then why must humans run to a religion in order to salvage the emotional turmoil?
A serious theme laced throughout the text is the elephant in the room between all three characters. From the start Demea, an advocate for religion, advertises for God’s generosity and benevolence. This Christian trait, to personify God, allows for the description of the higher power to have characteristics that only humankind could have. This higher power, God, has now been brought down to a human position. Perhaps it is in vain to do this to make the idea more alluring or comforting, the exact opposite of pain and evil.
Philo mentions that you cannot give God words such as merciful or benevolent if this being is an entity that is more powerful than a human at its best. Clean and clear, evil is equally as related to God as merciful is making it essentially useless to base morality on God’s decision
Aubrey Burghardt
Phil 1301
In Part X, the three characters in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, by David Hume, enter a debate on the existence of God, how to define God, and most specially formulate an understanding on how the powers of evil have influence on the way religion is viewed.
Demea, the religious character who believes without demand for physical or tangible evidence, opens the dialogue. Demea sets the tone by claiming that religion descends from misery and wickedness that occurs in the world. This starts like a bullet descending from a gun, it is unaware of the repercussions even after it lodges itself into the heart of the argument.
The character replying next is Philo, …show more content…
To reiterate, Philo undeniably agrees that there are many evils in the world, but this agreement does not yield without a tagline. To build a solid foundation to his response, he confirms that the power of evil draws everyone to religion for the sake of offering comfort . . . Philo decides the point of necessity lies with the idea that religion allows one to feel more deeply than just having feeling along. Sure, emotion channeled from evil is a natural and primal occurrence, Philo understands. What Philo questions is the need to accommodate the misery into a higher power representing kindness, mercy, and …show more content…
A massive theme that Philo chooses to emphasize on is that humankind are subjected to the natural world and that if humankinds are meant to experience pain then why must humans run to a religion in order to salvage the emotional turmoil?
A serious theme laced throughout the text is the elephant in the room between all three characters. From the start Demea, an advocate for religion, advertises for God’s generosity and benevolence. This Christian trait, to personify God, allows for the description of the higher power to have characteristics that only humankind could have. This higher power, God, has now been brought down to a human position. Perhaps it is in vain to do this to make the idea more alluring or comforting, the exact opposite of pain and evil.
Philo mentions that you cannot give God words such as merciful or benevolent if this being is an entity that is more powerful than a human at its best. Clean and clear, evil is equally as related to God as merciful is making it essentially useless to base morality on God’s decision