Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion starts with Philo, one of the three characters appearing in the dialogue, stating, "The vulgar, who are unacquainted with science and profound inquiry, have commonly a thorough contempt for philosophy and rivet themselves the faster by that means in the great points of theology which have been taught them. Those who enter a little into study and inquiry, think nothing too difficult for human reason and presumptuously breaking through all fences, profane the inmost sanctuaries of the temple" (Hume, 603a). However, Philo later ends Dialogues by saying, "To be a philosophical skeptic is the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian" (Hume, 640). What does it mean that
being a philosophical skeptic is the first step towards being a Christian?
Why for Hume a true philosophy is true skepticism? Often, Hume is categorized as an atheist, but such categorization needs to be questioned, for Hume does not necessarily deny the existence of God, but rather he inquires about the true nature of God in Dialogues by presenting three characters with different philosophical positions. Hume's attempt to substantiate the rationality of religious belief, I argue, renders Hume's skeptical stance as an affirmation of the possibility for the existence of God. Hume argues in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding that knowledge is established from experience (Hume, 545a). To support his claim, he adopts a concept of "impression": a direct perception from outer stimulation, while the idea is a perception or awareness that arises after the impression has disappeared (Hume, 539a). Implied in this claim is that all ideas are derived from experiences, and without experience, ideas cannot exist. Moreover, Hume asserts that "causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience" (Hume, 543a). That is to say, although we tend to think that we could discover all
the laws of nature and all the operation of bodies by reasoning, they are not established without experience because the exception of every "matter of fact" is possible. One might consider a sunrise: having seen the sun rise every day, we think that it will continue to rise in the future. Although this belief is sensible, it cannot be justified merely based on past observations. This kind of knowledge is called "matter of fact" (Hume, 542a). Hume acknowledges such limitations that experience has, and concludes that in regard to knowing the truth, neither empiricism nor rationalism works. Through criticizing both reasoning and experience, Hume reaches Pyrrhonian skepticism, the excessive principles of skepticism (Hume, 597) but such philosophical stance cannot be advocated in our daily life. As natural beings, we are destined to make inferences and decisions regarding everything, and the result of these actions unveils initial causes and effects. Likewise, Hume also avoids hastily concluding that no knowledge is rationally justified. In the end, he tries to balance between skepticism and empiricism by considering skepticism as a driving force for human progression (Hume, 600a); by having doubts, we can explore nature more deeply as opposed to taking it for granted. Thus, Hume mitigates skepticism by accepting it. Such stance of Hume is well portrayed in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, in which Hume explores the true nature of God and religion. There are three characters in the dialogues: Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea. Each character represents a respective position regarding religion and God. Cleanthes believes that we can understand God by reasoning from the evidence from nature. On the other hand, Philo is the philosophical skeptic who claims it is impossible to know the nature of God through reason. Lastly, Demea represents religious orthodoxy who agrees with Philo that the nature of God is beyond human comprehension. One thing, however, we must keep in mind is that none of the characters reject the existence of God. Rather, the dialogues are mainly about Philo's constant questioning of the nature of God, which Cleanthes and Demea incite in their proposition of this topic. To understand Hume's stance regarding religion and faith, it is necessary to organize each character's key argument. Firstly, Demea adheres to medieval notion of religion. Namely, he prioritizes faith over knowledge, and asserts that we cannot answer the nature and qualities of God due to lack of human knowledge (Hume, 607b). Cleanthes attacks Demea by criticizing Demea's irrational faith, which relies on human finiteness and rejection of rational inferences. He grounds his stance on the "Argument From Design" (Hume, 608b). That is to say, by experience, we can infer that the world is designed by an omnipotent figure: "Throw several pieces of steel together without shape or form . . . they will never arrange themselves so as to compose a watch. Stone and mortar and wood, without an architect, never erect a house" (Hume, 610b). WRITE SOMETHING Philo, however, soon points out vulnerable aspects of Cleanthes's argument. He attacks his idea stating that there is not enough evidence to support Cleanthes's claim that God is infinite and perfect: "You have no reason for ascribing perfection to the Deity [. . .] There are many inexplicable difficulties in the works of Nature which, if we allow a perfect author to be proved a priori, are easily solved and become only seeming difficulties from the narrow capacity of man, who cannot trace infinite relations" (Hume, 619b). Through Philo, Hume once again criticizes the "matter of fact": knowledge made from past observations or behaviors of objects cannot justify their behavior when unobserved. Moreover, Philo states, "A man who follows [Cleanthes's] hypothesis is able to assert that the universe arose from something like design, but beyond that position he cannot ascertain one single circumstance and is left afterwards to fix every point of his theology by the utmost license of fancy and hypothesis" (Hume, 620b). Philo's ultimate claim is that it even if we reach a theistic conclusion, nothing can guarantee its certainty or evidence. It is irrational to derive an infinite concept from limited experience. Philo agrees to Demea's argument that God's existence is unquestionable and his nature is inherently beyond human understanding, because "nothing exists without a cause, and the original cause of this universe we call God and piously ascribe to him every species of perfection" (Hume, 608a).
But we cannot say that we comprehend the attributes of this divine, for the qualities we ascribe to him—wisdom, thought, design, knowledge—are honorable among men and we have no other language by which we can express him, says Philo (Hume, 608b). In this regard, Philo is implying that Demea's position is no different from that of Cleanthes, for they both construct their notion of God based on ignorant epistemological skepticism. Therefore, such notion of God cannot gain neither legitimacy nor causality. It may be possible to acknowledge the constant order of the natural world, but there is no adequate way to infer the stance of "intellectual architect". Both attempts to validate the nature of God by Demea and Cleanthes only comprehends representation of their own Gods, thereby denying other notions of God. Thus, such ways sink into dogmatism, which is the root of religious bias, persecution, and
oppression. Thus far, I have summarized how Philo criticizes religious belief in terms of epistemology. Through Philo, Hume suggests religious bodies exist within the boundaries of human experience: "If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other and so on without end [...] By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be God [...] When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor which it is impossible ever to satisfy. We have, indeed, experience of ideas which fall into order of themselves and without any known cause. But I am sure, we have a much larger experience of matter which does the same, as in all instances of generation and vegetation where the accurate analysis of the cause exceeds all human comprehension" (Hume, 617b). This quoted passage represents Hume's fundamental stance regarding God and religion. Hume is a firm empiricist, who believes that all knowledge can only be derived from experience, which is obtained from the senses. Therefore it can be said that Hume does not acknowledge the distinction between mind and soul: "Our ideas reach no further than our experience" (Hume, 608b).
Moreover, in the Dialogues, he also considers operation of mind the brain's physiological action (Hume, 611a). Above all, the main conclusion in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is that the mind can never discover truth beyond the scope of our experience, but can only tell how it works and how it derives the conclusion it does. Hume suggests to accept the limit of knowledge to avoid falling into Pyrrhonian skepticism. Hume believes excessive skepticism is not only destructive but also not helpful in daily life, and his Dialogues Concerning Natual Religion clearly conveys such idea. In my opinion, Hume was never an atheist as other people thought, nor was he a fervent Christian. He raises questions about the basis of religious belief to avoid blind obedience and strives to obtain proper faith based on skepticism. Hume's mitigated skepticism implies that no certain conclusions can be drawn in regard to religious matters, and at the same time acknowledges that religion, when taken in a proper manner, is useful at consolidating the society. The reason why Hume makes such conclusion has this logic structure: 1)Everything is doubtful. 2) All arguments and inferences regarding theology and religion cannot reach a definite conclusion. 3) Thus, we can either be agnostic or understand God through faith. 4) Understanding God through faith is more helpful than being agnostic. Based on this, it can be said Hume followed fideism, the doctrine that faith is independent of reason. Hume, who was also a historian, must have known how religion could be malicious to individuals and the society. Therefore, he finally concludes that, faith that remains outside of the philosophical skepticism can easily transform into a reckless one; "To be a philosophical skeptic is the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian" (Hume, 640). Particularly in this modern society where fanaticism, such as the Islamic State, is harming individual's rights and social integration, Hume's stance regarding religious belief is worth noting.