Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ( Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ) is a religion philosophical writing of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. In it, the three characters Cleanthes, Demea and Philo argue about the nature of God's existence. Hume began with the processing of dialogues later than 1750, but not until 1779 did they publish posthumously.

Content

Framework for action

In a letter that precedes the work, the narrator Pamphilus declares the addressee Hermippus. He would deal with the issue of the nature of God in the form of dialogue his foster father Cleanthes with the other two interlocutors Demea and Philo, in which he had been present. This form 'll answer the topic, since it'll take its banality him. Pamphilus himself comes during the actual dialogues never to speak and is limited in its protocol on very few, brief remarks on the situation. In the last paragraph of the work he judges that he considered Philos standpoint likely than Demeas position, his foster father Cleanthes but be closer to the truth.

Design argument

First, in Part I of skepticism is discussed, which is made ​​strong by Philo. However, Cleanthes discards the global skepticism, since he could not be responsible for pragmatic reasons. We'll see indeed whether Philo the room through the door or through the window leaving because a global skeptic but could not believe in the law of gravity.

In Part II to VIII of the argument put forward by Cleanthes argument from design is discussed. Cleanthes believes that the world has similarities with the products of human activity and could be perceived as a great machine. Since similar effects were close to similar causes, it is permissible to infer by analogy that God is similar to humans. So God is a kind of exaggerated human, but that is better and probably also by distinguishing the usual attributes of immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness.

The represented as Cleanthes of anthropomorphism is severely criticized extensively by the two others. Demea argues for the incomprehensibility of God and pointing to the weak nature of the human mind, which was swaying and composed. Philo also designed a long series of alternative conclusions and world descriptions that Cleanthes can not exclude: His argument 'll continue to many gods instead of one, also the world could just as well be construed as an animal, which enables a completely different description of God. Furthermore, he argues, a variant of the Epicurean theory of nature, after a finite number of worlds to pass each other the momentum of change. In this theory he already approaches on the Hume yet unknown theory of evolution. Cleanthes can be provoked representations of Philosophy and sheds, from any of his theories if the world exactly as it is necessarily produced. This applies Philo, however, against the design argument, for this also does not apply. At the end of Part VIII, he claimed that the reluctance of all judgment is the only tenable position.

Cosmological argument for God and theodicy

In the ninth part Demea now begins to present his position by first briefly puts forward the cosmological proof of God. This is in contrast to the design argument is no argument a posteriori but a priori. It must be a first cause, which needed different than the usual effect chains no cause. This could apply only to God, therefore God is necessary existent, from the adoption of its non-existence, this represents a contradiction. This is disputed by Cleanthes, as about a supposed to be infinite universe need not cause.

In Part X and XI Demea and Philo first bring together a world view in front, which is very dark in contrast to the position of Cleanthes. To illustrate the large amount of suffering in the world Demea quoted John Milton's poem Paradise Lost. This runs counter to Cleanthes position, but which the latter is prepared to limit the omnipotence of God. However, Demea and Philo have very different intentions: Demea wants from the need of hope justify the benefits of faith in God and relies on Leibniz's position of theodicy, that this world is the best possible world. Philo argued that an all-powerful God also fundamental changes in the world could have carried out so as pain no longer serves as the driving force of living beings. Is most likely that the world was created neither kindness nor malice.

After the departure of the last indignant about Philo Philo and Cleanthes to Demea entertain in Part XII of the benefits of religion. Cleanthes believes that religion and the prospect of a just reward or punishment after death befördere morality. Philo opposes that natural righteousness here could work better and the world without religion is better. Although he is of the opinion that there must be a God as the first cause, about this but could furthermore nothing to be said.