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. It is Cleanthes who gets the ball rolling in Part II of Hume by laying out his “argument from design.” Cleanthes believes that there is ample evidence in the nature that surrounds us to draw conclusions on what God is like.
Cleanthes compares the surrounding world as one great “machine.” He goes on to discuss how this “machine” is “subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain.” (837) Cleanthes goes on to suggest that these “machines” are all adjusted to each other in such a way that it resembles the productions of man and human design. By this Cleanthes is saying that nature is organized much the same way as a machine built by man. He states this by saying “the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work which he has executed.” (837) Cleanthes main emphasis is not the question of the intelligent designer itself, but rather that the designer similar to mankind. He makes his assumption concrete by saying “By this argument a posterior i, and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.” (837) In other words Cleanthes believes that we need to look no further than this analogy to prove that God is similar to a human designer, only much more perfect due to the perfection we see in the system of nature.
The Essay on Nature and Human
Nature and human have always interacted throughout history, and the interaction of the two forces has evolved into a series of demands that people have put on nature to survive and develop. By contrast a minority of people have questioned the state of things and tried to figure out how humanity and nature can interact and develop together, and through their questioning they have come to define ...
It is this inference by Cleanthes that both Demea and Philo have problems with. In turn they spend the rest of Hume’s Dialogues rebutting Cleanthes claims. However, Demea and Philo do differ from each other on why they believe Cleanthes’ “argument from design” is flawed. Demea firmly believes that God is so outside the realm of human understanding that we could never understand him. In Part III Demea states, “The infirmities of our nature do not permit us to reach any ideas, which in the least correspond to the ineffable sublimity of the divine attributes.” (843) This clearly illustrates Demea’s standing and he follows this core belief in all of the objections he makes to the arguments put forth by both Cleanthes and Philo alike.
Demea’s first argument against Cleanthes comes directly after the explanation of the “argument from design” in Part II. Demea disapproves of Cleanthes reasoning because Cleanthes’ arguments are a posterior i. He objects to this because he believes that human experience is necessary in explaining the nature of god. “Can we reach no further in this subject than experience and probability?” (837) This is evidence of Demea’s insistence that understanding God is outside the grasps of standard human experiences and his nature cannot be explained by looking at ours.
The Term Paper on Ontological Argument God Existence Descartes
Discuss the extent to which Descartes has overcome his doubts of the first Meditations In Descartes' meditations, Descartes begins what Bernard Williams has called the project of 'pure enquiry' to discover an indubitable premise or foundation to base his knowledge on, by subjecting everything to a kind of scepticism now known as Cartesian doubt. This is known as foundational ism, where a ...
This line of reasoning continues in Part III when Demea responds to Cleanthes analogy of a book to illustrate the similarities of the mind of man and that of God. Demea states that when reading a book we can comprehend the ideas put forth by an author, but we can never comprehend the riddles of the universe put forth by a Deity because, in the words of Demea, “his ways are not our ways.” Demea than uses this inference by Cleanthes to state another of his greatest objections with the “argument from design.” Demea says, ” By representing the Deity as so intelligible and comprehensible, and so similar to human mind, we are guilty of the grossest and most narrow partiality, and make ourselves the model of the whole universe.” (839) This statement illustrates the underlying disdain Demea has for Cleanthes arguments that God is like man. Unlike Demea, Philo more clearly represents your everyday skeptic by finding fault and inconsistencies in the reasoning of Cleanthes. Philo’s initial argument against Cleanthes reasoning is that comparing something made by man such as a machine or house to a universe made by God is dangerous logic. Philo sees the assumptions of nature and God put forth by Cleanthes is like claiming to know how the entire human body works through the “growth of a hair.” (839) Simply put Philo believes the whole “machine” argument is way to simple to infer the inner workings of nature and therefore not a good one. Philo goes on to argue this point by agreeing with Demea somewhat that it is dangerous to make human though the model of the whole universe.
Philo continues along this line of criticizing Cleanthes arguments throughout all parts of Hume’s Dialogues, but his strongest arguments come in Parts X and XI when discussing the problem of evil. In Part X Philo and Demea begin to discuss the ills of nature and the evils of mankind. Although Cleanthes seems to imagine a perfectly harmonious system, both Philo and Demea picture the world far more pessimistically. The Major rift between Demea and Cleanthes comes when Demea claims, “The Present evil phenomena, therefore, are rectified in other regions, and in some period of existence.” (862) He is saying that the current evils that plague mankind are balanced by God in some other form of existence, and that God’s benevolence is displayed in some other form that we as humans cannot comprehend.
The Term Paper on The argument of whether God exists or not
The argument of whether God exists or not is a long debated argument spanning the centuries. In David Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” this topic is addressed through a dialogue and debate between Hume’s fictional characters Cleanthes and Philo. Cleanthes presents the argument that God’s existence can be confirmed to man and presents this argument in the ...
However, Cleanthes fervently rejects this idea saying that it cannot be proven based on what is seen and “apparent.” Eventually Cleanthes claims, “The only method of supporting divine benevolence is to deny absolutely the misery and wickedness of man.” (862) He then goes on to say that Demea’s claims about evil are “exaggerated” and “factitious.” Not surprisingly Philo rips into Cleanthes assertion by saying, among other things, that pain is far more intense than pleasure, and that claiming that there is no pain and misery would be “contrary to everyone’s feeling and experience.” (862) This is followed by Philo’s attack on the moral attributes of God. He says, “Why is there any misery at all in the world? Not by chance, surely, from some cause then. Is it from the Intention of the Deity? But he is perfectly benevolent. Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty.” (862) Philo uses these questions to illustrate to Cleanthes that this reasoning is so solid that we can only conclude that Gods attributes are so far outside our comprehension that our forms of reasoning are not applicable. Philo uses this, which he sees as irrefutable, to completely discredit Cleanthes who has rejected to this line of reasoning from the beginning. In Part XI Philo adds to his arguments towards mans’ inability to decipher God’s morality.
He talks about the four ultimate sources of misery in our world and goes on to describe how each of them is unnecessary. According to Philo, if God really where perfectly benevolent he would have done away with these sources of misery. Philo then decrees that God’s benevolence cannot be inferred from our nature sense there are so many ills in our universe that could have been otherwise removed. Building upon these revelations Philo reiterates that he is not trying to disprove that God is not perfectly benevolent, but rather that his benevolence cannot be proven through what mankind sees around them as Cleanthes Claims. If anything, Philo comes to the conclusion that if someone were to try and infer God’s moral attributes from our world, they would have to come to the conclusion that God has no “moral sentiments.” (867) Personally, after assessing all the information brought forth in Hume’s Dialogues I can only say that I agree more with Demea and Philo than I do with Cleanthes.
The Essay on Greek Philo God Philosophy Christian
"Knowing what a thing is" and "knowing that a thing exists" are fundamentally distinct truths (Exodus 3: 14). Introduction: Many philosophers believe that first century Christianity and the New Testament were heavily influenced by pagan philosophical systems. Nearly all of the medieval thinkers, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim were pre-occupied with some version of the attempt to amalgamate ...
It can be easily construed that Hume wrote these dialogues with the intent of portraying Philo as the victor, contrary to what Part XII might say. I must say that if I did believe in a supreme being I would have to side with Demea’s argument that we as humans cannot possibly comprehend God, or try to understand him through our reasoning. Further more, with respect to Cleanthes claims that God can be understood through out own surroundings, I have to disagree for most of the same reasons as Philo did. The concept of evil is virtually impossible for Cleanthes line of reasoning to overcome and is definitely the strongest argument against the “argument from design.” Over all I have to once again go back to Demea as being the overriding constant voice of dissent. His assertions of mans’ inability to understand God, although simple, in my mind easily overrides all arguments put forth by Cleanthes..
