Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is a religious philosophical work of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. It is about the fight the three characters of Cleanthes, Philo and Demea about the nature of God’s existence. Hume began the process of dialogue later than in 1750, it was published only in 1779.
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, religion, philosophical works of David Hume, were published posthumously 1779. The work is written as a fictional dialogue between the three main characters Cleanthes, Philo and Demea. Cleanthes argues for the existence of God. He stresses the teleological sense, for example, that the world’s effectiveness suggests an intelligent designer. Demea can rather be characterized as a mystic, who claims that God is beyond reason. The main reason for that belief is an internal feeling or certainty. However, Demea is trying, at one point, to defend a version of the cosmological proof of God. Philo is the most skeptical of the three, and probably the most often seems to reflect the Hume’s own point of view, as described in Hume’s Dialogues as Philosophy of Science.
Conversations about religion in the Dialogue concerning Natural Religion, is the literature on philosophy by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. The publication consults together with three characters- Demea, Philo and Cleanthes, the nature of religion and the existence of God. They all agree that God exists, but disagree on the nature and properties, and that they can ever gain knowledge of the gods. Among the things they talk about is the design rationale for the existence of God. Hume started writing the Dialogues on religion in 1750, but did not finish with them until 1776, shortly before he died. The publication is based in part on the publication of Cicero “ De Natura Deorum” (On the nature of the Gods). Conversations about religion came to Hume, after he died in 1779.
3. Give a complete account of the Argument from Design as stated by Cleanthes.
In part I, the skepticism is discussed, which is made strong by Philo. Cleanthes, however, rejects the global skepticism because it was not for pragmatic reasons, could be represented. In Part II to VIII, the argument was put forward by Cleanthes, as the argument from design was discussed. Cleanthes believes that the world has similarity with the products of human activity and could be seen as a great machine. Since similar effects could also lead to similar effects, it is permissible to infer by analogy that God to the man is similar. God is a kind of exaggerated human being is, however, better and probably also was distinguished by the usual attributes of immortality, omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence.
Thus, represented by Cleanthes anthropomorphism is criticized by the other two severely and extensively. Demea calls for the incomprehensibility of God, pointing to the weak nature of the human spirit, which is composed of variable and Philo designs also a long list of alternative conclusions, and describes the world that could not be excluded by Cleanthes: his argument still leaves many gods instead of one, also could the world be regarded as good as an animal, which enables a completely different description of God. He also puts forward a variant of the theory of nature, passes after a series of finite worlds to each other the momentum of change. In this theory, he is already approaching the Hume to as yet unknown theory of evolution. Cleanthes can be traced from Philo provoking presentations and throws out any of his theories of the world, which were produced exactly as it is of necessity. This philosophy applies, however, against the design argument for which this is true either. At the end of Part VIII, he claimed that there was the reluctance of any appeal, the only tenable position, as stated in How David Hume’s Critique of the Design Argument Survives for Three Centuries.
Two of the experts involved in the dialogues represent two major trends of the Century of Enlightenment in the discussion of natural religion: one, Cleanthes, is a deist, a theist or perhaps better, not only argues for the existence of God but also of His providence, the other – Demea, is a defender of orthodox Christianity. The third, Philo – is the fencing of the skeptical point of view. The theist Cleanthes claims arrogantly that the power of human reason is sufficient to reach, drawing on the experience of the world and the logic of the arguments, the author’s knowledge of the universe. The orthodox Demea insists, that it is not the strength, but the weakness of a man, and his reason which brings us to the infinity of God and his mysteries. The skeptic Philo sometimes slyly encourages optimism for the Cleanthes and other pessimism of Demea, thus provoking the confrontation between the two. This strategy paves the way to defending their thesis of the triumph of moderate skepticism concerning natural religion.
