David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

1522 Words4 Pages

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made. In this three-sided debate, Hume’s depiction of an empiricist is clearly the winner.
Three characters, Demea, the rationalist, Cleanthes, the empiricist and theist, and Philo, a skeptical, agnostic empiricist prepare to discuss their ideas about the universe in Part I. The discussion begins as the characters debate how they should teach their students philosophy, ethics, logic, and theology.
Demea believes that students should learn “logics, then ethics, next physics, last of all the nature of the gods.” (pg.127, Part 1) His immediate reasoning is that theology is “the most profound and abstruse of any, required the maturest judgment in its students; and none but a mind enriched with all the other sciences, can safely be entrusted with it.” Criticized by Philo, Demea further explains his plans: “To season their minds with early piety, is my chief care; and by continual precept and instruction, and I hope too by example, I imprint deeply on their tender minds an habitual reverence for all the p...

... middle of paper ...

...are certainly becoming more precise through the scrutiny of generations of scientists. And if we theorize about likely theories of quantum physics and parallel universes, which are currently, empirically unprovable, why should we hesitate to discuss theology and metaphysics with a philosophical approach? We should not; natural religion and the ideas of natural religion have been growing and will continue to grow. Skeptics will continue to bash and nitpick philosophical theories. Critics of science like Demea will continue to blindfold themselves to shut out the ever-growing validity of scientific knowledge. Humanists and empiricists like Cleanthes will push forward, acknowledging the inherent harmony between science and theology.

Works Cited

Hume, David. "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." Hume's Dialogues. St. Anselm's College, 2006. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.

Open Document