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
…show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
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 …show more content…
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