Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Presented as a dialogue between three characters, Demea, Philo, and Cleantes, the philosophe tries, a priori, to understand what is the nature of God -if we can know it at all. The fact that the three orators disagree with each others so badly serves, in fact, as a pretext to shatter the whole idea that God... exists in the first place! Here's the whole genius of David Hume: implying, without ever compromising himself (you had to be suicidal to openly admitting to be an atheist in 18th century Scotland!).

Started in 1750 and ended in 1776, the book will, in fact, be published anonymously and posthumously in 1779. Adam Smith, the economist to whom Hume had entrusted the text, had found the argument so destructive indeed that he had taken show more all the necessary precautions to reveal it publicly...

The thing is, the traditional arguments to support the existence of God are dismissed quite easily, especially one of the most powerful and (seemingly) convincing that is, the idea that the perfectly ordered nature of the world must reflect the hand of a no less perfect 'creator'. Using examples such as a house or a boat, Hume doesn't need much to demonstrate what a fallacy such an argument is! God? To the philosophe, God is but an error in reasoning; and he visibly took great pleasure into dismantling such error!

Sharp. Incisive. And, still convincing. show less

David Hume (1711-1776) was one of the most influential writers of the Enlightenment. In his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), he argued that there was insufficient evidence to believe in miracles or in providence. Always interested in a rational approach to God and religion, he began the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in about 1750, but did not complete it until the last years of his life. It was not published until 1779 (posthumously), and not under either the author’s or the publisher’s real name.

Apparently, religious issues were very touchy subjects at the time, and so his disquisition takes the form of a dialogue in which the characters express opinions (some of which are very antithetical to established show more religion) without revealing the author’s personal beliefs.

One of the characters, Philo, a skeptic, pretty articulately demolishes the argument for God’s existence based on the apparent design of the universe. He shows how the design of a complicated device like an ocean-going ship arises not from the acts of the individual workmen who build the ship, but rather from years of tinkering with previous designs. From that analogy, he argues that it is just as plausible to infer that the universe was designed by many designers (gods, if you will) as it is to infer that there was a single all powerful designer, the Christian god. In explaining that many causes could have contributed to the state of the universe, he anticipates, but does not quite articulate, the modern concept of emergence of complex order from simple phenomena.

Implicit in Philo’s argument is that our belief that there must be a cause for every effect or condition in the universe is an empirical observation, not a requirement of logic. Although he does not explicitly state so in this book, Hume its known to have believed that the existence of the universe may not require or be subject to the same kind of cause we observe in changes in the various states of the universe.

Philo also argues that the persistence of evil in the world militates against the existence of a God who is all-good and omnipotent.

The other two characters, Cleanthes and Demea, raise various arguments for belief, but are not as cogent as Philo.

Nonetheless, in the end, Philo seems to reverse course and asserts, “To be a philosophical skeptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian.” Holy Cow!! I suppose one might guess that Hume was merely trying to avoid censure from religious authorities. On the other hand, at least one commentator, Richard Popkin, a well known academic philosopher, opines that Hume may have been trying to be ironic, showing the reader how silly religious belief was. Based on my other readings by and about Hume, I tend to think Popkin got it right.

This book is an excellent and important element of the Western Canon of philosophy. It is sometimes heavy going because 18th century diction tends to be ponderous to the modern reader. Nonetheless, I think it is worth the struggle for anyone interested in the development of religious skepticism.

(JAB) show less

It was good to read this in it's (more or less original) prose, as Hume wrote it. A lot of very perceptive arguments; and the dialogue format serves well to couch Hume's views, forcing you to think for yourself a bit more, rather than just accept what you're reading as wisdom from an authority.

But... commas. The punctuation and write-style are dated and very difficult to read at times. A truly modern rendition of the text risks changing some meaning, but at the benefit of making the ideas so much more clear.

4 stars for the work, but 3 stars for the lack of clarity of reading in the (nearly) original.

Many of the arguments will be familiar to those who follow this topic. The arguments of Cleanthes and Demea form the base of what is currently referred to as "sophisticated theology", only more erudite and less hackneyed at that time (well, maybe not, since many of them had already been in use for a good chunk of the Christian Era). Many of the arguments Hume roundly defeats here are the same or similar arguments that are frequently presented today as "arguments no atheist has ever defeated". This is only true if you have never paid any attention to the answers the atheist gives, and Hume did a very good job, even without the benefit of some of the scientific knowledge, such as evolution and the age of the earth. The limits of the show more science of the time did lead to some stumbles, but it was hardly the fault of Hume if he was not up on 21st century science in the 18th century. A bit difficult for the beginning reader in philosophy, but worth the work. show less

A friend of mine gave me a warning before Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion that David Hume puts all his mental capabilities to bring into the question the existence of a wise and loving creator, that his can be quite compelling and that I needed to be prepared to have my faith severely tested. After reading this essay, my friend could have saved his time warning me because Hume just wrote stuff down like some people just talk to hear themselves talk, in the words of William Shakespeare this was all “sound and fury, signifying nothing”. This book also contained the unpublished essays “Of the Immortality of the Soul” and “Of Suicide” that were impressive, also included was “Of Miracles” that I read in Hume’s show more Enquires and I decided not to read a second time for the author circular argument. In all honesty, I have found David Hume to be overrated and wish he had taken the hint when his first book had bombed and never written again. show less

Absolutely a seminal work on the march from theology to science as the study of the ultimate nature of reality. I do not believe that Hume went so far to deny the existence of God. He did question the relevance of a beneficial omnipotent God, which ultimately lead to the New York Times exultation 'GOD IS DEAD!'

Hume provides a review of the main sources of religious thought in its politheistic and theistic modes and engages with a criticism of superstition which for him is largely related to a strong belief in religious dogma. His analysis is largely indebted with Lucretius in many ideas related to the origin of religion and the nature of its beliefs.