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. ( )

12/6/21

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is a philosophical work by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, first published in 1779. Through dialogue, three philosophers named Demea, Philo, and Cleanthes debate the nature of God's existence.

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!' ( )

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 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) ( )