Analysis Of David Hume's Dialogues Of Natural Religion

In Part II of David Hume’s Dialogues of Natural Religion, Demea remarks that the debate is not about whether or not God exists, but what the essence of God is. (pg.51) Despite this conclusion in Part II, in his introduction to the Dialogues Martin Bell remarks that the question of why something operates the way it does is quite different from the question why do people believe that it operates the way it does. (pg. 11) This question, the question of where a belief originates and is it a valid argument, is much of the debate between Hume’s three characters in the Dialogues. (pg. ***) (Put something here as an introduction) Philo grants to Cleanthes & Demea that there must be a cause for things to exist, and that it is common for men to refer

7). Mr. Bell describes deism in his introduction as a view that approximately consisted of the view that what is necessary to hold a religious belief is what can be substantiated about God and his nature, as well as religious duty, by reasoning (pg. 6). He goes on to explain that some deists desired to show that Christianity is a reasonable and analytical religion, others believed that religion was a natural and obvious reaction to attestation of God’s providence. (pg. 7) However, Hume believed deism was an entirely incorrect belief (pg. 7 & 8). He believed that religious beliefs began with emotional needs, such as vulnerability and insecurities, reactions to the hostilities of the world surrounding us, and that religious beliefs are a means of bringing comfort to the suffering (pg. 8). This is a conclusion Hume brings about in Part XII of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Philo states that the horrors of religion frequently dominate more than its solace, and that men tend to find comfort in religion when they are anguished by depression and ill health (pg. 136). Yet when men are not afflicted by these deplorable states and in a joyful state, that man is suited for the tasks at hand, be they toil, friendship, or recreation, and that he pays no attention to religion (pg. 136-137). Therefore, Philo contends, this is proof enough that religion is allied with sadness more than joyfulness (pg. 136). Throughout the conversation, Philo is referred to as a skeptic, for he questions and argues what the others take for granted as fact, and yet this is also his quality, as he takes nothing for granted as being true unless he has experienced it to be the case. It is no surprise then, Philo’s ultimate admonition: that it is of utmost importance for men of thought, men who love wisdom, to be skeptical. (pg.