Analysis Of Philo's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Philo argues that the best and only method of giving someone a sense of religion, or an idea of it, one must use representations of man’s misery, and what he call wickedness. That exaggeration of past events, particularly those that involve some degree of pain and sorrow, are easy for man to relate to. Nevertheless, Cleanthes proceeds to argue that this is not the case, as he has not felt an abundant deal of anxious feelings. He then proceeds to describe God in human terms, what Philo calls anthropomorphism. Philo argues that this is impossible, as the God Christians believe in, is infinitely just and powerful. However, if God were omnipotent, it would be difficult for Christians to feel a connection to Him. Like Cleanthes, I …show more content…
I have observed people from multiple sects of Christianity and found something all believers share in common – praying or praising God until they are breathless is, for them, an escape from their daily struggles, as it is a way of promoting the community’s well-being. Seldom have I seen religious leaders utilize fear mongering as a tool to scare people into believing in God, like Philo had previously claimed. Religion isn’t necessarily established in the base of fear but rather on
I, alike Cleanthes, have not felt as much miserable and anxious as Philo claims mankind is. Demea, though, thinks that Cleanthes is denying that others feel any despair or fear. Demea tells Cleanthes that one must feel such discontent, and shall not be ashamed to express it: that it is a vital part of religion and that one must use it to hope for the better. He uses Charles V and Cato as examples to show that adversity and misery are a necessity. Charles V, who was the King of Spain, became tired of the luxuries he enjoyed as King; he felt miserable. Thus, he decided that resigning the throne would be his best option. Cicero, on the other hand, was a man of small