David Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” challenges and questions the structure of religion by examining God and the truth around it. The dialogue consists of four characters; Pamphilus, Cleanthes, Demea, and Philo. They unwrap and challenge each other’s thoughts of religion and God during the enlightenment era.
The first character Pamphilus is a student of philosophy who is observing the conversation between Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. His education and how it should be composed is the start of the argument. Throughout the discussion Pamphilus observes and provides his opinion at the end. In the begging Pamphilus did not have a claim about religion, but in the end he acquired Cleanthes approach. Pamphilus said “Philo’s principles are more probable than Demea’s, but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the …show more content…
Philo does not have a clear stand at first, but does develop one toured the end. Philo’s skepticism starts in part two of the dialogue were Philo agrees with Demea’s claim that they should not challenges god’s existences rather his nature. He goes on to say “Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe we call God” (Hume, page 14). However is part three Philo degrades the cause and effect argument he used to acknowledge Demea’s claim. Philo goes on to challenging God’s “goodness”, but challenges Demea and Cleanthes argument. Nevertheless towards the end Philo’s argument was that religion is the causation of people’s pain and fear. Philo claims that religion is the reason why people are unhappy, but also that religion is “evil”. He ends the dialogue by saying “To be a philosophical skeptic is, in a man of letting, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian” (Hume, Page 89). Therefore if we question the institution of religion and are skeptic then the idea of God we will come to light with
The first character Pamphilus is a student of philosophy who is observing the conversation between Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. His education and how it should be composed is the start of the argument. Throughout the discussion Pamphilus observes and provides his opinion at the end. In the begging Pamphilus did not have a claim about religion, but in the end he acquired Cleanthes approach. Pamphilus said “Philo’s principles are more probable than Demea’s, but that those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the …show more content…
Philo does not have a clear stand at first, but does develop one toured the end. Philo’s skepticism starts in part two of the dialogue were Philo agrees with Demea’s claim that they should not challenges god’s existences rather his nature. He goes on to say “Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe we call God” (Hume, page 14). However is part three Philo degrades the cause and effect argument he used to acknowledge Demea’s claim. Philo goes on to challenging God’s “goodness”, but challenges Demea and Cleanthes argument. Nevertheless towards the end Philo’s argument was that religion is the causation of people’s pain and fear. Philo claims that religion is the reason why people are unhappy, but also that religion is “evil”. He ends the dialogue by saying “To be a philosophical skeptic is, in a man of letting, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian” (Hume, Page 89). Therefore if we question the institution of religion and are skeptic then the idea of God we will come to light with