Is Philo Offers Better Arguments For Explanation Of God 's Existence Than Demea And Cleanthes
1163 Words Dec 15th, 2016 5 Pages
In this paper, I will argue that Philo offers better arguments for explanation of God’s existence than Demea and Cleanthes. During Hume’s days, the 1700s, science was not very advance and many philosophical arguments were based off of empirical observations. This paper contains information regarding how the argument between the three panned out and contains my thoughts on the conversation. While I do not have all the answers on these matters, I will provide my views and arguments in hopes of presenting a different perspective.
In Hume’s writing, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, he writes about an imaginary conversation between three people Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo. Demea is very orthodox and believes in God but is skeptical about investigations. He believes that God is a perfect being but other than that, humans know nothing else; to imagine anything else is heresy. Demas thinks that with limited human knowledge, one can only make weak arguments about God and these arguments may lead to false ideas and even skepticism. He questions science and philosophy but believes in theology. Unlike Demea, Cleanthes believes in theology on top of believing in science and philosophy.
Cleanthes is a pragmatic skeptic who believes in experimenting and investigating till an answer is discovered. He acknowledges that humans have limited knowledge yet he believes that this and skepticism is not enough to test our beliefs and thus not be a serious issue. Like…