The Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion Analysis

1423 Words 6 Pages
In part X in “The Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion”, Demea has been trying to explain his ontological argument to Cleanthes and Philo. They believe that Demea’s argument is pathetic. This is because Demea believes that the human existence is so pathetic, we simply have to believe in the existence of God. We have to believe, feel, and experience God’s presence to make our lives more tolerable or good willing. Demea explains our lives are always falling to the faith with religion. We tend to look forward and try to pray for “God”. Demea feels there be always a faith in God or a type of religion that soothes us from terror or torment around us.
Philo does reason with Demea’s argument. He also believes that the only way the people can see what religion is, is by trying to see the misery of men. Philo also believes that there is no need to prove what everyone feels but rather to make us feel it strongly and intimately. Many people are always determining for the truth. They all tend to have miseries, unhappiness, corruptions, and pleasure. Mankind is always stereotypical in all parts of the world. Philo says that people are draining to the “poets” writing, where they write about the feelings everyone have and how a person
…show more content…
God does not grant their happiness but people mistaken it by the range of human knowledge.
Philo says that the purpose of nature is not like Cleanthes predicts. Philo considers the reason is simple because of the preservations of individuals, where humans are enabling to stay in life without caring for other’s happiness. There is no actual proof that machinery is aiming to give pleasure. Each individual has satisfaction that does not lead to anything. God cannot account who is perfect. We all have different divine factors that makes each person who they

Related Documents