Book Review: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume

Following the classical format of Plato and other ancient philosophers, David Hume presents his arguments around natural religion as a dialogue with several characters discussing the topic from their points of view. Natural religion is distinguished from revealed religion by Hume and most others. Revealed religion is based on revelation, either Biblical or from another religious tradition. Natural religion is what humans can discover about the divine through reason and reflection about the world around us. The characters in this dialogue take the existence of God as a given. What they discuss is the nature of the Divine Being. 

The characters in the dialogue represent various positions. Demea is an orthodox rationalist who lets his faith guide his reasoning and suppositions about God. Philo is a skeptical rationalist who holds a very high standard for what can and cannot be said about God. He gives way on very few points. In between is Cleanthes, a more philosophical theist who winds up more on the side of Philo than of Demea. Hume's personal leanings are not explicitly stated in the dialogue, but based on his other works he is much more like Philo than the other two. 

Philo argues against concepts like the rational order of the universe, saying the comparison to human creation of objects is a superficial parallel. A biological model, with the universe growing like it was a plant or animal, seems just as likely as a constructed universe, with the universe built like it was a machine. Most human attributes that are transferred to the divine nature also seem unlikely and unworthy of a divine being. Infinity is also a concept that has no real meaning for Philo, it being so far from human experience and the natures of the universe and of the things within it. Philo's point of view is the most prominent, most sympathetic in the text. Demea storms off at the end, leaving Philo and Cleanthes to summarize and finalize the conversation.

Hume's arguments are all couched from a point of view that focuses on the limits of human knowing, on a type of pessimistic epistemology (theory of knowing) that sets very sharp limits on what can be known. It's no surprise that the Divine has hardly any knowable attributes. The only surprise is that the interlocutors even agree on the existence of God when many of the arguments refuted by Philo are ones used to prove His existence (like well-ordered nature of the universe). Historically, Hume claimed he was a Christian though most people who knew him personally thought he was an atheist.

Mildly recommended--Hume gives solid reasoning but premises that are hard to agree with.