Many commentator's on Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion find Hume's conclusion NOT in Pamphilus's claim that Cleanthes' views "approach still nearer the truth" (89), but in Philo's remark italicized on the precediing page: that natural religion can arrive at the fairly limited truth "That the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence" (88).
Is that enough to build a spiritual practice on? According to Hume's own example (as we'll see on Monday): No. Yet Philo goes on to say (much to the dismay of many, who want Hume to be an unwavering proponent of aetheism), "To be a philosophical skeptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian" (89). Don't be to quick to assume that such remarks are merely strategic--after all, Hume knew the public would not be reading his thoughts on natural religion after his death.
What difference does it make to one's belief or lack there of if the cause(s) of order in the universe are probably remotely analogous to human intelligence? Does that change anything? What? How?
Deadline: Monday (3/7), start of class. Posts before midnight tonight (3/5) will count towards Week 7; posts after midnight will count towards Week 8.
6 comments:
The idea that the first cause of the universe is remotely analogous to human intelligence is too easy to twist to really make a difference to a belief system.
If the first cause is not infinite, as Cleanthes admits at the beginning of part XI, then the Christian system is not supported. It may be a system that more closely resembles the gods of Ancient Greece or Rome.
Additionally, the first cause may not be wholly good. Considering the problem of evil - the first cause might be impotent, malicious or a combination of the two. Human intelligence after all is sometimes limited and sometimes malicious so an analogous intelligence responsible for the universe may also be ambivalent or inconsistent.
I suspect that part of the reason that Hume makes it so difficult to declare a clear winner in the Dialogue is to promote skepticism and reason more broadly. The narrator, Pamphilus, declares Cleanthes the winner, yet this is not the case. Others in class on Friday found their willingness to trust narrators was eroded by the discursive tactics they used or their characterization. Perhaps then we can also take the end point of Philo's urging with a grain of salt. Instead of philosophical skepticism being the first step towards being a sound and believing Christian, it might be the first step towards a healthy and rational approach to religion and life in general.
I have been contemplating three questions about Hume’s Dialogue.
1) Why didn’t Hume make clear where he stood in the whole? Shaun addresses this issue above but I do not share Shaun’s suspicion that “part of the reason that Hume makes it so difficult to declare a clear winner in the Dialogue is to promote skepticism and reason more broadly”. It is my suspicion Hume may have privately come to the conclusion there can be no winner in this lifetime for--perhaps by design--we must live in the mystery.
2) Why would Hume want to wait until after his death to release the Dialogues to the public? Because an acceptance of the mysteries of life would effectively remove him from the argument. This would not be the choice of a man who finds “Opposite sentiments, even without any decision, afford an agreeable amusement” (Pamphilus to Hermippus).
3) Why did Hume steep his Dialogues in humorous hyperbole and comic barbs? I suspect Hume had a little laugh at himself and his colleagues. Think about the timing. Hume knew he would be wherever we go next when his colleagues read the Dialogues. It may be Hume sits in a heavenly chair and chuckles as he watches the debate go on even today.
I think it does not mean that much to one's belief system if human intelligence is analogous to the cause or order of the universe. If you continue reading on page 88 where Philo makes this inference, Philo makes points similar to Shaun's explanation above. Philo says, "if this really be the case, what can the most inquisitive, contemplative, and religious man do more than give a plain, philosophical assent to the proposition, as often as it occurs, and believe that the arguments on which it is established exceed the objections which lie against it?" I think he is saying what he has basically been saying all along -- that he believes God exists, but that we cannot understand the nature of God. He could be the "soul" of the universe, he could be many gods or one God, he could be good or evil, finite or infinite.
I also definitely agree with Shaun that Hume's inclusion of Philo's claim to be a Christian anyway is that he wants his reader to be surprised and to question what they are reading. It's too obvious that he out of nowhere claims to be a Christian, while he's been claiming to be a skeptic of organized religion during the entire text, and that Pamphilus just happens to agree with his tutor, Cleanthes, who he would have thought was right in the first place. I think Hume wrote this in order to push both himself and his reader to the limits of their own skepticism and reasoning. He wants the reader to think deeply on the philosophy of natural religion and to not take anything for granted. The fact that everyone in class pretty much agreed that they found the ending suspicious, I think, supports that this was probably Hume's intention and that he was rather successful at making his audience question preconceived notions. Even twenty-first century college students were intrigued by his ideas and many people did say that they had not considered a lot of the things we discussed.
The order of the universe probably is out of the mental capacity in which we humans are capable of ever dealing with. Knowing this, it only gives us more room to argue. Believers have every right to take that and say it is too complex to actually be figured out, which is true right now. Non-believers just want to ask for any proof at all that Go is running the show. This is because in much smaller scientific studies there is evidence that there are natural laws to why things happen.These are so small in comparison to what religion is talking about though, so no one is a winner.
It's very difficult to use the order of the universe, or anything for that matter to prove religion. The fact of the matter that God, religion, and deities are difficult, if not impossible to prove with scientific evidence. The only thing a person can really do to prove God is faith. This makes the debate very difficult because any non-believer doesn't have the same faith that a religious person would have.
It's basically using the phrase "I just know" in a scholarly debate. The person who believes that it is the truth cannot be swayed by a disbeliever, but the critic is left with nothing to change his mind.
Cleanthes and Demea both believe in the complexity of God, but they can never really prove that He exists. Demea simply says that God is too complex to understand in the first place, but Cleanthes goes one step further using Nature as his proof. The problem with this is that the miracles we see in nature can be explained by natural laws, so any skeptic on the matter of God would look at these miracles and have a valid explanation for why it happens.
So in the end it comes down to faith. Whether a person believes that God exists or not, a person should have faith in their individual belief.
Personally, I feel that the argument is a week one to begin with. Saying that the universe resembles human intelligence means very little. On top of the, I think that Philo, being the skeptic, may have made that comment as a skeptic; its difficult to say that you could be correct in an argument if you never even consider the other side. Philo admitting that the universe resembles human intelligence doesn't necessarily weaken his original stance.
Post a Comment