Study Questions for Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Parts X-XI

1. On pp.58-62 Philo and Demea take turns developing the notion that human life is mostly miserable, burdened as it is with pain, death, disease, oppression, depression, etc., etc., etc. What do you think of their case?

2. On p. 63 Philo states what is traditionally called “the Problem of Evil.” What exactly is the problem?

3. On p. 64 Demea claims to have a solution to the problem. What is it?

4. Why does Cleanthes reject Demea’s solution? (P.64)

5. What solution does Cleanthes propose? (Pp.64-65)

6. Why does Philo reject Cleanthes’ solution? (P.65)

7. How does he then argue that, even if Cleanthes had his facts right, his argument would still be faulty? (bottom of 65-top of 66)

8. How does he then argue that, even if Cleanthes could show that the misery in the world is “compatible with infinite power and goodness in the Deity,” that misery would still undermine Cleanthes argument for the existence of such a Deity”? (P.66, middle)

9. On p.67 Cleanthes proposes to think of God not as infinitely perfect, but as “finitely perfect” (that is, somewhat limited in knowledge or power). What solution to the problem of evil does this permit?

10. Philo again (pp.68-69) draws a distinction between two questions:

a. Is the evil (or misery) in the world logically inconsistent with the supposition that there is a God? (If so, then the presence of evil would be a proof that God does not exist. But, even if not, Cleanthes still has a problem, which is brought out by the other question.)

b. Does the evil (or misery) in the world undermine efforts (like Cleanthes’) to use the nature of the world as evidence for the existence and nature of God?

Philo wants to show that even if we answer “no” to the first question, we surely must answer “yes” to the second one, and therefore reject Cleanthes’ argument from design. What do you think?

11. On pp.69-73 Philo describes four circumstances that, he says, are responsible for most of the “natural evil” in the world. What are they?

12. Philo claims (p.74 and several times earlier) that these circumstances “might ... easily have been remedied.” Do you agree?

13. Note the paragraph that starts at the middle of p.74. What do you think of Philo’s ‘take’ on nature?

14. On p.75 Demea (finally) notices that Philo’s arguments may be undermining religious belief (as Demea conceives it) and not just defending it from Cleanthes “anthropomorphism.” He asks, “Are you secretly, then, a more dangerous enemy than Cleanthes himself?” What do you think?