Study Questions for Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, pp.1-2, 13-27

1. (pp.1-2) Which two kinds of issues are said to be best presented in dialogue form? What truth of natural religion is supposed to be of the first kind? What topic of natural religion is of the second kind?

2. Notice (p.2) how Pamphilus describes the characters of Cleanthes, Philo, and Demea.  As you read the Dialogues, see whether you agree with Pamphilus' characterizations. 

3. Read Part 1 if you like (it is something of a prelude), but we will focus on the arguments that begin in Part 2

4. The parties agree that it is known that God exists, but they disagree about what can be known about the nature of God.

a. (pp.13-14) What is Demea's view?

b. (pp.14-15) What is Philo's view?

c. (p.15) What is Cleanthes view? (This statement of Cleanthes will be the focus of much of the dialogue.) Note: Cleanthes says his argument is “a posteriori” – that is, it is an argument based on experience. The contrast is with “a priori” arguments, arguments based on reasoning alone, like those we encountered in Descartes.

5. (p.15) How does Demea respond to Cleanthes’ view? (This will be a minor theme.)

6. (p.16) How does Philo respond to Cleanthes’ view? (This will be a major theme.) More specifically, what point does he make about arguments from analogy?  Why does he think this one is weak?  Do you agree?  Why or why not?

7. (pp.17-18) Why does Demea object to the discussion? How does Philo reassure him?

8. From the middle of p.18 to the end of p.22 we get Philo’s criticisms of the argument from design (as advanced by Cleanthes). Between the top of p.19 and the top of p.21 Philo raises four general problems. Try to identify them all.

9. How is the discussion from the middle of p.21-p.22 relevant to the problems Philo has raised? Do you think Philo has adequately answered Cleanthes’ objection?

10. Cleanthes’ defense of the argument from design runs from p.23 to p.26. What does Cleanthes think is wrong with Philo’s argument? What point is he trying to make by talking about “an articulate voice...heard in the clouds”? How does he think the natural world compares to a book? What do you think of this way of trying to undermine Philo’s objections?

11. (pp.22-3) Why does Demea object to Cleanthes' analogy?