Some help with Hume

On the Dialogue: There are three main characters in the dialogue –Philo, the skeptic, Cleanthes, the natural theologian, and Demea, the dogmatist. When you are reading the dialogue you should note carefully who teams up with who during the debate –the shifting alliances between the cast of characters is, I think, very telling about what Hume’s project is in this text. In the beginning, you will note, the skeptic and the dogmatist seem allied against the “natural theologian”. But this shifts during the course of the discussion. The key here is of course to watch the arguments and discover what the over-all point of this dialogue is.




Cleanthes: natural theologian—offers a posteriori arguments for God’s existence and nature. If Cleanthes is correct, it is possible to develop religion from a rational basis in our experience of the world. Note: this is not a personal or subjective experience of “faith” or whatever, but an experience of an objective or common world, and so it is an experience and reasoning that everyone can share.


Demea: dogmatist, or pure rationalist—offers a priori arguments for God’s existence (very much like Descartes’ arguments, though the particular argument Hume had in mind is offered by Liebniz and Clark). For Demea, we do not need to rely on experience to prove God’s existence and nature; in fact, such reliance undermines belief in God. Rather, we can prove God through the use of pure reason alone, and as a result, base religion in reason alone, and so avoid the potential pitfalls of experience.


Philo: skeptic—attacks all arguments offered to prove that God exists, whether a priori or a posteriori. Philo’s precise position may be difficult to ascertain. However, it seems clear that he believes that reasoning from experience permits some reasonable assertion of the existence of a Deity, but no reasonable basis for religion. This becomes clearer near the end, but is the subject of much debate.


Which one is Hume? Again, a matter of debate—indeed, whether it is even worthwhile asking the question.