hume - dialogues-732

hume - dialogues-732, książki, Philosphy

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Dialogues Concerning Natural ReligionDavid Hume1779* * * *Copyright 1997, James Fieser (jfieser@utm.edu). See end note fordetails on copyright and editing conventions. This e-text isbased on the 1779 edition of Hume's Dialogues and waselectronically compared to a commercial e-text of the Dialogues.Visual comparisons were also made to other recent printededitions. Spelling has been modernized according to Britishspelling conventions; punctuation has not been modernized. Smallcapitalization has been consistently applied to proper names. Seeend note for details on copyright.1* * * *EDITOR'S INTRODUCTIONJames FieserHume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ranks among thegreatest writings in the history of Western philosophy. The workaddresses the sensitive issue of the knowledge we have of Godthrough reason alone, and, in the process, Hume presentsarguments which undermine the classic proofs for God's existence.The arguments in the Dialogues assume an important 18th centurydistinction between natural religion and revealed religion.Natural religion involves knowledge of God drawn from nature,solely by the use of reasoning. Often this involves drawingconclusions about the natural design we see in the universe.Revealed religion, on the other hand, involves religiousknowledge derived from revelation, specifically divinely inspiredtexts such as the Bible. From his earliest writings, Humeattacked both of these alleged avenues of religious truth. In theTreatise of Human Nature (1739-40), published when he was 27,Hume attacks natural religion arguing that our ideas reach nofarther than our experience; since we have no experience ofdivine attributes and operations, then we can have no conceptionof divine attributes. In his infamous essay on miracles from AnEnquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume goes a stepfurther and attacks revealed religion. He argues that it is neverreasonable to believe in violations of natural laws, such asreports of miracles and prophecies, which in turn are thefoundations of revealed religion. Given the rational bankruptcyof both natural and revealed religion, what remains, for Hume, iswhat he calls vulgar religion. Vulgar religion is the religiousbelief of the masses, and we understand this by uncovering thetrue psychological causes of these beliefs, such as emotions andinstincts. He examines vulgar religion in his Natural History ofReligion (1757), a work he composed simultaneously with theDialogues. The Dialogues, though, deals exclusively with thesubject of natural religion and in this work Hume offers his mostsystematic critique of the subject.THE CHARACTERS OF THE DIALOGUES. Hume's decision to composethis work in dialog form is significant. During the 18th century,Great Britain was among the most free countries in Europe, andpolitical authorities allowed a great amount of unobstructedexpression. However, religious leaders believed that rationalproofs for God's existence were almost as integral toChristianity as the Bible itself. Accordingly, officials vieweddirect attacks on natural theology as an abuse of freeexpression. To avoid political confrontation, Hume adopted thecommon literary technique of presenting controversial argumentsin dialog form. There are three principal characters in Hume'sDialogues. On the conservative side of the issue, a characternamed Cleanthes offers a posteriori arguments for God'sexistence, particularly the design argument:(a) Machines are produced by intelligent design(b) Universe resembles a machine(c) Therefore, the universe was produced by intelligentdesignThe design argument rests on an analogy between the design werecognize in human-created artifacts and similar design werecognize in the universe. This similarity of design entitles usto conclude that the universe was likewise created by intelligentdesign. Most of the Dialogues focuses on aspects of the designargument. Next, a character named Demea prefers a prioriarguments for God's existence, particularly Leibniz'scosmological argument:(a) The world contains an infinite sequence of contingentfacts;(b) An explanation is needed as to the origin of this wholeinfinite series, which goes beyond an explanation of eachmember in the series;(c) The explanation of this whole series cannot reside inthe series itself, since the very fact of its existencewould still need an explanation (principle of sufficientreason)(d) Therefore, there is a necessary substance which producedthis infinite series, and which is the complete explanationof its own existence as well.Earlier defenders of cosmological-type arguments, such asAquinas, argued that an infinite series of causes of the universeis impossible. Thus, a first divine cause is required to startthis series of individual causes. However, Demea (and Leibniz)assume that an infinite series of causes of the universe ispossible. Even so, Demea argues, we still need an explanation ofthe entire collection of finite causes, which must be foundoutside of the infinite collection of individual causes.Finally, a character named Philo is a skeptic who arguesagainst both a posteriori and a priori proofs. Philo offers astream of criticisms against the design argument, many of whichare now standard in discussions of the issue. For Philo, thedesign argument is based on a faulty analogy: we don't knowwhether the order in nature was the result of design since,unlike our experience with the creation of machines, we did notwitness the formation of the world. The vastness of the universealso weakens any comparison with a human artifacts: although theuniverse is orderly here, it may be chaotic elsewhere. Similarly,if intelligent design is exhibited only in a small fraction ofthe universe, then we can not say it is the productive force ofthe whole universe. Philo also contends that natural design maybe accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter containswithin itself a principle of order. And even if the design of theuniverse is of divine origin, we are not justified in concludingthat this divine cause is a single, all powerful, or all goodbeing. As to the cosmological argument, Philo argues that once wehave a sufficient explanation for each particular fact in theinfinite sequence of facts, it makes no sense to inquire aboutthe origin of the collection of these facts. That is, once weadequately account for each individual fact, this constitutes asufficient explanation of the whole collection.The three characters in Hume's Dialogues are loosely basedon characters in Cicero's classic dialog, On the Nature of theGods and we may reasonably assume that Hume's audience recognizedthis. In Cicero's dialog, a character named Cotta was a religiousskeptic, and his teacher was named Philo. Second, a characternamed Balbus voiced an orthodox Stoic view of the gods, andBalbus's teacher was named Cleanthes. Finally a character namedVelleius presented a third Epicurean view. Cicero himselfintroduced and concluded his dialog, declaring Balbus the winner.In Hume's dialog, too, the narrator declares the orthodoxCleanthes the winner over the skeptical Philo. For Cicero, themain issue of the dialog is not so much the existence of thegods, but the nature of the gods, and whether they intervene.However, for Hume the existence of God is the most prominentissue.PUBLICATION OF THE DIALOGUES. Hume began work on theDialogues in about 1751. He apparently revised the manuscriptabout 10 years later, and probably again in 1776 prior to hisdeath. During the last few months of his life, Hume scrambled tomake arrangements for the publication of his manuscript, whichultimately appeared in print three years later in 1779. For morethan 100 years, the 1779 publication was the basis for otherprinted editions of the Dialogues. However, because Hume did notoversee the 1779 publication, more recent editions return to theoriginal manuscript, which is in the possession of the RoyalSociety of Edinburgh and is currently available on microfilm.Differences between the 1779 edition and more recent ones areinsignificant, although recent editions contain annotations whichdescribe the various revisions Hume made to the manuscript. Inhis correspondences, Hume left an interesting paper trailpertaining to the composition and ultimate publication of theDialogues. The first indication of the manuscript is in thefollowing letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto, in which Hume asksElliot to review some "sample" parts of the manuscript (probablyParts 1-4 from the final 12 sections):You wou'd perceive by the Sample I have given you, that Imake Cleanthes the Hero of the Dialogue. Whatever you canthink of, to strengthen that Side of the Argument, will bemost acceptable to me. Any Propensity you imagine I have tothe other Side, crept in upon me against my Will ... I haveoften thought, that the best way of composing a Dialogue,wou'd be for two Persons that are of different Opinionsabout any Question of Importance, to write alternately thedifferent Parts of the Discourse, &amp... [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]