Be Specific About Books Conducive To Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
| Original Title: | Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion |
| ISBN: | 0872204022 (ISBN13: 9780872204027) |
| Edition Language: | English |
David Hume
Paperback | Pages: 160 pages Rating: 3.96 | 4877 Users | 153 Reviews
Identify Based On Books Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
| Title | : | Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion |
| Author | : | David Hume |
| Book Format | : | Paperback |
| Book Edition | : | 2nd Edition |
| Pages | : | Pages: 160 pages |
| Published | : | September 1st 1998 by Hackett Publishing Company (first published 1751) |
| Categories | : | Philosophy. Religion. Nonfiction. Classics. Theology |
Commentary Concering Books Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
All the New Atheists I've come across cite the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, most recently A.C. Grayling in his horrible The God Argument. But I wonder how carefully they read it; more and more often I feel they are metamorphosing into their creationist enemies, diligently mining out-of-context quotes to support their claim that there is no God and they can prove it. Hume would never have said anything so silly, though I doubt he'd be surprised at the way he is now used: he gives the impression of having seen every side of this debate a hundred times. He is not an atheist but a sceptic, an important distinction. His task here is to look critically at the arguments which purportedly demonstrate that the universe displays evidence of having been created by God. He is remarkably convincing when he demonstrates their essential weaknesses. The main problems are easy to state: we can only ever reason by analogy with things we know, we only know a small part of the universe, and, worst, we only have one example of a universe to reason about. It is impossible under such circumstances to draw firm conclusions about our universe's origins. It is arguable that the universe in some ways resembles a machine; machines are designed and produced through the agency of human minds, hence it is possible, by analogy, that the universe was produced by some Being whose mind resembles ours. Hume has little difficulty in showing that the argument is weak, and that, even if the universe was produced by a purposeful Being, we have no reason to deduce that this Being necessarily resembles us in any important respects. The New Atheists like to quote passages from the above. Hume also considers related arguments. Machines are not the only complex, ordered things we are familiar with; there are also living creatures, which are produced by reproductive processes. (It is startling to see how close he is to explicitly hypothesizing a version of evolution). As he says, the universe is arguably as much like a living creature as it is like a machine, so once again it is feasible to reason by analogy: living things arise by reproduction, the universe is like a living thing, hence the universe perhaps arose through a process like reproduction. Yet another possibility is that the universe arose through a process of blind chance. Given enough time, its particles will cycle though all possible combinations, and in the end one configuration may arise which causes the production of the complex world of living creatures that we see. I think Hume would have been amused to see people like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss claim, in all seriousness, that they know some version of his second or third scenario to be the true account of our universe's origin. He advances these ideas in a spirit of playfulness, to show that there are equally good alternatives to a Divine Watchmaker, but he makes it clear that he trusts them neither more nor less. He can't see any way to resolve the questions given the evidence at our disposal. We now have a great deal more evidence, but the difficulties in principle remain. With only a single universe, it is not obvious how one can use the scientific method, which relies on accumulating evidence from multiple related cases. This point has been made repeatedly in recent years by Lee Smolin, who accuses speculative cosmologists of concocting radical metaphysical fantasies and marketing them as science. I'd love to see Hume in a panel discussion with Lawrence Krauss and Francis S. Collins. Since that, alas, seems unlikely to happen, read his book. It's short, amusingly written and remarkably sensible.Rating Based On Books Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Ratings: 3.96 From 4877 Users | 153 ReviewsRate Based On Books Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
One of the more lucid writers in philosophy, David Hume blends the writing style of Rousseau with the precision of Dawkins. These dialogues were published posthumously as Scotland was not the most open-minded country in the 18th Century. Atheism was liable to get you arrested and Hume subtly and successfully works in arguments against most of the theological thought of antiquity. His opinions are embodied in the fiercely skeptical Philo who analytically tears down each argument that the devoutThis volume primarily explores the logical difficulties of the familiar argument from a perceived design of nature to the nature of a Deity/Creator. The logical problems of a First Cause, the existence of evil and the necessary existence of a perfect being are also discussed in a discussion of three characters: Demea, Philo and Cleanthes in the format of a dialogue. Philo does most of the arguing, presenting the skeptical case, commonly believed to be Hume's personal opinion. Demea represents
Anybody who doesn't appreciate Hume doesn't appreciate philosophy. His dialogues are entertaining and insightful, and they are a good introduction to Hume's style and thought.The dialogues exhibit the typical Humean combination of technically proficient but also commonsensical arguments. Hume methodically dispels the haughty aura of self-declared experts in the ivory tower by appealing to the intuitions and the common sense of ordinary people. (In this there are strong echoes of Plato's
If you are a religious person stay away from this book because it will give you eye cancer. It's hard to put sense into someone whose defense for their beliefs is just as irrational as themselves.Parents should not subject children to manipulation and fear in order for them to believe in this person called 'god'. Let them make their own decision when they have the age and knowledge to make it. A lot of people need to read this before they start to become aware of how absurdly far fetched and
I just finished reading Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume. What a magnificent piece of philosophical inquiry! Considering the time it was written, this short book offers an impressive and accessible survey of its subject. Hume disposed of the Argument from Design a century before Darwin.
One of the worst books that I was ever forced to read in college.
One of the more lucid writers in philosophy, David Hume blends the writing style of Rousseau with the precision of Dawkins. These dialogues were published posthumously as Scotland was not the most open-minded country in the 18th Century. Atheism was liable to get you arrested and Hume subtly and successfully works in arguments against most of the theological thought of antiquity. His opinions are embodied in the fiercely skeptical Philo who analytically tears down each argument that the devout
0 Comments