What's Hume dialogues concerning natural religion all about?

Answer 1

It's about whether 'natural religion' -- the attempt to justify traditional religious doctrines solely on the bases of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning -- is successful. It spends most of its time on the design argument, but it also has discussions of the problem of evil, a Samuel Clarke-style cosmological argument, skepticism and religion, the nature of God, and religion's relation to morality, society, and life.

Here's something I wrote for an earlier Yahoo Answers question:

Cleanthes is a common-sense empirical-minded believer, who thinks that religion can be established by the kind of observation and reasoning found in science. He defends a version of the design argument for God's existence. He thinks that God's mind is similar (though superior) to human minds, that the notion of a mysterious infinite being doesn't make any sense, that attempts to prove God's existence with knockdown quasi-mathematical arguments don't work, that the world is an overall nice place, and that religion has good effects in society (by encouraging people to behave morally) and offers comfort in life.

Philo is a skeptical 'believer' who thinks that God is completely unknowable and that the difference between theism and atheism is not very great. He offers many different criticisms of Cleanthes' design argument, arguing that the argument is too weak to establish anything like the God of traditional religion, and that perhaps it can establish nothing more than that whatever caused the universe is (in some very remote way) similar to human intelligence. He also rejects knockdown proofs of God's existence, he argues that all the evil in the world means that whatever 'God' there is probably doesn't care one way or the other about our well-being, and that nearly all religion is bad for society (by making people into crazed zealots) and bad for individual people (by plaguing their thoughts with imaginary terrors).

Demea is an orthodox believer who is always trying to guard against 'dangerous' opinions. He thinks that God is too great and mysterious for us to imagine, that Cleanthes' design argument isn't strong enough because it doesn't deliver certainty, that God's existence can be proven with knockdown arguments, and that all the suffering in life is the best way to lead people to religion. He leaves at the end of part 11, after being scandalized by Philo's discussion of the problem of evil.

The Dialogues go like this: Part 1, they discuss religion, philosophy, common sense, and skepticism. Parts 2-8, they discuss Cleanthes' design argument -- here Philo offers his objections. Part 9, they discuss Demea's would-be knockdown argument. Parts 10-11, they discuss the problem of evil. Part 12, Cleanthes and Philo discuss the results of the discussion thus far, and then the effects of religion on society and in life.

Answer 2

not one of the arguments in that pamphlet are purely deductive. that's considered one of the matters with it, the arguments at the instant are not as sound (or as unique) as Hume might have enjoyed, partly because of the fact he became into not attentive to the risk calculus being superior on the time he wrote that artwork. there is surely a very good e book on purely those factors, somewhat as they relate to Hume's "On Miracles".

Answer 3

Here's Wiki's rather brief but clear description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogues_Concerning_Natural_Religion