Cleanthes and Maximus
The excerpt from David Hume's, Dialogues on Natural Religion is structured as follows: Hume begins by stating an argument for the existence of God through the character of Cleanthes and then offers three criticisms of the argument through the character of Philo.The main argument that Cleanthes presents to Philo is as follows:(Premise) Nature is similarly structured therefore it works perfectly in tune like a machine or an invention. Working beyond human capabilities, therefore its creator must be one of high intelligence and infinite perfection.(Conclusion) Cleanthes concludes his argument with the claim that God exists.The first point that Philo makes of Cleanthes argument is that his premise is false. Philo says "If we see a house or a ship or a machine, we conclude, with the greatest certainty that it had an architect or builder; because this precisely that species of effect, which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause". Therefore the similarity is not entirely reliable. As it is stated in the following "But wherever you depart, in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportion ably the evidence; and may at last bring to it a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable
Now the second criticism that Philo makes of Cleanthes argument is that the conclusion is false, this is what Philo say's to prove this: "What shadow of an argument can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove that there is only one God? After all, a great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth; why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?"What Philo argues is that if Cleanthes is to conclude that the world bears resemblance to a house or a machine with his hypothesis there is no way to prove that there is only one god. Therefore the similarity that "Like effects prove like causes", shows that the basis of Cleanthes argument is weak. For all we know this world could have been created by a god of lesser perfection, who did not like the finished result and left it behind because of it's lesser perfection compared to the world's created by other god's. Even if the premise to this argument were true it still wouldn't prove that there is only one god, meaning Cleanthes conclusion is false. Therefore if we go from the experience based on this similarity of how blood circulates in humans and animals, then working with this similarity it would be incorrect to conclude that sap circulates in vegetables the same as blood does in humans and animals. The third criticism that Philo makes of Cleanthes argument is that both his premise and conclusion are false, as he says "And how can you prove that the author of nature is perfect in all ways?" What he critises is the idea that god is a being of high intelligence and infinite perfection. Therefore the argument of Cleanthes does not appear to have any truth to it. The analogical reasoning is much weaker, when we infer the circulation of the sap in vegetables from our experience, that the blood circulates in animals; and those, who hastily followed that imperfect analogy, are found, by more accurate experiments, to have been mistaken''. Philo backs this argument up by saying the following: "Perhaps this world, for all we know, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first attempt of some infant god, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of it's lame performance". to error and uncertainty'' Now what Philo means by this is that every time something happens in nature we come to conclusions, without studying the similarities between cases, we eliminate evidence for these similarities to be a hundred percent reliable. What Philo does in that statement is use the example of the circulation of sap within vegetables to show how the similarity is false. ''For example, after having experienced the circulation of the blood in human creatures, we make no doubt that it takes place in Titius and Maevius: but from its circulation in frogs and fishes, it is only a presumption, though a strong one, from analogy, that it takes place in men and other animals. For all he knows there would have to be several gods involved in the creation of this world. Philo is basically arguing that if God did really create this world how do we know if he was really perfect and had an intelligence superior to us, That this world indeed is not perfect having many faults.
Common topics in this essay:
Titius Maevius,
Conclusion Cleanthes,
Natural Religion,
Premise Nature,
conclusion false,
cleanthes argument,
Cleanthes Philo,
makes cleanthes argument,
philo makes cleanthes,
makes cleanthes,
philo makes,
prove god,
blood circulates,
,
god intelligence,
hypothesis prove,
sap vegetables,
criticism philo makes,
circulation sap,
cleanthes argument premise,
circulation sap vegetables,
|
Acceptance Essays
