Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
Cleanthes, Demea and Philo debate what cosmic order, evil and human limitations permit us to conclude about a deity.
Understanding the text
Hume worked on the text for years and arranged posthumous publication; the characters are not transparent mouthpieces.
Key points
- 01
Analogy
Comparing the world with a machine requires justification of the relevant resemblance.
- 02
Evil
Suffering complicates attributing perfect goodness and unlimited power together.
- 03
Dialogue
Final concessions need interpretation within the dramatic whole rather than isolation as a definitive confession.
Explore the ideas in depth
Read a controversy without confusing its voices
Cleanthes, Demea and Philo debate what cosmic order, evil and human limitations permit us to conclude about a deity.
Analogy
Comparing the world with a machine requires justification of the relevant resemblance. Hume worked on the text for years and arranged posthumous publication; the characters are not transparent mouthpieces.
Evil
Suffering complicates attributing perfect goodness and unlimited power together. Track who speaks and what is granted only for argument’s sake. Compare parts II, X–XI and XII before identifying Hume’s own position.
Dialogue
Final concessions need interpretation within the dramatic whole rather than isolation as a definitive confession. An extraordinary report invites comparison between testimony quality and competing explanations.
Questions to carry into your reading
- What resemblance is sufficient for an analogy?
- Does a final concession settle every objection?
Track who speaks and what is granted only for argument’s sake. Compare parts II, X–XI and XII before identifying Hume’s own position.
How to read it
Track who speaks and what is granted only for argument’s sake. Compare parts II, X–XI and XII before identifying Hume’s own position.
Editions & sources
Summaries and key points are original editorial interpretations. They accompany reading the work and do not replace an edition of the text. Editorial method ↗