PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIT GREGORIANA

FACOLT DI FILOSOFIA ANNO ACCADEMICO 2008-2009

The David Humes Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion A brief exposition on causality, parts five and six.

Prof. Lubos Rojka

Student: Orlando Porta (157801)

Index.
Introduction. I. Hume and the Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion.
1.1 A brief introduction to the Dialogs structure. 1.2 Philos principal arguments. 1.3 Problems about Humes position.

1 2 2 3 6 6 6

II. The Theist position.

2.1 Arguments on Creation. And the Gods existence argument. 2.2 Thomas Aquinas, the proofs of Gods existence and the Universes origins.

7
2.3 Richard Swinburne and The order of the universe

III. The Nontheistic position and the problems with a theistic position. 8
3.1 Moreland and Lane Craigs exposition. 3.2 Brian Davies exposition. 3.3 Problems and possible discussions with the authors.

8 9 9 10 11

Conclusion. Bibliography.

Introduction.
The problem of causality as it is called is not precisely a new problem. For many years it was not even considered a problem at all, because the conception of the origin of the universe was almost everywhere based on the Catholic view, of course there where little differences and discussions, but them has no a real importance. This situation changes when the view of our world has changed. With the evolution of

science, many of the things we thought in a way were changed and studied once more according to the scientific process. For this reason in the last period, in which the concept of God is a highly discussed concept, the problem of causality takes more importance, and once the discussion started, it was divided basically in two fronts, which we call the theist and the Nontheist1 We have a big field of research. But we also have a particular point of departure. The Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion, written by David Hume as his last work. This departure point has a great influence for us, because it limits our research in to an English research in the last 50 or 60 years, including ofcourse, even if older and not an English author, Thomas Aquinas. He represents the Catholic view of this problem. We will expose this problem in a structure of three parts. Starting with Humes position, watching briefly the structure of the Dialogs, giving also an interpretation, that must be useful to continue with the second part. This consists in the theistic position, presented basically by Thomas Aquinass view. We also will mention a modern author to continue then with the last step. The third part consists of the presentation of two authors, that present the problems of the second part, even if they are not precisely, Non theists authors. The most important thing to remember is that they show clearly what the problems are.

Hume and the Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion.

1.1 A brief introduction to the Dialogs structure.
The way in which Hume presents us the problem, is interesting. He writes a dialog and not a treatise concerning Natural Religion. The argument could not be explained so easily. The dialog takes place in Cleanthess library; he is a philosopher who obviously defends reason. He is the tutor of an unseen but very important character, that we will present at the end of this chapter. The second character after Cleanthes is Demea, an orthodox monk, that in this work must represent the Catholic defence of causality. The third one is a sceptic whose name is Philo. This last character is for us the most important character, because he is basically the only one who is present in the chapters
1

Maybe, its possible to speak about a scientific position. I dont do this because I think that the real discussion is between all those who believe in God and those who dont. Many times the second group is formed by the scientists, but I think this group is bigger, because many times people that doesnt know about sciences, discuss this problem and they protect themselves under the veil of science.

that we are studying one. The last character but not the least is Pamphilus, Cleanthes pupil. The importance of this character is based on his role. He was present when the discussion between the other three characters was made, he heard everything. For this reason he relates us everything that happened in that day and for this reason he is very important. What we read in the book are his memories and the impression we have depends on what he tells us. Its completely important to have an eye fixed on this structure. The fact that this is a dialog takes away the burden of what the author is writing, we could said that he is not presenting his own personal point of view but he is only showing us the possibilities the problem has. Hume is in a way free from what he writes, even if its always possible to make an interpretation of what he wrote2. Its important to see, what arguments each one of the characters presents and defend, to see were the author wants to take the reader. So in the next part of this chapter I will try to show the position presented by Hume, in his character Philo.

1.2 Philos principal arguments.

Its obvious that we cannot present everything that in the book has some relationship with our principal argument. But we will try, as much as its possible, to summarize and present the principal arguments, showing them by presenting important quotations in which the problems may be seen. To multiply causes, without necessity, is indeed contrary to true philosophy3. This is the first point, because, we must know that we cannot accept an infinite number of causes if we want to know the problem of causality. After accepting that we need to find a principal and maybe unique cause; following the complex books problematic, we find which kind of cause we are looking for. An intelligent Being of such vast power and capacity, as is necessary to produce the universe, or, to speak in the language of ancient philosophy, so prodigious an animal, exceeds all analogy, and even comprehension4; so The farther we push our researches of this kind [scientific research], we are still lead to infer the universe cause of All to be vastly
2

I mean, this is possible for who reads: to think that one of the characters present in the dialog represents the author. 3 DAVID HUME, Dialoghi sulla Religione Naturale, Trad. It. A cura di Alessandra Attanasio, Einaudi, 2006, p 114. Original title: Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion. 4 Ibid, p. 116.

different from mankind, or from any object of human experience and observation 5, and we see that man is not the cause of the universe. But maybe the principal cause could be changed; for example: Now if we survey the universe, so far as it falls under knowledge, it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion 6. And The world, therefore, I infer, is an animal, and the Deity is the SOUL of the world, actuating it, and actuated by it7, so we have a second kind of possible cause, the argument of generation. Hume did not finish here and pushed a little further saying that it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal; and your inference would be so far inconclusive in favour of the soul of the world 8, so we now have a third kind of possible cause the vegetal generation argument. Speaking once more about our first kind of argument, I mean the theist argument we can make a variation on it, saying that, if we push the same inference a step farther; and you will find a numerous society of Deities as explicable as one universal Deity, who posses, within himself, the powers and perfections of the whole society. All these systems, then, of scepticism, polytheism, and theism, you must allow, on your principles, to be on a like footing, and that no one of them has any advantages over the others9, and in this case we have the divinity as the origin and cause but this is not an only one God, but many. Watch carefully that the theist position, that is, the acceptance of a God as the cause of the Universe, is strongly attacked by the nontheistic arguments.
By the method of reasoning, you renounce all claim to infinity in any of the attributes of the Deity. For as the cause ought only to be proportioned to the effect, and the effect, so far as it falls under our cognisance, is not infinite; what pretentions have we, upon your suppositions, to ascribe that attribute to the divine Being? You will still insist, that, by removing him so much from all similarity to human creatures, we give in to the most arbitrary hypothesis, and at the same time weaken all proofs of his existence10.

The problem of Gods attributes. How can we establish them, and which and how many are they? Does God have a body or not? Can we know him, maybe he is only a kind of spiritual thought, without body?
5 6

Ibid. p. 108. Ibid. p. 122. 7 Ibidem. 8 Ibid. p. 126. 9 Ibid. p. 134 10 Ibid. pp. 110-112.

Nothing more repugnant to all their notions, because nothing more repugnant to common experience, than a mind without body; a mere spiritual substance, which fell under their senses nor comprehension, and of which they had not observed on single instance throughout all the nature11.

Another problem of great importance presented, is the "inference" problem. What we see in the parts, we may infer the whole; at least, that is the method of reasoning on which you rest your whole theory12. As a consequence of our inference method we have other two further problems. First, we can fall into an anthropomorphist position, making God become like man, in thoughts, actions and also for somebody, even in passions. Making this, we are making God like a human being.
But to show you still more inconveniences, continued PHILO, in your anthropomorphism; please to take a new survey of your principles. Like effects prove like causes. This is the experimental argument. Now it is certain, that the liker the effects are, which are inferred, the stronger is the argument. Every departure on either side diminishes the probability, and renders the experiment less conclusive13.

And finally, as we see the presence of evil in the world, by an inference, it could be said that God is also bad or imperfect, and not almighty.
This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant Deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of this lame performance; it is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated Deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force, which it received from him14.

All these are the principal arguments presented in the book. The positions are maybe not to different to many positions hear today, but its a duty also to show the position that marked the History. A model we can find today, used by many, but a model discussed, is the position of Thomas Aquinas, on the origin of the universe.

1.3 Problems about Humes position.

11 12

Ibid. p124. Ibid. p. 132. 13 Ibid. p. 106 14 Ibid. p. 118.

My purpose here is only to mention what I think are the principal problems, if we can really call them problems, observing them from my personal point of view but also completely seriously and partially, not forgetting, as its possible, what comes to us from faith, but not even despising the information that comes from science, that can help us to see correctly the truth of the world and of the universe. Of course we cannot accept an infinite chain of causes. A first cause is required, otherwise if is not possible for us to found anything. The problem of causality requires, as the name tell us, a cause. This cause must explain how our world and the universe had begun. This is a complex problem because if this cause is not founded on herself only, we must accept the necessity of another cause that explains our principal cause, but this provokes that the principal cause is not principal anymore but founded in another one. For this reason we must stop somewhere and sometime. The cause must also explain, hoe the things are now, when we watch them, and why they are, it must explain their existence. It must explain the order in the universe and the contingence or necessity of the things we watch. Its our duty to see how the positions we will present, will answer all the questions we made.

II. The Theist position.

2.1 Thomas Aquinas, the proofs of Gods existence and the Universes origins.
As I can see this kind of arguments have no deep changes. Their force consists in what many see as a full explanation of all the questions which we have made in the last chapter. If we admit that God is the cause of the universe, we are considering Him as an Absolute and allmighty Being. He has no other foundation than Himself. Being allmighty he has the power to create from anything and in this way, we can explain the origin of the universe. He has ordered the world and infused his rules on it. About the argument of the existence of God, we have some authors that have tried to explain it, maybe the most famous of them is S. Anselm, whoses book is named Proslogion. May be not the first but the most important, logically correct and in some way the most complete exposition in this kind of position, was made by Thomas Aquinas15.
15

For precedent authors in this kind of work, I mean, a demonstration of God existence:

2.2 Thomas Aquinas, the proofs of Gods existence and the Universes origins.
In this part we work with the position that is also called the Catholic. Im not pretending to make a treatise about the argument, indeed its better exposed by others16. Thomas Aquinas presents five proofs of Gods existence. We will analyse the second one which is for us, the most important one. Its important to know that S. Thomas didnt want to present a laboratory demonstration. We cannot make this kind of demonstrations of God, because his nature does not allow this. He presents logical proofs, that work correctly, according to an specific kind of metaphysical view. He starts watching the world and after that, the minds work, so he said he says that after the long chain of causes we most find one, that is the fundamental one of which we can say: qui est Deus, this is God. Aquinas argument, works correctly, is full of logical passages that could seem an stupidity or may seem very innocent, but they have, as we can see, a real correspondence with our world. Of course we must judge knowing that he is commenting Aristotles works on physics, so we have to see with eyes renewed and helped by the sciences progress. But I consider that these two things are not in conflict, we must only have to know how to use them, without mixing them, making them loose their richness. Its obvious that for many, Aquinas arguments have no validity, but these are only critics against the Catholic view, more than an argument itself. Because we can see, reading and studying the argument, that it works. Certainly, if we change all our world view taking it in to a completely different one and changing also our concepts, and our metaphysics, the proofs are made, partially invalid. But we must see the things the way they are.

NICOLAS OF KUES, Trialogus de possest, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate Academiae litterarum Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem edita, Hamburgi : in aedibus Felicis Meiner, 1973 B. SPINOZA, Etica dimostrata secondo l'ordine geometrico; Italian translation by Sossio Giametta, Torino, 1939. DESCARTES, Discours de la mthode : pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vrit dans les sciences ; plus La dioptrique, Les mtores et La gomtrie qui sont des essais de cette Mthode, Paris, 1987. 16 To find comments on the argument is not difficult, but I prefer to send the reader to the original text. Only after a reading of the text is possible to understand better what the comment try to expose. Cfr. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae, Ia, q. 2, a. 3. For a synthesis of the all proofs see also, Summa Contra Gentiles, I, 13.

For this reason, I would present a modern author in this chapter, in order to show how Aquinas and the modernity can be put together.

2.3 Richard Swinburne and The order of the universe

Now we can watch the same problem through a modern consideration of what Aquinas observed long ago. Swinburne tries to show How the existence of God explains the worlds order17. We observe that our world has an order. The natural process has regularity. All this allows us build science and its progress. This order, brings the question: how is this possible?, this question must be made. And the causes research start. In this research he finds that the theistic hypothesis is the only one that can explain what he is looking for. Indeed, if there is no cause of this, it would be a most extraordinary coincidence too extraordinary for any rational person18. The argument to God from the world an its regularity is, I believe, a codification by philosophers of a natural and rational reaction to an orderly world deeply embedded in the human consciousness19. So almost to finish we can said that the hypothesis of theism [could be considered as] a simple hypothesis which leads us to expect these observable phenomena, when no other hypothesis will do so 20 Hypothesis that could teach us many things and conduce our intelligence to places were no other can do it, the person must only accept to be guided through this path that requires personal determination.

III. The Nontheistic position and the problems with a theistic position.
Now our work turns once again to show the present problematic on the theistic position. Indeed the last chapter was only made in a positive way. Now I will only mention the possible problems we can find.

3.1 The Moreland and Lane Craigs exposition21.

17

R. SWINBURNE, Is there a God?, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996,48-68. In this chapter, following T. Aquinas, the author begun watching the order we can find in nature. 18 Ibid. p. 49. 19 Ibid. p. 54. 20 Ibid. p. 55 21 J.P. MORELAND & WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, Philosophical foundations for a Christian world view, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, 2003, 554-560.

The writer wants to explain the origin of the universe. He starts an exposition of what in the catholic circles is called the creation ex nihilo, that means, that the origin of the universe is a Being, free and capable of decisions. He decides to create, but the creation comes from nothing. Not form a matter already existent. One of the principal problems the writer shows is: when was the creation made?. The book of Genesis in the Bible says In the beginning, the problem here is to know when precisely the beginning is and how can we admit that this is a creation made by God. And of course how can we say that God exists. From this comes another problem about God. If he is timeless, or if he has a full presence on time. So which attributes he has. The problem continues: how is possible that the creation is still, here?. All this and other problems that I didnt mention are the principal problems for the writer of this chapter in the book I quote.

3.2 Brian Davies exposition22.

Once more we find the same problems we saw in Humes chapters, and what Moreland and Lane Craig have shown. How can we get to the first cause? How can we say that this cause is God, and what kind of attributes does he have? About the beginning of the universe we have the problem of the Big Bang theory, if this was in the time, when, if the universe is eternal, or maybe its like a vegetal 23, and for this cause a re-generation occurs periodically.

3.3 Problems and possible discussions with the authors.

As the last point of this work, I would only like to show what I consider to be some problems or difficulties about the expositions on this chapter, I mean the positions of Moreland, Lane Craig and Davies. The most clear problem is about time, and inside we can embrace the other questions. We are finite beings, we dont have an eternal existence. This is a matter of fact. Plato is not living and among us, and as this example I can tell many others. So observing our finite existence, we cannot determine if the world has an eternal existence based on empirical facts. The reason is based on our life time. We need an infinite time ( of which we have no disposition) to affirm such thing. In this way, we can only study our past, according with sciences methodologies, trying
22 23

BRIAN DAVIES, An introduction to the philosophy of religion, Oxford University Press, 20043, 48-71. We spoke about this when we saw Humes arguments. We named this the vegetal generation argument.

10

to find the origin, as the theory of Big Bang makes. About God being timeless or not, we could use the same argument. Something important, speaking in a philosophical manner, is that we cannot speak about things before the beginning. If things are before what we call beginning this is not beginning any more. So as we said, an infinite regression is not a good way, and if we are speaking about creation, and about Gods attributes (like being all mighty) God has the power to create time also. We can say He is an Eternal Being according to Christian doctrine, and in this way we must remember that we are in time, God is not. This is just a trial to show that we can find problems and answers to what the authors mentioned before.

Conclusion.
Through this work, we could see two different positions. One that accept the divine action, called Creation, accepts of course Gods existence and all the attributes we commonly ascribe to God, Omnipotence, Omnipresence etc., that He is not subject of passions. That he made the rules of this world and keeps the universe working, giving a continuity to the universe and to the process we find in it. The second position more than a real position, I think is mere critics. What is not really original we must watch with care. Many times I found just critics to Christians, more than a serious research of truth. I dont want to say that we will not find some time persons that are really searching how our world began. I respect their research, because maybe they dont have enough knowledge of the different positions. What I can say, as a man who is in the position of researching, is that the problem we have about the origin of the universe, has conduced us almost always to the problem of Gods existence. In a positive or negative way. So we must be careful not to give answers that go beyond philosophy. Some of the answers are already in the field of Theology. Some times, more than a scientific problem we must research the answer in a deeper level, in our personal determination. If somebody would chose to accept one of the positions we presented, the only request to make is to take the personal research seriously until the end, not to stop during the way and to try to find the whole truth with all his strength.

Bibliography.
11

Principal Book.
DAVID HUME, Dialoghi sulla Religione Naturale, Trad. It. A cura di Alessandra Attanasio, Einaudi, 2006. Original title: Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion.

Quoted books:
THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae. - Summa Contra Gentiles. NICOLAS OF KUES, Trialogus de possest, Opera omnia iussu et auctoritate Academiae litterarum
Heidelbergensis ad codicum fidem edita, Hamburgi : in aedibus Felicis Meiner, 1973.

B. SPINOZA, Etica dimostrata secondo l'ordine geometrico; Italian translation by Sossio

Giametta, Torino, 1939.

DESCARTES, Discours de la mthode : pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vrit dans
les sciences ; plus La dioptrique, Les mtores et La gomtrie qui sont des essais de cette Mthode, Paris, 1987.

R. SWINBURNE, Is there a God?, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996 FOR NONTHEISTIC POSITION: J.P. MORELAND & WILLIAM LANE CRAIG, Philosophical foundations for a Christian world view, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, 2003. BRIAN DAVIES, An introduction to the philosophy of religion, Oxford University Press, 20043.

12