Hume Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

¶ … Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume offers a complex and multifaceted analysis of the concept of God. The ongoing debate between atheism and theism is resolved in part by an assertion that human beings are technically incapable of absolutely knowing or defining, or at least simply speaking about God. Moreover, the debate between theism and atheism is nullified by the fact that it is difficult, if not impossible, to define God in terms satisfying or agreeable to all parties. There are anthropomorphic gods, creator gods, gods that interact with or interfere with human lives and gods that are distant and detached. Hume argues that any argument related to theism vs. atheism is invalid unless a definition of terms is provided clearly and adhered to consistently. Yet paradoxically, any discussion of God is cloaked in "perpetual ambiguity" because of the limitations of both human language and human cognition (Hume 217). Through the persona of Philo, Hume minimizes the dispute between theism and atheism by describing the debate as being "merely verbal," about semantics, and never actually approaching a meaningful conversation (Hume 217). Philo notes that there is an "incomprehensible difference between the human and the divine mind," preventing either a theist or an atheist from making a credible argument either way (Hume 217).

By denigrating both their positions, Philo notes that theists and atheists need to recognize their points of reference and acknowledge their similarly blind starting points. The atheist makes assumptions about God, as does the theist. It is impossible to prove or disprove God when it is impossible to even agree upon what God is. Furthermore, Philo points out that one cannot be defined as being a theist or an atheist before a clear definition of terms is established. A person who affirms the Christian view of God does not own the definition of God, for there are many other concepts of God in different cultures and religions. By extension, one who denies the Christian model of God is not necessarily an atheist. The Christian fundamentalist might deem that person to be an atheist because he or she denies the Christian view of deity, but the individual branded an atheist in this way could believe in a different view of God or Absolute Reality. What Hume suggests, through Philo's argument, is that Christianity should not be considered the absolute religion that defines the terms of God.

Hume establishes himself as an unconventional and unorthodox theist through his writings in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the title of which highlights Hume's preference for an open-minded and nuanced discussion about ineffable matters such as deity (Andre). The argument is sound and solid, for there is no one who can dispute the grounds of Philo's case. One of the more ambiguous lines in Hume's argument is "religion, however corrupted, is still better than no religion at all," (219). What Hume means to say is that religion refers to a core construct of ideas, a paradigm that offers a definition of terms. Thus, a person who claims to be an atheist must at least be able to distinguish between atheism that denies a certain type of God (such as the Christian God) versus an atheism that is more nebulous and therefore less valid. Just as a theist must be able to clearly claim what he or she believes, so too must the atheist define what he or she finds objectionable about a specific subset of beliefs. To deny the existence of God, the atheist must define God. For the same reason, a theist must clarify what God is as best as possible within the limitations of human language and reason.