RESPONSE

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Problem of Evil

The possibility of an objective view of the world has always been (implicitly) the subject of philosophy. This implication has already begun in ancient Greece, where knowledge was problematical through objects (still) not really in philosophy. About the early modern period, the possibility of reality and their knowledge has not been changed by humans (Nelson & Broome, 2010). David Hume, who denied although our a priori knowledge denied, not yet, that our perceptions of something sincere, real existent relation, we can at least recognize a posteriori. According to Hume, we cannot recognize a person's order behind the essential things of the world, but that there is a world that presents itself to us.

What problem does 'evil' in the world pose for a belief in God? Why does this pose a problem for Cleanthes and his Design Argument?

Hume presents his evidential argument from evil in his book by the character Philo, and I assume that Philo speaks the words of Hume. Philo seems to have now become the hero of the dialogue (the looks are a must as Hume will support, or preferably forced to support, which is the real hero Cleanthes), and the third part we witness its triumph. The end of religion came with the evil in the universe and this is also Cleanthes Philo agreed, and began to observe the presence of evil in society, in neutral, and gradually up to the terror of superstition (known critical target Hume), and the fear of death (Tweyman, 1986).

Retracing paths already beaten since the time of Epicurus, Hume forced to say that God exists or not, or is it evil or can nothing against the evil, and whatever the answer won her debate and it is impossible to deny. Even assuming a direct cause-effect relationship (also advocated by the two) this phenomenal world and our existence can never be compatible with an omnipotent and benevolent. Moreover, God has no reason to act as a master in every living being inflexible giving only the bare essentials to save from extinction, and even in this respect is much more credible and valid and rationally dialectical theory that he had first proposed Philo (Hume, Colver & Price, 1976; Tweyman, 1986).

At this point, it only remains to ask them what the sincere nature of religious belief. And here Hume follows paths already beaten by him, then to see ...