In chapters 10 and 11 of Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Philo was laying down some powerful arguments!
After debating over the natural attributes of God for 9 chapters straight, Philo decided to throw a curve ball at everyone by bringing up the moral characteristics of God.
Philo's argument centered around the ability to discern God's natural abilities through nature. However, he argued, that if we were to apply this same technique to discern God's moral characteristics, God would be an entirely different entity!
Our world today is corrupted by sin, therefore it is no longer pure. This means, if we were to try and discern God's moral character solely based off of observations of this world, God would be viewed as not purely good, but not wholly bad. We would essentially be turning a black and white God into a wad-of-gray God.
Interestingly enough, if we were to look back at the world as God originally created it, back when it was still pure and sinless, that world would perfectly picture God's natural attributes and moral characteristics. Strangely enough, I don't think Philo brought up this fact in his argument.
Even more strange, is how, after chapters 10 and 11 are over, Philo basically drops his whole argument and agrees with everything else that had been said prior. This sudden and rapid change of opinion had me wondering, why? Why did Hume have Philo drop all his arguments and just agree with everyone else? Especially when Philo's arguments seemed so strong?
Edit - Replied to Rachael Gregson and Osten Belew.
After debating over the natural attributes of God for 9 chapters straight, Philo decided to throw a curve ball at everyone by bringing up the moral characteristics of God.
Philo's argument centered around the ability to discern God's natural abilities through nature. However, he argued, that if we were to apply this same technique to discern God's moral characteristics, God would be an entirely different entity!
Our world today is corrupted by sin, therefore it is no longer pure. This means, if we were to try and discern God's moral character solely based off of observations of this world, God would be viewed as not purely good, but not wholly bad. We would essentially be turning a black and white God into a wad-of-gray God.
Interestingly enough, if we were to look back at the world as God originally created it, back when it was still pure and sinless, that world would perfectly picture God's natural attributes and moral characteristics. Strangely enough, I don't think Philo brought up this fact in his argument.
Even more strange, is how, after chapters 10 and 11 are over, Philo basically drops his whole argument and agrees with everything else that had been said prior. This sudden and rapid change of opinion had me wondering, why? Why did Hume have Philo drop all his arguments and just agree with everyone else? Especially when Philo's arguments seemed so strong?
Edit - Replied to Rachael Gregson and Osten Belew.
Comments
So, it was baffling when Philo dropped his arguments for me too, but then I figured maybe he chose the best way to go about it. Had he actually agreed the entire time, then Demea and Cleanthes wouldn't have had a reason to stand behind their viewpoints so strongly. Now, this is just my opinion, but Philo gave them reasons to dig deeper and reveal the root of their arguments instead of being content with surface-level thoughts. Great blog!