Doubt everything--Kayla

One thing I have noticed about the writing style of David Hume is his intention on including the other side. In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, we see three characters that each present their case and opposing sides to other cases. Demea plays the role of the devout Christian whose main role is to defend the supernatural ability of God being man and God. Philo is the philosophical skeptic who questions everything. Cleanthes is the Theist. He argues that you can see God in the natural world and that he is not “supernatural”, but he is just at a higher level of qualities than man. Hume does an excellent job of presenting the argument from multiple sides. He allows open conversation in his novel to not only help lead an effective argument but to also eliminate the argument of the opposing side. While Hume does not make clear reference to what side he personally chooses, he allows open interpretation of the work to the reader. We see this concept in many different writers such as Thomas Aquinas. In Aquinas’ work The Summa he asks a specific question, answered it from his own opinion, and then answered it from different perspectives to reinforce his opinion. Hume essentially does the same thing while still leaving the argument open for grabs. You see a lot more of his own opinion expressed in his unpublished essays. I think Hume’s ability to take not only different opinions but critical, thought out repercussions of new outcomes deepens his arguments. Such as the topic of evil. Hume did not use the typical outlook of “having evil in the world disproves God” but he showed what other evils would arise by taking one particular one out of the world. Can you have a perfect utopian? He considers all these factors which established the idea that the only doubt you have is by doubting what you had never doubted. 

PS: I commented on Gray and Rachel's posts