I am having a lot of fun in my philosophy class. Right now, we are discussing David Hume's Dialouge Concerning Natural Religion which more or less deals with the nature of God. Below is a short paper I wrote for that class and thought some of you might be interested. Let me know what you think
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Atheist is someone who rejects the belief in a deity or deities, but can someone who believes that God cannot be comprehended by the limited human mind also be an atheist? According to the character Cleanthes in David Hume’s Dialouges Concerning Natural Religion, not only is that person an atheist, but they are an atheist without knowing it. On the surface level, this statement seems to be a harsh and irrational accusation, but as Cleanthes and Demea dialogue in Part IV this statement gains significant strength. This paper will be looking at the differences between Anthropomorphic and Mystical views held by Cleanthes and Demea respectively, and will critically evaluate Cleanthes conclusion that the Mystic is a kind of Atheist.
In order to compare and contrast the views of Anthropomorphism and Mysticism it is important to understand what these two words mean in terms of this discussion. Anthropomorphism is ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially a deity. For example, When Cleanthes states that the mind of God is like the mind of humans he is holding an anthropomorphic view. This does not necessarily mean that Cleanthes thinks that God has a physical brain like humans, but that God is full of thought, reason, will, intelligence, sentiment, love, and hatred. This means that the mind of God takes parts of thoughts and puts them together to create a new thought just as humans do the same, and God created the universe just as an architect builds a house. To Cleanthes, God is not just a word assigned to nothing; rather, God is alive and dynamic, which is comparable to humans. The evidence Cleanthes uses in this argument is that nature is one giant machine, with purpose and function given to every part. This supposedly proves some sort of correlation between the creator of the universe and humans because both of their respective products of creation are full of purpose and function.
On the surface level, it would seem that almost any Theist would agree with Cleanthes’ anthropomorphic ideas, but Demea who is also a theist holds a polar-opposite view. Demea is much more of a mystic, which means he believes that God exists but his qualities cannot be known. A mystic would argue that God is perfect and since perfection is relative we cannot comprehend God’s attributes or perfections, and if we did understand God’s perfections than we would be as intelligent and perfect as God. Since this is clearly not the case, a mystic would state that there must be a disconnect between humans and God, for how could something created by God understand the intelligence of God without being God?
This is precisely why Demea says that Cleanthes’ anthropomorphic views are incompatible with the perfection of a deity. In Part IV, Demea responds to Cleanthes by comparing the human mind to the mind of God. He states: “When it (the human mind) reasons, the ideas, which are the parts of its discourse, arrange themselves in a certain form or order...and immediately gives place to another arrangement.” What this means is that humans have individual parts of ideas and combine them together to create a new idea, which produces an obvious problem, for what could God’s mind create that is new to him since he is complete in every aspect? Demea goes on to say: “He is entire in every point of space; and complete in every instant or duration...and what he is this moment he ever has been, and ever will be, without any new judgement, sentiment, or operation.” Since God is complete in every aspect, nothing is new to him; therefore, God’s mind is not like the mind of humans. Demea finishes his argument by stating that God is eternally in a fixed, simple, and perfect state.
After hearing this, Cleanthes gives a heavy response when he says that people who accept the belief that God is in a fixed, simple, and perfect state are Atheists without knowing it. Cleanthes says this forces a person to assume that God has no thought, no reason, no will and no love, and goes on to say that a mind that lacks these things is in fact no mind at all . According to Cleanthes, Demea is basically attaching the word ‘God’ to the idea of nothing which links his powerful statement found earlier in Part IV to the debate: “Is the name (God), without any meaning, of such importance?”
That last quote is why I think that Cleanthes’ argument that a mystic is a type of Atheist succeeds. When I was reading this debate I found myself caught by both sides often, but when I read the part where Demea says that God stands in a fixed and simple state I immediately thought of the idea of space or nothing, for what else could not be understood by our minds and is forever in a fixed position? If we cannot understand God and God is in a static state for eternity than is that really God? This implies that Demea actually thinks that God is nothing and nothing is God. That is why Cleanthes asks if belief in God is a matter of linguistics or is the meaning behind the word more important. If you remove the meaning behind the word of God, like Demea did, then you have removed the most important part. And since Demea associates the word ‘God’ to some sort of an infinite nothing that he is truly an Atheist, even if he is unaware of it.
