A View of Natural Theology: Hume pt. 3

Whereas it seems as if Philo and Demea are wrapping up the dialogue, Cleanthes offers one last compelling argument for why man’s intellect has a role in natural theology. He argues that if human ideas have absolutely no correspondence with God’s nature then there is no point in philosophy or theology. He asks, “how do you mystics, who maintain the absolute incomprehensibility of the Deity, differ from skeptics or atheists, who assert, that the first cause of All is unknown and unintelligible?” If man does not ascribe any vocabulary and analogy to the supreme Deity, then he ultimately has no actual belief in that Deity.

For though it be allowed, that the Deity possesses attributes, of which
we have no comprehension; yet ought we never to ascribe to him any
attributes, which are absolutely incompatible with that intelligent nature,
essential to Him.

Cleanthes will not allow that the language of analogy has no place in natural theology. From Creation there is some epistemology that reveals the “eternal power and divine nature,” to the extent that to all men it is “clearly seen.” The Apostle Paul states that by and through Creation all men know of God’s existence, though they may not pay him reverence as God nor serve Him. But as Demea points out in Part II of the Dialogues, God’s being and existence is not in question, but His nature and how man comes to understand that nature. Both sides make compelling arguments.
For Philo and Demea natural theology simply provides the evidence of a Creator; however, man knows nothing of His processes or His nature by Creation. Any interactions and revelations of the divine nature come from pious worship and definition of God a priori. Cleanthes, however, proposes that the structure and complexity of the universe mirrors the same complexities that man creates. The philosopher can, therefore, draw analogy between human intellect and divine intellect to know God’s nature more fully. Cleanthes’s argument serves as an a posteriori view of God, defining Him by experiences and in reference to other things, namely Creation. Hume does not neatly wrap up this debate nor provide conclusive arguments for one side or the other. Hume provides the foundation for this discussion on the epistemology of natural theology without ever really defining how natural theology works. His philosophical arguments set forth in the Dialogues appositely explore the dynamics of Romans 1:20, however, natural theology extends much farther than simple naturalism as Newman in An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians demonstrate.