Natural Religeon

Philo begins his argument on religion stating that the presence of God could not be false due to hardships and misery of men. A good understanding of the present world would show that most, if not all, human beings have experienced unfavorable feelings and that the great discomfort we feel from these unwanted feelings proves the existence of god. We feel his presence through our pains and believe in him for his benevolence that he can bring us in our time of need. Philo believes the world is a place of misery and argues that man is his own worst enemy. Man is thwarted by war, slavery, violence, fraud, skepticism, etc. Even though man can conquer any foe he has come across, he is bound by his own mind in which he creates other enemies that will ultimately decompose his character. Philo questions the anthropomorphism of God and wonders how God has anything to do with human nature and its likeness. God’s will be done and his wisdom unquestioned but neither of these are positioned to work for the greater good of humanity or nature. So how could God resemble the moral fibers of humans? Philo goes on to criticize Cleanthes' nature machine. This machine is meant to preserve life and keep the flow of world order through nature and morality. This machine holds no pleasure for man as it would seem in the present day or in past experiences. All that embodies this machine is not benefited from it other than the continuation of the species involved. No device is in place for the happiness and well being of humans and animals; and the few pleasures that are experienced are burdened by the more frequent pains and agonies. Pleasures serve no purpose in society other than to the person experiencing them; but pains and misfortune can cause problems for society as a whole. If God be an anthropomorphist then why would he combine such feelings in human nature?

Demea responds with a simplistic answer. Those who have asked the same questions as Philo have been told that evil is balanced by good. For every wrong on this earth there has been an explanation from those most devout to God. They blast such questioning as atheism and assure that God has a benevolent plan. God has a plan and must lightly balance good and evil to help the greater good.

Cleanthes interjects with criticism to Demea’s response and goes on to respond to Philo’s argument. He believes that there is no equal balance of good and evil, and furthermore, can not prove that there is a balance between the two. Demea’s assumption of balance is absurd and to base his response on such an imaginary thing would be blasphemous. In response to Philo, Cleanthes states his position on the wickedness of man. His belief in divine benevolence allows him to betray the thought of absolute misery and to interject that his own experiences would deny what Philo has argued. The good comes more often than the bad and happiness is more often a phenomenon than misery.

Philo responds to Cleanthes' criticism with great scorn. Philo takes some compliance to Cleanthes' response but states that evil outweighs that of good and the burden of something evil is much more cumbersome than the pleasures of something good. Pleasure hardly ever reaches its highest peak and when it does it never lasts; but pain can torture and twist into something worse and that extreme is much more than pleasures’ spoils. Philo retracts his former argument to a certain degree and conforms to parts of Cleanthes' criticism to argue his true point. God is a deity that we can’t understand and to comprehend