The Role and Foundations for Knowledge Page 3

Both Cleanthes and Philo agree on experience as the starting point of knowledge; however, they disagree on how far beyond experience one can go. Cleanthes' argument provides a huge realm of reason behind the fact "You can trace causes from effects; you can compare the most distant and remote objects" (26). He does not see the need for closely related causes and effects; rather, he relies on abstract examples such as an assumed voice to help prove his point. This makes his argument less convincing because people have to agree with his abstract reasoning rather than just analyzing something that they themselves have experienced. Philo's approach to examining the existence of God deals more with practical knowledge and common sense opposed to abstract reasoning. Philo insists, like Cleanthes, that "Nothing exists without a cause" and that "Our ideas reach no farther than our experience" (15).

However, Philo is not willing to rely on reasoning for a proof because "we never find two persons who think exactly alike" (15). Because people think differently, they will not all reason the same, thus the argument must rely on valid cases of human experience. Examples seen in everyday life are harder to dismiss than examples that are far removed from everyday life.

Cleanthes and Philo both make valid arguments in their quest to prove the existence of God; however, Philo's helps make his argument more sound than Cleanthes by providing examples that are closer to everyday human experience. While Cleanthes might gather the concept of design from comparing the universe to a machine of human contrivance, he is not able to back his argument for design with human experience because his examples are so far removed from everyday life. He claims that the theory is "obvious and natural", yet he cannot site much needed examples to help prove that it might actually be design (79). On the other hand, Philo is able to draw parallels to human experience. Philo suggests that our imperfect knowledge of science and the human body can be related to our knowledge of God. He explains the existence of God through undeniable analogies between causes and effects of human experience which ultimately ends with a supreme cause.

Philo creates a more sound argument for the existence of God than Cleanthes because he is able to construct his proof around common human experience while Cleanthes is stuck making inferences about what might be. A proof that deals with human experiences learned trough science and nature is much more convincing than one that sites an assumed articulate voice. Cleathes' proof that is based on design does not have enough valid proof and seems to be based more upon abstract reasoning than human experience.

David Hume. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hackett Publishing Company: 1980.

Page 1 of The Role and Foundations for Knowledge
Page 2 of The Role and Foundations for Knowledge
Page 3 of The Role and Foundations for Knowledge