Talk:Dialogues concerning Natural Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophical literature

[edit] Factual Error

Cleanthes was not a rationalist. He was much more of an empiricist (in fact, Cleanthes even expounds some very Humean views).

Cleanthes doesn't lament the abandonment of rationalism, he abandons it.

Demea is upset by abandoning a priori arguments.

Demea should also have a larger section, making note of the fact that he emphasised the unknowable nature of God and that the arguments used for Him should be a priori.

[edit] Fixed

Transfer of Cleanthes' false information to Demea. Although broadly true, the information is somewhat ambiguous and definitely incomplete.

• Changed references to correct WP style, added reference for Philo's character, fixed italic style to correct WP style. 80.177.98.252 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A priori

The article is about Hume, and describes what he says in standard moderrn English terms; when it isn't quoting him directly, it is not constrained by 18th-century usage, nor by his terminology. Just as discussion of Hume on induction isn't constrained by the fact that he never used the word "induction", so discussion of Hume's "total rejection of the a priori arguments for god's existence" (Gaskin, Hume's Philosophy of Religion, p.109) isn't constrained by the fact that he didn't use the term "a prior". Please stop trying to remove the term, or adding ugly and pointless templates to the text. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it adds anything to the article, really. Since it has a special usage in rationalist philosophy, I think it can only distort his meaning. It is not clear that Hume thought a priori synthetic judgment was even possible. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What special use do you think that it has in Rationalist philosophy? And what does the issue of synthetic a priori judgements have to do with it? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)