David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provides contradictory arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their beliefs religious. The most compelling situation concerns philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character Cleanthe firmly defends her position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view of skepticism and religion is strongest in its defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their fundamental understanding of the universe and its creator, on which all other hypotheses about the universe will be based. In this three-sided debate, Hume's depiction of an empiricist clearly wins. Three characters, Déméa, the rationalist, Cleanthe, the empiricist and theist, and Philo, a skeptical and agnostic empiricist prepare to discuss their ideas about the universe in Part 1. I. The discussion begins as the characters debate how they should teach their students philosophy, ethics, logic and theology. Demea believes that students should learn "logic, then ethics, then physics, and finally the nature of the gods." (p. 127, part 1) His immediate reasoning is that theology is “the deepest and most abstruse of all, and that it demands the most mature judgment on the part of its students; and only a mind enriched with all other sciences can be safely entrusted with it. Criticized by Philo, Demea explains his plans in more detail: “To season their minds with early piety, is my main concern; and by continued precept and instruction, and I hope also by example, I impress deep on their tender minds a habitual respect for all p...... middle of paper ...... are certainly becoming more precise through the scrutiny of generations of scientists. And if we theorize about probable theories of quantum physics and parallel universes, which are currently empirically unprovable, why should we hesitate to discuss theology and metaphysics with a philosophical approach? We shouldn't do it; natural religion and ideas of natural religion have developed and will continue to develop. Skeptics will continue to criticize and nitpick philosophical theories. Critics of science like Demea will continue to blindfold themselves to exclude the ever-increasing validity of scientific knowledge. Humanists and empiricists like Cleanthe would move forward, recognizing the inherent harmony between science and theology. Works Cited Hume, David. “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” Hume's Dialogues. Collège Saint-Anselme, 2006. Web. April 9. 2014.