Natural religion is enough
How much religion does a thinking person actually need? Diderot answers across these reflections that only what reason and the plain evidence of nature supply counts — everything past that is surplus.
The book makes one argument across twenty-seven short reflections: a religion founded on reason and the evidence of nature suffices for both belief and virtue. What such natural religion cannot supply, a thinking person does not need. God, if reason warrants one, and the moral duties that follow, are available to anyone who looks at the world honestly, without scripture or clergy. This is the young Diderot, still a deist and close to the Philosophical Thoughts, arguing not yet that there is no God but that the God of nature is all one requires. He never signed it; by the time it surfaced he had left the position behind.
- natural religion
- natural law
- reason
- evidence
- epistemology
- virtue
- divine justice
- religious pluralism
Enter a dialogue
- A person feels they can be good and sense the divine without any church at all. Does your natural religion tell them that is enough?
- If reason alone sufficed for religion, people everywhere would agree about God, and they plainly don't. Doesn't that sink your claim?
- How does the natural religion you defend differ from simply having no religion beyond ordinary morality?
- To rest religion on reason and nature alone, what comforts of a revealed faith, its promises and assurances, must a person do without?
- Someone was raised to think faith requires scripture and sacraments. Why do you insist the evidence of nature is all they truly need?