David HumeDialogues and Natural History of Religion (Oxford World's Classics)

There are two sections in this book In the first section, David Hume teases the question: who, or what is God? He has teased this question by using the Socratic tool of a dialogue. David Hume presents three approaches, or points of view. The three characters in this dialogue are Cleanthes, Demea and Philo. Cleanthes believes we can understand God through Nature. Demea believes in faith and states that God is beyond rational description. Philo is more skeptical, and is a natural philosopher.Through the dialogues each presents his point of view, and defends his perspective. At times, they seem to engage in a more brutal attack on each other’s point of view.The discussion does not, it seems, start from the premise of challenging the existence of God. The question and discussion revolves around the nature of God.How do you infer the nature of God? This is a difficult question to answer.How do you approach this discussion – ‘proof a priori’, or by ‘argument a posteriori’?Which analogy do you draw? Or, do you rely on faith alone?The language in which he wrote is a bit abstruse. I assume that David Hume was mimicking the style that Socrates probably employed. It is difficult reading, and I think it would have been an inaccessible text in his time as well.There are some interesting discussions, particularly where they concern the concept of evil. If God is powerful and merciful, why does evil flourish?The dialogues end with Philo asserting that we ascertain a deity’s existence by using reason.That question, in my view, is open. It is not possible to prove the existence of God with logic. Similarly, it is not possible to prove the absence of God. You either believe in God, or you don’t. It is not possible to agree on the answers to the philosophical questions about the nature of God.David Hume discusses the Natural History of religion in the second section of the book. There is a natural flow in his writing in this section. Man started with a sense of wonder. Who created the world? Then, a postulate must have followed. Was it fear, or wonder, that drove religion and the questions around a superior power?The early religions were polytheist in nature. He states that polytheist beliefs are more open and tolerant than monotheist ones. Why? In a monotheist faith, one God occupies the entire Divine space, unlike a polytheist one where the space is divided. Most polytheist faiths do allow for one supreme God, however. Zeus and Indra are two examples in Greek and Vedic philosophy, respectively. Does a polytheist religion mimic human society?I have the impression that he, himself, is a bit intolerant of pagan faiths. He constantly speaks of ‘idolatrous’ people, and seems to imply that Christianity is superior in this aspect.However, the image of Christ on a cross is in itself, an idol. Is he hypocritical?He makes some interesting points. He does mention that monotheist religions are relatively intolerant. I agree, having seen the actions of the Europeans in India. In India today, the God – Ram – has been elevated to a pedestal and the manner in which he is worshipped is ripe with intoleranceDavid Hume has also made some interesting points about people and society.As a reader, you may or may not agree with everything he says. However, if you ignore the comments that seems to reveal a personal prejudice, he does leave you with a lot of room for thought.The second section is easier to read than the first. You will not walk away with a clear answer of who, or what is God. These are questions for which you need to find your own answers. However, he presents you with varied perspectives. I hope that anyone who reads the book walks away with an open mind.David Hume was, incidentally, an English philosopher who lived between 1711 and 1776.

David Hume is arguably the greatest English philosopher. He was widely regarded in his time as an "infidel," a term which covered a wide variety of challenges to the dominant Christian religion (Anglican in England, Presbyterian in Scotland). Hume was an inveterate enemy to the ecclesiastical structure and its imposition of dogma on its adherents. In his era, the intellectual support for religion had shifted from arguments from Scripture and rational theology (of which Aquinas is the great exemplar) and come to rest instead on "the argument from design." This argument takes note of the complex organization found in nature and, in the case of organic nature, the fitting of parts together to make specific functions possible. Thus, the hand is composed of parts organized in a way that make it perfect for grasping. Nature is thus asserted to be organized so as to achieve specific ends, which are the "final causes" for the organization. When human beings observe nature, the order they see inevitably leads them to think of an "intelligent designer" who arranged everything deliberately in accordance with purposes or final causes. The example that became standard, presented by a later writer, William Paley, was a watch. If you found a watch somewhere, you would not suppose it came together by chance but rather by an intelligent designer, who put it together so that it could tell time. This example is repeated even today. This argument is at the heart of the "Dialogues concerning Natural Religion." One of the speakers in the dialogue, Cleanthes, asserts the argument from design; his friendly opponent Philo, a skeptic, produces numerous arguments to undermine this argument. The third participant, Demea, an orthodox old-fashioned Christian, does not like the argument either, but chiefly because he cannot accept any analogy between the mind of a human designer and the mind of God. Philo's arguments dominate until they consider the question of evil. Philo has no trouble arguing that the world is full of misery and suffering. If God created it, He cannot be benevolent. Demea is so offended he departs. Philo then admits to Cleanthes that he himself accepts the argument from design, but only in a very attenuated form: "the cause or causes of order in the universe probably bear some remote analogy to human intelligence." But he says it is impossible to say anything further about this cause (or causes--the plural is quite unsettling). And nothing for human life follows from conceding this point. It does not legitimate any moral principle nor does it offer any support for believing in an afterlife. For anyone attracted to the argument for design (and part of Philo's point is that if we didn't believe in a supposition like this, we couldn't make sense of our world, so in fact everybody believes it more or less), intellectual honesty requires coming to terms with Philo and his destructive arguments. But I don't expect current proponents of "intelligent design" will exhibit this kind of intellectual honesty. "The Natural History of Religion" pursues a different line. Granting that thought people (call them "philosophers") will accept this attenuated idea of design, what is the origin and effect of religion among ordinary people who are not so thoughtful? Hume's argument is that even before civilization, humans found their lives subject to many vicissitudes they did not understand and could not control. By a completely natural psychological process, they presumed some being behind life's mysterious processes who helped or hurt them. They invented rituals to appease or gain the favor of this mysterious being to allay their fears and flatter their hopes. The resulting polytheistic system is universal among humankind. But there is also a tendency to promote one of these mysterious beings to a supreme position, creating a monotheism that seems to resemble the philosopher's belief in a single designing intelligence but is in fact something completely different--and pernicious. Hume's real point is to argue that an unreasonable polytheism that flatters human feelings is relatively harmless, though indefensible; But the false monotheism turns itself into a dogmatic system that corrupts human being's critical reason and leads to false claims that believing it is essential to morality and to social order. On the contrary, he thinks, it undermines both. One can certainly see how he got attacked as an "infidel." If the "Dialgoues" establishes a very attenuated and limited theism (and then seems to hint that a wise philosopher will then just go along with the everyday religion he finds among his fellows; religion apparently becomes a social custom much like observing etiquette or wearing ordinary clothes or the like which is would be merely rude or eccentric to ignore or reject), the "Natural History" demolishes the respect for established religions and churches that visibly do great harm in society. Hume thus seems to be articulating that has become the modern compromise with religion, making it mainly a harmless part of social life except for pockets of dogmatists who attempt to control the mind of their adherents and impose their views on society.This is a good edition of these two important works, edited by J. C. A. Gaskin, perhaps the leading scholar on Hume's ideas about religion. It includes Hume's brief account of his own life and provides a helpful introduction and explanatory notes. Anthony Flew's edition, titled "Writings on Religion,"provides a more comprehensive selection (including Hume's separate writings against the idea of immortality and the belief in miracles), but this nicely produced, well edited, and modestly priced edition will be a good choice for most readers.

Excellente édition pour un texte excellent.

Fantastic combination of several of Hume's works regarding religion, great for a student studying anything to do with philosophy of religion and very accessible to layman, as it has a beginning chapter covering Hume's principles etc.

What you see is what you get, exactly as advertised. It's an essential read for a philosophy lover and extremely interesting.

Hume was such a brilliant and complex thinker and widely read in both classical and contemporary literature. I found at major junctures of his arguments remarkable coincidence with my own independent ratiocinations when I first flirted with non-theism as a teenager, such as virtually all his reasonings against teleological arguments and on the development of monotheism from 'idolatry' (Hume's frequent term for polytheism.) So for me reading Hume is especially endearing. His prose is a piece of work, but becomes naturally stylish and attractive after feeling it up. The introduction, notes, and abstracts by the editor, Gaskin, are helpful.In addition to the 'Dialogues' and 'The Natural History of Religion' is an excerpt from 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding' and a short autobiographical missive written shortly before Hume's death.