Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion
- Downloads：9652
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-02 07:53:16
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：David Hume
- ISBN：0199538328
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
David Hume is the greatest and also one of the most provocative philosophers to have written in the English language。 No philosopher is more important for his careful， critical， and deeply perceptive examination of the grounds for belief in divine powers and for his sceptical accounts of the causes and consequences of religious belief， expressed most powerfully in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion。 The Dialogues ask if belief in God can be inferred from the nature of the universe or whether it is even consistent with what we know about the universe。 The Natural History of Religion investigates the origins of belief， and follows its development from harmless polytheism to dogmatic monotheism。 Together they constitute the most formidable attack upon the rationality of religious belief ever mounted by a philosopher。 This edition also includes Section XI of The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and a letter concerning the Dialogues， as well as particularly helpful critical apparatus and abstracts of the main texts， enabling the reader to locate or relocate key topics。
Reviews
Brian Pribis
，
If you are interested in morals and religion's claim to be the only source of them， you may like the challenges this book offers。 In fact， when it comes to the study of ethics， this book is essential reading。 The book can be difficult at times so I spent time watching YouTube videos and reading commentaries to better understand the subject and Hume's approach to it。 I will definitely be reading this book again。 If you are interested in morals and religion's claim to be the only source of them， you may like the challenges this book offers。 In fact， when it comes to the study of ethics， this book is essential reading。 The book can be difficult at times so I spent time watching YouTube videos and reading commentaries to better understand the subject and Hume's approach to it。 I will definitely be reading this book again。 。。。more
Kevin Purnell
，
Very well written and includes a great introduction by Robertson。 Hume speculated about the origins of Theism， Polytheism， and Idolatry - his observations are quite ahead of time
R
，
Thought provoking and easier to follow than I feared it might be， but a chunk in the middle dragged a little。 My copy didn't seem to be particulaly well printed， there were several places where half a word was just not there。 The editer added am explanatory note to back up Hume's archaic sexism at one point which was both needless， and also rankled。 Thought provoking and easier to follow than I feared it might be， but a chunk in the middle dragged a little。 My copy didn't seem to be particulaly well printed， there were several places where half a word was just not there。 The editer added am explanatory note to back up Hume's archaic sexism at one point which was both needless， and also rankled。 。。。more
Felix
，
The Dialogues often come across （perhaps as intended） as a thinly veiled attempt to disguise Hume's own radically sceptical opinions on Christianity， and the three-character structure can be difficult to follow even with close reading。 Hume's own supposed presence as mute observer to the conversation is awkward at times， especially towards the end， when Demea departs， leaving Philo and Cleanthes to speak intimately as if they were alone （there's material for a slashfic here， honest。。。） The argum The Dialogues often come across （perhaps as intended） as a thinly veiled attempt to disguise Hume's own radically sceptical opinions on Christianity， and the three-character structure can be difficult to follow even with close reading。 Hume's own supposed presence as mute observer to the conversation is awkward at times， especially towards the end， when Demea departs， leaving Philo and Cleanthes to speak intimately as if they were alone （there's material for a slashfic here， honest。。。） The arguments themselves are elegantly constructed and often dizzyingly effective， notwithstanding Philo's "retraction" in the final sections。The Natural History is limited in places by its author's prejudices， none too surprising coming from an eighteenth-century man of privilege who， as far as I can tell， never set foot outside Europe， and ostensibly spoke to very few women。 The text's strengths lie in its （now-expected） willingness to （coyly） explore challenges to all aspects of the Christian faith， and in its dazzling evidence of the depths to which Hume plumbed the literature of Graeco-Roman antiquity。 Once again， the OWC editorial material is extensive and highly relevant。 。。。more
Mark Zellner
，
Very engrossing material。 I was surprised， though perhaps I should not have been， that the arguments put forth in this volume regarding the nature of religion are the same ones you can find posted to YouTube weekly。 Some things never change。
Dan Graser
，
What a wonderful start to my foray into the works of Hume this year。 Perhaps none of his works hold up as well today as these shorter works dealing with natural religion and theology。 His challenges against the origins of belief， the feeble attempts of finding evidence and arguments from nature at the time， miracles， and many other subjects are just as potent today as they were 250 years ago。 The back and forth between the relentless sceptic Philo， the philosophically even-handed Cleanthes， and What a wonderful start to my foray into the works of Hume this year。 Perhaps none of his works hold up as well today as these shorter works dealing with natural religion and theology。 His challenges against the origins of belief， the feeble attempts of finding evidence and arguments from nature at the time， miracles， and many other subjects are just as potent today as they were 250 years ago。 The back and forth between the relentless sceptic Philo， the philosophically even-handed Cleanthes， and the dogmatic Demea is still some of the most readable and glistening prose ever penned by a philosopher which loses none of its explanatory power in its readability。 A wonderful classic that bears repeated reading， about to start my 2nd reading of it in fact。 Beautiful philosophical writing on an ever-important subject。 。。。more
Richard Newton
，
I am a great fan of David Hume， for several reasons。 He is an important philosopher whose views have influenced mine。 He always comes across as an interesting person。 I have sympathy， as a writer， with his plight of having difficulty being successful as an author （although in the end he was very successful even if mostly as a historian rather than a philosopher）。 He writes wonderfully: it takes a little effort to get into his style， but once you are there it is a pleasure to read。This volume con I am a great fan of David Hume， for several reasons。 He is an important philosopher whose views have influenced mine。 He always comes across as an interesting person。 I have sympathy， as a writer， with his plight of having difficulty being successful as an author （although in the end he was very successful even if mostly as a historian rather than a philosopher）。 He writes wonderfully: it takes a little effort to get into his style， but once you are there it is a pleasure to read。This volume contains two of his works on religion， one of which was published posthumously although written many years before。 It also has a good introduction， a relevant excerpt from one of his other books （section XI of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding）， plus a short autobiography called My Life， which mostly discusses his work and travails as a writer。 It's all good stuff， and I think essential reading for anyone who is interested in Hume as a philosopher， particularly those interested in his philosophy of religion。 For anyone who is interested in arguments against many aspects of religion as practised as well， I think that whatever modern books you may have read， some of the best arguments may have originated with Hume。 The only niggle was the "Natural History of Religion"， early on in which Hume says "There is a great difference between historical fact and speculative opinions;"。 Hume read a huge amount and could quote from historical sources， I don't think though we should really consider this book as a history in the modern sense - there is plenty of speculative opinion here。 It may well be right， but its not quite history。 However， it's an enjoyable journey through the book！ 。。。more
Regina Barona
，
HUME SLAPS YOU IN THE FACE WITH COMMONPLACE ARGUMENTS ACCESSIBLE TO THE MODERN MAN。
Rick
，
This book is a dialogue stressing the arguments about the existence of God。。。。the first cause argument， the arguments using analogy， the faith argument， the experience （a priori） argument， arguments using reason。 Also， the there is discussion about whether or not institutional or natural religion justifiably represents God。
Jamie
，
An interesting dialectic exploring the existence and nature of god。
Laura Deen
，
I thought the Natural History of Religion was far more interesting than the Dialogues。 However， in the Natural History， I thought Hume was more or less rude concerning the world population。
Xander
，
These two works by Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume deal with religion。 Hume is known for his radical empiricism， i。e。 his rejection of anything but experience as the source of our ideas。 This view of knowledge， paired with the observation that all our experience is ultimately finite， leads to the conclusion that all our knowledge is inductive: universal claims based on particular experiences。 This cannot lead to absolutely certain knowledge， so scepticism is the logical outcome of These two works by Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume deal with religion。 Hume is known for his radical empiricism， i。e。 his rejection of anything but experience as the source of our ideas。 This view of knowledge， paired with the observation that all our experience is ultimately finite， leads to the conclusion that all our knowledge is inductive: universal claims based on particular experiences。 This cannot lead to absolutely certain knowledge， so scepticism is the logical outcome of such an analysis， which is exactly what Hume is famous for。 But his scepticism isn’t as radical as his empiricism， since he does acknowledge human necessities – to function properly in everyday life we need to take things for granted and not reflect too much on the epistemological status of our thoughts。 In short， base our decisions and actions on probabilities derived from past experience。 In both the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion （1779） and The Natural History of Religion （1757）， Hume applies his empirical scepticism to the phenomenon of religion。In the Dialogues， which he started writing around 1750 and only finished shortly before his death in 1776 – and which had to be published posthumously considering the current political climate at the time – Hume scrutinizes the philosophical arguments for the existence of a God and His nature。 The three people in the dialogue are the sceptic Philo， the empiricist Cleanthes and the theologian and mystic Demea。 1。 Demea argues on a priori grounds for the existence of a Deity – the cosmological argument – and claims we cannot know anything about the nature of this God。 From the existence of the universe， and our own notion of causality， we can infer that the universe has to have a cause。 This cause has to be uncaused itself （or self-causing）， else we end up with an infinite regress of causes。 And even if this is not a problem， the entire infinite sequence of causes has to have a cause。 Anyway， reason tells us the universe is caused， hence there is an uncaused cause， hence God exists。 Further， we don’t have any experience of Him and our reason is only able to project our own experiences and characteristics on the Deity， anthropomorphising the infinite Being – at best a sign of devotion， but often a sign of ignorance or worse， blasphemy。 All we can know about God is given by Him through revelation， further we don’t know anything （i。e。 mysticism）。The main objection to the cosmological argument is the selectivity of the religious believer。 The universe wants a cause， yet God does not want a cause。 As Richard Dawkins once quipped: “Who designed the Designer？” Another objection is the rejection of the believer of the infinite regress of causes。 He claims all causes are caused themselves， leading to an infinite regress of causes。 After which he claims， even if the infinite regress is granted， the whole sequence of infinite causes needs a cause。 But Hume remarks the anthropomorphism in such reasoning: the whole chain of infinite causes is only a whole in our mind， this has no relation whatsoever to the world itself。 Lastly， why should there be a first cause？ I can always simply claim the opposite without contradicting myself， and hence not violate the principle of non-contradiction。 In short: the cosmological argument does not work。 2。 Cleanthes， the empiricist， rejects this rational theology and is himself a proponent of natural theology， the stance that Nature is itself an argument for the existence of God and hence should be an object of study for the theologian。 Within the universe we see all kinds of things that are characterized by a specific form and function。 If we look at plants or animals， we see all kinds of parts that are perfectly fitted together to make the plant or animal perform its functions。 Also， the universe itself， with all its heavenly bodies and motions， seems to be perfectly pieced together – almost like a machine， or a clockwork。 In our everyday lives， when we see houses， clocks or roads， we infer the intentions and actions of makers。 Some people made plans and created those things – bare matter is not able to organize itself into functioning wholes。 When we see such objects， we infer minds。 By analogy， when we observe all the functionality and purpose in the universe， we infer a mind。 Hence there is a mind， outside our universe， which created this machine-like world。Such claims， called the teleological argument， are ultimately based on arguments from similarity。 We observe similar effects and hence infer equal causes。 Also， in some things we observe similar known properties and hence infer the similarity of their unknown parts。 This， of course， is human projection of custom （two instances regularly occurring the one after the other） onto the universe as a whole。 Either we view the universe as machine， and hence infer a reason or mind as maker， or we view the universe as an organism， and hence infer reproduction as causal mechanism。 Why we should prefer one over the other is a problem the religious believer is unable to answer。 Lastly， if we suppose a mind as the cause of our universe， how is this mind generated？ Experience teaches us that all reason or mind is secondary to organic generation， never the reverse。 In short: the teleological argument doesn’t work either。（3） Philo is the sceptic and represents Hume’s philosophical stance。 Philo claims we cannot prove the existence of God， and even if we could， we could never say anything about his nature， since He is – by definition – not experienceable。 All our knowledge ultimately derives from experience， even things like causality are nothing but custom， which severely limits what we can know and the status of this knowledge。 What we can know has to come through experience; and all of this knowledge is uncertain。 Since God is not perceivable through sense experience， we cannot say anything about Him – both his existence and his nature。 Philo also is the one who came up with all the counter-arguments against Demea and Cleanthes mentioned above。 One of the more interesting parts of the Dialogue is the chapters on the problem of evil。 This is the strongest argument against the existence of God， especially against the teleological argument。 If this perfect God designed the universe， how come there’s all these kinds of natural and moral evil？ The moral evils can be attributed to free will。 Although to be honest， I don’t see how ‘God gave us the ability to do wrong’ settles the debate: why do innocent people have to suffer because of my free will？ Anyway， the believer is stuck with the natural evils。 Famine， disease， disasters， monstrous births， etc。 There are three answers to this problem。 （1） This is the best possible world that God could have created， given the restraints of matter and natural laws。 This is a view developed by Gottfried Leibniz in his Theodicy （1719） and ridiculed by Voltaire in his Candide， ou l’optimisme （1759）。 This view was already made problematic in Ancient Greece， where sceptics argued （rightly） that imperfection of the world would belittle the goodness of a perfect Being （since He could have created a better world， if he wanted）。 But this would mean that this Being isn’t perfect after all。 The other way around isn’t an option either: if he’s good， he obviously isn’t all powerful， since there are many improvements even we mortals can think of。（2） Another answer is the reward theory。 We suffer on purpose so we can find salvation in our future life。 This would make God some kind of sadistic Being who makes us suffer in order to reward us。 Also， it is predicated on a future life of which there is absolutely no evidence – at all。（3） The final argument， the one which Demea finally adopts after Philo’s sceptic attacks， is the mystical retreat。 God is an unknowable， infinite Being， this was proven a priori， and besides this we can’t know anything else about him。 This is the most consistent stance for the believer， since all teleological arguments ultimately hinge on the fact that the believer claims he has access to God’s intentions when he created this universe。 And how he or she does this cannot be explained。 But the mystical retreat is also the end of conversation， since it’s a blatant admission of ignorance – yes there’s evil， and yes I don’t know how to square this with the perfect God， let’s leave it at that。 Suffice it to say that after being backed into a corner about the problem of evil， Demea walks out and the final chapter sees Philo retreat a little on his earlier scepticism and claim that it is most useful and beneficiary for mankind to believe in God， even though we don’t know much about him。 Few people are capable of cultivating their reason to behave morally， so the masses need a God as a foundation of morality。 Again we see a parallel between Hume and Voltaire。 When discussing with a friend， the latter claimed not to believe in a God， but asked his friend not to speak to loudly， else his servants would hear。 So it seems both Voltaire and Hume personally rejected Christian theology， yet deemed it best for the vulgar masses to believe in order to behave morally。 （Although elitist， one wonders if there’s a kernel of truth in it？）It is hard to weigh Hume’s intention with these claims - I personally find it difficult to view Hume as an atheist， since scepticism does not sit well with atheism， and fits rather better with agnosticism。 But then again， in those times any rejection or doubt about current dogma would be labelled ‘atheism’， so whether Hume was an atheist or agnostic， I think he wanted to show the public he did believe it best for God to exist， without himself taking any stance in the debate。 The whole form of dialogue is a perfect way to cover up your own motives。 In The Natural History of Religion （1757）， the second work， Hume sets out to explain the origin and development of religion， in particular the rise of polytheism and its transformation to theism。 He begins the essay with the remark that religion never arose as an explanation of the universe， as a creation myth。 Most people are simply accustomed to the world and are only busy with daily business （especially in the past）。 Basically， in the past， people were surviving and living， not asking questions about who designed this universe。 For Hume， the cause of religion， especially since it’s so widespread across cultures， has to be a human desire， and he finds it in human fears and expectations。 People are anxious about the future， afraid of many things， and expecting pleasures and pains。 To acquire peace of mind， they start to project their own thoughts onto nature。 They suppose the existence of beings which are causing all of the events in human life， especially the ones where we have no control。 Also， when elders die， later generations will project onto these ancestors the same traits as they already to their spirits。 So we see hero worship and animalistic gods go hand in hand – both of them acquiring traits through allegorical reasoning。 So， now we have gods， and through fear and anxiety， people start to flatter them by praising them and increasing their powers。 Also， they start to honour these gods in order to make their own tribal gods mightier than the gods of other tribes。 According to Hume， this process of flattery and sacrifice has a logical endpoint: an infinite Being。 And here we have the transition from polytheism to monotheism – from believing in many imperfect， sometimes humanoid gods to believing in a unified， endless， all powerful Being。 According to Hume， there is a constant flux between polytheism and monotheism。 This is， because people sometimes invent demi-gods and honour them – sometimes as hero worship， sometimes as contingency – and this reduces their monotheism to a polytheism， which then gradually builds up again to monotheism。 A huge chunk of the Natural History deals with a comparison between polytheism and monotheism， on a wide scale of variables。 Hume claims monotheism is pious， intolerant and prone to persecution， while polytheism is idolatrous， tolerant and prone to sacrifice。 Also， monotheism is submissive （cultivating “monkish virtues”）， prone to censure and dogmatic， while polytheism is courageous， prone to philosophy and sceptical。 As example of the dogmatism as opposed to the scepticism he mentions the historical example of the Jews starting a war with the Romans for not being allowed to mutilate the genitals of their offspring。 He also mentions that the dogmatism of monotheists is fake – these people act as if there is no doubt in their own hearts and to reinforce this scheme turn bigot towards their fellow human beings。 Another major difference between monotheism and polytheism is that monotheism starts out reasonable but turns out – on closer inspection – to be quite absurd; polytheism is characterized by the reverse – we laugh at Egyptians worshipping cats， yet it is interesting to observe there is never an overpopulation of cats in Egypt。 But Catholics， during their Mass， eat their own Deity， which is “the most absurd and nonsensical”。 Also， where monotheism is based on scripture and hence is strict， polytheism is based on tradition （mostly oral） is much more flexible。 A final difference between both theisms is the melancholic nature of monotheism as opposed to the easy-going nature of polytheism， as witnessed by the （respective） emphasis on duties and responsibilities， and festivals。After this diagnosis， Hume concludes that monotheism leads inherently to internal conflict。 It emphasizes the fundamental sinful nature of mankind， while the overarching theme is repentance， charity and love。 Power and knowledge are seen as sinful （witness Adam and Eve）， leading to increasing fear and anxiety （especially when contrasted with the demands of being good）， ending in internal conflict。Although religion clearly isn’t recommended to persons valuing a healthy mind， Hume sees a more potent evil of religion: corruption of morality。 Monotheism， with its sickly submission and melancholy mood， turns human beings into solipsists， only occupied with themselves and their own salvation。 In this sense， religion can be seen as a social dissolvent。 It incentivizes prudential behaviour and destroys the foundation of social life （i。e。 emotion and sympathy）。 Also， the fear of punishment and the afterlife leads to unhealthy amounts of devotion， which is fertile ground for all kinds of crimes。 People do things to their fellow beings under the guise of religion， which they wouldn’t do otherwise （e。g。 burning women on a stake）。 Finally， religion serves as an excuse to not cultivate your reason and lead a moderate life – religion serves as easy replacement for virtuous living。（Final passages in comments） 。。。more
Jake
，
I get the feeling that I missed a lot。 Constant interruptions kept me feeling like the train of Hume's thought left without me。 Maybe I'll read it again some day。 I get the feeling that I missed a lot。 Constant interruptions kept me feeling like the train of Hume's thought left without me。 Maybe I'll read it again some day。 。。。more
Zach
，
I would give this more stars if I could。 Hume is calm， equable， cheerful， humanitarian， surprisingly fair， and above all skeptical。 He's also necessarily slippery; even though the Dialogues were published after his death， he is careful to not be Philo and to have Philo himself disclaim his more skeptical attacks shortly after making them。 Such was eighteenth century censorship。 Nevertheless， the Dialogues are outstanding， and， though the History is fairly weak as history it's pretty great as phi I would give this more stars if I could。 Hume is calm， equable， cheerful， humanitarian， surprisingly fair， and above all skeptical。 He's also necessarily slippery; even though the Dialogues were published after his death， he is careful to not be Philo and to have Philo himself disclaim his more skeptical attacks shortly after making them。 Such was eighteenth century censorship。 Nevertheless， the Dialogues are outstanding， and， though the History is fairly weak as history it's pretty great as philosophy。Of particular note are part XI and XII of the Dialogues， parts XI - XIV of the History， and Note I of the History。 。。。more
Anna C
，
Well， I read my second Hume。 I'm not sure how much of it I actually understood。。。 but I read it。 Well， I read my second Hume。 I'm not sure how much of it I actually understood。。。 but I read it。 。。。more
Danijel Brestovac
，
Str。 20-"nič ni gotovega na svetu， niti slava niti blaginja。 Bogovimečejo vse v zmedo; vsako stvar mešajo z njenim nasprotjem;da vsi mi， zaradi naše nevednosti in negotovosti， plačamo za toz več čaščenja in spoštovanja。 " （EURIPID， Hecuba~956）Str。 70- v tedanjem času je postalo jasno， da celotno kraljestvo religiozne vere lebdi nad razumom， je negotovo in podrejeno vsaki spremembi razpoloženja ter je nadalje odvisno od pričujočih slučajnih dogodkov。Str。 75- prvotna religija je nastala predvsem Str。 20-"nič ni gotovega na svetu， niti slava niti blaginja。 Bogovimečejo vse v zmedo; vsako stvar mešajo z njenim nasprotjem;da vsi mi， zaradi naše nevednosti in negotovosti， plačamo za toz več čaščenja in spoštovanja。 " （EURIPID， Hecuba~956）Str。 70- v tedanjem času je postalo jasno， da celotno kraljestvo religiozne vere lebdi nad razumom， je negotovo in podrejeno vsaki spremembi razpoloženja ter je nadalje odvisno od pričujočih slučajnih dogodkov。Str。 75- prvotna religija je nastala predvsem zaradi bojazni pred bodočimi dogodki; in dokaj razumljivo je， da se ljudje ukvarjajo z idejami o nevidnih in neznanih silah， saj so pod pritiskom vsakovrstne turobne zaskrbljenosti。。。。。。。。 ko se polasti duha panika， živahna domišljija še poveča strah; ta še poglobi mrak。。。Str。 85- da vsakemu zločinu sledita kes in skrivnostna groza， ki duhu ne da miru ter poišče zatočišče v verskih obredih in ceremonijah ter spravnih daritvah napadenim。Str。 97 （napisal Fran Jerman）- praznoverje， vraževernost je tisti iracionalni moment， ki se mu po Humovem mnenju vdaja predvsem neuko ljudstvo， vendar pred njim niso imuni niti največji duhovi。 S tipično razsvetljensko mislijo jo tudi zaključil svojo obravnavo zgodovine naravne regije: "NEVEDNOST JE MATI POBOŽNOSTI。" 。。。more
Filbert Lam
，
The eloquence of David Hume is astounding。 Beautifully written， and clearly ahead of his time。 I was primarily interested in Philo's formulation of the problem of evil and suffering， because that inspired Paul Draper's own argument based on a "Hypothesis of Indifference"。 The eloquence of David Hume is astounding。 Beautifully written， and clearly ahead of his time。 I was primarily interested in Philo's formulation of the problem of evil and suffering， because that inspired Paul Draper's own argument based on a "Hypothesis of Indifference"。 。。。more
Peter Broady
，
A classic。。。had a big impact on me in college。
Paul
，
In the Natural History of Religion Hume doesn't so much speak against religion as he speaks against the ignorant believers of all the major religions in history。 At the very least his critique is equal opportunity， spending as much time speaking against the devotions of the Romans and Greeks as he does the Catholics and Egyptians。 In the Natural History of Religion Hume doesn't so much speak against religion as he speaks against the ignorant believers of all the major religions in history。 At the very least his critique is equal opportunity， spending as much time speaking against the devotions of the Romans and Greeks as he does the Catholics and Egyptians。 。。。more
Thomas
，
The Dialogues are well worth reading。 I can't say the same for his essay on the Natural History of Religion。 When Hume represents his views as a dialogue you can perceive the schisms within himself; Cleanthes the orthodox， Demea the romantic and Philo the passionate enquirer。 Hume himself a spectator to the discussion。In the Dialogues I felt the force in which each actor used the arguments of the other as a leaver for his own view an admirable scene to have played out in the mind of one man！ And The Dialogues are well worth reading。 I can't say the same for his essay on the Natural History of Religion。 When Hume represents his views as a dialogue you can perceive the schisms within himself; Cleanthes the orthodox， Demea the romantic and Philo the passionate enquirer。 Hume himself a spectator to the discussion。In the Dialogues I felt the force in which each actor used the arguments of the other as a leaver for his own view an admirable scene to have played out in the mind of one man！ And to go from that dynamic centrifuge of logic， to a dogmatic speculative rambling through the origins of natural religion was a sobering if not completely disappointing experience。 I found myself wishing the essay had been written by Philo rather than through a union of all three parts of Hume。 Also about half way through I decided to imagine the characters of the dialogue as animals。 Demea was a grizzly black dog; Philo a cat; Cleanthes a pious old ass。 hard to type on phone with man hands， sorry if that reads horribly。 。。。more
Ali Nazifpour
，
You have to read this book。 Hume has always been my favorite philosopher of all time， I have a picture of him on my wall， and to me he was the wisest human who ever lived。 Here he tackles the question of religion。 He does so with such insight， mental veracity and flexibility， and genius。 Once you get the handle on the syntax it won't read much differently from a modern text， although the absence of evolution is quite serious， one could feel how it could shape entire conversations。 But still he h You have to read this book。 Hume has always been my favorite philosopher of all time， I have a picture of him on my wall， and to me he was the wisest human who ever lived。 Here he tackles the question of religion。 He does so with such insight， mental veracity and flexibility， and genius。 Once you get the handle on the syntax it won't read much differently from a modern text， although the absence of evolution is quite serious， one could feel how it could shape entire conversations。 But still he has a fresh outlook and brings up points ignored by modern thinkers。 To anyone interested in philosophy， religion， or intellectual awesomeness this is a must read。The book leaves some questions unanswered。 Was Hume an atheist， a deist， or a very lax theist？ He speaks of atheism with disregard， and claims he is no deist， but spends the rest of his book poking massive holes into religious logic and severely criticizing it。 He does not do less damage to theism than Russell or Dawkins or Hitchens。 He seems to accept the argument by design wholeheartedly in "History" but shoots it down in his "Dialogues"。His history of religion is basically this。 Fear， lack of understanding， and personification of natural objects leads to polytheism which is a "superstitious atheism"。 This leads to monotheism， which is right， but then the same polytheistic elements infiltrate and the religion is tainted by superstitions - prophets， saints， miracles， prayers， and such。 Polytheists were tolerant， but since monotheists claim they have all the truth they become intolerant。 Religion also has a negative influence on people's morality， encouraging rigidness and violence， so in short， religion becomes a superstitious and immoral system （not very flattering， eh）？I don't know what Hume really believed。 I don't think he himself knew it either。 But that doesn't matter。 By recording his mental struggles， he has taught us about the topic more than any other person could。One interesting trivia: Hume actually comes up with theory of evolution by accident but then goes on to reject it。 How he could have changed if he came after Darwin？ 。。。more
Mike
，
classic
Lucas
，
Interesting。 I found the Dialogues deeply insightful and interesting。 The Natural History was fascinating as proto-sociology， but seems overly interested in anecdote and rhetoric。 I was disappointed。
David Mcdowell
，
I find the dialogue style a little difficult to get into at first but once in the mindset I appreciated some of the killer reasoning that Hume puts in the mouth of Philo。The natural history was also interesting， and in both I enjoyed seeing how Hume had to tie hiself in knots to appear to be an upstanding godfearing member of the community。
Rhianna
，
I wasn't interested in it enough， and I've been far too busy to give myself enough time to read it closely enough to comprehend any of it。 I wasn't interested in it enough， and I've been far too busy to give myself enough time to read it closely enough to comprehend any of it。 。。。more
Buck
，
I’m pretty sure I brushed up against Hume in university， but I was too busy getting high and watching Cops to read him properly。 Not that I regret watching Cops， which was an education in itself， but I probably should’ve paid more attention to things like—oh， I don’t know—the freaking Western canon。 Just for starters。Once you get past the genteel diction， Hume’s skepticism still seems pretty hardcore， and I can only wonder how it struck his original readers， some of whom must have had their mind I’m pretty sure I brushed up against Hume in university， but I was too busy getting high and watching Cops to read him properly。 Not that I regret watching Cops， which was an education in itself， but I probably should’ve paid more attention to things like—oh， I don’t know—the freaking Western canon。 Just for starters。Once you get past the genteel diction， Hume’s skepticism still seems pretty hardcore， and I can only wonder how it struck his original readers， some of whom must have had their minds well and truly blown （or whatever the contemporary idiom was）。 Hume has often been conscripted into the atheists’ camp， but as I see it， he was just a no-nonsense agnostic who politely suggested that it was really， really dumb to dogmatize about God。 And even dumber to plague and kill each other over an abstract noun about which nothing verifiable can ever be said。 If all of that sounds sweetly reasonable to you， it’s because Hume’s ideas have gradually trickled down to the water table of Western consciousness。 Skepticism is like mental fluoride: we’ve all ingested it， whether we wanted to or not。 （I’m tempted to squeeze in a metaphor here about the bottled water of fundamentalism， but this paragraph has already exceeded its analogical weight limit）。 。。。more
Kathy
，
2。5 Stars While I don't necessarily agree with Hume， at least he is more coherent than Nietzsche。 2。5 Stars While I don't necessarily agree with Hume， at least he is more coherent than Nietzsche。 。。。more
Charles
，
Makes a great sedative。 Listen， I understand the importance of Hume in his time， however reading about the cosmological argument or the argument from design in a pre-Darwinian， pre-modern astrophysics context just makes me cringe。 If you are looking for better arguments against dogmatic Monotheism in favor of deism， which Hume is putting forth， just read The Age of Reason。 Paine's arguments stand up better， even in the light of modern biblical criticism which actually serve to strengthens his po Makes a great sedative。 Listen， I understand the importance of Hume in his time， however reading about the cosmological argument or the argument from design in a pre-Darwinian， pre-modern astrophysics context just makes me cringe。 If you are looking for better arguments against dogmatic Monotheism in favor of deism， which Hume is putting forth， just read The Age of Reason。 Paine's arguments stand up better， even in the light of modern biblical criticism which actually serve to strengthens his points。 。。。more
Shinynickel
，
Off this review: Whereas Hume is very sceptical about the degree to which anything can be rationally understood at all， isn’t he？ Including why or if the sun will rise tomorrow—to say nothing of the nature of God。Yes， the difficulty of demonstrating rationally anything much about God is the focus of my second book， which is Hume’s "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"。 This was published almost a hundred years after Spinoza’s "Tractatus"—again， it was published posthumously， because even in th Off this review: Whereas Hume is very sceptical about the degree to which anything can be rationally understood at all， isn’t he？ Including why or if the sun will rise tomorrow—to say nothing of the nature of God。Yes， the difficulty of demonstrating rationally anything much about God is the focus of my second book， which is Hume’s "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"。 This was published almost a hundred years after Spinoza’s "Tractatus"—again， it was published posthumously， because even in the relatively free-thinking atmosphere of late 18th century Edinburgh， Hume’s critique of religion was highly unacceptable。 His friends urged him not only to give up the idea of having it published in his lifetime， but even of having it published after his death， because they thought that it would condemn all this other works to the dustbin of history。 Nobody would read them， because they would write Hume off as a wicked unbeliever。 But Hume insisted and took steps to ensure that the "Dialogues" would be published after his death， and he was right to have done so， because his works are now far from ignored。 This one is probably the most read of all his books， and I think it’s arguably the masterpiece of English language philosophy。That’s a terrific claim。 Can you explain why？The secret of its success is the way in which powerful and original arguments are woven into an elegant dialogue between three thinkers。 The dialogue form is hard to pull off in philosophy， and Hume is one of the very few since Plato to be able to manage it。 His announced topic here is “natural religion”。 This is contrasted with “revealed religion”， and it means the sort of religious conclusions one can arrive at by reason rather than revelation。 So for example， if somebody says “I know that Jesus wants me to do this， because he came to me in a vision，” or “because that’s my reading of scripture，” then that counts as revealed religion。 On the other hand， if someone were to say that he is going to behave in a certain way， or that he believes in God， because of certain rational arguments， then that is natural religion。 The part of natural religion that Hume focuses on in the "Dialogues" is something that is often called “the argument from design”， which is an argument for the existence of God that starts from the way the world works and is structured。 The suggestion here is that the best explanation for what we observe is the existence of a designer—a god who made us。 And this is of course a very familiar argument， with an intelligent， divine designer still offered by many people as a necessary supplement to science， as something that is still required by the evidence of complexity and apparent order in the universe。 What Hume does in his "Dialogues" is to undermine that line of thinking in a brilliant series of arguments that I don’t think have ever been bettered， let alone answered。 They are more profound， I think， than the Darwinian critique of intelligent design。 Hume， certainly would have endorsed natural selection if he had known about it。 But it’s not enough to read Darwin and Dawkins。 You have to read Hume as well to understand the flaws in the theistic argument from design。And what is it particularly that Hume offers that goes to the heart of the matter？One of the key ideas is the limitations of arguing by analogy in this context， which is the way the argument from design usually works。 Take， for example， a watch found lying in a forest。 You might say to yourself: this watch cannot have come together by chance。 Somebody must have designed it and made it。 Then， by analogy， you might reason: surely nature wouldn’t work as it does unless there were a designer who made it。 Now one of the many things that Hume points out is wrong with this kind of analogy is that even if you accept the analogy in principle， it still wouldn’t get you to the sort of God we’re after， but only to a superior intelligence who had made the world and the creatures in it。 This intelligence wouldn’t necessarily be everlasting， omnipotent， or omniscient…And would himself require a designer…Well that’s one of the clinchers。 If you’re going to ask where everything comes from and who designed it， you really do have to ask the same of God。 So if you put forward God as the explanation for nature， you’re also going to have to ask who made God。Yes， a devastating argument。 And the finishing touch， isn’t it， is that if a designer requires no designer then why does nature require a designer？ What is the need for God at all？ Which brings us back to Spinoza， effectively collapsing the difference between God and nature。Yes。 And one of the most striking things that distinguishes these Dialogues from contemporary anti-religious books like， for example， Dawkins’s "The God Delusion" or Hitchens’s "God is Not Great"， is that none of Hume’s characters ever actually puts himself forward as an atheist or agnostic。 Even Philo， whose views are closest to Hume’s own， pretends to be a believer。 Hume’s technique is to pretend that he is the true defender of religion， that he is just trying to strengthen religion by shaving off the weaker bits。 Now the thing is that when you have read and sympathised with all of Hume’s writings on religion， you realize that he has in fact shaved away everything。 But that is why he manages to be so persuasive。 He takes the reader very gently。 。。。more
William Ramsay
，